Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Rules Shared Files Folder Not Enough

Posted by Zonk on from the you-actually-have-to-commit-a-crime-to-be-punished dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In UMG v. Lindor, Judge David G. Trager rejected Ms. Lindor's objection to a Magistrate's Report, in which Ms. Lindor complained that the Report could be read to imply that 'the mere presence of a shared files folder on an individual's computer would ... satisfy the requirements of 17 USC 106(3)', saying that the Report of Magistrate Robert M. Levy could not be so read, since '[t]he report and recommendation does not comment on whether or not the mere presence of a shared files folder satisfies 17 USC 106(3). Instead, it makes clear that plaintiffs will have the burden of proving actual sharing. [Report and Recommendation, at 5] ('At trial, plaintiffs will have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant did indeed infringe plaintiff's copyrights by convincing the fact-finder, based on the evidence plaintiffs have gathered, that defendant actually shared sound files belonging to plaintiffs.') (emphasis added)'"

5 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Could it be! An intelligent Judge! by Travoltus · · Score: 3, Funny

    This judge will get sued for all the infringement that will be allowed because of this.

    Well, not really, but you never know...

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  2. Re:Shared Folders do not equal P2P by iemeeltje · · Score: 2, Funny

    In that case Microsoft would be a co-conspiritor to distributing copyrighted materials (?) :-)

  3. Re:Who said the case law has to make sense? by Fordiman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Case one illustrates the difference between crime and infringement, as far as consequences go. You can't win a case on intent, or even posession alone, if the case is civil.

    I don't know what case two illustrates. I assume the 'I' in it is the RIAA, the 'you' is the consumer, and the 'car' is music, but I'm not sure where the bank robbery or theft comes in. I'm thinking this just goes into the 'bad vehicular metaphor' category.

    --
    110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  4. Re:I'm so confused by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Funny

    So if I have a window in my house overlooking a screen from a drive-in and charge deaf people to sit and look out my window, is that copyright infringement?

    Hmmm... perhaps I should make a new name "TerribleAnalogyGuy"

  5. Re:Oohhhhkay then by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Correction. Grant wrote that my post was "dry like a bread sandwich".

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful