Slashdot Mirror
Arizona Judge Shoots Down RIAA Theories
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Atlantic v. Howell, the judge has totally eviscerated the RIAA's theories of 'making available' and 'offering to distribute.' In a 17-page opinion (PDF), District Judge Neil V. Wake carefully analyzed the statute and case law, and based on a 'plain reading of the statute' concluded that 'Unless a copy of the work changes hands in one of the designated ways, a "distribution" under [sec.] 106(3) has not taken place.' The judge also questioned the sufficiency of the RIAA's evidence pointing towards defendant, as opposed to other members of his household. This is the Phoenix, Arizona, case in which the defendant is representing himself, but received some timely help from his friends. And it's the same case in which the RIAA suggested that Mr. Howell's MP3s, copied from his CDs, were unlawful. One commentator calls today's decision 'Another bad day for the RIAA.'"
This decision only means that the law currently on the books can't be interpreted in the way the RIAA wants.
However, looking at the history of the RIAA's lobbying efforts, it's extremely likely that we'll soon be seeing a law that criminalizes making copyrighted files available.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
I don't think it eviscerates the RIAA's claims, but it's certainly a major blow to their theories. As I read it, the judge is saying that merely making them available isn't automatically infringement. This makes sense if you think of an analogy. If I put a book down on the table on my front porch while I go inside to get a drink, and someone comes along and takes it, I surely made it available but nobody in their right mind would claim I intended to distribute it to the thief. Compare that to the case where I put a whole bunch of books on a table out by the sidewalk with a sign "Free books, take as many as you want.". I suspect the judge here is ruling along similar lines: it's not sufficient for the RIAA to claim that the files were merely available, they have to claim the files were (reasonably) knowingly made available for the purposes of infringing distribution. OTOH, if the files were available to the public, but were put where they were for a non-infringing purpose and the defendant wouldn't reasonably (given their knowledge) expect the files to be open for the taking by anyone else, then the RIAA's claim fails. Which to me sounds reasonable, so seems more reasonable than either of the extreme positions take by the RIAA or the P2P advocates.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
While this does weaken the RIAA's case, they still have a decent shot at conviction. All that was denied here was a shot at summary judgement. At issue here is the idea that making a copy of a protected work available is not the same as copying, but may leave the defendant open to contributory liability.
Howell contends he never intended to share, nor authorized KaZaa to share his music files and it may not be possible for the RIAA to prove otherwise.
For what it's worth, he also poked holes in EFF's argument that Media Sentry - as an agent of the RIAA, cannot infringe on their own copyright. He argues that the RIAA / et all never intended to license Media Sentry to authorize distribution or reproduction and therefore the 12 copies Media Sentry downloaded stand up as "unauthorized" copies of the works. The issue remains open as to whether Howell can be held liable for these copies.
Actually, Howell claims he never downloaded any music. According to his testimony, the music files on his PC were ripped from CDs he owns. He used KaZaa to download porn and free e-books which he gave KaZaa the right to "share". At the heart of his defense is the idea that KaZaa searched his hard drive for media that was never intended to be shared and made that available without his knowledge or consent.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful