Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Arizona Judge Shoots Down RIAA Theories

Posted by kdawson on from the schmaking-available dept.

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.'"

3 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Unfortunately this probably won't end here by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, but there are anti-RIAA forces that are a lot more organised than they were in pre-DMCA days. I don't think many people on Slashdot really cared about copyright laws until the MPAA sued over DeCSS. These days, the EFF has quite substantial support, politicians realise that there are actually quite a lot of people who think current levels of copyright are too strong, and we're actually pretty organised (albeit in an ad-hoc chaotic way).

  2. Re:I have to say... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

    If the defendant is found to be innocent does the Judge's decision today set a decent precedent? Today's decision is an important precedent no matter what happens at the trial. It is the clearest and most comprehensive decision to date on the RIAA's campaign to enlarge the 17 USC 106(3) distribution right. This decision, unlike Judge Karas's decision in Barker, is mainstream. It takes the statute, the caselaw, and the legal scholarship, and brings it all home.
    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  3. Not Evisceration, just careful consideration. by nixNscratches · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.