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:I've heard enough about the RIAA

[macraig]

I've frankly heard enough from Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer, who appears to use Slashdot as his personal advertising space for his business (legal services) and his cause (defending people being sued by the RIAA). I might not suspect that if he were doing all of it pro bono, but he's personally profiting from it, and possibly very handsomely (knowing lawyers, he's hardly going hungry or driving an old Chevy). He's hardly an impartial news source or observer in this process; rather, he's right smack dab in the middle of it. It seems quite possible to me that his motive in his very frequent Slashdot submissions is not to inform, but rather specifically to drum up more business. He's not the only entrepreneur who appears to do this, but I find this instance to be particularly distasteful. I smell an ethical conflict of interest.

Re:Too many ads

[cthulu_mt]

Step 1: Build a reputation on Slashdot
Step 2: Flood your site with ads
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit!

Re:Too many ads

[macraig]

If Beckerman is as disingenuous as I currently suspect he is, that is very much a "real issue" and relevant, even if it's not one you choose to acknowledge or prioritize. The "hijacking" accusation is trotted out by people intent on controlling the flow of the conversation. If you really wanted to have some other conversation, shouldn't you be off talking to other people who want to discuss the same thing instead of engaging and belittling me, as you and others have actually done? That behavior belies an intention to exclude and control.

Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally, those who express opinions similar to yours on Slashdot are considered to be RIAA shills.

Yes, because every law-abiding citizen must be an RIAA shill. Or is it only people who disagree with Beckerman's underhanded, malicious tactics that's a shill? I'm not quite sure which logical fallacy it was you were implying.

Or maybe, everyone who attacks the RIAA is a pirating asshole. What about that side of the story?

What, exactly, was your point again?

I'm not the person you're addressing, but I believe his point was that Beckerman is blatantly abusing Slashdot for commercial gain under the guise of a self-appointed 'moral knight in shining armour', and that either most Slashdotians are completely oblivious to it, or have suddenly decided that using Slashdot for commercial gain is ok as long as most people agree with the goals of that commercial entity, which seems to be the case here.

You're free to disagree, and you're opinion is certainly welcome so far as it goes.

Thank goodness I'm not the only one who thinks the 'Troll' moderation was disgraceful and uncalled for.

Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Those who make content would be paid by members of the the BSA, ESA, RIAA, MPAA, or whoever else likes to pretend they're government agencies. And unless they make that clear in their comment, they'd be shills.

"A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. ..."