While Senator Hatch is trying to overturn the original decision that said file sharing programs weren't liable for copyright infringement that occurred on their networks, the Appeals Court has upheld the original ruling. The Reuters report only has two paragraphs now, but I'm assuming it will be expanded with details. Once again, it looks like the courts have been able to understand the difference between a person doing something illegal, and a company that provides a tool. This ruling isn't a huge surprise, of course. During the trial, the judges made it clear they weren't buying the entertainment industry's version of the story, when the judge told the RIAA lawyer: "Let me say what I think your problem is. You can use these harsh terms, but you are dealing with something new, and the question is, does the statutory monopoly that Congress has given you reach out to that something new. And that's a very debatable question. You don't solve it by calling it 'theft.' You have to show why this court should extend a statutory monopoly to cover the new thing. That's your problem. Address that if you would. And curtail the use of abusive language."
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Feds Insist It Must Be Kept Secret Whether Or Not Plaintiff In No Fly List Trial Is Actually On The No Fly List
- Documents Show LA Sheriff's Department Hired Thieves, Statutory Rapists And Bad Cops
- Unarmed Man Charged With Assault Because NYC Police Shot At Him And Hit Random Pedestrians
- Judge In No Fly Case Explains To DOJ That It Can't Claim Publicly Released Info Is Secret
- German Court Says CEO Of Open Source Company Liable For 'Illegal' Functions Submitted By Community