Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rejects RIAA 'Making Available' Theory
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A federal judge in Connecticut has rejected the RIAA's 'making available' theory, which is the basis of all of the RIAA's peer to peer file sharing cases. In Atlantic v. Brennan, in a 9-page opinion [PDF], Judge Janet Bond Arterton held that the RIAA needs to prove 'actual distribution of copies', and cannot rely — as it was permitted to do in Capitol v. Thomas — upon the mere fact that there are song files on the defendant's computer and that they were 'available'. This is the same issue that has been the subject of extensive briefing in two contested cases in New York, Elektra v. Barker and Warner v. Cassin. Judge Arterton also held that the defendant had other possible defenses, such as the unconstitutionality of the RIAA's damages theory and possible copyright misuse flowing from the record companies' anticompetitive behavior."
Was that the sky falling that hit me on the head or just a smart-stick!
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I would say, "How much more mainstream do you want than Slashdot?" After all, we are legion, we bring down servers across the internet merely by visiting them en masse. But then I look at Ron Paul's primary results and slink back to my basement.
I stole this sig from a more creative user.
It's worth noting that unlike the typical NewYorkCountryLawyer story gloating about how the RIAA lost some motion on some case somewhere, this is a potentially major development.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
No, putting up the sign makes it "intent to distribute", which is not the same as having files in a publicly available folder. This would be like making a copy of a song on a CD, leaving that CD on your porch and having someone come along and pick it up. Then getting sued for distribution.
I stole this sig from a more creative user.
Who the hell gave them the power to just wantonly dispense fair and balanced justice like this? Judges have always been empowered to make huge decisions, but this new behavior is becoming quite alarming. Common sense has been creeping into recent rulings with alarming frequency, and many decisions seem to be based on information, not cash-backed opinions.
I hope this behavior doesn't continue... the entire American way of life is at stake!
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
Unfortunately, the people that own media creation companies also own the tv, distribution & broadcast companies. Its also not in their best interests for the public to know when its harder for the **AA to sue people. Fear of being sued is the only weapon they think they have to fight copyright infringement. Its not the only option available to them (blanket licences, more reasonable prices, producing better media etc) but when they insist on trying to fight back against copyright infringement all they can do is sue or buy more laws making it easier to sue.
I'm taking a poll. What do you think the RIAA will do now with this case?
(a) Walk away.
(b) Bury the judge in paper with a 'reconsideration' motion.
(c) Ask Mr. Brennan to "settle".
(d) Other.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
'Real' news indeed.
The standards of what's deemed newsworthy in the US are completely off. This case, a milestone in the RIAA's war against file-sharers, isn't newsworthy, but a pop-psychologist making blatantly erroneous statements out of ignorance is? Doesn't seem right.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Correct, someone WOULD (sue, not arrest) you. Once you burn copies, you're violating copyright, even if you didn't sell any. This ruling doesn't apply to you at all; anyone who comes to your stand can see proof of your illegal activity.
It does, however, apply to the defendant in this case. The reason the RIAA needed the "making available" theory is because they did not have any actual proof that their copyright had been violated. If I've got an MP3 in a public folder, what have I done? Have I illegally copied anything? Doesn't seem like it. Have I created a derivative work? Arguably, if I ripped the MP3, but maybe I downloaded it, and ripping a CD I own is almost certainly fair use anyway. Have I distributed it? Well, if the RIAA has proof of me distributing it to someone, they've got me. Obviously, in this case, they don't have proof of that. All they see is that MP3, so the "making available" theory says that, even in the absence of proof that their rights have been violated, they should be able to sue people.
What happens if you leave a DVD on your front lawn, I come along with my laptop, rip and burn it? THAT is what this case is talking about. Have you broken the law by leaving that DVD on the lawn? I clearly have, by copying it... the RIAA thinks that you have, too. The judge, luckily, knows the law a little bit better. You have proof, or you have nothing.
This is a blow not only against the RIAA legal machine, but also against "thought crime" of all sorts (such as the argument that selling guns facilitates murder). So even as significant as it is by itself, it is a FAR more important decision than it appears.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
News related to P2P has been getting quite a bit of coverage in Canada lately. Not yet front-page coverage, but 2nd page coverage in some cases. Of course, our mainstream media isn't in bed with the IP-based conglomerates to the same degree as yours are.
if only this would get more mainstream coverage.
The problem is that the plaintiffs in this case are the companies who would report on this development.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
But where a judge has done his or her homework, and is right.... other judges will follow. This judge has done her homework, and is right. Other judges will follow.
And when these issues get to an appeals court, there is no other possible answer than the one she gave: (a) the complaint doesn't satisfy the federal pleading standards for the alleged violations of the right of reproduction (uploading and downloading), (b) there is no such thing as a claim for 'making files available for distribution', (c) there is a meritorious defense of copyright misuse, and (d) there is a meritorious defense of unconstitutionality of the plaintiffs' statutory damages theory.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I think this judge did not go quite far enough. I think the RIAA should have to show not only that distribution occurred, but that the distribution was INTENTIONAL. That is, not the product of accidentally having a file in a directory that Limewire is sharing or something.
Currently hooked on AMP
Its neither.
.10c page to use their photocopier and makes you use some sort of 'printer card' that you prepay to fill... would that make them infringe? I doubt it...most libraries -do- charge for photocopies.
1) You don't 'index and share your songs via Kazaa', Kazaa et al, do tha all by themselves, without user intervention, in their default course of action. Many users aren't even aware 'they did it'.
2) I've always liked the library analagy. Its a public building, open to the public, and full of books. Photocopiers are placed conveniently often even marked with signs --> photocopiers this way. The books are carefully organized to make them easy to find. And there are computers scattered around so you can look them up that way too.
They've set everything up they possibly could to let you make copies. Yet if you do so, YOU are liable for infringement, not them.
By analagy, if I set up a computer, put it in a public place (like the internet), with songs available on it, and also set it up with tools that will make copies of those songs for you if you send it the right commands.
Now if you send my computer a command to transmit you a copy of the song... shouldn't YOU be liable for infringement? My computer isn't making copies and sending them out... YOU asked my computer to do it. All I did was set it up to listen to requests.
How is that fundamentally different from a library? If I could somehow operate the library photocopier by remote from my computer, would that suddenly shift the blame for making copies to them? I should think not. Its still YOU who have (remotely) operated the copier to make an infringing copy.
Finally, as a side note... if YOU own the CD in question, and feel its easier to download a copy using my publicly available computer to send you one, rather than ripping your own CD. Shouldn't that be legal. I as the computer owner have done nothing illegal by making it available. You have done nothing illegal because you have the right to make personal use copies of that song by virtue of the fact that you own a copy.
Why or Why not does this 'theory' work?
Finally if I charge you for access to my system that allows you to make copies am I a pirate then? Good question... interestingly, I still think not. If a library charges you
So its only infringement if they start making the actual copies themselves. Setting up the equipment and letting you operate it, even if they charge you for access, doesn't make them liable for infringement.
Although at some point you might argue that their is a conspiracy to commit infringement...
However, you're absolutely right that some of the best rulings have come in default cases, which of course really has to make you wonder. Examples are Interscope v. Rodriguez, this case, and Atlantic v. Dangler.
Thing is, in Dangler they came back with a reconsideration motion, there was still no one fighting back, and the judge was hoodwinked by the RIAA's mountain of phony papers, and went ahead and entered the judgment. I also liked that expert report from the other day. I really hope that information gets presented in court a lot more often. Yes, Prof. Pouwelse's report is a landmark event, and thoroughly exposes the RIAA's junk science as 'borderline incompetence'. (See discussion on Groklaw.)
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Well, the law is quite clear that no mental state has to be shown for civil copyright infringement. Even if you infringe purely by accident, and you always acted as reasonably and as carefully as possible, you can still wind up on the hook for infringement. So the court in this case is not going to find otherwise, but it would be a good part of a comprehensive legislative reform. (Though I think an intentional standard is somewhat high)
-- 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.
Forgetting the RIAA for a moment, step back a few light years and think about the long history of music. In terms of centuries, this desparate troughing that the RI (recording industry) has managed over the last half century is like a burst of activity in the gold fields, then something fundamental changes and for some reason the Gold Rush ends. If the RI wants to stand in the middle of the deserted gold fields screaming "poor me", then so be it, but if a fundamental aspect of "gold production" has changed, then, sorry, but it's *over*. You (RI, RIAA et al) have to look for something else to do "after the Gold Rush", rather than try to sue the consumers for not buying *your* Gold anymore.
So what about claims that the MI (music industry) is dead by association? This seems to be another illogical grab for air in a bid by the RI to survive. The MI has existed since the first huddle of cavemen got together, beat drums in time, and feasted with a dancing tribe. Music and the MI preceeded the RI gold rush and did quite well about it thank you very much. Musicians are artists and art is most often a matter of the heart searching for and finding expression. Cash is all well and good, but at the end of the day if payment for music is extinguished altogether, music will prevail irrespective. Art is not extinguished by poverty, so neither is music. Only greedy troughing is extinguished by poverty.
Here's a tip: I play in a band. We're not too bad at what we do. We put smiles on faces every show and most of the time we cover our up front costs. We never cover our "hours" put in, and we don't care, because it's Art, and we all have day jobs anyway. And guess what? There's no greedy corporation troughing from *our* Art.
Meanwhile, on the facts, the RIAA is always lying.
As to how the judge made the error in the Thomas case, it's obvious:
the RIAA lawyer was willing to say misleading things to the judge,
Ms. Thomas's lawyer wasn't sufficientlyl prepared to rebut them, and
the judge made the mistake of changing his mind in the heat of battle, instead of sticking with the decision he'd made beforehand when he and his staff had had enough time to do the requisite legal reading.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I don't know, "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" sounds like a democrat. Republicans are fiscally liberal and socially conservative...
Your big words must be a bitch.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?