Slashdot Mirror
Round Two for MPAA Lawsuits
An anonymous reader writes "CNET is reporting that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has filed a second round of lawsuits against individuals trading movie files. This follows the lobby's legal attacks on BitTorrent servers a few weeks back. A couple of commentaries on this latest legal barrage can already be found here and here."
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) also made available a new free software tool so parents can scan their computers for file-swapping programs and for movie or music files which may be copyrighted.
"Son, come over here and show me how to run this thing."
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
...be able to sue the MPAA?
You hear that MPAA/RIAA?... That is the sound of inevitability... It is the sound of your death... Goodbye, MPAA/RIAA...
I'm a computer!
Stop all the downloading!
Help computer!
G.I. Jooooooooooooooe!
[MPAA software Parent File Scan] searches for and identifies virtually any audio or video file, including popular formats like MP3, Microsoft's Windows Media, the AAC files that Apple Computer's iTunes software often uses, or MPEG video. The software makes no distinction between legally acquired or illegally downloaded files, however.
During the Napster era, wasn't one of the arguments made by the RIAA that Napster should be able to easily distinguish RIAA-copyrighted material and, subsequentailly, block access to it? If it's so trivial, shouldn't the MPAA be able to do the same? Or did they realize it's not so easy and are just labelling everything they can find?
Until the MPAA starts cracking down people actually selling their wares instead of people downloading them for free they will not get a tear of sympathy from me. Seriously, I don't understand it. When I was NYC, street vendors make no attempt to hide the fact they are selling pirated goods. Why isn't the MPAA cracking down on them instead of college kids that have nothing better to do with their bandwidth than download DiVX ripped movies?
-Shawn "If the Name Don't Rhyme It Ain't Mine" Conn
After I saw those emotional segments in the theater about how Joe Camerman, and Jane Stuntwoman suffers from my actions, I really felt bad.
(btw, mpaa, if you are listening, I never actually downloaded movies. Rent from netflix, rip a copy and save on VCD, that may be a different story.)
..you know the rest. Evidently the MPAA has decided to copy the RIAA 12-Step Plan to Irrelevance completely.
If the media industries only took the time in the late 90's to understand and serve this group - I believe they call it marketing - rather than fight against them their revenues would be significantly more. Of all industries that should know this it should be the movie industry.
<p><p>
Today, the film industry generates more income from video/DVD sales and rentals than from theater runs. Had they won their case 20 years ago against Sony and the Supreme Court ruled VCR's were illegal (it was a close 5 to 4 decision) the film industry would have less than HALF the revenues it does today.</i>
<p>
<p>
I hardly see movies in theaters anymore anyway. I don't really enjoy them as much, probably since a lot of movies anymore are crap put out for the sole purpose of making money. (which all movies are to an extent)
<p>
<p>
I save the money for video rentals, I get about 4 movies for the same price for my wife and I. We can then watch them whenever, and not pay $3 for a popcorn and $4 for a soda.
<p>
<p>
Much more enjoyable, and no kids around to bother me while I watch.
...would be the parents monitor what software little Johnny is installing on the computer and to ask what that software does (with demonstration of course). I know if I see icons pop up on the family computer desktop or start menu, I tend to ask the family who installed it and what it does.
Let's remember about LokiTorrent's law defense fund. They had the guts to stand for their rights and say no to corporate bullying, and they are doing it for the rest of us too. If they win such lawsuits would have to stop.
Yes, I RTFA, and the software that they've produced doesn't distinguish between legal files and "illegal files" I see this as completely rediculous. How many clueless parents will punish kids now for doing something that's completely legal, moral, and ethical. It even flags iTunes files, and Mirc, I mean, come on here. There should be a libel lawsuit here to deter people from distributing what is in essence a fraud of a "illegal file detecting software"
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
Oh dear, people getting sued for committing illegal acts, how appalling! What is this country coming to?
There used to be a rumor (perhaps urban legend) that Listerine and Listermint (or maybe some other brand-- I was kid in the 80s) were products of the same company: one marketted towards upperclass consumers geared towards buying the best hygiene products, the other towards the low-end consumer who just wanted mouthwash.
... i.e. that's their low-end consumer version!
What can be applied to the MPAA you ask? Simple: perhaps they don't go after the people selling their wares because they're getting the profits from them
parents having a "little talk" with their kids about P2P activity:
Johnnie: Daddy, where do MP3 files come from?
Daddy: Johnnie, Mom and I are going to have a little talk with you now.
Johnnie: Okay, Dad.
Mommy: You know Johnnie, there's something you need to know about MP3 files and P2P clients.
Daddy: When an MP3 file meets a P2P client, something very beautiful happens.
Johnnie: What's that Daddy?
Daddy: It's called File Transfer, son. When a beautiful MP3 file meets a nice, young P2P client, they start exchanging packets and then a new MP3 file is born.
Mommy: But you have to remember, son...bad things can happen if MP3 files and P2P clients do not take proper precautions during the File Transfer. Then they can get infected with Spyware and Viruses and die.
Daddy: You'll understand this better when you grow up, but always remember that we're here for you if you need us. And always remember to take proper precautions during File Transfer.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
That their software download site is called respectcopyrights.org, when they don't respect them themselves when they're about to run out...
you wouldn't get free movies anymore because there would be no more movies for you to download
There is this thing called a 'camera' that can be used to capture video, and word on the street is that not only independent studios, but even individuals can use these to create movies.
And I also hear that they make movies in other countries besides America...
"Parent File Scan also uses a very liberal definition of file-swapping software. In a test on a CNET News.com computer, the software identified Mirc--a client for the Internet Relay Chat network, where files can be swapped, but where tens of thousands of wholly legal conversations happen every day--and Mercora, a streaming Web radio service that uses peer-to-peer technology but does not allow file swapping."
Couldn't the companies that produce some of these products now turn around and sue the MPAA for slander?
I suppose it depends on exactly what they say about the programs, but if that web radio service is run by a company that does not stream MPAA stuff over their service, then telling parents it might be used for piracy is an outright lie.
10-year-old girls are being sued this time?
Dashboard Widgets
These lawsuits better not result in another crappy Superbowl iTunes commercial.
The "iTunes Exclusive" Green Day song (the "I Fought the Law" cover) from the last one made me want to gouge my ears out.
Just once I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'You're making a scene.'
SEATTLE--In an unexpected move, corporate giant Microsoft has acquired Hollywood in what it refers to as the "logical next step" in content development.
Microsoft has long been known as an industry leader in providing semifunctional applications for the viewing, development and distribution of digital content and comments that the acquisition of Hollywood will complete the synergy necessary for including the content itself.
End users, claims Microsoft, will see a remarkable increase in convenience when accessing content. Hollywood products will be available directly from the desktop via their new "Cinema Explorer" application with the guaranteed quality, stability and availability that only a vision-impaired corporate monolith can provide.
Security is also a top priority, and Microsoft is introducing a new licensing system to aid in the distribution of Hollywood content. Instead of purchasing a copy of the motion picture itself, end users purchase a "License to View" which piggybacks on their highly successful and completely unhackable "Product Activation" architecture introduced with Windows XP. A motion picture is keyed to the unique hardware identification number of the user's computer and can only be "activated" on that computer.
Some civil rights groups have expressed concerned about corporate profiling based on end user viewing habits. A Microsoft spokesman responds, "Obviously, this is possible, but fortunately, Microsoft is a responsible corporation with a very solid privacy policy. We never have any idea who's using our products. A quick look at our customer support system ought to clearly demonstrate that."
Microsoft also stated in a press release that recent maneuvers to acquire the RIAA are completely unrelated.
What he wants is more important that what I want. What he wants is also more important that what you want.
Is there really anything new to be said about this that hasn't been repeated a million times before?
25% of the comments will be "MPAA SUX0R! Information wants to be free!"
50% of the comments will be "If you do the crime, do the time!!"
25% of the comments will be offtopic, random garbage.
This comment, of course, falls in the last category.
I download movies but don't share that many because of hard drive space, I only share what I'm still downloading. Once it's done I typically burn it to CD and delete it from the PC, so while I have (insert large number) movies all they see is maybe the dozen I'm downloading. How successful will this be?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
See, this is why I'm not a early adopter. Let the shake-out happen a little is what I say. Now that this new round of lawsuits against individuals have been filed, the data collection period is over for now! The sabre-rattling lawsuits tell me that NOW is the time to start downloading the movies I want!
It's like slowing down on a country road when you see a cop with someone pulled over. Silly! That's the time to speed people!
[/sarcasm] -so don't preach to me about IP theft or endangering officers' lives.
This one gang kept wanting me to join cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.
And are all these independent and foreign studios going to expect to be paid? Or do they just live off the adoration of their fans and the smug knowledge that they aren't corporate tools?
disclaimer: IANAL, nor do I play one on TV. This is not credible legal advice.
Does this mean downloading Japanese Anime is OK?
Well the MPAA has no grounds to sue you if none of their members own the copyright to the material... so not just anime, but when it comes to independent films*, pr0n, or anything foreign, I don't see how they could.
*keep in mind that nowadays a lot of films billed as "independent" have major studio backing
According to RespectCopyrights.org, they're touting, and I quote:
;) its just a blatant lie!
"...Peer-to-peer file-sharing applications that encourage piracy, such as eDonkey, Gnutella and KaZaA, might seem simple and harmless, but running them puts your computer at great risk, IN ADDITION TO BEING UNLAWFUL." (my emphasis)
What the hell??!?!?
You could take them to court for that
Its amazing how quickly they've started to deliberately spread misinformation. Theres no way they could say they were stating it 'could' be illegal - its just plainly 'these programs are illegal'!
I just don't get it, do they really think that they will shut down all P2P networks by suing users? How long have the software companies been trying to shut down warez sites? Did they succeed? No.
As far as I'm concerned, file sharing is here to stay, it is impossible to kill a technology once its out there, they tried to kill VHS and failed, and right now they are making billions from something that they once tried to eliminate, they are better off stopping wasting resources trying to stop file sharing and putting all that money and brain power into trying to find a way to gain from it.
I am not a marketer, so I have no idea just how they can do that, but there must be a way.
There is no "bad" technology, there is only technology that haven't learned to use to its full potential yet.
AFAIK, (and IANAL) to the letter of the law, it is not illegal to download copyrighted materials, but it is illegal to distribute copyrighted materials without consent from the copyright holder.
TFA says that the RIAA doesn't make a distinction between legally and illegally downloaded files, but that point is moot. The fact that they are sharing them puts them at odds with the law.
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
Movies have gotten so bad that I can't even bring myself to waste the bandwidth to download them. In 2004, I would say there were maybe five good movies that I watched, out of maybe 50 total viewed.
The fact of the matter is, movies aren't worth paying $8-10 to see. In very few cases does a movie look good enough to plunk down that kind of dough to sit in a theatre full of screaming babies and popcorn-crunching patrons.
The MPAA (and RIAA for that matter) need to realize that people are all for the simplicity of downloading movies/music/etc. Make it legal, provide the services yourselves of first run movies, and make it cheaper then going to the theatre. Instead of trying to stop file sharing, harness the power that it provides.
[MPAA software Parent File Scan] searches for and identifies virtually any audio or video file, including popular formats like MP3, Microsoft's Windows Media, the AAC files that Apple Computer's iTunes software often uses, or MPEG video.
Yeah, but does it support oggs?
wooops! err... nevermind that...
errera hunamum ets
Not only that, but with my cable internet connection, I get free, bundled, 8 channels of HBO. Granted, I may have to wait a few weeks/months/whatever to see the movie in the first f'in place, but the low price of digital storage (hard disks) and the ease with which I can connect my CATV tuner to a TV tuner card means that I now have a SHITLOAD of movies on the hard drive, to watch any time I damn well please. Yeah, it's not digital, and yeah, it's not 'theater quality' but I'm old enough to remember watching black & white TV with a pair of rabbit ears, so this is pretty okay with me....
Most movies I don't care to own. It isn't like music that I listen to constantly, I find that the time I have to watch movies is very contrained, so why waste it on a movie that I've already seen instead of going around the corner to rent one that I haven't?
At any rate, theft is not the answer, no matter what you think of the people owning the goods.
And no matter what the RIAA/MPAA think of the people downloading their products, they are not thieves and are not stealing anything. Nothing has been stolen. People are making unauthorized copies, but that is not stealing, it is copyright infringement.
In fact I believe a Judge chided some of the **AA's lawyers for referring to downloaders as thieves. I tried to look up the article, but I couldn't find it. Anyone else know where it is?
Of course this doesn't excuse their behavior, but we should at least understand what it is when we talk about it.
--
Join the Pyramid - Free Flat Screens
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
But, there are other ways to enforce their copyrights with out being pricks and angering everyone.
If they would win the support of people, instead of trying to sue them into obvilion then everyone would come out ahead.
Myself however, they have lost a customer for life.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This goes back a LONG way. It has a lot to do with America having been a nation based on exploitation of raw nature, destruction of the natives and mass enslavement of human beings. THen you add on top the mass media and educational which are basically evolved systems, evolved by forces exerted by the rich, the powerful and the corporations and govt. These mass media and educationals systems have been evolved to create a culture of intellectual/ideoliogical submission to authority. Intellectual/ideological submission to hierarchical authority, but not necessarily relating to submission of person and property. The American culture has a deeply engrained motif relating sacrosantness of personal and private private, but a submissive intellectual attitude when it comes to political and policy decisions.
hence, we have Americans thinking "locally" when it comes to politics. Hence, the NIMBy phenomenon. But when it comes to big picture stuff, our educational and mass media systems, evolved by Power, created us to submit.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
What worries me the most about the "Parent File Scan" is that is makes no attempt to determine whether a file has been downloaded, ripped, or even included with other software. Case in point - when running the scan as a test on my machine, it picked up every sound file from Civilization III. What are non-technical users (parents in particular) going to think when they see hundreds of files picked up, with the strong implication that they are illigal?
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
I very rarely download new Hollywood movies anymore, since as we all agree they're mostly crap. Bandwidth, which costs money, has been reallocated to pr0n. To me it seems to give me a better bang for the buck (pun intended). That and TV shows, old movies, and fansubs.
In my opinion based on what I've read, and infered.
Wholesale piracy DWARFS bittorrents and the other sources of MPAA movies and RIAA music.
However, college kids in the U.S. are easy targets. Moreover although the financial losses are small, the social implications of "free" movies is huge, so they're trying to avoid that (music, because of a lot of forces already has the image that its free, but I digress).
Moreover, when you're talking about pirated CD's and DVD's... real ones from overseas, you're talking about guys with guns and money that will put holes in your body with lead if you interfere with them. The U.S. has no jurisdiction in those countries, and in this country, if the head of the MPAA started making too much noise, well, perhaps he might end up with "lead poisoning".
I'm being serious here. They're going after easy targets, because the hard ones will get pissed off and cause they physical problems in the real world. Not legal problems or internet problems. Real problems.
Getting anime in the UK is a right bugger, I have to say.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
(I submitted this yesterday, but it was rejected and instead dupes and other schlop were posted)
The Copyright Office is inviting comments on the current situation with copyrights and "orphaned works" (ie, abandonware, etc) - they have realized that copyrights are holding back innovation, especially when the copyright holders cannot be located.
I think that this is a really major thing. The article is mirrored in its entirety here
"Because they watch you get each one, and have evidence of that."
Except that they don't watch you "get" each one, they watch you "give" each one.
Depends on the nature of the P2P app, really. But fair enough.
Oh, they can monitor what I "get", but the crime of copying a work is much different and much less than the crime of what "give".
They are exactly equal.
So if I downloaded 10 movies, they can claim about $200 in damages.
No, if you download ten movies, and each movie is a single copyrighted work, they can claim $1.5 million of damages easily.
Please mr. "lawyer", stop pretending to know what the hell you're talking about.
First, there is no need for the quotes. I really am a lawyer, licensed to practice in Massachusetts. Second, I like to think that I know what I'm talking about, since I specialize in copyright law, have been reading it (often for pleasure) for years, and am currently well on my way to getting an LL.M. in IP at a law school well respected for IP studies, and I've been acing pretty much everything.
I tell you what. Come back with some citations to the relevant statutes and cases. If I'm wrong -- which I'm not -- I'll admit it and be better off for finding that out.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
"Not only that, but with my cable internet connection, I get free,"
Well, I wouldn't say 'free', but 'bundled'.
Where the MPAA becomes evil is when Jack Valenti tells us that it's tough shit if our kid scratches his copy of Shrek. "The consumer can buy another one".
For every 2000 people busted, and 50 lawyers getting richer (prix) there are another 20000 who just learn of P2p via news articles and go "screw it, ill try it, my credit card bills are maxed I cant afford to pay $8+parking+popcorn+drinks, so download it away"
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
I would think that if you worked for a company for two weeks and then they chose not to pay you, most people on this forum would consider that a type of theft.
Is that copyrights are finished.
This is not something I'm promoting, or something I desire. It just is.
How can you expect to control a world, to enforce the "right to copy" when anyone can make 100 copies a second of virtually any data only work?
In India, before Ghandi G. came along, it was illegal to make salt. People near the ocean were surrounded by billions of tons of salt but weren't allowed to extract it from the ocean. The british mandated this by law to protect their salt industry.
This is the exact same scenario that is happening with copyright. Some laws were passed 200 years or so ago to make it a civil wrong to do something that is very easy to do nowdays. These laws are unenforceable unless you want to assign the death penalty for possession of a xerox machine, a printing press, a tape recorder, a CD burner or especially a computer.
It's over people.
The current think going around is "how can we make these expensive movies if we can't profit from the copyrights?". My answer is, lower your expenses. The first thing you can do is dump expensive actors whose cost is sometimes 70% of a film.
My response to bad media, movies and music is not to participate. To not contribute to it. I don't think it is a moral justification to infringe copyright to claim that the material sucks anyway. That's really degenerate thinking. Tell it to the judge and see how far you get with that.
I'm not trying to justify my vision. It's just a fact that copyrights are finished. I'm offerring solutions. While the facts may offend some people, all their ranting, lawsuits and legal maneuvers won't change those facts.
The facts are technological. The march of progress is currently consuming another hapless victim. I would suggest not getting in the way of the thrashing beast in its death throes. Wounded animals are the most dangerous of all.
The mafia and triads put money first too, it doesnt make them any more legit or moral or nice as the big corporates that are on the stock markets.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
What about the whole realm of fair use?
I am a big bit torrent user myself. I like to download Star Trek. But nothing I'm downloading isn't being broadcasted on the cable TV I pay for. Is it still illegal?
It's not illegal if I record it with a TiVo... same quality (and in many cases better), only the source has changed.
The way I see it, I've paid my dues. I'm legally paying for this content. The **AA shouldn't have a right to tell me exactly how I consume the said content. They're getting paid either way, so they can STFU.
As long as I pay for cable TV, I should have the right to download any TV show or movie that's been broadcasted on any channel on my service.
If I can legally record shows with a TiVo, I should be able to legally download those same shows.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Yes, most definitely your IP address can be 'traced.' How do you suppose the other seeders and leechers know where to send the evil packets containing little pieces of copyrighted files?
Step 1: hack up P2P client to record IPs
Step 2: participate in a little of the P2P action
Step 3: PROFIT???
I think the current situation is kind of like 'safe sex.' The only way to be safe is not to trade with strangers. Or you can rely upon some sort of anonymisation service, but if you're paranoid like me, that's just a different sort of stranger.
Another significant difference is that you can now sometimes buy the MPAA movie soundtrack on DVD -- and get the whole d@mn movie to go with it -- for less than buying the RIAA CD audio movie soundtrack alone. And when it's more, it's seldom more than a couple dollars more. Talk about someone needing to re-evaluate their business model. And the audio people are getting the soundtrack source for essentially free, since all the studio time and such has already been paid for by the movie company.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Just in case reading the article is too much of a burden... here's a direct link to the Parent File Scan program.
It appears to be developed by a company called "DtecNet Software ApS".
Wanted: witty unique signature. Must be willing to relocate.
**I do not download music or movies... but this whole thing frustrates me to no end** The **AA goes after all these college students and kids... what's something they usually have in common? A lack of funds. How about if the going rate for a movie ticket wasn't $8.00 (in my area). I remember when you could see an evening movie for $3.00 and that wasn't too terribly long ago. You could take a freaking date to the movies and get a soda for $8.00 Now, it's $20.00 Lower prices to a reasonable level and maybe people won't resort to downloading to see that movie they've been waiting for. There is absolutely no reason for consumers to have to endure such prices. The theatre that I frequent raised their prices to $8.00 last year from $7.50. Why? There was no noticable change to the theatre or the films in general to justify the price increase. Now they're talking of raising them yet again to $8.50. Oh, wait... forgot that we have to pay those "modest" $20 million dollar salaries to every actor in Hollywood. Not to mention the millions to the producers and directors and everyone else who's name appears in the credits that isn't hurriedly rushed by in a scroll. The same goes for CDs. Lower the prices and put out better MUSIC, not manufactured Barbie and Ken Dolls. Hollywood had a record breaking year in 2004. So, piracy is leading to the demise of Hollywood? Sorry, but you'll get no sympathy from me when you're still making BILLIONS of dollars while some kid in a dorm room makes $5/hr if he even has a job and would just like some entertainment from time to time.
Yeah, it's not digital, and yeah, it's not 'theater quality' but I'm old enough to remember watching black & white TV with a pair of rabbit ears, so this is pretty okay with me....
Ahh yes, I remember those days. We always had trouble finding a sharp knife. Rabbits were never a problem though because Billy-Bob was a real good shot. Too bad about what happened to him in 'nam. Anyway I remember those nights sitting up impatiently, waiting for just the right time, for the planets to be aligned exactly right. Then we'd cut those ears off that rabbit and smear the blood all around the tv, saying that magical incantation "God dammit!", then of course there came the ritual kick. About half the time it would work and the reception would get better. The other half we'd have to eat our rabbit stew nice and quiet without the tv...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I hardly see movies in theaters anymore anyway. I don't really enjoy them as much, probably since a lot of movies anymore are crap put out for the sole purpose of making money. (which all movies are to an extent)
I save the money for video rentals, I get about 4 movies for the same price for my wife and I. We can then watch them whenever, and not pay $3 for a popcorn and $4 for a soda.
Much more enjoyable, and no kids around to bother me while I watch.
--
Who needs a big mac?Get a Free Mini Mac!
For context, click Parent.
I specialize in copyright law, have been reading it (often for pleasure)
;-)
Pervert!!! Lol. No, whatever tickles your fancy, I mean, why not...
This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Which just goes to show what is fundamentally wrong with society when something like THAT has to be spelled out
-- I am not an ourangoutan. We are not related. Eating your monitor may be hazardous to your health. I am not a lawyer. I am a doctor. I am not your doctor. The above must not be taken as medical advice.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Intellectual property is only some kind of knowledge and can therefore never be stolen but only be propagated.
Church tried to stand in the way of knowledge a long time ago, when they held all of the legislative, executive and judicial powers. They still failed when there came the age of enlightenment
Even if the MAFIA paid the lawmakers to make BLACKMAILING legal, it is still IMMORAL. The same remains true in the other direction regarding copyright legislation.
can the ISP your IP is from, give the MPAA your personal information without a major lawsuit to do so?
;)
Some ISPs pride themselves in keeping your personal information private, others just sell you out as soon as a subpeona is issued.
See, computers have a thing called a log file that keeps track of each IP it connects to. BT trackers keep track of the IP addresses that access them, BT web sites keep track of user registrations and IP addresses.
Usually they go after the big-time offenders, those sharing 10 to 15 movie files at once. The small-time offenders aren't worth bringing to court with who only share a few files at a time.
Besides, I heard a story about the RIAA accusing someone's grandmother using a Mac of being on the Kazaa network and sharing a ton of songs. The Mac cannot run Kazaa, and they obviously traced the wrong IP, or the right IP at the wrong time? Either that or she deleted her Virtual PC session that ran Kazaa and used the "Macintosh Defense" to get out of being sued.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Which just goes to show what is fundamentally wrong with society when something like THAT has to be spelled out ;-)
/. post.
.sig hopefully shields me a bit there too.
What, the part about the public domain, or the part about my being a lawyer?
If the latter, it's not really anything wrong with society. It's that attorney-client relationships are very easy to have arise. When one does, it can be dangerous to the lawyer, not the client. The lawyer is bound by fiduciary duties, the duty of confidentiality, etc. This can happen even as to potential clients that don't end up becoming actual clients, since there has to be an intake interview to determine what the case is and whether the lawyer will take it; this involves confidential information and should remain so. So the disclaimer is to avoid this happening to me merely on the basis of a
Similarly, lawyers can practice only in jurisdictions where they're licensed to practice. I can only practice in MA. Some states may take a dim view of legal advice being dispensed on the Internet. I don't want to be in trouble for that either, though it seems quite remote, so the
It's really only something I do to protect myself, and to protect others so that they're not misled with regards to my posts, etc. You probably don't need to worry about it much. I don't see how it evidences a problem with society.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
So run the program, pull your network plug, and check "netstat" to see if any unusual activity ocurrs. It would also be interesting to see if it detected non-illegal files.
;-)
As for the tracking software, remember - if DVD's auto-install software on your computer, the DivX rips from the 'net won't
Have you read it???
Because it says no such thing. It does NOT state that "it was COMPLETELY LEGAL to download and make available for download, a song, or a movie, or software for which you have not paid for", not even close. All the ruling states in that case was that copyright infringement can not be prosecuted under the wire fraud statute.
Read more.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Is there a law against misreprentation what is or isn't lawful? Can the MPAA be sued on this (wouldn't that be wonderful)
They want the ease and economy of digital distribution channels without lowering the costs of their product to consumers. Of course, since there's a little problem called the analog hole, they're sort of stuck. If it can be seen, it can be copied, and the same digital distribution channels they want to use to ship their product cheaply can be use to dispense copies of their content all over the place. To prevent this, they have to buy into Trusted Computing in all its glory, which will probably destroy the internet (it's not like I don't have enough places to buy stuff already).
Downloaders persist because content providers keep hosing their customers. A content protection system sufficient to prevent your customers from getting together to screw you is unlikely to be used by your customers. The **AAs want cheap distribution and high profits, while preventing their customers from aggregating to get what they want. The distribution system they want to use also allows (non)customers to distribute your product. Means to prevent that distribution destroy the users' incentive to use the internet, and thus to make your product cheaper for you.
The **AAs want to screw their customers while denying them alternatives and while using distribution channels which derive their use and benefit by their lack of restriction. You can't crap on your customers if they can go elsewhere. It would be better for them to use the distribution system to lower costs and convince their customers not to go elsewhere. Instead, they would prefer to continue to gouge their customers and intimidate them into not going elsewhere, in the process providing massive incentive for their customers to do precisely that. As long as their customers are free, they can't ensure their profits by these means.
Bush talks about freedom, and all the university kids in Iran start learning how to use encrypted P2P to organize protests and idealogy with Berkeley.
The Iranian Government has threated to fucking shoot any son of a dog that downloads movies of the United States President's "State of the Union" address. The Moral Police have been tasked with distributing corrupt Torrent chunks, and tracking IP's of offenders.
Also, the RIAA is, like, totally starving. Executives have been asked to report to work in bum clothing, carrying cardboard signs that say "Homeless Army Veteran. Every bit helps." Workers have been outfitted with GPS units to ensure even distribution and active soliciting of rush-hour traffic.
I'm pretty sure even 10 year olds these days can hit uninstall...
"In practice, the software, developed by the DtecNet Software company in Denmark, casts an extremely wide net."
Something tells me we'll be seeing anti-MPAA software soon. And oh yea, im betting $5.00 that DtecNet Software will get defaced :)
But it gets even worse...
"Parent File Scan also uses a very liberal definition of file-swapping software. In a test on a CNET News.com computer, the software identified Mirc--a client for the Internet Relay Chat network, where files can be swapped,"
mIRC?!?! I never knew!!!
That the MPAA is fighting a losing battle? Because the "kids" in Iran are able to sneak seditious material in and out of the country, at the risk of death?
Your point is not very clear.
I'm not a lawyer, but its pretty clear that if I copy a disk from a someone at work, and keep it and watch it, I am not liable for $1.5M of damages.
If I download a movie from the internet, keep it, and watch it, I am not liable for $1.5M of damages
I agree. But only due to math.
17 USC 106: The copyright holder has an exclusive right to reproduce the work. Whether you reproduce the work in a new copy by means of duplicating a DVD or by means of downloading it, it's reproduction.
17 USC 501: Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder is an infringer.
17 USC 504: A copyright holder may sue an infringer for statutory damages. Statutory damages are awarded in an amount of the court's discretion between the amount of $700 - $30,000 per work infringed. If the copyright holder successfully proves that the infringement was willful, the court may award statutory damages in an amount of its discretion between $700 and $150,000.
Hence the math thing. Your example involves a likely liability of $150,000. The earlier poster talked about ten movies, so 10 x $150,000 = $1.5 million.
If you find the $150,000 figure doubtful, I encourage you to look at the actual law. I've provided cites to it. You could google for it in mere seconds. I hope that you will, if you have an open mind.
But you can hardly blame him for mocking lawyers.
Oh, I don't. I like a good lawyer joke as much as the next guy. Only he didn't tell one. He didn't mock lawyers. He basically claimed that I wasn't a lawyer, which is incorrect, and that I didn't know what I was talking about, which I think I've refuted in a fairly calm and 'noble' manner. It's not like I attacked him. I mentioned my qualifications, and I stated the law.
I don't mind being called names either. But if he's going to insult me, don't you think that he could have done it better by agreeing that I was a lawyer instead of saying that I'm not? E.g. wishing I was at the bottom of the sea or whatever?
I guess I just like a good, witty, quality insult. You ever see that movie "Roxanne," with Steve Martin?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Hi, well this is more like a question.
I have downloaded some cd's from this allofmp3 site. So it seems to be "barely legal". Now I am not in the US,
Does anyone knows the actual state of that site according to the US Law?? to the UK law? or to the Mexican (yes... its not a joke) law?
Anyway, I think this is the only post where I wont be "off topic"
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
17 USC 106: The copyright holder
Unconstitutional. The Constitution says nothing of "copyright holder", only authors and inventors.
17 USC 501: Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder
Similarly unconstitutional.
17 USC 504: A copyright holder
ad nauseum.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
I couldn't have said it any better!
Import your anime from Canada - there are a few good DVD companies up there, competitive prices, and pretty good (and cheap) delivery arrangements to the UK.
Divide those two numbers and you see that on average each song has an estimated value of $377,292 for the year. The potential fine for a single copyright infringement is $150,000, or nearly 40% of the average total annual value of a song. For a single infringement.
Yes the more valuable songs are infringed more often. But if you're going to base the maximum potential fine on every song that's on the CD, even the crappy ones, you need to work with the average value. This fine needs to be lowered drastically to put it more in line with reality. Maybe make an exception for more successful songs, but $150,000 per song is ridiculously high.
Is it a manufactored demand thing? Is marketing really so effective that people are willing to break the law just to say they have this stuff? I thought we were finally getting to a point where the population was seeing through this pointless consumption.
That's a novel argument, but I'm prepared to bet cash money that it would lose.
There has long been a distinction made between authors, who are the persons in which a copyright initially vests, and copyright holders (also known as proprietors) to whom the copyright later passes by assignment or operation of law.
The acts of the First Congress are often afforded special treatment because it is felt that, by virtue of being closer to the framing of the Constitution, its members had a noteworthy understanding and interpretation of it. They passed the Copyright Act of 1790, and it provides for assignment of copyright. Every copyright act since has as well. So it is highly likely that assignment is constitutional since we have always had it under the federal copyright power, from year one.
Furthermore, the Statute of Anne -- the first copyright law -- provides for assignment. The Continental Congress recognized assignment. And every single state that enacted a copyright law prior to the Constitution becoming effective provided for assignment.
So it's nice of you to weigh in, but to date no law in the American legal tradition dating all the way back to 1710 ever gives you even one iota of support for your premise that copyrights can only possibly be held by authors, and that non-authors (e.g. authors' heirs) can never hold them.
Furthermore, in light of Eldred, it's difficult to see that your argument would have any chance in hell of succeeding anytime soon. The courts, for some reason, are prepared to greatly defer to Congress regarding copyright matters. And since Congress likes letting non authors get copyrights, the courts will uniformly uphold the legislation enabling that as constitutional. And it's their interpretation of the constitution that matters in the end.
Want to try a better argument? One with a leg to stand on? I'm all ears.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
There has long been a distinction made between authors, who are the persons in which a copyright initially vests, and copyright holders (also known as proprietors) to whom the copyright later passes by assignment or operation of law.
Spin it however you like. That "operation of law" is unconstitutional. It's outside the jurisdiction of the federal gov't as defined by the 9th and 10th Amendments.
The acts of the First Congress are often afforded special treatment
Unconstitutional. Not my fault.
the Statute of Anne -- the first copyright law -- provides for assignment
Unconstitutional. Not my fault.
So it's nice of you to weigh in
In a court you'll win because you have the money interests on your side. However, according to the letter of the Constitution, you're still wrong.
in light of Eldred
That's Elrond. And you're still unconstitutional.
Want to try a better argument?
Sure. How about the one that asks you to read and adhere to the 9th and 10th Amendments?
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
That "operation of law" is unconstitutional.
I'm sorry, you're saying that foreclosures, for example, are unconstitutional? Exactly how far in left field are you, man?
It's outside the jurisdiction of the federal gov't as defined by the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Hm, and did you remember to take the necessary and proper clause into account?
However, according to the letter of the Constitution, you're still wrong.
Ah! There's the problem. You're being unreasonably literal. You're concerned with what the language literally is instead of what it actually means or even the purposes and ideals behind it.
We can have some fun with this. For example, an author is a person who writes text, and writings are textual in nature. Since the Constitution only refers to the writings of authors, would you claim that it does not permit for federal copyrights as to paintings of artists, or music of composers?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
GREAT GOOGLYMOOGLY that was ugly. I swear, it wasn't that ugly when I first put it up there.
:)
My bad.
It's much prettier now, and a lot easier to read...
thanks for pointing that out.
I'm sorry, you're saying that foreclosures, for example, are unconstitutional? Exactly how far in left field are you, man?
States and localities, as per the 9th and 10th, are free to legislate on foreclosures. That's not under federal jurisdiction. This isn't about "the left". It's about "the right".
You're concerned with what the language literally is instead of what it actually means or even the purposes and ideals behind it.
The language was meant to prevent another King George who could twist the law any way he wanted it, as you have done.
would you claim that it does not permit for federal copyrights as to paintings of artists, or music of composers?
Authors and inventors. Artists are inventors of their art.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Well, previously you said that the other operations of law by which a copyright can move from one person to another were unconstitutional. Foreclosure is one such operation of law. I'll leave you to reconcile your contradictions.
This isn't about "the left". It's about "the right".
Actually, 'left field' is a term from baseball, not politics. Here's the Webster's definition:
There is no corresponding idiom regarding right field.
I'm pretty worried about you now.
The language was meant to prevent another King George who could twist the law any way he wanted it, as you have done.
Yeah, I'm very tyrranical. The fact that Congress has 'twisted' this provision continuously in exactly the same way for the last 215 years, following in the tradition that would have been in the minds of the framers as they empowered Congress to act, and following in a tradition reaching back 295 years to the first copyright law -- this is all some big conspiracy is it? No chance that this longstanding interpretation could be accurate in any way as perhaps evidenced by how long it's gone unchallenged?
Authors and inventors. Artists are inventors of their art.
I'm sorry, you lose.
You have just claimed that artists are inventors, and as such deserve patents on their works. (which, incidentally, has never ever happened AFAIK)
According to the Constitution, we have patents to promote only the useful arts. Paintings have no utility as a rule. Nor are paintings a form of art -- since in 1789 when the Constitution was drafted, art referred to 'technical arts' as in 'state of the art technology.' It doesn't mean pretty things.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Well, previously you said that the other operations of law by which a copyright can move from one person to another were unconstitutional. Foreclosure is one such operation of law. I'll leave you to reconcile your contradictions.
Since the Constitution says nothing about foreclosures, I guess that right is reserved to the states or the people.
You haven't even read the 9th and 10th.
The fact that Congress has 'twisted' this provision
There's a very clear delineation between the author or inventor in his cottage and the King George who seeks to buy him out and become the "copyright holder". If you can't see that then, at the risk of trolling, you're a fucking idiot.
in a tradition reaching back 295 years to the first copyright law
Longevity does not make it Constitutional.
Paintings have no utility as a rule
Arguable.
Nor are paintings a form of art -- since in 1789 when the Constitution was drafted, art referred to 'technical arts'
Pure conjecture.
Where in the Constitution does it say that "arts refers only to technical arts"?
On my side. No where in the Constitution are "authors and inventors" equated with "copyright holders". No where in the Constitution is "copyright" even mentioned.
It's out of federal jurisdiction.
You haven't even touched the 9th and 10th Amendments yet. I suppose you're watching my posts. I've got two more today until I have to wait 'til tomorrow to push my schlong down your throat.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Dear MPAA,
You can have my money when you earn it. Stop standing in the way of progress. I can now watch a movie from the comfort of my own home, without the sticky floors or 10 minutes of commercials preceeding it.
Current copyright lawsuits are not promoting the progress of science. Computers are here to stay, and innovators are enabling me to watch a movie after my toddler goes to bed. I'm willing to give someone money in exchange for this innovative convenience, but none of the copyright holders wants to take it.
I'd pay for commercial free TV episodes I could watch on my own schedule, too, if I didn't have to wait 5 years for the DVD to come out, but that's a topic for a different day. They think my eyeballs are worth money to advertisers, huh? Why won't they take it from me directly?
Since the Constitution says nothing about foreclosures, I guess that right is reserved to the states or the people.
I didn't say the federal government was the one legislating foreclosures. In fact, they don't. Federal copyright law envisions people being able to foreclose on the copyrights of copyright holders by operation of state law. Likewise, heirs can inherit copyrights by state intestacy law. And so forth.
You haven't even read the 9th and 10th.
Yes, I have.
There's a very clear delineation between the author or inventor in his cottage and the King George who seeks to buy him out and become the "copyright holder". If you can't see that then, at the risk of trolling, you're a fucking idiot.
The problem is that the author or inventor is the master of the assignment. You are saying that an author cannot assign his copyright as a gift to a friend. And that he cannot die and leave or will his copyright to his family. Etc.
Anyone who holds a copyright is a copyright holder, regardless of how he got it. The author is the first copyright holder, but anyone could be the later ones.
Longevity does not make it Constitutional.
True, but it raises a very large quantity of doubt in your unique reading.
Arguable.
No, courts pretty always find them to lack utility. This is chiefly owing to the utility doctrine, which precludes useful pictoral, graphic, and sculptural works from being copyrightable.
Some paintings might have utility but it's difficult to see a painting constituting a useful invention.
Pure conjecture.
No.
The best English dictionary ever is the Oxford English Dictionary. It not only defines words as used now, but provides definitions and examples of their use from throughout history. If you look up the word 'art' and look through the definitions to see what it would've meant in 1789 according to the books that were in print at that time (from which the definitions and examples are drawn), you'll see that I'm stating a fact. Hell, I looked it up just to check, when someone told me!
Any good university should have a copy. They're online too, but IIRC, it's not free. Or you can buy the 20 volume set from Amazon or other booksellers. I've had it on my wish list for years.
Where in the Constitution does it say that "arts refers only to technical arts"?
Where in the Constitution does it say that the country they call the United States of America is the one located on the North American continent. Maybe they meant a different one altogether!
It doesn't, because they didn't expect people to be such amazing idiots. They used words according to their meanings at the time. They didn't think they had to include a fucking dictionary that would start from first principles so that people could speak Constitutionese. English is one of those languages that changes a lot. It's the same reason why people have difficulty reading and understanding Shakespeare and why it's quite hard to read and understand Chaucer.
You haven't even touched the 9th and 10th Amendments yet.
Because they hold no relevance to this discussion. The power to permit transfers of copyright is a part of the federal copyright power either by itself or in conjunction with the necessary and proper clause (which you haven't touched). So long as it's a federal power, the 9th and 10th Amendments are not implicated.
And incidentally, while I can see the 10th amendment argument at least (since it is perfectly well established that the states have copyright powers too, to the degree they are not preempted by Congress based upon the supremecy clause et al), but I don't get your 9th amendment thing at all.
Not that it matters: you still haven't gotten anywhere with your attack on the federal power.
I suppose you're watching my posts.
Nope. I try to keep an eye on replies to mine.
I've got two
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Actually, like most lawyers, you avoided answering his question.
/. and that both of them have appeared on the same day in the same grouping of threads -- I will ask you to not post again here, but to instead post in the other thread where the argument (or smack down) is proceeding.
Actually I am engaged in a discussion with him in the thread I linked to. I simply don't want to repeat it. This is easier when you only have one argument at a time, instead of the same one, at different stages, in parallel.
But that's not what he asked. He raised the point that copyright holders are a new class that probably don't meet the definition as laid down by the founders.
They're not new. They date back to the creation of copyright to begin with. All copyright statutes in our legal tradition dating back nearly 300 years provide for copyright holders other than authors.
But since I suspect that you are in fact the other poster -- since I simply cannot believe that there are two such stupendously stupid people on
Neat trick, but i'll give you a hint... smart guys go into law. Brilliant guys go into computer science.
I have not found this to be the case. All kinds of people go into all kinds of professions. Certainly I know plenty of stupid computer scientists and brilliant lawyers, and also stupid lawyers and brilliant computer scientists.
And in case you're wondering, I have a nicer BMW than you too.
Probably. I have a 12 year old Ford. If I buy a new car (the current one is paid off) it'll probably be a Honda or something. I don't care about cars -- they only need to be cheap to own and operate, and to reliably get me where I need to go.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
A copyright holder is not necessarily an "author and inventor". Sorry for you. The Constitution only protects "authors and inventors".
Only serves to illustrate that courts can be bought.
Care to quote that from the Constitution?
I'd support you at the State or Local level. But at the Federal level, there are very specific rules laid down.
You cannot expand "authors and inventors" to include copyright holders.
Oh God. This explain everything. I'm arguing with a newb.
It takes you almost 30 minutes to respond. Are you retarded?
I have one post left today to violate your anus.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
but in fact, you can't arrested for jaywalking.
Really? Why not? While it might be uncommon, I don't see why it's impossible. It's probably happened before.
Same thing for copying movies for personal use. In fact, I'll bet the big corporations would never want this to go to trial because there's a good chance a court will simply say "pfft...fair use. And why are you wasting the court's time over 10 DVDs?"
There is little chance of a finding of fair use unless downloading -- without uploading -- is done only as a substitute for self-ripping. And even then there is a whole other kettle of fish with the anticircumvention provisions.
Also the number of works really isn't important. Ten infringements is not a frivolous enough matter for the court to get upset with the plaintiff or to have grounds to do anything untorward. It might set low damages (c.f. nominal damages in tort cases) but that's about it.
So okay. If you want to talk about the letter of the law. Great. The letter of the law once said blacks have to stand on the back of the bus. The law was wrong, and it finally took a generation of judges who understood that kind of thinking would eventually destroy the country because ultimately, it couldn't be reconciled with common sense and morality.
I fear you are confusing my discussion as to what the law is with an endorsement for the law as it is. Let me be clear: I like the idea of copyright law. But I hate the copyright law that we have on the books. I think we need massive reform and extreme reductions in the scope of copyright across the board. I think that by scrapping oand replacing our copyright law with a much more modest one, we can better fulfill the purposes copyright is intended to serve, and improve the well being of the people of our country, including our authors.
But I'm not going to pretend that this has happened yet, if it ever will. In fact, I think it is key to make sure that people know just what the law is now so that they know just how bad the law is now and are truly motivated to change it to something better.
I hope disney goes first.
Meh. I think they've done some bad stuff, but I'm prepared to forgive it so long as we can simply repair the damage as best we're able and prevent further abuses.
I don't fault them for being greedy. I want them to be greedy, since that's essential to the proper functioning of copyright. It's just like how luring a donkey forward by dangling a carrot in front of it relies on his greed. No greed, no forward motion.
I just want to channel that greed in useful ways, instead of letting it run roughshod over all of us.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
An author cannot reassign his Constitutional rights
Copyright is not a constitutional right. Congress is merely empowered by the constitution. The copyright law they enact pursuant to that power, however, is merely federal law. And if the federal law -- which is supreme to everything but the constitution -- says he can assign it, then he can. No problem.
A copyright holder is not necessarily an "author and inventor".
Yes, that's what I said.
Only serves to illustrate that courts can be bought.
I admit, I'm really struggling to figure out how you can arrive at such clearly insane conclusions. Is this some sort of performance art, you're engaged in? Posting something that's nonsense, but only slightly so?
If so, I applaud your willingness to enage in art, but I'm not very impressed by it. Dada has come and gone.
Care to quote that from the Constitution?
Okay.
Since, per Eldred, Congress constitutionally has broad leeway to implement copyright as it sees fit in order to exercise the power it has in this field, it can constitutionally permit for copyright transfer.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Yes, I know what the ninth amendment is. I'm saying I don't see how it is applicable.
Oh God. This explain everything. I'm arguing with a newb.
I have a UID of 3773 and you think I'm a newbie?
It takes you almost 30 minutes to respond. Are you retarded?
Well, maybe it takes no time at all to post a string of nonsense connected by spittle, but I don't post such things
I have one post left today to violate your anus.
And so again, why is it that you've only the one remaining post?
(Not that I'm arguing. You're an idiot, and I'll be glad to never see you again. Feel free to jump off of a cliff.)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Unconstitutional. There is no "as it sees fit" unless you want to validate "As King George sees fit".
"Copyright holder" is an enumeration of "authors and creators" and, per the 9th amendment, is disallowed.
I'm impressed? Oh wait... yet you still don't know about "25 posts per day (more or less)".
I have no posts left to violate your anus. See you tomorrow around 3:30 PM if you care to continue.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
There is no "as it sees fit"
There is. The courts could act as a check on Congress, and generally do, but they are an equal branch of the federal government, not a superior one. They can't sit over Congress and pick and choose laws as if they were a super-legislature. This means giving Congress leeway to act. It has bounds, but it's free to do as it likes within those bounds.
This includes copyright transfers.
"Copyright holder" is an enumeration of "authors and creators" and, per the 9th amendment, is disallowed.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Try again.
Oh wait... yet you still don't know about "25 posts per day (more or less)".
Nope. Guess I've never encountered that. And it doesn't appear to be in the FAQ, from a quick glance. But if it means I don't have to put up with the crap that you've been spewing, I'm not terribly upset.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
This includes copyright transfers.
The bounds are limited by the 9th. Typical of a lawyer, you're expanding to fit your personal desire.
No wonder your kind are labelled as the scum of society.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
The other day I opened up a divx file with my handy dandy hex editor and orated the one's and zeros to a friend of mine. My friend, as I orated, saved the one's and zero's with his hex editor and then happily watch the divx on his computer.
Have I just comitted a crime? Or does the constitution protect my right to free speech?
How?
While the 9th notes that there are rights of the people not enumerated in the bill of rights, such rights enjoy no unique guarantees. Furthermore, what specific right is infringed by the availability of copyright transfers?
There's no right to a copyright. There's no right to a non transferable copyright.
Typical of a lawyer, you're expanding to fit your personal desire.
No, not really. I wouldn't mind a non transferable copyright system, but I don't see the point, and I don't see that we'd be stuck with one.
No wonder your kind are labelled as the scum of society.
No, no one in the world dislikes lawyers based on the 9th amendment.
And what's with you? A lawyer kill your family, and now you're out for revenge?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
You can't believe there anyone smarter than lawyers.
/.
That is patently false.
I think that it's difficult to rate intelligence well, but if there is someone who is the smartest person in the world, odds are that it's not a lawyer if only because there is a relatively small number of lawyers in the world. It's also probably not a computer scientist, for the same reason. If I had to guess, I'd say the smartest person in the world is probably a housewife.
But what I've found is that lawyers tend to be a hair above telephone sanitizers and marketers.
That's a bit odd, given that pretty much all even halfway successful societies have had laws, and that where there are laws, people tend to specialize in working with them, just as we have other specialized occupations (farmer, metalworker, etc). I think lawyers probably positively contribute to societies, because they try to keep people from breaking the law, which is on the whole a good thing. (depends on the law, of course)
In addition to the nicer BMW (both of mine are paid off)
Pretty forgetful, are you? I have no BMW, so there's nothing to be nicer than. Plus, I don't think a BMW is nice given what I look for in a car. So who cares?
my wife is hotter than yours
Not married.
my kids are smarter than yours
No kids, and don't particularly want any.
I'm guessing I'm better looking
No way to know.
people like me more (by definition: you're a lawyer)
I don't care what people think of me if they merely adhere to mindless prejudices. I don't need their respect. Given your attitude, I doubt anyone likes you much if they get to know you.
Also clients tend to love their lawyers. We get things done for them.
my house is nicer
I rent.
and my guess is if we met in a ring, I'd kick your ass there too
I abhor violence, and you haven't kicked my ass in any way at all yet, so it's a little premature to say 'too.'
When you total all of that, the implications are really pretty staggering for you.
No, I've met plenty of trolls on
Its people like you arguing laws that set precedent.
I find that particular mangling of words to be amusing.
that we have a 2nd rate judiciary and set of laws because...well... you know why.
What would you propose as a replacement? I'm guessing it would be Thunderdome (two litigants enter, one litigant leaves).
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The 9th and 10th cover rights not enumerated in the Constitution.
;)
Wow. For all your amazing crap, harping on these, you don't actually know what they are. That's funny.
The 9th does that, and only for people. The 10th covers powers, not rights.
Copyright is not a right of the people. The ninth is inapplicable. It is a power of the states (and not the people) so the 10th certainly indicates that states retain copyright powers, but that doesn't preclude Congress from legislating where it too has that power, as it does.
The Constitution is very specific in LIMITING the Federal government.
No, it's more like it's very specific in expanding the federal government from nothing. To limit would imply that it's reducing it and that therefore it has an independent existence. For a sort of states-rights idiot, you really aren't very good at this.
Maybe. What are you doing to make it right?
Finishing the job?
What happened to 25 more or less?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Federal authorities have no business meddling in these matters.
It is.
All federal powers were granted to it by the states or the people. Rarely were the powers given over completely, instead they are shared, with the federal government supreme over the states.
For example, Congress can regulate interstate commerce by means of the commerce clause. So can the states, but they can't conflict with what Congress does, and can't abuse their freedom of action where Congress hasn't legislated so as to fuck it all up (see the negative commerce clause).
Unlikely
You're saying that the federal government would have existed even if no state or person had empowered it?
For your next post, you'll talk about how the world is flat, huh?
Posting as an AP is not a hack. It is lame. N.b. that I've posted over 25 times today and am still using my account.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Powers are not upward flowing. Feds cannot gain powers from the states.
How the hell do you think the states and people created the federal government other than by investing it with their own powers?
Magic federalist pixies?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
From where does the Constitution derive its power?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
No, it doesn't derive it's powers from lawyers. But don't underestimate our powers, which are mighty and terrible!
The Constitution does not grant Federal rights to "copyright holders", only to "authors and creators".
Nope. The constitution doesn't grant rights to authors. (And the term 'creators' should not be in quotes as you have it, since it is not in the Constitution. You claim to like the literal wording of it, but can't quote it correctly? You're a dumbass.) The constitution only empowers Congress. Congress, using that power, can choose if it wants to establish a system of copyrights, and can set up any system it likes so long as it is within the power granted to it. Allowing for transfers is within that power as a necessary and proper adjunct to promoting the progress of science and does not conflict with the securing to authors subclause as transfers necessarily come afterwards and were part of the framers' intent for federal copyright laws as evidenced by the fact that that's what they were familiar with before, and that's what they implemented once the government was running.
I have but the least glimmer of hope that you're on the level and just amazingly stupid, as opposed to being a troll and amazingly stupid.
Either way, you've lost the argument, resorted to name calling of a type that doesn't actually work since I _am_ a lawyer and that's not an insult, and have just started over again.
If you want to start over again, go back to the top of the thread and read down to this point and repeat until the truth of the matter gets through your thick head.
Otherwise it's time for you to give up, sparky.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
This comes into the realm of employee contracts.
No. While some transfers are by means of contract, many others are not.
If an author copyright holder gives a copyright to a friend as a gift, it's not per a contract, but it is valid. You, fool, think it's not.
If an author dies and his will leaves his copyright to his family, it's not per a contract, but it is valid. You, fool, think it's not. Likewise for authors that die intestate; it's treated as personal property and goes to his heirs.
In these cases, the non-authors that are given the copyrights become copyright holders. Except in your fantasy world.
So what do you think happens to a copyright when an author dies? It has to go away too? Or what?
The only thing being sparked is a revolution, corporate boy.
Uh huh. And btw, I'm actually in favor of sweeping reforms that would massively reduce copyright. I'm opposed to where it's been going for the last century or so.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
As I said, you're repeating your babble. Why not go back to when you first made your unsupportable claims, and work your way back to where you lost?
... pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
And by the way: If not spec'd in the will then, yes, it goes away. It becomes public domain under federal law.
You claim that there is such a federal law. Cite the precise statute or case to this effect. As there is no such law, I figure you won't be able to post a reply, and that'll finish things up nicely.
The actual law -- the one that in effect brands you as a liar or monumental moron -- is 17 USC 201(d)(1), which reads in pertinent part: The ownership of a copyright may
Be seeing you.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
No, the constitution does not establish copyrights, nor is it properly termed a federal law.
You said there was a federal law causing copyrights to enter the public domain.
Cite the statute or case precisely.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
You said there was a federal law causing copyrights to enter the public domain.
Cite the statute or case precisely.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
That is not a federal law causing copyrights to enter the public domain. It only permits states to establish state laws to that effect, and they cannot due to the effect of the supremecy clause.
You said there was a federal law causing copyrights to enter the public domain.
Cite the statute or case precisely.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Its been said before, but I feel it must be repeated, the actions of the MPAA , and RIAA are jus the death throws of a bug being squashed, albeit slowly. After reading statistics about the number of users growing every year sounds like geometric growth, not linear. even if it was linear, and not geometric how do they intend to keep up with lawsuits, that would mean that they would have to put out ever increasing amounts of lawsuits every year, eventually the govn't will just get tired of them and pass a law that makes it illegal to file more than 1000 lawsuits in a year, or whatever. Anyone ever wonder how much it must cost taxpayers for these lawsuits to go through court? - I'd like to see the numbers
I said no such thing.
Yes you did, but you're a liar:
If not spec'd in the will then, yes, it goes away. It becomes public domain under federal law.
You said there was a federal law causing copyrights to enter the public domain.
Cite the statute or case precisely.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
It becomes public domain under federal law.
... When the copyright holder dies the copyright goes away.
According to federal law, the copyright never existed.
You said there is a federal law causing copyrights to enter the public domain. You have also said that there is a federal law causing copyrights to retroactively not exist upon the death of the copyright holder -- a term you no longer seem to be objecting to.
There are no such laws, but you say there are.
Cite the statute or case precisely.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
It becomes public domain under federal law.
... When the copyright holder dies the copyright goes away.
According to federal law, the copyright never existed.
There are no such laws.
So you're just lying.
Given that you lied, saying that those laws existed when in fact they do not, as you now admit, why should I believe that there is any basis at all for the rest of your argument, or that you are posting in good faith?
Tell you what: cite to any statute, case, or scholarly article supporting your tortured and unique reading of the Constitution and we can continue. But if you're the only person in the world suffering from your particular delusion, then I think it's best if you suffer alone.
But if you cannot find even one person to back you up, then it'll be evident that you're just lying some more, and are not in fact arguing, but just being an idiot. You do have a track record for that, after all.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I want you to read it yourself. Read the Constitution. Read the 9th and 10th amendments.
/.
I have. Your message from the pixies does not seem to be in it. You have not shown that anyone else in the world agrees with you even a little bit, which casts total doubt on every word you write.
You are a liar -- by your own admission -- and you are a crank, posting your own unique brand of nonsense. You're probably off your medication or simply one of the most stupid people I've ever had the bad fortune to encounter, even on
Until you can cite me one law, case, or scholarly article that backs you up, this is the end of our discussion. Since you will never find such a thing, I expect it is the permanent end to our discussion. Future posts from you or believed to be from you will be ignored or met with the same challenge and recounting of your history of lies and spurious nonsense.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.