Disorder in the Court; RIAA Freaked

The RIAA is perplexed. To a certain extent so am I. But a judge has ruled that just because a file is in a Kaazaa directory does not meet the definition of ‘distribution’. The confusing part? This very same judge ruled otherwise in a similar RIAA case against a different party.

In most cases, the answer has been yes. Judge Neil V. Wake, presiding over Atlantic vs. Pamela and Jeffrey Howell, bucked that trend by denying the RIAA’s motion for summary judgment in that case.

According to him, just because the RIAA’s investigative partner MediaSentry was able to download 12 copyrighted songs from the Howell’s Kazaa account at two in the morning on January 30, 2006, that doesn’t necessarily mean that other people were downloading the songs too. In fact, the judge held, there is no proof that the couple distributed copyrighted songs to anyone except the MediaSentry investigator.

“The statute does not define the term ‘distribute,’ so courts have interpreted the term in light of the statute’s plain meaning and legislative history,” wrote the judge. “The general rule, supported by the great weight of authority, is that ‘infringement of [the distribution right] requires an actual dissemination of either copies or phonorecords.’” Last year, the same judge ruled the other way on this case, so the Howells and their attorneys must have made significant progress since then.

Pols wonder why Americans consider going to court a crap shoot. Regardless this is an interesting twist. If upheld the legal bar for the RIAA has just been raised. Not only must they prove that the files were available but ALSO that someone other than the RIAA has downloaded the files. The rub is P2P systems tend to anonymousize [sic] the file transfer. So if the RIAA is not in the loop at the actual time a 3rd party downloads the file that may never capture the act of doing so. Heh.

And battle marches on…

Linky.