Law Profs File Friend-of-Court Brief Against RIAA 186
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A group of 10 copyright law professors has filed an amicus curiae ('friend of the court') brief on the side of the defendant in Capitol v. Thomas, agreeing with the judge's recent decision that the $222,000 verdict won by the RIAA appears to be tainted by a 'manifest error of law.' The clear and well-written 14-page brief (PDF) argues that the 'making available' jury instruction, which the RIAA had requested and the judge ultimately accepted, was in fact a 'manifest error of law,' making the point, among others, that an interpretation of a statute should begin with the words of the statute. My only criticism of the brief is that it overstates the authorities relied on by the RIAA, citing cases which never decided the 'making available' issue as cases which had decided it in the RIAA's favor."
As it turns out, the MPAA, close ally to the RIAA, has come forth with a more controversial view. They suggest that proof of actual distribution shouldn't be required. From their brief (PDF): "Mandating that proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against massive copyright infringement in many instances."
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Their argument is that just making a copyrighted work available on a peer-to-peer network is infringement by itself. They argue that they shouldn't have to prove actual distribution, that is, that someone downloaded it. To see what files someone has made available is simple, by the very nature of peer-to-peer networks. Proving that someone has downloaded a particular file from a particular user is much more difficult.
Re:Wow. get a load of that. proof not required (Score:3, Informative)
It is a bit of a slippery slope, sure. Some people don't actually realize they're sharing files. Some do. They're going to have to prove something at some point, whether it be "intent" or actual infringement, I would assume.
Re:Wow. get a load of that. proof not required (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Wow. get a load of that. proof not required (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps in your country, that's true. In the US, that's incorrect.
Libraries buy books no differently than anyone else, except that since they buy in quantity, they usually work with a distributor or "jobber" rather than deal with a zillion publishers individually. Otherwise, there's no real difference — they pay, they get the books, they use the books. It just so happens that "use the books" involves a moderately-constrained lending program.
It is conceivable that there's a clause in copyright law that grants libraries special rights, though I'm not aware of any such clause.
Instead, libraries tend to work on first sale doctrine, AFAIK. They bought the book, so they can lend it, use it to prop up short table legs, or whatever they feel like doing with it. So long as they don't copy the book, there is no copyright infringement.
Comparing a library to the "making available" case is a bit of a stretch, though it is worth noting that there was a similar round of sturm und drang around libraries making coin-op copiers available to patrons, on the grounds that it facilitated copyright infringement. I forget if that made it all the way to a trial verdict or if the plaintiffs just dropped the whole issue.
Re:Wow. get a load of that. proof not required (Score:5, Informative)
Some interesting reading, there. For example:
(1) the library or archives has, after a reasonable effort, determined that an unused replacement cannot be obtained at a fair price; and
(2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives in lawful possession of such copy.