Arizona Judge Rejects RIAA's Copyright Infringement, Distribution Claims
U.S. District Court Judge Neil V. Wake denied the RIAA’s request for a summary judgment against a couple who had copied music files from their CDs onto their computer and downloaded file-sharing programs. [More]
Affirming this would create a good common-sense precedent favoring music consumers. The ruling obviates assertions that merely making files accessible equals piracy. This is reasonable on two grounds:
- Accessibility doesn’t result in damages until actual dissemination occurs. (Even here, there are grey areas. Do streaming and downloading both qualify as infringing ‘distribution’?)
- File sharing software often defaults to sharing user’s files without adequate disclosure, making the user herself a potential victim. With any legal duty in checking application settings uncertain - guilty findings should require demonstration of specific intent.
The RIAA should stop coercing consumers and courts into believing what was fair use (backing up music/videos and exhibiting them in non-commercial settings) is now theft; that lacking full awareness of what your file-share software exposes rises to piracy; or that restricting digital content when there’s demonstrable demand at a premium for unencumbered access is good customer service. Once they straighten that situation out, I will endorse their efforts to tackle collegiate cartels and bootleggers.
[A PDF of the decision is here, including relevant sections of deposition.]