> "making them available for sharing." It's a really big slippery slope: The jury was instructed that merely "making available" sufficed to constitute an infr

> "making them available for sharing." It's a really big slippery slope: The jury was instructed that merely "making available" sufficed to constitute an infringement of the plaintiffs' distribution right, even without proof of any actual distribution.[1][11][12] The issue of whether copyright infringement required actual distribution was raised by the defense during examination of Sony BMG's head of litigation on the first day of trial, but the court sustained the plaintiffs' objection and did not permit the topic to be revisited until jury instructions were prepared just before the end of the trial.[12] Despite disagreement from the defense, the court proceeded to interpret making available as distribution for purposes of instructing the jury.[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas