He’s talking about Atlantic v Howell of which Recording Industry vs The People‘s says the judge, “ruled in favor the RIAA and concluded that ‘making available’ is in and of itself a copyright infringement.”
“This is the second time of which we are aware in which, in the context of a summary judgment motion against a pro se litigant, a judge has stated that merely “making available” is in and of itself a copyright infringement.
“The first was Motown v. DePietro in Philadelphia, where the RIAA’s summary judgment motion was nevertheless denied.”
Says Paczkowski, setting the scene:
In 2006 the RIAA sued Pamela and Jeffrey Howell for copyright infringement, accusing the pair of “making copyrighted works available” over a peer-to-peer network. The RIAA had no evidence that the Howells ever transferred content to a third party. It did, however, have screen shots of their Kazaa account. And that was proof enough for the court to grant its motion for summary judgment against them. “It is no defense that a Kazaa user did not directly oversee the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material,” the judge wrote, noting that “the mere presence of copyrighted works in a shared folder is enough to trigger liability.”
He then nails it:
Essentially, the Howells have been found criminally liable for what they might have done. Which is an unsettling thought in a Dick-ensian (Philip K.) sort of way.
But not for the RIAA which, thanks to this ruling, no longer has to work quite so hard to provide proof of violation in these cases.
Philip K. is a master of sci-fi.
So is the RIAA.
Digital Daily – RIAA Announces Department of Precrime, August 28, 2007
Atlantic v Howell – RIAA `batting 1.000â², August 28, 2007
Recording Industry vs The People – Pro Se Defendant Loses to RIAA in Atlantic v. Howell in Arizona, Judge Holds “Making Available” is a “Distribution”, August 24, 2007
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.