Slashdot Mirror


RIAA "Making Available" Theory Rejected

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a 25-page decision (PDF) which has been awaited for two years in Elektra v. Barker, Judge Kenneth M. Karas has rejected the RIAA's 'making available' theory and its 'authorization' theory, but sustained the sufficiency of the complaint's allegations of 'distribution' and 'downloading,' and also gave the RIAA 30 days to cure the defects in its complaint by filing a new complaint. The judge left it open for the RIAA to allege that defendant made an 'offer to distribute,' and that the offer was for "'the purpose of further distribution,' which, the judge held, would be actionable."

3 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. Not today... by the.Ceph · · Score: 5, Funny

    Come on people, save these announcements for days that I can trust the internet...

  2. Re:Can anyone explain by stuporglue · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here, cars work better


    Think of it like this:


    I place a pair of cars on a park bench and walk away.


    versus:


    I walk up to someone sitting on a park bench and offer them a pair of cars.

    --
    https://www.facebook.com/digitizeicm -- Show your support for the digitization of the Iron County Miner newspaper archiv
  3. OT: On the subject of warnings... by mooingyak · · Score: 5, Funny

    But, IANAL, YMMV, beware of dog, slippery when wet, etc.

    I developed a newfound respect for Australians and their legal system last summer.

    I was in my pool, and I happened to notice the warnings on the inflatables. It had three sections:

    US: Do not leave children unsupervised. Not a life-saving device. Etc etc etc, about 5 or 6 lines worth.

    UK: Not substantially different from US. Phrased differently, but effectively the same amount of material with the same meaning.

    AU: Use only under competent supervision. That was it. All of it.

    --
    William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.