|
|
|
EFF targets RIAA's 'making available' claims
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 14 January, 2008
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has been bending the legal system to its position that "making files available" is enough to find a defendant guilty of copyright infringement. This is what happened in the infamous case against Jammie Thomas, and it is the argument in several others. In the case against Jeffrey and Pamela Howell, this is the offense the RIAA is claiming ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
Shegax
Junior Member
|
14. January 2008 @ 17:32 |
Link to this message
|
wow, well who uses kazaa anymore?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
14. January 2008 @ 19:51 |
Link to this message
|
That is a very valid point. It is the law and duty of the jury to find the defendant guilty BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT or let them go. America wasn't built on "probably guilty," "maybe guilty," "could be guilty," "was at the scene of the crime," etc. To convict someone, you have to know without a doubt that they committed the crime. Otherwise, someone completely innocent could get the punishment for someone else' crime. If the RIAA can't prove that someone else actually downloaded from a defendant's computer, they can't convict them by law. But then again, they are the RIAA so they can do whatever they want *rolls eyes*.
|
|
lawe1
Junior Member
|
14. January 2008 @ 23:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
When I pay for something, it's mine and I should be able to share it with who ever I please!
|
Senior Member
|
14. January 2008 @ 23:32 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by lawe1:
When I pay for something, it's mine and I should be able to share it with who ever I please!
...The problem is that you paid for your usage of the file (you are talking about audio/video/software media right?). You didn't buy a license to give copies to every person you know, or don't know for that matter. What you paid for was a license to use it for your own personal purposes. Note however, that your own personal uses can be to share it temporarily such as to bring a movie over to someone else' house to watch. It would become illegal if you rip that movie and give that permanent copy away if you keep the original copy though. In other words, you can't give out a copy of your official copy unless you get rid of your official copy. You can share your official copy.
This article is about making your copy/copies of your official copy available. In other words, copying your original copy then putting that copy up for others to get. The problem is that you yourself didn't make whatever it is so you don't have the rights to copy off your original then giving away those copies. It's the same as if someone copied your work then just gave those copies away.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. January 2008 @ 23:40
|
Member
|
15. January 2008 @ 02:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
What really pisses me off about this whole deal is that the record companies never had a problem with this back when they sold Vinyl and you could record the album to a cassette and do what ever you wanted with it!
|
Staff Member
2 product reviews
|
15. January 2008 @ 02:41 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by WierdName:
That is a very valid point. It is the law and duty of the jury to find the defendant guilty BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT or let them go. America wasn't built on "probably guilty," "maybe guilty," "could be guilty," "was at the scene of the crime," etc. To convict someone, you have to know without a doubt that they committed the crime. Otherwise, someone completely innocent could get the punishment for someone else' crime. If the RIAA can't prove that someone else actually downloaded from a defendant's computer, they can't convict them by law. But then again, they are the RIAA so they can do whatever they want *rolls eyes*.
Actually in civil cases, which is what the RIAA lawsuits are, the standard is simply a preponderance of the evidence, which translates in English to more than 50% sure.
|
Member
|
15. January 2008 @ 03:52 |
Link to this message
|
Yes in a civil case you only have to make a jury believe someone is guilty by the "evidence" you "provide". I would venture to say that the riaa lawyers pick the most computer illiterate people they can find to sit on these juries. Why? It's easier to pull the wool over their eyes due to lack of knowledge. If these cases were in criminal court I think they would have a hard time getting any "convictions".
Why? The means by which evidence is obtained is still questionable at best. The use of questionable tactics seem to be overlooked by the courts in these civil cases.
And it just proves the golden rule once again. He who has the gold makes the rules!!!!!!!!
Remember one thing be afraid big brother is watching you and your guilty until proven innocent and by then your homeless and destitute.
|
Senior Member
|
15. January 2008 @ 04:34 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Blackjax:
Remember one thing be afraid big brother is watching you and your guilty until proven innocent and by then your homeless and destitute.
....and the man-wife of cell block D. Unless of course you're female then you're woman-husband of cell block D.
As far as the 50% sure for a guilty verdict, I didn't know that. I'll have to look into that. Any way you look at it though, these lawsuits are BS! Just as pointed out by Blackjax, the evidence they provide was obtained in very questionable ways. Also, there seems to be some very computer illiterate people on the juries because a lot of the common sense stuff just doesn't seem to even be considered. That's just life for you though. Just like that one song, Highschool Never Ends. In this case, you got the winy kid who gets everything they want getting everyone else in trouble.
|
AfterDawn Addict
3 product reviews
|
15. January 2008 @ 08:29 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by wolfmanz:
What really pisses me off about this whole deal is that the record companies never had a problem with this back when they sold Vinyl and you could record the album to a cassette and do what ever you wanted with it!
Yup. Agree.
But at the same time, digital information wasn't a factor those days in age. Therefore limiting the amount of people you could "share" said records with. With the digital age, one song can suddenly become available to millions of people at once.
Yet, i agree.
Quote:
The civil liberties group that is determined to protect your digital rights has pointed out that there is no such crime as "attempted copyright infringement."
This is where the RIAA gets to flex there mafia muscles. Keeping in with what Vurbal stated, 50% sure, they'll find some way to nail 'em down enough to cover that 50% margin. And as was also pointed out, sometimes the jury selection isn't in the defendants favor. It's hard to have a fair, unbiased jury when there computer knowledge rivals that of my six year old who can effectively turn one on and find the games.
The RIAA found a way to please their employers, take some people down in an overstated effort to prove their worthiness, and fill their incredibly deep pockets at the same time. It's disgusting and wrong.
|
|
banned2X
Suspended permanently
|
15. January 2008 @ 11:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
I download everything from flicks to songs BUT I remove them from the torrent upload list IMMEDIATELY and move to another folder. I hate to say this but this girl deserves a penalty...............NOTHING to the extreme of what she got, but a couple grand for being a dummy, a dumb frakkin' dummy. And I must say that for all practical intents and purposes............"making files available" is copyright infringement. DON'T MAKE AVAILABLE PEEPS! We all must cover our asses. Peer guardian, relocating files, not uploading. Let those in 3rd world countries and countries that don't participate in the copyright program do the uploading. Take Iran for example.............frankly, they don't give a shit about ANYTHING the U.S. has to say or do. Rightfully so as I'm in the U.S. and I hate the fact that my country feels it has the right to police every frakkin' country in the world. Once we attempt to do this with China...................the jig will then be up...............for US.
|
|
timmybear
Junior Member
|
15. January 2008 @ 12:12 |
Link to this message
|
i think we need more combined programs, something maybe in rotating ftp instead of p2p. i dunno how it works, but i like Ed2k/Emule. i dont share anything but all the servers are none-the-less european.
|
|
DVDdoug
Junior Member
|
15. January 2008 @ 16:41 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
When I pay for something, it's mine and I should be able to share it with who ever I please!
No. That's the whole point of copyright law. You can't buy a book, make copies, and go into the book publishing business! Of course, you do own the copy you bought, and you can do whatever you want with that one copy... You can lend it, sell it, write in it, or burn it!
Quote:
What really pisses me off about this whole deal is that the record companies never had a problem with this back when they sold Vinyl and you could record the album to a cassette and do what ever you wanted with it!
It's always been a copyright violation to distribute unauthorized copies. The RIAA never sued anybody for making a copy for a friend, and AFAIK they've never sued anybody for emailing an MP3 to a friend. But, in the analog days they did go after people who were selling "bootleg" copies.
Quote:
The civil liberties group that is determined to protect your digital rights has pointed out that there is no such crime as "attempted copyright infringement."
If the EFF wins this one, congress will probably make it a crime! And, the judge in the Thomas case ruled that "making available" is a violation, so this is current case-law, until it's overturned by a higher court.
|
|
DVDdoug
Junior Member
|
15. January 2008 @ 17:14 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
As far as the 50% sure for a guilty verdict, I didn't know that. I'll have to look into that.
Try Wikipedia.
AFAIK, it's not a "guilty" verdict. The jury's decides if the plaintiff's claims are proven true or not, and usually if he/she was "harmed" or "wronged". Even though it's not a criminal case, the jury can decide to punish the defendant by making him pay extra with "punitive damages".
While were on the subject, the U.S. standard for criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond a shadow of a doubt". For example, it would be unreasonable for a jury to find someone not-guilty because of the slight possibility that the crime was committed by an idential twin that nobody knows about.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. January 2008 @ 17:38
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
6 product reviews
|
14. February 2008 @ 18:30 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Shegax:
wow, well who uses kazaa anymore?
Very true my friend. Once Kazaa started having legal troubles that was the time that people went elsewhere and people that stayed behind well should have left and now they are stuck.
|
|
