We always thought that the RIAA's
first-ever filesharing trial victory against
Jammie Thomas was a little suspect since the labels weren't required to prove that Thomas even had Kazaa installed on her machine or was the person using the account in question, and it looks like the court agrees -- it's just declared a mistrial and set aside the $222,000 judgment on the grounds that simply making copyrighted works available for download does not constitute copyright infringement. That's a huge decision -- the "making available" theory is the basis for most of the RIAA's legal arguments -- and it means that the RIAA will now have to prove the unauthorized transfer of each song it wants to collect damages on at the new trial. We'll see what effect this has in the broader sense -- we've got a feeling we're in for a slew of appellate decisions on both sides of the "making available" debate -- but for now it looks like the good guys are finally starting to score some points.
[Via
ZDNet, thanks JagsLive]
Read - Wired article
Read - Decision [PDF]
posted September 25th 2008 1:34PM
So... What happens to the people already sued on those grounds? Can they go back and have the decision overturned?
Probably not. My understanding is that this is the first time a decision has been made. Everyone else has settled with them (usually for $3000 I believe). Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Is this bringing joyful tears to anyone else's eyes?
Uhh, I want to deny it but yes.
Yes
Above comment @andyg8180.
Engadget:10
Engadget's comment system: 4
The Public Library, "making available" for centuries.
When will the RIAA start suing used CD stores? Half the albums I own (after I downloaded them to make sure they were not crap), I bought from various used CD outlets because I can get them for half or more off the price I would pay at a place like Best Buy, which is already the lowest priced place to buy new CDs. Not every person who downloads an album was going to buy said album and not all of them will like and keep said album for the long term. Calling downloading theft requires proof of intent and that is impossible on a large scale. Is borrowing your friend's copy of an album to listen to theft? By the RIAA's standards, it appears that it is. The way they talk, the only people that should be able to hear music are the people that buy it. That's an outstanding way to make sure your artist's fan base will never grow. Good call. Then you can drop them for not going triple platinum and blame it all on the internet. On behalf of every small band that got signed, screwed and bankrupted by underhanded record execs, I proudly give the RIAA the finger.
I believe I read something (maybe even here abouts) that mentioned an RIAA lawyer or exec or other shill complaining about loud music that people play on their PMP's or other personal players. Said individual's thought process was that if other people could hear your music player because it was so loud, those other people should have to pay to for listening in and/or the one playing it too loud would have to pay a fine. It is much like the statement I heard about some advertising exec saying that he/she hated when people got up and ignored the TV when the commercials come on and that they should be fined or their TV service/reception cut off. In other words, people should be forced to watch the commercials. When asked about whether the viewer could get up to use the restroom, the exec begrudgingly agreed that it might be ok to do that.
You have flaw in your premise. In your scenario, your friend legally obtained a CD and then lent it to you to listen to. However, downloading music to "preview" is not the same. The RIAA, artist and music studio, did NOT give you permission to borrow their music. Your example would be better if you said you broke into your friends house and took his CD to preview but have every intent to pay him for it in the future assuming you like what your hear or else you will give it back. Not the same.
HOWEVER, with that out of the way, Die Scum Die!!! Any blow the the capitalist RIAA is a victory to music fans everywhere. I blame the RIAA "cops" for making sure no good music has be released in the last decade. "Hey we need more money from your hard work Mr. musician to make sure continue our hard work suing without merit all bad people sharing 24 songs while you starve. By the way, any money gained from suing the pants off of everyone won't end up in your pockets. So please make more music for less as soon as you can"
Now if only the MPAA would get the same treatment.
No, that would be breaking and entering and larceny, because I stole a tangible item without having permission. Downloading an album is not stealing from the person who bought the album and offered it online. It is, at best, borrowing from "some guy on the internet" to see if you like it and, at fast, streamlined tape trading. If you are young and unfamiliar with tape trading, go up and ask Metallica and Slayer how they got a fan base in the 80s. It's the same thing, on a massive scale and it made a lot of small, struggling bands into career musicians (note that I did not say it made all of them rich).
Downloading music is obtaining of information. The RIAA simply wish to control how that information is distributed, which to an extent, I can actually understand. If they came at these laws with intelligent, logical guidelines, I would be willing to listen, but "you downloaded, therefore you cost us a sale" is neither logical, nor factual. It has polluted the minds of small artists the world over and done nothing to help music proliferation of music as a whole. In short, this whole Mcarthy-like witch hunt stifles the growth of the art of making music. Of course, the RIAA knows this. If they didn't shut things like Napster down when they did, small bands might have figured out that they don't need big labels to become well known.
@ bionic radd
I would just like to verify your statement about the "every downloaded album = a lost sale".
Every album I have purchased in the last 5-10 years has been because I downloaded the album, or otherwise acquired it for free (borrowed and copied from a friend, etc.).
So going on the RIAA's logic:
If they had stopped me from downloading even 5 years ago, that would have prevented the sale of about 50 albums (about 10 a year).
With most albums averaging 12 tracks that's 600 total tracks.
They ruled $220,000 for 24 tracks, so that's $9166.67 per track.
This brings the RIAA's total in prevented song sales to...
$5,500,002.00 in damages.
Looks like you guys might have to fire one of your gold-plated-suit-wearing lawyers, or ebay one of your LawsuitExpress Learjets...
The biggest year for CD sales ALL TIME was the last year of the original Napster website. That happened for exactly the reasons posters are giving above - try before you buy. The RIAA closed Napster down and they've been suffering ever since. They are empirically suicidal.
Who wants to live in a world where sharing is a crime? There's a special place in Hell for these people.
Well...she probably will still owe 200,000$ in legal fees...
Damn lawyers.....
If she wins, I believe the RIAA will have to reimburse her for all her legal expenses.
No they will pay for all her legal fees :) :) :)
24 songs from iTunes: $24.
24 songs from the RIAA: $220,000
Telling the RIAA to go screw themselves: priceless!
Getting the RIAA defeated in court: Priceless
Not having to pay $9,000 for "Mambo No. 5": Priceless!
So does that mean that the people the RIAA bilked out of money because they didn't go to court can sue the RIAA to get the money back?
No, I believe if you settled with them, you sign a document admitting fault and whatever else they have charged you with in exchange for being charged "only" several thousand dollars as opposed to several HUNDRED thousand dollars. This is the "landmark case" and is great news indeed that it has been overturned, thank god.
One of the things that sticks out the most to me about these cases, is that the fine PER SONG can go up to $150,000 USD. Meanwhile, the actual value of a song is 1-2 dollars. So then, why is this not being heavily reported on and seen as a major step against this sort of lunacy:
"While the court does not discount plaintiffs' claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far-reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs -‐ the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000 – more than 500 times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than 4,000 times the cost of three CDs." - Judge Davis
So, if you are not very networking savvy, like most of the consumers out there, and don't know how to set up WPA encryption on your WiFi network, you're pretty much screwed when somebody uses your connection to download illegal stuff? RIAA, I salute you with my middle finger...
well, actually no.
If you decide to leave your wireless network as open, it is very possible to argue that it was not you who downloaded the files and that because your wireless network is open, it could have been anyone. The RIAA would have no way of proving that it was YOU who downloaded the songs, etc.
illegally downloading 24 songs...$222,000
stealing 2 CD's from a store...$250 fine (maybe) and a slap on the wrist
hmm...
Awesome.
[rejoices]
No Proof, No Crime. If assailants can get out of serious crimes on a technicality (OJ, cough, cough), then I think the burden of proof should suffice here also.
About danged time!
There "claim" would be equivalent to me leaving my CD's unlocked on the shelf at the office and having someone with a laptop in the same room. Thats technically making available for distribution. I mean nothing to stop that person with the laptop from popping my CD's in his laptop and copying them. Takes about 90-120 seconds per cd on a good machine.
The idea that making available is the same as infringement is absolutely ludicrous I am glad we finally got a judge with a piece of gray matter in his skull.
If its $9,250 a song than I know people who owe $74,888,000