Judge Wake Surprises -- Holds Back RIAA for the Moment

Judge Wake surprises. That is, he suprises me, at least. This is not surprising in the sense that Federal Court judges face imposing very terrible fines on individuals for copyright infringement in file sharing, and he statute provides little room for them to show any mercy.

How did he surprise? By taking on the difficult issue of proving infringement through deemed distribution. Some background first.

Copyright infringement requires actual distribution of the copryighted work. As Judge Wake notes, "[t]he general rule, supported by the great weight of authority, is that 'infringement of [the distribution right] requires an actual dissemination of either copies or phonorecords.' Nat’l Car Rental Sys. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 991 F.2d 426, 434 (8th Cir. 1993). See also Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 487 F.3d 701, 718 (9th Cir. 2007)" The buzz has been around the Fourth Circuit's library case, Hotaling, where, by placing the copyright works for use by the public was enough to prove distribution because they failed to keep records. The record companies wanted to analogize the library to a shared file on one's computer.

The crafty Judge Wake said no, though. Judge Wake noted that the Ninth Circuit, in Perfect10, agreed with the district court’s conclusion that distribution requires an "actual dissemination," consistent with the language of the Copyright Act. Judge Wake says the Ninth Circuit rejects Hotaling. Judge Wake emphasizes that Hotaling is inconsistent with the Copyright Act.

Further, Judge Wake discards the argument that an offer to distribute are not sufficient to meet the distribution requirement. Judge Wake says that "[t]he scope of the term distribution is only defined within § 106(3) itself, as a “sale or other transfer of ownership” or a “rental, lease, or lending” of a copy of the work. The plain meaning of that section requires an identifiable copy of the work to change hands in one of the prescribed ways for there to be a distribution." The record companies argued that the word "distribution" would be equated with "publication."

So? There were 54 copyrighted tunes in the Defendant's shared folder. The Plaintiffs downloaded only 12. The Court allowed these 12 as an investigative scheme. The Defendant has other defenses, but damages have been reduced from 54 times the minimum amount ($750) to 12 times that amount.