Slashdot Mirror
RIAA's "Making Available" Theory Is Tested
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's argument that merely 'making files available' is in and of itself a copyright infringement, argued in January in Elektra v. Barker (awaiting decision), is raging again, this time in a White Plains, New York, court in Warner v. Cassin. Ms. Cassin moved to dismiss the complaint; the RIAA countered by arguing that 'making available' on a p2p file sharing network is a violation of the distribution right in 17 USC 106(3). Ms. Cassin responded, pointing out the clear language of the statute, questioning the validity of the RIAA's authorities, and arguing that the Court's acceptance of the RIAA's theory would seriously impact the Internet. The case is scheduled for a conference on September 14th, at 10 AM (PDF), at the federal courthouse, 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains, New York, in the courtroom of Judge Stephen C. Robinson. The conference is open to the public."
Is the entire basis of the RIAA claims in all of these cases striking anyone else as being entirely based on "it may have been" scenarios being used as proof?
I think that all corporations which sue individuals should have to adhere to criminal court standards instead of needing just a "whiff" of possibility. Individual vs. Individual of course would still be run as a Civil matter. They should be required to obtain warrants if they want a "Discovery" into any non-public records of the individual. IMHO, they should absolutely NOT be able to get any records from any organization whatsoever about an individual without a warrant (consider ISP's releasing IP address / account information to a corporation for a shady example).
This is why I think copyright infringement should be up to the courts to investigate and prove or disprove as a criminal matter and NOT the plaintiff (corporations).
There seems to be a serious disadvantage for an individual in almost ALL cases involving a company suing an individual (specifically the depth of their pocket books and ability to pay a lawyer).
Thanks for your efforts NewYorkCountryLawyer
- Toast
Much of this post may be conjecture, ranting, etc. I apologize if I got OT, but I would like clarification if any of my views are out of whack, and I wouldn't mind alternate viewpoints so long as they aren't in troll fashion.
P.S. To all grammar Nazi's; I don't really care if I missed anything when I glanced over this post. Don't waste your breath or potentially cause yourself carpal-tunnel by trying to fix it.
That explains why the man who sold the Virginia Tech shooter his guns is currently in jail.
Oh, wait....
The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company were in Utah. We need a new building.
>And like it or not, sharing copyrighted material IS a crime in the USA at this point in time.
So my torrent seed of Ubuntu (which is comprised almost entirely of copyrighted material) is illegal?
That is the claim you have made.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Why do I have to keep repeating myself?
In the United States, you have every right to get together with friends and make copies of music on analog tape, or digital copies of music using digital audio recording equipment. This is per the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.
I'm not sure what this means about copying a CD someone else bought to a tape, but copying a CD for a friend using digital audio equipment and audio cds is perfectly legal, and copying an audio tape to another audio tape is also legal. We pay a "tax" to the RIAA on every piece of digital audio equipment, audio CD, and audio tape to allow this.
I notice that the trolls are out in force on this one, so let me point out something. There is nothing in the Copyright Act that prohibits "sharing" of copyrighted material, or "making available". We do it all the time, every day, when we play music for a friend, have a party, have someone over to watch our DVD, etc.
The RIAA is relying on an alleged infringement of the "distribution" right.
But "distribution" under the Copyright Act means (1) disseminating (2) actual physical copies (3) to the public (4) through sale or other transfer of ownership or rental, lease, or lending. See brief (pdf), esp. pages 3-4.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
There are a lot of bizarre statements about the "law" being made here by people who don't know anything about copyright law but are pretending they do. Don't be misled by them. Just read the statute, 17 USC 106(3).
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful