Monday, March 06, 2006

RIAA Argues that Merely Having a Shared Files Folder is in and of itself a copyright infringement

(.pdf files and clickables at source-site)

In its briefs responding to the amicus curiae briefs of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the U.S. Internet Industry Association, and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, the RIAA argues that merely having a shared files folder with copyrighted material in it -- even if the files in it were legally authorized copies, and even if the files were never uploaded and copied by anyone from the shared files folder -- is in and of itself a copyright infringement.

RIAA Brief in Opposition to Amicus Brief of CCIA and USIIA*

RIAA Brief in Opposition to Amicus Brief of Electronic Frontier Foundation*

*Published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Posted by Ray Beckerman @ 3/06/2006 10:42:00 AM

As of today, Dmusic has more than 89,000 tracks available on the Internet. Not hidden in someone's shared folder somewhere on a p2p network, but publicly accessible by anyone. Since everything is copyrighted by default at the moment of creation, each and every one of these files contains copyrighted material. Most have been uploaded and copied by numerous visitors to the site.

Fits all the criteria quoted. Must be copyright infringement, if one were to believe the RIAA.

Of course, the RIAA is more full of crap than the average septic tank and willing to spew it in a court of law or under oath in a Senate subcommittee hearing. Too bad there's not a law against lying to the government.

Oh wait, there is one.

"Too bad there's not a law against lying to the government."

There's a rule for the rich (the RIAA), and a rule for the poor (us).

"Too bad there's not a law against lying to the government."

(Unfortunately, that kinda "law" in reality only applies to those who are unwilling to pull an "Abramoffish under-the-table" S.O.P. scam.)

The RIAA can argue whatever they want. Its what the courts decide that counts.

The issue is that the RIAA have deep pockets and those pockets usually extend into the judicial system too.

Are you saying that the RIAA bribes judges? I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have any evidence?

Perhaps what you meant is that the RIAA is able to use their influence to get favorable laws passed. That I agree with.

I read the brief opposing EFF, and it seems to me they make a good argument in terms of prior rulings. Was EFF making this argument in other cases? Why did they wait until now? It seems the horse has already escaped the barn, no use trying to close the door now. Other courts have made rulings that implicitly support the notion that downloading from p2p is equivalent to a physical object being transferred or distributed. (Forgive if I do not have the proper legal terms -- I am not a lawyer, nor will I attempt to play one.) It is not a "public performance" or a "transmission."

The EFF's logic would be much more convincing if the courts had not in effect already ruled against them repeatedly. I think the EFF has a good semantic, technical, legal argument. But logic is one thing. If several courts decide to put aside the letter of the law and make a ruling in opposition to it, that becomes the standard interpretation -- a precedent of sorts. (Though maybe not a "super-duper" precedent, LOL.) This would be hard to overturn. Doesn't Grokster itself essentially validate the RIAA's contention in their brief -- that we are not talking about transmissions or public performance?

What am I missing?

>The RIAA can argue whatever they want. Its what the courts decide that counts.

Even what the courts decide doesnt really matter. Did it stop the consumption of alcoholic beverages buring prohibition? Will it stop p2p? No.

>Even what the courts decide doesnt really matter. Did it stop the consumption of alcoholic beverages buring prohibition? Will it stop p2p? No.

Oh, I agree. It certainly hasn't stopped me. I was simply trying to say that the RIAA's efforts to spin reality probably won't carry much weight with the courts. Having a shared folder with copyrighted material is NOT copyright infringement. Some P2P software, for example, allows users to select who they want to share their files with. One possible choice is "nobody". You might be able to see the user's files but not download them. Therefore, no copyright infringement. Another possibility -- just because a file is labeled, "Britney Spears - Oops...I Did It Again.mp3", it might actually be a recording of wind chimes, or toilets flushing, or whatever.

Toilets flushing would be an improvement.

Gfmlcka, that's about right! Good for you.

The only files I share are creative commons stuff, which beat the living $%^% out of Britney Spears and stuff that I made my self that I licenced under creative commons licence. I go searching for things you can't buy anymore, and certainly not on today's market!

"Toilets flushing would be an improvement."

Only if you grab Mitch Bainwol's head and shove it in the toilet bowl before you pull the flush handle.

Repeat procedure against all those persons who are pro-RIAA, continue until all have been dealt with.

"Was EFF making this argument in other cases?"

I think they respond to the specific allegations that the RIAA makes. If the RIAA hadn't offered their infinite wisdom, Sometimes you have to wait for them to say something stupid in order to explain to the court how delusional it is.

"Only if you grab Mitch Bainwol's head and shove it in the toilet bowl before you pull the flush handle."

It's on my to do list.

"I think they respond to the specific allegations that the RIAA makes. If the RIAA hadn't offered their infinite wisdom, Sometimes you have to wait for them to say something stupid in order to explain to the court how delusional it is."

"Only if you grab Mitch Bainwol's head and shove it in the toilet bowl before you pull the flush handle."

Hmm..., these two statements seem to go together somehow.