said by ThrowDemsOut:Davis had instructed (.pdf) the jury last year that the recording industry did not have to prove anybody downloaded the songs from Thomas' open Kazaa share folder. Davis read Jury Instruction No. 15 to jurors saying they could find unauthorized distribution -- copyright infringement -- if Thomas was "making copyrighted sound recordings available" over a peer-to-peer network "regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown."
But Davis had second thoughts and, without any urging from the litigants in the case, summoned the parties back to his courtroom in August, writing in a brief order that he may have committed a "manifest error of the law." He heard arguments from both sides and said he would issue a ruling soon.
With Wednesday's opinion, Davis made his revised position official and ordered a retrial -- one with different jury instructions.
Reversing himself without any prompting from either participant in the case is almost by definition an example of judicial activism.
Sounds more like considering all the facts in the case and changing one's mind. When a court higher than him found that the RIAA had to prove file sharing actually took place, declaring a manifest error is the right thing to do.
