backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 49 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Aug 20 at 3:38 PM

"Making available" case ends in a legal victory for the music industry

Bronx resident Denise Barker will pay the Recording Industry Association of America $6,050 to settle Elektra v. Barker (PDF), a lawsuit surrounding music shared over the Kazaa P2P network. The amount equals out to an expensive $756 per song for eight tracks from artists ranging from Lenny Kravitz to DMX.

Barker’s case took an unusual turn a couple of weeks ago, when she admitted liability for sharing the songs and instead proceeded to attack the characteristics of the case presented against her, including an attempt to challenge the constitutionality of the Copyright Act and the RIAA’s use of an unlicensed investigator and unlawful pretexting techniques.

According to copyright law blog Recording Industry vs The People, run by her lawyer, Barker argued that RIAA’s claimed statutory damages range anywhere from 2,142 to 428,571 times the actual damages inflicted – arguing instead that she should be held liable for no more than $3.50 per song per upload.

Elektra v. Barker was one of the spotlight cases for the concept of “making available,” a tactic that allows defendants to be held liable for copyright infringement merely for the act of making a song available for download – regardless of whether they actually uploaded a single byte. This is commonly raised through a P2P application’s “shared folders” feature, which is designed to store the library of music that the user both downloads to and makes available for upload to others.

Barker previously argued that the RIAA could not prove she shared any music simply by making it available in her computer’s shared folders, and as a result of this and other arguments the case took close to three years to reach its conclusion.  Worse, the amount that the RIAA won is merely double its standard settlement rate.

Court opinion, up until recently, favored the RIAA in the “making available” debate, but the pendulum has since shifted towards the defendant: the $222,000 legal victory for the RIAA at the expense of Minnesota woman Jammie Thomas is undergoing reevaluation by its judge, who, prompted by recent cases in Arizona and Florida, voiced his unease with a jury instruction that required Thomas to be held liable for the contents of her shared folder. The RIAA argues that shared folders are the equivalent to a DVD table, whereby a pirate displays his or her goods openly for others’ perusal.

Despite the more than 20,000 lawsuits under its belt, the heavy majority never make it to trial. The few that do have generally ended up in the RIAA’s favor, but both sides of the debate have enjoyed a fair share of legal victories. In some cases, the waves of prelitigation letters sent to college students – seemingly the RIAA’s favorite target – enjoyed a 99.6% capitulation rate at one university, with students settling for amounts ranging from $3,000 to $5,000 USD.

To cover her settlement, Barker will make 55 payments of $110, with the last payment made in February 2013.



Comments     Threshold


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

<puts tin foil hat on>
By vapore0n on 8/19/2008 8:05:41 AM , Rating: 2
Suddenly admitted?

Maybe she ran out of money?
Maybe she got bought so that RIAA could have a win under their belt, which could be used in future cases?




RE: <puts tin foil hat on>
By mdogs444 on 8/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: <puts tin foil hat on>
By angryandroid on 8/19/2008 8:58:50 AM , Rating: 2
But the point of damages is to make up for lost business or lost benefit of some kind. To pay what is owed so to speak.

So if you download a single song, then yup the damages should be £1 or whatever. If you upload that song to 1000 people, thats £1000 in lost revenue. It's not a whatever we feel like deal - stupid American courts!!!

Damages should be proportionate and of course include legal fees if lost. What else are the RIAA looking for?


RE: <puts tin foil hat on>
By mdogs444 on 8/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: <puts tin foil hat on>
By BladeVenom on 8/19/2008 11:17:26 AM , Rating: 5
But 756 times the amount is downright barbaric.


RE: <puts tin foil hat on>
By MatthiasF on 8/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: <puts tin foil hat on>
By Yawgm0th on 8/19/2008 1:49:14 PM , Rating: 5
What does that have to do with anything? No crime has been committed, and there is no criminal case in question. You're analogy is completely irrelevant. We are talking about civil suits. The purpose of civil law is not to deter anything. It is to award the plaintiff for damages.


RE: <puts tin foil hat on>
By MatthiasF on 8/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: <puts tin foil hat on>
By redbone75 on 8/20/2008 12:53:47 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Kidnapping, a crime where no one gets hurt but someone's time and rights are taken temporarily.

What kind of moron are you? Just wondering. I mean, sure, absolutely no one gets hurt in a kidnapping. Not the abducted person, who is terrified wondering if he/she might even survive and is emotionally scarred the rest of his/her life. Definitely not the victim's loved ones who are devastated by it all happening. Sure, no one gets hurt in a kidnapping.

Equating kidnapping and downloading music... help me out here, I'm lost. Let me guess: you failed Introduction to Logic, didn't you?


RE: <puts tin foil hat on>
By jimbojimbo on 8/20/2008 2:41:48 PM , Rating: 1
Kidnapping, a crime where no one gets hurt but someone's time and rights are taken temporarily.

What?? So you're saying that if I kidnap you, hold you for a week, and then let you go you'll somehow miraculously get that week back?


RE: <puts tin foil hat on>
By Hyperion1400 on 8/19/2008 2:09:46 PM , Rating: 3
- 8th Amendment of the US Constitution

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The fact is that this is a civil case not a criminal trial. The point is to punish. But, the one at fault is punished by being fined for the damages they have failed to pay. Not some arbitrary and highly excessive amount deemed worth by the plaintiff. I think the judge must have been smoking the ole crack pipe to have let an amount like that slip by him.


RE: <puts tin foil hat on>
By MatthiasF on 8/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: <puts tin foil hat on>
By Solandri on 8/19/2008 4:20:48 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
But 756 times the amount is downright barbaric.

It's that high because they're taking a law meant to punish commercial copyright violators, and applying it to individuals. i.e. When the lawmakers passed the law, they were thinking of the folks who stamp and sell knockoff CDs on street corners, or even trick retail chains into thinking they're legit. They weren't thinking of a stay-at-home mom downloading a few MP3s.


RE: <puts tin foil hat on>
By omnicronx on 8/19/2008 10:16:31 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
If they only fined everyone $1 per song, then there would be no reason to NOT pirate - because if you get caught, you just pay what you would have anyway.
But the case was not about her downloading songs, it was about making songs available, regardless if anyone downloaded them or not.

Its becoming pretty obvious that the RIAA is not deterring anyone, and eventually they are going to screw with somebody that actually has the money to drag a case on for 4 years and outright win.

90% of downloaded music on the internet comes from release groups, not some amature ripping their CD's with windows media player.

If the RIAA was actually serious about stopping pirating then they would continue to go after the big players like they did in the late 90's. I personally know that this scared more people than a few kazaa file sharing cases ever will. Groups stopped trusting anyone as government agents were posing as users that could serve as a dump or who had lots of bandwidth to share, and things really hit a standstill for 2-3 years, that was until they stopping going after the groups and started going after clueless kazaa and limewire users.

Torrent sites don't get their music from nowhere, take down the source, and you will limit the damage, take down potential customers that downloaded a few songs and you are going to have some angry people on your hands.

p.s my favorite thing about these suits is that I personally have a few hundred gigs of mp3s which probably total billions of damages to the RIAA, and I am sure there are countless others in my boat, yet its some lady in her 40's who had 10 songs shared, and someones dead grandma that are feeling the heat..

Police don't go after the crackhead selling dime bags on the corner of the street, they go after the dealer.. Maybe the RIAA should start using the same playbook.


RE: <puts tin foil hat on>
By MrBlastman on 8/19/2008 10:49:59 AM , Rating: 5
For sure. This could be seem similarly to the war on Drugs - go after the source that produces them and shut that down.

If you kill off the supply, the demand will go unmet. Either they'll find another way or learn to not have what they had before.

Oh wait... What have I done?

I've /between the lines/ singlehandedly suggested that we shut down the Music Industry! o_O

Long live independent artists. ;)


RE: <puts tin foil hat on>
By mikeyD95125 on 8/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: <puts tin foil hat on>
By MrBlastman on 8/19/2008 5:34:26 PM , Rating: 2
That's the problem - the War on Drugs has NOT been going after the source (bombarding Columbia, sabotauge, sanction missions targeted at Drug lords).

If they did, things might be different. They're too busy locking up two-bit pusher men rather than taking out the big guys.

But, I digress. You missed the joke. :)


RE: <puts tin foil hat on>
By mars777 on 8/19/2008 9:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
If they did, it would have ill effects on the earnings of some big heads in the world, some of them possibly financing in one or another way the same people that dictate laws. Maybe even shake up the finance of big countries, not excluding the US. Probably even starting a few wars or other terroristic actions.

That's why they go to the middle range and no further into the problem. It's safer.

An analogy would be in the global warming problem: you can stop the global warming easily by banning the production of oil progressively fast and switch to a new type of fuel: water. But what is implicated loss further on or the negative effects of the industry cartels on the law makers?

They think before they act, and they act like this: "Why create further problems that you are unsure on how to handle?". The most important thing for a politician is how to save his own as* and remain a politician for the next mandate :)