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."

Re-read it a few times

[Weaselmancer]

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.

Re:Judge's kids

[AmberBlackCat]

There was a similar story mentioned on Slashdot. Some record executive, I think. His child was caught downloading music. Rather than making the child pay $3000, they made the child promise never to do it again. I wish that case could be used to set some kind of precedent for the rest.

Re:The judge said it best

[poetmatt]

As it's been said in the courts,

they're treating it like criminal matter but it's civil.

The reason is that you can't subpoena people's addresses and stuff like that if it's civil. Also, unlike criminal court, you absolutely have to pay the fines if you lose. Since there is no proof of distribution, they'd have to pay for every single case.

Just an interlocutory appeal routinely denied.

[Animats]

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.

Congratulations

[symbolset]

If you can read this, you're now a criminal.

L'ENVOI
What is the moral? Who rides may read.
When the night is thick and the tracks are blind
A Friend at a a pinch is a friend indeed;
but a fool to wait for the laggard behind;
Down to Gehenna or up to the Throne,
He travels fastest who travels alone.

White hands cling to the tightened rein,
Slipping the spur from the booted heel,
Tenderest voices cry, "Turn again."
Red lips tarnish the scabbarded steel.
high hopes faint on a warm hearthstone --
He travels fastest who travels alone.

One may fall but he falls by himself --
Falls by himself with himself to blame;
One may attain and to him is pelf,
Loot of the city in Gold or Fame:
Plunder of earth shall be all his own
Who travels the fastest and travels alone.

Wherefore the more ye be holpen and stayed--
Stayed by a friend in the hour of toil,
Sing the heretical song I have made--
His be the labor and yours be the spoil.
Win by his aid and the aid disown--
He travels the fastest who travels alone.
- Rudyard Kipling, 1865-1936, from "The College Survey of English Literature", (c)1942, Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc.

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.

On the contrary

[butlerm]

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. [wikipedia.org]. 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.