how-to block ads
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA | reply to supergirl
Re: Phew! Good thing they're on top of it!
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. | |
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
 ·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to swintec
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The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.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 | |
swintec
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
 ·RapidVPS
·surpasshosting
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·VoicePulse
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to supergirl
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 | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| reply to swintec
True... but the whole file trading, even USENET and FTP "scene" if you will is based on the idea that people will upload and share.
If everyone was just a downloader (leech) then the whole thing would die out on it's own accord. You can't download anything if there's not people uploading it first.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to swintec
If you buy a CD or DVD, you are NOT the owner so, yes, downloading a copy some idiot posted is stealing and could send you to court. True, the RIAA/MPAA are going after uploaders mostly but the DMCA does allow going after plain downloaders too. I think Virgina college says it in plain English you can actually understand, swintec, but you just don't want to believe it.
And, to answer the obvious question, if I own a CD or DVD, am I renting the copyright? Nope. You are just buying permission to hear and view it not reverse engineer it in any way, shape, form or fashion including removing DRM, or redistribute it (kinda has a big FBI screen telling you that on DVDs or did you miss that 5 year, $250,000 fine warning?).
DMCA: »www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/dmca1.htm
Sec. 1321. Remedy for infringement
`(a) IN GENERAL- The owner of a design is entitled, after issuance of a certificate of registration of the design under this chapter, to institute an action for any infringement of the design.
`(b) REVIEW OF REFUSAL TO REGISTER- (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the owner of a design may seek judicial review of a final refusal of the Administrator to register the design under this chapter by bringing a civil action, and may in the same action, if the court adjudges the design subject to protection under this chapter, enforce the rights in that design under this chapter.
`(2) The owner of a design may seek judicial review under this section if--
`(A) the owner has previously duly filed and prosecuted to final refusal an application in proper form for registration of the design;
`(B) the owner causes a copy of the complaint in the action to be delivered to the Administrator within 10 days after the commencement of the action; and
`(C) the defendant has committed acts in respect to the design which would constitute infringement with respect to a design protected under this chapter.
`(c) ADMINISTRATOR AS PARTY TO ACTION- The Administrator may, at the Administrator's option, become a party to the action with respect to the issue of registrability of the design claim by entering an appearance within 60 days after being served with the complaint, but the failure of the Administrator to become a party shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction to determine that issue.
`(d) USE OF ARBITRATION TO RESOLVE DISPUTE- The parties to an infringement dispute under this chapter, within such time as may be specified by the Administrator by regulation, may determine the dispute, or any aspect of the dispute, by arbitration. Arbitration shall be governed by title 9. The parties shall give notice of any arbitration award to the Administrator, and such award shall, as between the parties to the arbitration, be dispositive of the issues to which it relates. The arbitration award shall be unenforceable until such notice is given. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude the Administrator from determining whether a design is subject to registration in a cancellation proceeding under section 1313(c).
The entire DMCA is located here: »thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c···e175446:
The legal theory used to create the DMCA is partly disseminated from the Betamax decision, which the Supreme Court did NOT say using the Betamax device to even record OTA programs was explicity legal. Based on that decision, the DMCA has great power to enforce since the court ruled even taping wasn't necessarily legal. Instead, the ability to record was not precluded and not any right to record was explicitly granted. So, in legal reality, the "rip, mix, and burn" of even purchased CDs could be considered illegal based on that decision. (I believe the satellite radio companies are being sued on that legal theory by allowing users to keep it temporarily on their devices.)
Basis of copyright theory is: you buy the CD, DVD or similar product for personal viewing only. You do not really own anything but the physical media and NOT the content on the physical media. You are, in fact, renting it and do not own anything. The copyright owner explicitly owns the content unless they sell a license (and license is not the thing you get using WMP) to you.
The DMCA only exempted one class: providers that allowed content uploads are generally not held liable but subsequent court decisions, VZ I believe, made it very clear that the hosting site has to turn over the identity of the infringer upon a subpeona.
YouTube is being sued under the DMCA for not preventing illegal content uploads and downloads because Google, the owner of YouTube, is profiting from the illegally viewings, and they know full well it is going on.
Search engines, a la Google are Yahoo, are also exempting from indexing illegal content because they are not explicitly mining the Net for that content. Ask the dumb kids who created a search engine to find illegal content, referring to even their own sites, how much they paid? $14,000 a piece if I recall.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
swintec
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
·RapidVPS
·surpasshosting
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·VoicePulse
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to supergirl
said by supergirl  :Obtaining copyrighted material is illegal and, yes, you can be sued. USC even tells students about it: » www.sc.edu/copyright/dmca.shtmlVirginia says it flat out: "Come on! Is downloading copyrighted stuff really stealing? If it's done without the permission of the people who own the copyright - yes, it's really stealing. According to the law - as well as to the performers, writers, software engineers, and other people who make their living from royalties - downloading a song or a movie or a piece of software in violation of its copyright is no different from walking into a retailer and shoplifting it. Really." » www.itc.virginia.edu/security/co···faq.html They are misusing the word downloading again. The first link you posted started on the right track, however they quickly led people to further believe that ONLY downloading is illegal. The problem is that most people think of torrents and other P2P programs that force you to also upload while you are downloading. So they equate one with the other.
You get in trouble with DISTRIBUTING copyrighted works. How would someone be DISTRIBUTING copyrighted works simply by downloading? There has to be an in and and out for a distributor to happen. You also mentioned stealing. What is one, who is simply downloading, stealing from the original owner of the copyrighted piece? To quote dumwaldo "Stealing deprives the owner of their property, downloading does not."
--
BlockNews.Net- Quality Usenet Block And Unlimited Accounts | |
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to swintec
said by evilghost :said by swintec :Wheres the law stating that strictly downloading is illegal? Conversely, where's the one stating it isn't? That's not how American law works. Everything is legal unless explicitly outlawed by the states or federal government. | |
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to swintec
said by swintec :said by evilghost :said by swintec :Wheres the law stating that strictly downloading is illegal? Conversely, where's the one stating it isn't? Stop by the File Sharing Forum to read up on things. I don't have the time to search right now, but can sum up the law in the mean time, in that the law pertains to SHARING copyrighted works. By simply downloading one is not sharing nor distributing copyrighted material. This is why uploaders are the prime target. The media will have you believe other wise when they report on the issue and report that such and such was fined/punished for downloading copyrighted works, this in turn, gives people the same mind set as you. No one has ever been cited for downloading, always sharing/distributing/uploading. Obtaining copyrighted material is illegal and, yes, you can be sued. USC even tells students about it: »www.sc.edu/copyright/dmca.shtml
Virginia says it flat out: "Come on! Is downloading copyrighted stuff really stealing? If it's done without the permission of the people who own the copyright - yes, it's really stealing. According to the law - as well as to the performers, writers, software engineers, and other people who make their living from royalties - downloading a song or a movie or a piece of software in violation of its copyright is no different from walking into a retailer and shoplifting it. Really."
»www.itc.virginia.edu/security/co···faq.html
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
swintec
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
·RapidVPS
·surpasshosting
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·VoicePulse
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to evilghost
said by evilghost :said by swintec :Wheres the law stating that strictly downloading is illegal? Conversely, where's the one stating it isn't? Stop by the File Sharing Forum to read up on things. I don't have the time to search right now, but can sum up the law in the mean time, in that the law pertains to SHARING copyrighted works. By simply downloading one is not sharing nor distributing copyrighted material. This is why uploaders are the prime target. The media will have you believe other wise when they report on the issue and report that such and such was fined/punished for downloading copyrighted works, this in turn, gives people the same mind set as you. No one has ever been cited for downloading, always sharing/distributing/uploading.
--
BlockNews.Net- Quality Usenet Block And Unlimited Accounts | |
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to evilghost
said by evilghost :said by swintec :Wheres the law stating that strictly downloading is illegal? Conversely, where's the one stating it isn't? Innocent until proven guilty ? If there is no law stating it is illegal is it still illegal ? Nope , Immoral yes , illegal nope.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to evilghost
said by evilghost :said by swintec :said by evilghost :All these chittorrent users who scream injustice, what exactly are you legally downloading? I can't speak for the torrent folks since I dont use torrents, just Usenet...but as far as what I/they download legally? Everything is legal to download...although I think the torrent folks run into issue when they are forced to upload at the same time. I use Usenet mainly for movies though.  Good luck with that, I'm sure the MPAA will agree... Oddly enough , I have to ask, just where is the law about that. It seems like it is a base that has not been covered yet.
Seems like a moral issue at best.
My understanding was they are suing for sharing everything. Not downloading.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
evilghost
Premium
join:2003-11-22
Springville, AL
·Windstream
2 edits | reply to swintec
said by swintec :Wheres the law stating that strictly downloading is illegal? Conversely, where's the one stating it isn't? With much of copyright law left to interpretation and the entire RIAA/MPAA fiasco I'd rather avoid court costs and potential liability for engaging in copyright infringement. | |
swintec
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
·RapidVPS
·surpasshosting
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·VoicePulse
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to evilghost
said by evilghost :said by swintec :said by evilghost :All these chittorrent users who scream injustice, what exactly are you legally downloading? I can't speak for the torrent folks since I dont use torrents, just Usenet...but as far as what I/they download legally? Everything is legal to download...although I think the torrent folks run into issue when they are forced to upload at the same time. I use Usenet mainly for movies though. Good luck with that, I'm sure the MPAA will agree... Wheres the law stating that strictly downloading is illegal?
--
BlockNews.Net- Quality Usenet Block And Unlimited Accounts | |
evilghost
Premium
join:2003-11-22
Springville, AL
·Windstream
1 edit | reply to swintec
said by swintec :said by evilghost :All these chittorrent users who scream injustice, what exactly are you legally downloading? I can't speak for the torrent folks since I dont use torrents, just Usenet...but as far as what I/they download legally? Everything is legal to download...although I think the torrent folks run into issue when they are forced to upload at the same time. I use Usenet mainly for movies though. Good luck with that, I'm sure the MPAA will agree... | |
|
