how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
226 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
dardin
join:2002-11-19
Tucson, AZ
| I'd love to see a case where I'd love to see a case where the RIAA tries to sue someone for sharing out music and it turns out that the person owned the music they were sharing. They have all the CD's with receipts of purchase prior to the date accused of sharing the music. Then the person counter sues the RIAA for harrassment.
RIAA is trying prove that file sharing is decreasing the sales in music. The reality is the RIAA treatment of the consumers that is causing people like myself to buy less CD's out of spite.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-24 20:32:03] | |
|  | | Re: I'd love to see a case where I could still nail you for sharing files that you own. Just because you own them doesn't give you the right to freely distribute them wherever you want.
However, it does give you the right to freely download the files (why again would someone do that)?
The big issue here is that soon ISPs will essentially carry the burden of being the police of the Internet; this is expensive for them and absolutely devastating to end-users.
Even for those users who have never done anything illegal on the Internet, this should be alarming. Privacy is the right to do things without undue intrusion; this is an example of such intrusion.
--
( `( ¯`( ¯`·._ Death Ring _.·´ ¯ )´ ¯ )´ ) - Visit Deathring.us for Drinking Games, Mixed Drinks, Hot-Or-Not, Girls, Games, Cheats, Hacks, Topsites, and AIM Utilities. | |
|  saber11Check SixPremium
join:2000-06-09
Clayton, OH
| said by dardin:
I'd love to see a case where the RIAA tries to sue someone for sharing out music and it turns out that the person owned the music they were sharing. They have all the CD's with receipts of purchase prior to the date accused of sharing the music. Then the person counter sues the RIAA for harrassment.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-24 20:32:03]
That wouldn't work. Mainly because in the copywrite on a CD it says may not be reproduced and only for private personal use (or sssome wording to that effect) So sharing music is illegal (according to RIAA)
Now I think Verizon will appeal again, this case needs to go to the US Supreme court to be decided. It is charting new legal ground, and unless the supreme court rules other ISP's or businesses will have to fight the same legal battles.
Here is where I think RIAA's case is flawed. RIAA is not a government agency, it's not the FBI, it alone does not have the power to investigate, prosecute and arrest people. 4th ammendment rights give people protection from unlawfull search and seizure. By providing names to an organisation that is not a court or police agenency would (IMHO) equate to an unlawfull search. In fact, let's take it a step further, I say it is violation for RIAA to search people who are sharing files hard drives, as it is a warentless search and not carried out under court order by a police agency.
I would like to see someone sue the RIAA for searching hard drives, as that would equate to hacking, and because they have no search warrent or police powers.
--
"The risk of doing nothing, the risk of hoping that Saddam Hussein changes his mind and becomes a gentle soul, the risk that somehow inaction will make the world safer, is a risk I'm not willing to take for the American people." — President Bush 3/7/03 | |
| | RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | Re: I'd love to see a case where said by saber11:
.....
I would like to see someone sue the RIAA for searching hard drives, as that would equate to hacking, and because they have no search warrent or police powers.
...
I understand that they claim to have followed a file sharing program to the IP and that is what they are going after.
Kind of dubious law I think since in one respect it is like looking in an open bay window from the street and watching someone sell drugs, and putting a camera in the house to do the same thing without a warrant. We shall see if Georgie follows Billy's lead and goes for the RIAA payoff in the long haul.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| |  ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | said by saber11:
said by dardin:
Here is where I think RIAA's case is flawed. RIAA is not a government agency, it's not the FBI, it alone does not have the power to investigate, prosecute and arrest people. 4th ammendment rights give people protection from unlawfull search and seizure. By providing names to an organisation that is not a court or police agenency would (IMHO) equate to an unlawfull search. In fact, let's take it a step further, I say it is violation for RIAA to search people who are sharing files hard drives, as it is a warentless search and not carried out under court order by a police agency.
I'm not a lawyer, but damn if Law and Order isn't good enough.. 
The 4th Amendment (and actually the whole Constitution) regulates what the goverment can and can't do, not what private citizens (or in this case, private organizations) can do.
Unfortunately (and I say that because I hate them), the RIAA has not only the right but the obligation to protect/defend their Copyrights, else they lose them. That is why they sued Verizon to stop violations (in their eyes).
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp | |
| | | | The 4th amendment works something like that... Well, up until Bush Jr gave it a lobotomy. Now the government can pretty much do whatever they want. They can search your house and never even tell you about it. Scary. | |
| | BeeperPart Of The Problem
join:2001-09-27
Dayton, OH | said by saber11:
4th amendment rights give people protection from unlawful search and seizure.
No, it does not.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
--
Guaranteed Fear and Loathing. Abandon all hope. Prepare for the Weirdness. Get familiar with Cannibalism. | |
| | | saber11Check SixPremium
join:2000-06-09
Clayton, OH | Re: I'd love to see a case where said by Beeper:
said by saber11:
4th amendment rights give people protection from unlawful search and seizure.
No, it does not.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I stand corrected.
--
"The risk of doing nothing, the risk of hoping that Saddam Hussein changes his mind and becomes a gentle soul, the risk that somehow inaction will make the world safer, is a risk I'm not willing to take for the American people." — President Bush 3/7/03 | |
| | | | | | Re: I'd love to see a case where Semantics. Considering search warrants are issued and many cases define what is "reasonable" and "probable cause" it is a valid statement to say we are protected against unlawful searches and seizures, much of which has also been codified, especially with the Patriot Act. While the Constitution may say unreasonable, it still remains that the Constitution is basically what the Supreme Courts says it is. | |
|
| | | | True, but that's where it gets a little tricky. What's unlawful? All people have to do nowadays is say... he is in on a terrorist act. And BOOM. | |
| | | | BeeperPart Of The Problem
join:2001-09-27
Dayton, OH | Re: I'd love to see a case where said by gefflong:
True, but that's where it gets a little tricky. What's unlawful? All people have to do nowadays is say... he is in on a terrorist act. And BOOM.
Unlawful is not the problem.
Unreasonable is the problem.
What is unreasonable?
That's the rub between privacy advocates and law enforcement.
--
Guaranteed Fear and Loathing. Abandon all hope. Prepare for the Weirdness. Get familiar with Cannibalism. | |
|
| | | said by saber11:
I say it is violation for RIAA to search people who are sharing files hard drives, as it is a warentless search and not carried out under court order by a police agency.
I would like to see someone sue the RIAA for searching hard drives, as that would equate to hacking, and because they have no search warrent or police powers.
Sorry, but if someone is sharing files on their hard drives as you state, then that means they have put their hard drives into the public domain, and that they have given up their right to privacy or expectation of privacy for all material in that public drive or directory! There is no requirement for a search warrant or anything else when looking in the public domain! As for conducting an activity inside your house that might be illegal, but which is clearly visible from outside the house on a public street; no search warrant is needed to use that evidence. Now to obtain additional information based on the information obtained from the public right of way, then yes, a search warrant would be needed. | |
|
| said by dardin:
I'd love to see a case where the RIAA tries to sue someone for sharing out music and it turns out that the person owned the music they were sharing. They have all the CD's with receipts of purchase prior to the date accused of sharing the music. Then the person counter sues the RIAA for harrassment.
RIAA is trying prove that file sharing is decreasing the sales in music. The reality is the RIAA treatment of the consumers that is causing people like myself to buy less CD's out of spite.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-24 20:32:03]
also like i said, how can they ever prove that anyone downloaded an mp3? don't we all use our hard drives as backups? i know i do, because, we all lose cd's. they get left in the sun, stolen out of cars, and all the other things that happen to them how do they get around that? | |
| | | Personally, I buy fewer CD's now because most of the "so-called" music they put out is terrible... IMHO. | |
| | mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA | Re: I'd love to see a case where One good song per CD if you are lucky.. the rest is just filler. | |
|
| |
|
