republican-creole
site Search:


 
   
story category
RIAA Drops Case That Hinges On 'Making Available' Issue
Is RIAA giving up on these cases or just trying to avoid precedent-setting loss?
by KathrynV Sunday 15-Jun-2008 tags: legal · Fileswapping · consumers
In the lawsuits that RIAA has filed against P2P users in the past, one of the major questions that has come up has been whether or not it’s illegal to simply make copyrighted files available for others to download. The argument of users is that there has to actually be something stolen, some proof that the file was downloaded, or there was no violation but RIAA has said that the violation takes place when the file is made available online. A New York court recently agreed with users on this issue which has caused other cases to go back to the courts for further review. Perhaps RIAA plans to stop fighting this particularly battle considering that they just voluntarily dismissed a case that had been pending for nearly a year in which the major issue was the “making available” point. It’s not clear whether RIAA walking away from the issue is a sign that they’ll stop pursuing cases that hinge on this point or if they simply thought they were going to lose and didn’t want to set precedent that could harm future cases.

view: topics flat text 
Post a:

Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

I'm lost

How does the RIAA know if the file is actually theirs unless they downloaded it and checked?

If they download it, the crime occurs (unless the RIAA can't infringe on their own work).

Someone mentioned a few months ago an example of an MP3 called something like In the air tonight. How would the RIAA know if that's the Phil Collins song or something else?

Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric

Re: I'm lost

said by Dogfather:

How does the RIAA know if the file is actually theirs unless they downloaded it and checked?

If they download it, the crime occurs (unless the RIAA can't infringe on their own work).

Someone mentioned a few months ago an example of an MP3 called something like In the air tonight. How would the RIAA know if that's the Phil Collins song or something else?
I agree. The RIAA should be working less on trying to convince the courts that just making a file available is infringement. Its a slam dunk case if they just go after the people responsible.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to do it either. Nothing is anonymous on the internet. Just connect to a torrent containing an album of music. Download the album to ensure its copyrighted material. Then just watch the peers list, record IP addresses, go after those people responsible.

That alone will keep the RIAA busy for quite some time.

Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Re: I'm lost

Did the court rule that a portion of an MP3 is infringing? Meaning, if a person is seeding only 3% of an infringing MP3, are they really distributing the song? Title 17 talks about distribution of songs, but no mention of portions of songs.

44402812
Hack The Planet
Premium
join:2006-08-28
Plattsburgh, NY
I think this whole copyright infringement is BS! Unless, they are making money of the songs or are making them aviable 24\7 who gives a s@#t. I'll admit I have used and distributed cracked software and so have many people in these forums. If I was not able to get it for free I would have just never have used it. So the BS about them losing money to me does not hold water either. Yes, I'm a pirate so kiss my white naked @ss!

cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
said by Dogfather:

If they download it, the crime occurs (unless the RIAA can't infringe on their own work).
You can't infringe on your own copyright. While the RIAA themselves may not own the copyright directly, the member company (Warner Brothers, Columbia, etc) would give the RIAA permission through membership.

FLengineer
CCNA, CEH, MCSA
Premium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Bright House

1 edit

Re: I'm lost

said by cdru See ProfileYou can't infringe on your own copyright. While the RIAA themselves may not own the copyright directly, the member company (Warner Brothers, Columbia, etc) would give the RIAA permission through membership.
Then the point of "unathorized file transfer" comes into question. If the RIAA is "Authorized" to download the file then the file transfer was authorized.

cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS

Re: I'm lost

Incorrect. The RIAA is authorized to posess the file, so they couldn't be charged with copyright infringement. However the source that they downloaded it from, presuming some type of illegal P2P transfer, was not authorized to distribute it.

This is why that the majority if not all of the RIAA and MPAA lawsuits against P2P users have been against people who were distributing the files. People who downloaded, but not uploaded (e.g. from Usenet, ftp, etc) haven't been gone after because the penalties for distributing is far more then just possession of infringing works.

kadar
Premium,ExMod 2001-02
join:0000-00-00

Curious

I'm curious whether the “making available” point was dropped due to the Judge Kozinski mess.

For those that don't know. Judge Kozinski is a 9th circuit Federal Judge that was presiding over a pornography case. It was found that he himself had a "private" collection of porn available at his website. He also had mp3's available that were linked from some mp3 search sites.
(Google: Kozinski mp3)

So, is the RIAA dropping this line of prosecution because they do not wish to prosecute a Federal Judge?
--
The Revolutionary War was fought over a 14% tax, what % are you paying now?

Romney2012
Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe in
Premium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4

Re: Curious

said by kadar:

I'm curious whether the “making available” point was dropped due to the Judge Kozinski mess.

For those that don't know. Judge Kozinski is a 9th circuit Federal Judge that was presiding over a pornography case. It was found that he himself had a "private" collection of porn available at his website. He also had mp3's available that were linked from some mp3 search sites.
(Google: Kozinski mp3)

So, is the RIAA dropping this line of prosecution because they do not wish to prosecute a Federal Judge?
I really doubt that is what is happening. There was a recent court decision calling in to question the "making available" argument. It was also posited by the judge that the RIAA downloading the file themselves MAY not constitute a violation because they weren't an "unauthorized" downloader. I think they are just looking for a better case to pursue and dropped the ones that call in to question their legal strategy.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA

Re: Curious

Actually, it looks like they're just shopping around for a better judge to present the case before since they just refiled the same case against the same person in a different court ( »news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid···/1156218 ).

Even for the RIAA, this is low. They saw that the case wasn't going their way so they dropped it and tried to start all over again without telling the new judge about the previous case. Either the RIAA's lawyers are: A) incompetent enough to forget to notify a judge about a prior (and still ongoing) case against the same person with the same charges or B) malicious enough to try to get a "do over" when a case doesn't go their way. In either case, some censure or disbarment charges should be in order as this is a serious abuse of the court system.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
but i wonder what makes the RIAA an Authorized downloader then. because the artist and/or their label would have to give permission, otherwise the RIAA is no different then someone else downloading.

course im sure the contracts for RIAA membership probally cover this with legalese bullshit. "the RIAA shall have full and unlimited access to media from its member corporations" or something.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

elios

join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO

Re: Curious

said by Kearnstd:

but i wonder what makes the RIAA an Authorized downloader then. because the artist and/or their label would have to give permission, otherwise the RIAA is no different then someone else downloading.

course im sure the contracts for RIAA membership probally cover this with legalese bullshit. "the RIAA shall have full and unlimited access to media from its member corporations" or something.
well it goes like this
if the RIAA is authorized to sue and collect winnings of suits and settlements then they own the rights in to the music in some way
if didnt have the rights
then they wouldnt be legally able to file suit or collect settlements

Steve
I know your IP address
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5
said by Kearnstd:

but i wonder what makes the RIAA an Authorized downloader then.
The RIAA are acting as agents for the copyright holders, and they have been giving explicit permission by those holders (the record labels, probably) to undertake these activities.

HappyBunny
Hi. Cram It.
Premium
join:2001-06-23
Long Beach, CA
kudos:1

Their reasoning is full of it

Because I leave my car unlocked, have I committed a crime? Have I "made it available" for someone else to steal? What about my house? Is it the thief who is responsible for taking stuff, or my fault he was able to steal, because I didn't have an alarm? And because I walk down a street at night, do I make myself available for a rapist? Using the RIAA's reasoning, I do. It's not the rapists fault, I just put myself out there for him. How do you hold someone responsible for others' bad behavior?

Talk about blaming the victim.

NOCMan
MacChatter
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Their reasoning is full of it

Bad example. In Dallas I know if you leave your keys in the car and it running to warm it up in the winter etc you can now get a ticket.

Course the RIAA lawyers are stupid. Did they ever look at Kazaa when it asked to scan your computer.

"Do you wish to scan your computer for files to share"

I remember it said that.

AnonProxy
Premium
join:2001-05-12

Re: Their reasoning is full of it

said by NOCMan:

Bad example. In Dallas I know if you leave your keys in the car and it running to warm it up in the winter etc you can now get a ticket.
That situation is TOTALLY different. In Dallas it is illegal to idle your car, it is a civil infraction due to the PC concept of less greenhouse gasses. It is not to deter a "make available situation" for vehicle theft.

At least try and cite something that actually pertains to the case if you are going to post.

www.dallascityhall.com/committee_briefings/briefings0108/TEC_012808_IdlingPolicy.pdf

Luker3

join:2004-10-09
Blacksburg, VA
Well, really they would like to say it is both your faults.

jbob
Reach Out and Touch Someone
Premium
join:2004-04-26
Little Rock, AR

Covering up a sucker punch

»news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid···/1156218

quote:
"The RIAA threw in the towel, all right, but was only doing it in preparation for throwing a sucker punch. After dropping its 'making available' case, Warner v. Cassin, before Judge Robinson could decide whether to dismiss or not, it was only trying to do an 'end run' (if I may mix my sports metaphors) around the judge's deciding the motion and freezing discovery. The RIAA immediately, and secretly, filed a new case against the family, calling this one 'Warner v. Does 1-4.' In their papers the lawyers 'forgot' to mention that the new case was related. As a result, Does 1-4 was assigned to another judge, who knew nothing about the old case. The RIAA lawyers also may have forgotten that they couldn't bring any more cases over this same claim, since they'd already dismissed it twice before. Not to worry, NYCL wrote letters to both judges, reminding them of what the RIAA lawyers had forgotten."


Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX

1 edit

Re: Covering up a sucker punch

When it comes to abusing the legal system to gain an unfair
advantage for their clients, the RIAA's lawyers are about as
dirty as they come. As NYCL (aka Ray Beckerman, the NYC lawyer
helping people fight the Recording Industry's Sue 'em All
Campaign) once put it, "they either lack 1) integrity, 2) brain
cells, or 3) both".

The RIAA's lawyers play dirty pool so much that it makes those
of Big Tobacco or Scientology look good by comparison.

In this case, IMO, they ought to be disbarred, or at least
severely sanctioned.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)

jbob
Reach Out and Touch Someone
Premium
join:2004-04-26
Little Rock, AR

Re: Covering up a sucker punch

I'll take a step further. What I and many others do is if a record label is with RIAA we will NEVER buy a music CD from them. PERIOD! I'm doing my part...hitting them in the wallet. That's the only thing they understand.

elios

join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO

Re: Covering up a sucker punch

said by jbob:

I'll take a step further. What I and many others do is if a record label is with RIAA we will NEVER buy a music CD from them. PERIOD! I'm doing my part...hitting them in the wallet. That's the only thing they understand.
Thats the thing so are other people but instead of doing what any other business would do and change
there just blaming it on piracy and suing every one to make money

jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
Reviews:
·voip.ms
said by Doctor Four:

When it comes to abusing the legal system to gain an unfair advantage for their clients, the RIAA's lawyers are about as
dirty as they come.
Fixed.
lvlorpheus

join:2008-02-17
Springdale, AR
The RIAA should have to pay for every New York Tax dollar that has been waisted by their trying to game the legal system. New Yorkers work hard and should have that waisted Tax money back to put into schools or roads. Something other than paying a judge and police, and the people that maintain the build for how ever long, and then go well its just the Tax Payers money lets start over and charge them again.

AnonProxy
Premium
join:2001-05-12

Libraries are screwed!

There's books and copiers, there are CD's to borrow, they make available all kinds of things that people can pirate!
Dan8888

join:2007-08-21
Wilmington, DE

This is missing the more important second part of the story

»recordingindustryvspeople.blogsp···sin.html

Article speaks for itself, the case Warner v. Cassin mentioned in this linked article is the same case this broadband reports article mentions and is linked with the hotlinked by "voluntarily dismissed."

STrRedWolf

join:2006-06-18
Severn, MD

They're not walking away, they're court shopping...

RIAA filed a "Warner v. Does 1-4" in the same court, got a different judge, and wants discovery w/o notification again. The defendant's lawyer in this case noticed it, and fired off letters to both judges saying the cases are too similar, so please send this one back over to the judge holding "Warner v. Cassin" so he can retract the "dismissed" into "dismissed w/prejudice" and let Cassin claim money.
NoOneButMe

join:2001-08-24
TX

There Waiting for the new DMCA Law to pass

there pulling the case's because theres a law in the house there trying to pass lobby... plain and simple thay are goin to go after them when the law is passed simple as that
Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Millenicom

Making available clause written by lawyers for lawyers.

The making available clause was written to enable the copyright holders to shake down the computer illiterate. You know those people that do not know how to disable file sharing in the software installed on their computer. The D.M.C.A. was written by lawyers for lawyers financial benefit. It does not give the accused an opportunity to remedy the situation before the accuser makes monitory claims against the accused. The copyright organizations have always been given the right to shake down anyone who violates the copyright law whether intentionally or accidentally. Of the many abuses I see I will describe the following two abuses for example. They are the Music on Hold and the Happy Birthday To You, Police. If a business is found to be playing copyrighted music on their music on hold system, without a license, the copyright holders will send the business a demand letter for thousands of dollars in compensation. The same holds true for a restaurant where employees sing Happy Birthday To You to their guests. For their efforts they may receive a demand letter from the Happy Birthday To You copyright control organization. The obvious solution is to give any person found to be violating the copyright of a composer or performer at least one notice to cease and desist before being allowed to make monitory claims against the accused.

Sunday, 03-Jun 20:49:21 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.