No, they don't authorize a download with regards to copyright, that's the point. They authorize the distributor. Copyright law has to do with authorized distribution of content, it has nothing to do with receiving/downloading it. Whether Microsoft is giving it away for free or licensing/selling it has nothing to do with copyright. Microsoft can give out the content however they want because they are an authorized distributor. The rights of the downloader have nothing to do with copyright law.
all linux distro's are copyrighted, no? Your right to copy much of that stuff is dictated by a free license.
To be specific, you can download and use linux without agreeing to the "free license". The GPL only comes into play if you want to modify or distribute it.
Copyright law talks about unauthorized distribution of content, it says nothing about receiving it.
Although, your email example is flawed. When you "arrange to have someone else email it", you are authorizing them to be a distributor. So whether copyright law is in regards to downloading or uploading in that example is irrelevant. It's not infringement because the copyright holder (you) authorized the distribution.
When you go to microsoft.com or any other website, its assumed you have the right to download them.
No, the reason you can download MS software from microsoft.com is because MS is authorized to distribute their own copyrighted content. It has nothing to do with the downloader needing any rights.
Receiving copyrighted content without authorization is not infringement. Distributing copyrighted content is what's illegal. In the case of MediaSentry downloading from her, she is still committing copyright infringement by distributing to them. However, the question I would have is whether there is really any actual damage in such a case.
The jury basically awarded the RIAA 1.9M as damages for her distributing content to agents of the RIAA. Something about that just seems wrong.
Given how this can logically lead only to the egregious overvaluing of the RIAA's product on their part, we can add "immensely inflated sense of self-worth" to their crimes.
So, if the distribution of 24 songs is worth 1.92 million, how many songs do the RIAA companies hold the copyright for and has the IRS looked at their tax returns? You'd think their revenue would be higher than the GNP of the planet. I assume they're paying their taxes on all of that income?
Since the RIAA was able to show that there was distribution (the jurors bought it), they can seek statutory damages.
I certainly didn't buy it. I'm not aware of any evidence that even suggested there was any distribution other than to agents of the RIAA.
In copyright law, plaintiffs can seek statutory damages when actual damages cannot be determined.
The problem I have with it is that for all we know based on their evidence, the actual damages could have been zero. I understand that actual damages can be difficult (if not impossible) to fully determine, but you'd think that in order to award statutory damages (especially excessively high ones) that there would need to be some evidence to show that there were ANY actual damages.
There was no evidence of any distribution. American law does not permit supporting a judgment or verdict on mere speculation.
Makes you wonder how she was even found "guilty" (civil trial, I know), let alone any discussion about what damages should be awarded. I would assume that in order to be found "guilty" of breaking the law the plaintiff would first have to show that the act even occurred. I guess not.
The closest they came was the distribution to MediaSentry, but do those constitute any actual damages?
I think part of the problem is that the "actual damages" are an imaginary number.
The only instances of "real" actual damages they can prove are what Media Sentry downloaded from her, but are there really actual damages when it's an agent of the copyright holder downloading the file? Are they saying that Media Sentry would have bought those songs if Jammie hadn't distributed them illegally? The only other damages they can show are based on "making available", not actual distribution. I think that's where the "imaginary" part comes from.
The RIAA's disinformation campaign to blur the meaning of copyright seems to have gotten to the point that 12 random people on a jury are basing their understanding of what constitutes a copyright infringement more based upon the RIAA FUD than any actual laws.
Technically, I believe he allowed a new trial because of a mistake in the jury instructions from the first trial that said "making available" was enough to count as copyright infringement. He also commented that the judgment was too high in his opinion, but that's not why he allowed a new trial.
This time around, she was again found guilty of copyright infringement on nothing more than "making available" (I'm still surprised the defense lawyer never brought this up), and the judgment was over 8 times higher.
I guess it just goes to show that a jury trial is never predictable.
I would assume "Eighth Amendment to the Constitution" trumps "Copyright statutory damages". But then again, what do I know, I assumed it would never get to this point in the first place since the RIAA never had evidence that ANY actual damages occurred.
But this is all speculation because there's no evidence I've seen that says songs X, y and Z were downloaded n,p and q times each.
For all we know, n, p and q are all 0. As far as I saw, there was no evidence that actual copyright infringement ever occurred. She was basically found liable, again, for "making available". Even though that's why the first trial was thrown out.
I'm not so sure about that. I think DRM has been implemented 100% correctly. The problem is, the answer to "what is DRM supposed to do" is not the answer that consumers think it is.
DRM is a lousy mechanism for preventing "piracy", but it's very effect at eliminating fair use and the right of first sale. I don't believe that's an accident or a "poor implementation" on the part of the publishers. Inhibiting your rights is intentional on their part.
was it ever proven that her computer had ever uploaded said songs to someone?
Nope. That's what baffles me about this. The jury found that she committed copyright infringement, but there was absolutely no evidence presented by the RIAA that showed she ever uploaded to anyone except MediaSentry. It makes no sense.
The RIAA proved that she did lots of things which are completely legal, but had no proof that she actually broke copyright law (other than with their own agents).
So they can only prove that there was a single count of copyright infringement back to agents of the copyright holder, the actual damages for which are $0.
My understanding is that there is no evidence that she uploaded the files in question to anyone (except possibly to MediaSentry, who was authorized to get them by the copyright owners).
Actually, it doesn't matter if MediaSentry is authorized to receive the content, she was still not authorized to distribute it (the distribution is what's illegal). So, at most, the RIAA can show that she is guilty of exactly one count of copyright infringement. However, she could also argue that the actual damages from that single infringement are zero since the RIAA was downloading their own content, and thus there was no value or effect on the market.
This part is probably a stretch, but the next potential step from there is that the idea of value and effect on the market is one of the tests for fair use (I'm not saying they could succeed in arguing "fair use" for that count of infringement, but it's worth thinking about). She could say that yes, she did violate copyright with the unauthorized distribution back to agents of the copyright holder, but since it was "fair use" it was non-infringing.
The problem is they do not have to download from her, it is enough to make available.
That is false. The courts have already said that "making available" is NOT enough to qualify for copyright infringement. That's exactly why the first trial was thrown out. I assume that this time around the RIAA has to prove actual distribution.
How can they prosecute uploading to others without actual proof that she uploaded an entire song?
Good question. Hopefully her lawyer will ask that.
Wouldn't the person downloading has to initiate the connection
Doesn't matter who initiates the connection. Copyright law is about distributing material, not receiving it. It doesn't matter if the person receiving a copy asked for it or not. The person who is giving out the material without permission is the one who is infringing on the copyright owners exclusive distribution right.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they don't authorize a download with regards to copyright, that's the point. They authorize the distributor. Copyright law has to do with authorized distribution of content, it has nothing to do with receiving/downloading it. Whether Microsoft is giving it away for free or licensing/selling it has nothing to do with copyright. Microsoft can give out the content however they want because they are an authorized distributor. The rights of the downloader have nothing to do with copyright law.
Note to self... use the "preview" button.
all linux distro's are copyrighted, no? Your right to copy much of that stuff is dictated by a free license.
To be specific, you can download and use linux without agreeing to the "free license". The GPL only comes into play if you want to modify or distribute it.
Copyright law talks about unauthorized distribution of content, it says nothing about receiving it.
Although, your email example is flawed. When you "arrange to have someone else email it", you are authorizing them to be a distributor. So whether copyright law is in regards to downloading or uploading in that example is irrelevant. It's not infringement because the copyright holder (you) authorized the distribution.
When you go to microsoft.com or any other website, its assumed you have the right to download them.
No, the reason you can download MS software from microsoft.com is because MS is authorized to distribute their own copyrighted content. It has nothing to do with the downloader needing any rights.
You're describing punitive damages.
Receiving copyrighted content without authorization is not infringement. Distributing copyrighted content is what's illegal. In the case of MediaSentry downloading from her, she is still committing copyright infringement by distributing to them. However, the question I would have is whether there is really any actual damage in such a case.
The jury basically awarded the RIAA 1.9M as damages for her distributing content to agents of the RIAA. Something about that just seems wrong.
That's not what actual damages are. It's theoretically the amount of lost sales that you caused, not the licensing costs to become a distributor.
I'm not sure why you would assume that. For all we know, N was 0.
For some reason in this case the jury decided that N should be 80K, even though it would have been mathematically impossible.
Given how this can logically lead only to the egregious overvaluing of the RIAA's product on their part, we can add "immensely inflated sense of self-worth" to their crimes.
So, if the distribution of 24 songs is worth 1.92 million, how many songs do the RIAA companies hold the copyright for and has the IRS looked at their tax returns? You'd think their revenue would be higher than the GNP of the planet. I assume they're paying their taxes on all of that income?
Just curious, but would "uploading" count as "other transfer of ownership"?
Since the RIAA was able to show that there was distribution (the jurors bought it), they can seek statutory damages.
I certainly didn't buy it. I'm not aware of any evidence that even suggested there was any distribution other than to agents of the RIAA.
In copyright law, plaintiffs can seek statutory damages when actual damages cannot be determined.
The problem I have with it is that for all we know based on their evidence, the actual damages could have been zero. I understand that actual damages can be difficult (if not impossible) to fully determine, but you'd think that in order to award statutory damages (especially excessively high ones) that there would need to be some evidence to show that there were ANY actual damages.
There was no evidence of any distribution. American law does not permit supporting a judgment or verdict on mere speculation.
Makes you wonder how she was even found "guilty" (civil trial, I know), let alone any discussion about what damages should be awarded. I would assume that in order to be found "guilty" of breaking the law the plaintiff would first have to show that the act even occurred. I guess not.
The closest they came was the distribution to MediaSentry, but do those constitute any actual damages?
I think part of the problem is that the "actual damages" are an imaginary number.
The only instances of "real" actual damages they can prove are what Media Sentry downloaded from her, but are there really actual damages when it's an agent of the copyright holder downloading the file? Are they saying that Media Sentry would have bought those songs if Jammie hadn't distributed them illegally? The only other damages they can show are based on "making available", not actual distribution. I think that's where the "imaginary" part comes from.
The RIAA's disinformation campaign to blur the meaning of copyright seems to have gotten to the point that 12 random people on a jury are basing their understanding of what constitutes a copyright infringement more based upon the RIAA FUD than any actual laws.
Technically, I believe he allowed a new trial because of a mistake in the jury instructions from the first trial that said "making available" was enough to count as copyright infringement. He also commented that the judgment was too high in his opinion, but that's not why he allowed a new trial.
This time around, she was again found guilty of copyright infringement on nothing more than "making available" (I'm still surprised the defense lawyer never brought this up), and the judgment was over 8 times higher.
I guess it just goes to show that a jury trial is never predictable.
I would assume "Eighth Amendment to the Constitution" trumps "Copyright statutory damages". But then again, what do I know, I assumed it would never get to this point in the first place since the RIAA never had evidence that ANY actual damages occurred.
Why are a few bits and bytes in digital format more valuable than a candy bar?
Because the RIAA gives a lot more campaign contributions than Hershey does.
But this is all speculation because there's no evidence I've seen that says songs X, y and Z were downloaded n,p and q times each.
For all we know, n, p and q are all 0. As far as I saw, there was no evidence that actual copyright infringement ever occurred. She was basically found liable, again, for "making available". Even though that's why the first trial was thrown out.
DRM has not been implemented correctly to date.
I'm not so sure about that. I think DRM has been implemented 100% correctly. The problem is, the answer to "what is DRM supposed to do" is not the answer that consumers think it is.
DRM is a lousy mechanism for preventing "piracy", but it's very effect at eliminating fair use and the right of first sale. I don't believe that's an accident or a "poor implementation" on the part of the publishers. Inhibiting your rights is intentional on their part.
was it ever proven that her computer had ever uploaded said songs to someone?
Nope. That's what baffles me about this. The jury found that she committed copyright infringement, but there was absolutely no evidence presented by the RIAA that showed she ever uploaded to anyone except MediaSentry. It makes no sense.
The RIAA proved that she did lots of things which are completely legal, but had no proof that she actually broke copyright law (other than with their own agents).
So they can only prove that there was a single count of copyright infringement back to agents of the copyright holder, the actual damages for which are $0.
My understanding is that there is no evidence that she uploaded the files in question to anyone (except possibly to MediaSentry, who was authorized to get them by the copyright owners).
Actually, it doesn't matter if MediaSentry is authorized to receive the content, she was still not authorized to distribute it (the distribution is what's illegal). So, at most, the RIAA can show that she is guilty of exactly one count of copyright infringement. However, she could also argue that the actual damages from that single infringement are zero since the RIAA was downloading their own content, and thus there was no value or effect on the market.
This part is probably a stretch, but the next potential step from there is that the idea of value and effect on the market is one of the tests for fair use (I'm not saying they could succeed in arguing "fair use" for that count of infringement, but it's worth thinking about). She could say that yes, she did violate copyright with the unauthorized distribution back to agents of the copyright holder, but since it was "fair use" it was non-infringing.
The problem is they do not have to download from her, it is enough to make available.
That is false. The courts have already said that "making available" is NOT enough to qualify for copyright infringement. That's exactly why the first trial was thrown out. I assume that this time around the RIAA has to prove actual distribution.
How can they prosecute uploading to others without actual proof that she uploaded an entire song?
Good question. Hopefully her lawyer will ask that.
Wouldn't the person downloading has to initiate the connection
Doesn't matter who initiates the connection. Copyright law is about distributing material, not receiving it. It doesn't matter if the person receiving a copy asked for it or not. The person who is giving out the material without permission is the one who is infringing on the copyright owners exclusive distribution right.
They are suing the end users who are hosting the material. The Internet companies have nothing to do with it, other than passing the traffic.