Members gatorwing Posted July 9, 2007 Members Share Posted July 9, 2007 Interesting story: http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=200900640 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members les_rokr Posted July 9, 2007 Members Share Posted July 9, 2007 interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jbutler1982 Posted July 9, 2007 Members Share Posted July 9, 2007 How in the world would you mitigate your damages in a downloaded music context? Then this Gem: He said the $115 million covers any and all injuries resulting from file-sharing on the network, and the plaintiffs are barred for recovering damages twice for the same alleged infringements. There is no way this is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RobRoy Posted July 9, 2007 Members Share Posted July 9, 2007 This sort of thing is cropping up more and more. Looks like these lawsuits are finally going to end. Their only strength is that people pay the $4,500 "extortion" and don't actually force the record company to make a case. I hit a pedestrian a year ago in a case where he was obviously 100% at fault. He still tried to shake down my insurance company, but because the case was so open and shut their response ended with, and I quote: If you should decide to sue Mr ____, pleas send us a courtesy copy as we will be handling his defense." You try to intimidate people to go for a lesser amount rather than the risk of court and grossly larger amounts. This lady aint buyin'. If the RIAA has to actually take a significant number of these to court, they will stop doing it. It has been a tremendous profit center so far. That's ending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RobRoy Posted July 9, 2007 Members Share Posted July 9, 2007 How in the world would you mitigate your damages in a downloaded music context? Then this Gem:He said the $115 million covers any and all injuries resulting from file-sharing on the network, and the plaintiffs are barred for recovering damages twice for the same alleged infringements.There is no way this is true. Actually, it is two things. I don't know about the dollar amount, but the last part I would tend to agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jbutler1982 Posted July 10, 2007 Members Share Posted July 10, 2007 It is two separate and distinct claims. The woman is committing copyright infringement. KaZaa comitted something called copyright "inducement". Two suits, two separate sets of damages. Further, there is no way the record companies would agree for the settlement to have legal force for third parties. Not for $115 million. I'm not sure what you mean by "it is two things". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Scafeets Posted July 10, 2007 Members Share Posted July 10, 2007 File this under "bringing the weakest {censored} to the strongest people." Unless there's some obscure law in Texas that prohibits companies from hiring agents and researchers, I don't see any way she can win her claim. It's like saying that Lo-Jack would infringe on the constitutional rights of some asshole to steal my car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RobRoy Posted July 10, 2007 Members Share Posted July 10, 2007 File this under "bringing the weakest {censored} to the strongest people."Unless there's some obscure law in Texas that prohibits companies from hiring agents and researchers, I don't see any way she can win her claim. It's like saying that Lo-Jack would infringe on the constitutional rights of some asshole to steal my car. I think a better analogy would be if you lived in a state where it is illegal to record telephone conversations without the permission of both parties, yet here they got the permission of only one. It's not about the crime that was committed (which is all about obeying arbitrary rules). It is about the rules of engagement/investigation once one has suspected a crime has been committed (which is all about a completely different set of arbitrary rules). Literally, it is all a game. And some rules are amazingly arbitrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Scafeets Posted July 10, 2007 Members Share Posted July 10, 2007 I think a better analogy would be if you lived in a state where it is illegal to record telephone conversations without the permission of both parties, yet here they got the permission of only one. It's not about the crime that was committed (which is all about obeying arbitrary rules). It is about the rules of engagement/investigation once one has suspected a crime has been committed (which is all about a completely different set of arbitrary rules).Literally, it is all a game. And some rules are amazingly arbitrary. Like it or not, copyright infringement isn't an arbitrary rule. It's a federal crime. As I understand it, the defendant changed from claiming she did not infringe to the bogus "illegal search" and "emotional distress" claim after they showed her screen shots (positive proof or illegal snooping?)of her downloading on KaZaA. Since KaZaA already settled and admitted wrongdoing, this appears to be a case only a desperate ambulance-chaser would pursue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gtrjones Posted July 10, 2007 Members Share Posted July 10, 2007 1 - They showed that she had an account with Kazaa, not that she downloaded anything. 2 - If you're doing private investigations within the State of Texas, or on citizens of the State of Texas, that firm, or individual doing the investigation must be licensed by the State. Not licensed, equals illegal search. 3 - The fact that all the other stuff was tossed-in makes me think the 'illegal search' part is as tenuous as the 'they already got paid' part, and this gal's attorney is trying to hit them with as many things as he can come up with because her case isn't very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fetishfrog Posted July 10, 2007 Members Share Posted July 10, 2007 All of the artists whose music she stole should sue her claiming emotional distress and economic hardship on account of her blantant disregard for federal law. It's amazing what people feel they are entitled to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RobRoy Posted July 10, 2007 Members Share Posted July 10, 2007 You miss my point, which is, federal crimes are when you break rules, many of which are abritrary. And she is attemting to get off on a technicality, just as they got her on a technicality. It is a game. If it weren't, they would not be trying to let her skate for $4,500. She would be seeing jail time. But even then it is a game. And if she has a "get out of jail free" card, this would be only a minor blip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RobRoy Posted July 10, 2007 Members Share Posted July 10, 2007 All of the artists whose music she stole should sue her claiming emotional distress and economic hardship on account of her blantant disregard for federal law. It's amazing what people feel they are entitled to. She is not being sued for stealing music. She is being sued for making it avilable to people she doesn't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RobRoy Posted July 10, 2007 Members Share Posted July 10, 2007 3 - The fact that all the other stuff was tossed-in makes me think the 'illegal search' part is as tenuous as the 'they already got paid' part, and this gal's attorney is trying to hit them with as many things as he can come up with because her case isn't very good. That is what good attorneys do. And the more things they can come up with, the more of a case they have. That's how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fetishfrog Posted July 11, 2007 Members Share Posted July 11, 2007 She is not being sued for stealing music. She is being sued for making it avilable to people she doesn't know. So she's receiving stolen property and then redistributing it at zero cost. I'll bet that's a crime in Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jonnythesaint Posted July 11, 2007 Members Share Posted July 11, 2007 man if you download shiz just hone up to it, I mean if I got caught I would just say ok fine, but I'm only paying 99 cents a track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RobRoy Posted July 11, 2007 Members Share Posted July 11, 2007 So she's receiving stolen property and then redistributing it at zero cost. I'll bet that's a crime in Texas. Lots of people get off on technicalities - no Miranda, etc. And I am not aware of any criminal charges being brought against this person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RobRoy Posted July 11, 2007 Members Share Posted July 11, 2007 So she's receiving stolen property and then redistributing it at zero cost. I'll bet that's a crime in Texas. She is not receiving stolen property. That's the rub. This thing is all about rules and many of them are arbitrary. Are you stealing music when you hear it on someone elses car radio? Are you then performing it illegally when you whistle it while walking in the mall? This is all about crossing arbitrary lines - similar to the arbitrary borders we created in the Mideast after WWII. That thing is a headache as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RobRoy Posted July 11, 2007 Members Share Posted July 11, 2007 man if you download shiz just hone up to it, I mean if I got caught I would just say ok fine, but I'm only paying 99 cents a track. What got her in trouble is that she uploaded. Downloading is not an issue. It is like recording off the radio - which I did (also legally) back in the late 1960's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted July 11, 2007 Members Share Posted July 11, 2007 She is not receiving stolen property. That's the rub. This thing is all about rules and many of them are arbitrary. Are you stealing music when you hear it on someone elses car radio? Are you then performing it illegally when you whistle it while walking in the mall?This is all about crossing arbitrary lines - similar to the arbitrary borders we created in the Mideast after WWII. That thing is a headache as well. Every time music is played on the radio, it is logged, soundscanned, and the artists get paid. Big difference. And if you can't see the diff between whistling a tune and helping yourself to the original artist's performance without anyone in the chain paying them for it, I can't help you there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RobRoy Posted July 11, 2007 Members Share Posted July 11, 2007 Every time music is played on the radio, it is logged, soundscanned, and the artists get paid. Big difference. It is a little deeper than that. But the readers digest version: It is not about the radio station broadcasting it and paying for that service. It is about me copying it. And if you can't see the diff between whistling a tune and helping yourself to the original artist's performance without anyone in the chain paying them for it, I can't help you there. Then no, you can't help me here. I differ with a lot of people whom I respect on this issue (and a lot of people whom I respect agree with me). I've been analyzing the whole thing for years, following the court cases, the wins, the losses and why each side won or lost. Did you know it is legal to copy songs off a cd and give the copy to a friend? That is the reason anonymous uploading is illegal - you don't know who is downloading and they "could be" a pirate that will then make AND SELL copies. And that is merely a loophole the RIAA uses to nail people who have a bunch of songs hanging around their hard drive that they don't listen to and may have even forgotten is there. But if they are not computer savvy enough to disable uploading, they may find it is a $4,500 mistake. It is similar to the 25 MPH speed limit sign hidden by a bush, with a motorcycle cop parked 20' further down the road. It is a technicality that most people will not fight. It is all a game with peculiar rules, nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Scafeets Posted July 11, 2007 Members Share Posted July 11, 2007 It is a little deeper than that. But the readers digest version: It is not about the radio station broadcasting it and paying for that service. It is about me copying it.Then no, you can't help me here. I differ with a lot of people whom I respect on this issue (and a lot of people whom I respect agree with me). I've been analyzing the whole thing for years, following the court cases, the wins, the losses and why each side won or lost. Did you know it is legal to copy songs off a cd and give the copy to a friend? That is the reason anonymous uploading is illegal - you don't know who is downloading and they "could be" a pirate that will then make AND SELL copies. And that is merely a loophole the RIAA uses to nail people who have a bunch of songs hanging around their hard drive that they don't listen to and may have even forgotten is there. But if they are not computer savvy enough to disable uploading, they may find it is a $4,500 mistake. It is similar to the 25 MPH speed limit sign hidden by a bush, with a motorcycle cop parked 20' further down the road. It is a technicality that most people will not fight.It is all a game with peculiar rules, nothing more. RobRoy: You're totally wrong. However, if you move just a little farther North, you would be right. In Canada, it is legal to download and illegal to upload. This is because Canada has an intelligent approach to intellectual property. Like Europe, they charge a tax on recordable media and distriibute the tax royalties to the recording rights organizations. However, in the US it is illegal to download unless you're paying someone like iTunes, etc. Here's the real "reader's digest" version: http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Internet/2004/music_downloading.asp Big-Boy Version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RobRoy Posted July 11, 2007 Members Share Posted July 11, 2007 RobRoy: You're totally wrong. However, if you move just a little farther North, you would be right. In Canada, it is legal to download and illegal to upload. This is because Canada has an intelligent approach to intellectual property. Like Europe, they charge a tax on recordable media and distriibute the tax royalties to the recording rights organizations. However, in the US it is illegal to download unless you're paying someone like iTunes, etc. Here's the real "reader's digest" version: http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Internet/2004/music_downloading.aspBig-Boy Version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement On controversial subjects, I don't trust Wikipedia, et-al. It's also a short enough document that I can just read it myself. Here is the text of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I'm not seeing anything about downloading. In fact, it's main thrust is protecting "copyright protection" and distribution of copyrighted material. I may have missed it, but so far, it is conspicuously absent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RobRoy Posted July 11, 2007 Members Share Posted July 11, 2007 BTW, here is another good link: http://teamcombooks.com/mp3handbook/5.htm Notice that the emphasis, regarding distribution of copies, is on the illegality of making copies available for others to copy. And even when the downloaders themselves are addressed (case #3) it is merely a claim, not backed up by any actual legal document. And it keeps talking about it being illegal for the site from which you download to have the song available, but doesn't address what section you violate by actually downloading it. Imagine a guy makes a hundred copies of a copyrighted CD and puts them in a box in front of his house with a sign that says "Free. Take one". He is breaking the law by making them available, but you are not breaking the law by taking one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Scafeets Posted July 11, 2007 Members Share Posted July 11, 2007 On controversial subjects, I don't trust Wikipedia, et-al. It's also a short enough document that I can just read it myself.Here is the text of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I'm not seeing anything about downloading. In fact, it's main thrust is protecting "copyright protection" and distribution of copyrighted material.I may have missed it, but so far, it is conspicuously absent. Yeah, you missed it. The DMCA makes a point of protecting copyrights. And copyright law covers downloading very specifically. The reason for the DMCA was to provide a measure of Fair Use while protecting inteleectual property rights. While the DMCA specifically circumvents the Berne Convention, it acknowledges the Phonograms Act, as well as all preceding US copyright law..... SEC. 102. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.