|
|
Posted by anthonyberet on 09/04/05 12:47
Loco Jones wrote:
> Could this be the one to watch?
>
> http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1507708/20050816/index.jhtml?headlines=tru
> e&_requestid=334269
> (same as: http://tinyurl.com/bm4w5 )
>
> Yes, it's KaZaa in the spotlight again, but this could apply to any P2P
> application targeted:
> < quote >
>
> "As an exhibit in the complaint, they typed up a list of six songs that
> RIAA investigators downloaded from a shared account that was supposedly on
> my client's computer," Rogers said. "The complaint said those files were
> there for sharing, but they have no evidence that anyone did share them.
> For them to prove copyright infringement, they have to show that there was
> unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted file to the public. If they knew
> some 16-year-old who downloaded those songs from my client's drive, that
> would be copyright infringement, but if their own investigators did it,
> it's not distribution to the public. A copyright owner cannot infringe on
> their own copyright."
> < end quote >
>
> If this case ever makes it way *all* through the legal system, the results
> could be very interesting indeed.
>
Here is a collection of court documents relating to this case:
http://riaalawsuits.us/elektra_santangelo/
There are few interesting points - the RIAA submitted ordinary
screen-grabs of KaZaa as evidence. - Suggesting that they don't use bots.
Despite about 1100 tracks being shared, they are only claiming
infringement on one track from each record company (probably for economy
of court time).
The court hearing of May 6th 2005 seemed to hinge on the judge's
misunderstanding of Kazaa usernames and what they mean - she appeared to
be under the impression that this meant it was not the defendant's ISP
account.
Anyway, despite the news story, the defendent's lawyers have moved for
dismissal on the basis that the RIAA did not specify the times of the
infringements.
I would ceratinly think that the fact that a wifi connection was used
would be significant. - I see no mention of the argument about no proof
that the tracks have been downloaded by anyone - perhaps this collection
is incomplete though.
I agree it is one to watch.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|