Making Files Available Breaking the Law? 538
lordhathor2001 writes "The RIAA has argued in one of their cases that simply "making files available for distribution" violates copyright laws. This means that regardless of the legality of a file somebody has on their computer, just putting it in a shared files folder that can be accessed by other people is illegal. Although it's asinine, it really shouldn't come as any surprise given the RIAA's legal campaign that's more about what it believes than what the law actually says."
Info (Score:5, Informative)
Complaint [digitalmusicnews.com]
Exhibit A [digitalmusicnews.com]
Exhibit B, Part 1 [digitalmusicnews.com]
Exhibit B, Part 2 [digitalmusicnews.com]
Poster didn't RTFA at all... (Score:5, Informative)
Putting _copyrighted_ files (for which you don't have a license to distribute) on the web or in a shared folder is under attack. The only "news" here is that they're arguing that you may have committed a crime before the first download of your pirated mp3 occurred.
You may all hate the RIAA, but you have to admit that putting Kelly Clarkson's new single in your shared folder is different than putting your own jpg's on the web.
OMG Teh Google is GOD (Score:5, Informative)
Teh Google CacheL http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:www.lifeofal
They've said this type of thing before, in public and obviously have said it in court filings.
In Public: They aren't trying to make a nuanced argument. They just want to get the point across that sharing files = teh badness
In Court: Fucking n00bs. That's what they get for not trying to get across a nuanced idea to the public. The lawyers end up making the same argument they see over and over in the press releases.
I skimmed that affidavit and I wonder how that trial came out. It seems like the plaintiff (an RIAA company) filed a seriously defective lawsuit.
This article is hysteria (Score:5, Informative)
Below is some material quoted from it, by one of the attorneys for Ms. Barker.
Opposition Papers in Elektra v. Barker in Manhattan Argue for Expansion of Law
[Legal]
In opposition papers served yesterday in Elektra v. Barker in Manhattan federal court, the RIAA has argued that merely making files "available for distribution" is in and of itself a copyright violation.
Were the courts to accept this misguided view of copyright law, it could mean that anyone who has had a shared files folder, even for a moment, that contained copyrighted files in it, would be guilty of copyright infringement, even though the copies in the folder were legally obtained, and even though no illegal copies had ever been made of them.
Re:Great sources, guys. (Score:2, Informative)
RIAA v. Gonzalez and RIAA v. Grokster (Score:2, Informative)
I do think we need legislative relief for the tens of thousands of little guys victimized by the double-A's.
Calm down, you schmucks. (Score:5, Informative)
One of the links in the story post tells us [digitalmusicnews.com] that the cases is Elektra v. Barker. While we don't yet seem to have the argument referenced there in front of us, we do have the original complaint from about mid-2005, here [digitalmusicnews.com], thanks to one of the few people that's posted here whilst keeping there wits about them.
Basically RIAA is merely saying that Barker ran Kazaa, and was sharing some music with it. They're suing her for having done so.
Copyright does include an exclusive right of distribution (17 USC 106(3)) which has frequently been held to cover serving files. And just to preempt some people who will surely latch on to that, note that there are many different rights within copyright, and this is but one of them. Making copies of files, which necessarily happens when you download, is also covered under copyright, and can be infringing as well.
Obviously the RIAA is not saying -- as many people here assume -- that putting any file on a server is illegal. That's beyond even them. What they are saying is that where the files are copyrighted, and the copyright holder hasn't authorized it, and there's no applicable exception in copyright that would permit it, then it's illegal. Certainly as a civil offense, and possibly also as a criminal offense. (Compare 17 USC 501 with 506 and 18 USC 2319)
So if Alice writes a book and puts it on the Internet for anyone to download, that's fine. If she puts a public domain book on the Internet for people to download, that's fine too. But when she puts up Bob's book, without permission, she's got some trouble.
So far this seems to be an amazingly boring case. And, if the facts are as RIAA says, it's probably open-and-shut in their favor. Like it or lump it, copyright suits are generally pretty simple.
So what could be interesting about this? Well, and I'm just guessing here, since I have not seen anything recent about this from the plaintiff, I suspect that the plaintiff said that making the files available to be shared via Kazaa was unlawful distribution, even if no one ever downloaded the files.
This runs contrary to another case, where the court held that an offer to distribute (which is what placing a file in a share is) is not actual distribution, and that only the latter is unlawful. So RIAA or another plaintiff has to catch a defendant actually serving the file to someone. I would not expect that it matters who it is served to. If the copyright holder were to download it themselves, in order to gather evidence, that would probably suffice. (And before someone claims entrapment, let me remind you that that only applies where one is coerced into doing something that one would not have otherwise done. If you were going to share the file with anyone who requested to download it, then the fact that you did so with the wrong person is bad luck for you, but won't get you off the hook)
If the plaintiff never d/l'ed the file, then this also raises the question of whether the files were actually copies of the music in question, or if they were just labeled that way. Given that the plaintiff appears to have the file listings in hand, they'll probably win this. In a civil suit, which this is, the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. It is not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard reserved for criminal suits. In this case, reasonable doubts as to the facts will not save the defendant; instead whatever is felt to be most likely, even if only by a hair's breadth, is considered the truth. In my experience, when someone (other than RIAA et al) puts up a file claiming to be an mp3 of a song, it usually is.
All told, it seems like a humdrum case that is not worth getting worked up about (unless you think P2P of this sort should be legal, in which case lots of cases are worth getting worked up about). There
Absolutely Not Illegal in Canada (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ownership (Score:2, Informative)
What you didn't get correct is that the song is from "Wish You Were Here", not "Dark Side of the Moon"
Re:Is Slashdot turning into Digg? (Score:3, Informative)
DUH.
You can quibble about the definition of shared/published/accessable, but the issue at hand is obviously PUBLISHING things you don't have a right to distribute.
If a file sits on a server, is its shared availability in some quantum uncertainty state until somebody downloads it? How ridiculous.
If copyright is a civil matter, why is the FBI and Interpol sprayed all over on piracy warnings? Does the FBI help out with civil matters often?
Re:Oh bloody hell (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.baen.com/library/defaultTitles.htm [baen.com]
deceptive editing or wilful misreading? (Score:1, Informative)
"legality" of your copy refers to whether you paid for your copy. Paying for your copy does not give you the copyright. RIAA is NOT claiming that you can't share stuff you wrote yourself. The argument is merely about the RIAA's burden of proof - whether, assuming the file is under RIAA member copyright, they have to show evidence of actual downloads, or whether downloads can be presumed from the fact of "mere publication".
If you share files (regardless of whether you paid for your copy) in which somebody else holds the copyright, then (certainly if somebody downloads it) you've committed "contributory" copyright infringement. (The "direct" infringement was done by the person who downloaded from you, but you can be held liable if you (loosely speaking) had the intention of allowing a copyright infringement. (A very recent Supreme Court case - Grokster - asked whether you could be liable for merely making a tool that you could expect would be widely used for copyright infringement. The answer, in brief, was yes. Actually publishing files you control in your own shared directory is a much clearer case.)
The only question is whether RIAA has to show that some copying actually occurred. It's not a huge stretch to suggest that if somebody is doing everything they need to do to publish copyrighted stuff to the world, the copyright holder shouldn't have to bear the burden to name someone who actually read it. It's an interesting legal argument though - for example, how would you calculate statutory damages? My guess, without having reviewed the statute or case law lately, is that Congress intended that plaintiffs DO have to find some case of actual copying.
Re:Poster didn't RTFA at all... (Score:4, Informative)
Assuming this is true, I don't think that intent is enough for a judgement. In a criminal case, intent to steal, intent to murder, intent to deal drugs, etc... are all crimes in and of themselves, and have penalties associated with them. I don't think that intent in this case is on the books as being against the law in any way, it's just the act itself.
Of course, I could have a misunderstanding of what is required for "intent" to be illegal, but it's just an idea. Feel free to poke holes in this argument, people.
Re:This article is hysteria (Score:3, Informative)
But if I make photocopies myself using the library's copy machine so that I can finish a paper I'm writing, then this is called fair use.