Some thoughts (before I listen to the podcast). If you want to make an analogy to shoplifting, then the analogy would be downloading.
However, part of the case also involved hypothetical or potential uploading (making available) which would be analogous (only very roughly analogous) in the world of physical goods to stealing stuff and giving it away -- i.e. being Robin Hood. Whatever law under which one might be convicted, what would be the penalty for such an offense? Also, there remains the possibility that the defendant was unaware of what was going on -- that at worst she may have been an unintentional Robin Hood. Which is a very strange concept.
eric
· 2 years ago
After listening... I am puzzled sometimes at the inconsistency of the response of the RIAA toward unauthorized distribution.
All over the blogosphere, music blogs are offering mp3s, singly or bunched in downloadable podcasts, of RIAA owned music, every day of the week. This is blantant, open, deliberate. But the way the RIAA handles this is with DMCA takedown notices. Not lawsuits.
It seems inconsistent to track down and sue this woman in Minnesota for perhaps distributing songs (perhaps not, since no proof that anyone downloaded them was offered) and at the same time to generally leave the music bloggers alone, except for the occasional request to remove a tune from a website.
Is there a different legal theory involved? Although the logistics are slightly different, downloading from a music blog or a gal from Duluth on KaZaa is the same, unless there is some subtlety I am missing.
All Comments
However, part of the case also involved hypothetical or potential uploading (making available) which would be analogous (only very roughly analogous) in the world of physical goods to stealing stuff and giving it away -- i.e. being Robin Hood. Whatever law under which one might be convicted, what would be the penalty for such an offense? Also, there remains the possibility that the defendant was unaware of what was going on -- that at worst she may have been an unintentional Robin Hood. Which is a very strange concept.
All over the blogosphere, music blogs are offering mp3s, singly or bunched in downloadable podcasts, of RIAA owned music, every day of the week. This is blantant, open, deliberate. But the way the RIAA handles this is with DMCA takedown notices. Not lawsuits.
It seems inconsistent to track down and sue this woman in Minnesota for perhaps distributing songs (perhaps not, since no proof that anyone downloaded them was offered) and at the same time to generally leave the music bloggers alone, except for the occasional request to remove a tune from a website.
Is there a different legal theory involved? Although the logistics are slightly different, downloading from a music blog or a gal from Duluth on KaZaa is the same, unless there is some subtlety I am missing.