Re: RIAA Wins Copyright Case Against Usenet
Greegor
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2349606,00.asp
RIAA Wins Copyright Case Against Usenet
by Chloe Albanesius 07.01.09
The recording industry was handed a victory Tuesday when a federal
court found that the company overseeing the Usenet user group is
guilty of copyright infringement.
"There can be no dispute that defendants' services were being used
overwhelmingly for copyright infringement," Judge Harold Baer, Jr. of
the District Court for the Southern District of New York, wrote in his
opinion.
Fourteen record labels, under the auspices of the Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA), sued Usenet in late 2007 for
distributing copyrighted music on its site.
The Usenet discussion forums date back to 1979, and allowed users to
post and reply to messages on a host of topics. Sierra Corporate
Design purchased the usenet.com URL in 1998, and the formal
Usenet.com, Inc. was formed in 2004 under the direction of director
and sole shareholder, Gerald Reynolds.
Users can purchase subscriptions to access Usenet content, which vary
in price from $4.95 to $18.95 a month. Customers who pay $18.95 get
unlimited downloads.
In mounting its defense, Usenet cited the Sony-Betamax case, which
held that Sony was not responsible for copyright infringement
perpetrated by consumers who bought its Betamax machines, as well as
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which includes a safe
harbor provision that does not hold the owners of Internet services
responsible for the illegal acts of its users.
Usenet appears to have shot itself in the foot, however, by destroying
evidence. Marketing materials and information posted on its Web site
also imply that Usenet was well aware of and even capitalized on the
illegal file-sharing on Usenet.
The RIAA wanted to court to immediately rule in its favor based on the
fact that Usenet destroyed seven hard drives full of "usage data" that
provided proof of subscriber requests to download and upload digital
music files.
Such a process, however, is usually only reserved for extreme cases,
Judge Baer wrote. He agreed that abuses surrounding the evidence
gathering process had occurred, but rather than immediately rule in
the RIAA's favor, he instead decided to ban Usenet from arguing
"certain claims or defenses" in making its defense.
Unfortunately for Usenet, those "certain claims or defenses" the judge
knocked out just happened to be one of Usenet's main arguments – the
DMCA.
To invoke the DMCA, Usenet would have had to prove that it cannot be
held responsible for the actions of its clients in order to claim
protection under the law's safe harbor provision, but evidence
submitted by the RIAA tells a different story.
Former employees testified that Usenet's marketing department
specifically targeted young people using competing file-sharing sites
by pitching Usenet as a safe alternative to P2P networks that were
being shut down. Marketing materials also noted that the downfall of
services like Kazaa and Napster helped Usenet "get back in the game."
Usenet itself, meanwhile, had pages dedicated to specific artists and
promoted free music and mp3 files for download, added search meta tags
for terms like "warez" and "kazaa", and instructed customer service
representatives to help out with file-sharing inquiries, according to
court documents.
About 42 percent of Usenet customers said their primary reason for
subscribing to Usenet was for the free music, and scores of people
cancelled their accounts after Usenet deleted their "usage files" in
an effort to suppress evidence.
Usenet's last hope was the Sony-Betamax case, but the judge found that
Usenet's relationship with its customers was inherently different than
Sony's relationship with customers who bought its Betamax machine.
"There is no dispute that [Usenet] maintains an ongoing relationship
with their users; thus, [Usenet's] service is quite unlike Sony, where
the defendants had no contact with the product or user once the device
was released into the stream of commerce," the judge wrote.
The RIAA said in a statement that the decision was "another example of
courts recognizing the value of copyrighted music and taking action
against companies and individuals who are engaging in wide scale
infringement. We hope that other bad actors who are engaging in
similar activity will take note of this decisive opinion."
The decision will now be sent to Magistrate Judge Theodore Katz, who
will make a judgment on adequate damages.
richard
wrote:
>Notice how the immunity for COMMON CARRIERS didn't hold up?
>
>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2349606,00.asp
>
>RIAA Wins Copyright Case Against Usenet
>by Chloe Albanesius 07.01.09
At first I thought this was about the Usenet newsgroups, then further
reading shows it is about a website whose name just happens to be
"usenet".
Somewhere it was referred to that this website originated in 1979.
This is not true. The service known as usenet did, not the website.
But this ruling is going to send a message to other usenet providers.
That being, you can allow your clients to use newsreaders, but don't
you dare provide access via your website or the RIAA will come after
your ass.
Neither the Judge nor the RIAA understands that what is being posted
in a web based forum output, is merely a reflection of what is on the
servers. The provider has no control over what persons usings other
services has to share with the world.
This case should go to the higher courts where I am sure that it will
be determined that the judge erred in his ruling that the claim under
the DMCA could not be used.
mmrpurdue
henri
wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 20:57:38 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Notice how the immunity for COMMON CARRIERS didn't hold up?
>>
>>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2349606,00.asp
This article is so retarded it even gives RtS a chance to be smarter
than it.