Last month, it was looking like Judge Marilyn Patel actually understood one of the biggest issues in all of these lawsuits against people for file sharing. Simply offering up a file for sharing is not the same as actually distributing it. In other words, if you have a file left open for sharing purposes, that does not mean you've definitely distributed that file. The industry only sees that it's available -- not that you gave it to anyone. Judge Patel suggested this in denying summary judgment to the recording industry, but has now granted summary judgment to the other side, providing more details on this point. It's a point of clarification, to be sure, but one that makes a lot of sense, and could come back to haunt the entertainment industry later on. Remember that, up in Canada, where they realized this much earlier, it meant that the recording industry often didn't have enough evidence to sue people for sharing files. Of course, the next fine point that the courts should tackle is the industry's willingness to sue the owner of the broadband connection, without any proof as to whether it was that person who broke the law or someone else using the connection.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Feds To FISC: Of Course We Don't Have To Share Our Full Legal Filings With Companies Suing Us Over NSA Transparency
- Kansas City Cops Tell Man They'll Kill His Dogs And Destroy His Home If Forced To Obtain A Search Warrant
- Most Big Internet Companies Speak Out For Major Surveillance Reform
- Witness In No Fly List Trial, Who Was Blocked From Flying To The Trial, Shows That DOJ Flat Out Lied In Court
- Feds Insist It Must Be Kept Secret Whether Or Not Plaintiff In No Fly List Trial Is Actually On The No Fly List