Comments on: P2P Defendant: RIAA’s Own Downloads Can’t Prove Infringement http://www.joegratz.net/2005/09/02/p2p-defendant-riaas-own-downloads-cant-prove-infringement/ Joe Gratz's blog Sun, 10 Feb 2008 03:55:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Pooh http://www.joegratz.net/2005/09/02/p2p-defendant-riaas-own-downloads-cant-prove-infringement/comment-page-1/#comment-568 Pooh Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:25:34 +0000 http://www.joegratz.net/?p=708#comment-568 While I agree that the RIAA is the Vice-Anitchrist (to Messr. Rove of course), isn't the 'can't infringe their own copywrite' argument a bit, well, formalistic. The RIAA can't show that the files are available for download by downloading them themselves? Also, is relying on legal-weenie arguments really the way 'fair use' people want to go? It smacks slightly of desperation to this amateur observer... While I agree that the RIAA is the Vice-Anitchrist (to Messr. Rove of course), isn’t the ‘can’t infringe their own copywrite’ argument a bit, well, formalistic. The RIAA can’t show that the files are available for download by downloading them themselves? Also, is relying on legal-weenie arguments really the way ‘fair use’ people want to go? It smacks slightly of desperation to this amateur observer…

]]> By: Emil http://www.joegratz.net/2005/09/02/p2p-defendant-riaas-own-downloads-cant-prove-infringement/comment-page-1/#comment-567 Emil Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:50:45 +0000 http://www.joegratz.net/?p=708#comment-567 Sorry to post again, not meaning to troll or anything, just thinking about defences (to downloading not sharing) 1. I already owned the music on CD. (surely downloading in this case is ok, as you're allowed to rip CDs.) 2. I already owned the music on cassette. (is this different since you're downloading higher quality audio?) 3. I listened to half of the track on the radio so I downloaded the song to listen to the rest. 4. fair use. (copy for personal use, is lower quality than CD) Just wondering if any of these have been tested, i guess not but just wondering. Personally I would like to see non-profit sharing of music and video in binary form to be ruled fair use. Emil Sorry to post again, not meaning to troll or anything, just thinking about defences (to downloading not sharing)

1. I already owned the music on CD. (surely downloading in this case is ok, as you’re allowed to rip CDs.)
2. I already owned the music on cassette. (is this different since you’re downloading higher quality audio?)
3. I listened to half of the track on the radio so I downloaded the song to listen to the rest.
4. fair use. (copy for personal use, is lower quality than CD)

Just wondering if any of these have been tested, i guess not but just wondering. Personally I would like to see non-profit sharing of music and video in binary form to be ruled fair use.

Emil

]]> By: Emil http://www.joegratz.net/2005/09/02/p2p-defendant-riaas-own-downloads-cant-prove-infringement/comment-page-1/#comment-566 Emil Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:44:28 +0000 http://www.joegratz.net/?p=708#comment-566 You're not the first to think of it since it was used in the following cases (from defendants reply): U.S. Naval Institute v. Charter Communications, Inc., 936 F.2d 692, 695 (2d Cir. 1991) and RSO Records v. Peri, 79 Civ. 5098, 1980 WL 1164 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 5, 1980) etc. I'm sure it would be illegal to use a packet sniffer (wiretap law?) even if the ISP allowed them to. Also, if they had proof that someone else downloaded the file from you (not sure how they'd get this, but suppose they did) wouldn't they need to also show that this person didn't own the music on a CD or tape? It would be good if someone else stands up to the RIAA, where they were the actual file sharer. If it was me I would argue that I owned all the music anyway. (If they need proof I'll just buy a CD of whatever they ask for.) Emil You’re not the first to think of it since it was used in the following cases (from defendants reply):
U.S. Naval Institute v. Charter Communications, Inc., 936 F.2d 692, 695 (2d Cir. 1991) and RSO Records v. Peri, 79 Civ. 5098, 1980 WL 1164 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 5, 1980) etc.

I’m sure it would be illegal to use a packet sniffer (wiretap law?) even if the ISP allowed them to.

Also, if they had proof that someone else downloaded the file from you (not sure how they’d get this, but suppose they did) wouldn’t they need to also show that this person didn’t own the music on a CD or tape?

It would be good if someone else stands up to the RIAA, where they were the actual file sharer. If it was me I would argue that I owned all the music anyway. (If they need proof I’ll just buy a CD of whatever they ask for.)

Emil

]]> By: Copyfight http://www.joegratz.net/2005/09/02/p2p-defendant-riaas-own-downloads-cant-prove-infringement/comment-page-1/#comment-565 Copyfight Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:18:44 +0000 http://www.joegratz.net/?p=708#comment-565 <strong>Patricia Santangelo Speaks</strong> A terrific interview with Patricia Santangelo, the mom who is standing up to the RIAA in court after being accused of copyright intringement through filesharing. Also worth the read: a post by Joe Gratz on strategy in the case: P2P... Patricia Santangelo Speaks

A terrific interview with Patricia Santangelo, the mom who is standing up to the RIAA in court after being accused of copyright intringement through filesharing. Also worth the read: a post by Joe Gratz on strategy in the case: P2P…

]]> By: Zach http://www.joegratz.net/2005/09/02/p2p-defendant-riaas-own-downloads-cant-prove-infringement/comment-page-1/#comment-564 Zach Sat, 03 Sep 2005 18:57:08 +0000 http://www.joegratz.net/?p=708#comment-564 So, they can't show actual infringement without showing that a copy was made. I'm assuming that they can show onwership of the cd's the music came from, so there's not infringement that way. And I imagine evidence that these particular songs were downloaded from that particular computer doesn't exist. That's ingenious. I suppose a packet sniffer might show traffic, but would it show what the file was being transferred? What about contributory infringement, by making the songs available on a shared account? And will the judge go with this theory? So, they can’t show actual infringement without showing that a copy was made. I’m assuming that they can show onwership of the cd’s the music came from, so there’s not infringement that way. And I imagine evidence that these particular songs were downloaded from that particular computer doesn’t exist. That’s ingenious. I suppose a packet sniffer might show traffic, but would it show what the file was being transferred? What about contributory infringement, by making the songs available on a shared account? And will the judge go with this theory?

]]>