Comments on: Jury Hands Down Decision in First RIAA Case http://tech.blorge.com/Structure: /2007/10/04/jury-hands-down-decision-in-first-riaa-case/ Technology news Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:15:02 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: wtf http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/10/04/jury-hands-down-decision-in-first-riaa-case/comment-page-1/#comment-84944 wtf Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:46:37 +0000 http://tech.blorge.com/Structure: /2007/10/04/jury-hands-down-decision-in-first-riaa-case/#comment-84944 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *cough cough* This is SO going to lose on appeal. The racism in this case is amazingly rampant. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *cough cough* This is SO going to lose on appeal. The racism in this case is amazingly rampant.

]]> By: none http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/10/04/jury-hands-down-decision-in-first-riaa-case/comment-page-1/#comment-84942 none Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:43:18 +0000 http://tech.blorge.com/Structure: /2007/10/04/jury-hands-down-decision-in-first-riaa-case/#comment-84942 This is pretty ridiculous, really... This is pretty ridiculous, really…

]]> By: The Angry Offender http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2007/10/04/jury-hands-down-decision-in-first-riaa-case/comment-page-1/#comment-35547 The Angry Offender Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:41:52 +0000 http://tech.blorge.com/Structure: /2007/10/04/jury-hands-down-decision-in-first-riaa-case/#comment-35547 This case’s appeal is going to put a busted ostrich egg in the face of both the judge AND the RIAA. The instructions were clearly outside of the scope of the law, and on top of that, the RIAA never actually proved that DAMAGES occurred. Also, why has no one argued that the DOWNLOADER is responsible for infringement rather than the person “making available?” In the real world, if you make a copy of a CD for someone else, you’re infringing, but if someone makes a copy of a copyrighted item that you, the library, or a rental chain like Blockbuster lends or rents to them, THEY have committed the infringement. There is no feasible way to defeat this analogy. The actual copyright violation occurs not because of the (potentially accidental) availability of the file, but rather because the downloader, copier, or ripper willingly and intentionally chose to make a duplication of the file that would not fall under a fair use exemption. The jury has essentially made you liable for infringement if your friend borrows a CD from you and decides to rip it without your knowledge or consent before returning it. I would expect Blockbuster to file an amicus brief for the appeal, because if this ruling is allowed to stand, Blockbuster is “making available” a TON of copyrighted media, and they commit copyright infringement with every rental that chooses to duplicate the rented item. They made it available, after all. The utter stupidity of the instructions is easily found when the implications of those instructions are applied to all situations that would fall under the wording of those instructions, and that’s why this is going to be one hell of an EASY appeal. This case’s appeal is going to put a busted ostrich egg in the face of both the judge AND the RIAA. The instructions were clearly outside of the scope of the law, and on top of that, the RIAA never actually proved that DAMAGES occurred. Also, why has no one argued that the DOWNLOADER is responsible for infringement rather than the person “making available?” In the real world, if you make a copy of a CD for someone else, you’re infringing, but if someone makes a copy of a copyrighted item that you, the library, or a rental chain like Blockbuster lends or rents to them, THEY have committed the infringement. There is no feasible way to defeat this analogy. The actual copyright violation occurs not because of the (potentially accidental) availability of the file, but rather because the downloader, copier, or ripper willingly and intentionally chose to make a duplication of the file that would not fall under a fair use exemption.

The jury has essentially made you liable for infringement if your friend borrows a CD from you and decides to rip it without your knowledge or consent before returning it.

I would expect Blockbuster to file an amicus brief for the appeal, because if this ruling is allowed to stand, Blockbuster is “making available” a TON of copyrighted media, and they commit copyright infringement with every rental that chooses to duplicate the rented item. They made it available, after all.

The utter stupidity of the instructions is easily found when the implications of those instructions are applied to all situations that would fall under the wording of those instructions, and that’s why this is going to be one hell of an EASY appeal.

]]>