The WSJ takes a look at the Jammie Thomas affair, which is awaiting a key reconsideration decision by the judge in the case in Minnesota. Thomas was the first person to go before a jury in an RIAA file-sharing case … and got her ass kicked to the tune of a several hundred-thousand-dollar fine late last year. But, says the Journal:

[…T]he judge in the case, Michael Davis, says his instructions to the jury might have been wrong.

Judge Davis told the jury that making songs available online for distribution to others was copyright violation and that the record companies did not have to prove distribution took place. He has since learned of a federal district-court case in Phoenix that ruled that making songs available was not copyright violation. He is weighing granting Ms. Thomas a new trial.

This is the questionable “making available” contention by the RIAA. Those fighting the RIAA say that the industry has to prove that specific songs were uploaded to convict someone of illegal file-sharing. The industry says that merely making the files available is grounds for conviction.

The WSJ story has a good analysis of the arguments and the status of the various cases in different parts of the country.

Wired News’s overview of the Thomas case is here.