Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Plaintiffs' proposed jury instructions in Capitol Records v. Thomas ask Judge to make same mistake which caused first verdict to be set aside


Incredibly, the proposed jury instructions submitted by plaintiffs in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset ask the Judge to repeat the same mistake he made in the first trial, a mistake which required the Judge to set the verdict aside.

They are asking the Judge to dispense with the definition of a "distribution" that is set forth in 17 USC Sec. 106(3), and instead instruct the jury that the defendant violated plaintiffs' distribution rights if she had the files available on her computer and if MediaSentry downloaded copies of them... without regard to whether

-the plaintiffs prove there was a dissemination of copies;
-the plaintiffs prove that the dissemination was "to the public"; or
-the plaintiffs prove "sale or other transfer of ownership, or ... rental, lease, or lending".

Plaintiffs' Proposed Jury Instructions

It absolutely boggles the mind.


Commentary & discussion:

Copyrights & Campaigns

Keywords: lawyer digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property portable music player


Jadeic said...

Clearly HRO still
Regard their
Trial strategy as
Nice try Tim

Anonymous said...

Ray, the learning curve for those who are motivated soley by greed are guided by principles that are lacking moral compass.
Greed and a lust for power are blinding forces that has led to the demise of many politicians, businessmen, and individuals. No one said common sense was needed to represent the RIAA, just a desire for an end result.
I am sure, in the end, they will claim they were just representing their clients to the best of their ability and distance themselves from the wrongdoings they have brought upon society.
The public at large is becoming more aware each day of the evil workings of the RIAA and its representatives seeping into the Justice System. However, the masses are starting to giggle at the Emporer and the coverup will soon start.

Oldphart in Kansas

DreadWingKnight said...

I wonder if they're going to get called on it, and by who.

Anonymous said...

Dreadwingknight, You mean besides by Ray on 06/03/2009 at 1:37PM? :)


Alter_Fritz said...

the quoting of the Mills vs Linn Photo quoting in Howell here is "funny".
Just because the jduge in Howell did not understand that p2p software is not the same as photo prints made by a 3rd guy does not make that quote usefull or even valid.
First of all, when you run p2p software it is NOT defendant that makes the copy, but it is the investigator that makes it. In the physical world example that would be that the defendant had a selfservice photo duplication machine where the investigator woud press the buttons themself and make all the steps themself. Having the jduge in howell quoting that the 12 copies there were unauthorised would (if the judge had understood the technology and who performs what) have to be attributed to MEDIA sentry since THEY make the copies with their own request to the machine. NOT howell is making the copies!. SO media sentry is guilty of copyrightinfringement when the judge rules those copies were unauthorised!

Same would go for Thomas if we assuem the claims as correct that MEdiaSentry got copies from her machine. Media Sentry is the party who copies and downloads those copies!

DreadWingKnight said...

Marsvenge: Yeah, besides Ray.