Will appeal succeed in RIAA's $222,000 'making available' case?

[Matt 26z]

Pretty good C-Net article here:

http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9793438-38.html

Talks about the definitons of "making available" and how the courts do not agree on it.

The writer also brings up these concerns...

----------------------------
I said at the beginning of this article that if the RIAA wins on "making available," the precedent would create real dangers for innocent users. That's because the awesome weapon of copyright law can be turned on people who only mistakenly ran afoul of it.
...
If my mother accidentally shares her computer's entire hard drive with the world by clicking the wrong button in an OS X setup menu, is that "making available?" Should she be held liable for $222,000 in damages, and lose her house, for accidentally making two CDs of music available to the world?

If I don't upgrade to a newer version of my operating system even though I know there's a security glitch that opens my hard drive to the Internet, does that mean I'm "making available" my music collection? Do Internet service providers "make available" access to Kazaa? Do search engines "make available" links to infringing files?

"It's hard to distinguish having something in a Kazaa shared directory versus having it on my shelf and not locking my door or having it on a computer and not bothering with a firewall so the college kids--who I know full well live next door--can hop on and take it," says Jessica Litman, who teaches copyright law at the University of Michigan and is the author of Digital Copyright. "If the RIAA eventually wins on this one, it would be a ruling I'd be willing to say is wrong," Litman added.
----------------------------


Interesting because if "making available" becomes a definitive crime, then I think there really has to be concern over what that covers. Especially if this can expand into linking to 3rd party sites.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Pretty good C-Net article here:

http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9793438-38.html

Talks about the definitons of "making available" and how the courts do not agree on it.

The writer also brings up these concerns...

----------------------------
I said at the beginning of this article that if the RIAA wins on "making available," the precedent would create real dangers for innocent users. That's because the awesome weapon of copyright law can be turned on people who only mistakenly ran afoul of it.
...
If my mother accidentally shares her computer's entire hard drive with the world by clicking the wrong button in an OS X setup menu, is that "making available?" Should she be held liable for $222,000 in damages, and lose her house, for accidentally making two CDs of music available to the world?

If I don't upgrade to a newer version of my operating system even though I know there's a security glitch that opens my hard drive to the Internet, does that mean I'm "making available" my music collection? Do Internet service providers "make available" access to Kazaa? Do search engines "make available" links to infringing files?

"It's hard to distinguish having something in a Kazaa shared directory versus having it on my shelf and not locking my door or having it on a computer and not bothering with a firewall so the college kids--who I know full well live next door--can hop on and take it," says Jessica Litman, who teaches copyright law at the University of Michigan and is the author of Digital Copyright. "If the RIAA eventually wins on this one, it would be a ruling I'd be willing to say is wrong," Litman added.
----------------------------


Interesting because if "making available" becomes a definitive crime, then I think there really has to be concern over what that covers. Especially if this can expand into linking to 3rd party sites.

this is red herring because the case does not establish "make available" precedent because the RIAA specifically limited their case to content the accused failed to prove she had a right too.

It only when people like raw and SF misrepresent this into a blanket protection that we get into trouble.

In the context it was actually ruled it not that dangerous because it does apply to any of the situations that article documented.