File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digital media, such as computer programs, multimedia (audio, pictures and video), documents or electronic books. This involves various legal aspects because it is often used to exchange intellectual property that is subject to copyright or license laws.
Video Legal aspects of file sharing
File and sharing hosting
File hosting services can be used as a means to distribute or share files without the consent of the copyright owner. In such cases, someone uploads a file to the file hosting service, which can be downloaded by others. Legal history is documented in legal cases.
For example in the case of the Swiss-German RapidShare file hosting service, in 2010 the international congressional anti-piracy congress of the US congress government declared the site a "well-known illegal site", claiming that the site is "heavily used for global exchange of illegal movies, music and copyrighted works other ". But in the case of Atari Europe S.A.S.U. v. Rapidshare AG in Germany (Legal case: OLG DÃÆ'¼sseldorf, Verdict dated March 22, 2010, Az I-20 U 166/09 dated March 22, 2010) the high court in DÃÆ'¼sseldorf tested claims related to alleged violation activity and reached conclusions about appeals that "most people use RapidShare for legal use cases" and to think of it as inviting "general suspicions of shared hosting services and their unauthorized users". The court also observed that the site deleted copyrighted material when requested, did not provide search facilities for illegal material, recorded previous cases in favor of RapidShare, and after a court analysis concluded that the plaintiff's proposal to strictly prevent the distribution of copyrighted material - filed as an example of a file sharing action RapidShare may have been adopted - found "unreasonable or useless".
In January 2012 the United States Department of Justice seized and closed the file hosting Megaupload.com site and started a criminal case against the owner and others. Their indictment concludes that Megaupload differs from other online file storage businesses, pointing out a number of design features from its operation model as evidence showing criminal intent and effort.
Maps Legal aspects of file sharing
Jurisdiction
Australia
The case of secondary liability in Australia, under Australian law, is Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2005] FCA 1242 (September 5, 2005). In this case, the Court ruled that the file sharing system of Kazaa violated "official" copyright. Claims for damages are then settled out of court.
In the case of AFACT v iiNet fought in the Federal Court, internet service providers are found not responsible for copyright infringement of its users. However, the case does not create a clear precedent that Australian ISPs will never be held responsible for their user's copyright infringement based on the provision of an internet connection. AFACT and other Australian copyright holders have declared their intention to appeal the case, or to pursue the matter by lobbying the government to change Australian law.
Canada
The legality of file sharing in Canada is debatable, although in practice, file sharing can be tolerated. In addition, in the case of 2004 BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe, the court ruled that both downloading music and putting it in shared folders available to others online was legal in Canada. This has led to harsh criticism from organizations such as the International Federation of Phonographic Industries:
Canada, practically the only government of developed countries that did not implement international copyright agreements that were agreed more than a decade ago, is the main source of world file sharing. A number of illegal sites are disproportionately hosting on Canadian soil.
China
The People's Republic of China is known to have one of the most comprehensive and broadest approaches to observing web activity and censoring information in the world. Popular social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook can not be accessed via direct connection by its citizens. Mainland China requires sites that share video files to be licensed and controlled by the state or owned by the state. This license is valid for three years and will require updates after that time period. Websites that violate any rules will be subject to a 5-year ban for providing videos online. One of the most widely used file sharing programs in the country, BTChina was closed in December 2009. It was shut down by the State Administration of Film and Television Radio for not obtaining licenses to distribute the media legally such as audio and video files. Alexa, the company that monitors web traffic, claims that BTChina has 80,000 users every day. Being one of the major file sharing sites for Chinese citizens, this shutdown affects the lives of many Internet users in China. China has an online population of 222.4 million people and 65.8% is said to participate in some form of file sharing on the website.
European Union
On June 5, 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that making a temporary copy on the user's screen or in the user's cache is not, by itself, illegal. The verdict was related to the case of British Meltwater completed that day.
The court ruling states: "Article 5 of the Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 concerning the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society shall be construed as meaning that copies on the user's computer screen and internet cached copies 'of the computer's hard disk, made by the end user in order to view the website, complied with the provision that the copy should be temporary, that they must be temporary or incidental and that they must be an integral and important part of the technological process, as well as the conditions set out in Article 5 (5) of that directive, and therefore they may be created without the authorization of the copyright holder. "
The Boy Genius Report weblog notes that "As long as Internet users are streaming copyrighted content online... it's legitimate to users, who do not knowingly [sic] make copies of that content. If users only see it directly through a web browser, stream it from the website hosting it, he does not seem to have made a mistake. "
In November 2009, the European Parliament voted on changes to the Telecoms Package. With regard to file-sharing, MPs agree to compromise between protecting copyright and protecting user rights. A European Parliament statement reads "The user's internet access may be restricted, if necessary and comparable, only after fair and impartial procedures including the user's right to be heard." EU members are granted until May 2011 to apply these changes into their own laws.
German
In Germany, file sharing is illegal and even one copyrighted file downloaded through BitTorrent may trigger a fine of EUR1000 or more. GEMA is also used to block many YouTube videos.
Passed response
In response to copyright infringement using peer to peer file sharing or BitTorrent the content industry has developed what is known as a passing response, or three strike system . Consumers who do not comply with recurring complaints about copyright infringement are at risk of losing access to the internet. The content industry is thinking of getting the cooperation of Internet service providers (ISPs), asking them to provide customer information for IP addresses identified by the content industry as being involved in copyright infringement. Consumer rights groups argue that this approach denies the consumer's right to legal process and the right to privacy. The European Parliament passed a non-binding resolution in April 2008, rebuking laws that would require ISPs to terminate their user relationships and would prevent individuals from gaining access to broadband.
In a number of European countries attempts to implement a passing response have led to court cases to establish under what circumstances ISPs can provide customer data to the content industry. To pursue those who downloaded copyrighted material, the offending individual must be identified. Internet users can often only be identified by their Internet Protocol (IP address) address, which distinguishes certain virtual computer locations. Most ISPs allocate a set of IP addresses as needed, rather than assigning each computer a static IP address that never changes. Using the ISP content industry customer information has been thought to correct copyright infringement, assuming that the ISP is legally responsible for end-user activity, and that end users are responsible for all activities connected to its IP address.
In 2005, a Dutch court ordered ISPs in the Netherlands not to divulge customer information due to the way the Dutch content industry group has collected IP addresses (Foundation v. UPC Nederland). Under Dutch law the ISP can only be ordered to provide personal customer data if it makes sense that an unlawful action occurs, and if shown without doubt that customer information will identify the person who committed the infringing action. In a German court specifically considering the right to privacy and in March 2008, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ruled that the ISP can only provide subscription information to IP addresses in case of "serious criminal investigations". The Court further ruled that copyright infringement did not qualify as a serious offense. Furthermore, in April 2008, the Bundestag (German parliament) approved a new law requiring the ISP to leak the identity of people suspected of commercially infringing offenses. Similarly, in Sweden, the controversial file sharing bill is awaiting Riksdag approval. The law, which will come into effect on April 1, 2009, will allow copyright holders to request IP addresses and the names of suspected copyright infringers to take legal action against them. However, the copyright holder must present sufficient evidence of harm to justify the release of information concerning Internet customers. In Italy, the court ruled that criminal liability does not cover the file of copyrighted material, provided it is not made for commercial gain. Mastering a case involving a copyright holder employing a third party to collect IP addresses that are suspected of infringing copyright, the Italian Data Protection Authority decided in February 2008 that systematic monitoring of peer-to-peer activities for the purpose of detecting copyright infringers and suing them was prohibited.
French
In October 2009, France's highest constitutional court approved the HADOPI law, a "strike law of three"; however, the law was repealed on July 10, 2013 by the French Government because punishment penalties imposed on copyright infringers are deemed disproportionate.
ireland
In May 2010, Irish Internet provider Eircom has announced they will cut off a customer broadband connection suspected of copyright infringement on a peer-to-peer file-sharing network. Initially, customers will be contacted by Eircom to see if they know of unauthorized downloads. When customers are identified for the third time they will lose their internet connection for 7 days, if caught for the fourth time they will lose their internet connection for a year.
Japanese
File sharing in Japan is famous for its size and sophistication. The Japanese Recording Industry Association claims illegal downloads exceed 10: 1 legal amounts.
The sophistication of Japanese filesharing is due to Japanese anti-filesharing sophistication. Unlike most other countries, sharing copyrighted content files is not just a civil violation, but a crime, with up to ten years for uploading and up to two years for download. Also there is a high-level Internet service provider cooperation. This makes the situation where sharing files like those done in many other countries is quite dangerous.
To counter, Japanese file users use anonymization networks with clients such as Perfect Dark (????????) and Winny.
Malaysia
In June 2011, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission has ordered the blocking of several websites including The Pirate Bay and some file hosting websites by mail dated May 30 to all Malaysian ISPs for violating Article 41 of the Copyright Act 1987, which handles pirated content.
Mexico
The record company pursued about 20,000 lawsuits in 17 countries in 2009 against file-sharing copyrighted content; However, none of the cases were filed in Mexico. Since the Mexican government has opened a legitimate and bureaucratically expensive business, consumers have learned to rely on cheaper means of obtaining music and other media for their entertainment. Consumers continue to share files because Mexican intellectual property laws are very weak and have not been updated to take account of online commerce such as file sharing; therefore, intellectual property laws do not penalize file sharing and Mexican intellectual property laws can not affect file sharers because no money is exchanged. The issue of file sharing becomes particularly problematic for the entertainment industry in the sense that fast broadband connections have become more common in Mexico, doubling to 61 percent of Mexicans using the internet in the past two years. Although file sharing laws are virtually non-existent in Mexico, Mexican legislators are considering approval of unauthorized file penalties with fines of up to $ 20,000 and ten years in prison. However, even if the law changes in terms of file sharing, finding offenders will not be easy in any way because about one-third of Mexican Internet users are online at Internet Cafes, where several people can use the same computer every hour. In the end, the Internet poses two challenges in Mexico: (1) the sale of forged goods/copyright protected and (2) distribution of new unauthorized releases, subtitles, covers and versions of dubbed movies, and music, software , and books. There are many file sharing servers hosted in Mexico; however, most of these servers are based in the US and Europe but are managed in Mexico. According to the recording industry, internet music sharing dominates about 90% of the total music market in Mexico with Peer to Peer network as the most dominant form of music copyright infringement.
North Africa
Dutch
According to the reproduction of Dutch law literature, science or art is not considered an offense to the right of the content creator or artist when all of the following conditions have been met:
- Copies have not been created with direct commercial motives
- The purpose of the copy is specifically for self-study, learning or use
- Number of copies is limited
Such copies are called 'thuiskopie' or home copies.
Since 1991, after a decision by the Department of Justice, there are organizations that ensure that artists and rights holders are compensated for copies of their work made for personal use. This compensation is imposed indirectly through additional charges on information carriers such as blank CDs, blank DVDs, MP3 Players, and, since 2013, hard drives and tablets.
North Korea
File sharing in North Korea is done by hand with physical transport devices such as computer disk drives, due to lack of access to the Internet. This is illegal, because of the regime's efforts to control the culture. Despite government repression, file sharing is commonplace, as in most other countries.
Since official channels are heavily dominated by government and external media propaganda prohibited, illegally traded files are a unique outlook to the outside world for North Korea. The most distributed media are from South Korea; soap and k-pop operas.
South Korea
In March 2009, South Korea passed a law that gave internet users a form of three strikes to share unlawful files in order to withhold online theft. This is also known as a multilevel response. When the number of cases of unlawful division increases, the proportion of youth involved increases. When file sharing is monitored, they are sent a message instructing them to stop. If their file sharing continues, their internet connection may be disconnected for up to six months. The forces behind this movement are the Korean National Assembly Committee for Culture, Sports, Tourism, Broadcasting & amp; Communication (CCSTB & amp; C). With help from local internet service provider, CCSTB & amp; C has gained access and established a communication channel to a particular file sharing user.
Spanish
In a series of cases, the Spanish court has ruled that sharing files for personal use is legal. In 2006, the recording industry's attempts to criminalize file sharing were thwarted when Judge Paz Aldecoa declared it legal to download indiscriminately in Spain, if made for personal use and without the intent to profit, and the police chief of the police team publicly said "There is no tone. PodÃÆ' Â © is a queue lo que querÃÆ'¡is del eMule Pero no lo vendÃÆ'¡is. "(" It's okay you can download anything you want with eMule but do not sell it. "). There have been demonstrations in which the authorities have been notified that copyrighted material will be downloaded in public places, the latest occurred on December 20, 2008. No legal action was taken against the protesters. In another decision of May 2009, a judge decided to support someone involved in the distribution of personal and non-commercial files from thousands of movies, even though the copying was done without the consent of the copyright owner.
The Spanish Supreme Court has ruled that personal data associated with IP addresses may only be disclosed during criminal investigations or for public security reasons. (Productores de MÃÆ'ºsica de EspaÃÆ' Â ± a v. TelefÃÆ'³nica de EspaÃÆ' Â ± a SAU).
It has been reported that Spain has one of the highest file-sharing rates in Europe. Over a twelve month period there are 2.4 billion downloadable reports of copyrighted works including music, video games, software and movies in Spain. Statistics for 2010 show that 30% of Spaniards use file sharing sites, doubling the European average by 15%.
The record labels will have that this has a negative impact on the industry, with investment dried up, according to IFPI chief John Kennedy. In 2003, for example, 10 new Spanish artists appeared on the top 50 album charts, but in 2009 no new Spanish artists were featured in the same graph. The album sales fell two-thirds over the five-year period by 2010. "Spain is at risk of turning into a cultural desert... I think it's a shame that the authorities do not see the damage done."
However, the Musical Musical Association of Spain (APM) stated that "Music is alive," because although the decline in sales of recording revenues from concert ticket sales has increased 117% over the past decade, from EUR69.9 million to EUR151.1 million in 2008. The number of concerts doubled from 71,045 in 2000 to 144,859 in 2008, and the number of people attending the concert increased from 21.8 million in 2000 to over 33 million in 2008.
Although the problems experienced by the entertainment industry, file sharing and torrent websites were ruled by law in Spain in March 2010. The judge in charge of the court decision stated that " P2P networks are only channels for data transmission between internet users, and on this basis they do not violate the rights protected by Intellectual Property law ".
On September 20, 2013, the Spanish government approved a new law which will take effect in early 2014. Approved legislation will mean that website owners who earn "direct or indirect benefits", such as through advertising links, from pirated content can jailed for up to six years. The peer-to-peer file-sharing platform and search engine are exempt from law.
Since January 2015, Vodafone Spain blocked thepiratebay.org as requested by the Ministry of Interior. And since March 29, 2015 thepiratebay is blocked on some URLs from all ISP [111]
United Kingdom
Around 2010, the position of the British government is an act that will help push the UK's creative and digital sectors very important to foster growth and jobs in the future. According to a 2009 report by the International Federation of Phonographic Industries 95 percent of music downloads are not valid, without payment to artist and producer . Market research firm Harris Interactive believes there will be 8.3 million file users in the UK. In addition, the BPI claims that in 1999 music purchases in the UK totaled £ 1,113 million but have fallen to Ã, Â £ 893.8 million in 2008. The Digital Economics Act 2010 received Royal Assent on April 9, 2010. However after that its main provisions have never been legislatively enacted.
- Historical situation before 2010
Previous cases in the UK have seen internet users receive a charge of £ 2500 to share music on the internet.
- Digital Economy Act 2010
The Digital Economy Bill proposes that Internet service providers (ISPs) issue warnings by sending mail to those who download unauthorized copyrighted files. After this, the bill proposes that ISPs slow down or even suspend internet access for repeat offenders from sharing unauthorized files. The bill aims to force internet service providers to disclose the identity of these violators and make provisions for copyright licensing arrangements. The Digital Economy Bill incorporates a passive response policy even though the alleged file sharer should not be penalized for copyright infringement. The bill also imposes a fine of up to £ 50,000 for criminal offenses relating to copyright infringement - for example if music is downloaded for the purpose of sale. High penalties are considered comparable to the losses incurred to the British industry. An appeals process exists where the defendant can file a lawsuit but, concern has been expressed that this process will be expensive and that, in prosecuting individuals to prove their innocence, the bill reverses the core principles of my natural justice. Similarly, a website may be blocked if it is considered that it is, is, or is likely to be used in connection with copyright infringement which means that a site does not actually have to be involved in copyright. offense - somewhat intent should be proven.
The law is seen as controversial, and has the potential to create serious repercussions for file tenants and internet service providers. The bill was filled with mixed responses. Geoff Taylor of the BPI claims that the bill is vital for the future of creative work in the UK. A spokesman for the Conservative Party for Culture and Media states that those who download should be given criminal records. Instead, a spokesman for the Liberal Democratic Party for Culture and Media stated that the bill was frivolous and dangerous stating that children could unwittingly be sharing files that caused the whole family to lose their internet connection. In addition, there are concerns that hackers can access Internet connections to download files and leave responsible bill payers. The specific attention raised includes:
-
- Public Wi-Fi access providers are uncertain. Responsibility for violations may be forwarded to the provider due to difficulties in identifying individual users. Internet providers may therefore risk losing internet access or face hefty fines if copyright infringement occurs. Many libraries and small cafes for example can find this impossible to comply as it will require detailed recording of all who need internet access. In this particular library it can challenge the professional interests of user privacy and can force changes in future policies such as Acceptable Use Policies (AUP). Public libraries make use of AUP to protect creative works from copyright infringement and themselves from possible legal liability. However, unless the AUP is accompanied by the provision of knowledge on how to comply with the law, it may be considered unethical, since any error for any violation is forwarded to the user.
- The hospitality sector - may also be influenced by the Digital Economy Law. The UK Hospitality Association has stated that the hotel will have special problems in providing guests internet access details to Internet Service Providers and the entire hotel may face disconnection. They also expressed their concern that one's actions can lead to such drastic results.
- Internet service providers are also hostile to the bill. TalkTalk states that suspending access to the internet violates human rights. This view can be shared by many, as a survey conducted by the BBC found that 87% of internet users feel Internet access should be "everyone's basic right" . Of course, people need access to the internet for many aspects of their lives, such as shopping, online banking, education, work and even socializing. Furthermore, TalkTalk's Managing Director, Andrew Heaney has admitted that file sharing is a problem but the answer is to educate people and make legal alternatives. Heaney also believes that breakers will only create another username to hide their identity and continue downloading. TalkTalk claims that 80% of children will continue to download regardless of bill and that internet service providers are forced to monitor this without workable results.
- The cable company Virgin Media also criticized the Digital Economy Bill who believed it to be
and tended to alienate customers . Virgin advocated the development of alternative services that people would choose instead of sharing files.
The bill provoked protests in various forms. The Guardian reports that hundreds of people are expected to line up outside the House of Commons on March 24, 2010. In addition, an estimated 12,000 people emailed their MPs, through 38-member citizen advocacy organizations. 38 degrees of objection to the speed of the bill was rushed through parliament, without proper debate, because of the dissolution of parliament immediately before the general election. In October 2009 TalkTalk launched the Do not Disconnect Us campaign that asked people to sign a petition against a proposal to disconnect Internet connections from those accused of sharing unauthorized files. In November 2009, the petition had nearly 17,000 signers and in December had reached over 30,000. The pirates in the UK are calling for non-commercial file sharing to be legalized. Formed in 2009 and intending to include candidates in the 2010 British election, the Pirate Party supports reforms of copyright and patent laws and reduction of government oversight.
Code that will implement sections of this Act is never passed into law by Parliament, and no action is taken after about 2013.
- Digital Economy Act 2017
The Digital Economy Act 2017 updates the anti-infringement provisions of existing laws, makes or updates the terms of the criminal copyright infringement, and provides a wider penalty for criminal offenses.
United States
At Sony Corp v. Universal Studios, 464 US 417 (1984), the Supreme Court found that Sony's new product, Betamax (the first mass-market consumer-marketplace videotape recorder), did not subject Sony to secondary copyright obligations because it was capable of substantial non-infringement use. Decades later, the case became a jumping point for all peer-to-peer copyright infringement litigations.
The first peer-to-peer case is A & amp; M Records v. Napster , 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, Circuit 9 considers whether Napster is responsible as a secondary offender. First, the court considers whether Napster is responsible for copyright infringement. To be found responsible, Napster must engage in "personal behavior that encourages or facilitates offenses." The Court found that Napster was responsible for copyright infringement of the end user for "knowingly encouraging and assisting the infringement of the plaintiff's copyright." The court analyzed whether Napster was responsible for copyright infringement. The standard applied by the court is whether Napster "has the right and ability to supervise infringing activities and also has a direct financial interest in such activities." The court found that Napster did receive financial benefits, and had the right and ability to oversee the activity, which meant that the plaintiffs indicated the likelihood of success on the merits of their claim for representation offenses. The court rejected all Napster defenses, including claims of fair use.
The next major peer-to-peer case is MGM v. Grokster , 545 U.S. 913 (2005). In this regard, the Supreme Court found that even if Grokster was able to use substantially non-infringement, which Sony's court found was sufficient to alleviate one of its secondary copyright obligations, Grokster still accounts for both of causing the user to breach.
It is important to note the concept of blame in cases like these. In a pure P2P network there is no host, but in practice most P2P networks are hybrids (see "Computer science perspectives" below). It has led groups like the RIAA to file lawsuits against individual users, rather than against corporations. The reason why Napster is subject to lawlessness and ultimately lost in court is because Napster is not a pure P2P network but instead maintains a central server that maintains the file indexes currently available on the network.
Around the world in 2006, about five billion songs, equivalent to about 38,000 years in music exchanged on peer-to-peer websites, while 509 million songs were purchased online. The same study that estimates these findings also finds that artists who have an online presence end up retaining more benefits than music companies.
In November 2009, the US House of Representatives introduced the Federal Safe File Sharing Act, which would, if enacted, prohibit the use of peer-to-peer file sharing software by US government employees and contractors on computers used for federal government employment. The bill has died with delays of the 111th Congress.
Copyright law
The copyright in the United States consists of exclusive rights specified under 17 USC 106. When it relates to drawings, music, literature or video, this exclusive right includes: 1. The right to reproduce or redistribute images, music, lyrics, texts, video, or video image. 2. The right to distribute images, music, lyrics, texts, videos, or images from a video. 3. Right to produce derivative works from copyrighted works. 4. Right to do work publicly. 5. Right to display works publicly. 6. The right to post works through the use of radio or digital transitions. In sum, these exclusive rights include reproduction, adaptation, publication, performance, and the appearance of copyrighted works (subject to restrictions such as fair use).
Anyone who violates an exclusive right of copyright infringes copyright, regardless of whether the work has been registered in the copyright office or not. If a violation has occurred, the copyright owner has the legal right to sue the violator for violating their copyright provisions. The value of the lawsuit can be an acceptable jury decision.
In the case of file-sharing networks, companies claim that sharing peer-to-peer files enables their copyright infringement. File sharing allows any file to be reproduced and redistributed indefinitely. Therefore, the reason is that if the copyrighted work is on the file sharing network, anyone who uploads or downloads the file is responsible for copyright infringement because they reproduce the unauthorized work of the copyright holder or the law.
Responsibility for major violation
The fundamental question, "what's the use of P2P file-sharing network users making software and copyrighted material without violating copyright laws", has no current answer, since there is hardly any dispositive decision making on the subject.
This problem has received almost no attention to the appeal, the only exception being BMG Music v. Gonzalez, the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, stating that where the defendant has confessed to downloading and copying a song file from another user on the P2P network without the permission of the copyright holder, he can not claim that such a copy is " fair use ". Because Gonzalez involves a defendant who has admitted to copying and downloading a song from other unauthorized users, it is a limited application in the contested case, in which case it is only concerned with proper reproduction at 17 USC 106 (1) , and has nothing to do with 17 USC 106 (3) distribution rights.
A series of cases relating to the "available" theory of RIAA has far-reaching implications, not just for the subject of sharing P2P files but for the Internet in general. The first to receive much attention is Elektra v. Barker , the RIAA case against Tenise Barker, a Bronx nursing student. Ms. Barker decides to ignore the complaint, stating, among other things, that the RIAA's allegation of "availability" does not constitute a claim known under the Copyright Act. The RIAA retaliated with the argument that even without copying, and without other violations of the record companies' distribution rights, the only act of "making available" is copyright infringement, even though the language does not appear in the Copyright Act, as a violation of the "distribution" rights described in 17 USC 106 (3). After that, some amicus curiae were allowed to file a brief report in this case, including the MPAA, which agreed with the RIAA argument, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the US Internet Industry Association (USIIA), and the Computers & amp; The Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which agrees with Ms. Barker. The US Department of Justice filed a brief denial of one of the arguments made by the EFF, but did not take any position on the "made available" RIAA argument, noting that it never demanded anyone to "make available". Case Elektra v. Barker was disputed before Judge Kenneth M. Karas in Manhattan federal court on January 26, 2007, and decided on March 31, 2008.
The decision rejected the theory of "making available" the RIAA but retained the legal adequacy of the RIAA filing of actual distribution and actual downloads. In addition, the Court suggested to the RIAA that they may wish to change their complaint to include claims to "offer to distribute for distribution purposes", but provide no clue as to what kind of evidence is required for "bidding". The Court's suggestion that simply "offering" to distribute could constitute a violation of the offending law of William Patry, author of Patry on Copyright.
The other three decisions, as well as rejecting the RIAA's "make available" theory, came from more unpredictable sources.
The Barker decision was probably given anticlimax with Judge Janet Bond Arterton's decision, from the Connecticut District, dropped six weeks earlier, at Atlantic v. Brennan , reject the RIAA Application for default ratings. Brennan, like Barker, rejected the theory of "making available" the RIAA, but unlike Barker he found the RIAA specificity on other issues insufficient. , and it rejects the conceptual foundations upon which Judge Karas based his "bid to distribute" his ideas.
And Barker might be overshadowed by Judge Gertner's decision, given on the same day as Barker's decision, to cancel the summons presented at Boston University to study the identity of BU students, at London-Sire v. Doe 1 . Here also the Court rejects the theory of "making available" the RIAA, but here too - like the Atlantic but unlike Elektra - also rejects the possibility of a backer for the "bid to distribute" theory.
And then came the decision of District Judge Neil V. Wake, in the District of Arizona, at Atlantic v. Howell . This 17 page decision - given in cases where the defendant appeared pro i (ie, without a lawyer) but ultimately received help from a brief amicus curiae and oral argument by the Electronic Frontier Foundation - devoted almost exclusively to the theory of "making available" the RIAA and the "bid to distribute" theory suggested by Judge Karas at Barker . Atlantic v. Howell strongly rejects both theories as contrary to the simple words of the Copyright Act. The Court states that "Only making available copies is not a distribution.... The law grants the copyright holder exclusive right to distribute" copies "of their work to the public" by sale or transfer of other ownership, or by lease, lease, or borrowing. "17 USC... 106 (3) Unless a working copy changes hands in one of the prescribed ways," distribution "below... 106 (3) has not occurred." The Court also explicitly rejected the suggested 'bidding for distribution' theory at Barker, stating that "The offer to distribute is not a distribution".
The next critical decision is that at Capitol v. Thomas, who has received a lot of media attention because it was the first case of the RIAA to go to court, and possibly additional attention due to a large initial jury ruling. The RIAA has tried court judges to provide judges on instructions that adopt the "make available" theory, in protest from the defendant's attorney. Operating under that instruction, the jury returned a $ 222,000 verdict over $ 23.76 worth of song files. Almost a year after the jury returned the verdict, however, District Judge Michael J. Davis ruled out the verdict, and ordered a new trial, arguing that the instructions to the jury - that they did not need to find that there were files actually distributed to find infringement of the plaintiff's distribution rights - is a "real legal error". The 44-page decision of the Judge agreed with Howell and London-Sire and denied so much Barker that signaled a "bid" to distribute "theory.
There may be indications that the RIAA has thrown away the theory of "making available". In the case of San Diego, California, Interscope v. Rodriguez, where the Judge rejected the RIAA complaint as "conclusory", "boilerplate", "speculation", the RIAA filed a modified complaint that contained no reference at all to "make available". In subsequent cases, the RIAA complaint leaves the theory "available", following the complaint model Interscope v. Rodriguez changed.
Instead, it seems to adopt the "bid to distribute" theory suggested by Judge Karas. In a RIAA-modified complaint filed at Barker, remove the "available" argument - as requested by the judge - but adds a "bid to distribute" the claim, as advised by the judge. It remains to be seen whether to follow that pattern in other cases.
Responsibility for secondary infringement
The secondary responsibility, the possible responsibility of a defendant who is not a copyright infringe but who may have encouraged or triggered a copyright infringement by another party, has been generally discussed by the United States Supreme Court at MGM v. Grokster , which basically contains secondary responsibility can only be found where there is an affirmative encouragement or encouraging behavior. In detention, a lower court found Streamcast, the maker of Morpheus software, responsible for copyright infringement of its customers, based on the specific facts of the case.
According to US law "Betamax decisions" (Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.), states that copying "technology" is not inherently illegal, if substantial non-infringing uses can be made from them. Although this decision precedes the widespread use of the Internet, at MGM v. Grokster , the US Supreme Court acknowledged the application of the Betamax case to share peer-to-peer files, and claimed that the network could be irresponsible as it only provided the technology, there was no evidence that they had been involved in "lure."
In 2006, the RIAA started the first post-Grokster post, a case of secondary responsibility, against LimeWire at Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, where the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York declares that LimeWire has led to copyright infringement and provides a permanent order against LimeWire.
Frontier Electronics Foundation
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) seeks to protect and expand digital rights through litigation, political lobbying, and public awareness campaigns. EFF is vocally opposed to the RIAA in pursuing lawsuits against file sharing application users and supporting defendants in these cases. The Foundation promotes the legalization of peer-to-peer sharing of copyrighted material and alternative methods to compensate copyright holders.
In September 2008, the organization marked the fifth anniversary of the RIAA litigation campaign by publishing a very critical and detailed report, titled "RIAA v. The People: Five Years Later", which concluded that the campaign failed.
Delay reported from RIAA litigation campaign
A few months later, it was reported that the RIAA suspended litigation campaigns, followed by reports that they had fired investigative company SafeNet (formerly MediaSentry) operating on its behalf. Some details of the report, including claims that the RIAA has completely stopped starting a new lawsuit a few months earlier, and the reason for doing so is because the RIAA has signed a temporary agreement with Internet service providers to oversee their customers, proving to be inaccurate or impossible to verify and the RIAA claim not to file a new case "for months" is wrong.
Effects
A study ordered by the European Union found that illegal downloads could lead to an increase in overall video game sales as newer games charge for additional features or levels. The paper concludes that piracy has a negative financial impact on movies, music, and literature. This study relies on self-reported data about game purchases and the use of illegal download sites. The pain is taken to eliminate the effects of false and misplaced responses.
Famous cases
- EU
- Atari Europe S.A.S.U. v. Rapidshare AG (Germany)
- Pink Palace OiNK (UK)
- USA
- AACS encryption key controversy in 2007
- Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter - an appeal case that analyzes a contributory violation in the context of linking to infringing material and social bookmarking.
- Megaupload legal case
- MGM v. Grokster
- Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios (Betamax Decision)
- Swedish
- Pirate Bay Trial
- Singapore
- Odex action against file-sharing
See also
- Legal aspects of computing
- Share peer-to-peer files
- Sony BMG copy the rootkit scandal of protection
- EU Copyright Instructions
- Shared resources
- Timeline for file sharing
- Legal issues with BitTorrent
- Do not Copy That Floppy
- Torrent poisoning
- Countries block access to The Pirate Bay
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments