Slashdot Mirror


Judge May Take "Fair Use" Away From Jury

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In what I can only describe as a shocker, the Judge in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum has, on her own, issued an order questioning whether the jury will be allowed to decide the 'fair use' issue at all, or whether the Judge herself should decide it. Judge Nancy Gertner's decision (PDF) notes that the courts have traditionally submitted the fair use defense to the jury, but questions whether that was appropriate, since the courts have referred to it as an 'equitable' — as opposed to a 'legal' — defense. This decision came from out of the blue, as neither party had raised this issue. IMHO the Judge is barking up the wrong tree. For one, all across the legal spectrum in the US, 'equitable' defenses to 'legal' claims are triable to a jury. Secondly, as the Judge herself notes, the courts have traditionally submitted the issue to the jury. It also seems a bit unfair to bring up a totally new issue like that and give the parties only 6 days to do their research and writing on the subject, at a time when they are feverishly preparing for a July 27th trial."

2 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. Automatic Appeal? by electricprof · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It almost seems like the judge is begging for an appeal to kick it upstairs and make it somebody else's problem. IANAL but isn't this like asking for an appeal?

  2. Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Right, so... Whether the terms content creators / publishers impose on your "ownership" of a product are fair or not, you still want to be able to use the product they sell? Yet you want all of this at the terms you? Who gave you the right? If you don't want to abide by a specific term or condition, you don't get to use the product. That's just not how a free market works, and you know it.

    I have absolutely no issue with any of what's going on except for two things:

    1. Corporate lobbying. Corporations should not be able to buy legislation. End of story.
    2. Government bailouts. In a free market, a business which fails is a business which fails. There's a reason for that failure; It's a sign that the business model or product is no longer financially lucrative, and the business needs to shape up or ship out. I'm bordering on refusing to pay any tax and risking imprisonment for this blatant disregard for free market economics. If the gooberment propped up every single failing business in the western world in this time of financial crysis, the World Bank would be (metaphorically, at least) empty.

    Nice rant, though. Eloquent, cites sources, and emotionally provocative. Too bad you missed the bigger picture.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/