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.
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?
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*
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"
Actually, it will. The judgement is directly against people sharing files with an obvious intent to infringe on copyright. How that compares to the legality of a download acceleration service (BitTorrent) is beyond me. Even the BitTorrent search engine doesn't make the files directly available. It simply links to torrent files that describe the network for downloading the file. They also (as I understand) yank illegal torrents from the search on request. So I don't really see the parallel that the submitter is trying to make.
copyright infringers get sued != BitTorrent is an illegal technology
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
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.
I think at least one important difference is that the photocopier can reasonably be presumed to be for fair use only in most circumstances. Are you really prepared to stand there and photocopy a book for anybody who wants a copy? Remember, you have to pay the copying cost and take the time to do it. I'm guessing most people wouldn't find this rewarding. So I'm willing to assume that the guy at the Xerox with the textbook is probably just copying something for study or review, not distribution.
;)
Ripping a CD or similar for backup or using in a different format, I would also consider fair use (note: I'm a musician and I do earn royalties). I would expect to be allowed to do the same; as a teen I often stayed up late waiting for good reception from Vancouver radio stations (I grew up in northern B.C.) so that I could tape songs and listen to them on my Walkman. I don't think anybody really would have begrudged me that, and I wouldn't consider that any different from putting an old tape on CD so I could listen to it that way. These days, why should ripping a CD to play on a solid state digital player--portable or PC--be any different?
So that's OK then. IMHO and IANAL, of course.
Now, I've got my encoded, digital, and supposedly perfect copy on my drive. The next step is: where do I keep it? To my way of thinking, if I put it in a private, non-shared location, that should be fine. But if I put it in a directory which I know to be shared or accessible to the public--no matter the protocol--then I would say that I have made a conscious decision to distribute it. Whether I charge for this or not is irrelevant; I still know that others will now be able to make use of the content. That is obviously no longer fair use, unless it's a snippet or excerpt for use in a critical review or essay of some kind.
Note that I wouldn't object to someone doing this with any work from which I receive royalties; I would prefer that people hear the music. But then, I make my living programming; my music royalty cheques suffice to maybe get my wife and me a night on the town once every few months (or more recently, they pay for a few packs of diapers and some stain remover).
That all said, I think this judgement is horse shit. Having Kazaa or any other p2p sharing software installed doesn't imply intent to distribute, and AFAIK there is no real way to say that it was or was not set up for sharing. The only evidence to this that I see in TFA is the defendant's statement that it was not. I'm willing to buy that; I have often used eDonkey2000, limewire, bittorrent, and a bunch of others over the years, but I have never shared anything I knew to be protected. And of course I think it's ridiculous to think that mere possession of a tool indicates the intent to use it in the worst way. I own a truck; I do not run over people. I have owned rifles and shotguns; never once did I even point one at a human. I have an axe and a machete, but they are for wood-splitting and brush-clearing, respectively. They are tools. Kazaa is a tool. Owning it does not mean anything in itself.
So: rip your music. Play it on different devices. Make mix CDs for friends. But if you put it up for everybody to download then as far as I can tell you're in the wrong. And the RIAA still needs to be "dipped in Gravy Train and thrown to a crazed pack of poodles" (Berke Breathed wrote that; I don't think he'll sue me).
Torben