p2pnet - rss feed: When the ghosts of songs equal copyright infringements
p2pnet news view RIAA | MPAA News:- The Cartoon Network v CSC Holdings case is one of the most important, believes Recording Industry vs The People’s Ray Beckerman.
It centres on the much-criticized MAI case which held a copy existing only in Random Access Memory can constitute unlawful ‘copying’ under the US Copyright Act.
What!?
You read it correctly.
A copy which exists only in RAM, can nevertheless be an unlawful ‘copying’ within the meaning of the US Copyright Act.
In other words, according to MPAA, the ethereal and transitory ghost of a song floating in RAM also leaves the computer owner open to corporate entertainment cartel depradations.
Pretty soon they’ll be after you for even thinking about one of their songs or movies without buying it.
Says Beckerman »»»
In defending the online digital video recording and playback system which Cablevision intends to offer its subscribers from copyright infringement attack by the large motion picture companies and record companies, the Court held in its 44-page opinion (PDF) that a copy must exist for more than a merely ‘transitory duration’, and that the 1.2 second period in which these recordings existed in a buffer was simply not long enough to be considered more than merely ‘transitory’.
The Court of course did not say how long is enough for it to be considered no longer transitory, and the Court did not reject the premise of MAI that a copy in RAM could be a copy, but at least it clarified the fact that not every copy in RAM is a “copy” within the meaning of the US Copyright Act.
Interestingly, and curiously, the content people waived any allegation of ’secondary infringement’, and Cablevision waived any ‘fair use’ defense, even though both of those theories would have appeared likely for inclusion in such a case.”
Earlier, Beckerman wrote an MPAA copyright infringement case brought against Cablevision was based on a claim that Cablevision’s proposed remote storage digital video recorder system violated Hollywood’s “performance” rights and “reproduction” rights.
A lower court decision by judge Denny Chin, which ruled in favor of the motion picture companies, was reversed in Cartoon Networks v CSC Holdings.
On the “reproduction” right, the Court held »»»
(1) the buffered versions were not “copies” within the meaning of the Copyright Act since the 1.2-second period in which they were buffered was insufficient to satisfy the part of the statutory definition of copies which required that they exist for more than a “transitory duration”; and
(2) as to the playback versions, Cablevision could not be directly liable, since it was the customer - not Cablevision - that was making the copies; ie, there was no “volitional” conduct on Cablevision’s part.
Adds Beckerman
“On the issue of the ‘public performance’ right, the Court found for the defendant on the ground that the transmission was not ‘to the public’. (The Court called into question the 3rd Circuit decision in Ford Motor v Summit Motor Products which said that a distribution to one person could be ‘to the public’, but did not need to reach the question since this was a ‘public performance’ right, rather than a ‘distribution’ right, case).
“The defeated lawyers for the MPAA include the same lawyers who represent Viacom in Viacom v. YouTube, the same lawyers who represent the RIAA in Arista v LimeWire, and the appellate lawyer who was flown into Duluth by the RIAA for the Capitol v Thomas argument.”
Stay tuned.
Jon Newton - p2pnet
.
.Stumble It!
New York Times - xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, August xx, 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.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 8th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Not jon’s fault that no established Newsmediaoutlet reports about this big blow against Organised Film and their overreaching copyright demands, since these established outlets are owned by the same MAFIAA members in the first place and that jon therefor has nearly jsut one sourse; Mr Beckerman and his repository for MAFIAA cases blog as source for reports when it comes to MAFIAA issues.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:32 am
^^ If you’re wondering what this is about, someone made a crack about Ray and I ‘hyping’ each other.
It looked as though it might have started a series of troll posts, so I took it down.
Cheers!
August 8th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Oh, and I was wondering if i had posted my answer under the wrong thread when suddenly I could not see the “crack comment” once I was finished and hitting Submit Comment.
thanks for explaining it jon where it went.
August 9th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I have every note and syllable of some songs burned into my brain, I guess I am guilty of “having a copy” of copyright material INSIDE MY HEAD.
These copyright laws are obsolete and need to be re-engineered to accommodate today’s technology and social views.