Will The RIAA Sue Judge Kozinski For Sharing MP3s?
from the just-wondering dept
While judge Alex Kozinski is getting a ton of press for accidentally sharing pornographic images from his webserver, Justin Levine notes that the report concerning what was on the server also found music MP3s from musicians like Johnny Cash, Bob Dylan and Weird Al Yankovic. Levine wonders if the RIAA will now sue this federal judge as well. In fact, things could get tricky in that some research suggests not only was Kozinski storing MP3s, he may have actively been sharing some of those MP3s as well. That same link mentions that in one of many copyright infringement lawsuits concerning the company Perfect 10, Kozinski wrote a dissenting opinion suggesting that facilitating copyright infringement should be seen as infringement as well:"When it comes to traffic in material that violates the Copyright Act, the policy of the United States is embedded in the FBI warning we see at the start of every lawfully purchased or rented video: Infringers are to be stopped and prosecuted."There's a lot more involved in his opinion, which really focuses on credit card companies profiting from infringement -- but considering how he much he writes against those who help others infringe, it's probably not a wise idea that he was out there sharing music files himself.
However, to be fair, as the details come out, this whole thing is quite clearly a witch hunt by someone who seriously dislikes the judge. As we noted when the story broke, it's perfectly ridiculous to try to suggest this makes him any less qualified to judge cases. And, indeed, as the details come out about the content on his server, it's becoming clear that it is, as he noted "funny" stuff. It's all basically the sort of silly viral content that gets passed around all the time, much more for the amusement factor than any sort of titillation.
This post certainly isn't to slam Kozinski, who seems like a genuinely thoughtful judge -- with a sense of humor to boot (he famously nominated himself for a mocking "Judicial Hottie" contest run by a blog, noting: "While I think the list of female candidates is excellent, the list of male candidates is, frankly, lacking. And what it's lacking is me.... I have it on very good authority that discerning females and gay men find graying, pudgy, middle-aged men with an accent close to Gov. Schwarzenegger's almost totally irresistible." The fact that he was also sharing MP3s, again, is just yet another reminder that, contrary to the entertainment's claim that "education" will solve music sharing, many people just think it's perfectly natural and reasonable to share a song with some friends.
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: alex kozinski, contributory infringement, copyright, file sharing, mp3s, music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Let's not perpetuate falsehoods
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's not perpetuate falsehoods
Don't know about Fox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Formerly
To me that's a bigger part of the problem. The fact that he didn't know that he was publishing this content, which WAS on a webpage (that he thought was private) IS a problem.
That's a pretty basic snafu for someone who is responsible week in and week out for setting authoritative case law precedents on internet copyright/free speech/sharing/etc issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Formerly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @Formerly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As to whether he or a family member has set this up is unclear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's put this in perspective
Let's not forget that any one of us doing the same thing would be sued, muckraked, and treated like a leper by the music industry. This is a perfect example of what is good for some isn't necessarily good for all. We have all seen the IAA's go after people for the stupidest reasons and any one of us sharing via the judges method intentional or not would be in trouble. Not to mention we may have even gone up in front of this very same judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: Alan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think what your analogy doesn't take into account is different degrees in breaking a law. As for "abusing children", there's a big different between beating your kid to a bloody pulp and letting them ride their bike without a helmet. The latter example seems silly, but I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that would think you're criminally endangering your kid if you don't make them wear a helmet when riding a bike.
The point is that there's a big difference between pirating thousands of first-run movies on DVD for profit and accidentally giving people access to copyrighted material because you left your server unsecured. But under the laws that exist now in many places around the world, the punishments would be the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The point is that there's a big difference between pirating thousands of first-run movies on DVD for profit and accidentally giving people access to copyrighted material because you left your server unsecured.
Yes there is, just as there is a difference between purposefully killing someone and accidentally killing them - murder vs. involuntary manslaughter. And yes they should be punished differently. And although it seems that this judge was sharing his files accidentally, it could be he was in fact doing it purposefully. Just because in the courtroom he comes out as being pro-copyright doesn't mean that he's a hypocrite when it comes to his personal actions.
But my point is that if it were any other crime the judge were involved with, we would without doubt be calling for him to recuse himself. If he were accused of graft and it was a case on corporate corruption he was hearing, would there be any doubt? Mike is cherry picking this event and putting a spin on it to say, "Look, even judges share mp3s, therefore it should obviously be legal". I appreciate his articles on the need for copyright reform, but ones that are based on solid economic arguments - not propagandic spin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, the RIAA will not go after him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]