Sat 17 May 2008

RSS Feed

Edited by Paul Hales

Published by Incisive Media Investments Ltd.

Terms and Conditions of use.

To advertise in Europe e-mail here

To advertise in Asia email here.

To advertise in North America email here.

Join the INQbot Mail List for a weekly guide to our news stories:

Subscribe

Court rules against RIAA

MAFIAA bloodsuckers get legal stake through black heart

TORCHBEARING peasants are making their way toward Castle RIAA following a Federal Court ruling that, "Merely making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work available to the public does not violate a copyright holder's exclusive right of distribution."

According to one copyright lawyer, the decision means the end of the MAFIAA's litigation strategy.

In Atlantic Records v. Howell, Judge Neil V. Wake rejected the RIAA's claim that the defendants had distributed music files merely by making them available through Kazaa.

A private investigator hired by the RIAA identifed 4,000 files available from the Howells' Kazaa account, took screenshots showing the files listed and downloaded some of the songs.

The Howells maintained that they made legitimate copies of their CDs for personal use and they didn't know Kazaa was making them public. Asked if he was sharing music files online, Jeffrey Howell told the court, "I was not, no. The computer was, but I was not. The computer in some form ... made files that I did not know available on the Internet."

The ruling means the onus is now on the RIAA to prove exactly who was making copyrighted files available, rather than simply prosecuting the owner of the computer.

A lawyer investigating appeals for people already ordered to pay damages of up to $150,000 a song says that, following the new ruling, he believes the convictions were reached following improper instructions to juries. He added that damages of $750 per song would be ruled unconstitutional, as the actual lost profit when a song is copied is more like 40 cents. µ

L'Inq
Newsfactor

Comments

Great Seats are up for Grabs!

I'd sooner marry an Anglican than have me suffer a MAFIAA inquisition!
And if you keep hiking leg over the chancellor's swill, we'll be buttheaded to amy swine house, my Darling!
I remember Riaa telling me: " "You Know I'm No Good", but I wouldn't listen; No, No, No! We should have voted at the pubs to bar all the banns what want to fight child poverty and help families and the aged... That's not Rock and Roll. That's the politic sht!k in Bob's pants! (Larry will tell U2)
Now I can say: Go, Go, Go(.gov)
It's getting hard out here for the Wright running mate!
posted by : Karlsbad, 02 February 2008

$750 a song??

If you let somebuddy copy your copy of music songs 1,875 times in a row @ 40 cents each that equals $750.
Even better, EACH ONE of those 1,875 copies could themselves copy the copy another 1,875 times and that would equal $1,406,250 -- PER SONG!
So, Yeah! lets get those lawsuits rollin!
Cuz Metal Lica needs a new crop of Lamborghini's.
posted by : Grunchy, 02 February 2008

about time

About time someone reigned these t*ssers in...

Hoorah for common sense...

posted by : 99flake, 01 May 2008

One word:

Yarrr!
posted by : Motoman, 01 May 2008

I didn't do it!

Yeah, right. How would he have know that anything he put into the Windows "Shared Folder" would be shared?? And how could he possibly have anticipated that a software he used to download content from others could be used to also upload content? Of course his mind was boggled!

Well, in most countries there is a fairly consistent rule when it comes to legal liability: Ignorance is no excuse!

Btw, Inq team, considering that there have been a number or legal rulings which were in favor of the defendant, the RIAA campaign is still going pretty strong. Maybe you are calling the demise of RIAA lawsuits just a teeny bit too early!
posted by : Chris, 02 May 2008

Halelluja !

I'm not one for copying songs, but I abhor RIAA's practices and I am quite glad that they finally got the frozen salmon in the face.
It is high time that RIAA lawyers stop suing homeless people, grandmothers without PCs and little kids. It is high time they be made to PROVE their allegations instead of just pointing a lawsuit and waiting for the money to pour in.
Those are shameful tactics. Anything that stops it is good in my book.
posted by : Pascal Monett, 02 May 2008

Re-run.

Didn't they already win from kazaa and don't they already get money from people running kazaa? And still they sue eh.
So does this mean they'll be suing itunes users next for having digital music without having the physical CD?

~This comment was not created by a computer tossing together random words like many other comments, excuse me.~
posted by : W.-, 02 May 2008

Chris Is Promoting Organized Crimes

I bet Chris thinks that my shared folder somehow has his name on it or something and that it's somehow perfectly ok for him to take everything he finds there.

For your information Chris , every file that is sitting happily in my shared folder has a price tag of 1 million dollars. That's my file . Not yours. That's a price set by me not by RIAA.

Like you said: Ignorance is no excuse!

You have zero rights and zero privileges on my computer and all the files related to my computer unless i say otherwise.

You have to ask for my permission if you want to take something from my shared folder.

Please don't be an ignorant asshole cause it's gonna cost you alot more than what RIAA is charging for their ridiculous mp3's.


















posted by : God, 03 February 2008

I know the feeling.

I don't download pornography, my computer does. My computer is very naughty.

That marijuana isn't mine. I'm holding it for a friend.

I didn't steal that candy bar. I don't know how it got into my pocket.

I only had one beer before I started driving the wrong way on the highway.

Geez. Leave it to an American judge to accept an excuse that my mom knew better than to believe.
posted by : Henry, 06 May 2008
IThound
Search for solutions, reports & analysis

Newsletter signup