EFF Jumps in Against RIAA for Copyright Misuse

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Arguing that the RIAA and big record labels may be misusing their copyrights, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has jumped in on the defendant's side in a White Plains, New York, court conflict. The case is Lava v. Amurao, and the EFF will be defending Mr. Amurao's right to counterclaim for copyright misuse. EFF argued that the RIAA, by deliberately bringing meritless cases against innocent people based on theories of 'secondary liability', are abusing their copyrights. In its amicus brief, EFF also decried (just as when it joined the ACLU, Public Citizen, and others on the side of Debbie Foster in Capitol v. Foster) the RIAA's 'driftnet' litigation strategy. They argue that the declaratory judgment remedy must also be made available to defendants, in view of the RIAA's habit of dropping the meritless cases it started but can't finish."

Comments

Worst case for RIAA?

[brouski]

In the unlikely event that the RIAA is found guilty of "misuse of copyright" (not that they aren't; I just find it unlikely that the case will get that far) what's the worse that could happen to them? Would it be just a monetary penalty, or does the copyright owner (I would assume the record company) stand a chance of losing the copyright?

Re:Unclean Hands

[Wylfing]

That is a beautiful thought, but it is extremely unlikely to happen. The labels have already been widely accused and convicted of behavior that should have resulted in an injunction against their copyrights (e.g., collusion to fix prices). I doubt anything will come of it now, just as nothing came of it then.

Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer to the white courtesy phon

[Weaselmancer]

Ok that's funny. =)

But hey - since I have your attention I'd like to say thank you for all your posts here on this topic. It's enlightening to read your take on things. Even if you are native-legalese.

Re:Hm

[UnknowingFool]

Well, they had to give the RIAA enough rope to hang themselves with first. If the RIAA did only once or twice, the RIAA could say it was a simple mistake and/or blame it on the lawyer. With many cases in many states, it establishes a pattern. They don't do their homework. They sue people without cause. They do it often.

There's a thought.

[geekoid]

Get convicted of abusing copyright, the work becomes public domain.

That would stop them from using thre current techniques, and put more focus on people who are mass producing unauthorized works. NOteble becvause those people, when caught. have a ton of physical evidense that can be used against them.

In reality, they will probably be sued for damages.

Re:There's a thought.

[Workaphobia]

But does the RIAA own the exclusive rights to the song recordings, or are they shared between other parties (such as, dare I say, the artists themselves)? Remember that the "amnesty" they offered didn't protect against legal action from other stakeholders. In this case, the work can't be put into public domain just because one party abused their rights - wouldn't that be an undue deprivation of property for the other copyright holders? IANAL.

Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer to the white courtesy phon

[KiahZero]

Perhaps you can help someone who's trying to learn it now.

We just finished covering copyright in my IP survey course, and while we covered misuse as it applied to patent law, we didn't for copyright. Is there an existing doctrine that my professor didn't get to, or is this extending the idea of patent misuse into the copyright sphere?

Tides are turning but what next?

[MaelstromX]

It seems like with the tides turning against the RIAA and its members (Sony, Universal, EMI, Warner, et al) that their next act of massive dickheadedness will be to lobby Congress, under cries of massive copyright infringement destroying their industry, that music will die as long as this loophole exists of being able to play host to illegal activity, so long as you aren't aware of it, with no penalties for not taking any preventative measures. Of course I don't think that will kill music at all but the RIAA has a little more sway than me with Congress. :)

So how long until the owner of an internet service account becomes responsible, no matter what, for what happens via their connection? When incompetence and ignorance are no longer valid excuses? It honestly looks inevitable to me, because it's not like the RIAA is just going to roll over and I hardly think free distribution (aka free advertising) will appeal to them if they haven't gotten the clue this far.

attempted translation

[circletimessquare]

i'm not a legalese speaker myself, just a close follower of the latest legal setbacks for the riaa:

the riaa's legal tactics against casual downloaders are not surviving closer scrutiny, and this latest legal tidbit from nycl is but another hole in a growing number of holes that the legal system is poking in the riaa's legal tactics

nycl, a question: if i were to go online now and, using a well-known, well-trafficked file sharing site, downloaded a well-known track, and this were to attract the attention of the riaa driftnets, is it safe to say that i could survive the legal attack using one or a number of the new legal routes around the riaa's tactics you have brought to slashdot's attention?

or, more succinctly, is the era of the riaa driftnet over? or merely hinted at?

Re:attempted translation

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

circletimessquare asked:

if i were to go online now and, using a well-known, well-trafficked file sharing site, downloaded a well-known track, and this were to attract the attention of the riaa driftnets, is it safe to say that i could survive the legal attack...

I have no idea what you're referring to when you say a "file sharing site", or what you mean by downloading attracting the attention of the riaa driftnets...I don't know why your question was modded up, because you don't seem familiar with the factual matrix of these cases at all.

Re:Unclean Hands

[Ungrounded Lightning]

But the RIAA *can* lose its ability to enforce the copyrights at all. ... the companies would have to come after you individually - at least until they get a new method in place.

I can definitely see a judge thinking this way.

Since acting as its members' copyright-enforcement organization is virtually the entire function of the RIAA such a decision would utterly sink it.

Leaving exactly the decision-makers who chose to proceed with these tactics, along with the hirelings who implemented their policy when they should have known it was wrong, looking for work.

How perfectly right!

But the RIAA doesn't hold any copyrights

[HiThere]

The RIAA is merely acting as an agent for others (the labels) who hold the copyrights.

If the RIAA is found to be abusing the legal process, forbidding them from continuing to prosecute copyrights would not touch the rights of the actual copyright holders, it would merely that they either act directly themselves, or hire a new agent.

I have not idea how likely such a decision would be, but to me it would appear just.