Copyright – Page 33 – DigitalKoans

New Ruling in Georgia State University E-Reserves Copyright Case

U.S. District Judge Orinda Evans has issued a ruling about the defendants' and plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment in the Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al. case.

Here's an excerpt:

Overall, the evidence presented does not indicate that Defendants "profited directly from" or "had a direct financial interest in" the infringement alleged by Plaintiffs. There is absolutely no evidence in the record showing that Georgia State benefitted financially from the alleged infringements. At most, if the Court takes the inferential steps suggested by Plaintiffs, any benefit the infringement provides to students constitutes "just an added benefit" rather than a clear "draw" to Georgia State. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to the third claim, vicarious copyright infringement and DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment as to the third claim. . . .

The record before the Court on the motions for summary judgment does not speak to the question of whether in practice the Current Policy is encouraging improper application of the fair use defense. The Court therefore DENIES both Defendants' and Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment as to the contributory infringement claim. . . .

Going forward, in order to show that Defendants are responsible for the copyright infringements alleged in this case, Plaintiffs must show that the 2009 Copyright Policy resulted in ongoing and continuous misuse of the fair use defense. To do so, Plaintiffs must put forth evidence of a sufficient number of instances of infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights to show such ongoing and continuous misuse. Defendants will have the burden of showing that each specified instance of 2009 Copyright Policy infringement was a fair use. Both sides will be limited to the list of claimed infringements produced in response to the Court's August 11, 2010 and August 12, 2010 orders. The parties are DIRECTED to confer and determine whether further discovery is needed before resolving the remaining contributory infringement claim. Within twenty (20) days, the parties shall present a proposed scheduling order.

Read more about it at "Going Forward with Georgia State Lawsuit."

"The Google Book Settlement as Copyright Reform"

Pamela Samuelson has self-archived "The Google Book Settlement as Copyright Reform" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

This Article explains why certain features of U.S. law, particularly copyright law, may have contributed to Google’s willingness to undertake the GBS project in the first place and later to its motivation to settle the Authors Guild lawsuit. It then demonstrates that the proposed settlement would indeed achieve a measure of copyright reform that Congress would find difficult to accomplish. Some of this reform may be in the public interest. It also considers whether the quasi-legislative nature of the GBS settlement is merely an interesting side effect of the agreement or an additional reason in favor or against approval of this settlement.

First Sale Doctrine: "Digital Exhaustion"

Aaron Perzanowski and Jason Schultz have self-archived "Digital Exhaustion" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

As digital networks emerge as the dominant means of distributing copyrighted works, the first sale doctrine is increasingly marginalized. The limitations first sale places on the exclusive right of distribution are of little importance when the alienation and use of copies entails their reproduction. This fact of the modern copyright marketplace has led to calls for statutory clarification of digital first sale rights.

Acknowledging the obstacles to legislative intervention, this Article argues that courts are equipped today to limit copyright exclusivity in order to enable copy owners to make traditionally lawful uses of their copies, including resale through secondary markets. We argue that first sale is not simply an isolated limitation on the distribution right. Instead, it is a component of a broader principle of copyright exhaustion that emerges from early case law preceding the Supreme Court’s foundational decision in Bobbs-Merrill v. Strauss. This context reveals a common law of copyright exhaustion that embraces a set of user privileges that includes not only alienation, but renewal, repair, adaptation, and preservation. Despite congressional recognition of exhaustion in sections 109 and 117 of the Copyright Act, this Article concludes that courts have ample room to apply and continue to develop common law rules that preserve the many benefits of the first sale doctrine in the digital marketplace.

"In Search of Copyright’s Lost Ark: Interpreting the Right to Distribute in the Internet Age"

Peter S. Menell has self-archived "In Search of Copyright’s Lost Ark: Interpreting the Right to Distribute in the Internet Age" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

Drawing upon the historical development of copyright law and the legislative history of the Copyright Act of 1976, this article explains why Congress selected the term "distribute" in its last omnibus revision of copyright law, shows unequivocally that Congress intended to encompass broadly the 1909 Act rights to "publish" and "vend" within the right to distribute, and rejects the position that Congress required proof of "actual distribution" to prove violation of the distribution right. This critical legislative history has been notably absent from treatise accounts and briefing on the liability standard in the file sharing cases, leaving courts without a compass to navigate this statutory terrain. This article traces the origins of the key legislative terms to elucidate the scope of the distribution right in the Internet age.

First-Sale Doctrine and Resale of Software: Vernor v. Autodesk Ruling

A ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the Vernor v. Autodesk case has put into question the right to resell software.

Here's an excerpt from Sherwin Siy's "Software Companies Own Your Hard Drive: Ninth Circuit Rules for Formality Over Function":

In Vernor v. Autodesk, the appeals court held that Autodesk could stop Vernor from selling copies of their software on eBay by claiming that those resales were an infringement of its copyrights. Ordinarily, a copyright holder can't prevent someone from selling or otherwise distributing a lawfully made copy of the work, so long as that person owns the copy. Here, Autodesk argued that Vernor never owned the copies (which he bought used from a design firm) because Autodesk included in its sale to that firm a standardized agreement that said that the firm was only "licensing" the disks. . . .

So what does this decision mean? Unchecked, it won't soon lead to a world where I can't donate my old T-shirts to Goodwill, or where PK can start raking in that sweet, sweet statutory damages cash. Those might be theoretical possibilities, but the first effects will likely be something we've already been seeing creeping at the margins. Say goodbye to used software and used games, for instance. That PC version of Bioshock 4 you might buy a few years from now? Don't expect to be able to sell it once you're done with it. Don't even expect to be able to give it away. Game rental services could get litigated out of existence. And while licensing clothing might be beyond the pale, it's not too hard to see the software model being applied to increasingly sold-by-the-bit media like movies and music. All because of fine print, which might be clear and convenient for a court, even if it's exactly the opposite for a consumer.

Access to Knowledge: A Guide for Everyone

Consumers International has released Access to Knowledge: A Guide for Everyone.

Here's an excerpt:

Access to knowledge (A2K) is the umbrella term for a movement that aims to create more equitable public access to the products of human culture and learning.

Fields of advocacy that it subsumes include most centrally copyright and patent law reform, open access, open data and open standards, but also access to public information, broader communications rights such as freedom of expression, and issues around ownership of and participation in public media.

"The Pre-History of Fair Use"

Matthew Sag has self-archived "The Pre-History of Fair Use" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

This article reconsiders the history of copyright’s pivotal fair use doctrine. The history of fair use does not in fact begin with early American cases such as Folsom v. Marsh in 1841, as most accounts assume—the complete history of the fair use doctrine begins with over a century of copyright litigation in the English courts. Reviewing this "pre-history" of the American fair use doctrine leads to three significant conclusions. The first is that copyright and fair use evolved together. Virtually from its inception, statutory copyright went well beyond merely mechanical acts of reproduction and was defined by the concept of fair abridgment. The second insight gained by extending our historical view is that there is in fact substantial continuity between fair abridgment in the pre-modern era and fair use in the United States today. These findings have substantial implications for copyright law today, the principal one being that fair use is central to the formulation of copyright, and not a mere exception.

The third conclusion relates to the contribution of Folsom v. Marsh itself. The pre-modern cases illustrate a half-formed notion of the derivative right: unauthorized derivatives could be enjoined to defend the market of the original work, but they did not constitute a separate market unto themselves. Folsom departs from the earlier English cases in that it recognizes derivatives as inherently valuable, not just a thing to be enjoined to defend the original work against substitution. . . . It seems likely that as more and more derivatives were enjoined defensively, courts and copyright owners began to see these derivatives as part of the author’s inherent rights in relation to his creation. In other words, once copyright owners were allowed to preclude derivatives to prevent competition with their original works, they quickly grew bold enough to assert an exclusive right in derivative works for their own sake.

H.R. 5704 Would Extend Copyright Protection to Works of Faculty at Department of Defense Service Academies and Schools of Professional Military Education

Rep. Todd Platts has introduced H.R. 5704 in the House, which would "allow faculty members at Department of Defense service academies and schools of professional military education to secure copyrights for certain scholarly works that they produce as part of their official duties in order to submit such works for publication, and for other purposes." Such works are currently in the public domain.

Read more about it at "Bill Would Curb Access to Government Works."

Defending the First Sale Doctrine, Library Copyright Alliance, EFF, and Others File Amicus Curiae Briefs in Costco v. Omega

The Library Copyright Alliance, EFF, and others have filed amicus curiae briefs in Costco v. Omega, an important first sale doctrine case before the Supreme Court. The first sale doctrine is used to support libraries legal right to lend books and other materials.

Here's an excerpt from the Library Copyright Alliance brief:

By restricting the application of Section 109(a) to copies manufactured in the United States, the Ninth Circuit’s decision threatens the ability of libraries to continue to lend materials in their collections. Over 200 million books in U.S. libraries have foreign publishers. Moreover, many books published by U.S. publishers were actually manufactured by printers in other countries. Although some books indicate on their copyright page where they were printed, many do not. Libraries, therefore, have no way of knowing whether these books comply with the Ninth Circuit’s rule. Without the certainty of the protection of the first sale doctrine, librarians will have to confront the difficult policy decision of whether to continue to circulate these materials in their collections in the face of potential copyright infringement liability. For future acquisitions, libraries would be able to adjust to the Ninth Circuit’s narrowing of Section 109(a) only by bearing the significant cost of obtaining a "lending license" whenever they acquired a copy that was not clearly manufactured in the United States.

Read more about it at "Supreme Court Should Uphold the First Sale Doctrine."

Assessment of the Orphan Works Issue and Costs for Rights Clearance

The European Commission has released Assessment of the Orphan Works Issue and Costs for Rights Clearance.

Here's an excerpt:

Orphan works form a significant part of any digitisation project and the survey shows high percentages of orphan works for almost all categories of works, especially among photographs, and audiovisual materials.

A conservative estimate of the number of orphan books as a percentage of in copyright books across Europe puts the number at 3 million orphan books (13 % of the total number of in-copyright books). The older the books the higher the percentage of orphan works.

When handling requests for using older film material, film archives from across Europe categorized after a search for right holders 129,000 film works as orphan which could therefore not be used. Works that can be presumed to be orphan without actually searching for the right holders augments the figure to approximately 225 000 film works.

A digitisation project in the UK found that 95 % of newspapers from before 1912 are orphan. Also, a survey amongst museums in the UK found that the rights holders of 17 million photographs (that is 90% of the total collections of photographs of the museums) could not be traced.

Digital Videos of ALA Panel Discussion on Life after the Google Book Search Settlement

The ALA Washington Office has released digital videos of the Panel Discussion on Life after the Google Book Search Settlement at ALA Annual.

Here's an excerpt from the panel announcement:

The ALA Washington Office is hosting the ALA ad hoc Google Task Forces' breakout session titled "Panel Discussion on Life after the Google Book Search Settlement (GBS)" which will explore the possible court rulings – approval, denial or permutation there in – and how libraries would be impacted.. . .

Jonathan Band, intellectual property attorney and counsel for the ALA, will lead the discussion and pose questions to an expert group of panelists. Invited panelists include a representative from Google (Johanna Shelton-confirmed), a professor from the New York University Law School (James Grimmelmann-confirmed), a representative from the U.S. Copyright Office and a librarian from a GBS participating library.

"Asking for Permission: A Survey of Copyright Workflows for Institutional Repositories"

Ann Hanlon and Marisa Ramirez have self-archived their presentation "Asking for Permission: A Survey of Copyright Workflows for Institutional Repositories" in DigitalCommons@CalPoly.

Here's an excerpt:

Most survey respondents reported providing mediated deposit (material is deposited on behalf of the author by a third party, usually someone associated with the IR), whether it is completely mediated by the library or whether the author, in partnership with the library, deposits their work. The only respondents to report author self-deposit as the primary method of IR deposit were in Australia and Europe.

Digital Video: "How Copyright Threatens Democracy: A Conversation With Cory Doctorow"

Public Knowledge has released a digital video of Cory Doctorow discussing copyright issues.

Here's an excerpt from the About Cory Doctorow:

Cory Doctorow (craphound.com) is a science fiction novelist, blogger and technology activist. He is the co-editor of the popular weblog Boing Boing (boingboing.net), and a contributor to The Guardian, the New York Times, Publishers Weekly, Wired, and many other newspapers, magazines and websites. He was formerly Director of European Affairs for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org), a non-profit civil liberties group that defends freedom in technology law, policy, standards and treaties. He is a Visiting Senior Lecturer at Open University (UK); in 2007, he served as the Fulbright Chair at the Annenberg Center for Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California.

Google Granted Safe Harbor Protection in Viacom v. YouTube Billion Dollar Lawsuit

Judge Louis Stanton of the United States District Court Southern District of New York has granted Google and YouTube's motion for a summary judgment in Viacom v. YouTube based on "safe harbor" protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s 17 U.S.C. § 512(c).

Here's an excerpt from "YouTube Wins Summary Judgment in Viacom DMCA Lawsuit" by EFF's Kurt Opsahl:

The wealth of legislative history and precedent visible in this opinion shows just how uncontroversial the decision is. An online host is only liable if it doesn't take down specific instances of infringement it actually knows about. That's been well established, as have the principles that the host doesn't have a duty to actively monitor everything on the site, or that the online service can do more than merely store works. If the parties involved here had been a small video blogger and a local bulletin board, this case would have attracted almost no media attention, because it's not breaking any new legal ground. The amount of attention—the reason this is a big deal—is really due to the size of the companies and the numbers at stake. The only new ground that could have been broken would have been if the judge had deviated from the history of the statute and the ever-lengthening line of precedent that reaches just the same conclusion.

ALA: "Copyright Update—June 2010"

The ALA Office of Government Relations has released "Copyright Update—June 2010."

Here's an excerpt:

Rep. Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, introduced The Fair Copyright in Research Works Act (H.R. 801) on February 3, 2009. Unfortunately, this not-so-new bill seeking to amend copyright code and create a new category of copyrighted work differs only in the bill number assigned from its predecessor in the 110th Congress (H.R. 6845) that ultimately died in the House Judiciary Committee.

Just as in the last Congress, H.R. 801 negates or reverses the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy currently in place, rolling back hard-fought progress on public access to taxpayer-funded NIH research on the Internet. The bill would effectively reverse the NIH Public Access Policy, as well as make it impossible for other federal agencies to put similar policies into place. Library advocates should continue to express to their members of Congress they strongly oppose H.R. 801, as it seeks to amend copyright law and reverse the NIH Public Access Policy.

2010 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement

Victoria A. Espinel, U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, has released the 2010 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement.

Here's an excerpt:

The U.S. Government supports the free flow of information and freedom of expression over the Internet. An open and accessible Internet is critical to our economy. At the same time, the Internet should not be used as a means to further criminal activity. The Administration encourages cooperative efforts within the business community to reduce Internet piracy. The Administration believes that it is essential for the private sector, including content owners, Internet service providers, advertising brokers, payment processors and search engines, to work collaboratively, consistent with the antitrust laws, to address activity that has a negative economic impact and undermines U.S. businesses, and to seek practical and efficient solutions to address infringement. This should be achieved through carefully crafted and balanced agreements. Specifically, the Administration encourages actions by the private sector to effectively address repeated acts of infringement, while preserving the norms of legitimate competition, free speech, fair process and the privacy of users. While the Administration encourages cooperative efforts within the business community to reduce Internet piracy, the Administration will pursue additional solutions to the problems associated with Internet piracy, including vigorously investigating and prosecuting criminal activity, where warranted.

"ACTA and the Specter of Graduated Response"

Annemarie Bridy has self-archived "ACTA and the Specter of Graduated Response" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

This short paper, prepared for a workshop on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the Public Interest at American University’s Washington College of Law, considers the draft Internet provisions of ACTA in the context of concerns raised in the media that the treaty will require signatories to mandate graduated response regimes (à la France’s controversial HADOPI system) for online copyright enforcement. Although the Consolidated Text of ACTA, released in late April, confirms that mandatory graduated response is off the table for the treaty’s negotiators, the treaty in its current form both accommodates and promotes the adoption of graduated response. Moreover, opponents of graduated response should be wary of the fact that public law mechanisms – be they domestic or international – are not the only means by which graduated response can effectively become the law for Internet users. The United States and Ireland provide examples of the trend toward private ordering in the project of online copyright enforcement.

The Economics of Copyright and Digitisation: A Report on the Literature and the Need for Further Research

The Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy has released The Economics of Copyright and Digitisation: A Report on the Literature and the Need for Further Research.

Here's an excerpt:

The Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy (SABIP) has commissioned this report in order to inform its future research agenda. One task is to undertake a critical overview of the theoretical and empirical economic literature on copyright and unauthorised copying. On the basis of this literature, two further aims of this report are to: (1) identify the salient issues for copyright policy in the context of digitisation; and (2) formulate specific research questions that should be addressed in order to inform copyright policy.

Canadian Copyright: Bill C-32, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act

The Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-32, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, and the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, today announced the introduction of legislation to modernize the Copyright Act. This legislation is a key pillar in the government's commitment in the 2010 Speech from the Throne to position Canada as a leader in the global digital economy.

"Our government promised to introduce legislation that will modernize Canadian copyright law for the digital age while protecting and creating jobs, promoting innovation and attracting new investment to Canada," said Minister Clement. "This legislation will ensure that Canada's copyright laws are forward-looking and responsive in a fast-paced digital world.". . .

The popularity of Web 2.0, social media, and new technologies such as the MP3 player and digital books have changed the way Canadians create and make use of copyrighted material. This bill recognizes the many new ways in which teachers, students, artists, software companies, consumers, families, copyright owners and many others use technology. It gives creators and copyright owners the tools to protect their work and grow their business models. It provides clearer rules that will enable all Canadians to fully participate in the digital economy, now and into the future.

This legislation will bring Canada in line with international standards and promote home-grown innovation and creativity. It is a fair, balanced, and common-sense approach, respecting both the rights of creators and the interests of consumers in a modern marketplace. The Government of Canada is working to secure Canada's place in the digital economy and to promote a more prosperous and competitive Canada.

For more information, visit www.balancedcopyright.gc.ca.

"The Google Book Settlement and the TRIPS Agreement"

Daniel J. Gervais has self-archived "The Google Book Settlement and the TRIPS Agreement" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

The proposed amended settlement in the Google Book case has been the focus of numerous comments and critiques. This "perspective" reviews the compatibility of the proposed settlement with the TRIPS Agreement and relevant provisions of the Berne Convention that were incorporated into TRIPS, in particular the no-formality rule, the most-favored nation (MFN) clause, national treatment obligations, and the so-called three-step test, which constrains the ability of WTO Members to provide new exceptions and limitations to copyright rights.

WIPO: Scoping Study on Copyright and Related Rights and the Public Domain

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has released Scoping Study on Copyright and Related Rights and the Public Domain.

Here's an excerpt:

Protection of the public domain comprises two steps, as laid down by the [WIPO] Development Agenda: first, identifying the contours of the public domain, thereby helping to assess its value and realm, and, second, considering and promoting the conservation and accessibility of the public domain.

The present study will follow the same direction as it will first assess the scope of the public domain, as defined by copyright laws, history and philosophy, before turning to the issue of its effectiveness and greater availability to the public and society at large. This will lead to the formulation of some recommendations that, by viewing the public domain as material that should receive some positive status and protection, might help to support a robust public domain, as advocated by the Development Agenda.

Digital Video of Intellectual Property Breakfast Club Session on Google Book Settlement

BroadbandBreakfast.com has released a digital video of the Intellectual Property Breakfast Club's the Google Book Search Settlement and E-Book Licensing session on May 11, 2010.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

The panelists included:

Jonathan Band, Counsel, Library Copyright Alliance

Michael Capobianco, Vice President, Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America

Sherwin Siy, Deputy Legal Director, Public Knowledge

Digital Information Management Podcasts/Videos from DigIn

The University of Arizona Digital Information Management (DigIn) certificate program has released a series of podcasts and videos about information management topics.

Here's the press release:

The University of Arizona Digital Information Management (DigIn) certificate program recently hosted a series of talks by members of the program's national advisory panel. The resulting podcasts offer an in-depth discussion of critical themes we explore regularly in the DigIn courses as we help information professionals meet the challenges we face in the digital environment today.

All podcasts are available at:

http://digin.arizona.edu/presentations.html

Friday, April 23, 2010
University of Arizona Main Library

"Career Paths for Information Professionals: Looking Ahead to 2020"

A panel discussion with members of the national advisory panel for the Digital Information Management (DigIn) graduate certificate program. This discussion examines the evolving role of the information professions today, and focuses on the skills and knowledge professionals need to build effective careers in a fast-changing environment.

Moderator:
Peter Botticelli
Director, DigIn program
http://digin.arizona.edu/

Panelists:
Charles Bailey, Jr.
Publisher, Digital Scholarship
http://www.digital-scholarship.org/

Richard Pearce-Moses
Past President, Society of American Archivists
Deputy Director for Technology and Information Resources,
Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records

Christine Szuter
Professor of Practice and Director
Scholarly Publishing certificate program,
Arizona State University

Pete Watters
Technology Officer
Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records

Friday, April 23, 2010 James E. Rogers College of Law

Roberta I. Shaffer Law Librarian of Congress

"Digitization and the Future of Law Libraries"

Legal Information is increasingly born digital and presents challenges of authenticity and preservation that are critical because of the role of legal authorities in establishing the "rule of law." This presentation by Roberta I. Shaffer, the Law Librarian of Congress, will discuss unique challenges that face law makers, law practitioners, and information professionals who are the stewards of our legal legacy. Ms. Shaffer will also discuss developments at the Library of Congress that are designed to address some of the concerns.

Friday, April 23, 2010 University of Arizona Main Library

Richard Pearce-Moses
Past President, Society of American Archivists
Director of Digital Government Information,
Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records
http://rpm.lib.az.us/

"Curating the Digital Past: Lessons from the PeDALS Project"

As the volume and complexity of digital information continues to grow, archivists and librarians have begun to develop the tools needed to preserve society’s legacy of digital records. This presentation by Richard Pearce-Moses will discuss the PeDALS project, a nationally-recognized digital preservation initiative funded by the Library of Congress, National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP) as part of its Preserving State Government Information initiative. This initiative focuses on capturing, preserving, and providing access to a rich variety of state and local government digital information.

DigIn is part of the University of Arizona School of Information Resources and Library Science. Major funding for the program comes from the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), which has also provided scholarship funding.

Additional details on the program, including course descriptions, admissions requirements and application forms may be found on the program website:

digin.arizona.edu

Applicants may also contact the DigIn staff at:

digin@email.arizona.edu

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement: Impact on Individuals and Intermediaries

The Australian Digital Alliance has released Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement: Impact on Individuals and Intermediaries.

Here's an excerpt:

ACTA might have a negative impact on individuals as Internet citizens and as consumers of digital technologies because some of its requirements go beyond Australian law. ACTA will facilitate excessive damages payouts by mandating the controversial 'lost sale analysis' for the assessment of damages and encouraging punitive style statutory damages that set arbitrary amounts for infringement. ACTA will also broaden the scope of commercial scale infringement to criminalise purely private acts that occur in the homes of some Australians, and will create a new criminal offence for 'camcording'. ACTA may strengthen existing procedures to lock up copyright material and prevent Australians from accessing or using it in certain legitimate ways.

"Catching Up with the RIAA"

Walt Crawford has published "Catching Up with the RIAA" in Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large.

Here's an excerpt:

Briefly, Jammie Thomas was the defendant in the first case where an RIAA filesharing infringement suit actually went to a jury—despite RIAA's best efforts to avoid that happening. Thomas seemed like a sympathetic defendant: Single mother, Native American. But her IP address was attached to a KaZaA account offering more than 1,700 recordings with a user name she'd apparently used for years on several different accounts…and shortly after receiving a settlement letter from RIAA, Thomas had Best Buy replace the hard drive in her PC. And, under questioning, said it had been replaced a year earlier. To make a long story short—up to October 2007, at least—the jury found her guilty, not surprising given the evidence in the case. The judgment was for $220,000. She appealed the decision, in part based on a claimed flaw in the jury instructions. That's where things stood at the time of the earlier article.

Court activities can sometimes seem to be in very slow motion. Most of this article brings things up to date on the Thomas case—and, so you're not too surprised, it's not over yet. (There's other stuff about RIAA and copyright at the end of the article—but the Jammie Thomas saga is fascinating.)