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."

5 of 538 comments (clear)

  1. Oh bloody hell by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Oh bloody hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're just choosing the most outlandish interpretation of a vague statement so you can ridicule it.

      Note: lawyers never, ever do this. Ever. Because that would just be unethical.

      do you really think they're arguing copyright holders can't distribute their own files?

      Let me explain this because you have apparently spent the last century in a cave... on Mars... with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears.

      Yes. You see, thanks to the way our legal system is constructed, many things that most people would consider absurd or, at the very least, counterintuitive, are in fact true in a legal sense. For instance, you don't actually own any CDs or DVDs, you have, in fact, leased the content on them when you paid for them.

      In other news, you can be legally innocent of a crime but still, somehow, civilly liable for it.

      Somewhere in this country, at this very moment, a lawyer is arguing that black is, in fact, a shade of gray... that ketchup is a vegetable... that pulling your fingernails out with pliers isn't torture...

      Now you think about what you said.

  2. Great sources, guys. by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The article links to a blog (Techdirt) that says exactly the same thing as the Slashdot post. The Techdirt post links to another blog (Digital Music News) which says about the same thing, though at least apparently the Techdirt poster had the decency to reword the summary. There are no links to any even semi-credible source (like, say, the documents where they supposedly said this.)

    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?
  3. Re:This article is hysteria by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  4. Re:This article is hysteria by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Did anyone read the linked-to material? They are saying that putting *copyrighted* materials in a shared folder is illegal. Not just sharing any files

    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.