Play it again ...
Via the IPKat's friend Miri Frankel comes this feature on Wired regarding the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and its litigation against file sharers (so far more than 20,000 copyright infringement actions have apparently been launched). This story involves a New York family accused of copyright infringement.
The RIAA initially identified the mother, Joan Cassin, as being the operative copyright infringer, but later dropped its action at the point at which which the judge was pondering a motion to dismiss the case based on the "making available" theory (see here, here and here). Two weeks later, the RIAA re-filed more or less identical allegations in a fresh action that was sent to another judge because the RIAA did not "relate" the cases. Discovery was immediately sought in order to find out whose KazaA file share folder was being used -- a share folder on the same Verizon internet account as was used at the Cassin household. Curiously the second lawsuit was filed as a John Doe case, without naming a defendant.
Right: images such as these have done much to portray the battle between the RIAA and file sharers as a contest between bully-boy and defenceless victim. The reality is more complex, particularly since the "making available" theory is not universally subscribed to -- but the imbalance of resources in litigation of this kind remains a bone of contention.
Says the IKat, whatever the rights and wrongs of copyright infringement, and whether you believe that RIAA's decision to pursue individuals in this manner is (i) prudent protection policy or (ii) downright reprehensible harrassment, episodes like this are bound to make the objective bystander feel that there is an unacceptable risk that the system can be manipulated. Adds Merpel, it's strange how often John Doe ends up in court. With all his experience of litigation he ought to be quite good at manipulating the system himself ...
Below: this cartoon -- which accompanied the Wired article -- suggests that the RIAA would prefer it if the repertoire of its recording company members remained unheard. This misses the point. What the RIAA wants is to make sure that new songs are heard, but only on the condition that remuneration can be secured and that the means of dissemination remains under the control of rights owners. If new works are not put on general release, everyone loses. There has been much clamour for new business models to replace the old ones on which the RIAA's members prospered, but the range of real-world options seems alarmingly small.
The RIAA initially identified the mother, Joan Cassin, as being the operative copyright infringer, but later dropped its action at the point at which which the judge was pondering a motion to dismiss the case based on the "making available" theory (see here, here and here). Two weeks later, the RIAA re-filed more or less identical allegations in a fresh action that was sent to another judge because the RIAA did not "relate" the cases. Discovery was immediately sought in order to find out whose KazaA file share folder was being used -- a share folder on the same Verizon internet account as was used at the Cassin household. Curiously the second lawsuit was filed as a John Doe case, without naming a defendant.Right: images such as these have done much to portray the battle between the RIAA and file sharers as a contest between bully-boy and defenceless victim. The reality is more complex, particularly since the "making available" theory is not universally subscribed to -- but the imbalance of resources in litigation of this kind remains a bone of contention.
Says the IKat, whatever the rights and wrongs of copyright infringement, and whether you believe that RIAA's decision to pursue individuals in this manner is (i) prudent protection policy or (ii) downright reprehensible harrassment, episodes like this are bound to make the objective bystander feel that there is an unacceptable risk that the system can be manipulated. Adds Merpel, it's strange how often John Doe ends up in court. With all his experience of litigation he ought to be quite good at manipulating the system himself ...
Below: this cartoon -- which accompanied the Wired article -- suggests that the RIAA would prefer it if the repertoire of its recording company members remained unheard. This misses the point. What the RIAA wants is to make sure that new songs are heard, but only on the condition that remuneration can be secured and that the means of dissemination remains under the control of rights owners. If new works are not put on general release, everyone loses. There has been much clamour for new business models to replace the old ones on which the RIAA's members prospered, but the range of real-world options seems alarmingly small.
