Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Court rejects RIAA's 'making available' piracy argument
news.com — In Atlantic v. Howell, Judge Neil V. Wake denied the labels' motion for summary judgment in a 17-page decision (PDF), allowing the suit to proceed to trial. The argument--that merely the act of making music files available for download constituted copyright infringement--has been the basis for the Recording Industry Association of America's legal b
SirPopper- 1804 diggs
- digg it
- SirPopper, on 04/30/2008, -49/+2Please dugg it seems to be double, but ya know my friend different sources, different informations, different thoughts, different informations srcs and more or less summaries, more or less quality, let the Folks out there decide!
- upick, on 04/30/2008, -21/+1This story is sad because they owned the music and made copies and left it on their computer... that's fine but somehow it got distributed? That side of the story sounds a bit funny, either way the moral of the story is don't share copyrighted stuff on public file sharing sites like kazza, etc!
- jordanmac, on 04/30/2008, -0/+9was that the moral? or was it that you can make those files available without breaking any laws, "attempted distribution", so it doesn't matter if you share?
- Paradoxymoron, on 05/01/2008, -0/+3Was your comment supposed to be coherent?
- Jonjonr6, on 04/30/2008, -0/+18The biggest problem I see with your arguements is that people have legitimate uses for P2P software. But while installing the software, many automatically search for your files and share them for you. If you don't really understand that this is going on, you might end up getting sued without ever intentionally sharing anything.
It boils down to this, they could argue that leaving CDs in your car, and not locking your doors counts as "making available".- mithrasinvictus, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I think the point is that for there to be copyright infringement they will have to prove that the content was actually downloaded by someone who was not entitled to obtain a copy.
- Chassit, on 04/30/2008, -0/+9What the ***** are you on about?
- iamollie, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3i know he makes no ***** sense
- cheesenuggets1, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2I want to know what he's on, period. Also, I would like some.
- TrevaLVF, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1I don't want what he's having. It's nice to get a good buzz, or take an awesome trip without incoherent babble being a side-effect.
- upick, on 04/30/2008, -21/+1This story is sad because they owned the music and made copies and left it on their computer... that's fine but somehow it got distributed? That side of the story sounds a bit funny, either way the moral of the story is don't share copyrighted stuff on public file sharing sites like kazza, etc!
- smacksaw, on 04/30/2008, -11/+305I just got a raging clue.
Obligatory ***** THE RIAA:
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▐▌░░░
░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▐▌░░░
░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░████░░
░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒░░░░░░░░██░░░
░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒██▒▒▒████▒▒▒▒▒████▒▒▒██▒░░░░░░░░██░░░
░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░██░░░
░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████████░░░
░░░░░░██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░██░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░
░░██░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░
░░██░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██░░░░██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██████░░░░██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░- helliottlaw, on 04/30/2008, -2/+25You Hardy Boys and your Clues...
- Qumahlin, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1Hardly boys...
- pigfister, on 04/30/2008, -1/+29The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!
The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.- metaliq, on 04/30/2008, -1/+7So PS3 owners are supporting...
Just sayin. Do you know who you support when you purchase sushi? There's about an 80% monopoly on it. By this guy and his empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon - jacksons98, on 05/01/2008, -2/+3@metalig
Microsoft isn't innocent.
The X360 has 10x the DRM of PS3, and is lot more proprietary.
MS is also the lead in the BSA.- JMSantos, on 05/01/2008, -0/+3So... don't buy either one?
- Qumahlin, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Um...what do you speak of in regards to the 360? The game format? The XBLA DRM stuff? Also of course MS is the lead in the BSA, they are one of the worlds largest software distributors. There is a big difference between DRM on software products and DRM on music. You can't argue that no software should have any form of DRM, thats just a bad business model and is unrealistic. Some DRM is necessary
- metaliq, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2We best get out the board games then. :)
- metaliq, on 04/30/2008, -1/+7So PS3 owners are supporting...
- al11588, on 04/30/2008, -7/+3LOL
- coyote1284, on 04/30/2008, -1/+9OH *****, IT'S A BOMB!
- Derfy, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6I'm embarrassed to live as close to Boston as I do.
- getisboy, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3go sox
- Derfy, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6I'm embarrassed to live as close to Boston as I do.
- breezytrees, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4I've got such a raging clue right now
- Qumahlin, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Dugg purely for the south park reference. I loved the episode with the Hardly boys
- 1gunners4, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2"I'm doing this as hard as I can."
- helliottlaw, on 04/30/2008, -2/+25You Hardy Boys and your Clues...
- nickcozy, on 04/30/2008, -4/+16RIAA is too stubbon they won't giveup.
- Ratteler, on 04/30/2008, -1/+18Good. I wasn't planning on accepting their surrender anyway.
- jxfallout, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5...so does that mean that the RIAA supports Hillary Clinton?
- t3rmv3locity, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1No. It means that the RIAA will bribe Hillary but they will never agree on Hillary's 'repayment', so the RIAA will get *****.
/woot - rezist, on 04/30/2008, -6/+1Why would a candidate quit with an extremely close delegate count? You comment reps. all of the juvenile naive attempts at humor from Obama "fans."
- t3rmv3locity, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1No. It means that the RIAA will bribe Hillary but they will never agree on Hillary's 'repayment', so the RIAA will get *****.
- smeenz, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0Are you surprised ? They have nothing to lose and buckets of money to gain
- thinman1189, on 04/30/2008, -0/+29This is good news for the defendants and the others being victimized by the RIAA/MPAA and friends. However, I thought the exact same argument has been fine for other courts? I hope that stops with this, and that this isn't overturned later.
Good luck to the defendants, fight the good fight!- ElAssoWipo, on 04/30/2008, -1/+9You guys (U.S.) need a supreme court decision on this for it to end. In the US supreme court decisions are like the law, because no matter how many trials you do, the supreme court has ruled and it's the highest court, so appeals basically become useless.
But this judge makes a very strong case because of the reverse situation: if I leave my bike unlocked outside at night, I'm not at fault if it gets stolen. I didn't help myself, but it's not my fault if someone else lacks integrity and takes what isn't theirs.
The same way, you could be a store owner and have something that's illegal to sell but not illegal to posess and advertise it for sale. But as long as you didn't sell it, you didn't commit a crime.
Except it doesn't affect the actual taking of the files. The crime is to download, but making available for download is not a crime.- eviltandem, on 04/30/2008, -3/+12This tickled me.
You're honor, she wasn't wearing a steel, pad-locked, chastity belt. I had clear reason to believe she was "making available" her vagina. I propose one cannot perform "rape". If the girl has not taken adequate measures to protect herself than it is clearly mine to take.
I love lawyers. Logic ftl...- JMSantos, on 05/01/2008, -1/+2I find it funny that you criticize lawyers for not using logic when you abandon it yourself.
- eviltandem, on 04/30/2008, -3/+12This tickled me.
- jamonterrell, on 05/01/2008, -1/+0I was under the impression (probably misinformed, hopefully someone more informed chimes in) that "downloading" wasn't the crime either, but rather "copying." My interpretation then would be that the illegal act is being the one to send someone else the file.. only in the event that the file is actually sent, though, mind you.
- ElAssoWipo, on 04/30/2008, -1/+9You guys (U.S.) need a supreme court decision on this for it to end. In the US supreme court decisions are like the law, because no matter how many trials you do, the supreme court has ruled and it's the highest court, so appeals basically become useless.
- iidestined, on 04/30/2008, -0/+12When are they going to give up?
- pianomahnn, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4They will never voluntarily cease such litigation.
- bigbadgoat, on 04/30/2008, -0/+40I heard Rick Astley's just got hired as an RIAA consultant.
So, in that case... "never". - Ratteler, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2I'm sure when Cary Shermen's head is mounted on a pike on the White House lawn with little sign below it that says "American Traitor", they will think twice.
- ProjectGSX, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2They will give up when it ceases to be profitable. Otherwise they have no reason to give up.
- sremick, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5When they run out of money.
"When are they going to run out of money?"
When you stop buying their stuff.- Marmeladov, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3Shouldn't they be about broke by now then?
- lnxfi, on 04/30/2008, -11/+4They need to give up and start over. Go after the real abusers, not the people who are caught on a technicality.
- BoneheadFarker, on 04/30/2008, -0/+6The real abusers? You mean themselves?
- sdrawkcabton88, on 04/30/2008, -1/+61I'm gonna copy that PDF and share it with all my friends.
- Parkinsons, on 04/30/2008, -2/+5No, your computer is going to share it.
- Terasiel, on 04/30/2008, -0/+16Oh look, it seems good won over evil once again. Thank you Judge Neil, you are a hero for a day.
- ShempRider, on 04/30/2008, -1/+50"Merely making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work available to the public does not violate a copyright holder's exclusive right of distribution."
- Ganja420, on 04/30/2008, -1/+13Yarrr... ***** the scalliwags
- badassninja, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1That's +1 for "scalliwags".
- KaiSe7eN, on 04/30/2008, -3/+27What if everyone seeded and no one leeched....hmmm.....
- arjung, on 04/30/2008, -7/+1how would you get the files in the first place?
- Chassit, on 04/30/2008, -2/+5I see that you are NOT in the know...
- Rakoth, on 04/30/2008, -0/+6Take it easy, Lennon.
- bizkit00, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0and what is there was no countries?!
- mithrasinvictus, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1What if i downloaded legally because i purchased the content on another medium?
- arjung, on 04/30/2008, -7/+1how would you get the files in the first place?
- alex1015, on 04/30/2008, -0/+15A victory for sanity
- jab9990, on 04/30/2008, -0/+72The retarded adventures of the RIAA just get better and better. After unsuccessfully suing a homeless guy you'd think somebody would stop funding this stupidity.
- SpaceRibs, on 04/30/2008, -0/+7Ah, I love the smell of victory in the morning.
(not that we've won anything yet) - vx69, on 04/30/2008, -0/+18Kick back watch it crumble.
- ccheath, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1nofx - the decline
- taketheleap, on 04/30/2008, -1/+89***** the RIAA.
/not obligatory... seriously, ***** them.- Combat, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3HARD
- TrevaLVF, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2Rough! With a pole full of hooks and nails!
- badenglishihave, on 04/30/2008, -2/+9Epic fail.
- pigfister, on 04/30/2008, -2/+23Fuk the RIAA MPAA but what companies hide behind these labels? Name and shame them ppl don't say RIAA say:
The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!
The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.- valkyries, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5why cant people just say ***** and not screw up the spelling to "hide" what they are trying to say.
- renegadeafk, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Yeah no one can tell I'm saying f***
- greydonkey, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2***** em all!
..ahem.. sorry. ***** them all!
- valkyries, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5why cant people just say ***** and not screw up the spelling to "hide" what they are trying to say.
- shark72, on 04/30/2008, -15/+10"He also argued that that he was not the one sharing the files, but that it was the computer that was sharing the files."
Yeah, good luck with that one.- SeriousMite, on 04/30/2008, -2/+14Many filesharing programs will automatically share folders, and if you don't know what you're doing it can be pretty easy to end up sharing stuff you don't mean to.
- nekochan, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3just search passwords.doc or .txt in soulseek, then have a blast.
- shark72, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1That's why I wish him luck. I'm sure there are some people out there who install Kazaa without really understand how it works, but this guy would have a hard time convincing the judge that he's one of those noobs. The guy has 4,000 music tracks on his PC (which he claims he's ripped himself, but not only was Kazaa sharing the directory into which he'd ripped CDs, but there were MP3s in Kazaa's own share folder as well.) Either this means that he moved some files from his music folders to the Kazaa share directory (Kazaa won't do this on its own), or he downloaded them using Kazaa (again, Kazaa won't download files from other users without your permission). Some sort of action had to happen. The court didn't buy his story (page 14 of the PDF).
You're correct that Kazaa will automatically share your media folders if you let it. But that's not what happened here. That's why I wish him the best of luck with his assertion that his computer did all of this without his knowledge.
- YoshinoAiki, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5He should have said the software, not the computer. The computer is just following instructions, it doesn't make choices to share things or not.
- SeriousMite, on 04/30/2008, -2/+14Many filesharing programs will automatically share folders, and if you don't know what you're doing it can be pretty easy to end up sharing stuff you don't mean to.
- doyoumrjones, on 04/30/2008, -0/+9Businessmen controlling a creative industry. All of these companies will be obsolete in a few years and they know it.
- dafunkmonster, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Which is why they're trying to harvest what they can right now through litigation...
- samurailynn, on 04/30/2008, -0/+25So, would this mean that it is illegal for stores to make CD's "available" to be stolen? If the store sets it out on display without being under a lock, that is illegal. Or, even worse, when stores have those sales where they set tables up out front, that always seems like they're just asking for stuff to be stolen.
- eviltandem, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2You would make a fine lawyer with logic like that :)
It's not my clients fault he stole the merchandise your honor. The store should have had everything under lock and key. People cannot be held accountable for their actions, that just wouldn't be fair... unless of course it's the one who was stolen from. THOSE people should have known this would happen and acted more responsibly. :P- Kyan, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3You're missing the point. The person with the files on his computer is the store, not the guy stealing. The argument is that it is not the store's fault if someone steals the CD's lying out front in the mall.
- eviltandem, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1ok, I was joking, but your analogy is terrible. The computer is a store that gives away everything free because it can make infinite cost-free copies of whatever you get from it.
You cannot steal anything from this store, but the store didn't have the right to give you free copies at any rate. By your logic it should be perfectly legal for me to give away all your private information. It's not MY fault someone else took your info and used it to steal your identity. I was just making it all freely available.
- eviltandem, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1ok, I was joking, but your analogy is terrible. The computer is a store that gives away everything free because it can make infinite cost-free copies of whatever you get from it.
- Kyan, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3You're missing the point. The person with the files on his computer is the store, not the guy stealing. The argument is that it is not the store's fault if someone steals the CD's lying out front in the mall.
- eviltandem, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2You would make a fine lawyer with logic like that :)
- tlarkin, on 04/30/2008, -0/+10Know your enemy
http://consumerist.com/consumer/riaa/faces-of-the- ...- TrevaLVF, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1You can digg that Faces of the RIAA link here:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Faces_Of_The_RIAA_Contac ...
Here's an excellent visitor response in the comments section of that page:
>by Gandalf5619 at 10:12 AM on 10/10/07
>>This morning I took the liberty to call Mr. Bronfman's office. His AA answered. I cheerfully greated her and inquired about the weather. She responded and said it was raining. I informed her that it was bright, sunny and cool here in Tennessee. I then tol her to pass on to Mr. Bronfman that I'd just downloaded Radiohead's NEW album, In Rainbows, and paid $15.95 directly to Radiohead. While I played it in the background, I asked, "Do you hear that?" His secretary coldly responed, "Yes." I then informed her that was the sound of RIAA's demise. Don't you love it?!!! GREAT ALBUM!!!! YOU should dowload it!!!
- TrevaLVF, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1You can digg that Faces of the RIAA link here:
- Yond, on 04/30/2008, -0/+14I am so glad that the RIAA is on their ultimately self-destructive quest, as it will give more power to artists and technology, as well as music fans, and independent artists. Honestly as a businessman why would you ever want to antagonize people that like your music, and make yourself the enemy of an entire generation of people? Good business is when you change or invent new business models to go with the tech tide, and figure out new ways to make money from the new environment. If not they will be slaves to Apple.
- eviltandem, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3This happens in any industry that lacks true competition. these people haven't had to compete fairly for anything for decades or more. They built such an effective wall to keep competition out that they simply can't bring themselves to let it go.
If this "internet" thing takes off then they will have to compete in an open market for musicians and customers. They can't do that, and they know it. So the last ditch effort is to try to rebuild those walls in the virtual world as well.- Yond, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Well said!
- eviltandem, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3This happens in any industry that lacks true competition. these people haven't had to compete fairly for anything for decades or more. They built such an effective wall to keep competition out that they simply can't bring themselves to let it go.
- lordzelo, on 04/30/2008, -0/+6I have a vision of the future where we all laugh at the RIAA as it is desolved because they have nothing left because all the artists will realize they can make more money by NOT going with the RIAA. O happy day.
- PolishLogic, on 04/30/2008, -0/+6RIAA the *****!
- digjam, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2ALL HAIL Howell, Judge Neil V!!!!!!!!!!!! Hes my new Superhero!
- taketheleap, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2this is the same judge who originally granted a summary decision to the RIAA in the same case; hero he is not, he just got overruled.
- papastout, on 04/30/2008, -5/+5fsck the riaa!!!
- ParticleMan420, on 04/30/2008, -3/+4no, ***** the RIAA
learn to spell.
no one is impressed that a 14 year old learned how to spell ***** in a way that circumvents language filters.- radish, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Uhmmm.... fsck is a Linux command. This is humor, not a 14 year old trying to circumvent the filter. Granted, it's bad humor.
- xsquirrel378x, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2dont call it in a linux command. its bad manners. its a unix command
- darkism, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2I'm not usually this blunt, but dude...don't be a dick.
- xsquirrel378x, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4fsck you!
fsck=file system consistency check
- radish, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Uhmmm.... fsck is a Linux command. This is humor, not a 14 year old trying to circumvent the filter. Granted, it's bad humor.
- ParticleMan420, on 04/30/2008, -3/+4no, ***** the RIAA
- bobjohnsonmilw, on 04/30/2008, -7/+2HAHA YOU FSCKING LOSERS! A bit of good news for once.
- sb66, on 04/30/2008, -4/+6CHINGA el RIAA y sus madres!
Mange merde chiens de la RIAA!- whitenerdy92, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Que?
- tandy400, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Here in America we speak American.
- Aerandir, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Translation:1- Fvck the RIIA, 2-Eat Sh!t RIIA Dogs!
(btw, both phrases are written wrong, but meh)- Nekiruhs, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Actually, surprisingly close. Now, IANAL (I am not a linguist), but the first one appears to be "***** the RIAA and their mothers"; and the second one appears to be "Eat ***** ***** of the RIAA". I think.
- XFARB6, on 04/30/2008, -7/+0Great!! Let everybody copy and distribute whatever they want. Then the profit would go out of the entertainment industry, and they would stop creating the crap because they could not sell it. It is an ill wind indeed that blows no good.
- taketheleap, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2hey, I have a website for you to check out: http://2girls1cup.com
- snatchmstr, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1You did hit on one key word there "crap" You nailed it.
- taketheleap, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2hey, I have a website for you to check out: http://2girls1cup.com
- wingo123, on 04/30/2008, -0/+6Wow. The 'It's not me, the computer did it' argument is actually working?? Genius!! This guy deserves a medal. No representation either.
People have had teams of lawyers trying to fight this crap, and no one ever tried that angle. This is awesome. - AvangionQ, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2"While the couple lacks legal representation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation said it filed an amicus brief on behalf of the couple (PDF). The EFF argued against the RIAA's "making available" position, saying in a statement that it "amounts to suing someone for attempted distribution, something the Copyright Act has never recognized." Judge Wake apparently agreed with that position. "The court agrees with the great weight of authority that section 106(3) is not violated unless the defendant has actually distributed an unauthorized copy of the work to a member of the public," wrote the judge in his order. "Merely making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work available to the public does not violate a copyright holder's exclusive right of distribution." EFF staff attorney Fred von Lohmann called the order the "most decisive rejection yet of the recording industry's 'making available' theory of infringement."" ... [REPEAT POST] The RIAA, MPAA, CRIA, DCMA - still don't get it ... they still haven't learned that by angering your consumer base, you're effectively cutting yourself off at the knees ... economically speaking, its very bad practice to try to force your product upon consumers - more often than not, you'll just drive them away to your competition ... is it any wonder that they are so hated on the worldwide internet community? Don't they understand that they're getting their own consumer base stacked up against them, just looking for alternate means of getting around their antiquated business plan ... [ADDENDUM] Their only chance to reconcile their current disposition with their customer base is to create a BitTorrent service including unlimited downloads on a monthly subscription plan for *every* song and movie in their combined extensive collection archives ... it would be a good start, as the alternative is extinction ...
- Scheissen, on 04/30/2008, -9/+6***** the democrats.
- scrogger, on 04/30/2008, -2/+0what is it with news.com? - I have never, ever, EVER been able to connect to the site to read an article. I've tried to read maybe 100 articles but I always get 'server is taking too long to respond"
- awesometastic1, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4someone really just needs to sue the U.S. government on behalf of the RIAA for the government making copies of peoples hard-drives at the border (at times with music on it, thus making illegal copies of songs). This way the courts will actually rule correctly to ***** THE RIAA.
- tandy400, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5They get more and more despicable by the day. Next thing you know they'll be throwing babies in mud puddles and curb stomping old ladies.
- MildApplause, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Oh noez!
The mafia forgot to pay off one of the judges!! - ibirds4, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Skimmed this and didn't catch which state this court decision went down in. Even though the current administration doesn't seem to believe this, our system of having states comprise a nation gives the states a level of sovereignty, the state this went down in does have a large amount of significance. Any one catch where?
- cnot3, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4Reminds me of the RIAA guy from the South Park episode Chef Aid, "I AM ABOVE THE LAW!"
- Parkinsons, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I don't get it. When I put a file up for others to download, I am not responsible? If true that would make it impossible to sue for copyright infringement.
Am I understanding this right?- kurtm85, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2its about intent, if you create a bittorrent file then you have the intent to distribute. This case really only applies to p2p applications.
- Parkinsons, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I would think downloading and installing a p2p application would be intent.
- brickbat, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Its not about intent. Did you even read the article?
"The court agrees with the great weight of authority that section 106(3) is not violated unless the defendant has actually distributed an unauthorized copy of the work to a member of the public,"
To win, they must prove that the file was actually downloaded by someone.
Creating a torrent that is never leeched is not infringement according to this ruling.
- kurtm85, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2its about intent, if you create a bittorrent file then you have the intent to distribute. This case really only applies to p2p applications.
- Adelhas, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2A small victory for the Light.
- dafunkmonster, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1There's no confederation of concert venues trying to sue everyone's pants off for videotaping shows...could it be that piracy really isn't a negative externality for the music industry?
- PooptartSkall, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1*****
- heystoopid, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Free Jamie Thomas !
- Kelgari, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3what does that picture have to do with the article content?
- busta, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Wow, Canada made this court ruling how many years ago? Get with the times America!!
(I get to say this because I live in the US right now) - Bklynadam, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2For a great scholarly legal article about the "making available" right check this out.
http://law.fordham.edu/publications/articles/200fl ...
It went to print yesterday, before this case came out, but I really don't think this holding changes the analysis much. The District of Massachusetts also said making-available was not a distribution. - monsterette, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2ehhhhh: "He also argued that he was not the one sharing the files, but that it was the computer that was sharing the files."
- DestroyFascism, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Nice! (Logs on to get Torrents)
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by