RIAA's Request For Appeal Denied In Thomas Case 197
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."
Re:Re-read it a few times (Score:3, Informative)
As the Court fully explained in its September 24 Order, in National Car
Rental System, Inc. v. Computer Associates International, Inc., the Eighth Circuit
held that "[i]nfringement of [the distribution right] requires an actual
dissemination of either copies or phonorecords."
Basically they said that even though their earlier decision was appealed by another court that appeal is not binding so they'll stand by their earlier decision which I quoted above.
IANAL but I think this just matters for this particular court and won't affect any other court.
Too many ads (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Re-read it a few times (Score:5, Informative)
Disclaimer: IANYetAL, but I'm a law student.
Usually you're right, the Eighth Circuit doesn't have to follow the Ninth Circuit's decisions (for example) and vice versa, but in this case, The Honorable Judge Davis does have to abide by that decision, since Minnesota's in the Eighth Circuit.
What "actual dissemination" actually is, though... that's an open question, and I think that's what they're trying to figure out.
I have no idea if I got that right, it's late and I'm on break. (And hence trying not to think about all things legal :-D )
Re:Too many ads (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Before you get modded OT and NYCL will miss your post, I suggest that you politely email him.
I enjoy his many submissions to Slashdot, so perhaps people should consider donating to his website, instead of criticizing his advertising.
Re:Judge's kids (Score:5, Informative)
Drunken karma whoring! [slashdot.org]
Re:The judge said it best (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Re-read it a few times (Score:4, Informative)
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?
Yes you have that right. But there's another biggy in the decision which is a little more subtly presented. The judge is also implying that even if the 'making available' issue were not on the table, he would probably be ordering a new trial because of the excessiveness of the size of the verdict.
Re:What does it mean? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
I'm personally rather sad we have had the first "too much of NYCL on /. posting" but I suppose fame and popularity always result a few detractors.
It's people like him that have help restore a little of my faith in the (US) justice system. When I see large rich corporations throwing cash at cases just to make it harder for their much poorer opponents to defend themselves it's good to know there are people out there who will help the underdog. These cases are particularly redolent for myself and many slashdoters as they invoke a certain "there but for the grace of God go I" feeling.
I would sincerely doubt Ray is becoming a rich (or much richer) man because of them. I would expect that most of his potential clients with any amount of money would rather pay the RIAA's pound of flesh and settle without going to court than risk several years disruption to their lives.
Most of people he will be defending will be those who cannot afford to pay and so his only hope of ever getting adequate recompense will be if courts award fees in his favor, which I believe is a bit of a lottery at the best of times - at least he believes enough in his own skills and his take on the law to take that risk.
1. Represent poor and middle class people defending cases that could be settled for $4000 or $5000, in lengthy complex cases against defendants whose primary goal is to make the cases as complex and as expensive as possible...for which you receive little compensation.
2. Oppose giant multinational corporations, joined in a cartel, who have an army of lawyers and are willing to spend tens of million dollars per year pursuing the poor and middle class people.... for which you receive little compensation.
3. Spend hours each day doing research, obtaining and reading legal documents, and writing a blog for which you receive no compensation.
4. Communicate each day with lawyers and RIAA lawsuit victims from all over the world, for which you receive no compensation.
5. Communicate each day with media from all over the world, for which you receive no compensation.
6.???
Profit!
Re:The judge said it best (Score:3, Informative)
I am not trying to be a smartass here but what does theft of service actually mean? Is it signing a contract for work done and then not paying?
More or less, but it doesn't necessarily have to involve actually signing a contract. In general, it means gaining some benefit that you normally have to pay for without paying. Sneaking onto a bus or not paying a taxi fare would probably be considered theft of services. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] has a pretty good summary:
This category encompasses a wide variety of criminal activity including, but not limited to, tampering with (or bypassing) a utility meter so that the true level of consumption is understated; leaving a hotel or restaurant or similar establishment without paying for the service; and "turnstile jumping" or other methods of evading the payment of a fare or fee when using a public transit vehicle or entering a private facility normally requiring payment (e.g., amusements).
Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
FWIW, I think you're doing a fine job Mr. Beckerman, and thanks for all your hard work on this subject. And there really are a number of peeps here on /. who really need to appreciate you more and take the time to thank you. Without you being involved, I'm sure things would have been much, much worse for our fellow netizens, and the RIAA would be out of control at this point.
Thanks, perigee369. Actually I get a lot of support from the folks at Slashdot. In the non-cyber world I've never met anyone -- other than lawyers for the big content corporations -- who is not on my side. Which makes me a little suspicious of my few cyber-detractors. In any event, since the trolling this time around centers on my supposed profiteering, although I do not think it is actually sincere, let me just note that anyone who honestly thinks that representing the RIAA's victims is a way to make money either (a) can't add, or (b) doesn't know how to use a calculator.
Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
why do you do it?
I do it because it is one of the rare opportunities I have had to really do what I went to law school to do, which is to fight for what is right.
The way it came about was that in late 2004 or early 2005 I learned of these cases from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is an organization for which I have the utmost respect.
I thought to myself : "I'm a copyright lawyer, I'm a litigator, and I hate bullies. Maybe I can help some of these people."
And so I jumped into the fight with no plan other than to fight bad guys.
Then when I got the first client who wanted to fight back rather than pay extortion money -- Patti Santangelo -- I set up my blog for the purpose of offsetting the RIAA lawyers' information monopoly.
Once I'd started the blog, people started looking to me for leadership.
Financially, it is an unmitigated disaster for any lawyer who's tried to help any of these folks, and for me it has been an even greater financial burden because, in addition to the cases I've handled, the blogging, the interviews, the frequent free consultations with victims from all over the country, and my frequent communication with lawyers from all over the country representing victims, all of which are without compensation. Some of the cases I handled virtually pro bono; for most of the work I've done I've received a tiny fraction of my normal fees; for a very small portion of the work I've done I've received 75% of my normal fees.
Once Matthew Oppenheim, the ghoul who runs this operation, asked one of the defendant's lawyers, in a mocking tone, 'I don't get it, I don't see what your business plan is'. An unprincipled person like him doesn't get it. That for some people it's not about money.
I never started out on this path hoping to hurt myself financially and say "damn the torpedoes"; neither did I start out on this path thinking it was a good business plan to represent people without money who are defendants in federal lawsuits brought by large corporations.
I actually thought that once I entered the fray, the judges would immediately realize how bogus the RIAA's evidentiary and legal position is, and shut the whole thing down. That didn't happen. But anyone who knows me that when I am in a fight, I am in it for the duration.
So that's the reality. I don't care whether this causes you to approve of me, disapprove of me, laugh at me, or whatever. You asked a question. I gave you the answer.