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)'"
Makes sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lacking weight (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm confused... (Score:3, Insightful)
Could it be! An intelligent Judge! (Score:4, Insightful)
Tiny steps. Maybe next year we can get a judge who recognizes that the RIAA "settlements" are pure extortion and the entire calculation for how much financial damage was caused by sharing a file is pure bollocks. Eventually one who realizes that an IP address!=identity and they shouldn't be allowed to just ask ISPs for IP address and get any kind of information at all. And that it shouldn't be a crime to punch the RIAA layers and moguls in the face... one can dream.
Intent to share ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Could it be! An intelligent Judge! (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I'd hope that most judges would expect a certain amount of proof before awarding a multi billion dollar judgement against an individual. When you're asking for the life ruining damages the RIAA are demanding, a judge isn't going to rush the case so he can get away and play a few rounds of golf.
Shared Folders do not equal P2P (Score:3, Insightful)
Oohhhhkay then (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Seriously , do you really think that 95% of the readers are going to know off the top of their heads what 17 USC 106(3) is? I like playing armchair laywer, so I bothered to find out, but that headline made my eyes bleed. I suspect I would have started channeling Lewis Black if I hadn't posted this.
why it's important (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who said the case law has to make sense? (Score:2, Insightful)
Case two: I lend you my car (license you some music). You park it legally in front of a bank and go inside to speak to a teller. Those naughty bank robbers opt to use my car as the getaway vehicle. You leave the bank and the car is gone. Did you participate in the crime? I can sue you for actual damages because I can't get to work now. I can also sue the robbers for the same thing.
Re:Intent to share ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, there are different kinds of crime. If you plan to steal my wallet, and a police officer knows about it, he can wait until you take my wallet and arrest you afterwards. If you plan to kill me, and a police officer knows about it, he cannot wait until you kill me; he has to stop you before you do it or even try to do it. Therefore there is a good reason to make it a crime to plan or attempt to kill someone; there is much less reason to make it a crime planning to steal my wallet.
Also: Not knowing that sharing copyrighted files is a a copyright infringement is not an excuse.
Not knowing that files you shared were copyrighted is some amount of excuse (if I give you some music, claiming that it is in the public domain, you share it, and it turns out that I lied to you, that is an excuse for you).
Not knowing that you are sharing files _is_ an excuse (unless you should have known).
Re:Makes sense... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they don't all include monetary exchange. I can transfer ownership of an item to another without money ever being involved, and it could be argued that this is exactly what is being done by file sharing. When I allow you to download a file from my computer, I am in effect transfering ownership of the data in that file to you. Something to think about.
-Peter
Re:Makes sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, that's a weak argument. When one person is distributing thousands of well known songs and hundreds of high dollar movies, you can be fairly confident that the distribution is illegal.
That said, I think it's a weak case to go after downloaders instead of distributors. The only way to have evidence that they're downloading something (prior to searching their computer) is if they're downloading it from you, and if you actually own the copyright to that item, I'm not sure you can distribute it illegally.
Re:In it for the money (Score:4, Insightful)
The RIAA's goal in these suits is to stop copyright infringement by making an example out of people. A couple of million dollar judgements isn't likely to be more effective than dozens of multi-thousand dollar settlements, and it's going to cost a hell of a lot more.
Furthermore, there's always the chance that they'd lose. A loss would be devestating, because they would start seeing more and more people fighting the allegations, which they don't want.
Re:Makes sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oohhhhkay then (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyways, downloading is basically impossible to get sued over. If you're downloading off some random guy on the Internet, how's the **AA going to know, and if you're downloading off one of their bot machines it was completely legal because they own the copyright and put it up for free download. (as an aside, I came to this conclusion once before when they were polluting KaZaA and the like with damaged files and I decided to download 5-6 damaged versions and put them together in to one good version. It only worked with certain songs and was more work than it's worth, but technically it would have been legal.)
Sharing is the only way you'll face legal trouble now and in the foreseeable future.
Re:Link whoring (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, it's a huge surprise that a site that posts user submitted stories ends up with submissions from people excited about a product. What an evil horror. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! We wouldn't want to read about products that cost money!! That'd be like advertising!!!
So... um.. anyway, why'd you bring that up in this particular story?