The RIAA's argument that merely "making files available" is in and of itself a copyright infringement, argued in January in Elektra v. Barker (awaiting decision), is raging again, this time in a White Plains, New York, court in Warner v. Cassin.
Ms. Cassin moved to dismiss the complaint; the RIAA countered by arguing that 'making available' on a p2p file sharing network is a violation of the distribution right in 17 USC 106(3); Ms. Cassin responded, pointing out the clear language of the statute, questioning the validity of the RIAA's authorities, and arguing that the Court's acceptance of the RIAA's theory would seriously impact the internet.
The case is scheduled for a conference on September 14th, at 10 AM, at the federal courthouse, 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains, New York, in the courtroom of Judge Stephen C. Robinson. The conference is open to the public.
Commentary & discussion:
Ars Technica
CrunchGear
"Slog" on "The Stranger"
Electronista
p2pnet.net
Maximum PC
ZDNet
Keywords: digital copyright online law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs
4 comments:
Is it really that accepted to lie and distort to the judge as much as the RIAA is attempting to slip this stuff past him?
Do judges get tired of irrelevant facts and citations thrown in more to confuse and obfuscate issues than get to the truth?
Do lawyers that attempt these tactics come across as stupid, not deserving of their law licenses, and a drain on the court and the Defense, who are then required to refute "facts" that never should have been in Plaintiff's submissions in the first place?
Are lawyers who practice these terrible pleading factors ever able to see them come back to bite them in the butt?
1. No.
2. Yes.
3. Yes
4. Yes.
Leading questions aside, it seems to me that laws aimed at preserving a single industry's claim to profitability are ultimately flawed. It doesn't necessarily point to a corrupt government; though corruption would abound in such an environment (often without those in power even realizing their corruption). What it does point to is that the media industry is doing what it has done very well for over 50 years now: create illusions.
The "making available" argument is a prime example: they are the owners of the copyrights in question, and therefore they are entitled to claim infringement. Except that under the law this isn't really so. Claims usually have to be well-established by anyone but a large or powerful organization. This dangerous trend erodes free speech: if Oxford or Webster claimed infringement for use of the English language, the arguments would be almost identical at their core.
I also view their methodology in charging people to be an end-run around Due Process, and an invasion of privacy.
Add into this fact that the industry does not look out for the best interests of artists (evidenced in the artists' treatment and the fact that original artists no longer maintain any rights to their own works in general), and you can see that this is nothing more than a grab for money and power.
Really, the RIAA could give Machiavelli lessons.
I cant believe you just compared the RIAA to Machiavelli. the RIAA couldn't possibly teach Machiavelli a thing, they don't share any common values. Machiavelli only believed in committing evil actions for the common good - unification and health of the state and its people. NOT for personal gain. the RIAA are worthless swine who pick on ten year olds and grandmas for the sake of wealth, and perhaps a few whelping laughs at the suffering of others. no comparison
Post a Comment