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)'"

6 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. Makes sense... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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
    1. Re:Makes sense... by Loonacy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That person had it available for download from their own computer, so I thought they owned the copyright. Seriously, it's not MY responsibility to make sure everything I download or buy is being distributed legally. It's the distributor's responsibility to make sure they have the right to distribute.

    2. Re:Makes sense... by AusIV · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Try that after buying some crack. Tell the judge "He invited me into the back alley and sold me the crack. It's not my responsibility to make sure what I'm buying is legal.

      Seriously though, that's a weak argument. When one person is distributing thousands of well known songs and hundreds of high dollar movies, you can be fairly confident that the distribution is illegal.

      That said, I think it's a weak case to go after downloaders instead of distributors. The only way to have evidence that they're downloading something (prior to searching their computer) is if they're downloading it from you, and if you actually own the copyright to that item, I'm not sure you can distribute it illegally.

    3. Re:Makes sense... by fafalone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, say the crack dealer is an undercover cop. To avoid entrapment, the buyer would have to be the first one to indicate he wanted to do an illegal transaction. The cop couldn't just walk around saying "You want crack?" and arresting everyone who says yes.

    4. Re:Makes sense... by wolrahnaes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Try that after buying some crack. Tell the judge "He invited me into the back alley and sold me the crack. It's not my responsibility to make sure what I'm buying is legal. Bad analogy. You are expected to know the crack is illegal, where when file sharing is involved it's hard to tell. The content is available legally, some artists do release one or two tracks for free on their web sites, so you are presented with a confusing scenario.

      Anyways, downloading is basically impossible to get sued over. If you're downloading off some random guy on the Internet, how's the **AA going to know, and if you're downloading off one of their bot machines it was completely legal because they own the copyright and put it up for free download. (as an aside, I came to this conclusion once before when they were polluting KaZaA and the like with damaged files and I decided to download 5-6 damaged versions and put them together in to one good version. It only worked with certain songs and was more work than it's worth, but technically it would have been legal.)

      Sharing is the only way you'll face legal trouble now and in the foreseeable future.
      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
  2. Could it be! An intelligent Judge! by gsn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.