Comment Reasoned, maybe. RIAA relies on (some)false facts (Score 1) 520
There are a couple of big holes in the RIAA's argument. For one, they sight a case saying:
element satisfied where "the very nature of" the product "would suggest infrigement to a rational person". [page 15 of the PDF]
The thing is, that decision no longer applies. If it did, Sony would never have been able to put out tape decks with two bays. In fact, the judge there decided that as long as a single legitmate use exists the product is legal.
Further, the RIAA called Napster's argument that it would be put out of business irrevlant. However, when looking to get an appeal, Napster had to show irrepable harm would be caused by the injunction. I think being put out of business is very revlant to the trial. Again, the RIAA looses a leg.
What gets me is all the studies that the RIAA pulls out of their hat saying that Napster harms music sales. Not one of them is put out by an independent firm. All studies that say Napster harms CD sales were comissioned by a record company. That's hardly evidence in my book, and the RIAA's case is based heavly on that. (Score, Napster 3: RIAA 0)
If we assume that the Napster does infringe on the RIAA's copyright (lots of salt here) then we open up a whole new realm of law. For one, the RIAA would then be guilty (in my book anyway) of copyright missuse: they are trying to use copyrights to gain infulence in a totaly different market. That's not what copyrights are for, in fact a company found guilty of copyrigth missuse looses the right to enforce that copyright. (Napster 4: RIAA 1)
It's also clear no one working for the RIAA understands the technology involved. If they did, they would never have claimed that "Napster excersizes a substantial and ongoing control over its service" You can pick that claim apart just by talking about OpenNap servers. If you don't bring those up, then you have this argument: if the RIAA can't list everything they hold the copyright to, how can Napster know what's copyrighted? Further, how can Napster control the content when they can't even control the file format they supposedly recognize (honestly, who here dosn't know how to get Napster to send non-MP3 files? gnapster can do it by default, there are patches for the Windows version.) (Napster 5: RIAA 1)
The RIAA's claim that the file name can be used as a filter is just wrong (oh look, "Faith Hill" becomes "[Authorized Name]"). They're stupid for making it. (Napster 6: RIAA 1)
Now, I'm not a lawyer and none of this can be taken as legal fact, advice, or speculation. All of this is my opinion . Use of this opinion is granted for by the author with the understanding that by using this opinion the person using said it incures all responsibility for any consequences and the author is released of all responsibilty for its use.
element satisfied where "the very nature of" the product "would suggest infrigement to a rational person". [page 15 of the PDF]
The thing is, that decision no longer applies. If it did, Sony would never have been able to put out tape decks with two bays. In fact, the judge there decided that as long as a single legitmate use exists the product is legal.
Further, the RIAA called Napster's argument that it would be put out of business irrevlant. However, when looking to get an appeal, Napster had to show irrepable harm would be caused by the injunction. I think being put out of business is very revlant to the trial. Again, the RIAA looses a leg.
What gets me is all the studies that the RIAA pulls out of their hat saying that Napster harms music sales. Not one of them is put out by an independent firm. All studies that say Napster harms CD sales were comissioned by a record company. That's hardly evidence in my book, and the RIAA's case is based heavly on that. (Score, Napster 3: RIAA 0)
If we assume that the Napster does infringe on the RIAA's copyright (lots of salt here) then we open up a whole new realm of law. For one, the RIAA would then be guilty (in my book anyway) of copyright missuse: they are trying to use copyrights to gain infulence in a totaly different market. That's not what copyrights are for, in fact a company found guilty of copyrigth missuse looses the right to enforce that copyright. (Napster 4: RIAA 1)
It's also clear no one working for the RIAA understands the technology involved. If they did, they would never have claimed that "Napster excersizes a substantial and ongoing control over its service" You can pick that claim apart just by talking about OpenNap servers. If you don't bring those up, then you have this argument: if the RIAA can't list everything they hold the copyright to, how can Napster know what's copyrighted? Further, how can Napster control the content when they can't even control the file format they supposedly recognize (honestly, who here dosn't know how to get Napster to send non-MP3 files? gnapster can do it by default, there are patches for the Windows version.) (Napster 5: RIAA 1)
The RIAA's claim that the file name can be used as a filter is just wrong (oh look, "Faith Hill" becomes "[Authorized Name]"). They're stupid for making it. (Napster 6: RIAA 1)
Now, I'm not a lawyer and none of this can be taken as legal fact, advice, or speculation. All of this is my opinion . Use of this opinion is granted for by the author with the understanding that by using this opinion the person using said it incures all responsibility for any consequences and the author is released of all responsibilty for its use.
