Newsflash: RIAA now required to present actual evidence in piracy trials

Another delightful legal misstep on the part of the indefatigable RIAA.

CNet: Mistrial for RIAA's $222,000 defendant

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis of Duluth, Minn., declared a mistrial in the case against Thomas, who was charged in October with violating copyright law by making 24 songs available for others to download on the Kazaa network.
Davis set aside the verdict on the grounds that he misguided the jury, telling jurors that simply the act of making a copyrighted song available for sharing amounts to infringement. The judge first indicated in May that he was considering granting a new trial.
...
The Recording Industry Association of America argued that the jury instructions were valid. "Requiring proof of actual transfers would cripple efforts to enforce copyright owners' rights online--and would solely benefit those who seek to freeload off plaintiff's investment," RIAA attorney Timothy Reynolds wrote in a court filing.

Oh no, imagine the terrible burden involved in actually proving that a crime occurred, rather than that it could have potentially occurred. Poor, poor RIAA.

Sphere: Related Content

Copyright Board of Canada slapped down by courts

Yesterday was a great day for music consumers.

Marketnews: Happy Day for Portable Audio: No Levies!

A levy that the Copyright Board of Canada had attempted to impose on the sale of portable audio players has been squashed by the Federal Court of Appeal, marking a happy day in the Canadian consumer electronics industry for manufacturers, retailers, and consumers, alike.
In February 2007, the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC) filed a proposal for 2008-09 that would see anywhere from $5 to as much as $75 being added to the price of a digital audio recorder, like the popular Apple iPod. (The current tariff at that time was set to expire on December 31, 2007). When the Copyright Board of Canada
attempted to enact a similar levy in 2003-04, the Federal Court of Appeal threw out the decision; and this time around, the situation was no different. The Court ruled that the Copyright Board has no legal authority to impose such a levy. What does this mean? Unless manufacturers or retailers decide otherwise (and for reasons other than copyright) you won’t be paying more to purchase a portable device that lets you record and play back music.

I've had loud and angry opinions about copyright levies since the 1997 decision to charge a levy on all recordable media, CD-R, DVD-R, and old school formats like MD and *gasp* audio cassette.

Much like the despised blank media levies, charging a levy on a device that has the potential to store music is much like being given a speeding ticket before you even leave your driveway, because your car has the potential to break the law. In essence, paying the levy is doing the time, before you've done the crime.

Sphere: Related Content