Mega DETH
It's All About The Ping
join:2003-08-20
Watertown, WI | Surprised
WOW! I would have never thought it would go this way.
Might not survive review?
--
"Action does not equal Achievement" |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | Oh my.....
Does this mean the RIAA lawyers are going to have to fabricate even more evidence?  |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | thats exactly what i was thinking, they will just fabricate more evidence.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
8744675
join:2000-10-10
Decatur, GA
| Can't Sue Simply For Making Files Available
Public libraries 'make available' hundreds of thousands of copyrighted works every day, including the music and movies of RIAA and MPAA members. If 'making available' copyrighted material becomes a crime, then every library will be violating the law. |
|
BabyBear
Keep wise ...with Night-Owl
join:2007-01-11 |  WTG!
Thumbs up for the Judge. Nice to see someone on the bench with some common sense.  |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Penalties need to be changed
What really needs to be done is for the copyright infringement penalties to be changed. They were set with commercial pirating operations in mind, but they are now being applied to home users. As the article points out, a user who accidentally sets their entire hard drive to be shared including 2 ripped (legally owned) CDs' worth of music, could face a couple hundred dollars in fines. Is bankrupting individuals and making them lose their homes fair punishment for infringing intellectual property rights on a couple of songs?
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| How Will This Change Things?
The RIAA and other copyright enforcement companies can simply download infringed works from people who make them available. All it would take would be one download per infringed work to show that copyright infringement was taking place.
The way I see it, all this judge did was require that the RIAA take one extra step before it can sue anyone.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| What this means is that the file sharer hasn't violated copyright by making files available. It's all left to the hands of the person taking the copy. In other words, if I SEND you a copy, then I've broken copyright. But, if you download from me, then I haven't.
This is one of two parts to the arguments that brought Canada to where it is on file sharing. |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102  :The way I see it, all this judge did was require that the RIAA take one extra step before it can sue anyone. LMAO. Yeah, it's that one extra step that always kills ya in the end...kinda like that one extra step the prosecutor has to prove to the court that the Defendant actually pulled the trigger before he gets a life sentence for M1. 
--
The Toll
Let's Go Flyers!
|
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to sbrook
said by sbrook :What this means is that the file sharer hasn't violated copyright by making files available. It's all left to the hands of the person taking the copy. Hmm... then I wonder if the next time an illegal street vendor who sells bootleg movies is prosecuted (not a high profile crime, I know) that the suspects can use this argument.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to major marco
said by major marco :...kinda like that one extra step the prosecutor has to prove to the court that the Defendant actually pulled the trigger before he gets a life sentence for M1. I think we'd be a much better country if the same standards that applied to criminal cases also applied to civil cases.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
jauman
join:2001-12-06
Kent, WA
1 edit | reply to pnh102
In one of the arguments filed surrounding the "providing != distribution" claims, the defense attorney argued that since Media Sentry was hired by the RIAA's member companies they were in fact authorized to download the files, and since the copyright owner provided permission, no actual infringement took place. I have no idea if that part carried much water, but was a funny move to observe.
The technical challenge will be how can an investigator without a wiretap-like intrusion into the communications, witness party A providing, and party B downloading, said copyright materials.
Lastly, there's been some recent inquiries into the legality of Media Sentry as a 3rd party doing investigation work without proper Private Investigation licensing. It's yet to be seen if evidence they provide will be disallowed on those grounds. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | reply to 8744675
Re: Can't Sue Simply For Making Files Available
Libraries are exempt from copyright infringement due to Fair Use. That analogy would never fly. The judge, however, does make an important precedent. If it sticks that means the end of the RIAA's lawsuit revenue. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to pnh102
Re: How Will This Change Things?
said by pnh102 :Hmm... then I wonder if the next time an illegal street vendor who sells bootleg movies is prosecuted (not a high profile crime, I know) that the suspects can use this argument. I don't think that argument would hold any water in a case where somebody is actively profiting from another person's work. Copyright law is VERY specific about that. |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | reply to pnh102
No, because if you're SELLING, you're an active participant and profiting from your bootleg, which has never fallen into copyright grey areas! |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to SRFireside
said by SRFireside :I don't think that argument would hold any water in a case where somebody is actively profiting from another person's work. Copyright law is VERY specific about that. No so sure about that... all the FBI warnings I have zipped through when I play DVDs say that whether or not someone makes a profit on the work is irrelevant.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY | ...
I wish I was more familiar with copyright law. I wonder if there is anything in the law about intent or attempt? The judge's decision would seem to imply there is not. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to SRFireside
Re: Can't Sue Simply For Making Files Available
I think you are wrong on that one SR. Libraries are NOT allowed to make copies of items. If you check out a dvd or cd, it DOES NOT give you the right to copy it, even under fair use. Libraries have no special privileges. Have you ever seen the signs in libraries near the copiers saying you are responsible for the works you replicate? While it is highly unlikely an author is going to sue a college kid for making some copies of his or her book, I bet it could be done. Likewise, they could sue you if they found out you copied a library dvd or cd. While the Library has the right to make a legal backup, you don't since you aren't the owner. This ruling is good because it basically says, they have to prove that the material is illegally copied. It can't hold the library or anyone else responsible simply for making a piece of work available. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
4 edits | reply to pnh102
Re: How Will This Change Things?
Bootleg movies is a violation of a different law (Title 18 sec 2320 Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services).
There are criteria required for this P2P hosting to be a copyright violation.
Offering for distribution being a criminal act requires that it be for commercial or private gain. (Title 18 2319A). Regular 2319, which was changed as to not require the distribution to be for "gain" doesn't criminalize the offering for distribution, but only actual distribution and only if it amounts to $1,000 over a 180 day period. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | reply to Jason Levine
Re: Penalties need to be changed
I agree, if the punishment fit the crime, there wouldn't be so much backlash. Nobody says that speeding tickets should be repealed, we just pay them and control our speed better next time. |
|
