RIAA HEARING! Vitally important
p2pnet.net News:- This is by way of a Good Luck! to Ray Beckerman, the lawyer who tomorrow will represent New York health worker Tenise Barker when the the Big 4 Organized Music cartel’s RIAA will try to make the case that ‘Making Available’ equals copyright infringement.
Boiled down, this means the Recording Industry Association of America, owned by EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France) and Sony BMG (Japan and Germany), with Warner Music (run by a Canadian) as the only American label, will try to justify the ludicrous assertion that anyone with a shared folder containing legally obtained copyrighted files which has been online, even for a second, is guilty of copyright infringement.
Think about what that would mean. If the Big 4 can get it by, it’ll threaten the fabric of the entire Net ultimately affecting everyone, everywhere. But if they fail, their whole, flimsy file sharing house of cards will come crashing down.
The argument will take place at 2:15 pm in the newer federal court house at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, in courtroom 21D on the 21st Floor. It’s near Brooklyn Bridge/Worth St stop on the 4, 5 & 6 trains.
If you can possibly make it, be there. And PLEASE digg this, slashdot it, post it on your site if you have one, and do anything else you can think of to make sure there’s a crowd at the hearing.
Let judge Kenneth M. Karas see just how vitally important this is to everyone, not only the innocent men, women and children the Big 4 are victimizing.
And if you can make it, and you have a digital still and/or video camera, take it with you. We’d like to be able to run pix of the hearing —- from the outside, of course. Cameras aren’t allowed in the actual courtroom.
For now, Beckerman explains the ins and out in detail in (ironically) The Hollywood Reporter Esq.
Stay tuned.
Also See:
ludicrous assertion - End of the RIAA terror reign?, January 1, 2007
The Hollywood Reporter Esq - Is ‘Making Available’ Copyright Infringement?, January 1, 2007
Want to subscribe to p2pnet by email with Feedburner? Just click here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use our own p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
January 25th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
I predict ( unfortunately ) another RIAA win; if the U.S. court system bent any further backwards to accommodate Hollywood and the music industry it’s spine would break.
January 25th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
I agree. Since it sounds like “she didn’t know it was illegal,” yet she understood that she was file-sharing, she’s going to lose. Regardless how wrong it is to sue customers, when people know they file share, and admit the truth to the judge, let’s face it, the judges will count them guilty.
I’m surprised this lawsuit is going faster than Santangelo vs. Elektra
January 26th, 2007 at 5:11 am
I dunno about that. Arnold won the CA gov seat as did Jesse Jackson. No one thought either one would have chance in hell of getting elected so I imagine that a similar fluke could happen hear.
Pity I don’t live close enough to attend.
January 26th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Thanks for the heads up but what date does it take place.
January 26th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
I wonder if they would allow someone to come in and webcast it. That would be good move but the RIAA might try to sue the person doing the webcast for copyright infringement too.
January 26th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
I shared your befuddlement. The text says “tomorrow” and it appears to be dated Jan 25, 2007, so I’d guess Jan 26, 2007, which would mean that the hearing is underway now.
January 27th, 2007 at 2:29 am
The 11th circuit appeals in the Directv cases (Treworgy V Directv) stated that the mere purchase of a device which is capable of altering an access card is not enough to bring private civil suit for a loss. Thousands were sued because they had the capability of making a device which might be used to steal television programming. It would be the same as buying a corvette and when you buy it you pay the police officer for the ticket because you might speed.
In the Riaa case, a song was made available but the fact of your having listened to it has yet to be proven. This is especially true when you have an individual who has an account with an ISP but could prove to be elsewhere at the time of the download. In the RIAA cases like the directv cases, it never mattered if the person the claim did some wrong, they still just want money. In both cases, the claims made to a court may well be false claims or claims which could be considered fraud because they never knew if a person actuually viewed television or listened to a song.
January 28th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Looks like we have to wait for the outcome:
“Elektra v. Barker dismissal motion argued; parties now await decision”:
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
July 31st, 2007 at 11:33 am
[...] at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, courtroom 21D on the 21st Floor. BE THERE IF YoU CAN !!!read more | digg [...]
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:59 am
[...] read more | digg story [...]