RIAA ‘batting 1.000′
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG’s RIAA is, “batting 1.000 when it comes to the ‘making available’ argument,” says Ars Technica.
The Big 4 enforcement unit claims merely having a shared files folder makes files available for distribution.
The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), Computer & Communications Industry Association and US Internet Industry Association say if this ‘absurd argument’ is accepted, the entire Net, “nothing more than a giant network of hyperlinks making files ‘available’,” might be forced offline in the US.
In six of the seven cases decided, “the judges failed to actually rule on the issue, saying that the RIAA could move ahead with its lawsuits because of ‘continuing infringement,” says Ars Technica.
Now Atlantic v Howell represents the seventh.
Pamela and Jeffrey Howell were sued by the RIAA in 2006 for copyright infringement, says the post, continuing:
The Howells decided to defend themselves against the charges and … argued that their file-sharing program was “not set up to share” and that the files found by Media Sentry were “for private use” and “for transfer to portable devices, that is legal for ‘fair use.’”
But:
In his summary judgment, Judge Neil V. Wake dismissed the Howell’s arguments and handed the RIAA $40,500 in statutory damages, $350 in court costs, and a permanent injunction against future copyright infringement by the Howells. “Several cases suggest that Kazaa users commit direct infringement by employing the Kazaa program to make their collections of copyrighted sound recordings available to all other Kazaa users,” wrote Judge Wake, citing three other cases as well as Howell’s deposition in which he admitted ownership of the Kazaa account in question.
The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) “lost no time in bringing the decision in Atlantic v. Howell to the attention of the judges in Warner v. Cassin and Elektra v. Barker, according to Ray Beckerman, defense counsel in both cases.,” says Ars Technica, adding both could be, “seminal for file-sharing litigation since the judges have heard arguments from both sides and are willing to rule specifically on the question of whether making a file available on KaZaA does indeed constitute distribution.”
Beckerman argues the RIAA’s complaints show no “instance or example of ‘downloading’ a recording; any instance or example of ‘distributing’ a recording; any instance or example of ‘making [a recording] available’;… or what law would support a claim for ‘making [a recording] available,” says the story, adding he also, “finds fault with Judge Wake’s ruling,” arguing the decision, “misstates the findings of other cases and that the judge made no explanation of how ‘making available’ could possibly fulfill the elements spelled out in the Copyright Act”.
Also See:
Ars Technica – Judge sides with RIAA: file-sharing apps lead to direct infringement, August 27, 2007
forced offline in the US – RIAA and Top Cop in p2p case, April 18, 2006
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Do not even ever admit you were using a p2p application with these pigs! Show up in the court as much as you can.
And if you lose do not pay! Seek bK protection instead! Hire a lawer for that.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:36 am
This sounds like just one of many kangaroo courts spread throughout the States. What is this business of summary judgement? Did the Howells demand a jury trial (as is there right under the Constitution)? If they did, this judge should be removed from office by WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY. His summary judgement violates the Constitution unless the Howells consented to it.