karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| Goes to show you
the fact that he never UPLOADED anything is going to shoot a BIG hole in their entire argument. If he never uploaded, then they sure as hell didn't get any evidence that he was distributing, but the more serious question arises.
If they try to nail him for DOWNLOADING, then the only WAY they could prove he downloaded would be to provide the file themselves, thus shooting themselves in the foot.
They are going to drop this case like a bas case of the clap. They can't win, and they sure as hell don't want to set a precedent, or have their tactics called into question, which they should have.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Yahoo
| said by karlmarx  :They are going to drop this case like a bas case of the clap. They can't win, and they sure as hell don't want to set a precedent, or have their tactics called into question, which they should have. If I were the defendant and that happened, I would ask the
court that it be dismissed with prejudice. That way the RIAA
would be on the hook for any legal fees incurred.
But given the history of the RIAA, they would no doubt try to
weasel their way out of any requirement to pay the defendant,
as they've done quite a few times before.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
|
|
RedXII1234
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-26
localhost
Host:
/dev/null
Broadband Tweaks
ISDN
Fiber Optic
AOL Broadband
edit:
July 15th, @07:30PM
| reply to karlmarx
The MAFIAA shouldn't be any more immune to distributing copyrighted material that isn't supposed to be distributed for free than any other person, even to catch people. They themselves are guilty.
And they should have no right to sue for fake files. After all, they are FAKE files. Unfortunately most lawyers, people in the jury, etc are probably not tech savvy and probably like "OH it says '$movie' in the filename, so it must automagically be $movie!" |
|
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·WOW Internet and C..
·Comcast
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx :If they try to nail him for DOWNLOADING, then the only WAY they could prove he downloaded would be to provide the file themselves, thus shooting themselves in the foot. I don't get what you're trying to say here. Can you please clarify? Why would they be shooting themselves in the foot? |
|
JammerMan79
Premium,VIP
join:2004-05-13
Prince George, BC
edit:
July 15th, @07:47PM
| said by Goober :said by karlmarx :If they try to nail him for DOWNLOADING, then the only WAY they could prove he downloaded would be to provide the file themselves, thus shooting themselves in the foot. I don't get what you're trying to say here. Can you please clarify? Why would they be shooting themselves in the foot? If I own the rights to something, or work for a company that does. And I give, or the company gives through me, you the ability to download it. Doesn't that mean it's an authorized download?
--
I may work for, but do not necessarily represent the views and beliefs of TELUS Communications. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to RedXII1234
said by RedXII1234 :"OH it says '$movie' in the filename, so it must automagically be $movie!" Too much Perl there buddy. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to Goober
It's exactly as Jammer said. If they are PROVIDING the file, then, by legal definition, it is an AUTHORIZED download. Say that MediaSentry posted a DVD-Rip of Indiana Jones 4. There are 2 possiblities for that.
Option #1: It's a fake file. Thus, even if I downloaded it, you can't prosecute me, cause I haven't broken the law.
Option #2: It's the REAL file. And you are providing it, thus, YOU are authorizing me to download it, ergo, I haven't broken the law, because an authorized distribution was made.
They can't ever win trying to prosecute a downloaded. And, as this case shows, they can't win trying to provide an UPLOADER, either, UNLESS they get the ENTIRE FILE from a SINGLE PERSON. Period. 99% of a RAR file is just garbage, it takes 100% to have an 'unauthorized copyrighted work' to be exchanged. AND, if they don't download 100% from a SINGLE USER, then that user did NOT provide a copyrighted file.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·WOW Internet and C..
·Comcast
| reply to RedXII1234
said by RedXII1234 :The MAFIAA shouldn't be any more immune to distributing copyrighted material that isn't supposed to be distributed for free than any other person, even to catch people. They themselves are guilty. And they should have no right to sue for fake files. After all, they are FAKE files. Unfortunately most lawyers, people in the jury, etc are probably not tech savvy and probably like "OH it says '$movie' in the filename, so it must automagically be $movie!" I'd say I'm pretty tech savvy and I disagree with your position. |
|
JammerMan79
Premium,VIP
join:2004-05-13
Prince George, BC | why? |
|
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·WOW Internet and C..
·Comcast
| The xxAA is of course likely authorized by the copyright holder to distribute the materials as necessary to enforce the copyright holders rights.
Copyrights are copyrights. Fake files or real files, a downloader, if not authorized to download files created by a copyright holder, is infringing the copyright holder's copyright. Fake file or not. The obvious caveat is that the downloader shouldn't be guilty of downloading a movie that has been renamed as a linux distribution or something that is public domain or open source, etc. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to karlmarx
however the RIAA by providing those downloads is by default saying its a free download.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to Goober
No, fake = fake. A fake file by any measure used, is NOT copyright infringement. How can you accuse someone of copyright infringement if NO INFRINGEMENT occurred.
Now, if it's a REAL file, and they are authorized to distribute it, well, then, it's not copyright infringement, because by definition it's an AUTHORIZED download.
The only thing the MAFIAA does is look at the NAMES of files being shared, and make up accusations without ever getting proof. That, is called EXTORTION.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Are you still wading in the muddy water and not able to see the difference between right and wrong?
Simple truth is, if you download a file that you did not pay for and you are unable to validate that it is being offered for free by the owner, then you have violated the rights of the owner. The burden is on you to find out if it is legally offered. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't download it.
Simple truth is, if you upload or make available for download a file that you know you do not have rights to distribute you have violated the rights of the owner.
In both cases you should be punished and forced to pay restitution to the owner. |
|
DownWitNorseFire
@startek.com
| reply to RedXII1234
The elites and the lobbyists can pay our "leaders" billions of dollars to amend copyright laws in their favour at a whim, and yet here we are arguing over the intricacies of uploading vs. downloading. These laws, consequently, are no more valid to us than the Divine Right of Kings or Taxation Without Representation. It's like an oil company who commits human rights abuses, engages in ecologically unsound practices, and violates labour laws while doing business in a third world country and then insisting on being compensated when the government seizes their land (And even Hugo Chavez engages in this very basic level of corporate welfare.). |
|
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·WOW Internet and C..
·Comcast
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx :No, fake = fake. A fake file by any measure used, is NOT copyright infringement. How can you accuse someone of copyright infringement if NO INFRINGEMENT occurred. Now, if it's a REAL file, and they are authorized to distribute it, well, then, it's not copyright infringement, because by definition it's an AUTHORIZED download. The only thing the MAFIAA does is look at the NAMES of files being shared, and make up accusations without ever getting proof. That, is called EXTORTION. You are so wrong on so many levels, I don't think I can adequately address everything. You need to look at the copyright statutes a little more closely.
But on a very basic level just because I place something in a share folder on my machine, doesn't give you, the downloader, the right to copy it on to your machine. As the copyright holder or its authorized agent, I can (with a few exceptions) do what I want with my copyrighted materials. You, however, cannot. |
|
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·WOW Internet and C..
·Comcast
| reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd :however the RIAA by providing those downloads is by default saying its a free download. That's not true. They placed the items in their share folders. But, they didn't authorize you to download them. |
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| reply to Goober
I suspect the argument being made is, by simply placing a file in a folder which exists solely to contain material intended to be shared, there's implied consent on its distribution. If the copyright holder knowingly places a file on a network that anyone using same can easily use to gain access to that file (without hacking or using a non-approved way to gain access), then I further suspect that their claims of infringement would be harder to prove. |
|
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·WOW Internet and C..
·Comcast
| I think you're right. Implied consent certainly would be the argument.
On the other hand, is that enough? If I know that I'm performing an act that is illegal, does it matter that implied consent was given?
I kind of look at this as busting Johns that frequent prostitutes. If an undercover cop is out there in prostitute garb, I doubt that provides implied consent to the John to have sex for money. It's the John's choice to take that next step.
At least one difference here, I suppose, is that the xxAA isn't a government body. I don't know how that plays into the equation, if at all. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| I'm still wondering about the intricacies of suing for downloading. I would think the RIAA would have to prove the copyright holder never offered the material in any way (promotional use or otherwise) in order to have an iron clad case. If that's the case then shouldn't the onus be on the original uploader?
What if the music file was recorded from a radio broadcast where royalties are already paid out for this sort of thing? What if the file was never downloaded but simply burned from a copy the user already has (and it was in the same folder as suspected downloaded content)? What about situations where the user did own a hard copy, but it was damaged so they downloaded a digital copy (I recall and RIAA spokesman saying they have no issues with that)?
It looks like the music industry would be opening up a whole new can of worms trying to fight on this front. |
|
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·WOW Internet and C..
·Comcast
| said by SRFireside :I'm still wondering about the intricacies of suing for downloading. I would think the RIAA would have to prove the copyright holder never offered the material in any way (promotional use or otherwise) in order to have an iron clad case. If that's the case then shouldn't the onus be on the original uploader? The onus is (or should be) on the person alleging the infringement. A signed statement from the copyright holder attesting to the fact that the copyrighted material was never offered freely is typically enough. It would then be up to the downloader to rebut that.
What if the music file was recorded from a radio broadcast where royalties are already paid out for this sort of thing? What if the file was never downloaded but simply burned from a copy the user already has (and it was in the same folder as suspected downloaded content)? What about situations where the user did own a hard copy, but it was damaged so they downloaded a digital copy (I recall and RIAA spokesman saying they have no issues with that)?
It looks like the music industry would be opening up a whole new can of worms trying to fight on this front.
Just because the radio station already paid royalties for playing the music, doesn't mean that the listener has the legal right to copy the music. In the past, I don't think it mattered, since off air recordings were not of very high quality and their was no mass-distribution system that would impair the copyright owner's ability to profit off the work. With the internet and digital music, that has changed. That being said, I still don't think it makes much commercial sense to go after a downloader, when it's the uploaders that cause much more harm to copyright holders' interests.
If the downloader can show that he holds an authorized copy of the copyrighted work, then I think there would be little the xxAA could do. It's not worth the effort to fight the fair use arguments etc. that would be made.
I don't think it necessarily opens up a can of worms. I think it would be a fairly easy to prove up infringement. But, it makes no commercial sense really and potentially may have pitfalls. Outcome of litigation is hardly ever certain. |
|
