BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
2 edits | reply to bhlonewolf_tom
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. |
|
dentman42
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to qworster
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
| reply to CWO333
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. |
|
bhlonewolf_tom
@rr.com
| reply to insomniac84
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. |
|
CWO333
join:2005-02-24
Chicago, IL
 ·1and1
| reply to BonezX
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. |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Vonage
4 edits | reply to quatrix
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. The FACT is, file sharers buy MORE MUSIC then non file sharers!
This has been proven over and over again by so many different studies, that NOBODY but the RIAA (and obviously you) doubt it's true!
»www.guardian.co.uk/technology/20···business
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2347/125/
»news.cnet.com/2100-1023-898813.html
»www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy···=printer
»www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_···1bd1f176
»news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4718249.stm
»www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/···cyberia/
»hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4206.html
»strom.com/awards/287.html
»www.technewsworld.com/story/3454···18435313
»arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20···813.html
»tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/20···c-sales/
»www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ippd-dppi···7_en.pdf
»www.p2punite.org/?q=node/198
»www.lockergnome.com/oztech/2008/···m-sales/
»www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/30···t_cause/
»torrentfreak.com/50cent-file-sha···-071208/
There are hundreds more....
But next time I won't confuse you with FACTS...I understand that you only have a small processor and very little RAM space... |
|
stomp357
join:2003-04-13
Lake Charles, LA
·Suddenlink
| reply to quatrix
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? |
|
quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
| reply to qworster
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. |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
| reply to insomniac84
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. 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! |
|
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
| reply to insomniac84
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. ? |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| reply to cdru
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. |
|
