Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:11:00 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080827/0004082109.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080827/0004082109.shtml misread the RIAA's filings against Howell. Either way, that point became meaningless when the judge ruled in Howell's favor that "making available" is not infringement by itself. Of course, that argument was just for the RIAA's attempt at a summary judgment. So the case still went on, and it turns out that Howell was caught destroying evidence -- a big no-no. So, despite all of this, it's no surprise that the RIAA has prevailed in the overall case. It does make you wonder why people who have strong evidence against them still end up fighting the RIAA. It's completely admirable to fight the RIAA if they're using faulty or flimsy evidence and you're innocent, but when the evidence suggests otherwise, what good does it possibly do to fight them in court? In the meantime, the RIAA will certainly talk up this "victory" but will skip over the part that it wasn't on the actual issues, but over Howell's decision to destroy evidence.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> well-that-was-just-dumb http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080827/0004082109 Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:28:00 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080429/125025979.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080429/125025979.shtml misinterpreted an RIAA filing to suggest that the RIAA had claimed that merely ripping your CD to your computer was file sharing. While the RIAA may actually believe that (and has made other statements to that effect), the filing in this case did not say that at all. Instead, it clearly stated that it was the combination of ripping the CD and putting the music into a shared folder that made the songs no longer "authorized." It was simply yet another version of the RIAA's theory that "making available" is the equivalent of distribution for copyright purposes. Still, based on this theory, the RIAA asked for summary judgment against Howell. The court has now come out with a detailed and well reasoned decision completely rejecting the RIAA's "making available" theory, highlighting why it does not appear to be supported by copyright law. It's worth reading if you're interested in this stuff. Either way, the RIAA isn't getting its summary judgment, and the case will proceed later this year.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> good-decisions http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080429/125025979 Mon, 14 Jan 2008 03:55:00 PST Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080114/002412.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080114/002412.shtml incorrect assertion that the RIAA was claiming Howell infringed simply for ripping his own CDs, what the RIAA is actually claiming is still quite questionable. What it was really claiming was that simply by putting any files (ripped or downloaded) into a shared folder, he was infringing. This is the same "making available" theory that the RIAA has been pushing for quite some time -- despite having courts clearly say that making available is not infringement. Of course, by constantly pushing this point in case after case (and usually losing), the RIAA has found a few judges who agree -- though, it almost always comes in cases where the defendant is acting as his or her own lawyer, rather than having a real lawyer defend the case. The key question is what part actually constitutes infringement. Is it actually having the copy made, or just offering the file up? With most courts agreeing that the actual act of making the copy has to occur, the EFF has filed an amicus brief in the Howell case, notifying the judge of all the various cases where "making available" has been rejected as being infringement.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> infringement-needs-to-show-infringement http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080114/002412 Mon, 7 Jan 2008 22:22:00 PST Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080107/192437.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080107/192437.shtml incorrect story on what the RIAA actually said in the Howell case before the Washington Post quietly issued a correction (pointed out by Greg Sandoval over at News.com). Again, I think this is important, because even though the RIAA did a terrible job defending its position, that's no reason to take the RIAA's comments out of context. The other bit of good news to come out of all of this is that the RIAA now has a sense of what would happen if it actually did try to go after people for personal copying of CDs.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> on-page-2-of-the-corrections,-of-course http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080107/192437