Update: RIAA File-Sharing Litigation: Obama Administration Backs RIAA

Hello!

I am finally back! I have been traveling for the past few weeks giving presentations and writing articles.

Previously I wrote a post about the RIAA vs. Tenenbaum case. This case is one of several high profile file-sharing lawsuits currently being reviewed by the courts.

Another case that has garnered national attention is the RIAA vs. Thomas-Rasset. Ms. Thomas-Rasset purchased songs from I-tunes and shared them with peers. A Minnesota federal jury found her guilty of copyright infringement and the court ordered her to pay $80,000 for each of the 24 downloaded song she shared. Her jury verdict came to a whopping $1.92 million dollars. She is now seeking to vacate the judgment for being too excessive.

However, last week, the Obama Administration submitted arguments in favor of the jury verdict. The Justice Department argued that the jury verdict was not too excessive considering the nature of file sharing. So although Ms. Thomas-Rasset may have shared the files with only a select group of individuals, those individuals continued to share the files with other users and so on. So the file sharing continues.

Clearly, The Obama Administration is intellectual property ownership friendly and is asserting its position as such. The RIAA really needs this support from the Justice Department considering the negative publicity and backlash it has received for going after individual consumers. It will be interesting to see if the judge actually reduced the monetary award. I will keep you posted.

I welcome your thoughts.

File Sharing & Fair Use: What does it mean for Consumers

Hello!

I hope your week has been productive.

I came across this article on the Daily Online Examiner, which gives an update on the Napster File Sharing Litigation. As many of you know, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) waged a legal battle against Napster and users of file-sharing services for the past 10 years. However, one of those cases can effectively end the RIAA argument that file-sharing is copyright infringement and therefore punishable by a fine and or jail time.

In the case of RIAA vs. Joel Tenenbaum, the court is currently accepting an argument that peer to peer file sharing is a Fair Use exception to Copyright Infringement Laws. Essentially, the argument is that file sharing is not commercial use and therefore not copyright infringement. In lay terms, this means that as long as individual consumers are sharing files with friends for personal enjoyment and not a monetary fee, then copyright infringement does not exist and file-sharing is not a crime. I will explain Fair Use in more detail below:

Copyright Infringement occurs when another unlawfully copies, sells, displays or performs a copyright owner's work without their express permission. However, in some instances, copying a copyright owner's work without their permission is allowed. This is called the Fair Use exception. Specifically, an infringer of a copyright can argue Fair Use if they meet one of the following criteria:

1. the purpose and character of the use is for non-profit or non-commercial purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work is artistic and benefits the public;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion of the copy is minimal in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the copying upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work is minimal.

If Tennebaum's argument is successful, peer to peer file sharing may be considered legal and enjoy the same treatment as copying of television or cable shows for personal enjoyment. Currently, consumers can copy or record television or cable shows in their home as long as the recording is done for personal enjoyment and the recording is not re-broadcast or viewed by consumers for a fee.

It will be interesting to see how the judge rules this case. I will keep you posted.

I welcome your thoughts!