 |
Analysis of the RIAA's complaint against a Princeton sophomore |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
jdbarillari writes "I've just completed an analysis of the RIAA's complaint
against Dan Peng, a Princeton sophomore accused of direct and
contributory copyright infringement.
I conclude that Peng's alleged service is much more like a Web
search engine (Google.com, for
instance), than it is akin to a service like Napster.
This renders the Napster precedent, upon which the RIAA relies
heavily, inapplicable. It also give the site safe-harbor protection
under the DMCA's
provisions on search engines. I'm curious to hear what the LawMeme
crowd thinks of this approach.
The article is here.
"
|
|
 |
| |
 |
Related Links |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Options |
 |
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
Re: Analysis of the RIAA's complaint against a Princeton sophomore (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 08 @ 16:48:27 EDT | If what I have read is true, it appears that the RIAA is way off base. There seems to be little or no relation to the Napster case.
1. The software does not facilitate actual file transfer in any form.
2. The software is a search engine that provides indexes of all file types (and subjects), not just MP3.
3. The software has obvious non-infringing uses (far more so than Napster).
4. The judge in the Napster case voiced second thoughts after her initial ruling.
5. The program is an information gathering tool. The RIAA is basically saying that they have the legal right to filter what information can be made available on the net.
I think that there is a real First Amendment problem here.
Tom |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
|