Press Releases related to File Sharing
RIAA Lawsuit Campaign Losing Credibility
EFF Releases Comprehensive Report on Five Years of File-Sharing Litigation
San Francisco - Five years after the Recording Industry of America (RIAA) began its massive litigation campaign against music fans suspected of sharing copyrighted music files over the Internet, the campaign has failed to get artists paid or reduce peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing. Meanwhile, the legal foundation of the campaign is being questioned by several federal courts.
Since September of 2003, the recording industry has leveled legal threats against close to 30,000 American music fans. In a report released today, "RIAA v. The People: Five Years Later," the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) presents a comprehensive overview of the RIAA's litigation campaign and concludes that it is hurting music fans and artists alike, without making a dent in unauthorized file-sharing. The report notes increasing skepticism by courts, academics and state watchdog groups about the RIAA's investigation tactics and legal theories. For example, judges have repeatedly rejected the RIAA's "making available" theory, the notion that merely having a music file in a "shared" folder on a computer constitutes copyright infringement, even if no one ever copies the file. Just last week, a federal judge ordered a new trial for Jammie Thomas, found liable for more than $220,000 because the jury had been instructed erroneously that liability could be premised on this "making available" theory.
"If the RIAA wants to keep suing hundreds of people each month and collecting these huge settlements, it can't take shortcuts," said EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry. "It's not enough to say the law 'could have been' broken and demand thousands of dollars to make the accusation go away. The recording industry must prove its case and show that infringement actually occurred."
EFF's report collects evidence that suggests that the lawsuit campaign has not reduced file sharing. Downloading from P2P networks continues unabated, while some people simply choose to share files in ways that are harder to monitor, like burning and exchanging CDs among friends. EFF continues to call on the RIAA to help artists get paid for their creative work by embracing a voluntary collective licensing program, which would collect a reasonable, regular payment from music fans in exchange for the right to share music freely.
"More than 30,000 Americans have been targeted for legal action by the recording industry without putting a single penny into the pockets of any artists," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Fred von Lohmann. "At the same time, everyone agrees that P2P file-sharing is more popular than ever. The RIAA's litigation campaign arbitrarily punishes tens of thousands of people for what tens of millions are doing. It's futile and unfair. It is high time that the recording industry let fans pay them a reasonable fee for the P2P file sharing that we all know has become a fact of Internet life."
For the full report "RIAA v. The People: Five Years Later":
http://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-years-later
For EFF's "A Better Way Forward" paper, discussing voluntary collective licensing alternatives:
http://www.eff.org/wp/better-way-forward-voluntary-collective-licensing-...
For more on the litigation campaign:
http://www.eff.org/riaa-v-people
Contacts:
Corynne McSherry
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
corynne@eff.org
Fred von Lohmann
Senior Intellectual Property Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
fred@eff.org
EFF Urges Court to Protect Innovation in Arista v. Lime Wire
Copyright Law Should Not Chill Development of Emerging Technologies
New York - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and a coalition of groups representing both consumers and industry filed an amicus brief today in the first major lawsuit since MGM v. Grokster against a creator of peer-to-peer (P2P) filesharing software, warning that the case has profound implications for the development of new software and hardware.
In Arista v. Lime Wire, the recording industry plaintiffs seek to hold Lime Wire liable for acts of copyright infringement by users of its software. In its amicus brief, EFF urges the court to apply the law in a manner that will not chill technological innovation and to reaffirm that developers should not be held liable for copyright infringement based on misuses of their technology that they did not actively promote.
“It’s crucial that courts continue to protect emerging technologies that are capable of substantial lawful uses, even if they also can be used in less acceptable ways,” said EFF Senior Intellectual Property Attorney Fred von Lohmann. “The technology industry, consumers, and copyright owners have all benefited from innovations like the photocopier, the CD burner, the iPod, and the personal computer, notwithstanding the fact that all of them can be misused.”
The Lime Wire lawsuit is the latest in a series of lawsuits filed by the recording industry against peer-to-peer filesharing software companies, including past lawsuits against Grokster, Aimster, and Napster.
“Ordinary tasks like offering technical support shouldn’t lead to ruinous copyright liability just because it turns out that some customers are applying a multi-use tool to unlawful purposes,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Michael Kwun. “For example, Adobe shouldn’t have to quiz me to ensure I have the rights to the photo I’m editing before it answers my questions about how to use Photoshop.”
Joining EFF on the brief are the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Consumer Electronics Association, the Home Recording Rights Coalition, the Information Technology Association of America, Public Knowledge, the Special Libraries Association, and the U.S. Internet Industry Association.
For the full amicus brief:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/Arista_v_Lime_Wi/20081926_EFFAmiciBrie...
Contacts:
Michael Kwun
Senior Intellectual Property Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
michael@eff.org
Fred von Lohmann
Senior Intellectual Property Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
fred@eff.org
EFF Urges Judge to Grant New Trial for Jammie Thomas
Court To Reconsider Baseless 'Making Available' Theory In File-Sharing Case
San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and a coalition of consumer and industry groups have asked a judge to grant a new trial to Jammie Thomas, who was hit with a $222,000 judgment in a file-sharing lawsuit based in part on the recording industry's bogus "making available" theory.
Thomas' trial and the staggering financial penalty made headlines around the world. In the case, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sought to hold Thomas liable for unauthorized distribution of digital music over the Internet without having to prove that anyone actually downloaded songs from her. The RIAA argued that simply making the songs available in a shared folder on her computer was enough to impose penalties, and a jury found Thomas liable for $220,000 in October of 2007.
But earlier this year, the judge in the case said he was concerned that he might have made a mistake when he followed the RIAA's reasoning in his jury instructions and asked for more briefing on whether Thomas deserved a new trial. In an amicus brief filed today, EFF argues that the RIAA cannot take shortcuts when it takes music fans to court.
"The Copyright Act simply does not allow suing someone for attempted copyright infringement," said EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry. "If the RIAA wants to continue with its mass litigation campaign, it's going to have to invest the time and resources to actually prove those cases -- if it can -- by showing that infringement actually occurred."
The RIAA has sued more than 20,000 individuals for allegedly sharing music over the Internet since it started its lawsuit campaign in 2003.
"The RIAA's specious 'making available' argument threatens to brand people as thieves when the evidence isn't really there," said EFF Senior Intellectual Property Attorney Michael Kwun. "We're pleased the judge is taking a second look at this critical question."
Joining EFF on the brief were Public Knowledge, the United States Internet Industry Association, and the Computer and Communications Industry Association.
For the full amicus brief:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/capitol_v_thomas/20080620EFFAmiciBrief...
For more on Capitol v. Thomas:
http://www.eff.org/cases/capitol-v-thomas
Contacts:
Corynne McSherry
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
corynne@eff.org
Michael Kwun
Senior Intellectual Property Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
michael@eff.org
Supreme Court Ruling Will Chill Technology Innovation
Copyright Liability Standard in Grokster Decision Endangers P2P and Other New Technologies
MGM v. Grokster Decision Press Conference Today
Conference at Noon Eastern Time, Call-In Number Available to Press
What: Post-Grokster press conference, with members of the StreamCast (Morpheus) and Grokster legal team along with representatives from the technology industry and public interest groups.
When: 12 Noon EDT today, contacts below for phone-in line for press.
MGM v. Grokster Press Conference Following Supreme Court Decision
Note: The Electronic Frontier Foundation is participating in this press conference with other members of the Morpheus and Grokster legal teams and public interest groups. We are recirculating this press release from StreamCast (Morpheus) for your information.
What: Post-Grokster press conference, with members of the StreamCast (Morpheus) and Grokster legal team along with representatives from the technology industry and public interest groups including P2PUnited, Public Knowledge, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and the Computer Electronics Association.
Fighting Infringement on Campus Peer-to-Peer Networks
New EFF White Paper Helps Universities Understand Their Options
Supreme Court Justices Grill Both Sides at Copyright Hearing
MGM v. Grokster Raises Questions About Innovation and Litigation
Washington, DC - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was heartened to hear the Justices of the United States Supreme Court engage in a lively debate Tuesday about whether technology manufacturers should be held liable for the infringing activities of consumers. At stake is nothing less than the future of innovation in the United States. If vendors are held responsible for what people do with their products, even tech giants like Intel say they'd have to fire engineers and hire lawyers.
Counting Down to Grokster with EFF
Organization Launches Two-Week Celebration of Betamax-Protected Devices
March 1 Press Conference on Supreme Court File-Sharing Case
Discussion with Defendants and Friends-of-the-Court on the Day Briefs Are Filed
