Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
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.
And it seems to be better news than simply the RIAA getting smacked on their request to appeal.
The RIAA claimed this: "there is a substantial ground for a difference of opinion on the question of law presented"
Concerning: "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"
Now, I occasionally have a difficult time translating from Lawyer to English, but it sounds to me like the judge is not only saying "no you can't appeal" but "making available isn't copyright infringement, and there is no wiggle room to discuss the matter further because it's obvious that it's not."
Do I have that right, NYCL? Because if I do it really sounds like bigger news than a trivial appeal request getting smacked down. Sounds like the Judge just dropped The Big One.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
The RIAA shoudl just stop making the music available.
The "Recording Industry vs. the People" site has become incredibly ad-heavy. It now has layer ads that won't dismiss, a link farm, and regular Google ads. This thing has advertising from services I've never even heard of, like "shareasale.com". Amusingly, it has ads for RIAA-controlled music, and even for the iTunes store.
Block "st.blogads.com" to make it at least tolerable.
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.
This isn't a big deal either way. The judge denied an "interlocutory appeal", one made regarding some legal point before the decision in the case was final. Such appeals are rarely tried and even more rarely successful. The issue can still be appealed, just not until the current case is finished.
If you can read this, you're now a criminal.
Yes, the author's life plus 70 years has passed. Unfortunately I took this work from a compendium that owns the rights of reproduction that will persist well into the next century. This bit our our culture has been stolen from us by lawyers and sold legislators. Under current law there is no legal difference between you downloading Britney Spear's latest attempt at vocal rehab and your browser loading this poem written nearly a century ago on this page. That's wrong. That's very wrong.
And now you're a dirty information property stealing criminal. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Copyright does not protect portions of derived works that lack originality. That principle is the basis of the recent court decision Bridgeman Art Library vs. Corel Corp.. Unless the publisher has made substantial changes to Kipling's work, I dare say we are not dirty rotten intellectual property stealing criminals after all.
Sorry to ask such an obvious question, but what does "making files available" mean? Say I lose my laptop or mp3 player and it is used by even a single user, or say they dump in on Limewire.... What then? What would happen if I lost in the US? (Canuck here)
Beats me.
There's nothing about it in the US Copyright Act.
It's just something the RIAA made up.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful