how-to block ads
|
|  
jchambers28
join:2007-05-12
Alma, AR | Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. amen | |
| 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| said by n1zuk  :If there is no copyright notice on an .mp3, how would a 16 year old know?  Common sense?
Coming soon to a courtroom near you:
-But your honor, I didn't know it was against the law to speed.
-But your honor, I didn't know it was against the law to secretly take money from the company
-But your honor, I didn't know it was against the law to kill someone. | |
| | boltz
join:2000-12-06
Guelph, ON | Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. -But your honor, I didn't know the coffee was hot | |
| | | floydb_1982
join:2004-08-25
Kent, WA
 ·Clearwire Wireless
 ·Comcast
| Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. -But your honor I didn't know that seat belts are required by the law to be used at all times when driving on the road.
-But your honor I didn't know it was illegal to drive the wrong way and doge rush hour traffic on the freeway.
-But your honor I didn't know jaywalking was a crime.
-But your honor I had no idea stealing a purse was a crime.
-But your honor I didn't know that setting a tree on fire in the nation forest would start a forest wild fire.
-But your honor how was I to know that shaking a baby to death would kill it. | |
| | 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| You misunderstand the difference between law and someone's private copyright notice. With law, it is your responsibility to know it it. Ignorance is not a defense. With a copyright, you probably are not under the same obligation. It's probably like a trademark, it is the responsibility of the works owner to make sure other people know their work isn't free. It's probably the reason companies have to put the copyright notices onto products. In this case the RIAA failed to stop people from distributing their copyrighted works without a copyright attached. And they have decided to blame the lowest on the totem pole, the person furthest away from the original copyright notice, the people who didn't originally separate the work from the copyright notice. It would make sense that people who have never seen the copyright couldn't get punished beyond forfeiting the downloaded mp3s and any money earned or derived works. | |
| | | 
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
| Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. said by insomniac84 :You misunderstand the difference between law and someone's private copyright notice. With law, it is your responsibility to know it it. Ignorance is not a defense. With a copyright, you probably are not under the same obligation. It's probably like a trademark, it is the responsibility of the works owner to make sure other people know their work isn't free. It's probably the reason companies have to put the copyright notices onto products. In this case the RIAA failed to stop people from distributing their copyrighted works without a copyright attached. And they have decided to blame the lowest on the totem pole, the person furthest away from the original copyright notice, the people who didn't originally separate the work from the copyright notice. It would make sense that people who have never seen the copyright couldn't get punished beyond forfeiting the downloaded mp3s and any money earned or derived works. if she's in university right now, it's been a minimum 3 years since the "infringement" i remember having a car when the whole DCMA thing was around so it was atleast 2 years ago when it was put in place, i would start checking dates.
because if at the time it wasn't law then it falls onto the situation of how can i do a crime when it was legal when i did it. ? | |
| | | | CWO333
join:2005-02-24
Chicago, IL
 ·1and1
| Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. said by BonezX :because if at the time it wasn't law then it falls onto the situation of how can i do a crime when it was legal when i did it. ? And that falls into the protection you get from the United States Constitution here in the US. Its called an Ex Post Facto law. Basically stating that if it was legal when you did it, you can't be punished for it if it becomes illegal later as long as you stopped doing it when it became illegal. | |
| | | | | 
bhlonewolf_tom
@rr.com
| Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. said by CWO333 :said by BonezX :because if at the time it wasn't law then it falls onto the situation of how can i do a crime when it was legal when i did it. ? And that falls into the protection you get from the United States Constitution here in the US. Its called an Ex Post Facto law. Basically stating that if it was legal when you did it, you can't be punished for it if it becomes illegal later as long as you stopped doing it when it became illegal. But when was copyright violation ever _legal_??? Sorry, that's just silly. | |
| | | | | |
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
2 edits | Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. said by bhlonewolf_tom :said by CWO333 :said by BonezX :because if at the time it wasn't law then it falls onto the situation of how can i do a crime when it was legal when i did it. ? And that falls into the protection you get from the United States Constitution here in the US. Its called an Ex Post Facto law. Basically stating that if it was legal when you did it, you can't be punished for it if it becomes illegal later as long as you stopped doing it when it became illegal. But when was copyright violation ever _legal_??? Sorry, that's just silly. file trading was defined as copyright violation as per the DMCA draft, before then it was classified under fair use laws.
the DMCA was drafted into law in 1998. | |
| | | | | | | quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
| Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. said by qworster :SURE! Treat your customers like CRIMINALS-that will keep them buying your product!The RIAA couldn't buy a clue with a thousand dollar bill! Their criminal "customers" aren't buying products even now, and their "sharing" stops others from buying the products as well. Paying, law-abiding customers are left alone. Stop trying to make up excuses. | |
| | | | | 
stomp357
join:2003-04-13
Lake Charles, LA
·Suddenlink
| Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. said by quatrix :said by qworster :SURE! Treat your customers like CRIMINALS-that will keep them buying your product!The RIAA couldn't buy a clue with a thousand dollar bill! Their criminal "customers" aren't buying products even now, and their "sharing" stops others from buying the products as well. Paying, law-abiding customers are left alone. Stop trying to make up excuses. How did somebody posting .mp3s stop you from buying a CD? You couldn't help yourself, & downloaded it anyways? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | dentman42
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. I had quit buying CDs before Napster because I was sick of paying ridiculous prices for 1 or 2 good songs. Napster and the like made it possible for me to try out a CD before I bought it and as a result, I started buying the CDs that proved to be worthwhile. So file sharing had me buying dozens of CDs a year, up from 0 in 5+ years. Now I won't buy CDs from RIAA labels BECAUSE of their current attitude. So their sue-happy ways are LOSING them sales.
But it was never about sales. It's about the fact that artists no longer need to sell themselves into indentured servitude with the RIAA. The Internet and even CDR drives allow the artist to produce and distribute their own work, without the RIAA taking the lion's share of the proceeeds, and the Internet makes it possible for the artists to self-promote as well. | |
| | |
bhlonewolf_tom
@rr.com
| said by insomniac84 :You misunderstand the difference between law and someone's private copyright notice. With law, it is your responsibility to know it it. Ignorance is not a defense. With a copyright, you probably are not under the same obligation. It's probably like a trademark, it is the responsibility of the works owner to make sure other people know their work isn't free. It's probably the reason companies have to put the copyright notices onto products. In this case the RIAA failed to stop people from distributing their copyrighted works without a copyright attached. And they have decided to blame the lowest on the totem pole, the person furthest away from the original copyright notice, the people who didn't originally separate the work from the copyright notice. It would make sense that people who have never seen the copyright couldn't get punished beyond forfeiting the downloaded mp3s and any money earned or derived works. I agree that ignorance is not a defense, however, you do not need to display a copyright notice to be protected. It's often a good idea to do so, but the work is protected as soon as it is transcribed into a fixed medium, regardless of copyright registration and notice.
Having said that, common sense applies here, and if a case went to trial, it would likely impact the outcome. | |
| | 
BIGMIKE
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Westminster, CA
| said by cdru :said by n1zuk :If there is no copyright notice on an .mp3, how would a 16 year old know? Common sense? Coming soon to a courtroom near you: -But your honor, I didn't know it was against the law to speed. -But your honor, I didn't know it was against the law to secretly take money from the company -But your honor, I didn't know it was against the law to kill someone. dumblaws Blythe ca
You are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at least two cows. | |
| | Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| "Common sense?"
And as Albert Einstein noted, common sense tells us the world is flat. 
As for your other observations, each one is taught to any potential infringers long before they even have the opportunity to infringe. When you test for a driver's license, you're told not to speed. When you're hired by a company they teach you how to handle their money. The third example is learned through repeated, intensive exposure by the culture at large (family, religion, media, etc.).
As for downloading music, unless someone spends enough time immersed in a culture where such practices are discussed regularly, there are no explained rules as to what's legal and what's not and for many noobs, I can see justifiable confusion over where the line (if any) is drawn. | |
| | 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| said by cdru :Coming soon to a courtroom near you: -But your honor, I didn't know it was against the law to speed. This one would be tough because there are little reminders every 500 feet or so on some roads (US 20 in Western Mass comes to mind!). | |
| | 
badtrip
East Bay
Premium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA
·Unwired Ltd
·Comcast
| said by cdru :Common sense? You are assuming the average 16 year old has the same notion of "common sense" that an adult does. This is not true.
Let's pretend that we have an ignorant teenager, which in this case we surely do. Please note I am only using the term "ignorant" as defined, not a put down.
I'm sure an ignorant teen has difficulties telling the difference between methods of transmission of their favorite music. To a person that is largely ignorant of the recording companies methods of operation, a song download from KAZAA is basically the same as borrowing your friend's CD except for the benefits of being able to listen to and share the song however and whenever the ignorant teen pleases indefinitely. It is an enhancement, something that is good--not a illegality.
When I was a teen, I certainly couldn't afford to buy tapes or albums so I mostly taped friend's albums/tapes or got mix tapes from DJ friends, etc. A tape/album was a luxury, or something I had to wait for xmas for. An extremely small percentage of the music I "owned" was actually purchased by me or my parents. I guess in today's climate and definitions, what I did was illegal but I did not and still do not see any illegalities in what I did.
Further, on average, teens have a very limited concept of monetary value. I can see how a teenager could participate in filesharing and not fathom why anyone would think it is wrong. | |
|
grow_TFU
@charter.com
| said by n1zuk :"But I don't buy any CDs in the store. I get all my music free on the Internet." If there is no copyright notice on an .mp3, how would a 16 year old know? I think you're giving too much credit to today's youth. She really didn't know I bet. Don't forget, kids today are coddled and handed everything these days. They are not taught right from wrong much these days. Shoot first, ask questions later. That's the common attitude of today's youth. btw, I'm only 22, not some old geezer and that's how I see it. | |
| | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
1 edit | Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. said by grow_TFU :
I think you're giving too much credit to today's youth. She really didn't know I bet. Don't forget, kids today are coddled and handed everything these days. They are not taught right from wrong much these days. Shoot first, ask questions later. That's the common attitude of today's youth. btw, I'm only 22, not some old geezer and that's how I see it.
If you're 22, I'm 22. | |
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| the stupid thing is, if you compair what can legally happen to you. stealing a CD from Walmart will effect you less then downloading the same CD(even without uploading). yep thats right making a copy off someone is considered worse by the RIAA then Shoplifting.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| 
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA | If I were the judge I'd throw this out and sanction the defense attorney for even suggesting it.
With all the media, press, etc. abound regarding music sharing there's just NO WAY she didn't know it wasn't legal. | |
| | | |
|
·