Print 68 comment(s) - last by emmet.. on May 19 at 6:27 AM

Offering doesn't equal distribution, says Judge

Arizona District Court Judge Neil V. Wake dealt a heady blow to the RIAA last Monday, striking down its popular “making available” theory as insufficient grounds for accusations of copyright infringement.

Wake’s ruling (PDF) set a higher burden of proof for the RIAA’s campaign of litigation: RIAA investigators – not third party agents, like those at MediaSentry – must download files from a defendant’s hard drive in order to accuse them of unlawful distributing copyrighted materials.

The decision comes from the ongoing case of Atlantic v. Howell, in which the RIAA alleges that Jeffrey Howell and his wife pirated music by making it available for download via KaZaA’s Shared Folders feature. Its claims were supported by screenshots of Howell’s shared folder, as visible to other KaZaA users.

Howell claims that he never intended to place his music within KaZaA’s shared folder, “because that’s not where it belongs.” KaZaA shared the folder without his permission, he said.

In his ruling, Wake wrote that infringement of copyright owners’ rights “requires an actual dissemination of either copies or phonorecords.” Making the music available, which Wake referred to as “an offer to distribute,” does not necessarily constitute actual distribution and therefore inapplicable to the RIAA’s claims. Further, wrote Wake, the court disagreed with the RIAA’s claim that the terms “distribution” and “publication” are alike, as the “publication” of a good is merely the “offering” to distribute copies of a copyrighted work “for purposes of further distribution.”

MediaSentry investigators were able to download 12 of Howell’s files, however, but the court could not conclusively decide that Howell was responsible for making those files available. Wake cited Howell’s own testimony: Howell denied authorizing any of the songs in question for download to other KaZaA users, either by placing them into his shared folder or by using KaZaA’s interface to add them to his shared files list. Adding insult to injury, the EFF filed an amicus curiae brief that claimed that copyright owners cannot infringe their own copyrights, as was the case with MediaSentry acting on the RIAA’s behalf.

It’s important to note that the “making available” theory, as applied in Atlantic v. Howell, is only insufficient for claims regarding the infringement of a copyright owner’s distribution rights; it is sufficient, however, for proving infringement of a copyright owner’s right to reproduce their work – Wake compares this to “a business rents customers video cassettes and a room for viewing the cassette.”

Last December, the RIAA claimed that Howell’s personally ripped music collection was an “unauthorized copy” of its copyrighted works – however the exact meaning of this statement was unclear and it did not directly answer Judge Wake’s original question.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By kc77 on 5/3/2008 4:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
Not necessarily true. Operating Systems, more precisely computers are quickly becoming a commodity / essential good. Don’t think so, try to get a job by sending your resume via snail mail and in hand written format. I doubt you’ll get very far. In addition computers control just about every aspect in your life whether you physically see the technology or not. A computer, most likely Windows, controls everything from your water pressure, to the electricity within your home. Therefore, while not nearly as evolutionary as fire or heat (which to some is arguable) the operating system is very much an essential good.

This leads to your second point, once a good becomes a commodity such as electricity, the role of an monopolizing power over said commodity can be far more detrimental to consumer’s purchasing power and the right to choose. Windows XP is a prime example. Who is dictating it’s demise? It’s certainly not consumers. While consumers are delaying Windows XP’s demise it’s Microsoft at the end of the day that will have the last say.

By SavagePotato on 5/3/2008 4:52:51 PM , Rating: 1
Too bad you can go to an Internet cafe and use one for free. Or your local Library.

Saying ownership of a computer is some kind of essential service is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever.

By SavagePotato on 5/3/2008 4:55:25 PM , Rating: 1
Reverse those thoughts. Go to a library and use one for free, or to an Internet cafe.

Even career criminals in GTA4 know how to go to the Internet cafe.

By kc77 on 5/3/2008 5:06:27 PM , Rating: 1
Um, you are using non sequitur to prove a point. That fact that a service can be provided for free does nothing to change the effect of a service and in fact proves my point. If everyone didn't need it you definitely wouldn't be able to go to a library, which is a social service mind you, in order to get it. No where do I say "ownership". I said the service or good is essential.

"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs
Related Articles
RIAA: CD Ripping is "Unauthorized Use"
December 17, 2007, 6:31 PM

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki