Is 'Making Available' Copyright Infringement? ~ ALERT for personal computer owners....

Hollywood Reporter ^ | January 22, 2007 | Ray Beckerman

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The argument is that even if a defendant has never copied or distributed a file illegally, the fact that he or she possesses a computer with a shared-files folder on it that contains copyrighted files "made available" over an Internet connection, this in and of itself constitutes infringement of the "distribution" rights of the sound recording copyright holder under Section 106(3) of the Copyright Act.

[NonValueAdded]

Trackworthy stuff.

[darkwing104]

In other words, if it on your Hard Drive you are automatically a distributor.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Well it has to be in a shared folder accessible thu one of the P2P services....as i read it....but that extension would be next....and likely....

Hattip to Groklaw for this....by the way....

[PissAndVinegar]

Not exactly, you need to allow file sharing access...while 'leeches' are frowned opon in the internet community, they are the ones who will not get caught up in this mess.

[weegee]

Watch out or the RIAA will put on their flak jackets and join SWAT again.

[darkwing104]

The Impression I got that even if you don't know about the music files on your hard drive you can be sued because of your ISP.

That tells me that anyone with a wireless router have better secure it. ASAP before the RIAA comes knocking on your door.

[TC Rider]

How would this ruling effect libraries where both the works are available, plus the technology (xerox machines) to duplicate them.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Damn good question....

[steve-b]

The argument is that even if a defendant has never copied or distributed a file illegally, the fact that he or she possesses a computer with a shared-files folder on it that contains copyrighted files "made available" over an Internet connection

The lawyer who brought this suit should be sanctioned for barratry and/or simple incompetence.

The usual reason for placing files in a shared-files folder is to make them available to other machines on one's local network (e.g. storing files on the main computer in one room and accessing them from a laptop in another room via a wireless connection).

[HAL9000]

My understanding is that simply displaying a URL is allowed - but using the URL in an active link can cause legal problems.

As a hypothetical situation, let's pretend that Free Republic is an illegal music site. Here are two examples to illustrate the difference -

Legal: http://www.freerepublic.com

Illegal: http://www.freerepublic.com

Both of the lines above contain similar information, but the second line has a link that actively functions as an infringing device.

Of course, the user could simply copy and paste the URL in the first line into the browser's location box to arrive at the same location - but that line is simple text protected by the First Amendment.

[Rick.Donaldson]

Pretty soon you wont even be able to use your ipod anymore.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Of course the RIAA is interested in only recorded music....but there are audio book recordings....

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

That simple distinction could easily be wiped away by another judge...

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

ping

[reagan_fanatic]

Interesting information. Thanks.

[ctdonath2]

It's generally understood that you DON'T use the library's copier to duplicate an entire book.

It's generally understood that you DO use publicly-accessable shared-directory peer-to-peer software to duplicate an entire file.

There's a difference.

[darkwing104]

Most shared folders for networks are not necessary the same folders used in P2P programs. While the P2P programs are running the files in the P2P's shared folders are available for distribution through the internet.

[RobRoy]

>>while 'leeches' are frowned opon in the internet community, they are the ones who will not get caught up in this mess.<<

;)