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
...the sky is blue, dogs still bark, cats meow, and down is still down.
I mean, really. What did you expect them to argue? "Oh, yes, we can't prove that they ever actually distributed a copy, so let's let all the nasty pirates go and we'll stop our campaign of lawsuits. Cherrio!"
Let's be serious here.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
So now owning Windows is illegal due to the default shares enabled! I hope the slashdotters are happy about this one!
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?
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?
The case in question is Elektra v. Barker, and here's some of the legal docs and stuff.
Complaint
Exhibit A
Exhibit B, Part 1
Exhibit B, Part 2
You can probably guess what the answer is.
The file at http://www.riaa.com/images/pics/pic2.jpg, which is served by their web site?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Dear RIAA,
Let me make this simple for you: I learned on Sesame Street that sharing is GOOD. It's going to be more difficult than you think to reprogram the inner-workings of my psyche that were molded by watching educational television as a child in the 80s.
Sincerely,
Me
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
as someone might see my cd collection and then steal it when I'm not home. Then I'd be guilty of piracy as I didn't do enough to protect the music I bought from being shared legally or illegaly.
So now here's one for you. Say I beak into someones car/house and I get busted with their cd collection. Can the record companies now sue me for stealing music? I didnt pay for it.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
The post seems to imply that putting anything on the web or in a shared folder is under attack. Not so. And clearly many responders also didn't bother to RTFA.
Putting _copyrighted_ files (for which you don't have a license to distribute) on the web or in a shared folder is under attack. The only "news" here is that they're arguing that you may have committed a crime before the first download of your pirated mp3 occurred.
You may all hate the RIAA, but you have to admit that putting Kelly Clarkson's new single in your shared folder is different than putting your own jpg's on the web.
What's next, getting a speeding ticket for having a car that's capable of violating the speed limit? Being sued for copyright infringement when renting a DVD for simply owning a DVD burner? I mean you could make a copy of said DVD. We'd better proactively defend ourselves against this threat....
http://www.lifeofalawyer.com/riaa/atlantic_does1-2 5_rogersaffidavit.pdf
a wyer.com/riaa/atlantic_does1-25_rogersaffidavit.pd f+%22making+files+available+for+distribution%22
Teh Google CacheL http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:www.lifeofal
They've said this type of thing before, in public and obviously have said it in court filings.
In Public: They aren't trying to make a nuanced argument. They just want to get the point across that sharing files = teh badness
In Court: Fucking n00bs. That's what they get for not trying to get across a nuanced idea to the public. The lawyers end up making the same argument they see over and over in the press releases.
I skimmed that affidavit and I wonder how that trial came out. It seems like the plaintiff (an RIAA company) filed a seriously defective lawsuit.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Below is some material quoted from it, by one of the attorneys for Ms. Barker.
Opposition Papers in Elektra v. Barker in Manhattan Argue for Expansion of Law
[Legal]
In opposition papers served yesterday in Elektra v. Barker in Manhattan federal court, the RIAA has argued that merely making files "available for distribution" is in and of itself a copyright violation.
Were the courts to accept this misguided view of copyright law, it could mean that anyone who has had a shared files folder, even for a moment, that contained copyrighted files in it, would be guilty of copyright infringement, even though the copies in the folder were legally obtained, and even though no illegal copies had ever been made of them.
Currently hooked on AMP
You don't need 10 million dollars to sue someone in small claims court. You don't even need ten. If you're that poor, the judge will waive court filings fees etc.
And every knows that you don't strangle a litter of adorable puppies. You put them in a sack and drown them.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
One little-heard story in the West is concerned with how many Polish workers fought back against communism during the last 1970s and early 1980s. I think it may hold relevent in America these days, since the oppressor is quite the same (even if it's called called an "industry association", rather than a "government").
Since many Polish workers were limited in what they could write, they couldn't necessarily make signs or posters. So what they did was launch mass verbal assaults. Not a protest, per se, since they were still working or going about their everyday lives. As they were building ships, or working in a factory, or while heading to work, they would sing chants.
The songs/chants were quite varied. One particular song basically translated to: "We are the people. United we stand." Over and over they would repeat those verses. Other times they were just overtly obscene. Chants which translate to "Penis, anus, defecation!" were commonplace.
Would such protests work in American record stores, for instance?
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
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!
Next thing you know, the MPAA will make it illegal to watch movies in your living room, because someone might watch the movie from the window.
I am a lawyer. I have actually read parts of the Grokster and Gonzalez opinions. Although I did not read the opinions with the same care I would have if for professional purposes, Gonzalez certainly seemed to quote Grokster as supporting the proposition that merely having files in a shared folder was sufficiently part of a scheme to distribute to be the equivalent of actual distribution. In other words, it would not be a defense in a suit by the **AA that no one downloaded a complete copy of the file from you, or indeed, that the total bytes of the file uploaded were less than the total bytes in one copy of the file. Five shared songs may equal five times $750. (min.) in damages even if no one downloaded a byte. I'm quite concerned this will be how Grokster is interpreted in the future.
I do think we need legislative relief for the tens of thousands of little guys victimized by the double-A's.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Most of the posters here so far have been flying off the handle over nothing.
One of the links in the story post tells us that the cases is Elektra v. Barker. While we don't yet seem to have the argument referenced there in front of us, we do have the original complaint from about mid-2005, here, thanks to one of the few people that's posted here whilst keeping there wits about them.
Basically RIAA is merely saying that Barker ran Kazaa, and was sharing some music with it. They're suing her for having done so.
Copyright does include an exclusive right of distribution (17 USC 106(3)) which has frequently been held to cover serving files. And just to preempt some people who will surely latch on to that, note that there are many different rights within copyright, and this is but one of them. Making copies of files, which necessarily happens when you download, is also covered under copyright, and can be infringing as well.
Obviously the RIAA is not saying -- as many people here assume -- that putting any file on a server is illegal. That's beyond even them. What they are saying is that where the files are copyrighted, and the copyright holder hasn't authorized it, and there's no applicable exception in copyright that would permit it, then it's illegal. Certainly as a civil offense, and possibly also as a criminal offense. (Compare 17 USC 501 with 506 and 18 USC 2319)
So if Alice writes a book and puts it on the Internet for anyone to download, that's fine. If she puts a public domain book on the Internet for people to download, that's fine too. But when she puts up Bob's book, without permission, she's got some trouble.
So far this seems to be an amazingly boring case. And, if the facts are as RIAA says, it's probably open-and-shut in their favor. Like it or lump it, copyright suits are generally pretty simple.
So what could be interesting about this? Well, and I'm just guessing here, since I have not seen anything recent about this from the plaintiff, I suspect that the plaintiff said that making the files available to be shared via Kazaa was unlawful distribution, even if no one ever downloaded the files.
This runs contrary to another case, where the court held that an offer to distribute (which is what placing a file in a share is) is not actual distribution, and that only the latter is unlawful. So RIAA or another plaintiff has to catch a defendant actually serving the file to someone. I would not expect that it matters who it is served to. If the copyright holder were to download it themselves, in order to gather evidence, that would probably suffice. (And before someone claims entrapment, let me remind you that that only applies where one is coerced into doing something that one would not have otherwise done. If you were going to share the file with anyone who requested to download it, then the fact that you did so with the wrong person is bad luck for you, but won't get you off the hook)
If the plaintiff never d/l'ed the file, then this also raises the question of whether the files were actually copies of the music in question, or if they were just labeled that way. Given that the plaintiff appears to have the file listings in hand, they'll probably win this. In a civil suit, which this is, the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. It is not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard reserved for criminal suits. In this case, reasonable doubts as to the facts will not save the defendant; instead whatever is felt to be most likely, even if only by a hair's breadth, is considered the truth. In my experience, when someone (other than RIAA et al) puts up a file claiming to be an mp3 of a song, it usually is.
All told, it seems like a humdrum case that is not worth getting worked up about (unless you think P2P of this sort should be legal, in which case lots of cases are worth getting worked up about). There
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
They tried this argument in court in Canada. The judge ruled that the simple act of putting a file in a shared folder is neither in and of itself intent, nor illegal. And the ruling has stood.
Errr...that song is "Welcome to the Machine" by Pink Floyd. Which you got correct.
;)
What you didn't get correct is that the song is from "Wish You Were Here", not "Dark Side of the Moon"
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
RIAA Web Developer: "Oh shit Bob!" RIAA Manager: "What?" RIAA Web Developer: "All the files on our website ARE IN A FOLDER!"
If you own content that you are distributing or other wise have permission to publish it, the RIAA (et all) OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T CARE. They are OBVOUSLY not going after people sharing their OWN stuff or INDIE stuff. They are acting to protect their OWN stuff.
DUH.
You can quibble about the definition of shared/published/accessable, but the issue at hand is obviously PUBLISHING things you don't have a right to distribute.
If a file sits on a server, is its shared availability in some quantum uncertainty state until somebody downloads it? How ridiculous.
If copyright is a civil matter, why is the FBI and Interpol sprayed all over on piracy warnings? Does the FBI help out with civil matters often?
I think you are misreading the article. By "regardless of the legality of the file", what they mean is that you're not permitted to share a file you have a legal right to a personal copy of but no legal right to share.
If you author a file and the content within it, you can do anything you like with it.
If you make a fair use copy of a song, then put the song in a shared location, they are arguing it's the same as burning a whole stack of "fair use" copies of a CD to CD-R and then leaving them on your doorstep for anyone to take. Yes, you have a right to fair use copies - you don't have a right to "oops, how careless of me" allow others to take copies.
If it was the case, any web page would be illegal in US. Great !
I hate all sigs, mine included.
Whatever anyone here may think of them, the RIAA do have a legal right to protect their copyright. So, in our perfectly rational legal world, how should they go about this?
The last Slashdot discussion I saw on this subject was full of people ranting about how unfair it was for the RIAA to seek the identity of someone, in court, when that person's system was known to be actively advertising that it was sharing copyright material that would be illegal to download.
Moreover, even if RIAA staff download such a file themselves, many here will pop up and tell us that since they own the copyright, that's not illegal and doesn't prove anything.
However, we all know (and let's face it, I'm not just saying that and we really do all know) that copyright infringement via P2P is widespread. If the offer to download, including an advertisement that the material really is the copyright material that can't legally be downloaded, deliberately being made available on a file-sharing system, and demonstrated by the RIAA to be downloadable because they made a copy, isn't sufficient to bring a case before a judge and expect some legal recourse, then what is?
Congratulations: you just made a pretty solid case that in order to preserve the clear legal rights of the RIAA, it's necessary for law enforcement agencies to monitor and log all Internet traffic routinely, for governments to ban any anonymous access to the Internet and require ISPs to make a serious effort to confirm the identity of anyone they allow to use their systems, and for draconian penalties to be available when someone is successfully prosecuted for making an illegal copy via the Internet.
Personally, I'd rather the RIAA could sue the pants of someone who is blatantly breaking the law, and that person couldn't weasel their way out of their deserved punishment using legal chicanery, and the rest of us didn't have to put up with the sort of crap I mentioned above.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
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
Suckers! I put my shared files into a directory!
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Let's try a reasoning.
- Web content is made by files.
- The web is a technology to share, distribute and access contents.
- Thus the web should be illegal.
Very good!
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
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?
I think the main point is that this interpritation of the law goes to far. The RIAA wants to make everyone a criminal so that it can more easily pick and choose who to sue and otherwise make it's job easier. But a law that makes a criminal out of someone based on where they put files on _their_ computer is extreme. There are already plenty of laws that protect copyright holders and the RIAA is having no trouble using them. The trouble they are having is mostly in identifying who to sue. But the laws making identification difficult are also the laws that are protecting peoples privacy and should not be mutable.
I think the previous poster understands your point, as do I. It just so happens that in this case it would be very bad for the RIAA to get it's way.
There are criminal and civil laws and then there are more natural laws, like those of economics. The RIAA created the black market for music by price fixing. Back in the day it was difficult to copy and share black market music on a mass scale so the economic pressures were in the RIAA's favor. What happened almost overnight was that those counter pressures vanished and the black market, that the RIAA created through *admittedly* illiegal price fixing, exploded onto the seen. Big oops. This is like a slaves revolt except this time it is for the emancipation of our culture. And with the spectre of DRM looming in the future I don't think that that is to dramatic a way to put it. With regards to laws, whenever you have so many people breaking the law on such a massive scale, society will always need to take another look at the law and likely modify it as to reduce the criminality of the behavour. We are the people, after all. This is our country.
Kind Regards
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w