Slashdot Mirror
Judge — "Making Available" Is Stealing Music
JonathanF writes "If you were hoping judges would see reason and realize that just using a program that could violate copyright law is about as illegal as leaving your back door unlocked, think again. An Arizona district judge has ruled that a couple who hosted files in KaZaA is liable for over $40K in damages just because they 'made available' songs that could have been pirated by someone, somewhere. There's legal precedent, but how long do we have before the BitTorrent crew is sued?" The New York case testing the same theory is still pending.
Their three-paragraph response was miniscule in comparison to those filed by file-sharing defendants with professional representation.
Ok, there's their mistake, they didn't hire a lawyer. Three paragraphs? That's just crazy.
Hopefully they'll hire one before the time to appeal expires.
It's not a file sharing anything. It's a file transfer protocol.
that's all
The files weren't transfered, but they were available, and that's supposed to be the same as distributing?
Is that like being too fugly to get laid, getting busted for prostitution?
I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe that I read a clause about this when I studied copyright law one year ago. Making copyrighted content available to others (online or otherwise) without owning the rights to the work is against the law. Like I said, I'm just going by memory here but I'm fairly certain that I read an older case dealing with this same issue in a non-online context.
Regardless, the article submitting shouldn't be so quick to dismiss a judge's ruling as foobar just because he doesn't like the outcome. I actually agree with the judge's decision, despite my strong disdain for the RIAA/MPAA and its friends.
Hero of Allacrost, a FOSS RPG for *NIX/*BSD/OS X/Win
private_property_dont_download This is where I keep all my albums that I riped from my cd's. Since you already know that anything in that folder is my private propery, downloading from it make "you" the thief.
o wnload_all_of_your_music
The folder that I download tracks to is named paying_canadian_recordable_media_levies_lets_me_d
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
IAALBNYL*--
The precedential value of this case is very low. It's a single ruling by a trial judge. In all likelihood, the actual opinion won't even be published.
Now, if these folks decide to appeal this ruling, and the relevant Court of Appeals decides to affirm, then there's a real precedent you've got to worry about.
--AC
*I Am A Lawyer, But Not Your Lawyer
They didn't 'leave their back door open' to a thief ... they effectively put a table on the front lawn piled high with music with a big sign saying 'come on in, copy all you want!'. ... and they shall get what they deserve.
... then don't buy the material, don't use it in any form - legitimate or pirated, don't consume the content in any way at all. If you actually have some talent, make your own!
Are they just idiots? There is no excuse here. They knew what their software was doing and if they didn't know they should not have been using it.
Don't like copyrights?
Only by completely ignoring the industry will they get desparate and be forced to relax the licenses they have legally chosen to apply to their property.
Is your life really so empty that you can't get by without your stolen music?
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Also many Free and Open Source software projects distribute installers via BitTorrent, notably Ubuntu Linux and OpenOffice.org.
All of these torrents are completely legal. Yet many ISPs block BitTorrent traffic - that happened to me with Eastlink back in Nova Scotia. I was therefore unable to check that my own torrents were operating properly! One can try to work around such blockage by using non-standard port numbers, but I understand that it's possible for ISPs to filter based on the content of packets, and not just the port numbers.
I can see the day coming when all peer-to-peer traffic, whether legal or not, is blocked either due to new laws or record and movie industry lawsuits. All of us who have free content and software to distribute will lose out.
Those of us who offer legal files via peer-to-peer networks - not just BitTorrent, as Jamendo also offers eMule - need to work together to lobby both national governments and local ISPs to do away with this filtering. There are many ways to download both music and software that are perfectly legal; we need to dispel the myth that free downloads are somehow necessarily violating the law.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
IAALBNYL*--
Actually, the United States Code has had provisions for criminal copyright infringement since at least 1982. It's not really anything new. Think back to when you first rented a VHS movie, and the FBI warning came up . . . the find and imprisonment mentioned therein were the penalties for criminal copyright infringement.
While I understand the difference between intellectual property and personal property (especially as it relates to the term theft), intellectual property right holders do suffer losses from the unrestricted copying of their property. Generally, in this country, when a person's rights are being violated they have two options: go to the police or go to court. It's not uncommon for there to be both civil and criminal penalties to protect an individual's rights. For example, if you steal my car, you can be prosecuted for theft. I can also sue you for conversion (and in some states, civil theft). The criminal prosecution is brought in the name of the People and is meant to extract justice for society. The civil suit is meant to compensate me for my losses.
Criminal copyright infringement (as opposed to a civil suit) is meant to serve the same purpose: justice for society.
--AC
As the Internet permeates every aspect of our lives, and the entire world slowly becomes directly entwined with every other part, the definition of "publish" will have to be changed.
Traditionally, publishing was something done via a newspaper, book, or some other "official" work. Duplicating Intellectual Property has long been formal and obvious. The reasons for copyright were clear, intellectual property was expensive and difficult to distribute, and overcoming the cost of distribution benefited all.
Enter the Internet. Suddenly, Intellectual Property can be distributed to anybody at any time simply by posting on a $5/month website.
I have a web server on my home DSL line with MP3s (legally obtained) that I stream via Apache on a non-standard port, that automatically closes every night. (I have to manually open the port on any day I intend to listen) I do not intend to "publish" these, simply listen to them when and where I happen to be.
But, while the port is open, I'm legally "publishing" these files, and based on this ruling, I'm liable for it. Now, I'm pretty sure the risk of my getting caught is pretty slim, but it's not zero. And the truth is, there will be more and more examples of "publish" simply because putting ANYTHING on the Internet is has always been easy, is easier than it used to be, and is getting easier every day.
At what point are you NOT publishing something? If I record a video of my wife lip-syncing to Green Day and post it on my family website, am I "publishing" their song?
There are millions of examples, and I'm sure there are plenty of bad-car analogies coming soon, but the truth remains: the rules are being changed, and we need to PAY ATTENTION!!!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
It seems to me that putting files up for P2P sharing is the same as putting them on your web site which is the same as publishing. It also seems to me that both the publisher and the downloader are guilty of copyright infringement, assuming that any reasonable downloader would know that the publisher doesn't have the distribution rights.
Unless there are major changes in US leadership soon
In the USA, your options for leadership are
1. The We'll Say And Do Anything To Acquire And Retain Power Party (1), backed by the Oil Industry - currently in power
2. The We'll Say And Do Anything To Acquire And Retain Power Party (2). backed by the Media Industry
Good luck with that.
Look, if you provide the facilities for someone to copy copywritten material, you should be liable. There is no other way for copyright to work.
The 'leaving your back door open' analogy is not a good one. A better analogy is buying a book, scanning it, and posting it on a web page. In fact, it's EXACTLY the same thing, only with a different protocol.
paintball
If you are caught possessing over a certain amount, it can create a statutory presumption (depending on the applicable law) of intent to distribute. A presumption means that this is something that, absent evidence to the contrary (generally a clear-and-convincing standard, or perhaps preponderance. Again, it depends on the law), the State does not have to affirmatively prove. For instance, let's say that possession of Sprite is criminalized, and possession of over a six-pack of Sprite creates a presumption of intent to distribute. You get caught with a case. If you can show, through evidence, that you intended to consume all of the Sprite yourself, you'd have rebutted that presumption.
You're not "automatically guilty" of anything. The reason why this is so that possession of a large amount of a substance is itself evidence of an intent to distribute. It may not always be the case, but the Legislatures have deemed that it is often enough the case that intent ought to be presumed unless you can show otherwise. This doesn't violate due process because intent is only one element of the crime, and the State must still prove the other elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
IAALS.
Let's worry about the actual point being made:
To see how retarded this is, take this "making available" nonsense a few steps down the slippery slope to DRM hell, where sharing is a crime:
Citizen, have you been sharing your password access? Do you have the right to read anymore?
Copyright is supposed to encourage publication for the benefit of the public domain. It is supposed to be a temporary exclusive right to publish. People violating that exclusivity could be told to stop and sued in civil court by the rights holder. Punishing people who are actually performing copyright's original function, without actual proof of damages is little more than coporate welfare. Don't think for an instant that you will be protected in the same manner if some big dumb company takes your text, images or recordings and sells them. A $40,000 judgment is sure ruin to most people, but less than a slap on the wrist to the companies pushing these crazy cases.
If we give this kind of power to publishers, every education will create a life time's worth of debt for little more than access to textbooks. Imagine music industry methods applied to all human knowledge. As Newton understood, every person's contribution to human knowledge is dwarfed by the accumulated store. What you have will be held cheap and you will have to work very hard to get what you need.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Actually, the United States Code has had provisions for criminal copyright infringement since at least 1982. It's not really anything new.
1897, IIRC. But not all copyright infringement is criminal.
Nevertheless, I don't think that it should be criminalized. The societal harm of infringement is too minor -- after all, it merely reduces the benefit to society of copyright because the author in question isn't getting enough compensation to incentivize him. The civil remedies revolve around compensation, however, solving that issue, while the criminal penalties don't restore the social benefits at all. Nor do the penalties for infringement seem to have any effect as a deterrent. And I sincerely doubt that society gains any sort of value out of retribution for copyright infringement.
Patent infringement is not criminal. Trademark infringement traditionally has not been, and that only recently changed, and is likely a bad idea in most cases (I could see it if someone was proximately harmed by it, but it's hard to see how existing criminal statutes wouldn't already apply adequately). Why should copyright be special?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I'm definitely a fan of limited copyright. But at some point, you have to realize that they're only going to have control over "you and 'your' data" as long as 'your' data consists of stuff that they own the copyright to. If you believe data should be free, don't consume data controlled by people who have the extreme opposite view. Even better, create your own data, and license it in a way that you approve of. Take the time you're not spending on consuming copyrighted content, and use it to create copyleft material of higher quality.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
Law is even weirder than that.
Right now I'm wearing a red shirt.
Let's say I murdered someone tonight and all the witnesses thought I was wearing a blue shirt. If I was convicted, then my shirt is now blue from a legal standpoint. This is despite the fact that is is really a red shirt. Legally, it's blue. Logic and sanity are not necessarily used when determining the finer points of the law.
This is the same shirt I was wearing when I asked my law professor about this question. (I might have been wearing the blue one. It was the one mandatory law class, three years ago.)
What this means is that if you are convicted of using BitTorrent to transfer mp3s over your modems, then the protocol is a program, the T1 is a modem, and you're doing more time than a bank robber.
IANAL. YMMV. CYLDFD. WDTAM?
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Good post. I enjoy all the analogies that come out of the copyright debates...leaving back doors unlocked ad nauseum. But you've hit the nail on the head - the RIAA have the upper hand because the amount of traffic going through Kazaa and the other P2P programs is copyrighted material. The way to combat the RIAA and their arguement is to produce heaps of good copyleft material.
God, if only we had that much choice. In reality, it's like this:
1. The We'll Say And Do Anything To Acquire And Retain Power Party (1), backed by the Oil and Media industries
2. The We'll Say And Do Anything To Acquire And Retain Power Party (2). backed by the Oil and Media industries
Property is theft.
... we were lucky to have used toilet paper to hold over the raised hiroglyphics to take rubbings of with the bloody stumps of our fingers, and we counted ourselves lucky to be edumacated.
See my art -> http://herbevore.deviantart.com
Ah, but there's already an infinite supply of canned music. Those 42,000 concerts listened to one a day would take 115 years. If you include the other music and movies there, you could spend every waking moment of the rest of your life and not hear and see it all.
The value is not in the can. It's beautiful and it takes real skill to make and can it, but the value is in the sharing. Going to a concert is fun, and it's profitable for the musician. Sharing what's in the can with your friends is fun. Making your own is even more fun. When you get over the music and movie industry hype, what you realize is that a song and dance can be both priceless and worthless at the same time.
This kind of lawsuit has got to be the most disgusting abuse possible for music. A $40,000 judgment for making a song available. How do the lawyers sleep at night knowing that their victims have just had their life savings wiped out? Will the judge go help them move out of their home when the bank comes to take it? How can they feel justified? Fuck the industry by never giving it another cent for entertainment they don't know how to enjoy themselves. Discover and support real artists instead.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.