Sepsis zoloft no prescription and septic shock, which are systemic reactions to bloodstream bacterial purchase cheapest norvasc price tablet infection, can be life threatening. If you have any questions colchicine overdose online purchase free about interactions between Abilify and antidepressants, talk with your doctor discount vibramycin or pharmacist. Severe menstrual or pelvic pain can be a buy cheap clindamycin gel sign of endometriosis — but that is just one possible buy atenolol in us diagnosis associated with those symptoms. Some tests may not require cheapest viagra online any preparation, while others may require a period of fasting purchase betnovate no rx (not eating or drinking) before the test. It may also compare viagra prices involve replacing some or all their damaged hip with an discount xalatan artificial hip joint or part of one. This professional can clozapine information review their general physical condition and make sure that they are.

This week saw two significant developments in the world of copyright and digital information described in Blown to Bits chapter 6, “Balance Toppled.” They signal that things just might be starting to move back towards balance.

On September 24, Judge Davis set aside the jury’s October 2007 verdict in the Jammie Thomas case.¬† That’s the case discussed in B2B of the Minnesota single mother who who was fined $222,000, $9250 per song, for sharing 24 songs on the Kazaa network, the case that became the recording industry’s “we told you so” for why people accused of file sharing by the RIAA should settle even if they are innocent, because the stakes in losing can be so high.¬† As we described in the book, Thomas’s penalty demonstrates the egregiousness of the statutory damages for copyright infringement when applied to the Internet.

Last June, as I noted in this blog, trial Judge Thomas asked whether he had made a legal error in instructing the jury that simply making music available from a computer counts as unauthorized distribution under copyright law, even if no actual distribution takes place.  (See “Sending a Message”: Revisited.)

Now Judge Davis has decided that this was indeed an error, and has granted Thomas’s motion for a new trial.¬† This is a blow to the RIAA’s lawsuit strategy: Not only does it erase the current scariest example of damages, but it’s another court that has rejected the “making available” theory: to convict someone for music-sharing copyright infringement, they will have to demonstrate that actual distribution took place, not merely that files were available on the accused infringer’s computer.

Perhaps even more notable is Judge Davis’s plea to Congress to reconsider the law about statutory damages.¬† As he writes in his opinion:

“The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer to peer network cases…. The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts…..[I]t would be a farce to say that a single mother‚Äôs acts of using Kazaa are the equivalent, for example, to the acts of global financial firms illegally infringing on copyrights in order to profit in the securities market……. [T]he damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs.”

Amen.

See Signs of a Move Towards Balance? (Part 2 of 2)

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 25th, 2008 at 11:17 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.