They buy cheap zithromax online may also need to find out if any foods and order discount amikacin online drinks are unsafe to consume in combination with medications. Dystonia discount amikacin is an involuntary, sometimes painful, muscle contraction that causes atypical pamoate side effects positioning of the hands and feet. In addition, some people amikacin drug who are experiencing an interaction between grapefruit and statins may aldactone for order experience mild muscle damage that may appear as myalgia. Doctors nasonex buy typically won't prescribe Yaz for people with irregular periods that buy generic robaxin cost work do not have a known cause. Spasticity, or muscle stiffness buy tetracycline online or spasms, can increase a person's risk of having a buy betnovate motor vehicle accident. However, this research does not suggest that ampicillin no prescription having PsA puts a person at a higher risk of developing.

As we were completing Blown to Bits, the big news on the copyright war front was the Jammie Thomas trial. (See “Sending a Message” in Chapter 6.) This was the first of the thousands of peer-to-peer lawsuits filed by the RIAA to go all the way to a jury trial. Thomas lost and lost big: The jury not only found the Minnesota woman guilty of sharing 24 songs using Kazaa, but they imposed a fine of $220,000: $9250 per song. This was a huge victory for the record companies, because the demonstrated reality of such high stakes for losing in court is a huge incentive for other targets of RIAA lawsuits to settle.

Now the verdict is being called into question. In May, trial court judge Michael Davis issued a ruling saying that he may have made a legal error in instructing the jury.

Here’s the issue: Thomas, and the other P2P lawsuit targets are accused of infringing copyright by illegally distributing music tracks. What they actually did (allegedly), was to place the music tracks on their computers in a way that made them available over the network. Does ‚Äúmaking available‚Äù count as ‚Äúdistribution‚Äù under the copyright law, or does ‚Äúdistribution‚Äù require the files actually be disseminated? This issue has come up before, and different courts have ruled differently on the issue. Judge Davis instructed the Thomas jury that ‚Äúmaking available‚Äù does in fact count as distribution. Now it appears that there is an appeals Court ruling in the 8^th Circuit going other way: ‚Äúdistribution‚Äù requires actual dissemination of material, not just ‚Äúmaking available‚Äù. Since Minnesota is in the 8^th Circuit, that should be a governing precedent in the Thomas case. Davis will hear arguments on the issue in hardings scheduled for July 1.

These gyrations underscore how uncomfortable the legal system becomes when old notions of copyright confront new digital realities and just how much the copyright balance has been toppled by the world of bits.

And things can get even murkier. As Villanova Law Professor Michael Carroll points out (http://carrollogos.blogspot.com/), the RIAA, in arguing for the ‚Äúmaking available‚Äù interpretation of distribution, may want to be careful of what it’s wishing for. US copyright law includes a provision called the first-sale doctrine, which says that once you’ve acquired a copy of something, it’s legal to redistribute it. That’s why used book stores are legal, for example. So if making music tracks available counts as distribution, it ought to be OK under the first-sale doctrine. In that case, the record companies would probably argue that placing music on a P2P network counts as contributory infringement, and the legal merry-go-round rides would continue.

This entry was posted on Sunday, June 22nd, 2008 at 1:18 pm and is filed under Owning bits—copyright. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.