Another Court Ruling Actually Does Say Making Available Is Not Distribution
from the better-decision dept
While the ruling in the Elektra v. Barker case got plenty of attention, even if some of it was misleading, the EFF points out that in another ruling on the same day (which got much less publicity) a court in Boston seems to have made a much stronger case for why making available is not distribution. Once again, the judge did not throw out the case, saying that an "offer to distribute" is still enough of a claim to have the case move forward to trial (at which point the copyright holder would need to show that actual distribution occurred). However, with so many different court rulings making so many different interpretations of "making available," there are going to be appeals and eventually it will move up the chain. If (as is likely) different appeals courts end up disagreeing it may eventually make it to the Supreme Court, where we can get a final ruling on whether making available is or is not the equivalent of distribution.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, court ruling, make available, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is It Available
Though you think this an obtuse analogy, just look at where a guy gets busted for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. The total amount of drug in his possession amounts to only a misdemeanor, but if he also has in his possession any type of container with the drugs. Then the prosecution adds possession with the intent to distribute.
We will be seeing the criminalization of petty infringement.
The shared folder will be the plastic/glassine baggie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummmm.. do we really want this?
GPLv3 gives “making available to the public” as an example of propagation. What does this mean? Is making available a form of conveying?
One example of “making available to the public” is putting the software on a public web or FTP server. After you do this, some time may pass before anybody actually obtains the software from you—but because it could happen right away, you need to fulfill the GPL's obligations right away as well. Hence, we defined conveying to include this activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummmm.. do we really want this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ummmm.. do we really want this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ummmm.. do we really want this?
If licenses are laws, then you'll be interested in knowing that I just wrote a license that says you're my slave. And don't try to worm out by saying that you didn't agree to it; laws apply whether you agree to them or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ummmm.. do we really want this?
Regardless, you have to agree to a contract to have it binding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Umm, what?
"..nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so."
And the authors of the GPL seem to believe that just making something available for copying is sufficient to invoke copyright law and thus make the GPL enforceable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Umm, what?
No, they don't. The GPL specifies making available as a covered action whereas copyright law does not. If the GPL had not specified that action then by default the law would only cover distribution. That's why they thought it necessary to add that clause.
But music doesn't usually come with a separate license and so depends on the default terms in copyright law. So the RIAA has been trying to find a judge to back-door "making available" into the law by declaring it to be the same as "distribution" (which is in the law).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so."
so then, by crossing the street, you acknowledge the right of a driver to hit you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright infringement IS the same as murder. Under US law corporations are legally "people", so if it destroys a business model and that causes a corporation to "die", then it IS murder and copyright infringers should be punished accordingly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why do you think standard contract language contains a "severability clause"? (without one, if a judge strikes down 1 part of a contract, the ENTIRE contract is unenforceable). Companies that license SW know full well their licenses can be challenged in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]