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?

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.

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: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.

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.