oh Crap! Usenet
Posted: July 2, 2009, 1:06 pm
Not good! Not good!
Recording industry wins one against Usenet supplier
Afternoon of Wednesday, July 1, 2009 • One of the P2P proprietors' most successful self-defense arguments, when confronted in court by copyright holders, is what the legal profession now calls safe harbor. It's the idea that a P2P service only provides users with the technology to share files, and its up to the users to determine which files are shared -- at any one time, the service can't know what's shared, because it doesn't have a centralized index.
But that argument has now failed when transferred to another, older, more conventional style of file sharing: via Usenet. In a ruling yesterday that may set some legal precedent (at least prior to any appeal), a New York district court judge has granted summary judgment in favor of Recording Industry Association of America members against the owners of Usenet.com, a subscription service giving users access to files shared over the Internet's historical NNTP protocol (Usenet). Judge Harold Baer ruled that Usenet.com kept a service, knew what was on it, knew that its users knew what was on it, and knew that the purpose of that service was evidently to trade in unauthorized and copyrighted material.
Citing a phrase from the second Supreme Court ruling against P2P trader Grokster, Baer referred to Usenet.com's "staggering scale of infringement makes it more likely that [Defendants] condoned illegal use." The evidence of this was an independent study commissioned by the court that determined that some 94% of files available on Usenet.com were probably illicit.
The guilt-by-association factor didn't help the defendants' case much either. "Moreover, also similarly to Grokster, the undisputed facts in this case indicate that Defendants openly and affirmatively sought to attract former users of other notorious file-sharing services such as Napster and Kazaa," Judge Baer wrote.
One of the standards being tested here was whether Usenet.com simply contributed to the ongoing acts of copyright infringement made feasible through the Usenet system, or whether Usenet.com specifically used Usenet as a vehicle for profiting from illicit file-trading -- what the law calls vicarious infringement. The judge granted the RIAA the grand slam on this issue, writing, "Because the undisputed facts illustrate that Defendants garnered a direct financial benefit from copyright infringement and failed to exercise their right and ability to control or limit infringement on their servers, Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their claim for vicarious copyright infringement is granted."
In keeping with its very public stance, the RIAA issued a statement late yesterday stating it hopes this ruling will set an example for all the others: "This decision is another example of courts recognizing the value of copyrighted music and taking action against companies and individuals who are engaging in wide scale infringement," stated Executive Vice President Stephen Marks. "We hope that other bad actors who are engaging in similar activity will take note of this decisive opinion."