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."
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
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.
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.
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
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.
RIAA Web Developer: "Oh shit Bob!" RIAA Manager: "What?" RIAA Web Developer: "All the files on our website ARE IN A FOLDER!"
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.