Judge in Capitol v. Thomas Considers New Trial

Jay Maynard writes "The judge in Capitol Records v. Thomas said today he's thinking about granting a new trial because he may have committed a 'manifest error of law' in his jury instructions. He says that his instruction that simply uploading music to a P2P network without any proof that anyone actually downloaded it may conflict with a case in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that said 'infringement of [the distribution right] requires an actual dissemination.' Briefs are due by May 29, with oral argument July 1. The judge invited friend of the court briefs by May 29, as well." NewYorkCountryLawyer links to the Judge's order itself (PDF), in which the Judge notes that he may (in NYCL's words) "have overlooked controlling Eighth Circuit authority, the case of National Car Rental v. Computer Associates, which held that you can't have a violation of the 'distribution right' without an 'actual dissemination of copies or phonorecords.'" Update: 05/15 18:54 GMT by T : Note that while the linked story as well as Jay Maynard's summary use the term "upload," Thomas wasn't uploading the files themselves, only making them available.

Huh?

Sorry, I got lost in the legalese there. Someone want to help?

Re:Huh?

It sounds like they are saying simply uploading music to a P2P network is not illegal until someone downloads it.

Re:Huh?

When GP said "uploading" he meant "making available for download". Stop being a pedantic retard.

Re:Huh?

Stop being a pedantic retard.

But I thought we were talking about laws.

Quite muddying the waters.

No, you quite being an idiot who didn't RTFA. MediaSentry searched for certain files without downloading them. Sorry, but it is you and the GP who are both imprecise slackers who couldn't be bothered to read the article and posted without knowing what you were talking about.

Re:Huh?

Doesn't matter, mediasentry has authorization from the RIAA labels to download the files in certain instances. Additionally, they admitted in a recent article that they don't know when/if anybody has downloaded the files ever. Ignoring that they don't have a license to conduct investigations in most states anyways.

Just because I don't have the authorization to offer a song for download, doesn't mean that the person downloading it doesn't have permission to download it. And for the purposes of copyright infringement, the fact that the other party had permission would limit my liability to making available. Since no unauthorized copy was created. And likewise if you reverse the situation if I have permission to allow the uploads, and the person on the other end doesn't have the authority to download, it's still a non-starter.

Which is where the arguments get difficult to prove, in order to prove it's case the RIAA has to demonstrate that somebody who wasn't authorized to download the materials did so. And that furthermore the downloads were offered on purpose rather than by accident.

It would not be valid to claim that I've engaged in copyright infringement if somebody broke into my computer via a rootkit and placed things into a p2p share without my permission. Nor would it be permissible to hold me accountable if I weren't aware that somebody else had put things up for share without my knowledge. As long as I had engaged in the due diligence necessary for the scenario, it wouldn't be my liability.

Re:Huh?

Well, don't expect the terminology to always be technically correct.

Basically we're looking at a rematch in the "making available" debate. The original verdict nailed the defendant to the wall for making tracks available for download. Now the judge is thinking that was based on incorrect instructions he gave the jury about how to understand the law.

For "upload to a p2p network", substitute "place on a shared drive readable/searchable/indexed by a p2p network".

I remain on the fence on this one. I don't believe that literally "just making available" should be illegal; I also don't believe that putting the track on a p2p share is "just making available" because of the implicit advertising of availability. I understand the argument that you can't have distributed if nobody downloaded, but I find it hard to believe that my liability should depend so absolutely on the actions of others.

Re:Huh?

If you make a poison that is never actually imbibed, was it still wrong to make the poison?

Consequently, if you make a poison and children find and drink it, is making the poison now somehow worse?

Food for thought...

Bad Analogy

Here's a better one: Someone sees a jar labeled poison on your windowsill and turns you in to the Poison Industry of America, who file suit against you for having poison, which their clients have a patent on. However, all you had was a jar labeled poison, and no one actually proved that it contained anything but water, let alone the PIA patented poison.

Re:Bad Analogy

But if you had a CD labeled "Poison" you should definitely be punished.

Re:Huh?

If you put poisoned candy on your front porch, you don't get charged with negligent homicide unless a kid eats it. The actions of others do affect your liability.

Re:Huh?

Little punks should've stayed off my damn lawn. That'll larn 'em.

Re:Huh?

I find it hard to believe that my liability should depend so absolutely on the actions of others.

But in this case, no crime has occurred unless and until someone downloads. Why should you be held liable for copyright infringement if you never distributed a copyrighted work? Until someone downloads the copyrighted work, you haven't distributed it, thus no infringement has occurred.

This is one of those times where someone else has to do something in order for what you do to be considered a crime.

I also don't believe that putting the track on a p2p share is "just making available" because of the implicit advertising of availability.

But advertising availability isn't copyright infringement. You infringe when you distribute. So if no one has downloaded, you haven't distributed, thus you haven't infringed copyright. It's a very dangerous thing to start saying that intent is enough to convict a person of a crime. Intent ought to be considered when a crime has occurred, but to outlaw intent itself sets very bad precedent.

Re:Huh?

The judge is saying that he may have made an error in his instructions to the jury. He told them that making available = distribution. The 8th circuit court had already ruled that distribution is required for infringement, and there is a growing consensus that making available does not equal distribution.

Basically, they might have to do it all over again, because the judge told the jury the wrong test to apply to determine if she broke the law.

Re:Huh?

The judge is saying that he may have made an error in his instructions to the jury. He told them that making available = distribution. The 8th circuit court had already ruled that distribution is required for infringement, and there is a growing consensus that making available does not equal distribution. Basically, they might have to do it all over again, because the judge told the jury the wrong test to apply to determine if she broke the law.

Everything you said is correct.

I would add that:

the judge didn't just make an error. He made the error because Ms. Thomas's lawyer, who should have told the judge about the National Car Rental case, didn't, and because the RIAA's lawyers -- who had an obligation under the Code of Professional Responsibility to inform the judge about the National Car Rental case -- also didn't.

So I expect one angry judge on July 1st.

Interestingly the chief architect of the RIAA's legal behavior won't be able to be there July 1st, as that's the day he starts his new job [slashdot.org] as a state court judge in Colorado. So one of his clones will have to take the heat for this misconduct.

Re:Huh?

So its the lawyer's fault that the judge didn't know about that particular case?

Yes. We are in an adversary system. No lawyer and no judge knows all of the law. It's far too vast. Judges rely upon the lawyers to do their homework, to hone in on the issues that are involved in any particular case, and to focus the judge on what is relevant. Which is why it was so important for Ms. Thomas's lawyer to to represent his client "zealously". And why an opposing lawyer is REQUIRED BY LAW to disclose to the judge "controlling contrary authority". (No lawyer likes to do that last thing.... disclose controlling contrary authority... but it is an important and a binding rule which was designed to avoid just the type of embarrassment that has been caused here.)

Re:Huh?

No lawyer and no judge knows all of the law. It's far too vast.

And yet citizens, who have even less expertise in law than lawyers and judges, are expected to obey the law and can be punished for not doing so.

What do you call a legislator at the bottom of the ocean? A good start!

Re:Huh?

In particular:

  - Offering it to be downloaded may not be "nice" but no laws are broken until somebody actually DOES download it. So said the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals - the appellate court above the one where this trial was held. This court within the 8th Circuit and must follow the decisions of law made above it. (The 8th Circuit, and the Supreme Court above that, are its "controlling authorities".)

  - Unfortunately, neither the defendant nor the RIAA mentioned this to the judge and he didn't think of it himself. So he told the jury that (as the RIAA claims), "making available" is a crime. OOPS! The jury then convicted and asked for a BIG punishment.

  - Since then he noticed (probably got a lot of letters about) the ruling. So when the defendant's attorneys filed a complaint that the punishment was too big and asking for the judge to reduce it, the judge said: "I goofed. Sorry. (But nobody mentioned this ruling from my boss court during the trial. Tisk, tisk.) And the law lets me fix that by ordering a new trial (where I'll be careful not to make this goof again). And the law lets me tell you that when I'm answering you about this other issue (which will just go away if we hold another trial.) So both sides send me your written thoughts about this by June 5 and we'll all get together and talk about it on July 1. Then I'll decide what to do. (Hint: If the defendant asks and the plaintiffs don't have a good argument why not, I'll order a new trial."

  - The RIAA's methodology only shows that the content is available on the server, not that anybody downloaded it. So once there's a new trial they'll have to come up with evidence they didn't present at this one. (I think the judge might ask them if they have such evidence and give them an opportunity to just go away and let the defendant off if they don't, rather than scheduling another trial they can't win.)

WAIT!!

Wait a second! You mean that for violation of distribution rights to actually happen, copies have to be distributed?? I wish somebody had said something sooner!!

sigh...

I guess the courts getting a clue later is better than not at all...

Basically, it's like this:

You know that Jammie Thomas lady that was ordered to pay out $222,000? Turns out that the judge is concerned it isn't likely to survive appeal because he gave the jury bad instruction. Basically, he said that the plaintiffs don't have to prove that actual distribution takes place; just the fact that the files were in a distributable folder is enough. And she lost. Badly. But now, Jammie's lawyers have come up with prior law that basically says, "What you talkin' 'about, Judge?" Not just weird fringe stuff, but pretty firm law that has withstood some trials already.

Re:Basically, it's like this:

But now, Jammie's lawyers have come up with prior law that basically says, "What you talkin' 'about, Judge?"

Not so. The judge came to the realization on his own. He got no help from any of the lawyers, even Ms. Thomas's lawyer.

This is really a beautiful moment for our democracy, to see a judge on his own realizing his mistake, and instead of just sitting on it, doing something about it. I have to say... this is a big man.

Which takes guts

It's not just democracy, but this judge deserve real kudos for having the backbone to admit his error. Too often we here of those in power who realize they have made a mistake, and cover it up in lies or denial (often making worse mistakes in the process).

Rather than just referring to him as "the judge in Capitol V Thomas", his name is "Judge Michael Davis." If anyone happens to know him, I'd say that it's about time to congratulate him for being man enough to step up and make this admission.

Re:Basically, it's like this:

It wasn't entirely the fault of the judge. As NYCL has already said, the defense attorney failed in his duty to his client, Mr. Thomas, by not mentioning the precedent and the RIAA attorneys failed in their professional responsibility as officers of the court in not mentioning it to the judge, even though it might have damaged their "making available equals distribution" argument. Apparently, although IANAL, it the responsibility of the lawyers to present precedents, whether positive or negative, that have bearing upon the essential matters currently at hand in any particular case.

Re:Basically, it's like this:

He realized that his mistake may have improperly influenced the outcome and now he has magnanimously given the person another chance even though it would have been easier for him to ignore it.

You can never expect that human actions will be without error. Judges, & lawyers all make mistakes like the rest of us. What stands out about this is that he did something about it. His actions are remarkable, and I applaud him.

If everyone else held themselves to the same standard, we wouldn't have this BS in the courts.

Does Media Sentry count?

It'll be interesting, if there is a new trial where the RIAA has to prove distribution, whether the judge considers MediaSentry downloads to be proof of infringement. I guess technically it is, but that also raises the question of whether or not the amount of downloads has any bearing on the size of the penalty/fine. If MediaSentry can download from you to show infringement, can they do it 1000 times in order to try and increase the fine? I would hope the answer is "No", but what would the court say?

If MediaSentry downloads do not count as infringement, then the RIAA is pretty much screwed. It's going to be virtually impossible for the RIAA to prove distribution over the internet between independent parties. The only possibility I can think of is if they start getting trace data from ISPs showing P2P traffic.