Slashdot Mirror
Making Files Available Breaking the Law?
lordhathor2001 writes "The RIAA has argued in one of their cases that simply "making files available for distribution" violates copyright laws. This means that regardless of the legality of a file somebody has on their computer, just putting it in a shared files folder that can be accessed by other people is illegal. Although it's asinine, it really shouldn't come as any surprise given the RIAA's legal campaign that's more about what it believes than what the law actually says."
Putting files in a shared folder may be found to be illegal in a court of law. The mere act does not a crime make.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
oh, guess i better take the music I'VE made (which is free and legally distributable) out of there too, because i guess I (the owner of said music) have broken the law, too.
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
Doesn't the first amendment give us the right to free speech? Couldn't that be applied here to give us the right to put files up for sharing on our computers if the material isn't copyrighted? It might just be me... but I think this is breaching our rights.
Could Slashdot at least wait until there's actually some proof before posting this crap?
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Or perhaps that we are already living in his society and just fail to realise it...?
His work was a metaphor or a possiblity. We could already be living it, it just looks different.
Instead of the ominous TV screen, we have cable Sport, Xbox and DVDs.
Instead of a "father figure" telling our kids how to behave we have Britney(TM) or, more correctly, RIAA & MPAA?
Instead of factories where the poor go to work and large, souless offices for the rich we have....oh wait...
and more importantly, the internet is illegal, by its very nature!
1a. There are plenty of people who give away their own copyrighted material, free of charge. As a matter of fact, they would encourage you to do the same. The same thing goes for Bootlegs of Bands.
2. Just because a directory is shared, does not mean the files are accessible. Even if they are accessible, there is no law against putting them somewhere 'shared'.
What is against civil law is distributing material without the copyright owners permission. Your argument is wacked, because you compare a bunch of criminal matters, with a civil one.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Yes. If the website with the copywritten material didn't have permission to post / republish it, it's obviously illegal. That's uncontroversial, and not what the issue here is about.
Essentially, what the RIAA is trying to do is eliminate the line between making something available for distribution, and actually distributing it. That is, right now there's a distinction between offering something that's not yours, and actually going through with it and transferring the property-that's-not-yours to somebody else. At least as I understand it, currently no crime is committed until the transfer actually occurs. I could have ten million MP3s on an FTP site, and as long as all anyone does is browse the directories, no harm done. When somebody downloads one, I'm in trouble.
What's new is that they want to make putting a copyrighted file into a shared folder (or FTP site, whatever) an act of distribution, in and of itself, regardless of whether anyone actually takes you up on the offer and downloads/transfers the copyrighted file.
It makes a certain twisted kind of sense, since putting the file into the folder is the only action that the sharer actually takes -- therefore, it's demonstrative of their intent (to redistribute).
I'm not sure that I agree with this, but I'm willing to play along for a moment, because I think this line of thinking could lead to strange places. I tend to wonder, if this actually became accepted, whether it wouldn't move the liability for copyright infringement from the downloader, to the sharer/provider. I.e., if you downloaded something from somebody else's shared folder, you'd begin to have a bit of a defense that you thought it was legal, because it would be illegal for them to put anything in the shared folder that wasn't authorized. It's basically a movement of responsibility.
And this, I think, is why the RIAA is so interested. It's difficult to track down the myriad individuals that download content, but it's relatively easy to track down the people that are sharing or seeding content. By moving the legal burden onto them, rather than on the downloaders, it gives them a much stronger hand. It's no longer necessary for the RIAA to prove that somebody downloaded a particular file from your computer, just that you offered it up for that purpose.
Like I said, it makes a twisted kind of sense.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
if you go dig around google for the "whitehead declaration", the guy describes what their investigative procedures are. They don't do anything that could result as evidence in a civil case, much less a criminal one.
Having files available is not a crime. Serving up fake files with popular names is not a crime. They don't know if they have the copyright, because they haven't actually listened to any of the files the claim are theirs.
As for the rest of your post, you took my words waaaaaaay off course.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I think this story qualifies as a strawman..
The story makes it sound like if you put *any* files into a shared folder, you're breaking the law. This is not the case.
What the RIAA is really arguing is that if you place files into a shared folder that, if distributed, would constitute illegal distribution.. the act of making these files (which would be illegal if distributed) available for distribution by placing them in a shared folder is illegal.
Now, I don't see how they'd be able to actually prove the files were, in fact, files that would be illegal for the person to distribute unless the RIAA downloaded them (meaning the files were distributed).
Just remember kiddies,
if you distort something to make it more absurd than it really is..
OF COURSE it's going to sound absurd!
I am the maverick of Slashdot
The public library is allowed to do what it does because of First Sale doctrine, and because they're LENDING the books and not COPYING them. If you went into a library and instead of checking out a book, they just ran off a photocopy for you of the whole thing and let you keep it, they'd be in trouble.
There's no parallel to the digital world, because (that I know of) there's no protocol that provides for the transfer of information without a copy being made at the same time. So if there was some kind of "digital library" protocol, which simultaneously deleted the bits of a file from my hard drive, as those bits were being sent down the wire and written to your hard drive, then I think you'd have a defense that you were only "lending" the file. But since such a protocol doesn't exist, and because it's commonly known that computers make copies when they exchange data, the "library defense" doesn't fly.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Such as the fact XP has default "admin shares" of the local drives, so that copying the music anyware on your hard drive could technically be construed as "making available for distribution". This leads to some really bad places if the interpretation is that general.
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
And the use you're stating (profit from ads) would be an industrial, for-profit motive, just as would be republication in a newspaper or magazine, and even -my- proposed restrictions would apply. On the other hand, if I think the article's interesting, and want to print it out to show a friend who doesn't have net access, or email it to a friend that accepts only text emails (no links), that shouldn't be illegal (even technically) for me to do-I'm not profiting. I'd also have no trouble with an attribution requirement, but that's not normally a problem on filesharing networks-the sharers aren't generally claiming that they filmed the movie or wrote the song.
Plagiarism is a different story, but you don't even need copyright to prevent that. Copying without citation is an implicit claim that that's your original work. If it's not, that's fraud, and defamation of the original writer-and we've got plenty of very good laws against fraud and defamation.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
It is very hard to tell the difference between works in the public domain and copyrighted works without a notice.
No, it isn't. Anything released after the first Micket Mouse movie = copyrighted.
I don't know if this is supposed to be funny or just sad, but that's more or less the essence of copyright these days.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
If I take the CDs in my collection I don't like and put them outside my apartment so anyone on the street can pick them up, I'm breaking the law?
Technically, any creative work is copyrighted. If I write some code, is it illegal for me to put it into a shared folder? What if I write it, like most employed coders, as work for hire, such that my employer owns it? Have I broken the law by putting in a shared folder? Have I broken the law by uploading it to a publicly read-able CVS repository?
Hey, my briefcase has a copyrighted book in it. I accidently left my briefcase open, next to copy machine, where anybody could have made copies of that book. Am I guilty of illegal negligence, or am I just a straight up "thief"?
I own a bunch of copyrighted books. There's a Kinkos down the street. Is it illegal for me to leave my front door open? Can I put my books on the porch? Can I lend one to my next door neighbor, or is any of that illegal too?
This is a bizarre criminalization of mundane, innocent, and customary activities, solely intended to create a climate of fear.
More and more, our every-day right to "pursue happiness" is being taken away by those who profit by making us fear.
Look, I agree, the record companies have a right to copyright. But Americans have a right not to live in fear. We've got thousands of people living in fear in order to provide fancy cars and three houses each for a few record company execs. It goes too far.
It's time for all of us to draw a line in the sand, and say we won't live in fear anymore. America's turning into Orwell's worst nightmare, the dirty drab gray life of a rat hiding in the shadows to avoid the stomping jackboots.
If this bullshit is "safety" from "the terrorists" I don't want to be safe anymore.
If living in fear is the cost of listing to the latest boy band from Sony, it's not worth it anymore.
It's time for Americans to get up on our hind legs like men and tell the fear-mongers that we've had it with them.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?