Spring Break
Conn. case may affect RIAA suits
Availability is not illegal, judge says
By: Donnie Allison
Issue date: 3/4/08 Section: News
Last update: 3/4/08 at 6:14 AM EST
Last update: 3/4/08 at 6:14 AM EST
Students facing copyright infringement suits related to music downloading may have new legal alternatives.
A recent court case called into question one of the Recording Industry Association of America's main legal arguments used to justify its prosecution of alleged music pirates.
A U.S. District Court in Connecticut ruled last month in Atlantic v. Brennan that making copyrighted works available on the Internet does not, by itself, constitute copyright infringement.
In her opinion, Judge Janet Bond Arterton wrote that plaintiffs in copyright infringement cases must establish both that they own the copyright and that the copyrighted works were indeed duplicated and not just made available.
Arterton ruled that the RIAA failed to do this because it offered no evidence that defendant Christopher Brennan, a senior at Boston University, had actually distributed the copyrighted works in question.
This decision may have implications for cases currently pending against students at Duke and other universities. Last Friday, a motion to dismiss the RIAA's charges against Christopher Vines, an Indiana University sophomore, cited the ruling in Atlantic v. Brennan.
Freshman Pat Light, who received a warning letter from the RIAA via the Office of Information Technology, said the decision would serve as a useful counterweight to the RIAA's legal muscle.
"I think most of [the RIAA's] legal practices up to this point have been dubious at best," Light said. "It's a good precedent as far as putting the RIAA in their place."
But the debate is not over just yet. Friday, the RIAA submitted a motion for reconsideration of the ruling in Atlantic v. Brennan.
The motion states that every court that has ruled on the issue has held that making copyrighted materials available constitutes infringement.
The motion also alleges that the court misinterpreted Perfect 10 v. Amazon Inc., a prior copyright infringement case.
A recent court case called into question one of the Recording Industry Association of America's main legal arguments used to justify its prosecution of alleged music pirates.
A U.S. District Court in Connecticut ruled last month in Atlantic v. Brennan that making copyrighted works available on the Internet does not, by itself, constitute copyright infringement.
In her opinion, Judge Janet Bond Arterton wrote that plaintiffs in copyright infringement cases must establish both that they own the copyright and that the copyrighted works were indeed duplicated and not just made available.
Arterton ruled that the RIAA failed to do this because it offered no evidence that defendant Christopher Brennan, a senior at Boston University, had actually distributed the copyrighted works in question.
This decision may have implications for cases currently pending against students at Duke and other universities. Last Friday, a motion to dismiss the RIAA's charges against Christopher Vines, an Indiana University sophomore, cited the ruling in Atlantic v. Brennan.
Freshman Pat Light, who received a warning letter from the RIAA via the Office of Information Technology, said the decision would serve as a useful counterweight to the RIAA's legal muscle.
"I think most of [the RIAA's] legal practices up to this point have been dubious at best," Light said. "It's a good precedent as far as putting the RIAA in their place."
But the debate is not over just yet. Friday, the RIAA submitted a motion for reconsideration of the ruling in Atlantic v. Brennan.
The motion states that every court that has ruled on the issue has held that making copyrighted materials available constitutes infringement.
The motion also alleges that the court misinterpreted Perfect 10 v. Amazon Inc., a prior copyright infringement case.
Be the first to comment on this story