RIAA's Request For Appeal Denied In Thomas Case

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's request for permission to appeal from the decision setting aside its $222,000 jury verdict has been denied by District Court Judge Michael J. Davis. In a brief, 6-page decision (PDF) the Judge dismissed the RIAA's arguments that there is a 'substantial ground for a difference of opinion' on the question of law presented, whether the Judge had erred in accepting the RIAA's proposed jury instruction that merely 'making files available' could constitute an infringement of the plaintiffs' distribution rights. He likewise dismissed their argument that granting permission for the appeal would 'materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation,' since (a) depending on the outcome of the trial, plaintiffs might not wish to appeal from the judgment, and (b) no matter how the appeals court rules on the 'making available' issue, the case will still have to continue in the lower court, since even if the RIAA wins on the 'making available' issue, the Court will still have to address the constitutionality of the large jury verdict, which may result in a new trial."

Comments

Re:Beware

[Anonymous Coward]

...a cornered wounded beast has nothing to lose and can therefore be very dangerous. ...

As my ex-spouse discovered to her dismay a few years back.

Please translate OP into English

[Anonymous Coward]

Even Slashdot's Cookie displayed on the same page agrees: "State the problem in words as clearly as possible"

Re:Please translate OP into English

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I used to really enjoy reading Ray's posts because he had a knack for translating legalese into something a bit more human-readable.

I never had the knack for that; I speak Legalese. You're just being nostalgic.

The last few articles just read like someone's copied and pasted from court filings though.

I don't really have time for witty or insightful commentary. I'm so overburdened timewise I have to prioritize, and I came to a realization in 2005 that my priority should be the one thing that I'm doing that no one else is really doing, which is getting the litigation documents online so that the rest of the world will have access to them and can provide the witty and/or insightful commentary.

Has Ray's account been hijacked,

Yes

or has he just forgotten how humans think?

Correction. I have never understood how humans think.

There is a simple fool proof solution to all this.

[3seas]

The RIAA shoudl just stop making the music available.

Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA

[b4dc0d3r]

Fuck them.
  -Adult film producer (866485)

Parroting your industry standard reply I see.

Re:Re-read it a few times

[Paradise Pete]

The Honorable Judge Davis does have to abide by that decision

When I see that written in a context like this it always seems that it's in order to distinguish this Judge Davis from some other less honorable Judge Davis. As in "No, this one was by the honorable Judge Davis."

Re:Beware

[Zontar The Mindless]

And *that* has to be the most clueless comment I have ever heard about a comment about the RIAA.

Re:Re-read it a few times

[Tubal-Cain]

That's why he's known as the honorable judge, not that other judge.

Re:Beware

[Anonymous Coward]

Hans? They let you have Internet access for Christmas...?

Re:Beware

[Idefix97]

Hans?! Is that you!

Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

So do I. Your employers may dislike Mr. Beckerman for displaying them as the soulless vampires I believe them to be, but the rest of us think he's doing a good thing.

Sir, I am a soulless vampire, and I find your comparison to be highly offensive.

Re:Beware

[innerweb]

mod parent redundant. It is slashdot.

InnerWeb

Re:Re-read it a few times

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]