Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules Shared Files Folder Not Enough
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)'"
...but I doubt it makes for much of a defense. To imply that "shared files" == infringement would criminalize everything from SMB shares to god knows what. I expect in practise this just means they'll have to explain how it applies in a specific case. The "You can't prove anyone downloaded from me, even though it's advertised through file searches and I'll send it to anyone that asks" is a razor thin defense to begin with.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Uh, do we really need a blow-by-blow for this case on here? I mean, this is an interesting decision, but it seems to be more a procedual ruling rather than setting a precedent of any strength. Posted on a legal blog I could understand, but I doubt that enough of Slashdot's readers are fluent enough in legalese to get much sense out of it, or even get particularly interested in an intermediate step like this if they do understand it. Disclaimer: IANAL, so this is wide open to being contradicted to someone who is actually in the field.
So hang on... so the judge dismissed an objection to a report that implied that having a Shared Files folder would satisfy the terms of 17 USC 106(3). Er, is this good or bad news?
One that actually believes you have to be shown to sharing copyrighted material before being found guilty of it. Merry fucking Christmas.
Tiny steps. Maybe next year we can get a judge who recognizes that the RIAA "settlements" are pure extortion and the entire calculation for how much financial damage was caused by sharing a file is pure bollocks. Eventually one who realizes that an IP address!=identity and they shouldn't be allowed to just ask ISPs for IP address and get any kind of information at all. And that it shouldn't be a crime to punch the RIAA layers and moguls in the face... one can dream.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
Copyrighted files on a shared folder is indeed not equal to sharing copyrighted files. However doesn't this show "intent to share" ? Don't know a lot on the US justice system (criminal, civil etc.) but I guess the proverb "stupidity doesn't mean innocense" still holds. To me it seems the plaintiff needs to prove actual sharing in order to get damages (?)
Shared folders are not evidence that you're running p2p programs. My freakin Windows XP Media Centre PC came with shared folders that I still can't get rid of.
I like NYCountyLaywer. But..... that headline was terrible. A summary should, in LAYMAN's terms, describe why I should spend a few moments reading about the issue.
... 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).
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
Seriously , do you really think that 95% of the readers are going to know off the top of their heads what 17 USC 106(3) is? I like playing armchair laywer, so I bothered to find out, but that headline made my eyes bleed. I suspect I would have started channeling Lewis Black if I hadn't posted this.
Had the finding gone the other way administrative shares in windows would have automatically become infringing activity.
Case one: In some locales having a sufficient quantity of drugs in your possession does make you a drug dealer. What if you are just a bulk-shopper with a large habit and like to save a few bucks?
Case two: I lend you my car (license you some music). You park it legally in front of a bank and go inside to speak to a teller. Those naughty bank robbers opt to use my car as the getaway vehicle. You leave the bank and the car is gone. Did you participate in the crime? I can sue you for actual damages because I can't get to work now. I can also sue the robbers for the same thing.
Why should they? The settlements are working so well.
The RIAA's goal in these suits is to stop copyright infringement by making an example out of people. A couple of million dollar judgements isn't likely to be more effective than dozens of multi-thousand dollar settlements, and it's going to cost a hell of a lot more.
Furthermore, there's always the chance that they'd lose. A loss would be devestating, because they would start seeing more and more people fighting the allegations, which they don't want.
"Is it just me or do most of the stories that get posted by Zonk involve a /. user who is link whoring their companies and/or blogs?"
Yeah, it's a huge surprise that a site that posts user submitted stories ends up with submissions from people excited about a product. What an evil horror. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! We wouldn't want to read about products that cost money!! That'd be like advertising!!!
So... um.. anyway, why'd you bring that up in this particular story?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)