Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
| Two problems with that defense..
First..the person offering it would have a hard time explaining what OTHER reason they would have had to have had the file there in the first place if it wasn't meant to be downloaded. And second..
if the only crime is having downloaded it..could the person offering it escape that themselves? It's highly likely they obtained it that way themselves.
IMHO..the RIAA has an effective way of prosecuting individuals
if they wanted to. The real problem is the sheer number of people doing it and the fact they have to proceed case by case person by person makes it unworkable. They tried to do that in the hopes of scaring people but now it's almost a joke to receive a letter apparently and a pinup for their wall.
I'm going to stand by my suggestion posted in another thread that because this did not work that their next target MAY be the Isp's themelves and hence, this is why the isp's are now starting to cooperate more.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
ncbill
Premium
join:2007-01-23
Winston Salem, NC
| The RIAA has no authority to "prosecute" anyone.
They can only sue for damages.
But mostly they send demand letters.
Federal prosecuters don't bother with prosecuting criminal copyright infringement unless the money involved is well into six figures. |
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
 ·Mediacom
| reply to Rick
the issue here is
it isnt the IPS's place to protect some one else's copyright
i say start pulling ISP's common carrier immunity if they want to pull this kind of crap
let the **AA's do it them selves or be libel for any thing that happens on there network some ISP's Usenet servers would be a fun place to start... |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| reply to Rick
First..the person offering it would have a hard time explaining what OTHER reason they would have had to have had the file there in the first place if it wasn't meant to be downloaded. And second.. No, they don't. In recent court cases, "making available" was found to NOT be sufficient for copyright infringement. So no one need explain why a file is in a shared folder.
The ISPs don't have to take proactive measures to keep copyrighted material off their networks in order to be shielded from liability. That's partially case law, and partially due to a law passed the RIAA's behest -- 17 USC 512(a), which is part of the DMCA. |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| I don't agree...namely on the basis that for every precedent you might cite..I think there's another one..and judge..ready to overturn it.
The issues you cite seem to be centered on "technicalities" rather than on looking at the whole picture.
"Little johnny just HAPPENS to have all these files on this system that has NO OTHER practical use other than to allow people to share copyrighted works from" is a pretty weak argument at best IMHO and one that is just waiting to be tested. Saying otherwise is almost like saying you have a guy standing in a bank branch..mask on..gun under his coat..
but he hasn't actually been caught robbing the place yet.
Could he be convicted of bank robbery? Nope.
Questioned at length? You bet.
Which then goes to the heart of my argument in that the chances are good that the person DID download that song illegally themselves..hence..the reason why I think the two work hand in hand.
As for the ISP's..rules..regulations..and laws..are made to be changed. And I think what is potentially coming is aimed at changing that. Again..you have to go back to the fact that what the RIAA has done so far hasn't worked.
Do they just fold up their lawyers tables and go home?
Not on your life. They are going to look for targets and I think the next logical one is the isp's themselves.
At least to the extent of trying to say to them..and to a judge..they CAN make a bigger difference than they are and they are facilitating this...AND Profiting from this..and what has been tried hasn't worked so far.
I think that makes whatever case law and rules that now exist..ripe for change.
And, IMHO..is a reason why the isp's would want to try to further guard against it.
We'll see how it goes. But I think that explanation makes more sense than their WANTING to get caught up in this mess.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| said by Rick  :and to a judge..they CAN make a bigger difference than they are and they are facilitating this...AND Profiting from this.. Can you provide any evidence of how any ISP's have profited from peer to peer traffic at all? I'm thinking that if anything, they have to spend more for bandwidth than before, which would be a loss, not a profit.
cw |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to Rick
Your post reminded me of years ago when people would install Kazaa or Napster to download songs but never really paid attention to the fact that their entire music library was indexed and was being uploaded around the world.
I think claiming ignorance would be a tough sell these days, but there are plenty of clueless judges out there.
"Unauthorized access to a computer system" charges against the RIAA/MPAA would be an interesting case. Maybe if a DA somewhere gets whacked for little Johnny's movie downloads we'll see it some day. |
|
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Rick
said by Rick :First..the person offering it would have a hard time explaining what OTHER reason they would have had to have had the file there in the first place if it wasn't meant to be downloaded. ... Problem! You couldn't ask such a question in a court of law without first establishing something more basic. Namely, how do you know that the file itself actually infringes your copyright. If you reply that you entered P2P, downloaded the file, and in the process made it, or parts of it freely available for further download, you have actually torpedoed your very case. If YOU made it freely available for download, it is not a crime for someone to take you up on the offer, and actually get it.
This entire thread, is in a legal limbo. Unfortunately, abuse of process, with all it's associated legal costs, makes it difficult to stand up for your rights, and obtain justice. These criminals need to be "class-action-sued" for their abuse of legal process. This is no different than the Mafia demanding money in order to stop their own harassment.
Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| reply to Rick
said by Rick :"Little johnny just HAPPENS to have all these files on this system that has NO OTHER practical use other than to allow people to share copyrighted works from" is a pretty weak argument at best IMHO and one that is just waiting to be tested. It has been tested and it has held up. |
|
