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

I've heard enough about the RIAA

[Adult film producer]

Fuck them. Will they not go away? I own 1800 cds collected over the last 15 or 20 years. I download the songs from the internet.. too lazy to rip em, so what? Fuck off already.

Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA

[Zontar The Mindless]

So? If you have a problem with him, then don't hire him to represent you.

Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA

[Just Some Guy]

I smell an ethical conflict of interest.

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.

Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA

[ScrewMaster]

That's a truly odd accusation to make; my employer(s) had no influence nor relevance to my comment.

Well, you clearly missed the GP's point (or perhaps are deliberately misconstruing it.) Generally, those who express opinions similar to yours on Slashdot are considered to be RIAA shills. Frankly, the fact that the media people have taken such an obvious dislike to Mr. Beckerman in particular indicates that he's doing something right. If he's enriching himself over this he's no different than the majority of attorneys in this country. He's on the right side, and that's sufficient for most of us. I do suspect you're right in one sense: he's probably not driving a used Chevrolet, and isn't giving his services away for free. What, exactly, was your point again?

So far as impartiality goes ... well. Given that his blog refers to original legal documents whenever they're available makes it hard to claim any degree of journalistic bias or manipulation of facts (other than the fact he makes no bones about his opinion of the way RIAA attorneys practices law.) There aren't too many other sources of reliable information on this subject, anyway, and honestly some of us appreciate his efforts.

You're free to disagree, and you're opinion is certainly welcome so far as it goes. Just don't expect a lot of support for them in this particular venue.

Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA

[Gerzel]

Ironically Machiavelli never had a Machiavellian bone in his body. The guy was being honest about how he saw countries being run in The Prince; it wasn't really how he thought they should be run.

This is brought to you by the people to give the old Italian politico farmer a proper memory in the public consciousness committee or PTGTOIPFAPMITPCC

Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA

[Maguscrowley]

Some of it was his observations, and other parts were his suggestions to Medici. However, none of what I'm reading paints him as overly cynical and certainly not malevolent. Just a bit bitter at times.

Haven't gotten to the chapters on conducting war yet.

Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA

[macraig]

It's not weird; haven't you ever heard the phrase, "doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons"? It involves socialism and ethics here. If his real predominant motive is his own enrichment, then I disagree with his motive, even though the result might be one I like. I would be disagreeing with WHY he's doing it, not what is accomplished. Should I throw the baby out with the bathwater and criticize the result, too?

It kinda like companies that "go green" but do it for no other reason than the publicity and goodwill it might generate; are they really still doing such a good thing if their motives are so contrary?

Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Its pathetic that the slashdot hive mind considers anyone not 100% behind piracy and torrenting content to be a 'MAFIAAAAAA SHILL!!!111'

Its a sign of a pathetic and weak argument that you cannot consider that other people (for example those who fucking make content) may hold a differing opinion.

Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Let me just note that anyone who honestly thinks that representing the RIAA's victims is a way to make money either (a) can't add, or (b) doesn't know how to use a calculator.

...or, most likely, both.

You made me smile, because I actually had that thought immediately after I'd clicked "submit". As you have correctly pointed out, the 2 concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Beware

[MacColossus]

This is very welcome news. However, we need to remember that a cornered wounded beast has nothing to lose and can therefore be very dangerous. This isn't over.

Re:Beware

[Anonymous Coward]

That has to be the most pointless comment I have ever heard about the RIAA.

Judge's kids

[retech]

I cannot wait 'till the day the RIAA accidentally hits a judge's, congressman's, or senator's kids in a lawsuit. I wonder how long they'll be able to keep that lawsuit going.

Re:Judge's kids

[wmbetts]

They don't need to worry about that. If they do then they silently drop the case and score points and maybe even a "friend" Washington.

Re:Judge's kids

[Blackhalo]

"I wonder how long they'll be able to keep that lawsuit going." About zero seconds. I am sure that as soon as it is clear that the RIAA minions have targeted anyone of notoriety or influence, the suit is dropped. These suits are just to keep the rabble in line and the settlements rolling in. The LAST thing they want is a public champion with the means to get good lawyers.

The judge said it best

[carlzum]

The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts. The myriad of copyright cases cited by Plaintiffs and the Government, in which courts upheld large statutory damages awards far above the minimum, have limited relevance in this case. All of the cited cases involve corporate or business defendants and seek to deter future illegal commercial conduct. The parties point to no case in which large statutory damages were applied to a party who did not infringe in search of commercial gain.

The term "piracy" has been misused on individuals. An individual may be guilty of theft, like a shoplifter, but it's not piracy. Someone that takes an item without paying for it is very different than a rogue company selling unauthorized copies of another company's product. The RIAA treats individuals like profit-seeking organizations, and until now they've been successful. It's refreshing to see a judge recognize the distinction. I believe most critics of the RIAA would be a little more sympathetic to their position if they were pursuing misdemeanor charges for stealing $0.99 songs.

Re:The judge said it best

[sexybomber]

I believe most critics of the RIAA would be a little more sympathetic to their position if they were pursuing misdemeanor charges for stealing $0.99 songs.

I wouldn't be, for reasons I'll explain below.

You seem to have fallen for the RIAA line that "ZOMG PIRACY IS THEFT". It isn't. In order for something to constitute theft, somebody has to be permanently deprived of property. Not profits, not the possibility of profits. When somebody's deprived of profits, that's not theft, that's copyright infringement.

Theft is a criminal matter, punishable by possible jail time. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, punishable only by monetary damages. If you steal something, then yeah, I'm all for misdemeanor charges. Felony charges, even, if the value of the stolen goods is high enough. But I'm very, very wary of pursuing criminal charges for civil infractions, and you should be too. Would you have Tracy Thomas thrown in jail for a couple years, or perhaps longer, if the RIAA got their way? That's what could happen if you make a criminal case out of a civil dispute. Down that road lies fascism, my friend, and none of us want to go there.

Re:The judge said it best

[Dragonslicer]

"ZOMG PIRACY IS THEFT". It isn't.

Of course it is. It's also frequently murder. But it only really counts if you use a cutlass and wear an eye patch.

In order for something to constitute theft, somebody has to be permanently deprived of property. Not profits, not the possibility of profits. When somebody's deprived of profits, that's not theft, that's copyright infringement.

That's not necessarily true. Many, if not all, states have laws concerning theft of services. I'm not saying that copyright infringement is or is not theft, but I get really annoyed when people keep repeating the incorrect statement that theft must involve loss of physical property.

Re:The judge said it best

[Anonymous Coward]

Theft of services generally refers to failing to pay for a previously agreed upon service.

If I hire someone to write a song for me and then fail to pay them, that is theft of services.

If someone writes a song and I "steal" it, that is not theft of services. That is copyright infringement.

The theft of services usually has to prevent the victim from providing the same service to someone who would pay for it (because it was provided to you instead) in much the same way that property theft prevents the victim from being able to provide the property to someone who would pay for it.

Re:Congratulations

[iammani]

If you can read this, you're now a criminal.

Naa, you are a criminal (supposedly criminal) for posting it on a public website. If what you say were true, all the RIAA has to do is, get some loud speakers, play a copyrighted song, and sue everybody within the hearing radius (except the deaf of course).

Re:Too many ads

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

This is Slashdot. We dislike anything that isn't free as in beer. We don't pay for music, videos or software; we're not going to pay for a blog.

Penny-wise, pound-foolish. If you truly want to see the RIAA stopped cold, and see rational reform in copyright law, it's people like Ray Beckerman and groups like the EFF that will probably bring that about. Helping them out now is a wise investment. I happen to find Ray's blog far more worthwhile than 99.99% of the blogs out there (99% of everything is crud, after all) and where else will you find such a substantial collection of relevant court documents? Heck, where else can the people involved in these cases, from judges on down, educate themselves as to what's really going on, with all the proper documentation? Nowhere that I've been able to find. Would you rather a judge presiding over an RIAA case receive his information from their attorneys ... or from Ray's blog? Having all that data collected in one place is valuable in itself. So yeah, I hit the Paypal button. You should too.

I just want to say that the reason I have the affiliate ads on my blog is that it seemed to me like an easy way for someone who appreciates my blog to help financially without it costing anything. I.e. you're going to buy stuff anyway, so why not buy it through one of my links and help me make a few bucks? So for those of you who are my friends, if you think there's too much advertising, tell me what you'd buy so I could target the ads better and run fewer of them.