Judge Rejects RIAA 'Making Available' Theory

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A federal judge in Connecticut has rejected the RIAA's 'making available' theory, which is the basis of all of the RIAA's peer to peer file sharing cases. In Atlantic v. Brennan, in a 9-page opinion [PDF], Judge Janet Bond Arterton held that the RIAA needs to prove 'actual distribution of copies', and cannot rely — as it was permitted to do in Capitol v. Thomas — upon the mere fact that there are song files on the defendant's computer and that they were 'available'. This is the same issue that has been the subject of extensive briefing in two contested cases in New York, Elektra v. Barker and Warner v. Cassin. Judge Arterton also held that the defendant had other possible defenses, such as the unconstitutionality of the RIAA's damages theory and possible copyright misuse flowing from the record companies' anticompetitive behavior."

ouch...

[rsmoody]

Was that the sky falling that hit me on the head or just a smart-stick!

Re:ouch...

[Stanistani]

I'm gonna shut the window so those flying pigs won't get inside and interfere with me knitting a muffler for the devil.

Re:Smart Judge

[jtroutman]

I would say, "How much more mainstream do you want than Slashdot?" After all, we are legion, we bring down servers across the internet merely by visiting them en masse. But then I look at Ron Paul's primary results and slink back to my basement.

Re:This is actually important...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

It's worth noting that unlike the typical NewYorkCountryLawyer story gloating about how the RIAA lost some motion on some case somewhere, this is a potentially major development.

Thanks.

What the hell is with judges this year?!?

[Wandering Wombat]

Who the hell gave them the power to just wantonly dispense fair and balanced justice like this? Judges have always been empowered to make huge decisions, but this new behavior is becoming quite alarming. Common sense has been creeping into recent rulings with alarming frequency, and many decisions seem to be based on information, not cash-backed opinions.

I hope this behavior doesn't continue... the entire American way of life is at stake!

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now?

[psychicninja]

I'm taking a poll. What do you think the RIAA will do now with this case?

(a) Walk away.
(b) Bury the judge in paper with a 'reconsideration' motion.
(c) Ask Mr. Brennan to "settle".
(d) Send in CowboyNeal

Fixed that for ya.

Re:This is actually important...

[wilder_card]

Yeah, would you quit covering stuff YOU think is important? Check with Otter before you put something up on your own website, will you?

Re:This is actually important...

[fahrbot-bot]

It's worth noting that unlike the typical NewYorkCountryLawyer story gloating about how the RIAA lost some motion on some case somewhere, this is a potentially major development.

Thanks.

Don't fret Ray. Otter will probably need some legal help sooner-or-later. Then you can reply, "Otter who?"

Re:This is actually important...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Yeah, would you quit covering stuff YOU think is important? Check with Otter before you put something up on your own website, will you?

Okay.

Re:ouch...

[rabiddeity]

Ah, I just thought of something to make your comment even better! Next time, try "I'm going to _secure my windows_ so those flying pigs..." Same meaning, slightly rearranged, infinitely more Slashdot appeal! </snark>

the making available thing is like blaming...

[BlueshiftVFX]

The making available argument is like blaming shop keepers for having goods available in their stores that could be readily stolen. It's not the theifs fault, look the store just had them sitting there!

Re:Non-mutuial Collateral Estoppel

[Just Some Guy]

Three little words: Non-mutuial Collateral Estoppel.

Your big words must be a bitch.

Re:This is actually important...

[Khaed]

Is it just me, or did anyone else laugh that two one-word posts got moderated up pretty high back to back like that?

Seriously though, thanks for what you do.