MPAA says no smoking gun needed for piracy prosecution
The Motion Picture Association of American (MPAA) said last Friday that by demanding proof of copyright infringement, they run the risk of being unable to compensate copyright holders. "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,” said MPAA attorney, Marie L van Uitert.
According to Wired, the issue came about after a ruling for the Jammie Thomas trial in the Duluth, Minnesota. Judge Michael Davis fined Thomas $220,000 for making 24 copyrighted files available on a shared folder accessible by Kazaa, a popular P2P software program.
However, after being confronted by a group of university scholars, the judge admitted that perhaps he made a mistake when he told the jury that “making accessible” is grounds for copyright infringement. He invited briefing from the community (which ended last Friday) before considering a mistrial.
Compelling statements were heard from both sides, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, the United Sates Internet Industry Association, and the Computer and Communications Industry. These organizations argued that the Copyright Act called for prosecution only if the protected content was actually distributed and not “attempted.” Furthermore, given the serious consequences of this crime, they felt that the judge should not give prosecutors, like the MPAA, more power, without congressional consent.
The MPAA told the judge that all P2P users should automatically be guilty of copyright infringement. They added that the whole purpose of putting music files in a shared folder is to share them.
Given the fact that copyrighted material was found in Thomas’ shared folder, I can agree with the MPAA’s observation that she probably was trying to share music over Kazaa.
However, I totally agree with the arguments of this decision that, without going through the process of determining if she shared these music files, the MPAA doesn’t have enough proof to accuse her of copyright infringement. Simply having a shared folder on a personal computer with music files in it does not automatically make you a criminal.
Moreover, I’m not in a hurry to give the MPAA more power to prosecute innocent people. It’s definitely possible to prove if music files were shared or not. In fact, I’m in favor of legislation that would force prosecutors to have more due cause when pressing accusations, rather than picking on P2P users or college students.
This is one reason why I think digital watermarking is a good thing. If laws were put in place which forced legislators to prove that defendants were guilty of copyright infringement by producing watermarked information on the music files in question, then perhaps we wouldn’t hear stories like innocent mothers taking on the RIAA. What are your thoughts on digital watermarking?
Related Posts:
June 22nd, 2008
what if your computer gets hacked and the song is taken from your HDD without your knowledge. then this copy gets found online and you get sued. not your fault but you get prosecuted
June 22nd, 2008
Interesting point. It’s definately possible that something like this could happen. However, I think it’s a bit of a hypothetical situation. Hackers are much more interested in getting your passwords, taking over your computer so they can use it as part of their bot-net, things like that. I don’t believe most hackers would go to the trouble of getting into my computer just to get my music files. They can easily get the music by going to P2P networks or Youtube.
June 22nd, 2008
If your computer gets hacked it most certainly is your fault. Most hacks are heavily reliant on user action or inaction. Computers that aren’t patched, firewalls disabled etc…There is no technical reason for most infections.
June 23rd, 2008
Unfortunately, a lot of users aren’t smart enough to know that they should patch their systems, put up firewalls, and stuff like that. Granted things are getting better, but we’re still dealing with a generation of people that don’t understand computers. We can’t hold these people responsible for the actions of hackers.
June 23rd, 2008
Its true that there are a lot of hacks out there that depend on user interaction or lack there-of to infect the system. But there are holes in the browser, OS, all of which are technical issues that give hackers ways to exploit vulnerabilities and hack a system. This is one example:
http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2007/03/ani-cursor.html
Although, if users simply patch their system then they won’t have to deal with it. Unfortunately, a lot of users don’t know that they should patch their systems, put up firewalls, and stuff like that. Granted things are getting better and people are getting more educated, but we’re still dealing with a generation of people that don’t understand computers. We can’t hold these people responsible for the actions of hackers.
June 24th, 2008
lol! Lets hope that’s not the case ^^()