p2pnet news | RIAA News:- “A US federal judge has shot down one of the Recording Industry Ass. of America’s key arguments in its brave pursuit of students, idiots and grandmothers it accuses of sharing music over peer-to-peer networks.”
That’s how The Register sums up the news that judge Neil V. Wake “totally eviscerated” the RIAA’s theories of ‘making available’ and ‘offering to distribute,’ as Recording Industry vs The People’s Ray Beckerman put it.
“It wasn’t that long ago that no one in the mainstream media was willing to pay any attention to the victims, instead parroting just about every piece of garbage the RIAA cared to trot out,” said a recent p2pnet post on Business Week’s in depth and in detail story on RIAA victim Tanya Andersen.
“But that, too, has changed, with more and more members of the corporate press carrying the other side of the story,” we went on.
With that in mind, “Talk about a case going full circle: U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake has rejected the RIAA’s motion for summary judgment in its claims against Pamela and Jeffrey Howell, completely reversing the ruling he’d made last August,” says a Los Angeles Times story.
“In a case centering on New York social worker Tenise Barker, Connecticut district judge Janet Bond Arterton threw out out the RIAA’s infamous ‘making available claim which, ‘comprises the bottom line for all the Big 4 P2P file sharing cases’,” p2pnet’s post on the decision said, going on >>>
“Prove it!” – she said in effect.
This time around, the RIAA was demanding a summary judgement against the Howells, claiming they’d infringed Big 4 copyrights.
But, “Prove it,” said judge Neil V. Wake, in effect.
Now, “In effect, Wake appears to demand proof from the RIAA that someone actually downloaded each song at issue, and that the defendant deliberately put those tracks into his or her shared folder,” says the LA Times, continuing:
“He also suggested that such a defendant might not be liable for direct infringement, because he or she wasn’t making a copy — the downloader was.
“Instead, the judge wrote that such behavior might constitute contributory infringement, which the RIAA didn’t allege in the Howell motion. Proving contributory infringement would require that Howell not only assisted in the unlawful copying, but also that he knew it was happening.”
These, “aren’t insurmountable hurdles for the RIAA,” says the LA Times, “but they’re not speed bumps, either.”
“This is a strange decision that is outside of the mainstream and inconsistent with countless court rulings on these issues,” Ars Technica has RIAA confused mouthsperson Cara Duckworth saying.
“We are currently considering all options going forward.”
Actually, Cara, you and the RIAA are going backwards.
. .Stumble It!
The Register – US beak pecks at RIAA’s ‘making available’ filesharing attack, April 30, 2008
p2pnet – Business Week on RIAA vs Tanya Andersen, April 25, 2008
Los Angeles Times – Judge rejects claim RIAA previously won, April 29, 2008
the decision – Another bad day for the RIAA, April 29, 2008
Ars Technica – Judge deals another blow to RIAA’s making available theory, April 29, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribeto 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.