Featured Articles

5th Generation Broadwell 14nm family comes in three lines

5th Generation Broadwell 14nm family comes in three lines

Intel's 5th Core processor family, codenamed Broadwell, will launch in three lines for the mobile segment. We are talking about upcoming…

More...
Broadwell Chromebooks coming in late Q1 2015

Broadwell Chromebooks coming in late Q1 2015

Google's Chromebook OS should be updating automatically every six weeks, but Intel doesn't come close with its hardware refresh schedule.

More...
New round of Nexus phone rumour kicks off

New round of Nexus phone rumour kicks off

Rumours involving upcoming Nexus devices are nothing uncommon, but this year there is a fair bit of confusion, especially on the…

More...
Nvidia officially launches the 8-inch Shield Tablet

Nvidia officially launches the 8-inch Shield Tablet

As expected and reported earlier, Nvidia has now officially announced its newest Shield device, the new 8-inch Shield Tablet. While the…

More...
Aerocool Dead Silence reviewed

Aerocool Dead Silence reviewed

Aerocool is well known for its gamer cases with aggressive styling. However, the Dead Silence chassis offers consumers a new choice,…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Friday, 16 May 2008 11:06

Landmark P2P case might get retrial

Written by Nick Farell

Image

Judge reconsiders


A landmark
P2P case may go to retrial because the Judge has found an earlier ruling that could have made the entire case null and void.

Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay $222,000 in the United States' first music download trial. Federal District Court Judge Michael Davis told jurors that making sound recordings available without permission violates record company copyrights "regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown." However, he now thinks he made a mistake having found a 1993 ruling from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals which said that infringement requires "an actual dissemination of either copies or phonorecords."

Basically, it would have to mean that the record companies would have to prove that downloading occurred. The music industry says that if its investigators were able to download that should be enough for a jury.
Last modified on Friday, 16 May 2008 16:01

Nick Farell

E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments