 NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
2 edits | reply to Omega Re: sure it is!
said by Omega :Then the RIAA needs to prove that user uploaded the song to thousands of people. The RIAA only needs to prove two things:
•That their estimate of lost revenues is reasonable. •That running a P2P application allows others to download the works.
They may have to settle for a lower estimate of lost revenues, depending upon what the judge in that case decides is reasonable. But it is entirely reasonable to estimate how many uploaders downloaders there are based on metrics available in any BitTorrent client. And I can think of reasonable methods to develop such metrics for the P2P apps which don't have them built in.
-- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
 mlundin
join:2001-03-27 Lawrence, KS
·Sunflower Broadband
·Comcast
| said by NormanS :The RIAA only needs to prove two things: •That their estimate of lost revenues is reasonable. •That running a P2P application allows others to download the works. That depends on who's sitting on the jury. |
|
 NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by mlundin :said by NormanS :The RIAA only needs to prove two things: •That their estimate of lost revenues is reasonable. •That running a P2P application allows others to download the works. That depends on who's sitting on the jury. Ideally, that should only depend upon the facts of law. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
 Capharnaum
join:2006-06-19 Montreal, QC
| reply to NormanS said by NormanS :•That their estimate of lost revenues is reasonable. •That running a P2P application allows others to download the works. There hasn't been anything that has proven that filesharing incurs a loss of revenue. If it did, then radio would also incur a loss of revenue, since they're playing songs for free as well (but they're being paid as well by the music companies). As far as I know, radio is a promo way to raise revenues, so why wouldn't filesharing be the same?
As to estimates of files shared, wouldn't the RIAA have to estimate the availability of said file (time + bandwidth)? For exemple, couldn't I use for defense that I metered the time I was using the filesharing utility and the bandwidth used (some software utilities do this) and get a figure of how many songs I have really uploaded? In such case, if the number was small, couldn't I contend that it was fair use, and that the penalties are out of line?
Now I don't use the filesharing programs anymore, but back in the glory time of Napster, people were rarely downloading my songs despite the fact I was offering a fairly large selection (200 songs?). I would upload something like one song per night of usage (two times a week). |
|
 NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| You overtrimmed the quote. There is more context that you deliberately omitted.
said by Capharnaum :There hasn't been anything that has proven that filesharing incurs a loss of revenue. If it did, then radio would also incur a loss of revenue, since they're playing songs for free as well (but they're being paid as well by the music companies). As far as I know, radio is a promo way to raise revenues, so why wouldn't filesharing be the same? Commercial radio makes money off of the advertising, not off of anything paid them by the RIAA. In fact, they pay the RIAA for distribution rights.
As to estimates of files shared, wouldn't the RIAA have to estimate the availability of said file (time + bandwidth)? For exemple, couldn't I use for defense that I metered the time I was using the filesharing utility and the bandwidth used (some software utilities do this) and get a figure of how many songs I have really uploaded? In such case, if the number was small, couldn't I contend that it was fair use, and that the penalties are out of line? No defense. You did not have permission to distribute the work, therefore your distribution of the work is a violation of the copyright. All that is left to hash out is the degree of damage done by the unauthorized download.
AFAIK, they need some kind of provable metric to estimate the number of people who downloaded from you. I don't know how I would go about it. Could be that the RIAA will be in the position of Shylock from "The Merchant of Venice" (I think), who was told by the judge that he could have his pound of flesh if he can get it without drawing a drop of blood.
Now I don't use the filesharing programs anymore, but back in the glory time of Napster, people were rarely downloading my songs despite the fact I was offering a fairly large selection (200 songs?). I would upload something like one song per night of usage (two times a week). Probably not as many HSI connections then as now. Or, maybe the stuff wasn't worth the effort. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
 flotknot Premium join:2004-05-29 Calgary, AB 1 edit | reply to NormanS What if these 'facts of law' are fascist, unreasonable, and written by bastards?
Read up on why the jury system exists, dumbass. |
|
 flotknot Premium join:2004-05-29 Calgary, AB
1 edit | reply to NormanS said by NormanS :You overtrimmed the quote. There is more context that you deliberately omitted. said by Capharnaum : Commercial radio makes money off of the advertising, not off of anything paid them by the RIAA. In fact, they pay the RIAA for distribution rights. Are you joking? If not, you are 100% wrong, at least in N.America. 'In fact', not only do the stations not pay the record companies, some record companies pay the stations. i think you are getting confused with the payments to BMI/axcap. No defense. You did not have permission to distribute the work, therefore your distribution of the work is a violation of the copyright. Are you a copyright lawyer? Didn't think so. Maybe you should tone down your black and white know-it-all replies. They leave little room for actual discussion.
All that is left to hash out is the degree of damage done by the unauthorized download. Really? Wow. so its all the legal rangling has been settled then.
AFAIK, they need some kind of provable metric to estimate the number of people who downloaded from you. I don't know how I would go about it. Could be that the RIAA will be in the position of Shylock from "The Merchant of Venice" (I think), who was told by the judge that he could have his pound of flesh if he can get it without drawing a drop of blood.
Great quote! lets not forget the other one: he who has the gold makes the rules. |
|
 NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA | reply to flotknot "dumbass"...
I am done with you. "PLONK". |
|