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 (?)
Shouldn't the RIAA get a couple of rock solid cases to win in court instead of extort^H^H^H settling for money? If piracy is that rampant, shouldn't they be able to get some slam dunk cases in court? Couldn't they link a case or two and have involved third parties testify? Like a druggie or undercover officer testifying against a drug dealer? IANAL, so I don't know how that would work in a civil case.
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.
We complained that Magistrate's report implied that merely have a shared files folder on the internet would be a copyright infringement.
Judge said "no, it doesn't say that, it means that the RIAA will have to prove that defendant actually did share files".
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
And I think the solution may be for this judge to talk to the one(s) that have ruled that just linking to copyrighted material is infringement.
Except... the other judge did not say that. The guy in question wasn't just "linking to" someone else's content... he was embedding someone else's copyrighted videos in his own site, making it look like it was his material, while still burning up the other guy's bandwidth. It was classic leeching, and he was making ad money off of doing it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
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"
Is this saying that if they can prove you had a shared folder and that folder contained copyrighted works, then you are guilty of copyright infringement? ... ...
That kind of scares me
As well it should. The obvious parallel that occurs to me: I have a lot of copyrighted works sitting on bookcases in my living room. Right at this moment, both our front and back doors are unlocked. (It's late Saturday morning here, and we've been going in and out of the house.)
If the prosecution's claim here is valid, then I'm also guilty of copyright infringement. After all, anyone could walk in off the street and take one of those copyrighted works off my shelf. They wouldn't even have to steal the book. There's a copier over in a corner, so they could copy a few pages, walk out with them, and I'd never know. Until someone sues me for "distribution", and uses my unlocked door as evidence of intent.
Now, obviously a computer directory full of files is physically different than a bookcase full of books with a copier in the corner. An unlocked door and a shared folder are physically different. But as far as the "intellectual contents", these two cases seem quite similar.
What's the legal difference here? Are there any lawyers here that can explain? Or am I taking a severe risk by not hiding my bookcases behind locked doors at all times?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
It would not be illegal since the screen, in this scenario, is visible to anyone in the public, even if they are only able to see it from your residence or ones near you. Because it is being broadcast in the open it isn't illegal. The motion picture group might want royalties from what you charge and the government might want to collect taxes but there'd be no legal infringement. You can equate it charging to have someone listen to a CD that you picked up off the street. I found a CD once that was in good shape. I didn't like the music so I gave it to a friend.
One would also have to argue that your charging is in fact causing any damage to the movie industry.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
"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)