The case in question, Elektra v. Perez, follows the pattern of the numerous other file-sharing lawsuits brought by the RIAA. After MediaSentry discovered a number of songs in a Kazaa user’s download folder, the RIAA filed a “John Doe” lawsuit which was supplanted once the defendant, Dave Perez, was identified by his ISP as the owner of the account allegedly used to share music.
In his response, Perez denied the accusations of file sharing and said that even if he was responsible for the “perez@kazaa” account, merely making the files available in a shared folder for other Kazaa users falls short of infringement.
Judge Aiken ruled in favor of the RIAA. In her order, the judge noted that in a copyright infringement case, the plaintiff needs to do two things: demonstrate ownership of the material and show that the party accused of infringement “violated at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under 17 U.S.C. § 106.” Making songs available for download fulfills the second requirement, wrote Judge Aiken.
This appears to be the first instance in which a judge presiding over a file-sharing case has ruled that having a shared folder available on Kazaa constitutes copyright infringement.
ok ok, i’ll agree with ya that playing stupid is probably the right thing to do IF you get fingered by the RIAA
untill that happens, close wifi, use wpa
i’d be honored to have me ideas.. shared
avenues for sticking it to the RIAA are getting diluted by these clowns – every week is a new low for these reptiles. somewhere, a sleazy lawyer chasing amulances with a big hammer is reading about the RIAA and thinking – “damn, respect.”
I would like to point out that this conversation violated the digital mellinium copyright act clause pertaining to conversations about piracy that promote or inform as to it’s methods. Just figgered’ I’d let you know
hi, the UAE have emailed me today that your blog is not blocked anymore on their network. I checked with one of my friends who live there and he said it is not blocked.
Welcome back!
I’m with #13. Lou, you are 100% correct. Yes, the RIAA is going too far, and no, this isn’t going to solve their problems.
But seriously, how many of you are sharing music so you can get it for free rather than buying it? That’s illegal, it’s unethical, and there’s no freakin’ way you can justify it, period. Face it…all this business about royalties, DRM, Apple, and all the rest is a smoke screen so you can get music for free.
That said, I believe DRM is draconian, it goes too far. But the reason it exists is because so many people stole music rather than buying it. Quit stealing the music, buy it or don’t, and the RIAA has no case and no cause. If you don’t want to buy but need to listen then get XM or Sirius.
What is it with the kids today…we read about cheating in school being rampant, and they want to steal IP, too. Has this generation no ethics?
“and there’s no freakin’ way you can justify it”
Is buying more music justification?! Back in the original Napster days I’d find music I’d like and then check out the person’s shared list. I figured if we both like one artist, we’d like other artists. I was exposed to more new music than I ever had before. I went from buying maybe a CD a year to about three CDs a month.
“DRM… is a smoke screen so you can get music for free.”
Nope, if iTunes or some other service sold its music free of DRM for a buck a song I’d gladly sign up.
“If you don’t want to buy but need to listen then get XM or Sirius.”
Which is quite ironic as the RIAA is suing both of those guys for copyright infringement! It appears that the RIAA wants satellite radio to pay more than normal radio. Which doesn’t pay anything to the RIAA, just to the song writers.
What you have to remember is that new technology always affects copyright. Cable TV violated copyrights in the very beginning. The Cable companies at the time simply transmitted broadcast channels over its wires without paying anyone a dime. Congress liked the idea of cable TV and the money the cable companies were dumping in its lap, so they allowed it to continue.
Radio also didn’t pay royalties. Broadcasters simply played popular music on the radio! Oh god, they were STEALING! But due to the importance of the new technology radio broadcasters did not have to pay performance fees but only had to pay royalties to the song writers.
Heck, even back to the old scroll playing pianos! Once again the companies producing the scrolls didn’t pay a dime to anyone. And even the courts at the time agreed that the scroll in itself was not a performance. Finally the law was changed so that the copying of copyrighted works for profit constituted an infringement.
Now we don’t even need copying. Now we don’t need any profit motive. It would appear that just leaving my CDs in a public area would be infringement now.
I don’t buy Sirius for music. I buy it for Howard Stern. The RIAA can eat a dick.
#27, well put. I agree.
Just a note.
The Judge did not rule that merely having a shared folder will uphold the accusation of copyright infringement. Her opinion was in response to a Motion to have the lawsuit dismissed. In such a Motion, the Judge must look at any evidence in favor of the other party and if there is anything of controversy, must deny the Motion to Dismiss. This decision does not carry any legal weight except in this case. Of course, our legal minds here at DU might elaborate better then I have on this point.
our entire economy is becoming one big extortion racket — instead of making better products and selling them, companies now simply shakedown anybody else making money using anything remotely similar or smacking of copyright infringement — no matter how tenuous.
it’s cheaper to sue money out of people than it is earn it apparently — and that’s where the entire american economy is headed.
it sickens me to no end.
#27 “What is it with the kids today…we read about cheating in school being rampant, and they want to steal IP, too. Has this generation no ethics?”
Bingo!!!! we have a winner. This happened in latin americas during the previous 2 generations. Now, between the US own ethics decays & the huge influx from latin america, the future looks gloomier by the minute, unless you drastically change. I’m not holding my breath neither there nor especially here.
13, Intellectual Property does not exist.
You can’t own an idea, or a piece of information. What you can own is the exclusive right to produce a product that is based solely on an idea.
DRM is about piracy? Please… DRM is about when I purchase a product, I have a right to use it in any way that does not involve me reproducing the product. Note that we have a tradition of saying its okay to time shift and space shift for personal use. DRM reflects a completely different attitude that content is licensed, and you NEVER own the things you buy.
I have no interest in licensing property.
13, Intellectual Property does not exist.
You can’t own an idea, or a piece of information. What you can own is the exclusive right to produce a product that is based solely on an idea.
DRM is about piracy? Please… DRM is about when I purchase a product, I have a right to use it in any way that does not involve me reproducing the product. Note that we have a tradition of saying its okay to time shift and space shift for personal use. DRM reflects a completely different attitude that content is licensed, and you NEVER own the things you buy.
Just buy an iPod or some music CD-R’s, people, and keep the receipts.
Since the RIAA receives a portion of the proceeds from the sales of these items, “to offset the ‘losses’ incurred by the horrid crime of illegally sharing music”, having purchased one of these items means you actually have bought a receipt that states that you have already been billed for the privelege of downloading free music, doesn’t it?
Or do you routinely pay good money for things you have no intention of using? ;~D
Support the musical groups you like listening to by buying their albums from them directly, either through their website or from a concert venue.
But whatever you do, stop paying the RIAA principals by buying those dreadfully-overpriced retail CD’s; when you buy a CD from Walmart or Amazon for $18, you are effectively giving the artist less than 5% of the sale price, with the bulk of your cash going to the corporations whose lawyers make up the RIAA!
All that does is enrich these evil corporations that have done their level best to screw over the performers ever since the very beginning of the industry.
So, vote with your pocketbooks, and remember who gets what from those retail CD’s.
(But, if you don’t want to buy an iPod, #15 speaks truth.)
How do those guys on MTV Cribs get those places with just 5% of the retail? The math doesn’t add up.
@36 If an artist sells 3 million cd’s (a conservative figure according to some of the multi-platinum selling artists sales records) 5% of 18 dollars times 3,000,000 is 2,700,000 dollars. then you add the money they make from concerts, appearances, memorabilia, and other means of income and you get the money that they would need for the MTV cribs type of houses. All of that is if they only have one big hit cd. The artists deserve their money, they are the ones who bring us the enjoyment and sometimes the message we are interested in. I don’t steal music nor do I share my music but the cost of manufacturing has dropped to cheaper than that of cassette tapes and we are still paying the price we paid when it was new technology and a CD-R cost 5 dollars instead of 15 cents. If you are looking for ethics in the younger generation I think you should begin to look for it in the older generation first. Is it ethical for a large organization to threaten and sue small children ethical? Is it ethical for companies to make accounting adjustments ala Enron? being unethical in business will get you promoted but if you are unethical when it comes to someone elses business then you have gone to far unless you take the company over in the act. Think historically of all of the unethical acts that lead to our current world and then tell me that the younger generation is to blame.
“How do those guys on MTV Cribs get those places with just 5% of the retail? The math doesn’t add up.”
Because they get huge advances. Sony will give an artist a million bucks to sign to their label. But the artist then has to pay it back with CD sales. If the CD doesn’t sell they still owe the money back, it was an advance of a payment, not a payment itself.
The artist is generally too stupid to recognize the difference. He or she has a million bucks and starts to blow it immediately.
Plus they get money for concerts, endorsement deals, TV appearances, etc.
OK RIAA, you win. I used to listen to Internet radio and buy CDs of music I like. Until you finish your death spiral, I’ll dispense with the “buy CDs” part.
It’s called PeerGuardian 2, look it up…
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=PeerGuardian&btnG=Google+Search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerGuardian
Available from: http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/
Pay attention!