There are a couple of key items in the mistrial of Capital Records vs. Jammie Thomas. Both are explained by the EFF (which also has a PDF of the 44-page decision). First, the judge ruled against the industry's "making available" claim. (In May the judge admitted he made an error when he instructed the jury that "making available" a music file constitutes illegal distribution.)

The Court’s examination of the use of the term “distribution” in other provisions of the Copyright Act, as well as the evolution of liability for offers to sell in the analogous Patent Act, lead to the conclusion that the plain meaning of the term “distribution” does not including making available and, instead, requires actual dissemination.

In addition, the judge suggested that Congress consider changes to copyright law.

While the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a sufficient deterrent.

The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog has a good recap. And the blog of Ray Beckerman, lawyer for Jammie Thomas, is a good source for coverage and opinion.

The Star-Tribune talked to Thomas after the judge's decision was made public. "Anyone willing to do that pretty much tells you what kind of person they are," she said of the judge's recognition of his error. "He's being more than fair. He's reading the law the way it's supposed to be read."

In June, Threat Level blog talked to lawyers with the MPAA about their interpretation of "making available" and their argument that only indirect proof of distribution is required. "What we're saying, by having a copy of a copyrighted work in a shared folder, you are distributing it under the copyright law," explained one lawyer.

Neither the RIAA or MPAA has yet issued a statement on the mistrial.