Judge Rules Offering != Distributing

starrsoft writes "From the EFF's website: 'Judge Marilyn Patel issued a ruling (PDF) Wednesday that settles an important question in the ongoing Napster case -- whether under the law, simply offering copyrighted material to others means you're distributing it. Copyright holders have to prove that someone actually downloaded the file from you before you can be found liable for distributing. The simple act of offering isn't enough. It clarifies the law, providing a safeguard against the over-reach that the ART Act threatened.' Ernie Miller and Techdirt have more on this decision."

Comments

What does it really mean?

[Greg Wright]

What is keeping *them* from just downloading a copy? If not them, they someone they hire or pay off. It is certainly a step in the right direction I think, and it might actually help Napster in this case, but in the long run I am not so sure how much of an effect it will have. At least it will mean that they probably don't have the correct evidence to sue a lot of people they wanted to, but all the new cases in the future won't have that problem I bet. Does anyone else see why this would mean more then just some old cases not having enough evidence?

Re:What does it really mean?

[DeathFlame]

It just means they didn't collect the right evidence in the napster case.

They won't make the same mistake again, so really this means not that much in terms of pirating on bittorrent for example.

Re:What does it really mean?

[saberworks]

Not only should they have to prove that you distributed it, but they should also have to prove that you distributed it to someone who doesn't have the legal right to have it. This would further force them to go after the people downloading illegal material instead of the people who have it on their computer. If I downloaded SUPER MARIO, but I already own a copy (or 8) of it, then nobody committed a crime, right?

Re:What does it really mean?

[starrsoft]

I guess the next question would be: "What percentage constitutes fair use?"

Re:What does it really mean?

[cpt kangarooski]

Heh. I guess you haven't seen some of my posts in favor of reforming copyright law, then.

Still, it's key to know what the law is. Both so that you don't run afoul of it, and so that you know how bad it is, and how important it is that we fix it.

Re:What does it really mean?

[dragons_flight]

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public...

Certainly gives plenty of room to argue that it is not distribution if the only documented download was to an agent of the copyright holder.

The Napster case?

[Wesley Felter]

Napster has been dead for a few years now; I can't believe there are still lawsuits going on. Give it up, RIAA.

Common sense?

[Sv-Manowar]

This seems to me like a victory for common sense. Using the fact that someone offers you files named, checksummed or otherwise identified as a specific song/resource is and should be no proof that those files are either being transferred or distributed. There were cases of this kind of stupidity with the RIAA sending out threats to people with files named with artist's and track names, without even verifying the contents, and this is clearly overstepping the mark. Until they can prove and verify that what you're offering is the valid song, and that you have actually distributed copies of it, it would seem highly bizarre that they could claim you were performing those acts.

Re:Common sense?

[geekee]

" This seems to me like a victory for common sense."

No, common sense says that if you are sharing a popular song on a popular p2p network, people are downloading it, and you are guilty. The law isn't based on common sense, however, but on the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty, so therefore, the RIAA needs to prove someone actually downloaded a copyrighted song you are sharing.

Awesome!

[czarangelus]

This is totally awesome! It's going to put a major wrench in the RIAA/MPAA's tactics.

Too bad all those people who payed settlements rolled over for them... it looks like they had a chance to fight back with rulings like these.

humm.

[LWATCDR]

So what does this mean for Bit torrent trackers?
They offer just a hash not the actual file.

Stupid ruling

[Reality Master 101]

As usual, people who simply want the "right to steal" will look at this as a win, instead of looking at the bigger picture.

If someone, say, gets ahold of medical information (or my credit card number, or my SSN number, or pick your private info) and offers it up on their server, I don't care if anyone has downloaded it or not -- I want the information off there and off now. It should make no difference at all whether anyone actually got it. If someone is making information available, that should be enough to nail their ass.

Of course, I once had a Libertarian try and convince me that it should be legal to fire guns at people, until you actually hit someone, so I'm sure there are people who think that anything should go.

Re:Stupid ruling

[cplusplus]

Is your credit card number copyrighted? How about your SSN number? No? Then you have nothing to worry about. This ruling covers copyrighted material, not confidential information. That's a whole other ballgame. I think your private info is still safe (although with all the security leaks lately regarding personal account info, I'd question how safe it actually is).

Re:Stupid ruling

[kaiser423]

There are other laws protecting your credit card number, SSN, etc. Sure, distributing them with illegal intent is often a crime, but usually owning your personal, private information without a need for it is usually illegal.

Your analogy sucks anyways. We should have much tougher laws regarding personal information and privacy than we do have on publically available (but copyrighted) works. Some of the new privacy laws are getting there, but I don't think we're at that point yet.

Universal

[camcorder]

Do those verdicts have any influence on International laws? or it's just slashdot becoming US centric again.

Re:Universal

[Kaorimoch]

This is actually quite important for international laws. Why? The US threatens sanctions / boycotts / action against countries that do not enforce movie and music industry laws US-style. What you see in the US at the moment is typically reflected in your country 4 years later thanks to MPAA/RIAA paid off politicians.

The US needs to ensure that such copyrights and laws are enforceable overseas as the US entertainment industry is one of its largest export industries and any perceived watering down of their rights to profit from these works will be attacked most vehemently. The entertainment industry is probably the industry of the future for the US since it is offshoring almost anything it can.

Examples-
U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez threatens tariffs or import restrictions on IP laws unless they control piracy. It is really dangerous for the US to threaten China on anything at the moment especially since they need their help to put down North Korea.
Sweden gets threatened and shamed at the way they let piracy bittorrent sites run rampant. Lo and behold, legislation comes into effect on July 1 to curb this threat.
Australia signs an FTA where one of the conditions is that US IP laws are enforceable in Australia despite the fact that it is US law, not Australian law, superceding the right of that country to make laws to govern themselves.
Suits started in America against filesharers are starting to appear overseas.

Wait For the Appeal

[reallocate]

So, let me see. If you offer to share something but no one takes it, it isn't considered distribution.

In other words, if you post copyrighted material on the net but no one downloads anything, you're fine.

A flaky decision. Wait for the appeal.

Re:Ok, this is interesting....

[kindbud]

How likely are the RIAA to get these logs? Do the ISPs by law have to keep these logs?

They will when the RIAA-sponsored Internet Copyright Infringment Evidence Preservation Act is passed. Their standard M.O. after getting spanked in court is to go buy a law that has the effect of overturning the unfavorable ruling.

Makes sense.

[Luke727]

Just because somebody is offering something does not mean that a transaction ever took place. However, don't drug dealers get nailed with "intent to distribute"? Isn't that what this really is? Why are you going to offer something if your intent is not to distribute? Granted drugs != copyright infringement, but I hope this leads to two offense. A relatively high "copyrighting infringement" penalty (where they can prove a transaction occurred), and a lesser "intent to infringe copyright" penalty (where they can't prove it). Then it will be up to the RIAA/MPAA/whoever to prove a transaction occurred. That makes sense to me, at least.

private property unlocked in public

[kpp_kpp]

Yeah, I put that MP3 out on my personal website for MY OWN usage not yours. It's your problem if you download it. Thief.

Kinda like if I leave my car unlocked on a public street it doesn't mean I'm giving permission for someone to come along and steal it.

Hmm...

Re:private property unlocked in public

[Travelsonic]

Kinda like if I leave my car unlocked on a public street it doesn't mean I'm giving permission for someone to come along and steal it.

Bad analogy, Einstine.

IF you steal a car, they no longer have it, if you steal money from a bank account they lost it, but if you copy a file, they still have it. You can violate IP rights, mutilate, copy IP, but you can not steal it. It may sound illogical, but as far as I know, it makes perfect sense, and apparently the law thinks so too.

Not a stupid ruling

[JenovaSynthesis]

So if you install a P2P app and without your knowledge/consent it goes ahead and searches your hard drive and spots your MP3 collection that you created from ripping your CDs. You only intended to share "c:\downloads" but now "c:\MP3s\" is shared too.

So if this was a stupid ruling, then you are saying you should be prosecuted/sued because your MP3 collection was shared by the program.

Re:New plan:

[cft_128]

One problem: Don't you think the RIAA might check the contents of the file before they sue?

If recent history is any indication, no they won't check the file before they sue.

Re:Why don't they just DL the file?

[antispam_ben]

I don't think this would work. If the copyright holder initiates the download, this distribution is done with the consent of the copyright holder, and is thus probably not illegal.

I don't see that. The person hosting the file has no way of knowing the person DL'ing it is the copyright holder unless the holder identifies himself as such (who obviously would not for the purpose of this DL).

An even stronger argument, for the DL to be legal, regardless of who DL's it, the host needs WRITTEN permission from the copyright holder, who obviously did not give it.

Re:Ruling is Important

[mindstrm]

Don't read too much in to this ruling. All it says is you can't prosecute for distribution if your only evidence is "we connected to X, and it said the files were available, and we tried it, and it worked".

They have to gather some evidence that shows the files were actually transferred. That doens't mean they have to have eyewitness evidence of every singe instance, just that they have to have some way to convince the court you really DID distribute the file to other people, and on what scale... they can't say "Well he had it shared, so OBVIOUSLY people grabbed it"

Re:New plan:

[Anonymous Coward]

One problem: Don't you think the RIAA might check the contents of the file before they sue?

The RIAA and/or MPAA have:

1)Sent a letter to a DEAD WOMAN claiming she violated their Copyrights.

2) Sent a letter to a 12=year old girl.

3) Sent a letter claiming an 80-year old women WHO DIDN"T OWN A COMPUTER was, under the name "SmittenedKitten", trading files.

Do you RERALLY think they'll check the contents of the files?????