Thursday, July 30, 2009

RIAA submits response to proposed jury instruction no. 110 on wilfulness in SONY v Tenenbaum

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the plaintiffs have filed a response to proposed jury instruction no. 110.

Plaintiffs' response to jury instruction no. 110

Keywords: lawyer digital copyright law online internet 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 intellectual property portable music player


Eric said...

They love to hear themselves talk don't they. The part that I really don't understand is their logic on "innocent infringement".

No mp3 I've ever seen has a copyright notice attached. There has to be some legal leeway in those cases where the user received a copy from a source without the notice attached. The RIAA would have you believe that since you had access to the record store ( or other sources of the music published through known legitimate channels ) you *magically* know that a specific mp3 is copyrighted before listening... somehow.

Alter_Fritz said...

reality distortion experts from the MAFIAA wrote:

"It seems impossible that an infringer disregarded the rights of a copyright holder, yet did not act deliberately."

Oh, then Eve's buddies must have been the ones that lied when they claimed that people would share stuff that they never had the deliberate intention to share!
All those governmental users that distributed top secret stuff when they used the computer that their children opened to the world, they did this deliberately! They are spies! Put them before a military tribunal and sentence them to execution for treason!

And what about those persons that rip their own CD's onto their computer (While MAFIAA hesitates to say that is "legal", they claimed that it "would not normaly raise concerns") and these rips got shared too because the online media distribution system that is now a partner of the plaintiffs here tricked users to share stuff they never intended to share?

THOSE scenarios are exactly that: disregarding the exclusive rights of copyrightholders WITHOUT doing so deliberately!

Seems typical for Eve Goldstein Burton to claim otherwise and contrary to pure logic that makes perfectly sense!