- El juez en un famoso caso de piracía digital (una madre cabeza de hogar tiene que pagar $220,000 dolares - $457 millones de pesos - por bajar música) equivaló el acto de bajar la música con el intento a distribuirla. Puede haber un nuevo proceso.
- Judge in landmark IP case ($220,000 in damages for single mother for downloading music) equated downloading with intent to distribute, a new trial may happen.
The court granted the RIAA’s jury instruction #15 that:
“The act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners’ exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown.”
If this was error – if the RIAA had to show actual distribution not mere availability – as the judge ruled it was, Thomas is entitled to a new trial. The RIAA argued the error was harmless because the jury would have convicted on the reproduction right in any case.
“The act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners’ exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown.”
If this was error – if the RIAA had to show actual distribution not mere availability – as the judge ruled it was, Thomas is entitled to a new trial. The RIAA argued the error was harmless because the jury would have convicted on the reproduction right in any case.
- Dice Dept. de Justicia de EE.UU. a la industria de entretenamiento: "No somos sus abogados"
- US Department of Justice to entertainment industry: "We're not your pro bono lawyers" Link/Enlace
"Department of Justice prosecutors serving as pro bono lawyers for private copyright holders regardless of their resources. In effect, taxpayer-supported Department lawyers would pursue lawsuits for copyright holders, with monetary recovery going to industry."
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment