RIAA Wants to Include Song Files it Can't Produce 234
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In UMG v. Lindor the RIAA is trying to include song files it doesn't have copies of as part of its 'distribution' argument. The defendant Marie Lindor is asking the Court to preclude them from doing that. She points to the RIAA's own interrogatory response in which the record companies swore that their case was based upon their investigator seeing a screenshot and then downloading 'perfect digital copies'. They produced eleven (11) copies of song files, but want to be able to prove twenty seven (27) other songs for which they can't produce the files."
stupid court system (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Continuing the spread of crap... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:WTF? Copies? Files? (Score:5, Informative)
boycott the music industry! (Score:2, Informative)
do it like the german chaos computer club and pirate party, BOYCOTT THE MUSIC INDUSTRY! LISTEN TO CREATIVE COMMONS MUSIC! it's great music and it's free and the damn music industry can't prosecute you for listening to it for free!
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Content_Curators [creativecommons.org]
http://www.garageband.com/htdb/index.html [garageband.com]
Re:Sounds like.... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, this is a civil case, so as it happens no one is trying to prove anyone guilty of any crime. I guess they dodged a bullet there.
Who's to say that the file called "Enter Sandman" wasn't really an audio clip from Aunt Milly's piano recital?
Sure. And a jury can decide which of the two possibilities is most likely to them (since that, and not the stricter 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' is the standard here), and then whichever possibility they find to be most likely is true, for the purposes of the case.
So if you were a juror, and you were being fair to both sides, and they asked you what you thought the file was based on the name, which do you think it probably would be, even if that probability was only a 51% likelihood?
Re:Sounds like.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's really funny... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:boycott the RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sounds like.... (Score:3, Informative)
Notice the limitations here: it means nothing if we don't know whether the file was, in fact, a copyrighted file; it means nothing if the trustworthiness is in question.
Re:Sounds like.... (Score:2, Informative)
It would not be the first time an organization (any Police force, for example) used a fake material (something that looked like cocaine) in a sting operation, for just the act of buying what you THINK is cocaine from an undercover operator, is enough to get you convicted of the same crime as ACTUALLY purchasing real cocaine.
This is different though. If the RIAA was simply distriuting junk files, then monitored who downloaded the junk files to prosecute them, that would be a sting operation similar to the one I laid out above. Based on precedent, that would be completely legal of them. If, however, the RIAA is distributing junk files, then throwing a screaming fit for prosecution based on just the existance of those junk files, that is the same as planting a gun on someone to implicate them in a crime they did not commit.
COnsidering how much trouble the RIAA would get in if they were attempting to ENTRAP people, and combined with the fact that there are more than enough people currently downloading music illegally at this very moment, I highly doubt that the RIAA is paying companies to distribute junk files.
If the RIAA provides screenshots of a P2P program screen, showing that a particular song is being downloaded BY 200 people, while it is also being seeded by another 150, I'd say that is proof of the fact that 150 people have a questionable file, and another 200 are getting it illegally. I don;t believe they have to actually go to one of those person;s house, and watch the song download.
Re:Reverse it (Score:2, Informative)
The vast majority of criminal cases are launched not by police action, but on the complaint of an average Joe-Citizen. In fact, most cases cannot even go forward without such a complaint, even in the clear presence of a crime, since prosecution requires a faceable accusser.
KFG
Re:Sounds like.... (Score:5, Informative)
However, so far as we can discern what the contents were based on the name, which is a jury question, it's still possible to win a suit without actually showing what the contents are. But I wouldn't like to have to do that, since it's not a strong position.
Re:Sounds like.... (Score:3, Informative)
If he was a peddler, I would weigh whether the jury can fine him or if the judge. If the jury can fine him, I'd be willing to put in a guilty verdict and the appropriate fine for a peddler. The person who trade a file here and there I would let off.
If the judge decides the fine, then I would put in a innocent vote under all circumstances. No one's life is worth ruining over a few songs.
I would not listen to any judge's or court's directions (nor yours parent poster) on how to vote either as this is an infraction against the power of a jury and voting by conscious (and ignoring the judge) is perfectly okay and is called Jury Nullification.
Re:Sounds like.... (Score:2, Informative)
It's a bigger if than most people realise. The record companies don't own any and all performances of a tune -- they hold the copyright to specific recordings. If Virgin holds the copyright to all Artist X CDs released in the US, that doesn't give them the copyrights to the song I legally downloaded from the artist's own site, nor the vanity 12" single.
Finding a song that they hold rights to doesn't prove anything, as I can have a different performance of the same song -- they have to prove that they hold the copyrights to the particular performance that I have a copy of.
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:Sounds like.... (Score:3, Informative)
There is no such thing as implicit permission to redistribute copyrighted material. There is Fair Use, and there is explicit permission, but nothing in-between. You could argue in court that damages should be lower because you believed you had implicit permission, but you would still be guilty of violating the copyright holder's exclusive authority to distribute. There is no way under current US law to transfer any right of reproduction or distribution without an explicit statement.
Re:Sounds like.... (Score:3, Informative)
It would depend on what the file consisted of, but it's entirely possible.
Re:Sounds like.... (Score:3, Informative)
Assuming that they're seeking statutory damages, and that they are able to get them, both of which are very likely, the law does not require that they be harmed, or that they prove that they were harmed.