Has RIAA Abandoned the 'Making Available' Defense? 125
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's standard complaint (pdf) was thrown out last month by a federal judge in California as speculation in Interscope v. Rodriguez. Interestingly, the RIAA's amended complaint (pdf), filed six days later, abandoned altogether the RIAA's 'making available' argument. (Whereby making files available at all for download is infringement.) It first formulated that defense against a dismissal motion in Elektra v. Barker. This raises a number of questions: Is the RIAA is going to stick to this new form of complaint in future cases? Will they get into a different kind of trouble for some of its their new allegations, such as the contention that the investigator "detected an individual" (contradicting the testimony of the RIAA's own expert witness)? And finally, what tack will defendants' lawyers take (this was one lawyer's suggestion)?"
Defense? (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, but I can't imagine the RIAA is offering to many defenses in these court cases. Maybe they're abandoning the complaint of "making available"? That's what the article seems to indicate...
Redundant Breakdown (Score:5, Insightful)
-The RIAA claimed that simply making copyright material available online,
was proof of intention to commit copyright infringement (We got proof!)
-Defense Lawyers challenged that claim as insufficient evidence (No you don't!)
-A Judge agreed with the Defense Lawyers (Ya, that isn't enough proof, begone RIAA!)
-RIAA returns, but drops the 'making available' argument (Is this better?)
What could happen now?
-The RIAA would stop bringing cases based solely upon the 'making availble' argument (If it wasn't for those darn Slashdoters)
Re:At this point.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only unusual thing is an individual being able to use this kind of business model. Corporations have the advantage that they cannot be arrested.
They've lost the battle. Not the war. (Score:4, Insightful)
Any technology which allows the end-user to produce their own media (and some which didn't) has scared the entertainment industry.
First there were records - "But who will pay to see live performances if they can just play the record?". Then they realised that they could make a roaring trade selling records themselves.
Then came analogue tapes: "But who will buy records if they can just tape from a friend?" - then they established a business in selling tapes as they're smaller and it's very hard to play a record in a car.
Then came videos: "But who will go to the cinema if they can record movies from the TV?" - then they established a business in selling pre-recorded videos.
Then came affordable CD burners: "But who will buy CDs if they can copy from a friend?" - well, actually rather a lot of people. Though that didn't stop a lot of countries being pressured to establish taxes on blank media and passing these taxes back to the recording studios.
Now audio and movies can be easily shared over the Internet: "But we must stop this, lest nobody buy music, movies or visit the cinema!". What they really mean is "We're not sure that this sits well with our business model and we haven't yet figured out how best to exploit it so it does. While we're in the process of doing that, please talk quietly amongst yourselves AND STOP SHARING MUSIC, DAMMIT!".
Re:Slashdot is just a pro-piracy site (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not quite true (Score:3, Insightful)
While I consider Slashdot worthy enough to read and post to, I wouldn't recommend believing in your portrayal of an unbiased and fair democracy either.
Re:This complaint is no better (Score:5, Insightful)
They say stuff like that based on the assumption, correct in some cases, that the judge doesn't have any understanding of computer technology.
Re:There is more to it than that. (Score:3, Insightful)
He just seemed to think it was bad form for me to have brought up Rule 11.
Re:Slashdot is just a pro-piracy site (Score:3, Insightful)
This bothers me because the few who get caught, tried, and convicted (or settle) for copyright infringement thereby represent a randomly-selected sub-group out of a larger population. This kind of selective enforcement is the antithesis of justice. This kind of inequality and randomized punishment should not be tolerated in a free country.
So, the solution is either to make detection and enforcement so robust that every single infringer gets caught and punished. Or, to change the laws so that we are no longer automatically turning most citizens into criminals. Personally, I find the fact that society at large disregards the current (strict) version of copyright law to be indicative of fundamental problems with said laws.
But regardless of the solution, I am very much bothered by the lack of justice we see today as a result of copyright law. Frankly we should all be bothered.
Re:Slashdot is just a pro-piracy site (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's impossible to work within the limits of the law, people start ignoring the law. Basically, you could imprison anyone with a computer on grounds of copyright violation. I'm fairly sure you'll find some file or another on any computer. A CD borrowed from a friend and copied, a video downloaded and carelessly kept past the grace period, even a shareware program that's still unregistered on your computer... all infringements, often accidently.
I think copyright might become what tax laws was for a long time. Remember, they didn't catch Al Capone for murder, gambling or protection money extortion. I wouldn't deem it impossible that copyright will be used that way too. Unfortunately, not against criminals but against people whose opinion (and voicing thereof) is "unfavorable".
Re:This complaint is no better (Score:3, Insightful)