The MPAA is arguing in a legal brief that plaintiffs should be allowed to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages with no proof that anyone has actually downloaded from a defendant's shared folder. The brief was filed by MPAA lawyers in Jammie Thomas' appeal of the $222,000 judgement against her for copyright infringement. Judge Michael Davis asked for public comments on whether simply making files available is a violation of The Copyright Act and the MPAA took the opportunity to put in their 2 cents worth.
Actually 2 cents may be a little generous for the MPAA's contribution. Their argument basically goes something like this, it's difficult, or maybe impossible, to prove that people are actually downloading files from someone's shared folder so the courts should just assume files are shared with the intention of distributing them illegally and rule in favor of the plaintiff.
The real problem with the MPAA's position isn't necessarily the idea that sharing files is infringement. Even some legal scholars who disagree with the "making available" as infringement argument have pointed out that copying a song to your computer for the purpose of sharing it illegally might be infringement. But that's not the same thing as no proof. It would still require the RIAA to show a defendant's intent.
Their lawyers don't stop there either. They also make the claim that because of a judicial principle that US laws be interpretted in a way that conforms to international treaties "making available" automatically became infringement with the signing of 2 WIPO copyright treaties in the 1990s.
As is typical for the entertainment industry, the MPAA filed their brief on the last day arguments were to be accepted. This effectively presents any counter-arguments to be entered into the record to point out the flaws in their reasoning.
The real problem with the MPAA's position isn't necessarily the idea that sharing files is infringement. Even some legal scholars who disagree with the "making available" as infringement argument have pointed out that copying a song to your computer for the purpose of sharing it illegally might be infringement. But that's not the same thing as no proof. It would still require the RIAA to show a defendant's intent.
Their lawyers don't stop there either. They also make the claim that because of a judicial principle that US laws be interpretted in a way that conforms to international treaties "making available" automatically became infringement with the signing of 2 WIPO copyright treaties in the 1990s.
As is typical for the entertainment industry, the MPAA filed their brief on the last day arguments were to be accepted. This effectively presents any counter-arguments to be entered into the record to point out the flaws in their reasoning.
