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

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.

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.

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.