RIAA Defendant strikes back.

[Scafeets]

 

If my car is still there after you "steal" it, I have no problem with that at all.

 

 

I see your point. Bad analogy on my part. So, you just don't have any respect for intellectual property?

 

So...you write a song and perform it, I record it and sell it without compensating you. You still have your song, right?

[the-good-way]

 

Yep. But l

 

 

you know what they say about "everything before the but" - in this case they "yep"

 

did you realy mena the yep?

 

look at that Gonzalez thing.

 

 

I am, but it doesn't look all played out yet

 

 

 

Or Rodney Allen King.

 

 

what in particular about it?

 

The court of public opinion is everything.

 

It's only one thing among many...itnot many things...it's not accredited academia, nor is it the law, nor is it philosophy, religion, my dinner, it is not Sancho...any number of things...it is...public opinion

 

To make public opinion "the court of public opinion" would to be to confuse "legal and moral"

[slight-return]

Every single case I have read regarding this p2p issue involves someone making music available to be uploaded from them. I cannot think of a single case where someone was being pursued for the sole reason that they downloaded for their own personal use. Not one..

 

My apologies there

 

I haven't forgotten to run the research (just not queued up and the wife is sick...get this, OK during kayak rolling practice...we live in Seattle, big sea kayak place...she did it enough where the inner ear fluid actually crystalized and is giving her severe vertigo...I didn't even know that could happen)

 

It (the legal research) can be a bit problematic for stuff like this if you don't have access to one of the legal research engines though -- not because of no info, but because ultra popular issues (like the P2P services themselves, etc) can get in the way

Then there are civil settlements which aren't going to necessarilly show up in the court records

 

I will get to it (well, I have to for the wife's IP class anyway), but it's gonna take me a few days (tomorrow I have to go down and pick up the guys for the one-day STP run...I don't get to go though )

 

 

One thing to be careful of with the legal research is (as someone put it somewhere above) confirmation bias in the research, if you find yourself really personally attached to an interpretation it skew the {censored} out of the research, hence the "The atty who represents himself has a fool for a client"

[slight-return]

It's only one thing among many...itnot many things...it's not accredited academia, nor is it the law, nor is it philosophy, religion, my dinner, it is not Sancho...any number of things...it is...public opinion

 

 

OMG..Sancho

from Orgazmo!!!!

 

It does seem like we are getting pretty far afield with courts of public opinion and Rodney King and all that

I think we run the danger of muddying the waters more than clarifying the legal points with that, I'll leave that stuff to you guys

[Lurko]

So...you write a song and perform it, I record it and sell it without compensating you. You still have your song, right?

 

That's not what's happening here, to be fair. People for the most part are not reselling the music they download. They are simply listening to it. Big difference, if you ask me. (Not that you did, but this is an open forum, so there!)

[Scafeets]

That's not what's happening here, to be fair. People for the most part are not reselling the music they download. They are simply listening to it. Big difference, if you ask me. (Not that you did, but this is an open forum, so there! )

 

So, if an artist has copyrighted work for sale and has legitimate channels available to sell it to you, why is it OK for you to take their stuff, without their permission, and not pay them? What's your justification?

[gtrjones]

That's not what's happening here, to be fair. People for the most part are not reselling the music they download. They are simply listening to it. Big difference, if you ask me. (Not that you did, but this is an open forum, so there! )

 

Just because the uploaders are not making money off the distribution doesn't mean it's not wrong. They are ultimately distributing the artists work for free, without his permission. In addition to stealing the work for themselves, they are adding to the insult and injury by making it possible for perhaps millions of other people to steal the work as well.

[Lurko]

Music has ceased to be a commodity. It is now a means to market entertainment. Time will bear this out whether the RIAA or bands like it or not. The sea change has happened, and it won't go back because of a couple of lawsuits.

[RobRoy]

 

I see your point. Bad analogy on my part. So, you just don't have any respect for intellectual property? So...you write a song and perform it, I record it and sell it without compensating you. You still have your song, right?

 

 

Read one of my earlier posts. I consider software to be intellectual property. Software actually does something. It is a tool. Not so music, however. I equate music to the printed and spoken word.

[RobRoy]

My apologies there I haven't forgotten to run the research (just not queued up and the wife is sick...get this, OK during kayak rolling practice...we live in Seattle, big sea kayak place...she did it enough where the inner ear fluid actually crystalized and is giving her severe vertigo...I didn't even know that could happen) It (the legal research) can be a bit problematic for stuff like this if you don't have access to one of the legal research engines though -- not because of no info, but because ultra popular issues (like the P2P services themselves, etc) can get in the way Then there are civil settlements which aren't going to necessarilly show up in the court records I will get to it (well, I have to for the wife's IP class anyway), but it's gonna take me a few days (tomorrow I have to go down and pick up the guys for the one-day STP run...I don't get to go though ) One thing to be careful of with the legal research is (as someone put it somewhere above) confirmation bias in the research, if you find yourself really personally attached to an interpretation it skew the {censored} out of the research, hence the "The atty who represents himself has a fool for a client"

 

Your whole post shows why it would be hard to prosecute a "downloader only". It is because, contrary to popular opinion, ignorance of the law IS an excuse nowadays. It is because the laws are so complicated, no reasonable person would expect to know them all. And when laws regarding an act as simple as downloading music cannot be easily found or discerned, that fact alone is a tremendous defense.

 

The concept is embedded in the tax trial I mentioned earlier. The IRS cannot even correctly interpret their own tax law, and will not even attempt to do so. They just say "everybody pays, so you will pay".

 

Well, they are the ones with the guns.*

 

*My oldest daughter's best friend became an auditor for the IRS about three years ago (right out of college). She was promoted a year ago to do audits on businesses. Part of her training was at the firing range. She wears a bullet proof vest to audit appointments. Don't mess with the IRS.

[RobRoy]

 

you know what they say about "everything before the but" - in this case they "yep" did you realy mena the yep? look at that Gonzalez thing. I am, but it doesn't look all played out yet Or Rodney Allen King. what in particular about it? The court of public opinion is everything. It's only one thing among many...itnot many things...it's not accredited academia, nor is it the law, nor is it philosophy, religion, my dinner, it is not Sancho...any number of things...it is...public opinion To make public opinion "the court of public opinion" would to be to confuse "legal and moral"

 

The Rodney King video was pretty long but all they showed on most tv broadcasts was where he was being beaten. The general public did not see the part where the tazer had no effect and he went for the officers gun, and his refusal to obey ANY instructions. The guy had it coming but the court of public opinion allowed officers to be tried TWICE!

 

The court of public opinion is everything when it comes to passing and enforcing laws. Do you think we would have the patriot act if enough people went to the streets when it was being considered?

[RobRoy]

OMG..Sancho from Orgazmo!!!! It does seem like we are getting pretty far afield with courts of public opinion and Rodney King and all that I think we run the danger of muddying the waters more than clarifying the legal points with that, I'll leave that stuff to you guys

 

Heh, heh. My point was to show just how muddy the waters are!

[the-good-way]

 

Your whole post shows why it would be hard to prosecute a "downloader only". It is because, contrary to popular opinion, ignorance of the law IS an excuse nowadays.

 

 

how you figure? (as in the IRS case, the ignorance didn't excuse the civil offense of non-filing, but only of wwillful evasion -- its up there in the jury instructions)

 

It is because the laws are so complicated, no reasonable person would expect to know them all. And when laws regarding an act as simple as downloading music cannot be easily found or discerned, that fact alone is a tremendous defense.

 

 

The law code law can be found (its right there in the code), what slight is referring to is test of interpretation.

One is free to challenge this in court (either during their own suit or by way of amicus brief if there is a point of law under test one is interested in)

 

An interesting note on the P2P stuff - slight is being extra careful as he's having to do that professionally, but we may very well be able to find the interpretation in the contributory infringement cases...to have contributory infringement, we'd have to have primary infringement

 

 

The concept is embedded in the tax trial I mentioned earlier. The IRS cannot even correctly interpret their own tax law, and will not even attempt to do so. They just say "everybody pays, so you will pay".

 

How so? it looked like the defendent asked for legal analysis by IRS officials who were not legal counsel

[the-good-way]

The Rodney King video was pretty long but all they showed on most tv broadcasts was where he was being beaten. The general public did not see the part where the tazer had no effect and he went for the officers gun, and his refusal to obey ANY instructions. The guy had it coming but the court of public opinion allowed officers to be tried TWICE!

 

[/quote

 

how so? Was there a second triaal?

 

The court of public opinion is everything when it comes to passing and enforcing laws.

 

I disagree, that's why we have change of venue, sequestering of Juries, etc - to avoid that contamination

 

 

Do you think we would have the patriot act if enough people went to the streets when it was being considered?

 

I don't know, it would have to happen to tell - perhaps we'd even have a stronger one (not that'd I'd like that)

[RobRoy]

 

The law code law can be found (its right there in the code),

 

 

Nobody has demonstrated an ability to find it yet. People are even talking about nexis searches. Can you imagine having to go through this when you see a speed limit sign?

 

The fact is that the courts DO now understand that our laws are too complicated for a normal person to understand.

[the-good-way]

Heh, heh. My point was to show just how muddy the waters are!

 

I think one of the problems is that you may have started with what you want and then are looking, selectively, at the analyses - that's why the thing about "a lawyer who represents himself...." got mentioned

 

So like in the tax case where you looked at the judge's "I'm not the IRS comment, but perhaps didn't look at the attorney's comments around that where they talk about "oh, we'll go ahead and file"

 

Or how you started with a legal analysis, thn switched to 'the court of public opinion'

[RobRoy]

 

The Rodney King video was pretty long but all they showed on most tv broadcasts was where he was being beaten. The general public did not see the part where the tazer had no effect and he went for the officers gun, and his refusal to obey ANY instructions. The guy had it coming but the court of public opinion allowed officers to be tried TWICE! [/quote how so? Was there a second triaal?

 

Yes. They were found not guilty in the first trial, but they were tried for the EXACT SAME CRIME a second time and found guilty for, I believe, violating his civil rights. You see, the riots showed that if we didn't want a race war, these cops HAD TO, AT ALL COSTS, GO DOWN strictly because of public opinion - opinion that was based on a racist attitude and incomplete evidence.

[RobRoy]

 

I think one of the problems is that you may have started with what you want and then are looking, selectively, at the analyses - that's why the thing about "a lawyer who represents himself...." got mentioned So like in the tax case where you looked at the judge's "I'm not the IRS comment, but perhaps didn't look at the attorney's comments around that where they talk about "oh, we'll go ahead and file" Or how you started with a legal analysis, thn switched to 'the court of public opinion'

 

 

I represented myself and won.

 

Regarding my switch: I was trying to show that there are two separate facets here, both of which go in the direction of allowing downloading. I wasn't switching from one to the other, I was adding one to the other.

[the-good-way]

 

Nobody has demonstrated an ability to find it yet. People are even talking about nexis searches.

 

 

 

Can you imagine having to go through this when you see a speed limit sign?

 

 

No, you would do it in preparation of a defense or of a more thorough legal analysis

 

 

notice that slight is dovetailing that into teaching materials so he appears to be doing it at a much more detailed level than us

[the-good-way]

 

I represented myself and won.

 

 

Hey sometimes fools (and I don't mean to use that as an insult, but as the saying goes) are lucky, or the other side can have a particularly weak case

 

pulling off a round of Russian roulette and living doesn't make it safe

 

 

 

Regarding my switch: I was trying to show that there are two separate facets here, both of which go in the direction of allowing downloading. I wasn't switching from one to the other, I was adding one to the other.

 

that can muddy the waters - esp as we are talking about the legal analysis

[the-good-way]

 

Yes. They were found not guilty in the first trial, but they were tried for the EXACT SAME CRIME a second time and found guilty for, I believe, violating his civil rights. .

 

 

That might be a good read - can you pull the docket numbers?

[RobRoy]

 

That might be a good read - can you pull the docket numbers?

 

 

No. I just read the papers and followed the trials, and the arguments for and against the second trial being double jepoardy.

 

Bottom line, though, was that the LA riots made an impression. The cops that beat King HAD TO go down or things could have gotten VERY ugly on a national level that would make the 1968 riots look like a small party. Whether these cops were innocent or guilty from a legal perspective was really not relevant.

 

That is the dirty little secret about national survival and individual rights. If the choice is between five or six peoples constitutionally protected individual rights, and the survival of the nation, well...

[RobRoy]

 

Hey sometimes fools (and I don't mean to use that as an insult, but as the saying goes) are lucky, or the other side can have a particularly weak case

 

no offense taken. I agree with your point actually.

 

Regarding my switch: I was trying to show that there are two separate facets here, both of which go in the direction of allowing downloading. I wasn't switching from one to the other, I was adding one to the other. that can muddy the waters - esp as we are talking about the legal analysis

 

So far it seems pretty darned muddy - from a legal perspective. That is, regarding the legality of downloading. If there was a law against it, one would think it would be childs play to find it, and not just count on a self proclaimed STM to tell me (STM=Smarter Than Me).

[RobRoy]

 

No, you would do it in preparation of a defense or of a more thorough legal analysis notice that slight is dovetailing that into teaching materials so he appears to be doing it at a much more detailed level than us

 

Yeah, I did notice that, actually. I'm anxious to see what he comes up with.

[the-good-way]

 

If there was a law against it, one would think it would be childs play to find it, and not just count on a self proclaimed STM to tell me (STM=Smarter Than Me).

 

 

I can see how it'd be hard through the media noise, and to have a court ruling (I suppose there might be some default and summary judgements) we'd have to have someone throw up the defense that the downloading isn't illegal

(a lot of the P2P cases are about contributory infrinegment..."we don't police", "it's an ephemeral copy" all that kind of stuff)

 

there's some stuff out there

like in A&M v Napster - Beezer speaks to it (paragraph 19)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/239_F3d_1004.htm