Copyright Policies Clash

[desdemona]

For Canadian P2P users, justice is served. Not so for American P2P users

On March 31, Kondrad Von Finkenstein ruled in favor of the 29 Canadian file sharers named in the CRIA’s lawsuit. The case against the 29 Canadian file sharers was virtually identical to the cases against American file sharers. Despite the similarities, the outcome was extraordinarily different.

The CRIA lost the case because they failed to provide sufficient evidence against these 29 file sharers that they claim violated copyrights. Here are a few highlights of the judge’s decision.

In regards to Media Sentry’s President, Gary Millin’s affidavit, the judge stated, “The major portions of these affidavits are based upon information which Mr. Millin gained from his employees. Accordingly, they consist largely of hearsay. Pursuant to Rule 81(1), hearsay and other forms of information gained on belief may be admissible provided that the grounds for the belief are stated. Beyond stating in cross-examination that, as President of MediaSentry ‘a company of 20-25 employees’, he had ‘general oversight for the business and particular strategy”, Mr. Millin gives no reason for his beliefs. This is insufficient.” The judge went on to say that MediaSentry employees would have been in a better position to swear the affidavits in question and to answer questions in court.

The Judge also pointed out that Mr. Millin testified that his company also provided a service called “MediaDecoy” which distributes bogus or inoperative files over the internet. Mr. Millin stated that he didn’t listen to any of the files copied from the alleged 29 infringers and stated that his company was not hired to listen to these files. In his decision, the judge stated the following; “This kind of remove evidence in no way qualifies under Rule 81. There is, thus, no evidence before the Court as to whether or not the files offered for uploading are infringed files of the plaintiffs.”

In addition, the CRIA failed to inform the court how these 29 IP address were identified. The judge was not impressed by the lack of evidence and stated, “There is no evidence explaining how the pseudonym Geekboy@KaZaA was linked to IP address 24.84.179.98 in the first place. Without any evidence at all as to how IP address 24.84.179.98 has been traced to Geekboy@KaZaA, and without being satisfied that such evidence is reliable, it would be irresponsible for the Court to order the disclosure of the name of the account holder of IP address 24.84.179.98 and expose this individual to a law suit by the plaintiffs."

The Judge found several other deficiencies in the CRIA’s case but the issues mentioned about are basic issues that should have been enough to clearly illustrate that the recording industry does not have sufficient or accurate evidence to prove anything. What must American file sharers be thinking? What must the American file sharers who have already been sued be thinking?

News of how the RIAA sent a subpoena to an individual who doesn’t own a computer and sending a subpoena to a University that had one of Usher’s mp3’s (it turned out that there was no such mp3) is a prime example of why MediaSentry must disclose the methods used to obtain these IP addresses. The fact that this company openly admits to being hired to spread decoy or inoperative files made to look like genuine mp3’s and does not listen to the mp3’s traded by the accused copyright infringer should send a clear message that they have absolutely no idea if these “copyright infringers” were trading copyrighted material or the decoy files that MediaSentry originally spread.

The thought of a huge corporation having the ability to sue someone without having proof that the defendant actually did anything wrong is scary. Unfortunately, for American file sharers, it’s not just a thought. To them this has become a reality. The RIAA is suing about 532 file sharers each month and in total they have sued over 1600 file sharers. Much like the case against the 29 Canadian file sharers, they have not provided a shred of evidence that can prove that these file sharers actually distributed copyrighted material.

Unfortunately, many of these people have been forced to settle out of court and pay the RIAA $2500-$7000 to avoid going to court and paying an attorney thousands of dollars to defend them. They have been extorted and their legal system has failed them.

If an individual or corporation believes that someone is illegally distributing his or her work, they should have to provide the court proof that this activity is going on instead of only having to provide an IP address. The fact that the American courts have overlooked the lack of evidence the RIAA provided is appalling. They have allowed innocent people’s rights to be trampled on and have opened the floodgates to thousands of more lawsuits.

The CRIA was hoping that the judge would rule in their favor. They stressed that they were only going to sue egregious file sharers who distributed thousands of mp3’s. They started off with a small list of 29. The RIAA also started off with a small list but they’ve quickly increased the amount of lawsuits they issue each month and in all likelihood, the CRIA was gleefully expecting to be able to follow suit.

Hopefully, the American people will take a greater interest in politics and realize that many of their rights are being taken away from them. They are at the mercy of rich corporations and they should consider which direction their country has been heading in the past 3-4 years. Perhaps they can make a difference when they vote in November.

http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=441