Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Judge Rejects RIAA 'Making Available' Theory

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the need-a-new-revenue-strategy dept.

The Courts 353

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A federal judge in Connecticut has rejected the RIAA's 'making available' theory, which is the basis of all of the RIAA's peer to peer file sharing cases. In Atlantic v. Brennan, in a 9-page opinion [PDF], Judge Janet Bond Arterton held that the RIAA needs to prove 'actual distribution of copies', and cannot rely — as it was permitted to do in Capitol v. Thomas — upon the mere fact that there are song files on the defendant's computer and that they were 'available'. This is the same issue that has been the subject of extensive briefing in two contested cases in New York, Elektra v. Barker and Warner v. Cassin. Judge Arterton also held that the defendant had other possible defenses, such as the unconstitutionality of the RIAA's damages theory and possible copyright misuse flowing from the record companies' anticompetitive behavior."

cancel ×

353 comments

Smart Judge (3, Insightful)

Killjoy_NL (719667) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551570)

This really makes me smile, I'm not in the US, but I follow the news on these kinds of cases (mostly on Slashdot), if only this would get more mainstream coverage.

Re:Smart Judge (4, Funny)

jtroutman (121577) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551624)

I would say, "How much more mainstream do you want than Slashdot?" After all, we are legion, we bring down servers across the internet merely by visiting them en masse. But then I look at Ron Paul's primary results and slink back to my basement.

Re:Smart Judge (1)

Killjoy_NL (719667) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551658)

Well, I would say (for US based news channels), CNN, NBC, etc.
But that's hoping for too much I'm afraid.

P.S. To Newyorkcountrylawyer, great work you're doing, please keep it up :)

Re:Smart Judge (3, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551774)

I would say, "How much more mainstream do you want than Slashdot?" After all, we are legion, we bring down servers across the internet merely by visiting them en masse. But then I look at Ron Paul's primary results and slink back to my basement.


What makes you think anywhere close to a majority of us would vote for Ron Paul? Seems like a poor indication of how mainstream Slashdot is.

Re:Smart Judge (1, Troll)

Reziac (43301) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552478)

That's actually an interesting question -- how many of us here WOULD vote for Ron Paul?** I'm guessing no more than about half, since there are a fair number of left-wing liberals in the slashdot mix.

**I did, but I'm just one in, uh, a million and change...

Re:Smart Judge (1, Offtopic)

terraformer (617565) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551822)

But then I look at Ron Paul's primary results and slink back to my basement.
Right, had you and everyone else who was disaffected slinked to the polling station maybe his numbers would not suck so bad.

Re:Smart Judge (0, Flamebait)

rockout (1039072) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552120)

It seems to me that while a majority of Slashdotters MIGHT be disaffected, most of them ARE fairly intelligent, and thus would not see Ron Paul as the best solution to America's problems. He does, after all, attempt to appeal to certain base instincts in parts of his platform - flat tax, anyone? sounds great! - that if enacted, in reality would cause even more problems, just different ones.

Re:Smart Judge (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552132)

Best sig I've read all month. . .

Re:Smart Judge (1)

terraformer (617565) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552482)

Well, I am glad it is the 25th and not the 2nd of the month...

What about Obama? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22552420)

Wouldn't you do better to look at Obama's numbers before he became popular as a baseline for Slashdot's influence? That poll we had showed Obama with several times Ron Paul's support.

We're not all Libertarians around here, and the pollsters always mention that Obama gets most of the educated Democratic voters. It's true that Obama supporters aren't as ... talkative ... as Dr. Paul's supporters, though, so maybe that's why people don't notice them as much.

Re:Smart Judge (3, Interesting)

ajs (35943) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551652)

This really makes me smile, I'm not in the US, but I follow the news on these kinds of cases (mostly on Slashdot), if only this would get more mainstream coverage.
Not going to happen.

The only angle under which this is "news" is that file sharing just became a lot more reasonable, and that's not something that IP-based conglomerates (aka the mainstream media) are going to be pushing. It just sounds dirty to them, and I don't think it's even a conscious decision. There's just no reason that a modern news reporter would think this was of general interest.

Re:Smart Judge (5, Interesting)

phoomp (1098855) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552054)

News related to P2P has been getting quite a bit of coverage in Canada lately. Not yet front-page coverage, but 2nd page coverage in some cases. Of course, our mainstream media isn't in bed with the IP-based conglomerates to the same degree as yours are.

Re:Smart Judge (4, Interesting)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552342)

I think this judge did not go quite far enough. I think the RIAA should have to show not only that distribution occurred, but that the distribution was INTENTIONAL. That is, not the product of accidentally having a file in a directory that Limewire is sharing or something.

Re:Smart Judge (2, Interesting)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551666)

Well, it's not really 'news' to most mainstream people--because, frankly, it doesn't really affect them directly.

Were the RIAA to be dissolved in a fit of legal briefs, that might make the business pages--but it would take something fairly spectacular to get into the 'real' news.

Re:Smart Judge (4, Insightful)

Mr_eX9 (800448) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551778)

'Real' news indeed.

The standards of what's deemed newsworthy in the US are completely off. This case, a milestone in the RIAA's war against file-sharers, isn't newsworthy, but a pop-psychologist making blatantly erroneous statements [shacknews.com] out of ignorance is? Doesn't seem right.

Re:Smart Judge (3, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551824)

Thus the scare quotes.

It's mostly due to the perception of the american public that anything that doesn't directly affect them is not terribly important--hence, the American Idol winner, the winner of the presidential election, and the price of gas are 'news' while most legal decisions are merely trivia, unless you're a lawyer or directly involved as one of the parties.

Re:Smart Judge (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552286)

It's mostly due to the perception of the american public that anything that doesn't directly affect them is not terribly important--hence, the American Idol winner, the winner of the presidential election, and the price of gas are 'news'

Not to split hairs, but how does American Idol directly impact the public, especially those of us that refuse to watch it?

Re:Smart Judge (2, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552378)

Those of us who refuse to watch it are generally the demographic who are perceptive enough to realize that legal decisions can impact other than the lawyers and the parties directly involved.

Thus, we're not in the mainstream--and hence, not the folks that the mainstream 'news' is targeting.

Those that do watch it are impacted directly with watercooler gossip or somesuch, I suppose. I'm not exactly certain why it's news, to be honest--I don't watch the thing myself--but that's my best guess.

Re:Smart Judge (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552422)

It's mostly due to the perception of the american public that anything that doesn't directly affect them is not terribly important--hence, the American Idol winner, the winner of the presidential election, and the price of gas are 'news'

Not to split hairs, but how does American Idol directly impact the public, especially those of us that refuse to watch it?

You just commented on it.

Re:Smart Judge (1, Insightful)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552334)

I wouldnt call the crap they put on American TV 'news' anyway.

Re:Smart Judge (1)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552432)

"Infotainment" is what it comes out to--part propaganda, part sensationalism and yellow journalism, part celebrity namedropping, with a smidge of actual fact in there for taste.

It's sorta like Americanized Szechuan cuisine--anyone used to the real thing wouldn't recognize it, but it's good enough for the masses.

Fox seems to be the worst offender in this category, but I can't really absolve the other major networks from blame. The eternal quest for viewers far outweighs the prospect of any actual news reporting.

Re:Smart Judge (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22551686)

Unfortunately, the people that own media creation companies also own the tv, distribution & broadcast companies. Its also not in their best interests for the public to know when its harder for the **AA to sue people. Fear of being sued is the only weapon they think they have to fight copyright infringement. Its not the only option available to them (blanket licences, more reasonable prices, producing better media etc) but when they insist on trying to fight back against copyright infringement all they can do is sue or buy more laws making it easier to sue.

Re:Smart Judge (3, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552232)

This is a pretty big deal. A lot of countries fall back on the US in order to use as a basis for their law (australia) and some use it as an example of what not to do in most instances (EU). So definitely a total gain on a worldwide level if precedents are set.

Re:Smart Judge (4, Insightful)

rhizome (115711) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552292)

if only this would get more mainstream coverage.

The problem is that the plaintiffs in this case are the companies who would report on this development.

ouch... (4, Funny)

rsmoody (791160) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551586)

Was that the sky falling that hit me on the head or just a smart-stick!

Re:ouch... (5, Funny)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551614)

I'm gonna shut the window so those flying pigs won't get inside and interfere with me knitting a muffler for the devil.

Re:ouch... (1)

psychicninja (1150351) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552022)

Keep it down! I'm missing the opening movie on DNF...

Re:ouch... (1)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551616)

Pig droppings, looks like. ;-p

Geez... (2)

ack154 (591432) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551602)

It is about... damn... time.

kinda dumb (0)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551622)

This is actually pretty stupid. If I set up a stand outside my house with a sign that says "pirated movies: $5" and didn't sell any, I bet someone would still arrest/sue me. Just because I burned copies of it and set up shop doesn't mean I distributed any so nothing can happen to me under that ruling.

Re:kinda dumb (5, Insightful)

jtroutman (121577) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551662)

No, putting up the sign makes it "intent to distribute", which is not the same as having files in a publicly available folder. This would be like making a copy of a song on a CD, leaving that CD on your porch and having someone come along and pick it up. Then getting sued for distribution.

Re:kinda dumb (2, Insightful)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552066)

Except that depends. If "shared folder" means "folder shared and indexed by a p2p service, such that said service's other users are made aware of the track's availability upon request", then it's more like the GP's example than yours.

Actually it's like the GP's example with a much more effective marketing budget.

I do agree in a literal sense that "merely making available" should not be enough to get a judgement; but I don't agree if you're saying that putting a track on kazaa is "merely making it available".

Re:kinda dumb (1)

matazar (1104563) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552400)

except that the people being sued don't know much about computers. if i asked anyone in my family what files they are sharing online, they'd probably say none. however, they are sharing all the folders they have in limewire without realizing it.

it's also not like the GP's example because no where are these people charging and i'm sure most are unaware they are even sharing their files.

Re:kinda dumb (5, Interesting)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552462)

Its neither.

1) You don't 'index and share your songs via Kazaa', Kazaa et al, do tha all by themselves, without user intervention, in their default course of action. Many users aren't even aware 'they did it'.

2) I've always liked the library analagy. Its a public building, open to the public, and full of books. Photocopiers are placed conveniently often even marked with signs --> photocopiers this way. The books are carefully organized to make them easy to find. And there are computers scattered around so you can look them up that way too.

They've set everything up they possibly could to let you make copies. Yet if you do so, YOU are liable for infringement, not them.

By analagy, if I set up a computer, put it in a public place (like the internet), with songs available on it, and also set it up with tools that will make copies of those songs for you if you send it the right commands.

Now if you send my computer a command to transmit you a copy of the song... shouldn't YOU be liable for infringement? My computer isn't making copies and sending them out... YOU asked my computer to do it. All I did was set it up to listen to requests.

How is that fundamentally different from a library? If I could somehow operate the library photocopier by remote from my computer, would that suddenly shift the blame for making copies to them? I should think not. Its still YOU who have (remotely) operated the copier to make an infringing copy.

Finally, as a side note... if YOU own the CD in question, and feel its easier to download a copy using my publicly available computer to send you one, rather than ripping your own CD. Shouldn't that be legal. I as the computer owner have done nothing illegal by making it available. You have done nothing illegal because you have the right to make personal use copies of that song by virtue of the fact that you own a copy.

Why or Why not does this 'theory' work?

Finally if I charge you for access to my system that allows you to make copies am I a pirate then? Good question... interestingly, I still think not. If a library charges you .10c page to use their photocopier and makes you use some sort of 'printer card' that you prepay to fill... would that make them infringe? I doubt it...most libraries -do- charge for photocopies.

So its only infringement if they start making the actual copies themselves. Setting up the equipment and letting you operate it, even if they charge you for access, doesn't make them liable for infringement.

Although at some point you might argue that their is a conspiracy to commit infringement...

Re:kinda dumb (1)

s2r (461076) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551680)

I think it's different since making those files available you don't charge anything.

Re:kinda dumb (3, Insightful)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551698)

Not quite. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing your tactic would constitute commercial infringement and thus fall into criminal law (or at the very least a different set of laws), whereas small-scale sharing without any money being made would fall under civil law, which is what this case is interpreting.

Re:kinda dumb (1)

Alter_Fritz (1087847) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551728)

IANAL, but

unless you actually sell one , no you will not be charged just for setup the sign

The courts/lawyers quote that come up in in the docs linked on NYCL's blog say something like "a mere offer to sale does not violate the rights under [copyrighlaw] unless the offer is actually consumed by the public"

you might get in trouble if you have reproduced the phonorecords you want to sell without the permission of copyrightowners though.

 

Re:kinda dumb (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22551816)

The situation you describe is akin to when police bust drug dealers in undercover operations - they have to wait for the sale to be completed (money to change hands) before they can arrest and charge the individual with dealing.

Re:kinda dumb (1)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552100)

In many cases merely a large amount is considered proof of intent to deal. Here in California, over an ounce of pot is considered proof of intent ( although in practice it seems that you have to have a duffle bag full before they actually prosecute. ) The theory is that there is no other reasonable interpretation of your actions/circumstances.
Back to TFA, it seems that putting large numbers of copyrighted works on a server falls under the same logic. ( I don't necessarily agree with the law, I'm just describing the logic behind its application )

Re:kinda dumb (1)

andy_t_roo (912592) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552316)

yes, but you can't use "intent to commit copyright violation" as evidence that actual copyright violation is happening - where as intent to distribute is in itself something criminal, separate from actually dealing.

Re:kinda dumb (1)

MrShaggy (683273) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552368)

Thats because no-one can get a conviction in California. Look at Oj, and Micheal Jackson, I am sure there are a few more.

Re:kinda dumb (0, Offtopic)

ProteusQ (665382) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551850)

The cop can't arrest the prostitute until money has changed hands either.

Re:kinda dumb (1)

rundgren (550942) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552012)

It's like with drugs: You can't get arrested just for walking around with a sign that says "Drugs for sale."

Re:kinda dumb (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552050)

The cop can't arrest the prostitute until money has changed hands either.

      No, but they can arrest the "John" for soliciting, and no money has to change hands. Which is why cops often pose as prostitutes - it's great to get the statistical # of arrests up on a slow month.

Re:kinda dumb (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552220)

No, but they can arrest the "John" for soliciting,
But in that case, the crime itself is "soliciting", from wikipedia:

consists of a person offering money or something else of value in order to incite or induce another to commit a crime with the specific intent that the person solicited commit the crime.
So the crime is to offer the money, the other party do not have to accept it in order to consume the crime.

Re:kinda dumb (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552404)

I tell my ex-wife she is a whore because she took my money and I get arrested for that. SCHE should be the one in jail.

Re:kinda dumb (5, Insightful)

amosh (109566) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552008)

Correct, someone WOULD (sue, not arrest) you. Once you burn copies, you're violating copyright, even if you didn't sell any. This ruling doesn't apply to you at all; anyone who comes to your stand can see proof of your illegal activity.

It does, however, apply to the defendant in this case. The reason the RIAA needed the "making available" theory is because they did not have any actual proof that their copyright had been violated. If I've got an MP3 in a public folder, what have I done? Have I illegally copied anything? Doesn't seem like it. Have I created a derivative work? Arguably, if I ripped the MP3, but maybe I downloaded it, and ripping a CD I own is almost certainly fair use anyway. Have I distributed it? Well, if the RIAA has proof of me distributing it to someone, they've got me. Obviously, in this case, they don't have proof of that. All they see is that MP3, so the "making available" theory says that, even in the absence of proof that their rights have been violated, they should be able to sue people.

What happens if you leave a DVD on your front lawn, I come along with my laptop, rip and burn it? THAT is what this case is talking about. Have you broken the law by leaving that DVD on the lawn? I clearly have, by copying it... the RIAA thinks that you have, too. The judge, luckily, knows the law a little bit better. You have proof, or you have nothing.

Re:kinda dumb (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552124)

Once you burn copies, you're violating copyright, even if you didn't sell any
Really? What about your fair-use right to make a backup?

Re:kinda dumb (1)

Alter_Fritz (1087847) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552228)

if you fall under german copyrightlaw you have that "right" to make a copy for personal use 53 of the specific german statute,

but if i understand your american copyrightlaw, making a backup is NOT one one of explicitly mentioned fair use rights (actually it's "defense" not rights if I understand it correctly)

I know about usage/copies for for example criticism, parody, news reporting but NO mentioning of copies for "backup"

Re:kinda dumb (1)

xero314 (722674) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552180)

Actually this is more like setting up a DVD burner on your front yard and leaving your DVD collection available with blank disks for someone to come and make there own copies.

Personally I'm curious what proof that a file has been downloaded the judge would like to see in future cases.

respect for law (2, Interesting)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551638)

So this form of copyright infringement is illegal, but the law impossible to enforce? Not a good situation. Congress will be forced to give IP rights holders increased power to police infringement.

Re:respect for law (3, Informative)

kithrup (778358) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551990)

There isn't an "attempted copyright infringement" law, or at least I don't believe there is. (Is there a conspiracy charge that can be used?) So it's not illegal until copying actually happens. That, however, is not what the RIAA has been arguing, to various degrees of success.

Re:respect for law (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22552258)

The person you replied to is right. Congress will now act and turn making available illegal and probably a whole laundry list of other RIAA wishes.

Re:respect for law (1)

petehead (1041740) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552128)

While I think this comment is insightful in that it points out the legislative repercussions, I don't think that the ruling is making the law impossible to enforce. It seems to shift the focus to the people that obtain the copyrighted material or distribute it, not the people that "make it available" but don't actively distribute it. Like the analogy of the library having copyrighted books and a copy machine available, if you photocopy the whole book, the library doesn't get into trouble, you do.

Re:respect for law (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552142)

So this form of copyright infringement is illegal, but the law impossible to enforce? Not a good situation. Congress will be forced to give IP rights holders increased power to police infringement.
Connecticut is in the 2nd District [wikimedia.org]
This case is legal precedent in only New York, Vermont and Connecticut.
Judges will take into consideration what other circuits have decided, but they are certainly not bound by it.

Re:respect for law (5, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552300)

This case is legal precedent in only New York, Vermont and Connecticut. Judges will take into consideration what other circuits have decided, but they are certainly not bound by it.
It's not binding anywhere, other than in the case in which it was rendered.

But where a judge has done his or her homework, and is right.... other judges will follow. This judge has done her homework, and is right. Other judges will follow.

And when these issues get to an appeals court, there is no other possible answer than the one she gave: (a) the complaint doesn't satisfy the federal pleading standards for the alleged violations of the right of reproduction (uploading and downloading), (b) there is no such thing as a claim for 'making files available for distribution', (c) there is a meritorious defense of copyright misuse, and (d) there is a meritorious defense of unconstitutionality of the plaintiffs' statutory damages theory.

Re:respect for law (1)

mollymoo (202721) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552426)

So this form of copyright infringement is illegal, but the law impossible to enforce?

IANAL, but I don't think that's the gist. The law as it stands can be (and is) enforced, the question is over what evidence is required to "prove" a violation. At the moment, the RIAA are only providing evidence of "making available". If this judgment goes against them they'll just have to gather evidence of actual distribution. In short, they have to show that somebody actually broke the law, not just show that somebody could easily break the law and might already have done so.

This is actually important... (4, Insightful)

Otter (3800) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551640)

It's worth noting that unlike the typical NewYorkCountryLawyer story gloating about how the RIAA lost some motion on some case somewhere, this is a potentially major development.

Re:This is actually important... (5, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551660)

It's worth noting that unlike the typical NewYorkCountryLawyer story gloating about how the RIAA lost some motion on some case somewhere, this is a potentially major development.
Thanks.

Re:This is actually important... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22551848)

The RIAA also lost an uncontested case [arstechnica.com] , the other day. This guy not only didn't have a lawyer, he didn't even show up. And the RIAA still lost because it neglected to include any facts, producing only a 'boilerplate' complaint that could have equally well applied to anyone the RIAA sued.

I'd submit this as a story, but it's too much of a rehash now, so feel free to discuss both of the RIAA's losses here.

- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property

Re:This is actually important... (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551884)

The RIAA also lost an uncontested case, the other day. This guy not only didn't have a lawyer, he didn't even show up. And the RIAA still lost because it neglected to include any facts, producing only a 'boilerplate' complaint that could have equally well applied to anyone the RIAA sued. I'd submit this as a story, but it's too much of a rehash now, so feel free to discuss both of the RIAA's losses here.
It's the same case.

Ooops... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22552086)

Didn't pay enough attention to your submission to see that case among the others you listed and I didn't see any mention of the defendant defaulting. Good thing I didn't submit it, then, we might have had another dupe

Anyhow, I might as well ask, what do you think about how this ruling came about even though the defendant defaulted? As I understand it, it's NOT generally a good idea, but thanks to the oddities of RIAA litigation, those who have defaulted haven't done half bad in the cases I've seen, at least comparatively.

I also liked that expert report from the other day. I really hope that information gets presented in court a lot more often.

Re:This is actually important... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22552312)

[i]Ray Beckerman[/i], the giant ball licker of thieves and idiots.

What the hell is with judges this year?!? (5, Funny)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551672)

Who the hell gave them the power to just wantonly dispense fair and balanced justice like this? Judges have always been empowered to make huge decisions, but this new behavior is becoming quite alarming. Common sense has been creeping into recent rulings with alarming frequency, and many decisions seem to be based on information, not cash-backed opinions.

I hope this behavior doesn't continue... the entire American way of life is at stake!

Re:What the hell is with judges this year?!? (0, Redundant)

ShiNoKaze (1097629) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551744)

Perhaps the *AA's got tired of throwing money at every judge that comes along...

Re:What the hell is with judges this year?!? (0, Offtopic)

garcia (6573) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551790)

It all stems from them watching videos of Obama Girl including Saturday's SNL spoof of the Democrat Debates [youtube.com] .

Re:What the hell is with judges this year?!? (0, Offtopic)

garcia (6573) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551844)

Please note, I am not an Obama supporter (I don't support any of them actually.)

I think I speak for everyone when I say... (1)

spoop (952477) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551674)

FUCK YEAH CT

Re:I think I speak for everyone when I say... (1)

Mr_eX9 (800448) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551712)

Amen. I for one welcome our new Connecticutian overlords...

Makes me proud to be from CT.

So uhm... why is this different? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551682)

I can see the merits in both arguments. Why is making available rejected in this case but not in the Thompson case? How are these different?

Re:So uhm... why is this different? (1)

Teran9 (1163643) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551730)

Different court and different judge.

Re:So uhm... why is this different? (2, Insightful)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551754)

How are these different?
different judges and non-binding precidents.

Re:So uhm... why is this different? (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551858)

Why is making available rejected in this case but not in the Thom[as] case?
Because the judge in the Thomas case made an error.

How are these different?
No difference. The judge's instructions to the jury in Capitol v. Thomas [blogspot.com] should have been precisely what Judge Arterton said:

""[W]ithout actual distribution of copies.... there is no violation [of] the distribution right." 4 William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright 13:9 (2007); see also id. N. 10 (collecting cases); Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1162 (9th Cir. 2007)(affirming the district court's finding "that distribution requires an 'actual dissemination' of a copy")".

Looks like the tide had turned! (1)

JusticeDemon (1246112) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551722)

It's about time one of these cases went before a judge that didn't subscribe to the "series of tubes" mentality. Woo hoo!

Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (5, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551762)

I'm taking a poll. What do you think the RIAA will do now with this case?

(a) Walk away.
(b) Bury the judge in paper with a 'reconsideration' motion.
(c) Ask Mr. Brennan to "settle".
(d) Other.

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (1)

Alter_Fritz (1087847) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551830)

b
and
c

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22551836)

RIAA is spineless. They'll walk away.

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (1, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551902)

D) Slightly change the wording of their argument and keep on truckin'

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552068)

D) Slightly change the wording of their argument and keep on truckin'
They did indeed do that in Interscope v. Rodriguez [blogspot.com] , but for some reason they skipped out on actually serving the amended "argument".

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (2, Interesting)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552122)

Frightfully lazy of 'em.

Or perhaps they're filing more suits than they can reasonably expect to fight, banking on having most of 'em settle out of court, so a few slip through the cracks from time to time?

If that's the case, and it could be proven that such a load is an unreasonable hinderance on the court system, then perhaps a class action suit on behalf of all the people being delayed by the RIAA's nonsense might be....profitable.

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (2, Interesting)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551974)

Why not submit this to the official slashdot poll? With a referencial link to the case/this story, of course.

Also, b. I'm hoping to seem something wacky in d, but I think b.

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552330)

Why not submit this to the official slashdot poll? With a referencial link to the case/this story, of course. Also, b. I'm hoping to seem something wacky in d, but I think b.
How?

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (1)

Wuhao (471511) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552418)

Use your NewYorkCountryLawyer powers and just Jedi it up there. I don't know. I'm sure none of the seven people left on Slashdot who don't know who you are work on staff, so if you can contact any of them, I'm sure it'll show up.

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22551976)

I'm going with choice "b"
b) Bury the judge in paper with a 'reconsideration' motion.
I think I remember reading that they've tended to use this tactic in other cases and non-court situations too.

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552046)

I'm going with choice "b" b) Bury the judge in paper with a 'reconsideration' motion. I think I remember reading that they've tended to use this tactic in other cases and non-court situations too.
They did indeed use that tactic in Atlantic v. Dangler [blogspot.com] and Interscope v. Does 1-y [blogspot.com] .

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (1)

andphi (899406) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551998)

I offer a few specific options for other:
e) Attack Mr Brennan's kneecaps with a ballpeen hammer.
f) Hire some guy named innie to hit the judge over the head with a shovel
g) Go the Miskatonic University and do research on resurrecting CowboyNeal.

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552092)

First B, then if B fails, A.

But if B works, then C, accompanied by much media fanfare, geared toward intimidating other judges into NOT thwarting the RIAA's will. ("See? you don't want to be the next fool who gets forced to reconsider, or worse overturned, when you bucked us, do you??")

One can hope this will continue to backfire, as more judges become aware that the RIAA's cases are generally just so much horseshit.

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (5, Funny)

psychicninja (1150351) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552098)

I'm taking a poll. What do you think the RIAA will do now with this case?

(a) Walk away.
(b) Bury the judge in paper with a 'reconsideration' motion.
(c) Ask Mr. Brennan to "settle".
(d) Send in CowboyNeal
Fixed that for ya.

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552288)

I'm taking a poll. What do you think the RIAA will do now with this case?

        (a) Walk away.
        (b) Bury the judge in paper with a 'reconsideration' motion.
        (c) Ask Mr. Brennan to "settle".
        (d) Send in CowboyNeal
        (e) Breasts


There, I fixed it for you.

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22552104)

Missing option -
(e) - Sue CowboyNeal

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (1)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552106)

I'd answer if i knew how B and C were mutually exclusive heh. If the brain who gives the go-ahead to continue the process is at all rational, then a.

i'm betting b + c for some reason.

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (2, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552178)

If the brain who gives the go-ahead to continue the process is at all rational, then a.
That's a big 'if'. This [blogspot.com] is the clone-in-charge.

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (2, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552214)

And these [blogspot.com] are their spokespersons.

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552278)

I'll vote 'A' here, but over on Groklaw, I might change my mind.

Re:Poll: What will the RIAA do now? (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552320)

I'll go for:
(e) Continue to live a life of disgusting filthy rich luxury

if only (1)

EdelFactor19 (732765) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551852)

common sense and decency were on the stock market they'd be way up today.... thats the most refreshing legal thing ive read since amazon had some 1 click patents overturned (albeit partially) several months ago

w00t

Re:if only (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#22551984)

common sense and decency were on the stock market they'd be way up today

No. Common sense says the stock market is going to stay down for a LONG time yet, until the economy gets its act together. Wanting it to be way up is not common sense, it's "wishful thinking". Wait for tomorrow, you'll see. We bears will have our way, but first we need buyers for our shorts :)

This may affect more than just the RIAA (4, Insightful)

Reziac (43301) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552020)

This is a blow not only against the RIAA legal machine, but also against "thought crime" of all sorts (such as the argument that selling guns facilitates murder). So even as significant as it is by itself, it is a FAR more important decision than it appears.

Re:This may affect more than just the RIAA (5, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552114)

This is a blow not only against the RIAA legal machine, but also against "thought crime" of all sorts (such as the argument that selling guns facilitates murder). So even as significant as it is by itself, it is a FAR more important decision than it appears.
Indeed it is. A judge telling the emperor he wears no clothes. This may be the beginning of the end.

"Making Available" kinda like... (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 5 years ago | (#22552486)

Isn't this "making available" approach like trying to sue someone for simply having a stack of books piled up next to a public photocopier? I guess book publishers should try to sue libraries...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...