Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to Matt
Re: Good Idea
matter replication would basicly crash the current world economy. then again it would also close up lots of economic gaps as it wouldnt cost anything to feed the poor.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
1 edit | reply to TheWickerMan
Holy crap, could you imagine the effect of Star Trek's replicator today? The entire population in the Star Trek universe are breaking the law! 
RIAA lawyer - "Mr. Worf, I'm representing the RIAA and you have been found guilty of downloading several operas. We demand you cease and desist or face the consequences".
Worf - "Of course. By the way, have you seen a Bat'leth in action?" |
|
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
| reply to Matt
said by Matt  :said by jhboricua :said by Matt :A copy for which you haven't paid. So yes, it is stealing. Look up Title 17. Kindly point where in Title 17 does it say it is stealing. Ironically enough, it's under the section titled Criminal Offenses: » www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506Sub-sections B and C cover it pretty well. A good lawyer could argue for A as well. Ironically enough the word steal, stolen, stealing is not present there, so it begs to question how you reached such a ridiculous conclusion. As a matter of fact, the word steal, stealing, stolen are NOT present in the ENTIRE Title 17 copyright document. A good lawyer would know the difference between infringement and stealing, which is more than I could say about you.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Admin * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * |
|
Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA
| reply to Matt
(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
(a) doesnt qualify as the bittorrent gains no money for person seeding.
(b)Same as (a)
(c)This you may be correct on, but the term "Commercial Distribution" implies money is involved as well. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to Matt
Now you're just talking double talk. You CAN'T quote a different law to charge someone with a 'supposed crime' from the first law. They are TWO DIFFERENT EVENTS. The first event is 'downloading the file'. the second event is 'sharing a file'. And again, I state, UNTIL YOU GET or GIVE 100% of the file TO ME, or get it FROM ME, you have NO PROOF that I actually did the transfer.
What if I created a fake rar file called 'brittney spears.mp3' and put it on a torrent site. UNTIL you get 100% of it from me, you have NO IDEA what it is. Period.
Again, if you want to use the law as a hammer to hit people, you have to follow the LETTER of the law, not the spirit. And mediasentry and the like are NOT following the letter of the law, they are making accusations based on incomplete information.
If I was serving up the file from a web server, THEN, and ONLY THEN, IF IT WAS REAL, could I be charged. Getting 'part' of a file from me, not the ENTIRE file from me, is NOT PROOF that a violation occurred.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
1 edit | reply to Thaler
said by Thaler :said by Matt :A copy for which you haven't paid. So yes, it is stealing. Look up Title 17. Wait...how are you stealing a copy without paying...when you don't even have a copy of said item? Aborting the download isn't akin to stealing whatsover, unless there's some category of law that addresses "intent to commit copyright infringement". Last I checked, infringement was rather a binary offense - either you've downloaded a copy of said material, or you haven't. If you only download a portion and not the entire work, you're right, there isn't a law covering that yet. But we're specifically talking bittorrent which means you are uploading as well, which facilitates (assists) others in copyright infringement.
See Secondary Liability: »www.law.columbia.edu/law_school/···acforum1 |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to jhboricua
said by jhboricua :said by Matt :A copy for which you haven't paid. So yes, it is stealing. Look up Title 17. Kindly point where in Title 17 does it say it is stealing. Ironically enough, it's under the section titled Criminal Offenses: »www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
Sub-sections B and C cover it pretty well. A good lawyer could argue for A as well. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :A copy for which you haven't paid. So yes, it is stealing. Look up Title 17. Wait...how are you stealing a copy without paying...when you don't even have a copy of said item?
Aborting the download isn't akin to stealing whatsover, unless there's some category of law that addresses "intent to commit copyright infringement". Last I checked, infringement was rather a binary offense - either you've downloaded a copy of said material, or you haven't. |
|
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :A copy for which you haven't paid. So yes, it is stealing. Look up Title 17. Kindly point where in Title 17 does it say it is stealing. |
|
TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
1 edit | reply to Matt
said by Matt : Sorry, but if I walk into a car dealership and only steal a tire off a car, I'm still guilty of theft, even though I can't drive the car away. What if you've only made a copy of the tire? |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to Ebolla
said by Ebolla :yes due to the fact you took physical property, nothing is stolen when you download, only a copy is created. A copy for which you haven't paid. So yes, it is stealing. Look up Title 17. |
|
Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | reply to Matt
yes due to the fact you took physical property, nothing is stolen when you download, only a copy is created. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx :And exactly how would you PROVE someone dowloaded via a torrent? By definition, the torrent comes from MANY sites. What if I've only downloaded 99%s? Am I still in violation? I mean, I can't UNRAR only 99% of the file. Again, they can't ever PROVE that ONE PERSON uploaded or downloaded a torrent UNLESS they are the only source. An incomplete file is NOT PROOF of copyright violation. Sorry, but if I walk into a car dealership and only steal a tire off a car, I'm still guilty of theft, even though I can't drive the car away. |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | reply to karlmarx
Agree with you 100%. Not to mention the fact that downloading a program that was available OTA for FREE should not be infringement.
cw |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to Nightfall
And exactly how would you PROVE someone dowloaded via a torrent? By definition, the torrent comes from MANY sites. What if I've only downloaded 99%s? Am I still in violation? I mean, I can't UNRAR only 99% of the file. Again, they can't ever PROVE that ONE PERSON uploaded or downloaded a torrent UNLESS they are the only source. An incomplete file is NOT PROOF of copyright violation.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to Matt
this is why the entertainment industry would never want the net to be classified as a full utility. i mean you cant ban someone from having electric power as long as the bill is paid even if they are using it to run a whore house.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :I think this is a great idea. Although I'm scared to know whom the burden of proof will fall on and what will exactly constitute proof.
That's a problem, but it's not the proper role of the ISP. Internet is so important a part of modern life, no one should be banned from it based on a private party's say-so. Even if there is a court judgment proving copyright infringement, the damages or penalty should be enough. Depriving the person of an important means of communication is too severe. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :I think this is a great idea. Although I'm scared to know whom the burden of proof will fall on and what will exactly constitute proof. Its not that difficult to prove it. Since nothing is anonymous, just download the material that the suspect is sharing and verify it. Ideally, a third party would do the work instead of the RIAA/MPAA, but I would settle for a law enforcement division as well. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC |  I think this is a great idea. Although I'm scared to know whom the burden of proof will fall on and what will exactly constitute proof. |
|
