![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackofallgeeksFor those who, unlike me, don't keep up with the chaotic comings and goings
of copyright cases, the name Jammie Thomas might not ring any bells. The
long and short of it is that she was, apparently, the first person found
guilty of copyright infringment based on the RIAA's "making available"
argument; that is, they argue that putting music files in a shared folder is
enough to qualify for copyright infringment. The interesting bit comes in
when the Judge notes, after the fact, that he may have made a terrible
mistake, since copyright never uses the term "making available" --
and, in fact, 'distribution' is only an example of a protected right, not a
right in and of itself.
The Register has an article up about it all, none of which is terribly
interesting except that they quote a pertinent piece of the copyright law:
"And for sound recordings, it defines "publication" as "offering to
distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of
further distribution, public performance, or public display"."
Emphasis mine. And I think that emphasis may be of particular interest
because file sharing isn't done for public purposes, but
private ones. I send a file to my friend so that he can listen to it, not
so that he can have a dance party with 100 of his closest friends. Which
only leaves the possibility of "purposes of further distribution." That is,
to me, it seems like the RIAA would have to prove that not only were you
distributing copies, but that you'd intended for those copies to be
further distributed. that's much more difficult, if not impossible,
to prove. And as the RIAA is already complaining that providing
proof of infringment is too hard, such a reading of the law very well might
kill the whole thing.
Is there anyone out there who knows more than I do who might weigh in on
this?
of copyright cases, the name Jammie Thomas might not ring any bells. The
long and short of it is that she was, apparently, the first person found
guilty of copyright infringment based on the RIAA's "making available"
argument; that is, they argue that putting music files in a shared folder is
enough to qualify for copyright infringment. The interesting bit comes in
when the Judge notes, after the fact, that he may have made a terrible
mistake, since copyright never uses the term "making available" --
and, in fact, 'distribution' is only an example of a protected right, not a
right in and of itself.
The Register has an article up about it all, none of which is terribly
interesting except that they quote a pertinent piece of the copyright law:
"And for sound recordings, it defines "publication" as "offering to
distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of
further distribution, public performance, or public display"."
Emphasis mine. And I think that emphasis may be of particular interest
because file sharing isn't done for public purposes, but
private ones. I send a file to my friend so that he can listen to it, not
so that he can have a dance party with 100 of his closest friends. Which
only leaves the possibility of "purposes of further distribution." That is,
to me, it seems like the RIAA would have to prove that not only were you
distributing copies, but that you'd intended for those copies to be
further distributed. that's much more difficult, if not impossible,
to prove. And as the RIAA is already complaining that providing
proof of infringment is too hard, such a reading of the law very well might
kill the whole thing.
Is there anyone out there who knows more than I do who might weigh in on
this?
