RIAA's Bad Week

The Recording Industry Association of America hit a couple bumps this past week in its anti-file sharing litigation march. In two separate cases, the RIAA was ordered to pay $103,000 in legal fees to defendant Tanya Andersen and also learned that the judge in the Jammie Thomas case is leaning toward granting a new trial to the woman who has so far been the biggest loser in the RIAA law suits.

In Atlantic v. Andersen (Oregon)the RIAA had filed a John Doe suit based upon the discovery of files shared through a Kazaa user account having Andersen's IP address. Andersen denied any involvement and even produced her computer's hard drive for review. She also denied that her 7-year-old daughter, the only other person in the house, had shared music online. Nearly two years into the litigation, the RIAA voluntarily dismissed its case. Andersen then sought nearly $299,000 in legal fees and approximately $5,000 in costs. In a 33-page opinion, the court thoroughly investigated the number of hours expended and the rates charged, finally concluding that Andersen should be awarded $103,175 in fees and $4,659 in costs. The RIAA will likely object by the May 27 deadline. However, the cautionary tale may have some slowing effect on the RIAA's filing of John Doe suits.

In the infamous RIAA case against Jammie Thomas, the trial judge is considering granting a new trial to Thomas, who was previously found liable for copyright infringement and ordered to pay the RIAA $222,000. The judge has stated that he is leaning toward granting the new trial based on a faulty jury instruction, which told jurors that simply making files available for download constitutes infringement.

For Thomas, this may prove to be only a small victory. The fact is, even though the court has clarified that its jury instruction was wrong and that actual distribution is required, the RIAA may be able to prove actual distribution based solely on the downloading by its investigator, MediaSentry. In the end, Thomas may end up being found liable again. The bigger impact of this 180 by the court is that if the court vacates its earlier judgment, it removes the largest victory the RIAA has on the books to date - a victory that is certainly making people think twice about downloading music online without paying for it.

For more of my thoughts on this decision, see the E-Commerce Times story "RIAA's Legal Steamroller May Grind to a Halt.

"Making Available" Is Not Enough for the RIAA to Show Infringement

I was recently interviewed for a story in EcommerceTimes.com discussing the District of Arizona's decision in Atlantic v. Howell, the latest RIAA file-sharing case to make it to a trial court. While the court's holding in its denial of summary judgment is not Earth-shattering, it does slightly alter the landscape on which the RIAA will work going forward.

The court's holding, requiring actual distribution for a showing of infringement, certainly weighs against the RIAA’s “making available” argument. This is not the first time that the argument has been shot down. The RIAA bases the “making available” argument largely upon a Fourth Circuit case called Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They can’t seem to find any other case that clearly says that infringement can occur without actual distribution. That case involved a library making microfiche copies of books and the decision seemed to be largely policy based. Its use by the RIAA has been unsuccessful in other cases and it failed in Perfect 10 v. Amazon where the plaintiff also tried to argue that “making available” constitutes distribution.

In Atlantic v. Howell, the court is essentially saying that the RIAA can absolutely prove that files were available from Howell’s computer via Kazaa. However, because there’s a question as to who made those files available through Kazaa, there’s a genuine issue of fact and summary judgment is inappropriate.

The court also emphasizes that infringement requires a copy to change hands between unauthorized parties. That express statement by the court is the biggest loss for the RIAA here, but it doesn’t stop their cause.

This holding is useful by other people in fighting summary judgment, but it may not save them from an ultimate finding of infringement. The court seemed to disagree with the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s opinion that MediaSentry’s downloading as part of the RIAA’s investigation cannot constitute distribution because MediaSentry is an authorized agent of the RIAA and therefore cannot infringe RIAA members’ own copyrights.

The bottom line is that Howell may make it more difficult for the RIAA to win on summary judgment, but it won’t completely get defendants off the hook. The “making available” argument is moving in the direction of being a confirmed loser. But, by this court’s logic, MediaSentry’s act of downloading may be sufficient to complete the act of distribution by the defendant. If that argument holds up at trial, the RIAA still wins.