Court Rejects RIAA's 'Making Available' Theory In Infamous Howell Case

from the good-decisions dept

The lawsuit of Atlantic v. Howell got a ton of attention late last year when some folks, including the Washington Post, misinterpreted an RIAA filing to suggest that the RIAA had claimed that merely ripping your CD to your computer was file sharing. While the RIAA may actually believe that (and has made other statements to that effect), the filing in this case did not say that at all. Instead, it clearly stated that it was the combination of ripping the CD and putting the music into a shared folder that made the songs no longer "authorized." It was simply yet another version of the RIAA's theory that "making available" is the equivalent of distribution for copyright purposes. Still, based on this theory, the RIAA asked for summary judgment against Howell. The court has now come out with a detailed and well reasoned decision completely rejecting the RIAA's "making available" theory, highlighting why it does not appear to be supported by copyright law. It's worth reading if you're interested in this stuff. Either way, the RIAA isn't getting its summary judgment, and the case will proceed later this year.

Filed Under: copyright, distribution, howell, making available
Companies: riaa

RIAA Now Decides That Not Enough People Have Heard Of Project Playlist

from the reverse-attention-whores dept

There they go again. The RIAA and MPAA keep picking totally random, mostly unknown, startups and suing them -- giving them all sorts of free publicity. They did it years ago with Napster and more recently with The Pirate Bay. And yet... they keep doing it. In the latest example, the RIAA is suing a company called Project Playlist, which offers apps for MySpace and Facebook that let you play music found elsewhere online. There are a bunch of similar offerings out there (some of which I think are even more well known). If this case goes forward, it could be quite interesting, as again it's hard to see how Project Playlist is the liable party. It just lets users point its player to mp3 files that are found on other sites. Those files may be infringing, but Project Playlist is just the player. It would be like suing Sony for making a Walkman on the assumption that most tapes used in Walkmen include infringing copies of songs.

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuit, mp3s, riaa
Companies: project playlist, riaa

Tanya Andersen Decides To Drop Racketeering Charges Against The RIAA

from the this-is-for-the-best dept

Business Week has a fantastic and detailed article going through the history of Tanya Andersen's legal battles with the RIAA. As has been pointed out from early on, the RIAA went after her with very little evidence, bullied her to settle and pay up, and then tried to force her to agree not to countersue before it would drop charges. Andersen and her lawyer, however, refused to give up -- and not only won against the RIAA, but had the RIAA pay up on Andersen's lawyers' fees. After all that, she and her lawyer have filed a series of lawsuits against the RIAA alleging illegal investigative practices and racketeering.

While it's great to see her fighting back, we'd always said that the racketeering claim was a huge stretch, based on the specifics of the law. It doesn't do anyone any good to file a racketeering charge if it can't be proven. So, it's good to see that Andersen appears ready to drop that claim. At the very end of the article, it notes that a judge has pushed back on Andersen's filing, and she plans to drop the racketeering and fraud charges. Instead, a new filing will focus on "conspiracy, negligence, and abuse of the legal process." Again, "conspiracy" seems like a long shot -- but negligence and abuse of the legal process seem a lot more interesting. Either way, there will be plenty to follow in this case.

Filed Under: copyright, piracy, racketeering, riaa, tanya andersen
Companies: riaa

How Reliable Are Industry Announced Piracy Statistics?

from the depends-on-your-definition-of-reliable dept

Eric Goldman sent in a link to a recent research paper that aimed to look at the reliability of industry-released reports on piracy. That sounded interesting, as we've spent plenty of posts picking apart why almost all of their released numbers are bogus. In particular, we've pointed out how incredibly bogus the BSA's statistics are. So, it was somewhat surprising to have the study say that the BSA's were the most reliable, when compared to other groups like the RIAA and MPAA. If anything, though, that really just suggested that the RIAA's and MPAA's stats were even more bogus (remember, things actually got so bad for the MPAA that it had to admit how bogus its own stats were). That actually seems likely, as the BSA is the most upfront about the methodology used.

However, reading through the actual report, it does little to vindicate the piracy numbers that the industry reports always trumpet. That's because the report actually focuses on the rate of unauthorized use, rather than the cost or impact of that unauthorized use -- which is the key point to come out of these reports. The rate of unauthorized use is fairly meaningless, so it doesn't matter that much who is the most accurate. It's the impact that matters. While reports used to do silly things like count every unauthorized copy as a lost sale, most have stopped that, and now use a multiplier. Some have started using a questionable ripple effect that counts the same loss multiple times and ignores the "ripple effects" in the other direction that benefit the industry. So, yes, perhaps the BSA is the best of a bad bunch, but even if the rate of unauthorized use is somewhat accurate, that has little bearing on the actual impact of those unauthorized copies.

Filed Under: copyright, impact, piracy stats, reliability
Companies: bsa, mpaa, riaa

RIAA Now Open To 'You Must Be A Criminal' Tax On ISP Fees

from the not-the-answer dept

This certainly isn't the first time it's been proposed, but it appears that the RIAA is potentially warming up to the idea of a "music surcharge" that would have ISPs pay $5/month in order to allow anyone to share music online. Just a month ago, we were discussing why this is a bad idea. First, it's effectively treating everyone as a criminal, and forcing those who don't download or share music to subsidize everyone who does. Second, and much more importantly, it's not necessary. If there's anything that the past five years (and the past year especially) has taught us, it's that there are many different ways for musicians to make money without requiring the government to step in and set up a business model for them. In other words, there's no compelling need for such a mandated system. Third, once you do this, it opens up additional questions from other industries. Will the government need to set up laws that prop up their business models as well?

Some people are comparing this new RIAA proposal to the one that the EFF proposed four years ago. However, that one was quite different, in that it was a voluntary licensing system, rather than a mandatory one. In that system, anyone who wanted to could voluntarily pay $5/month to have free reign to share and download music. This new proposal would mandate that ISPs pay the fee (meaning that ISPs would quickly pass the costs on to everyone). That's quite different. It also might be a different story if ISPs voluntarily offered this as a feature for customers -- where they would license the music so anyone could freely share it. That's a case where the ISP would effectively be paying for the creation of music and using its free nature as a promotional good for its service. However, that rationale goes away if it's mandatory. So, while it's nice that the RIAA has woken up (about a decade too late) to the idea that new business models are needed, this proposal isn't a very good idea.

Filed Under: copyright, isps, levy, mandatory, music, riaa
Companies: riaa

Musicians Wondering Why They're Not Seeing A Cut Of RIAA Settlements

from the hey,-wait,-isn't-that-our-money? dept

The RIAA and its associated organizations certainly have a rather long history of not sharing the windfall from various lawsuits and settlements with the artists the RIAA likes to claim it represents -- and now those musicians are getting angry. Torrent Freak points us to the news that various managers and lawyers representing some big name musicians are discussing filing a lawsuit against the record labels for keeping all of that money. The record labels claim either that they are distributing some amount (if required to contractually) or that they're still trying to figure out how to "split" the money. Of course, they're also giving the usual story about how "after legal fees" there really isn't that much left to give out. Remember, though, when it comes to talk to the press or politicians, they'll swear up and down that these lawsuits are all for the musicians.

Filed Under: money, musicians, riaa, settlement
Companies: riaa

Another Court Rejects RIAA's 'Making Available' Claim

from the good-news dept

Yet another court has rejected the RIAA's "making available" theory of copyright infringement. As a central part to most RIAA cases against individuals for file sharing, the record labels have insisted that merely making an unauthorized music file "available" for file sharing is the equivalent of copyright infringement. Others have pointed out that the law is pretty clear that there needs to be actual distribution (i.e., a copy is actually made) before you can show infringement. The RIAA doesn't like that theory because the evidence they have usually only shows that a file is available, not that it was actually shared. The specific case at hand involved the RIAA asking for a default judgment against an individual who did not respond to charges of infringement, but the judge rejected the default judgment, noting that by using the "making available" standard, the complaint was insufficient. The judge, among other things, points to William Patry's book on copyright, where he explains that "without actual distribution of copies.... there is no violation [of] the distribution right" and also to the infamous Perfect 10 ruling concerning copyright infringement of thumbnail images.

Filed Under: making available, riaa
Companies: riaa

Judge Dismisses Racketeering Charge Against RIAA

from the quite-a-racket dept

We were pretty skeptical that charges of racketeering would stick to the RIAA when filed a few years ago, so it comes as little surprise to see a judge dismiss the claim. While the complaint could be refiled, the judge's words indicate that it will be quite difficult to make a successful case for racketeering. As emotionally appealing as it would be to see the RIAA found guilty of racketeering, it is a stretch. It's better to focus on what the RIAA is actually doing, rather than trying to paint its actions falsely. The RIAA is filing questionable lawsuits based on flimsy evidence, but that's not quite enough to prove racketeering.

Filed Under: racketeering, riaa
Companies: riaa

RIAA To Prosecutors: Use Piracy Charges To Round Up Drug Dealers And Terrorists

from the it's-a-starter-crime dept

Back in the 1920s, the FBI was never able to get Al Capone on racketeering charges, but eventually got a conviction for tax evasion. It appears that the RIAA's message to federal prosecutors is now: think of music piracy as the new tax evasion! In a leaked "training video," put together by the RIAA for the National District Attorneys Association, RIAA representatives talk about how prosecutors can use music piracy charges to go after drug dealers and terrorists, noting that "it might allow you to have probable cause for a drug house." That's said by the RIAA's Deborah Robinson, who can barely stifle a laugh as she starts to say it. She then goes on to talk about how often they're supposedly seeing drug dealers and gun dealers selling counterfeit CDs with the drugs and guns. Oh really? Weren't we just hearing about how the counterfeit CD business was rapidly shrinking due to file sharing? There's also a great leading question from the NDAA person, asking if convicted murderers who were out on parole are "gravitating to this type of piracy." The response from the RIAA's Frank Walters: "More often than not..." It's no secret that the RIAA is eager to get federal prosecutors to take on piracy cases, but this seems a bit extreme.

Filed Under: counterfeiters, drug dealers, riaa, terrorists
Companies: riaa

Quotes From Judges Who Aren't Swayed By Flimsy RIAA 'Evidence'

from the nice-list dept

Ray Beckermann has compiled a nice list of quotes from judges who don't buy into the RIAA's flimsy evidence. It makes for good reading. Here are just a few of the quotes, though you can read them all at Ray's site:

"[W]hen plaintiffs dismissed their claims in June 2007, they apparently had no more material evidence to support their claims than they did when they first contacted defendant in February 2005.....Whatever plaintiffs' reasons for the manner in which they have prosecuted this case, it does not appear to be justified as a reasonable exploration of the boundaries of copyright law....."
-Hon. Donald C. Ashmanskas

"[N]either the parties' submissions nor the Court's own research has revealed any case holding the mere owner of an internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons.....In addition to the weakness of the secondary copyright infringement claims against Ms. Foster, there is a question of the plaintiffs' motivations in pursuing them..... [T]here is an appearance that the plaintiffs initiated the secondary infringement claims to press Ms. Foster into settlement after they had ceased to believe she was a direct or "primary" infringer."
-Hon. Lee R. West

"Plaintiff ... must present at least some facts to show the plausibility of their allegations of copyright infringement.... However, other than the bare conclusory statement that on "information and belief" Defendant has downloaded, distributed and/or made available for distribution to the public copyrighted works, Plaintiffs have presented no facts that would indicate that this allegation is anything more than speculation. The complaint is simply a boilerplate listing of the elements of copyright infringement without any facts pertaining specifically to the instant Defendant. The Court therefore finds that the complaint fails to sufficiently state a claim upon which relief can be granted...."
-Hon. Rudi M. Brewster

When the RIAA first chose to go down its legal path, many people simply assumed that judges would roll over and accept whatever "evidence" the RIAA came up with -- no matter how flimsy. The fact that judges are pushing back and questioning many of the RIAA's claims is good to see. If the RIAA has real evidence against people, that's one thing. However, so many of these cases are filed with incorrect or incomplete evidence, and the people accused are pushed very hard to simply settle rather than fight. It's good to see judges demanding actual evidence be presented.

Filed Under: copyright, evidence, judges, riaa
Companies: riaa