How does some internal emails about piracy proove that a company is actively promoting it?
Is talking about something the same as actively promoting something?

Er… if these were private internal emails, then how can this be seen as encouragement by the company? I’d be quite surprised if emails from Eircom didn’t contain a disclaimer stating that any views reflected in the mail, do not represent the position of the company.

Surely the Record Labels have turned this into a promotion by choosing the ridiculous lawsuit route.

The irony is, that Eircom have used the prospect downloading music (though specifying legal downloads) as advertisements for their broadband offerings for years. This would have made a more serious case, but none the less easy to defend against in the court of common sense.

I’ll start by saying I agree with the gist of this post and the comments that once again the RIAA is probably on its way to shooting itself in the foot. But . . .

Garry — these were emails by company execs, and as part of the company’s “control group,” anything they say is binding on the company. There have been lots of cases where execs making light of a situation are used to establish knowledge and/or intent. Disclaimers built into email footers, first are not typically used for internal emails, and second don’t really matter much when it comes to something like this.

And Mike — you say “similar to the ‘inducement’ rule that the US courts made up (it’s not actually in any US law).” This country is a common law country, always has been, and unlike civil code countries, we don’t enshrine every single possible variant of every single rule or law into our statutes. Courts share the task with legislatures of working out what the laws are and what they mean. It’s been that way in common law countries for hundreds of years before this country was founded, and our nation’s founders expressly adopted that system over the Napoleonic code system used in, among other places, France and Italy.

Moreover, our courts have both legal and equitable powers, again something that is part of the common law system. Long ago we merged the two, so instead of having separate courts of law and equity, all courts are both, all judges have both powers. The concept of inducement is one of those common law doctrines that originated in courts of equity, where it has been used as both a defense (e.g., to a claim of breach of contract), and as support for a claim (e.g., certain forms of aiding and abetting).

So while I agree with your general point, this comment is not only off the mark, it doesn’t even come close to the target. The only issue is what the elements ought to be for a claim of inducement when it comes to copyright infringment.