Is "Making Available" Copyright Infringement? 320
NewYorkCountryLawyer updates us now that the legal issue — is it copyright infringement merely to "make available" a copyrighted work? — has been argued by the attorneys in Elektra v. Barker (on January 26). Whichever way the ruling goes it will have a large impact across the Internet. Appeal seems likely either way. No ruling has issued yet but "a friend" has made the 58-page transcript "available" (PDF here).
Illegal to not report a crime? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder what would happen if some broke into a house, instead of taking away CDs, he just copied them and left, would the house owner be liable for copyright infringement?
Knowingly and unknowingly? (Score:3, Interesting)
How does this affect other sources? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Illegal to not report a crime? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, I would say it's more like this. Suppose I built a device that could duplicate any physical item given to it exactly. Further suppose that people started using this device to duplicate cars so they didn't have to pay buy one from a car dealer.
The car dealers, facing the total destruction of their business, decide to lobby Congress to pass laws that makes these duplication devices illegal. This, however, doesn't work. People are still making copies in the black-market.
So again, through the courts and congress they attempt to make putting a car in any public place a crime.
I know this is a bat-shit crazy analogy but to some extent that is because what the music industry is doing is bat-shit crazy.
What really hurts is that Congress and the RIAA have totally missed just how revolutionary the Internet is. You'd expect the RIAA to be blind to this because of their own vested interests but for Congress to so completely miss the point is unforgivable.
Simon
Re:slippery slope (Score:3, Interesting)
Where it will really get tricky is if consumers begin to copyright our invoice copies, and charge the publisher for the right to view them.
Heck, I'll just copyright my own face while I'm at it. Stop looking at me!
Distribution versus "making available" (Score:4, Interesting)
I realize the RIAA is focused on people "making available" copyright works via P2P networks, but the legal implications are pretty profound.
Re:Moot (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Interesting idea - definition of a library (Score:4, Interesting)
This belief that copyrighted material *has no intellectual value* is absurd. If it has no intellectual value, then obviously there's no reason to restrict copying it. If it has intellectual value, then obviously others benifit if you share it with them.
Further, just because some act of sharing would be copyright infringement *doesn't* mean that helping others by sharing information isn't a good thing. When your parents taught you that sharing was good they were right... some sharing just happens to be illegal now.
Here's an interesting analogy to shoot down RIAA (Score:1, Interesting)
Granted, this is a low-power broadcast. And perfectly legal according to the FCC. The problem is that according to the RIAA's legal arguments, I'm guilty of making the tune available. Goodness knows that someone else could come along, and listen to it on their radio. Or even record it.
It doesn't seem the FCC shares the RIAA's viewpoint, as they granted the manufacturer a license for doing such broadcasting. There is absolutely no way in the world that the FCC would grant a license to use the airwaves in order to facilitate piracy.
So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer, you've apparently got the FCC on your side. This is a government sanctioned fair-use device.
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:3, Interesting)
Note, whether files were illicitly copied from an shared folder is sort of outside the question I was raising -- specifically, can you be liable for damage to another's property by virtue of computer negligence. Obviously, media content is "property" of the copyright holder yadda yadda yadda. I was thinking more about clogging up the "tubes", DDOS attacks, distribution point for infecting other computers -- stuff like that. As for copyright violation, can you have accidental piracy? I don't really know the copyright law enough to answer that.
I think if a "computer negligence" case was brought right now, the defense would have a lot of wiggle room because the definition of a "reasonable person" is difficult to pin down. I certainly don't think it would be a slam dunk case for the plaintiff, but by the same token, all media attention relating to exploits and how to protect your self may be raising the bar on what is reasonable behavior with a computer. Ten years from now, it may well be that the average level of awareness has gotten to the point that a person would not be acting like a "reasonable person" if he/she failed to maintain at least an anti-virus and firewall solution.
I know someone who has a computer that she 100% for certain, positively, definitely knows is p0wned and yet she doesn't disconnect it from the internet. Is that negligent behavior? Is there a foreseeable harm to others in that situation? Maybe. Eventually though, someone is going to get sued. I wonder if a home-owner's policy would cover the costs?
Re:Have to disagree here (Score:3, Interesting)