Judge Rejects RIAA 'Making Available' Theory 353
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."
Re:kinda dumb (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So uhm... why is this different? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is actually important... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:respect for law (Score:3, Informative)
There isn't an "attempted copyright infringement" law, or at least I don't believe there is. (Is there a conspiracy charge that can be used?) So it's not illegal until copying actually happens. That, however, is not what the RIAA has been arguing, to various degrees of success.
Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (Score:3, Informative)
Fair Use (Score:2, Informative)
Criticism
Comment
News Reporting
Teaching(including multiple classroom copies)
Scholarship
Research
Ref: Circular92: Copyright Law of the United States and Related laws contained in title 17 of the United States code.
Circular92 Chapter 1 Section 107 [copyright.gov]
Re:Smart Judge (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Smart Judge (Score:3, Informative)
**I did, but I'm just one in, uh, a million and change...
Re:kinda dumb (Score:3, Informative)
Check your facts. The primary differences between civil and criminal infringement in the U.S. are commercial intent and scale:
Not that I support the law -- I'm fully anti-copyright -- but your assertion was nonetheless in error.
P.S. I also found it interesting that there's also a statute of limitations on copyright infringement, three years for civil proceeding and five for criminal: Section 507 [copyright.gov].
Re:Clueless. (Score:4, Informative)
Are you kidding?
You can keep stating that all you want, but it doesn't make it any more true.
His philosophies were not heard and the only ones rejecting it were the main stream media outlets making the decision for you. The public was never given the opportunity to reject his philosophies. For that matter, the public was never given the opportunity to reject a handful of the other candidates philosophies either.
And do you really believe that the majority of voters travel to stump speeches to make up their minds about the candidate? This isn't the 1800s anymore - the vast majority form their opinion based on what they hear from TV, radio and print.
It's popular to blame the media because THEY are the entity that uses their power to shape public opinion. And they have, almost 100% of the time since day 1 of campaign coverage, excluded Ron Paul when listing/talking about the candidates. The have, since the beginning, called him and his supporters names and stated he has no chance.
Yet you think I'm unjustified in saying that these actions don't have any impact on popular opinion?
You are naive: