Do you have any legal authority for your intimation that having copyrighted song files in a shared files folder constitutes a "distribution" under 17 USC 106(3)? I.e., that it satisfies the requirements of having a
-distribution to the public -of phonorecords or copies -accompanied by a sale, transfer of ownership, lease, rental, or lending?
If you say things like what you just said, and don't have any legal authority for what you said, you are exactly like the RIAA lawyers....... unless of course you apologize, which is something they would never do, having no sense of shame.
Apologies to jambarama, who feels that I'm very patient with posters like SlashdotParent. I'm not really that patient.
Its importance has been known to me, and to a few in the tech community, all along. In fact, in Elektra v. Barker, where this battle is being played out in Manhattan, the US Internet Industry Association, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have all weighed in with amicus curiae briefs, showing how the RIAA's lawsuit against a young nursing student living in a Bronx housing project could ultimately shut the whole internet down if the RIAA's legal argument for such an expansion of the Copyright Act were to be adopted by the Court. The case is scheduled for oral argument on January 26, 2007, at 2:15 PM, in federal court in Manhattan, before Judge Kenneth M. Karas.
It is so important for the tech community to get behind the RIAA defendants, because the battle being played out in the RIAA v. Consumer arena will have far-reaching implications, way beyond the world of sharing music files.
The Defective by Design group, part of the Free Software Foundation, has indeed recognized the importance of it and is trying to raise funds to help the RIAA victims.
Additionally, the attorneys defending these cases are in desparate need of tech people to serve as consultants and/or expert witnesses, especially in the areas of (a) hard drive forensics, and (b) hash, metadata, internet file transmissions, etc. Compare, e.g., the RIAA's bogus "expert" statements here (pdf) and here (pdf) with the genuine independent expert witness declaration (pdf) which shut down the RIAA's operation in the Netherlands.
Reziac wrote "isn't that exactly what some of the previous suits have been about -- software as contributory to infringement?? Why should it stop with Kazaa, especially if "sharing" is a fundamental part of Windows??
You got that right.
The RIAA prefers suing poor and working class people who have no money with which to fight back. That way it hopes to collect judicial precedents rewriting the copyright law, which it can then use when it goes to war with the big guys.
So in other words you think he's dumb and I think he's very clever.... you think he doesn't know what he's doing, and I think he knows exactly what he is doing.... you think he does things himself and I think he's got a huge staff, including techies who don't use Internet Explorer, at his beck and call....
Sorry about the technical problem with Slashdot... too bad, as you would be the ultimate 'slashdotter'... critical thinking, not afraid to speak your mind, good understanding of computer issues....
Reziac wrote "I think it has to help to have a lawyer VISIBLY defending rationality. And you're the one within the legal system, ie. in the best position to judge where you can do the most good. D'oh!
And if your writing is a bit "dry", well, what matters is whether it positively impacts your fellows in the legal profession and on the bench, not whether it's fun reading for the blogging crowd."
Thanks, Reziac. Appreciate your kind words.
There's no question that the blog has been very helpful to all of us representing the RIAA victims. It's a way for us to centralize and share information with each other about what is going on.
jambarama wrote: "Let me just say, thank you. You are one of the most impressive/. posters. You consistently respond to posters on several websites, many of which are out and out trolls, and that is impressive. You take the time to explain things over and over again, and that is impressive. You always respond in a kind and positive way, even when the posters are trolls, flamebaiters, or just plain ignorant & lazy.
Anyhow, thanks for being on the people's side. I know there is more money on the other side, but less satisfaction I hope."
Dear jambarama:
Thank you very much for your kind words.
Sometimes I do get short with the trolls, but I try to remember that -the RIAA trolls are just a few losers, or maybe one loser using multiple User ID's -there are real people out there reading and trying to learn, and -I should comport myself with dignity worthy of the cause I am fighting for, and remember that my primary purpose here is to keep people informed of what is happening on the front lines.
Yes indeed there's a whole lot more money on the other side; but I didn't go to law school to leave the world a worse place than I found it. When a fight like this comes along I have to look at it as a privilege to be a part of it and to be on the side of what is right. It's an expensive privilege, but a privilege nonetheless.
And it's a privilege to dialogue with folks like you as well.
We were objecting to some language in the Magistrate's report which we feared could be taken to imply that the mere presence of copyrighted songs in a shared files folder could be actionable.
The judge said our objection was poorly taken because in his reading of the report "it makes clear that plaintiffs will have the burden of proving actual sharing."
The judge has now made it clear that plaintiffs will have the burden of proving actual sharing.
I see that the "parent" comment to which you were responding did inaccurately state the law, defining infringement too narrowly, so I see what you mean about misinformation. I stand corrected.
Actually, though, I think your response may have defined infringement a bit too broadly, as there are many possible fact patterns which simply haven't been played out in court yet.
As more and more litigants stand and fight, we'll see more and more interesting judicial precedents.
Letting someone listen to, or even copy, something, would not be a "transfer of ownership" within the meaning of the distribution rights section of the Copyright Act.
Dear nomadic, I'm sorry your links to the legal documents aren't working. The litigation documents are all *pdf files, and they're working for everyone else, so you probably need to download a newer version of Adobe Reader. All the federal court files are *pdf's, that's the federal court standard, so there's nothing I can do about it.
This is the first time I know of, out of about 25,000 or so cases that have been brought so far, where the Court has (a) laid out the standard of proof the RIAA will have to meet at trial, or (b) made it clear that the RIAA's theory -- that merely having a shared files folder is in and of itself a "distribution" -- won't cut it at trial. I think that's deserving of a separate post.
Agreed that uploading for purposes of copying and downloading for purposes of copying may constitute copyright infringement. In the RIAA v. Consumer cases, however, the RIAA has evidence of neither. Nor does it have evidence that the defendant did anything at all. So where is the legal misinformation to which you are referring?
Slashdot Mirror
War Games gets my vote.
Bye bye.
Hmmmmmmmm........
1. No legal authority.
2. No apology.
3. Adding a false fact by saying there was "advertising".
Who does that remind me of?
Nice try.
You sound just like the RIAA lawyers.
Do you have any legal authority for your intimation that having copyrighted song files in a shared files folder constitutes a "distribution" under 17 USC 106(3)? I.e., that it satisfies the requirements of having a
-distribution to the public
-of phonorecords or copies
-accompanied by a sale, transfer of ownership, lease, rental, or lending?
If you say things like what you just said, and don't have any legal authority for what you said, you are exactly like the RIAA lawyers....... unless of course you apologize, which is something they would never do, having no sense of shame.
Apologies to jambarama, who feels that I'm very patient with posters like SlashdotParent. I'm not really that patient.
Its importance has been known to me, and to a few in the tech community, all along. In fact, in Elektra v. Barker, where this battle is being played out in Manhattan, the US Internet Industry Association, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have all weighed in with amicus curiae briefs, showing how the RIAA's lawsuit against a young nursing student living in a Bronx housing project could ultimately shut the whole internet down if the RIAA's legal argument for such an expansion of the Copyright Act were to be adopted by the Court. The case is scheduled for oral argument on January 26, 2007, at 2:15 PM, in federal court in Manhattan, before Judge Kenneth M. Karas.
It is so important for the tech community to get behind the RIAA defendants, because the battle being played out in the RIAA v. Consumer arena will have far-reaching implications, way beyond the world of sharing music files.
The Defective by Design group, part of the Free Software Foundation, has indeed recognized the importance of it and is trying to raise funds to help the RIAA victims.
Additionally, the attorneys defending these cases are in desparate need of tech people to serve as consultants and/or expert witnesses, especially in the areas of (a) hard drive forensics, and (b) hash, metadata, internet file transmissions, etc. Compare, e.g., the RIAA's bogus "expert" statements here (pdf) and here (pdf) with the genuine independent expert witness declaration (pdf) which shut down the RIAA's operation in the Netherlands.
Reziac wrote "isn't that exactly what some of the previous suits have been about -- software as contributory to infringement?? Why should it stop with Kazaa, especially if "sharing" is a fundamental part of Windows??
You got that right.
The RIAA prefers suing poor and working class people who have no money with which to fight back. That way it hopes to collect judicial precedents rewriting the copyright law, which it can then use when it goes to war with the big guys.
So in other words you think he's dumb and I think he's very clever.... you think he doesn't know what he's doing, and I think he knows exactly what he is doing.... you think he does things himself and I think he's got a huge staff, including techies who don't use Internet Explorer, at his beck and call....
Sorry about the technical problem with Slashdot... too bad, as you would be the ultimate 'slashdotter'... critical thinking, not afraid to speak your mind, good understanding of computer issues....
Reziac wrote "I think it has to help to have a lawyer VISIBLY defending rationality. And you're the one within the legal system, ie. in the best position to judge where you can do the most good. D'oh!
And if your writing is a bit "dry", well, what matters is whether it positively impacts your fellows in the legal profession and on the bench, not whether it's fun reading for the blogging crowd."
Thanks, Reziac. Appreciate your kind words.
There's no question that the blog has been very helpful to all of us representing the RIAA victims. It's a way for us to centralize and share information with each other about what is going on.
paeanblack wrote"Unfortunately, we now have 'contributory infringement', which is actionable and does not need actual infringement to occur."
Au contraire.
It is indeed an essential element of a contributory infringement case to prove that actual 'primary' infringement occurred.
jambarama wrote: "Let me just say, thank you. You are one of the most impressive /. posters. You consistently respond to posters on several websites, many of which are out and out trolls, and that is impressive. You take the time to explain things over and over again, and that is impressive. You always respond in a kind and positive way, even when the posters are trolls, flamebaiters, or just plain ignorant & lazy.
Anyhow, thanks for being on the people's side. I know there is more money on the other side, but less satisfaction I hope."
Dear jambarama:
Thank you very much for your kind words.
Sometimes I do get short with the trolls, but I try to remember that
-the RIAA trolls are just a few losers, or maybe one loser using multiple User ID's
-there are real people out there reading and trying to learn, and
-I should comport myself with dignity worthy of the cause I am fighting for, and remember that my primary purpose here is to keep people informed of what is happening on the front lines.
Yes indeed there's a whole lot more money on the other side; but I didn't go to law school to leave the world a worse place than I found it. When a fight like this comes along I have to look at it as a privilege to be a part of it and to be on the side of what is right. It's an expensive privilege, but a privilege nonetheless.
And it's a privilege to dialogue with folks like you as well.
We were objecting to some language in the Magistrate's report which we feared could be taken to imply that the mere presence of copyrighted songs in a shared files folder could be actionable.
The judge said our objection was poorly taken because in his reading of the report "it makes clear that plaintiffs will have the burden of proving actual sharing."
The judge has now made it clear that plaintiffs will have the burden of proving actual sharing.
Thank you mooingyak.
You're correct. The idea is that I'm really a country lawyer who happens to be stuck in the big city.
It's just you.
Thank you, telso. I hope the US courts will catch up to those of Canada and the Netherlands in coming to the realization that they are being had.
I see that the "parent" comment to which you were responding did inaccurately state the law, defining infringement too narrowly, so I see what you mean about misinformation. I stand corrected.
Actually, though, I think your response may have defined infringement a bit too broadly, as there are many possible fact patterns which simply haven't been played out in court yet.
As more and more litigants stand and fight, we'll see more and more interesting judicial precedents.
Today I learned of a pro se litigant in Alabama who defeated the RIAA's summary judgment motion.
I think we'll be seeing more and more of that, and more attorneys coming into the fray on behalf of the defendants.
Thank you. Much appreciated.
Letting someone listen to, or even copy, something, would not be a "transfer of ownership" within the meaning of the distribution rights section of the Copyright Act.
The defendant in this case never even turned on a computer.
Dear nomadic, I'm sorry your links to the legal documents aren't working. The litigation documents are all *pdf files, and they're working for everyone else, so you probably need to download a newer version of Adobe Reader. All the federal court files are *pdf's, that's the federal court standard, so there's nothing I can do about it.
Thank you Alter.
This is the first time I know of, out of about 25,000 or so cases that have been brought so far, where the Court has (a) laid out the standard of proof the RIAA will have to meet at trial, or (b) made it clear that the RIAA's theory -- that merely having a shared files folder is in and of itself a "distribution" -- won't cut it at trial. I think that's deserving of a separate post.
Thanks, mrbcs. Much appreciated.
Agreed that uploading for purposes of copying and downloading for purposes of copying may constitute copyright infringement. In the RIAA v. Consumer cases, however, the RIAA has evidence of neither. Nor does it have evidence that the defendant did anything at all. So where is the legal misinformation to which you are referring?
Thanks for your kind words, Fishbulb. A little encouragement, now and then, helps.
Correction. Grant wrote that my post was "dry like a bread sandwich".