Support NeoGAF

[Ripclawe]

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/mpaa-says-no-pr.html

The Motion Picture Association of America said Friday intellectual-property holders should have the right to collect damages, perhaps as much as $150,000 per copyright violation, without having to prove infringement.

"Mandating such proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against massive copyright infringement in many instances," MPAA attorney Marie L. van Uitert wrote Friday to the federal judge overseeing the Jammie Thomas trial.

"It is often very difficult, and in some cases, impossible, to provide such direct proof when confronting modern forms of copyright infringement, whether over P2P networks or otherwise; understandably, copyright infringers typically do not keep records of infringement," van Uitert wrote on behalf of the movie studios, a position shared with the Recording Industry Association of America, which sued Thomas, the single mother of two.

A Duluth, Minnesota, jury in October dinged Thomas $222,000 for "making available" 24 songs on the Kazaa network in the nation's first and only RIAA case to go to trial. United States District Court Judge Michael Davis instructed the 12 panelists that they need only find Thomas had an open share folder, not that anyone from the public actually copied her files.

(It is technologically infeasible to determine whether the public is copying an open share folder, although the RIAA makes its own downloads from defendants' share folders, produces screen shots and, among other things, captures an IP address. An Arizona judge ruled last month in a different case that those downloads count against a defendant, a one-of-a-kind decision being appealed on grounds that the RIAA was authorized to download its own music.)

Judge Davis suggested last month that he might have erred in giving that "making available" jury instruction, and invited briefing from the community at large. A hearing is set for August, and the judge is mulling whether to order a mistrial.

The deadline to submit briefs to the judge was Friday. Among the briefs, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, the United States Internet Industry Association and the Computer and Communications Industry Association all jointly filed a brief, saying the law did not allow damages for "attempted" copyright infringement.

"Given the serious consequences that flow from copyright’s strict liability regime, the court should resist plaintiffs imprecations to expand that regime absent an unequivocal expression of Congressional intent," the groups wrote, noting that the language in the Copyright Act demands actual distribution to the public of protected works.

It was a similar brief in tone to the one that a group of 10 intellectual property scholars lodged earlier in the week.

But the MPAA, long an ally to the RIAA, which has sued more than 20,000 individuals for file sharing of copyrighted music, told Judge Davis that peer-to-peer users automatically should be liable for infringement.

"The only purpose for placing copyrighted works in the shared folder is, of course, to 'share,' by making those works available to countless other P2P networks," the MPAA wrote.

(Click here for Threat Level's in-depth look at the Thomas case, its implications and Judge Davis' decision to rethink his jury instruction.)

Other groups meeting Davis' deadline include the Intellectual Property Institute at William Mitchell College of Law and the Progress & Freedom Foundation.

 

[Ptaaty]

What if I leave a book laying around near the copy machine at work?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

hahaha

 

[neptunes]

What if I leave a book laying around near the copy machine at work?

by carelessly leaving it near a copy machine, it is clear that you had the intention of copying said book

 

[LuCkymoON]

What if I leave a book laying around near the copy machine at work?

 

[RiskyChris]

What if I leave a book laying around near the copy machine at work?

The fact that copy machines exist is enough proof to convict you.

 

[Kitschkraft]

Has the MPAA actually been successful in curbing internet piracy?

 

[Relix]

What if I leave a book laying around near the copy machine at work?

You single handily killed their stupid argument. Bravo. First post too!

 

[ZAK]

Well, more like you copy a book and leave the copies laying around in a public place.

 

[RiskyChris]

Well, more like you copy a book and leave the copies laying around in a public place.

No, it's more like you have an automatic book copier that you advertise as public.

 

[speedpop]

Has the MPAA actually been successful in curbing internet piracy?

No of course not. They couldn't stop blank VHS or cassettes being used to pirate media in the 70's & 80's so why should it work for them now?

 

[thesoapster]

Wait...what?

How would that even work? If they don't have to prove infringement...but...they have to convict someone of infringement...so...wtf?!$#

 

[whytemyke]

evidence is stupid anyways. goes against the entire idea of truthiness.

 

[Kitschkraft]

evidence is stupid anyways. goes against the entire idea of truthiness.

Evidence has a truthful bias.

 

[itxaka]

Next step:

 

[Hitokage]

"Mandating such proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against massive copyright infringement in many instances," MPAA attorney Marie L. van Uitert wrote Friday to the federal judge overseeing the Jammie Thomas trial.

Just change the names around and you get...

"Mandating such proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving law enforcement of a practical remedy against terrorism in many instances," a US Attorney wrote regarding detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

McCain really should step up his outreach to Hollywood.

 

[StriKeVillain]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=S0eNa85qDZs

Never gets old. :lol

 

[Gig]

Just change the names around and you get...

McCain really should step up his outreach to Hollywood.

:lol :lol Nice stealth edit, by the way who is that in your avatar?

 

[Hitokage]

:lol :lol Nice stealth edit, by the way who is that in your avatar?

Hiroshi Abe from Change.

 

[Diablos]

Fuck the MPAA. Seriously. RIAA/MPAA = biggest party poopers of the Internet age.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Has the MPAA actually been successful in curbing internet piracy?

What makes you think that's what they're interested in?

 

[Stinkles]

No of course not. They couldn't stop blank VHS or cassettes being used to pirate media in the 70's & 80's so why should it work for them now?

Note that none of those things destroyed the entertainment industry either.

 

[Expendable.]

Note that none of those things destroyed the entertainment industry either.

You really think that modern piracy is actually destroying the entertainment industry?

 

[immy]

rapidshare>torrents anyway

 

[Stinkles]

You really think that modern piracy is actually destroying the entertainment industry?

I kind of thought my post suggested the opposite.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

rapidshare>torrents anyway

We can't have a thread on GAF where people don't stupidly and pointlessly brag over their favorite method of pirating.

 

[sangreal]

You guys are being intellectually dishonest. You know damn well that sharing something on a P2P network is logically equivalent to distributing it. What, are you going to share something and then prevent anyone from actually downloading it? Step away from P2P for a minute. If, say, NeoGAF started hosting pirated content and provided links on the front page, do you say they have done nothing wrong as long as nobody actually clicks those links?

The only question is whether they are legally equivalent

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

You guys are being intellectually dishonest. You know damn well that sharing something on a P2P network is logically equivalent to distributing it. What, are you going to share something and then prevent anyone from actually downloading it? Step away from P2P for a minute. If, say, NeoGAF started hosting pirated content and provided links on the front page, do you say they have done nothing wrong as long as nobody actually clicks those links?

The only question is whether they are legally equivalent

It sets precedent for things like "what if you share this folder on your wifi network and leave it open?" None of us like the slippery slope.

 

[Kitschkraft]

What makes you think that's what they're interested in?

What are they interested in?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

What are they interested in?

 

[AntoneM]

You guys are being intellectually dishonest. You know damn well that sharing something on a P2P network is logically equivalent to distributing it. What, are you going to share something and then prevent anyone from actually downloading it? Step away from P2P for a minute. If, say, NeoGAF started hosting pirated content and provided links on the front page, do you say they have done nothing wrong as long as nobody actually clicks those links?

The only question is whether they are legally equivalent

The problem is being convicted of a crime without proof that a crime was actually committed. I liken it to drugs where you can get convicted of intent to distribute (or whatever it's called) even without proof that you a) intended to distribute or b) actually distributed.

Leaving a file available on a p2p network should be enough to show an intent to distribute it, but if the laws are that distribution must occur then this a perversion of the laws. If states or the Fed want to pass a law to the effect that intent to distribute copyrighted content is a crime they are more than welcome to do so, but until such a law exists conviction of such an act can only be viewed as judicial activism even if the actions of the judge are in line with the intent of the current laws.

 

[sykoex]

Why is this weird? Do you ever need proof to take someone to court? Whether or not you're actually convicted is a different story.

 

[DCharlie]

A Duluth, Minnesota, jury in October dinged Thomas $222,000 for "making available" 24 songs

i would love to know what formula they use to come up with the figure.

I mean, do they have some formula to calculate who would have earned what? What royalty rates exist ? etc etc.

 

[Dan]

Why is this weird? Do you ever need proof to take someone to court? Whether or not you're actually convicted is a different story.

And in the article is an example of a judge instructing a jury that proof of a transaction is not necessary for conviction.

United States District Court Judge Michael Davis instructed the 12 panelists that they need only find Thomas had an open share folder, not that anyone from the public actually copied her files.

 

[thekad]

"Proof" is just a word.

 

[Louminater]

it's funny, in my school, the mpaa warned the students numerous times, nothing ever happened.

 

[I_D]

Wait....


So since I have shared folders on my computer which allow me to easily transfer files to my laptop, I could get a huge fine?




LAME!

 

[IcebergSlim3000]

Is file sharing the only way they are able to catch people. What about the countless other places like Megaupload, Rapidshare, and Deposit files that allow you to download directly from their site. Will they then force those sites to give up IP addresses. I'm thinking the only thing they will be able to do is force them to remove the files from their server.

 

[Phoenix]

"The only purpose for placing copyrighted works in the shared folder is, of course, to 'share,' by making those works available to countless other P2P networks," the MPAA wrote.

I'm curious - what does GAF think of this statement. Do you ever put legitimate copyrighted works in your shared folder and expect that people would NOT have access to them. RIAA and MPAA have said/done some stupid things in the past, but come on - if I'm advertising "free content come and get it" surely that IS some indication of wrongdoing.

 

[Phoenix]

Is file sharing the only way they are able to catch people. What about the countless other places like Megaupload, Rapidshare, and Deposit files that allow you to download directly from their site. Will they then force those sites to give up IP addresses. I'm thinking the only thing they will be able to do is force them to remove the files from their server.

No, they can sue them for IP addresses as that is the evidence that they need to get to the perpetrator. The website may, however, decide to not keep any transaction log whatsoever - this being why MPAA is saying that there could be no record of the crime itself.

 

[Phoenix]

Note that none of those things destroyed the entertainment industry either.

Stealing products of any kind doesn't 'destroy' that industry, but that doesn't make it any less a theft that is prosecuted.

 

[Lain]

I'm curious - what does GAF think of this statement. Do you ever put legitimate copyrighted works in your shared folder and expect that people would NOT have access to them. RIAA and MPAA have said/done some stupid things in the past, but come on - if I'm advertising "free content come and get it" surely that IS some indication of wrongdoing.

I thought the wrongdoing was there after you shared, not before? Until the sharing happens, you have done nothing wrong in putting your copyrighted content wherever you please, be it a shared folder or some obscure body orifice.

 

[Suikoguy]

Thanks Google!

 

[Phoenix]

I thought the wrongdoing was there after you shared, not before? Until the sharing happens, you have done nothing wrong in putting your copyrighted content wherever you please, be it a shared folder or some obscure body orifice.

Intent means a LOT in the act of a crime. In fact without intent there could be no crime to begin with by definition. What other possible intent could you have for putting copyrighted content in the SHARED folder? Surely you MUST intend for that content to be distributed to other people. You are at the very least guilty of conspiracy to commit - a crime which doesn't require that you perform the act, only that it is obvious that you intended to perform it.

 

[itxaka]

Intent means a LOT in the act of a crime. In fact without intent there could be no crime to begin with by definition. What other possible intent could you have for putting copyrighted content in the SHARED folder? Surely you MUST intend for that content to be distributed to other people. You are at the very least guilty of conspiracy to commit - a crime which doesn't require that you didn't perform the act but it is obvious that you intended to perform it.

and if you put them on the shared folder (as most p2p do it automatically) but have the upload capped to 0kb?

 

[Phoenix]

and if you put them on the shared folder (as most p2p do it automatically) but have the upload capped to 0kb?

Wouldn't apply in this case as they wouldn't have been "made available" because they wouldn't be advertised since they could never be downloaded by anyone. I mean seriously, come on. If you're a pirate and you get caught, you just get caught. Everyone is trying to find loopholes for something the KNOW is an illegal activity. P2P software puts stuff in your shared folder that you download. So you have already been complicit in the activity of downloading the materials.

Outside of you downloading bootlegs or you specifically putting bootlegs into your shared folder. How else would bootleg content be in the shared folder?

 

[itxaka]

Wouldn't apply in this case as they wouldn't have been "made available" because they wouldn't be advertised since they could never be downloaded by anyone. I mean seriously, come on. If you're a pirate and you get caught, you just get caught. Everyone is trying to find loopholes for something the KNOW is an illegal activity. P2P software puts stuff in your shared folder that you download. So you have already been complicit in the activity of downloading the materials.

Outside of you downloading bootlegs or you specifically putting bootlegs into your shared folder. How else would bootleg content be in the shared folder?

hey, I was just asking

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Intent means a LOT in the act of a crime. In fact without intent there could be no crime to begin with by definition. What other possible intent could you have for putting copyrighted content in the SHARED folder? Surely you MUST intend for that content to be distributed to other people. You are at the very least guilty of conspiracy to commit - a crime which doesn't require that you perform the act, only that it is obvious that you intended to perform it.

You're assuming that the intent to share means to violate copyright by sharing with others. A lot of people do things like drop files in online clouds or through P2P apps so they can get to them from other computers.

I agree with you that most copyright discussion is just a way for people to split hairs and try to justify their own actions, but this is a very dangerous slope when just having any copyrighted file available, in any way, is infringement. First it's Limewire shared folders, next it's Gmail storage extensions and the Back to my Mac service.

 

[Phoenix]

You're assuming that the intent to share means to violate copyright by sharing with others. A lot of people do things like drop files in online clouds or through P2P apps so they can get to them from other computers.

Who does this? Who puts files into a P2P network where everyone in the world can get to it so they can get to it from other places considering they could simply drop it in gmail file extension or any other of thousands of other solutions on the market. I personally find that quite unbelievable.

I agree with you that most copyright discussion is just a way for people to split hairs and try to justify their own actions, but this is a very dangerous slope when just having any copyrighted file available, in any way, is infringement. First it's Limewire shared folders, next it's Gmail storage extensions and the Back to my Mac service.

We're not talking about ANY way, we're talking about making it available in a manner in which it is obvious to anyone who uses the technology what the intent is. Google storage would clearly NOT be an infringement because the person who puts it up there is the person who has primary access. Back to Mac is even more unlikely as it peers ONLY for the .Mac subscriber and no one else.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Once again, I see what you're saying and I agree with you, but you're going too deep into the devil's advocate gimmick that you're ignoring the dangerous precedent that could be set on judging intent here.