MPAA joins RIAA in Jammie Thomas attack
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- “In Capitol v. Thomas, a number of groups have accepted Judge Davis’s invitation to submit amicus curiae briefs on the issue of whether a manifest error of law was committed when the jury was instructed that Jammie Thomas could be liable for just ‘making files available’,” posted Ray Beckerman on Recording Industry vs The People over the weekend, going on:
“The deadline for filing of amicus briefs was Friday, June 20th at noon.”
The pic on the right shows “massive copyright infringer” Thomas with her two sons Tristan (left) and Tyler.
Beckerman was talking about the growing number of academics and others calling for a retrial in the case in which judge Michael Davis, who heard it, admitted making a “manifest error of law” in telling the civil jury the, “act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without licensefrom the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners’ exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown”.
Davis also asked “interested parties” to submit amicus briefs and Beckerman’s post includes a list of the briefs filed so far (see below).
However, in a 25-page amicus curiae brief, the MPAA claims the, “act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without a licence from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners’ exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown”.
In other words, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal City Studios and Warner Bros Entertainment Inc are saying there’s no need for proof.
What’s Hollywood doing backing the Big 4, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG?
No problem. The labels and major studios work together all the time, sharing information and resources.
In the brief, the MPAA says the, “fundamental issue raised by Jury Instruction No. 15 isn’t whether the Copyright Act renders such conduct (the unauthorised making available of copyrighted works over a P2P network) unlawful, as that instruction states, or whether such conduct is unlawful only if ‘actual distribution has been shown’ — which, as [the] MPAA understands it, means the copyright owner must provide direct proof that specific individuals downloaded specific works the defendant made available.”
Bemoans the MPAA, “it is often very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to provide such direct proof when confronting modern forms of copyright infringement, whether over P2P networks or otherwise; understandably, copyright infringers typically do not keep records of infringement. Mandating that proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against the massive copyright infringement in many instances.”
It goes on >>>
[The] MPAA urges the Court not to impose any requirement of actual distribution because the Copyright Act imposes no such requirement.
Unsurprisingly, the so-called Progress & Freedom Association, in the shape of Thomas D. Sydnor II, is also siding with the entertainment cartels.
While an aide to Orrin Hatch, Sydnor was, “widely credited with the Senator’s infamous ‘blow up their computers’ solution to P2P file-sharing, and Lee Hollaar, a professor who was a motive force behind the ill-fated INDUCE Act,” said Seth Schoen in the EFF’s (Electronic Frontier Foundation) Deep Links, last year.
“So it’s fair to say these gentlemen have an anti-P2P agenda and a rather one-sided view of copyright law,” he noted.
Lined up on Thomas’ side so far are:
- Amicus brief of 10 copyright law professors
- Amicus brief of Intellectual Property Institute of William Mitchell College of Law
- Amicus curiae brief of Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, US Internet Industry Association, and Computer & Communications Industry Association
Stay tuned.
.
.Stumble It!
Jammie Thomas – Jammie Thomas: her story in her own words, November 2, 2007
Recording Industry vs The People – Amicus curiae briefs filed in Capitol v. Thomas, June 21, 2008
manifest error of law – 10 law profs back RIAA victim Jammie Thomas, June 20, 2008
submit amicus briefs – Jammie Thomas judge cops to ‘manifest error’, May 15, 2008
sharing information and resources – RIAA, MPAA, joint operations, old news, March 8, 2008
aide to Orrin Hatch – EFF on USPTO file sharing report, March 29, 2007
Deep Links – New USPTO file sharing report falls short on consumer protection, March 28, 2007
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.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:44 am
MPAA=RIAA= nest of parasites. Let spray both place with pest killer.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:49 am
The MPAA joining the RIAA to pick on Jammie smacks of desperation to me.
The judge realised that he screwed up and the RIAA/MPAA know that it’s gonna set a big precedent against them when she wins the appeal, hence wading in with their lies and half-truths to try and crush her.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the big picture, I think that Big Media is winning this war.
More and more anti-consumer laws are getting drafted around the world and only yesterday, Tech Dirt published a story showing how the UK government is leaning heavily on ISPs to be good little corporate copyright cops:
UK Gov’t Tells ISPs They Need To Play Copyright Cops For Record Labels
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080623/1601351482.shtml
June 24th, 2008 at 9:57 am
A friend of mine received a DMCA notice from Comcast for downloading TV shows. He isn’t a big pirate, just downloads the occasional torrent. He never really had much interest in the RIAA/MPAA consumer fight. However, that notice pissed him off! I’m now happy to say that he is downloading more than ever, just to spite them. He says his movie and CD buying days are over.
It’s nice when the aposing side helps convert supporters to your side.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:24 am
There may not be a requirement of actual distribution, but don’t they have to prove some kind of economic damage or something? We are just giving these corporations carte blanche to run roughshod over people’s privacy. This is not good.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:54 am
As I’ve posted before; Even if it’s ruled that “making available” doesn’t equal infringement, it will be a short victory. I guarantee that within a month of such a verdict, there will be a bill before congress that specifically prohibits anyone from “making available” copyrighted works on the internet. If the current laws won’t work for them, they’ll just buy new ones.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
“I guarantee that within a month of such a verdict, there will be a bill before congress that specifically prohibits anyone from âmaking availableâ copyrighted works on the internet.”
If it can seen or heard, it can be copied. So if you let anyone see it or hear it, you are “making it available”.
So if you do not want your content to be copied, then lock it away.
There is a new generation of creators who see the benefits of sharing and actually want their content copied, shared and passed around.
Time to put our eyes & ears on their stuff.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
“MPAA=RIAA= nest of parasites. Let spray both place with pest killer.”
Why use pesticide when napalm works better?
June 24th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
THE real WAR of TERROR, you tell me what it is….
June 25th, 2008 at 5:02 am
“Bemoans the MPAA, âit is often very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to provide such direct proof when confronting modern forms of copyright infringement, whether over P2P networks or otherwise; understandably, copyright infringers typically do not keep records of infringement. Mandating that proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against the massive copyright infringement in many instances.â”
Then I propose that all who by packs of blank dvds and cds be arrested and acused of copyright infringement, as there is no way that these can be used without comitting some kind of crime.
Certainly is is not practical to catch for the actual owner of a copyright the blank media criminals in tha act of copying, and as they say, prevention is the best remedy.
As is evident I agree with MPAA. Jail every freeloader in America.
June 25th, 2008 at 5:42 am
We don’t need blank media anymore. There are large hard drives and external storage. Btw, what’s she doing with that boy’s elbow?
June 25th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Making available = Copyright infrigement?
Selling guns = Killing people?
Selling cars = Disabling people?
Am I following the right train of tought here???
June 26th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
They. Wont. Pay.
There has been no indication that they will EVER adhere
to any rule of law, and no indication that they will EVER
truly be called to task for it.
My apologies to MR. Beckerman, but there is no indication that your, or
anyones faith in the legal system is justified.
Maybe if once, just once, they actually experienced a sanction for their obvious
gamesmanship, I might be capable of believing in the system, but I don’t
think I will live long enough to see it happen, even if I surpass methuselah in age.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:23 am
They can debate all day, the law is clear: distribution must have taken place as the right is simply one of allowing a copy, if no copy was created (this requires proof not conjecture) then the law has not been broken , this judge should step down and allow a fair retrail.