Judge Considering LaMacchia Motion
Author(s):
Sarah Y. Keightley
This article may be freely distributed electronically,
provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this
notice, but may not be reprinted without the express written
permission of The Tech. Write to archive@the-tech.mit.edu
for additional details. the Copyright Act "does not preclude
enforcement of the conspiracy and wire fraud statutes,"
according to the response.
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Stearns is considering the
oral arguments made in the David M. LaMacchia '95 case last
Friday, and will make a decision on whether or not to dismiss
the case, according to Harvey A. Silverglate, one of
LaMacchia's attorneys.
Stearns heard the defense's pre-trial motion to dismiss the
case, and "took the motion [to dismiss] under advisement,
meaning that he will continue to study and ponder the matter"
before issuing his legal opinion, Silverglate said.
LaMacchia was indicted last spring for conspiring to commit
wire fraud. He allegedly used two Athena workstations to run a
server where Internet users could exchange copyrighted
software.
In early October, LaMacchia's counsel filed a motion to
dismiss the case and a motion to suppress evidence. The wire
fraud law was incorrectly applied in this case, Silverglate
said in an interview last month.
The defense has been hopeful that the case would be
dismissed on this basis.
"It is a positive sign that the judge refused to set even a
tentative trial date or a date to argue the motion to suppress
evidence," Silverglate said. "I think [Stearns] did this
because he is inclined to grant the motion to dismiss the
indictment."
"I continue to feel very strongly that the government cannot
proceed under the broad and vague 'wire fraud' laws to
prosecute what is at heart a copyright matter," Silverglate
said.
The wire fraud charge is a criminal violation, while
copyright infringement is a civil violation.
"The government claims that [LaMacchia] committed a civil,
but not a criminal, violation," Silverglate said. "If this is
so, then how can the government turn it into a crime simply by
proceeding under a different statute?"
A spokesperson from the U.S. Attorney's office said that the
prosecution would not respond to the hearing until Judge
Stearns has made a decision.
In the response, the government presented other cases where
the high court "refused to vacate wire fraud convictions
premised on copyright violations," such as the 1986 case of
Carpenter v. United States.
However, according to the recent defense reply, the reason
for the different court rulings was because "the property
interest in Dowling was copyrighted material,
while the property in Carpenter was
non-copyrighted business proprietary information."
"It was the unique nature of copyrighted intellectual
property that dictated the different results," the defense
added.
Sarah Y. Keightley
"Judge Considering LaMacchia Motion"
The Tech
114
.58
(November 22, 1994):
1, 12