p2pnet - rss feed: Washington Post correction in RIAA case
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- “A Dec. 30 Arts column incorrectly said that the recording industry ‘maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer,’ says a correction in the Washington Post, continuing:
“In a copyright-infringement lawsuit, the industry’s lawyer argued that the actions of an Arizona man, the defendant, were illegal because the songs were located in a “shared folder” on his computer for distribution on a peer-to-peer network.”
Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG have spent a king’s ransome developing ways to use legal systems around the world to force their customers to buy Big 4 product, and only Big 4 product, the case of part-time cab-driver Jeffrey Howell being an example.
It caught the eye of not only Recording Industry vs The People founder and New York lawyer Ray Beckerman (right), but also Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher.
They both say the wording in an RIAA legal document in the Howell case —- originally delivered by lawyer Ira Schwartz. —- in effect means if you paste a Big 4 music file into a shared folder, it amounts to copyright infringement.
And for what it’s worth, and with the statement I’m not a lawyer out front, I agree. It’s consistent with the Big 4 sue ‘em all marketing approach through which the labels are trying to sue, rather than woo, music lovers into becoming docile and subservient consumers of Big 4 ‘product’.
However, with Techdirt in the lead, and following later RIAA sophistry, various on and off-line publications are now taking the position this interpretation is incorrect.
But Beckerman isn’t backing down.
“Recording Industry vs. The People stands by its previous statements on the subject,” he posts, stating unequivocally, “Mr. Fisher was right. The Washington Post ‘correction’ is wrong.”
He goes on:
Cary Sherman’s “retraction” of (a) what his lawyers said in the Atlantic v. Howell supplemental brief; (b) what SONY BMG’s chief of litigation testified to, under oath and in the presence of the jury, at the Capitol v. Thomas trial; and (c) Richard Gabriel’s cross examination of Jammie Thomas about her failure to ask the record companies for permission to copy her cd’s onto her hard drive are:
-of no legal effect unless and until “retractions” are filed in those court cases; and
-completely lacking in credibility.
They did not come about until after stock prices fell in response to the Motley Fool article decrying the RIAA’s position.
Are the Big 4 were worried about anything Motely Fool had to say? Perhaps not. But it’s certain. that, given the huge amount of very smelly mud now sticking to the RIAA, it and its masters realised they had to quickly come up with something to smooth things over.
Jon Newton - p2pnet
Also see:
The Local - Retrial declared in Sweden’s largest file-sharing case, January 8, 2008
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.phpNet access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
January 8th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
How typical of the RIAA to pressure, using unknown methods, the media to print what they want printed. Ray and Mr. Fisher were correct in their statements and interpretation; the intent of the RIAA is to say one thing intentionally vague, in order to leave it open to interpretation later. Then they can use it in court cases to go whichever way they want.
* It is NOT illegal to ‘download files’ since there is no law preventing it. I really wish everyone would stop putting the word ‘illegal’ in front of the word ‘downloading’ for goodness sakes! The RIAA hopes that by putting that out in the public and int he media, it will eventually become standard lexicon and people will believe the propaganda. And you know what? Sadly, it’s working.
* show me the law that says ‘making available’ is illegal? NO, you cannot point to some vague text about unauthorized distribution, the words do not say making available is illegal. You have no way of knowing if those files that you put ina ahsraed folder on your drive will be downloaded or even if they were downloaded, except by the very people who say it is illegal to download them. Why aren’t THEY getting sued by the artists themselves? The intent isn’t at question here, the act has to be done and proven before a contract can be broken.
* it was VERY plain and VERY obvious that the RIAA legal assistant/attorney in the Jammie trial knew what she was saying and was very specific about what she said. The recent ’spin’ by the RIAA is just crap and they should be ashamed of themselves! READ the court transcripts. PROVE it to yourself.
I really hope the universities in Oregon and Maine win their students’ cases against the RIAA and that they don’t back down when the going gets rough. They are taking on a mighty powerful cartel that has billions of global dollars available. That kind of money can be used (and I’m sure has been) to bribe lawmakers & judges…& university presidents. This IS the United States, after all. Don’t kid yourself into thinking that there are no payoffs happening in our legal system (I hesitate to say ‘justice’ system for obvious recent reasons).
January 8th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
re:
Cary Sherman’s “retractions” are of no legal effect unless and until “retractions” are filed in those court cases;
Atlantic v. Howell and Capitol v. Thomas
Cary Sherman -
We are calling upon you to formally issue retractions to these cases.
If you can’t find it in your heart to do it for the innocent people who are suffering, then do it for your shareholders.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act
January 9th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Fritz, did you actually READ the NET act before you posted the link? This still doesn’t make downloading a song illegal.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm
a) Criminal Infringement.–Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either–
1. for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
2. by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Nice!
Doesn’t this cut to the heart of the matter, and completely invalidate the RIAA extortion threat?? [i]evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.[/i]
January 9th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
If an American purchases a CD and wants to have a copy of one of the songs on the CD for his iPod, I would imagine that an easy way would be for him to simply download a copy from a site like Kazaa.
And I can’t why that would be illegal at all. It sure is practical.