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."
Somedays I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
Simply author a file that you are the copy holder and then sue them for restraint of trade or insterstate commerce problems. Who are they to restrain trade?
This has never been about theft of music. This is about stopping the independants. More and more of the new music is showing up on the net and labels are not needed. If RIAA can not control all the downloads, then it is only a matter of time before they are out of business.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
>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.
You were thinking pretty clearly right up until the last line there...
I still can't see how you are guilty of anything. Here is my thought experiment: I leave my front door open, someone walks in and steals my MP3 music server - so thousands of copies of songs just went out my door. Am I guilty of any wrong doing? Of course not, the thief is. If there is any positive act that the RIAA should be targeting it would be the specific act of downloading a song. And yes, they would have to prove it was you doing it, at a specific time and place, using certain tools, they would further have to be able to prove the file was genuine (in other words, they couldn't allege what the file was - they'd have to prove precisely what the file was), that they represent the specific copyright holders of that material, etc.
The act of putting something in a shared folder is sort of like putting a pie on a window sill to cool down - there is a potential for theft, but the positive act of theft is committed by the thief and not the victim. Let's just for a moment assume that millions of non-geeks are actually putting files in the default MS Windows "Shared Documents" directory - that's now a positive act of copyright infringement? I think not...
Let's look at it from the other direction: if the supposition were true that the mere act of allowing something to be available in a shared directory were the positive act of copyright infringement itself then by extension everyone would become responsible for the content over which they exert guardianship. Wouldn't you then be burdened with having to make sure that any possibly copyright infringing files were adequately secured against duplication? If not, the RIAA could then sue you for not practicing Due Diligence over the copyrighted materials in your possession. That's basically what they are trying to argue now: that ownership of certain kinds of files is now the equivalent of being some kind of security expert - so if you aren't familiar with the practices of securing your system against intrusions and the routine protocols of P2P software that someone might install on your systems, you are infringing upon their copyrights.
The burden really does have to be that the RIAA must prove upon the preponderance of evidence that you were actually distributing their materials by some kind of positive act.
What they are getting away with is suing people for making copyrighted materials potentially available to others - which is not the same thing at all. By such loose logic the advent of having your computer hacked would become a potential copyright violation - doesn't having your system hacked making all of the files on it potentially vulnerable?
Am I my brother's keeper? No, I am not. If the RIAA is worried about file distribution that's their lookout and not mine. I am not their agent working on their behalf to secure files from possible duplication - I just don't care.
Actually you are wrong. many works have been released without copyright and in the public domain as well as copyrighted but CREATIVE COMMONS licensing or free to use and share licensing attached.
CC is scaring the bejezus out of the movie,record,and writer industries. It empowers the creator to sidestep their largest source of expenses (The distributor/studio/publisher/record company) and coupled with the internet it makes them all useless.
The last 10 CD's I have purchased came from CDBaby, 2 have a Creative commons license that allows me to share the tracks on the CD.
And yes, The music from these indie artists is much better than the crap that BMG/ASCAP has been shoveling out lately.
Even my 14 year old daughter that is heavy into metal/punk preferrs the indie stuff or classic stuff.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.