 The BeerI Love It When A Plan Comes TogetherPremium
join:2001-07-24
Atlantic, IA | Ok and now the rest of the story... Other articles on other sites have suggested it's a moot point because...
The burden of proof that she shared the songs is on the RIAA.
Since the RIAA downloaded, in their entirety, the 24 songs in question they proved there was distribution.
So the songs were available, and someone downloaded them, they can prove that.
Article seems a little slanted, note I am not on the side of the RIAA however seems rather open and shut to me. |
|
| RIAA is authorized to download the files. They have to prove that unauthorized people downloaded. That is very different animal. |
|
 elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | reply to The Beer
its also been proved the RIAA cant infringe on it self
they have to prove a 3rd party downloaded them
good luck with that |
|
| said by elios:its also been proved the RIAA cant infringe on it self they have to prove a 3rd party downloaded them good luck with that Hence their non-stop lobbying efforts to get ISPs to monitor users internet access.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | said by fAcEtIOUs:said by elios:its also been proved the RIAA cant infringe on it self they have to prove a 3rd party downloaded them good luck with that Hence their non-stop lobbying efforts to get ISPs to monitor users internet access. and that wont happen unless ISP's lose there common carrier get out lawsuit free cards
and even if they did good luck with any thing encrypted
or even rar/zipped
what are they going to do outlaw HTTPS, winrar and winzip? |
|
1 edit | reply to elios
This isnt even a gray area. The individual is guilty of distributing the files whether they can prove someone other than themself could get them. You know this, I know this, the RIAA knows this, and the courts should confirm it.
If you have the files shared, then your intent is for them to be downloaded. All of you "downloaders" will come here to argue your pathetic case because you want the courts to protect you from your illegal activities. |
|
| said by Skippy25:This isnt even a gray area. The individual is guilty of distributing the files whether they can prove someone other than themself could get them. You know this, I know this, the RIAA knows this, and the courts should confirm it. If you have the files shared, then your intent is for them to be downloaded. All of you "downloaders" will come here to argue your pathetic case because you want the courts to protect you from your illegal activities. I agree with you that music thieves deserve what they get. But here is the fly in the ointment if the judge chooses the position that a UNAUTHORIZED DOWNLOAD has to take place. The word UNAUTHORIZED is the key because an authorized agent of the RIAA like Media Sentry who does the download would be an AUTHORIZED download and not an UNAUTHORIZED one.
»www.news.com/8301-13578_3-994564···1_3-0-20
The court agrees with the great weight of authority that Sec. 106(3) is not violated unless the defendant has actually distributed an unauthorized copy of the work to a member of the public.
Unless a copy of the work changes hands in one of the designated ways, a "distribution" under Sec. 106(3) has not taken place. Merely making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work available to the public does not violate a copyright holder's exclusive right of distribution.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
|
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
2 edits | reply to Skippy25
the courts seem to think other wise
the fact this is being re-tried and another suit the RIAA filed lost becouse they couldnt prove any one downloaded any thing say other wise
never mind that the MPAA and RIAA havent produced any thing worth spending money wasting bandwidth on in the last 10-15 years
and that there are totally legal uses for P2P
or that you can have false positives read that other RIAA case there the single mother was said to have shared files but never did
or that in the US court system the burden of proof is on the Plaintiff not the Defendant
lets just toss that all out the window but mega corps are ALWAYS RIGHT , right? |
|
 PixelFreakInnocent Until Proven Guilty
join:2001-02-21
Bremerton, WA | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:This isnt even a gray area. The individual is guilty of distributing the files whether they can prove someone other than themself could get them. You know this, I know this, the RIAA knows this, and the courts should confirm it. If you have the files shared, then your intent is for them to be downloaded. All of you "downloaders" will come here to argue your pathetic case because you want the courts to protect you from your illegal activities. Wow, I can't even begin to tell you how wrong these statements are without taking up a full page here, which I will not.
I am so glad this guy is not on the jury anywhere since he refuses to follow the letter of the law himself. INTENT to distribute is not against the law, just like most other intentions (unless specifically noted in the statue, such as Possession of Marijuana with intent to distribute). The reason for such a strict writing of the statute is because usually Americans can not be held liable/guilty for thoughts, or intentions. We are only liable for acts (again, unless specifically authorized like the MJ example above).
Tell me you've never thought about busting up your neighbor's car when he plays his music way too loud at night and has his party buddies pissing in your lawn at three in the morning? But, you refrain from actually destroying his car (or face for that matter) and protect yourself from going to jail. Under the OP's belief, you should be convicted because you intended to do it, but it just never happened.
Wow...
--
Music in the soul can be heard by the universe. - Lao Tsu |
|
| reply to jjeffeory
Re: Ok and now the rest of the story... said by jjeffeory:RIAA is authorized to download the files. They have to prove that unauthorized people downloaded. That is very different animal. I was thinking the same thing. I couldn't sue my neighbor for giving my shovel away, if it was me he gave it to.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/Seagate 750.10/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler |
|
2 edits | reply to Skippy25
LOL.
You can NOT use intent here, skippy. There are so many people who have troubles starting a computer and logging in properly. You be hard press convincing me they would know if a program is setting up a share for them to distribute "illegal" files. There is plenty of wiggle room in that argument!
As far as the real illegal downloaders... Their punishment should fit the "crime"... No more, no less... |
|
| reply to PixelFreak
Intent to distribute is a violation of many laws. Your intent to murder someone, your intent to distribute drugs, your intent to molest a child...... etc. Bottom line is that your intent in many things is punishable and it should be in this case. Whether or not you actually did it is moot. The fact that 1, you more then likely stole the file to begin with and 2 the fact that you had it there for others to obtain illegally is enough.
You can continue to skirt the issue all you want, but regardless an illegal act is intended without question. You know it and I know it. |
|
| reply to jjeffeory
Show me where ignorance is an acceptable form of a innocence plea? If it was every dumbass in the world would claim they didnt know better for every crime ever committed. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
I would agree, but the case should simply be whether or not they are making files available for unauthorized distribution. The fact that an authorized person can obtain them without first having to contact the user (distributor) to show they have authorization shows perfectly clear that anyone and everyone that wants to can gain access to them unauthorized or not by the IRAA. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to elios
said by elios:and that wont happen unless ISP's lose there common carrier get out lawsuit free cards What give the ISPs this "common carrier" status? And what, exactly, does "common carrier" mean, anyway?
»www.davros.org/legal/carriers.html
»www.cybertelecom.org/notes/commo···rier.htm
I am trying to comprehend how common carrier status actually applies to ISPs. Oh, and there is this:
quote:
Refusal to Carry: Illegal Purpose
Common carriers have an obligation to provide service to any and all comers, except where service is clearly being used for illegal purposes.
And this...
quote:
The term “telecommunications carrier”—
(C) does not include—
(i) persons or entities insofar as they are engaged in providing information services;
It is also not clear to me that a service, or entity classified as a common carrier, can lose its common carrier status. Apparently, it either is a common carrier, by virtue of the services it provides, or it is not.
Perhaps the barracks lawyers should step off of their soap boxes for a moment, and do some research. Time for bed, so I will read more from these two, and other, links later.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
six9
join:2001-12-03
Atlanta, GA | reply to Skippy25
Hasn't someone used the ignorance angle successfully already? I'm thinking of the old argument of leaving your wireless access point unsecured or not securing it to begin with as an out against these organizations.
I have mine secured because I don't want some scumbag trading child pr0n on my network. But then I think of the thousands of Linksys routers that are named Linksys and are wide open. If I was a heavy trader, I would use that technique now, tomorrow, and forever.
And I've seen that happen before. One night in a bar, some guy with his laptop had a P2P, usenet or torrent app open and was downloading tons of stuff on the restaurant network. It was rather amazing to me as I had never thought about doing that before. |
|
PixelFreakInnocent Until Proven Guilty
join:2001-02-21
Bremerton, WA | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:Intent to distribute is a violation of many laws. Your intent to murder someone, your intent to distribute drugs, your intent to molest a child...... etc. Bottom line is that your intent in many things is punishable and it should be in this case. Whether or not you actually did it is moot. The fact that 1, you more then likely stole the file to begin with and 2 the fact that you had it there for others to obtain illegally is enough. You can continue to skirt the issue all you want, but regardless an illegal act is intended without question. You know it and I know it. I can't being to tell you how hard I am laughing at this argument. Intent is only part of the analysis if the crime is actually completed. It's an element of the CRIME, but id you don't actually COMMIT the crime, your intent is not punishable. Sheesh.
For you to understand, it's the basic legal principle of ACTUS REUS (the act) and MENS REA (the culpable mental state).
Actus Reus and Mens Rea
Honestly, you act like I came up with these principles so that you can simply discard them for the sake of your argument, but you are wrong - so stinking wrong - it's hilarious. Read those two links, understand them, breathe them in, and then come back here and continue to argue your position about intent being the overall issue at trial without any completed act and I will continue to laugh some more at you. Please, go ahead...
--
Music in the soul can be heard by the universe. - Lao Tsu |
|
