how-to block ads
|
swintec
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
 ·RapidVPS
·surpasshosting
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·VoicePulse
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to supergirl
Re: Phew! Good thing they're on top of it!
I asked you to show me the straight law that specifically states downloading is illegal. Websites to Universities that simply say "Downloading and uploading is illegal" on the RESNET FAQ pages does not hold any merit. They were practically written by the recording industries themselves.
I went to the specific law (DMCA). To give the highlights:
Highlights Generally:
· Makes it a crime to circumvent anti-piracy measures built into most commercial software.
· Outlaws the manufacture, sale, or distribution of code-cracking devices used to illegally copy software.
· Does permit the cracking of copyright protection devices, however, to conduct encryption research, assess product interoperability, and test computer security systems.
· Provides exemptions from anti-circumvention provisions for nonprofit libraries, archives, and educational institutions under certain circumstances.
· In general, limits Internet service providers from copyright infringement liability for simply transmitting information over the Internet.
· Service providers, however, are expected to remove material from users' web sites that appears to constitute copyright infringement.
· Limits liability of nonprofit institutions of higher education -- when they serve as online service providers and under certain circumstances -- for copyright infringement by faculty members or graduate students.
· Requires that "webcasters" pay licensing fees to record companies.
· Requires that the Register of Copyrights, after consultation with relevant parties, submit to Congress recommendations regarding how to promote distance education through digital technologies while "maintaining an appropriate balance between the rights of copyright owners and the needs of users."
· States explicitly that "[n]othing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use..."
Surely some of those highlights / rules are broken by the original uploader/cracker....however the downloader did none of the cracking or distribution.
Visting here (the home of the actual DMCA law) »thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c···:e40882: You will count the word distribute many many times. I am sure we can agree on the fact that to distribute something, it has to be received AND sent or given out again. Simply receiving something does not make one a distributor. Are you trying to spin the meaning of distribute around? As I asked before, find a portion of the actual law here: »thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c···281.ENR: that states or gives the ability to the recording industries an option to go after strictly downloaders. Don't quote University pages. I seem to keep coming across the word distribute..and with that, if one was asked to appear in court for simply downloading, any lawyer would take that case. Is file sharing copyrighted works immoral and such? Yes possibly, but you cant be convicted of a crime simply for that (yet anyways  ).
--
BlockNews.Net- Quality Usenet Block And Unlimited Accounts | |
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| Gee, you just can get it that is illegal, can you?
»www.fbi.gov/ipr/
As of August 2006, the FBI has authorized use of the FBI Anti-Piracy seal and warning by members of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), subject to each member entering into a formal Uniform Authorization Agreement. Association members should contact the MPAA, RIAA, SIIA, BSA, or ESA for more information.
»findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_z···n9515556
FBI puts warning on CDs: »www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/c···n-music/
The laws:
»www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
»cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/l···or549701
Here is a court case: »sanfrancisco.fbi.gov/dojpressrel···2606.htm
The maximum penalties for conspiring to violated federal copyright law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and for copyright infringement by distributing a copyrighted work on a computer network, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(C), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2319(d)(2), are five years in prison and three years of supervised release. The maximum penalties for violating the NET Act, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2319(c)(1), are three years in prison and two years of supervised release. A maximum fine of $250,000 applies to each offense, and a mandatory special assessment of $100 applies for each conviction. However, any sentence following conviction would be imposed by the court after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553. An indictment only contains allegations and these defendants, as with all defendants, must be presumed innocent unless and until convicted.
Look up all the laws.
And, look at this one: »www.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/
"...Grokster and StreamCast have chosen not to implement available technologies that would block or filter infringing content on their networks."
Clearly, they go after distributers because if they eliminate the uploaders there are no downloaders. But, the law is clear they can go after you for downloading infringing material. They just don't as, ""Infringing content is the powerful magnet that draws users to respondents' services and fuels their profits.... [T]here is no evidence that these noninfringing uses would attract a single user, much less enough users to create commercially sustainable networks."
»www.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/
If you can't still get, how about downloading a movie and/or CD via UseNet or P2P and let the RIAA/MPAA and the FBI know. If I don't see another post in a few months, I know you finally got it. Kapeesh? 
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA | reply to supergirl
The difference is that strictly downloading copyrighted acts doesn't have the same liability implications. That makes "pure" downloaders much less lucrative for the **AA to seek out. | |
|
