Although it won't affect other cases, the RIAA was handed a small smackdown this week when a U.S. district judge rejected their request for a summary judgement, and ruled that putting song files in a shared directory was not enough proof that infringement had occurred.
The judge said that the RIAA "must prove that the songs were actually downloaded," which is not a distinction past judges have made. Whether or not this ruling will cause other judges to look at the RIAA's future claims in a different light remains to be seen, however.
Wake's ruling pretty much contradicts many of the legal arguments the RIAA has presented in those peer-to-peer lawsuits the organization has brought against individual users. However, not that many cases actually make it to court, mainly because defendants often opt for settling for a few thousand dollars instead of shouldering expenses for a jaunt through the civil legal system.
For the sake of example, if my older brother took all the CDs and put all the music on a secure server, can I legally download the music? Was the music ever able to be considered a mutual asset?
]]>.. and then go to jail for logging into unsecured wifi networks.
]]>My Congressman better not vote for any Copyright Conspiracy Bill else he'll not have my vote again.
]]>I'd be curious if there's an argument to be made that since your average p2p only gets a few bytes and not the whole song downloaded from any particular user, you can't claim that their particular copy was downloaded by anyone.
]]>It does not mean that I'm sharing my music with other people just because it's in a shared folder. The judge is completely right: the RIAA lawyers should have to prove the music was downloaded.
]]>I am all for any ruling that makes the RIAA actually do their homework before suing someone. They seem to be taking shortcuts, file thousands of lawsuits under the same wordin with little to know evidence. Either way, RIAA is fighting a losing battle and they need to change their business model if they want to have a business 10 years from now.
]]>@chartrule: no silly, if you HAVE a computer, or if you think about getting one in the future you're guilty.
]]>im moving to norway.
]]>Congress already has a contingency plan for this: make "conspiracy to commit copyright infringement" a crime.
The bill has been introduced; it's on THOMAS somewhere, but I'm too lazy to find it.
]]>@Pylon83:
I think this judge might be the first person of authority to actually get this right. Sure, sharing the material is infringement, but they seem to have never bothered actually proving that anyone actually "shared in the material", aka downloading it. I.E. I can put whatever I want in a shared folder, but technically, if you can't show anyone actually downloaded it, who was it shared with, and how could it be considered shared at all without one other person being brought into the equation? Just because the folder is labeled "Shared" and is hosted on the internet, ready for sharing, doesn't neccessarly mean that anyone actually shared in it, and and committed copyright infringement without proof of it occurring.
]]>the problem with the "shared folder" argument (as i see it) is that programs - particularly the p2p kind - on install, often set up sharing rights on one or more folders.
you can't expect someone to be liable just b/c their library happens to be in a default folder which was shared by default when they decided to install a particular program.
]]>I believe the RIAA is trying to fight their way out of a losing battle as technology develops. More and more [popular] artists are moving to advertising and selling their own records or tracks for cheaper prices (or even free) through download. e.g. Radiohead, Trent Reznor (NiN), Prince, and Coldplay.
There is talk that even Metallica may sell their following album online after their contract expires. [ultimate-guitar.com]
(Although, I highly doubt it)
Imaginary piracy doesn't equal real piracy.
Too bad RIAA. PWND again.
]]>BOOOOYAAA The RIAA finaly gets theirs I'm so psyched about this!!
]]>Basically a laptop I only use for downloading, was paid for in cash, is unregistered, & that I dont use to surf the web or check online accounts that could be traced back to me.
Maybe overkill, but meh... i got a really good deal on the laptop (could be stolen for all I know *shrug*)
]]>awesome!
However I am still going to download thru unsecured wifi networks & a "clean" untraceable laptop.
COme get me RIAA!!!!!
]]>However, not that many cases actually make it to court, mainly because defendants often opt for settling for a few thousand dollars instead of shouldering expenses for a jaunt through the civil legal system.
Yes, and the reason few people go to court is because it's cheaper to settle and they think they'll lose. But the more cases that go to court, the more the RIAA gets smacked.
They used tried and true old-school methods to get money out of file sharers to start - threatening costly lawsuits.
Now (I think) the house of cards is starting to fall down, once a few actual judges are getting to see their antics. First one smack against RIAA, then another, and another, and pretty soon people won't be so afraid to take them on.
BTW I have no love for file sharers, especially those who steal. But the way the RIAA fights is is simply despicable, and needs to be stopped.
]]>Huzza! Three cheers for the Honorable judge Neil Wake!
]]>