Slashdot Mirror
RIAA v. Barker Showdown Slated for January
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge Kenneth M. Karas has set Friday, January 26, 2007, at 2:15 P.M., as the oral argument date for Tenise Barker's motion to dismiss complaint, in Elektra v. Barker, in federal court in Manhattan. The argument will take place at the newer federal court house, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, in courtroom 21D on the 21st Floor. Proceedings are open to the public. This is the case in which amicus briefs were filed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S. Internet Industry Association (USIIA) and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), and a Statement of Interest was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (USDJ). Defendant Tenise Barker moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that neither downloading nor uploading had been alleged sufficiently to give her notice of what she was being accused of, and on the further ground that merely "making available for distribution" was not a copyright infringement at all. The RIAA and MPAA argued that merely "making available" was indeed a copyright infringement. Defendant, CCIA, and USIIA argued that it was not. EFF argued that intangible computer network transmissions cannot be "distributions" within the meaning of the Copyright Act. USDJ argued that they can be. Defendant refrained from taking a position on that issue here and here. The DOJ refrained from taking a position on the "making available" argument, indicating that it had never prosecuted anyone for "making available". See page 5, footnote 3."
Sorry. Nobody ever said that even making the backup copies was an OK thing to do, remember?
She's in trouble for "Making available"? FUCK! Quickly! Close down all those public libraries! They're "making available" all those copyrighted books! Anyone could take one home and photocopy it, scan it, or even copy it by hand.
This argument is full of holes.
Aero
Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
That's about it. The RIAA argues yes. You made them available. That makes you a distributor.
If they would read the statute (copyright Act section 106) they'd feel differently, but they don't feel they have to do stuff like that.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
That's a very neat question right there.
Is YouTube distributing the videos, or reproducing/performing them for the public?
In a way, the only real difference is scale. Public performance is limited by the size of the arena, which largest venues are still orders of magnitude smaller than YouTube's possible audience. YouTube can be used by anyone in the world with a connection to the Internet and a reasonable PC.
So, YouTube could potentially target more people more easily than a public performance. But a public performance is guaranteed to impact a number of people (all those within hearing or seeing distance), whereas a YouTube video might never be watched by anyone.
:(){