Judge Rules Shared Files Folder Not Enough 156
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In UMG v. Lindor, Judge David G. Trager rejected Ms. Lindor's objection to a Magistrate's Report, in which Ms. Lindor complained that the Report could be read to imply that 'the mere presence of a shared files folder on an individual's computer would ... satisfy the requirements of 17 USC 106(3)', saying that the Report of Magistrate Robert M. Levy could not be so read, since '[t]he report and recommendation does not comment on whether or not the mere presence of a shared files folder satisfies 17 USC 106(3). Instead, it makes clear that plaintiffs will have the burden of proving actual sharing. [Report and Recommendation, at 5] ('At trial, plaintiffs will have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant did indeed infringe plaintiff's copyrights by convincing the fact-finder, based on the evidence plaintiffs have gathered, that defendant actually shared sound files belonging to plaintiffs.') (emphasis added)'"
Re:Makes sense... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:2, Informative)
I'm confused as to why the editors gave absolutely no background summary concerning whatever this case is.
Why should it make sense when, in reality, it's a continuation of a separate, as it were, 'conversation'?
Re:Intent to share ? (Score:3, Informative)
This seems a bit mixed up. First, having a shared folder does _not_ mean "intent to share". Even if it means "intent to share", it doesn't mean that any sharing and any copyright violation happened. If I offer everyone on Slashdot to copy my complete music collection, and nobody takes up the offer, then no copyright violation has happened. On the other hand, many on Slashdot have in the past argued that having an unprotected open wireless connection shows "intent to share", but they are wrong, and courts have decided they are wrong.
And that seems to be exactly the point that the judge made: There was a report saying that the defendant had file sharing turned on. The defendant complained because she was afraid someone might conclude that file sharing had actually happened. The judge rejected her complaint because _nobody could legally draw that conclusion_. Exactly as you said, the plaintiffs need to show that actual copyright violation happened, or has most likely happened.
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Informative)
If you want to go back further, read the motion papers for the preclusion motion in UMG v. Lindor [riaalawsuits.us].
Re:English please??? (Score:5, Informative)
We complained that Magistrate's report implied that merely have a shared files folder on the internet would be a copyright infringement.
Judge said "no, it doesn't say that, it means that the RIAA will have to prove that defendant actually did share files".
Re:Intent to share ? (Score:2, Informative)
A similar example would be if I broke your window, regardless of intent, you could sue me for the replacement of the cost of the window if you could prove it was me. If I intended to break your window, but kept missing when throwing rocks, then you haven't suffered any harm so couldn't sue me.
Re:Could it be! An intelligent Judge! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Makes sense... (Score:2, Informative)