UK Has First Verdict in P2P Case

FIST SPORT! by ringbarer · 2006-01-27 04:51 · Score: 0

Stealing is stealing. Pretending that it doesn't matter doesn't stop it from being a crime.

Let's hope more thieves are convicted.

--
"Why did they cancel my favorite Sci-Fi show? I downloaded ALL the episodes!"

Re:FIST SPORT! by aliscool · 2006-01-27 04:54 · Score: 0

The morale of this story

Stealing is illegal. These clowns are lucky they didn't get any jail time or community service.
Re:FIST SPORT! by PhotoBoy · 2006-01-27 05:11 · Score: 1

I thought the moral of the story was don't upload, just leech?
Re:FIST SPORT! by Travelsonic · 2006-01-27 08:38 · Score: 1

Well, stealing has always been illegal, but we *are* talking about infringement of copyrights here... I think that if you mod me down for saying this point, you also need to mod down the parent post and the post above for making statements that are made in every news story about this topic - it's only fair.

--
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Re:FIST SPORT! by ickleberry · 2006-01-27 10:17 · Score: 0

Assuming you're right, how can I steal something they dont sell?

Do they sell the music in unencrypted DRM-less MP3 format at the bitrate I want? No.

They sell it online using a low-quality proprietary codec that only runs on a particular OS that I dont use because that OS has features to "make it work against the owner" why should my computer be an agent of the content providers? they own no part of it. They might own the "content" but not the machine that is playing it and therefore should not attempt to excersize any control over it against the owner's wishes

Ignorance... by zenmojodaddy · 2006-01-27 04:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Since when has ignorance of the law been a valid defence?

Re:Ignorance... by Kookus · 2006-01-27 04:54 · Score: 4, Funny

Ask Bush, He'll tell ya how well that works.
Re:Ignorance... by britneys+9th+husband · 2006-01-27 04:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Since when has "There was no evidence" NOT been a valid defense?

--
Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
Re:Ignorance... by jxyama · 2006-01-27 05:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

I remember on 9/11, some clever people took advantage of network shortages in Manhattan to withdraw money from ATM, thinking there was no consequence. Some of them were charged and found guilty.
I also heard another case where some people in midwest figured out that they could swipe their drivers license at the gas pump and it would dispense gas for "free." Those people were charged and found guilty.
In both cases, just like this P2P case, you can claim "I didn't know it was illegal." I am guessing that such naive "confession" isn't really applicable or effective as a defense (and shouldn't be, in my opinion) beyond certain point since people were getting things of monetary value for "free."
In all cases, the prosecution had evidence on who and what was involved: withdrawer/money, motorist/gas, sharer/copyrighted music. All "I didn't know it was illegal" defends is the intent. That's not "no evidence."
Re:Ignorance... by Phanatic1a · 2006-01-27 05:14 · Score: 1

It's not a valid defense in those cases where there actually is evidence.
Re:Ignorance... by goldspider · 2006-01-27 05:16 · Score: 1

Apparently there was enough evidence to convict these two idiots.

Ya know, there's an easy way to avoid this kind of thing...

STOP SHARING COPYRIGHTED WORKS YOU DON'T OWN

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Re:Ignorance... by Catbeller · 2006-01-27 05:17 · Score: 1

"Ask Bush, He'll tell ya how well that works."

Giving you a karma boost up.
Re:Ignorance... by Antifuse · 2006-01-27 05:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

From TFA: The first defendant, from King's Lynn, said the BPI had no direct evidence of infringement, but the judges dismissed this and ordered him to make an immediate payment of £5,000. Does that mean that there WAS evidence? Or that the judge just said "Bah, we don't need no evidence!"? A very poorly written article.
Re:Ignorance... by truthsearch · 2006-01-27 05:22 · Score: 1

It's every citizen's responsibility to be aware of the laws they must live by.

However, I have an issue with this in the US. With federal codes comprising 50 titles plus who-knows-how-many state and local laws, and with them continually changing, I don't know how anyone is supposed to remember and keep up with all of them.

--
Developers: We can use your help.
Re:Ignorance... by Catbeller · 2006-01-27 05:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

"STOP SHARING COPYRIGHTED WORKS YOU DON'T OWN"

So if I own the music, it's okay then.

By the way, no one can own music. You can own an object, like a CD or if you're a record company, the master. But music is not property and you can't own it. You can hold a copyright, but that's it. Music belongs to the world. That's sanity. That's how it works.

The idea is to give the copy-rights to someone for a limited time, to encourage the arts and help the artist get paid. Then the music is released into the commons.

This has stopped. The contract has been broken; copyright is forever. We didn't break the deal, they did. So let the war continue, the sane versus the greedy. The war ends when copyrights stop being construed as "owning the music" whereever it exists, and become 15 year limited exclusive rights granted by the law. When music and ideas are not "property", a mad concept designed to meter people's minds.
Re:Ignorance... by deviantphil · 2006-01-27 05:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_ excusat

Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law is no excuse") is a public policy holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content; that is, persons have presumed knowledge of the law.
Re:Ignorance... by pla · 2006-01-27 05:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's not a valid defense in those cases where there actually is evidence.

So of course, BPI has either pictures of these guys actually in the act of sharing music, or credibile witnesses that claims to have watched them do so?

No evidence means just that. The BPI has an IP address and a filename. By the same standards of "proof", you could convict Richard Nixon of bank robbery on no better evidence than someone wearing a Nixon Halloween mask during the crime.

As unlikely as you may consider it (from the "intent", not the "techical" aspect), 10 seconds from now I could make my machine "look" like yours as far as Kazaa and the rest can tell. With a bit more effort and some luck (such as you running an unpatched XP machine), I could actually USE your machine to generate the offending traffic.

And even going so far as to address intent (why someone would attack these guys' machines) - How long does it take an unpatched machine on the net to turn into a zombie? Last I heard, it happens quickly enough that you can't patch a new install fast enough (if dumb enough to stick it on the net unprotected) to avoid the impending attacks.

So no, no evidence proving the accused gents did anything wrong. The BPI has the murder weapon and the corpse, but nothing else.

Just for the record, I don't make this claim because I support file sharing. It scares the hell out of me that the goverment may apply the same reasoning to real crimes. "Well, someone hacked into the pentagon, and they logged your IP address, so the prosecution rests".
Re:Ignorance... by Tim+C · 2006-01-27 05:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's all well and good, and forms part of a valid method of protest. However, in that case, you must be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions - protesting a law like that means being prepared to go to jail, protesting all the way that the law is wrong.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Ignorance... by Stone+Pony · 2006-01-27 05:43 · Score: 1

So can we take it that you agree with prosecuting people who share copywrited works less than 15 years old?
Re:Ignorance... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 05:46 · Score: 0

"Since when has ignorance of the law been a valid defence?"

It should be. Have you seen the number of new laws passed each year, not to mention the number already on the books, it impossible for someone to know them all. Even then many are vague leaving plenty of wiggle room for lawyers.
Re:Ignorance... by Stone+Pony · 2006-01-27 05:50 · Score: 1

The article gives no basis whatsoever on which to make a judgement one way or the other about whether there was evidence. The fact that he lost the case suggests that there might have been some, after all.
Then again, he says that there wasn't and I'm sure that he's a completely unbiased observer, so that's that settled.
Re:Ignorance... by vague+disclaimer · 2006-01-27 05:58 · Score: 1

By the way, no one can own music. You can own an object, like a CD or if you're a record company, the master. But music is not property and you can't own it. You can hold a copyright, but that's it. Music belongs to the world. That's sanity. That's how it works.
What colour is the sky on your planet?
Re:Ignorance... by nomadic · 2006-01-27 06:01 · Score: 1

Since when has ignorance of the law been a valid defence?

Can't speak for the UK, but in the US is applies if an element of the crime requires a certain state of mind. If the law requires that an action be taken "willfully" in order to be prosecuted, ignorance of the law may protect you.
Re:Ignorance... by Kjella · 2006-01-27 06:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

This has stopped. The contract has been broken; copyright is forever. We didn't break the deal, they did. So let the war continue, the sane versus the greedy. The war ends when copyrights stop being construed as "owning the music" whereever it exists, and become 15 year limited exclusive rights granted by the law. When music and ideas are not "property", a mad concept designed to meter people's minds.

Excep that 95%+ of all copyright violators I know don't give a flying fsck about any of that. They couldn't care less about what was released 15 years ago, they want what was released at the cinema last week. The war is between the greedy and the greedy, And the people who are really getting screwed are the customers who'd like to make some sort of compromise. I've never ever gotten a rootkit via MP3s, do put it quite frankly. I've never had any downloaded movie tell me that I'm in the wrong zone or that it won't let me fast forward. And I sure haven't had a movie disable my player, like Blu-Ray threatens to. Trusted Computing is gong to make me a dog on a leash, only allowed to do what my master the TCPA computer will let me. "Leashed computing" would be much more accurate. Why should I let myself be treated this way? And with apologies to Harry Potter: "Dark and difficult times lie ahead. Soon we must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy."

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Ignorance... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 06:14 · Score: 0

You know what though? There are so many laws out there that you could walk down the street and be unknowingly breaking one. In fact I bet people break laws every single day and don't realize that they were doing it. As for these poor saps, all I can say is that the music industry is going down the tubes... as what happened to the people who used slaves to pick cotton and were eventually put out of business by technology, so will the music industry unless they innovate. It's a flawed model, they know it but they've been doing it for so long that they just can't bear to part with it.
Re:Ignorance... by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2006-01-27 06:50 · Score: 1

I believe that is wrong.

"Willfully" means you intended to do the action, not necessarily intended to break the law.

If you do something on purpose (instead of by accident) even if you don't know it is illegal, you still did it "willfully".

If I didn't know it was illegal, and made copies of CDs and sold them, it would still be "willfull". If I accidently sold a copy of a copyrighted CD instead of a copy of some open source software because I got confused, that wouldn't be "willfull".

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Re:Ignorance... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 06:55 · Score: 0

that's really great that you told us about "no evidence" in those other cases.

and i'm not sure why you are bringing up the ignorance issue, that's already been commented on above this post.

perhaps you could discuss the case at hand...especially since the grandparent was commenting on the same case everyone else has been. -except you.
Re:Ignorance... by IgnoramusMaximus · 2006-01-27 08:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

That is only sane of course if the law is either simple enough to be comprehended by an average citizen or is intuitively obvious. Unfortunately, not only this is no longer true, some, particularly those who profit from this situation, do everything in their power to make sure that average citizens do not have a chance to understand the law. Thus yet another form of tyranny is born. And it is no coincidence that a vast majority of politicians are ex-lawyers.
Re:Ignorance... by qmVSE*w!7e,QF(, · 2006-01-27 09:57 · Score: 1

All "I didn't know it was illegal" defends is the intent.

Maybe morally. It's not a legal defense... at least not in the U.S... and since the U.S. legal system is based on England's, I doubt it's a legal defense in England either.

--
The Power to Serve
Re:Ignorance... by nomadic · 2006-01-27 11:31 · Score: 1

You're using "willful" and "intentionally" interchangeably. Willfull in terms of criminal law can mean (but doesn't always, I'll admit) that you knew of the law and broke it intentionally. It depends on the context of the case, and the courts haven't been especially clear on it, but they frequently do it when dealing with laws regulating complicated subjects, like tax or copyright.
Re:Ignorance... by oKtosiTe · 2006-01-30 02:58 · Score: 1

Any damned colour he wants it to be, obviously. ;-)

--
It will happen.

For the nth time... by Spy+der+Mann · 2006-01-27 04:54 · Score: 4, Informative

Copyright infringement is NOT STEALING!!!!

Grrr...

Re:For the nth time... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 05:04 · Score: 0

Hacking into your computer and infecting it with spyware isn't stealing! It's just using someone else's stuff for your own selfish gains!

Face it, copyright infringement may as well be stealing. You're taking something that doesn't belong to you and using it without their permission. That counts as stealing in my book.
Re:For the nth time... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 05:08 · Score: 0

Oh, get over it. It's not really relevant to the discussion.
Re:For the nth time... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 05:31 · Score: 0

...and still people steal GPL:ed source.
Re:For the nth time... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2006-01-27 05:33 · Score: 1

"Copyright infringement is NOT STEALING!!!!"

*"I downloaded a song and Metallica can't perform it anymore!!"

*This is a bad paraphrase of a comment I read a while back, no idea who to credit it to.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

Clarification by Ctrl+Alt+De1337 · 2006-01-27 04:54 · Score: 3, Informative

For those of you unwilling to RTFA, "BPI" is the British Phonographic Industry.

Re:Clarification by to_kallon · 2006-01-27 05:04 · Score: 1

For those of you unwilling to RTFA, "BPI" is the British Phonographic Industry

wow, had to read that one twice...

--

The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
-Oscar Wilde
Re:Clarification by BarryNorton · 2006-01-27 05:10 · Score: 1

Oh, for God's sake... do we have to have this stupid joke every time?
Re:Clarification by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 05:19 · Score: 0

yes
Re:Clarification by BarryNorton · 2006-01-27 05:25 · Score: 1

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=175363&cid=145 80048
Re:Clarification by kinkos · 2006-01-27 06:54 · Score: 1

Heh, i skimmed past that and got "British Pornographic Industry" :-P

--
Open Source, Open Mind
Re:Clarification by shark72 · 2006-01-27 10:23 · Score: 1

Just be glad we haven't yet had the usual nitwits who point to the backwardness of the organization because they have the archaic word phonograph in their name.

It probably eludes these people that this is common. The "C" in NAACP doesn't stand for "African-American," and I don't even want to bring up what the 2nd "T" in "AT&T" stands for.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:Clarification by Chandon+Seldon · 2006-01-27 15:15 · Score: 1

bad teeth?

--
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Re:Clarification by squiggleslash · 2006-01-28 11:59 · Score: 1

Kind of a shame this wasn't reported in Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper then. ;-)
(It's kind of funny to think the Daily Telegraph was presumably founded with that name because they wanted to look "hip" and "modern" and "all with the technology". I guess if they'd been started ten years ago, they'd have probably gone under the name "The Modem" or "The Gopher Page".)

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Evidence? by Kittyflipping · 2006-01-27 04:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

How is this possible? Aren't they using the file names to determine infringement? What kind of 'evidence' is that? If I purposely renamed a bunch of legal files to look like copywritten mp3 and make them available on P2P am I liable for damages too?

Re:Evidence? by thefirelane · 2006-01-27 04:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

You realize, just because someone can go to extrodinary lengths to simulate a crime, doesn't mean that evidence of that crime is invalid in all cases. That's why we have judges to decide these things.
Re:Evidence? by OctoberSky · 2006-01-27 05:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

Well you can break the law through "intent to break the law" only.

For instance if you buy 1 pound of baking soda off a guy but he sells it to you as cocaine, that is illegal. If you take the baking soda and then (thinking it is cocaine) try and sell it to another individual as cocaine that is also illegal (you intended to sell an illegal drug). This is different from the sale of baking soda as cocaine (which is also a crime). I think that is sale of an imitation controlled substance.

If you unknowingly downloaded false files (unknowingly because you thought they were real) and shared them on the network as the real files (maybe you never checked them when you initially got them) then you might be charged with illegal file trading (or what ever they were charged with) because you intended to trade files that are copyrighted.

But in your case, where you knowingly make up fake files and pawn them off as real (for whatever reason) I don't think they can get you for that. But if John Doe takes them from you and does the above (trades them as real) he might be brought up on charges because he intended to break copyright laws.

But I am not a Lawyer, I just play one on TV. And by play one on TV I mean I make shit up and post it on Slashdot.
Re:Evidence? by Kittyflipping · 2006-01-27 05:12 · Score: 1

You realize, just because someone can go to extrodinary lengths to simulate a crime, doesn't mean that evidence of that crime is invalid in all cases. That's why we have judges to decide these things.

Doesn't seem extrodinary to me. I seem to remember a time when the **AA was fighting P2P by making blank videos and/or recordings available on P2P, but with file names that made them look like the real movie/song. What if you had one of those available? Is that still a crime? My point is; it can be done, so how can they prove that this isn't the case?
Re:Evidence? by rjonesx2 · 2006-01-27 05:12 · Score: 1

Intent to commit a crime is called conspiracy. In fact, if you conspire to commit a crime with a group of friends and then, at the last minute, decide to not go forward with it, you are still guilty of conspiracy.

--
Fight Link Spam with LinkSleeve.org
Re:Evidence? by BarryNorton · 2006-01-27 05:16 · Score: 1

That's why we have judges to decide these things.
The same judges who decided, and have still not backed down from the idea, that fingerprints meet standards of evidence in prosecution?
Re:Evidence? by Kjella · 2006-01-27 05:19 · Score: 1

If I purposely renamed a bunch of legal files to look like copywritten mp3 and make them available on P2P am I liable for damages too?

If you by a preponderance of evidence can show that you did do that, and that you did not download those files thinking they were real and that you were violating copyright, yes. Good luck with that. It's like seeing a car having been beaten up with a sledgehammer lying nearby, and then picking it up and waiting for the owner to see you.

And the same goes for uploading too, but there the combination of ignorance "I didn't know I was sharing" and being fake "Turns out I didn't break any copyright" should let you get away with neither intending to nor actually doing anything illegal. Both make you liable by themselves though.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Evidence? by BarryNorton · 2006-01-27 05:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Intent to commit a crime is called conspiracy
This is not general in UK Law - the Criminal Law Act of 1977 removed the slapdash use of this concept from Common Law, and replaced it with specific statutes.
Re:Evidence? by Kittyflipping · 2006-01-27 05:25 · Score: 1

Who's the victim in this crime though? Who is profiting from it? Didn't the **AA do this very 'crime' to try to thwart piracy?
Re:Evidence? by bentcd · 2006-01-27 05:25 · Score: 1

What if you had one of those available?
If the blank files were created by the **AA, they would hold the copyrights to them and so sharing them would violate copyright.
The most interesting defense in this case, of course, would be to point out that the files were placed on P2P by the copyright holders and so they gave an implicit permission to copy them. I'Ãm not sure if that would hold up but it would be interesting to see it tried :-)

--
sigs are hazardous to your health
Re:Evidence? by OctoberSky · 2006-01-27 05:28 · Score: 1

This is true, what you say, but I was trying to say that you can get pinched for a crime, charged with a crime and found guilty of said crime because you intended to commit it.

Like my example of buying cocaine (thats actually baking soda) and selling it as cocaine. If you don't know, it does not matter, your not going down for Sell of Imitation Controlled Substance* your going down for Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance**. Even though there was no actual controlled substance ever bought or sold.
But these are NY laws, I don't know other states and I don't know the UKs penal system at all.

*ICS is an A misdemeanor the first time, E Felony the Second.
** CSCS is an A Felony.
See why it matters, intent alone brought you from a Misdeameanor to a A Felony.
Re:Evidence? by bentcd · 2006-01-27 05:29 · Score: 1

On the other hand, if John Doe didn't realize that the actual files he was after were under copyright, and he ended up trading blank files, then presumably he could not be Ãpuished? First, he did not _intend_ to commit a crime and second, he did not _actually_ commit a crime . . . so ignorance can still be bliss :-)

--
sigs are hazardous to your health
Re:Evidence? by southpolesammy · 2006-01-27 05:30 · Score: 1

Two words for you -- caveat emptor. Without trusting the seller or sampling the merchandise, you have no way of knowing what you're getting. In the case of RIAA lawsuits, if they're suing on false pretenses, this could be grounds for a countersuit.

ObDisclaimer: IANAL.

--
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Re:Evidence? by kfg · 2006-01-27 05:32 · Score: 1

All of the examples you give have one thing in common though, they are crimes.

i.e. they are prosecutable by complaint of the state and punishable by incarceration, leaving one with a permanent criminal record.

What we are discussing here are civil violations prosecutable only by the party claiming injury which leaves one with nothing but a debt.

KFG
Re:Evidence? by Threni · 2006-01-27 05:42 · Score: 1

> For instance if you buy 1 pound of baking soda off a guy but he sells it to you as cocaine,
> that is illegal.

If the prosecution can prove that you thought it was cocaine! I know of someone who got off on such a case because the police assumed the defendant would admit to possession of cannabis and so didn't get it tested. In court he told them "it could have been anything, I didn't have a chance to smoke it" and the police looked even more stupid than usual.
Re:Evidence? by k12linux · 2006-01-27 06:02 · Score: 1

It's like seeing a car having been beaten up with a sledgehammer lying nearby, and then picking it up and waiting for the owner to see you.

I don't buy that analogy. In that case there is clear evidence that a crime was committed. Not just a suspision that one was, but real evidence. And you've just went and implicated yourself. A slightly closer analogy would be if you picked up a beat-up car from the salvage yard, parked it in some parking lot and sat in a chair next to it holding a sledge hammer. Assuming there wasn't a law against paking the car in the lot, what exactly have you done that could get you in trouble?
Perhaps even closer would be more like setting a bunch of boxes of baking soda relabeled as "cocain" on a table in your front yard as a prank and went inside to eat dinner. Someone takes a picture of it and calls the police. In the mean time people come and take a bunch of boxes and you eventually decide that the joke isn't funny anymore and throw away the labels. Then when the cops show up they find an empty table.
If you deny it really was cocain and there is no evidence of cocain or proof that anyone took/purchased any, how could you go to jail for it? You didn't even encourage paople to take it short of putting it in your front year near the sidewalk. Heck, you didn't even expect them to take it in this case... you just wanted to freak passers-by out.
Even this analogy is seriously flawed since cocain is an illegal substance. Ripped songs ARE NOT illegal. Distributing them may be, but ripping a copy of songs or movies you own doesn't fall into that catagory.
Re:Evidence? by Nukenbar2 · 2006-01-27 06:54 · Score: 0

Well if you want to get technical, this is not quite true (by NY laws).
Actually you would go down for Attempted Sell of Imitation Controlled Substance, if powered cocaine, Probably PL110/220.39 (C Felony.) You can't be charged with the actual crime if it was impossible for you to complete it. (Here, because there were no drugs, you could never actually sell drugs.)
However, there problem is that you could almost never prove that the defendant thought that the drugs were beat drugs, because he will just say later that he knew they were fake. So normally all you can ever get the guy on is that Sale of ICS.
Re:Evidence? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2006-01-27 06:54 · Score: 1

Intending to break a law isn't illegal.

Attempting to is (e.g attempted murder, attempted drug buy, etc). Selling imitation controlled substances is a statuatorily defined offense under US Federal law, by the way it is also a very good way to get yourself killed.

We don't have "mindcrimes" yet.

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Re:Evidence? by rograndom · 2006-01-27 07:00 · Score: 1

For instance if you buy 1 pound of baking soda off a guy but he sells it to you as cocaine, that is illegal. If you take the baking soda and then (thinking it is cocaine) try and sell it to another individual as cocaine that is also illegal (you intended to sell an illegal drug). This is different from the sale of baking soda as cocaine (which is also a crime). I think that is sale of an imitation controlled substance.

But what about this...

You're sitting at home with a box of baking soda. You say "does that look like cocaine?" to your friend who just walked in the door. You of course know that it's baking soda. Your friend says "Yeah, it does look like cocaine. I'll give you (sum of money) for it." Is it a crime to take the money? Is it a crime to give someone baking soda if they think it might be cocaine?

--

Stupid Cheap Guitars
Re:Evidence? by terrymr · 2006-01-27 07:18 · Score: 1

Impossibility is a valid defense ... You can't have sold cocaine if you didn't have any. You might be accused of conspiracy or attempting to commit particular crimes.
Re:Evidence? by Nukenbar2 · 2006-01-27 07:24 · Score: 0

In NY it is. It is called sale of an imitation controlled substance.
Re:Evidence? by Nukenbar2 · 2006-01-27 07:31 · Score: 0

Impossibiltiy is a defense to the actaul crime, but not to an attempt of the crime.
Re:Evidence? by shmlco · 2006-01-27 07:52 · Score: 1

Where is it well argued that they should not?

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Re:Evidence? by izomiac · 2006-01-27 09:34 · Score: 1

So if I were to download a file with the expectation that it was bogus then I'd be in the clear? Example, I see a file "Copyrighted.mp3". I decide to naively believe that nobody would put a copyrighted music file on the internet, so I download it to see what it really is. I realize that it is a copyrighted music file, so I "delete" it. I then seach for another file with the thought that the last download was just a fluke, and the cycle repeats. Since there are files on P2P networks that aren't what they claim to be this seems like it could be a valid defense... The tough part would be convincing people that you were really that naive.
Re:Evidence? by gronofer · 2006-01-27 09:37 · Score: 1

Or fraud, for trying to pass off baking soda as cocaine.
Re:Evidence? by rograndom · 2006-01-27 13:46 · Score: 1

In NY it is. It is called sale of an imitation controlled substance.

So baking soda cannot be sold in NY? How about sugar? Oregano?

--

Stupid Cheap Guitars
Re:Evidence? by OctoberSky · 2006-01-27 13:56 · Score: 1

Sorry for the late reply, and I assume you will never read this. It is a crime, in NY. It all falls back to intent. To sell baking soda or sugar as coke or crack, or to sell oregano as weed is illegal (acutally I don't know if there is a crime for weed), I looked it up in one of my law books and it is infact called "sale of an imitatioin controlled substance"

I don't write the laws, I can't say why this one went into effect, but in NY it is illegal to sell baking soda as cocaine. It's a misdemeanor though, not the normal felony attached to selling real cocaine.
Re:Evidence? by squiggleslash · 2006-01-28 12:03 · Score: 1

Probably is, just not under drugs laws.
If I sell you box which claims it has a TV in it, and you get home, and it actually turns out to be full of bricks, then I'm committing fraud. I doubt fraud laws are written to be void if the perceived transaction would have been illegal anyway.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Conversion by creepynut · 2006-01-27 04:55 · Score: 2, Informative

£1500-£5000 == $2678.25-$8927.50 USD

Re:Conversion by derfel · 2006-01-27 05:35 · Score: 1

You'd think they would have shot for more "even" dollar amounts...
Re:Conversion by The+Grassy+Knoll · 2006-01-27 05:44 · Score: 1

1-2 kilometers = 0.621-1.242 miles

--
They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
Re:Conversion by Stone+Pony · 2006-01-27 05:54 · Score: 1

It all works out beautifully in Euros, though.
Re:Conversion by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2006-01-27 06:57 · Score: 1

This was in the UK, it was an even amount in British pounds!

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!

Um, *copyright infringement* is a civil offence by Colin+Smith · 2006-01-27 04:56 · Score: 1

And they're paying damages.

--
Deleted

It's A Brave New World. by gasmonso · 2006-01-27 04:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

"Ignorance is not a defense" That's a classic one. Seriously though... what if you played stupid like you don't even know what p2p is and stick to denying d/l. Of course they'll come back and say we have IP logs. But can't you use the "IP spoofing" or "I have a wireless router" idea? I would argue, ok if I stole this song... where is it? Show me that the one you apparently saw on my computer exists? A good defense could win the case I bet.

http://religiousfreaks.com/

Re:It's A Brave New World. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 05:10 · Score: 1

If you first claimed not to know what P2P was, but then later turned to the IP spoofing/wireless router defense, they would probably be able to nail you for perjury.
Re:It's A Brave New World. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 05:13 · Score: 0

A good defense doesn't mean squat in the UK.
Re:It's A Brave New World. by southpolesammy · 2006-01-27 05:17 · Score: 0, Redundant

Playing stupid about p2p is a bad idea if you're going to follow-up with a defense based on advanced computer topics, such as IP Spoofing and wireless network hijacking. It's impossible to prove, but I would have to venture that someone with the latter skills knows very well what p2p is and what the risks are.

In such a situation, it's probably best to stick with a defense of "wasn't me", rather than complicating things by also feigning ignorance about p2p.

--
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Re:It's A Brave New World. by shawn(at)fsu · 2006-01-27 05:27 · Score: 1

You would claim ignorance, your lawyer would provide doubt with wireless and IP spoffing. I bet OJ didn't know a thing about DNA.

Not that I agree with this defence and I don't think it would work very well, I don't think they could get you on perjury.

--
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
Re:It's A Brave New World. by bentcd · 2006-01-27 05:32 · Score: 1

I believe OJ was in a criminal case, while file sharing is a civil case? If so, many countries will apply a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard to the former but only a "preponderance of the evidence" standard to the latter. Therefore, less evidence is needed and more doubt is permitted when convicting someone of file sharing than when convicting them of murder.

--
sigs are hazardous to your health
Re:It's A Brave New World. by Maximalist · 2006-01-27 05:41 · Score: 1

The defendant knowing nothing about p2p or computer networks should have no bearing on the arguments his lawyer makes in presenting a defense. Sure, you don't call the defendant as an expert on network security, but it is entirely consistent that the def knows nothing about computer networks or p2p and raises a wireless hijacking defense through a skillful lawyer.
Re:It's A Brave New World. by Kjella · 2006-01-27 05:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

For one, you can definately 100% not be the expert witness, neither should any of your good IT buddies who'd do it as a favor. Plus, someone has to make a legal defense out of the IT person's testimony. Anything that makes you look techy-savvy like making a good legal defense regarding computers would be self-defeating, you will need a lawyer to argue your case. As this point with a lawyer and an expert witness, you're already racking up a huge bill. And the best you're likely to get away with is not to get convicted - I don't know if you can be made to pay your opponents legal costs in the UK. Around here you can, but that's usually reserved for completely groundless lawsuits - such a case wouldn't qualify as it has too much circumstancial evidence for that to happen.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:It's A Brave New World. by mrsev · 2006-01-27 06:40 · Score: 1

I dont think that they can do you for perjury in your own defense.

It goes like this:

Prosecuter: I accuse you of murder
You: It wasnt me!
Jury: Guilty of murder.
Prosecuter: And he lied about it! I now accuse him of perjury.
Re:It's A Brave New World. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 06:42 · Score: 1, Interesting

It'd be worth going into personal debt to win (well 'not lose') that kind of case, to set a precedent requiring a very high standard of evidence, as well as to help convince the RIAA/BPI/etc that acting like dickheads isn't going to help their profits.

p.s. my position on filesharing is that technology has made it possible for us to have instant access to all music. Paying $20 to everyone who's ever produced a CD is obviously stupid, we'd all be broke. So let's pay what we paid in 1990, and get free access to all the music for that. It's win win. I'd also like to see some method of compensation for artists that rewards quality over marketing level, but that's hard to do.
Re:It's A Brave New World. by Grishnakh · 2006-01-27 06:45 · Score: 1

In such a situation, it's probably best to stick with a defense of "wasn't me"

Forgive my American ignorance, but wouldn't this not work in the UK because of their "guilty until proven innocent" system?

Basically, it seems the BPI could just give up funding any new music altogether, and just set up shop suing random people. They can claim the people traded files on P2P networks, and then if the people say "it wasn't me", "look for yourself, I don't have any MP3s on my computer", etc., BPI can say they deleted them, and the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove they didn't actually download some copyrighted music and delete it.

In fact, under such a system, it seems like you could make up all kinds of crazy cases to get people in trouble if you wanted to. You just have to accuse them of something that's extremely difficult for them to prove they didn't do it.
Re:It's A Brave New World. by DaFallus · 2006-01-27 07:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Now maybe I'm wrong about this, but I always thought this would work:

Say you get sued for DOWNLOADING, not uploading, 5 $GENERIC songs. Could you not simply go out and buy the CDs that those songs are on (cash purchase at used record store) and claim fair use? They would have no way to prove when you purchased those CDs, and spending $10 a CD would be a lot cheaper than settling with a record industry. I know that not settling would probably mean that you would have to go to court and that in itself is quite expensive, but if you own the CD, isn't it legal to download the song? And if you win you could counter-sue for legal costs.

I am in no way saying that this is a bullet-proof alibi, but is there a huge flaw in my logic that I am not seeing?

--
No one cares what your captcha was

Houston TX, USA
Re:It's A Brave New World. by southpolesammy · 2006-01-27 07:49 · Score: 1

You know, I've never quite understood the rationale behind the British "proof of innocence" concept. At least the UK is not burdened by the overly litigious climate of America....until now?

--
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Re:It's A Brave New World. by jimicus · 2006-01-27 08:33 · Score: 1

Say you get sued for DOWNLOADING, not uploading, 5 $GENERIC songs.

AFAIK the record industry hasn't yet set up a bunch of honeypots to spot that - and that's the only way they could get you for downloading.

Not because they couldn't (they could), but because it's easier just to fire up your handy-dandy P2P client, go searching for a well-known track, then sue the people behind the first few IP addresses which claim to have the track available.

Given the number of people using P2P, the RIAA/BPI could quite easily script this bit right up to the point of sending out letters to ISPs demanding that they reveal the identity of a given user.

Could you not simply go out and buy the CDs that those songs are on (cash purchase at used record store) and claim fair use?

ICBW but I don't think we in the UK have a concept of "fair use". Even if we did, I doubt any sane lawyer could argue that "Fair use" extends to "Making it available to the whole Internet".
Re:It's A Brave New World. by jimicus · 2006-01-27 08:36 · Score: 1

Forgive my American ignorance, but wouldn't this not work in the UK because of their "guilty until proven innocent" system?

We don't have a "guilty until proven innocent" system, unless it's a criminal case being brought under terrorism legislation.

In criminal cases, the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt". In civil cases, it's generally "on the balance of probabilities".

Copyright infringement is a civil offence, hence the amount of evidence needed to win a case is somewhat reduced.
Re:It's A Brave New World. by gronofer · 2006-01-27 09:46 · Score: 2, Informative

The UK copyright law has a entire chapter devoted to various exemptions to copyright restrictions, aka "fair use".
i.e.,Chapter III, Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works
It doesn't necessary cover the example given above though.
Re:It's A Brave New World. by greenrd · 2006-01-27 12:28 · Score: 1

Obviously on pragmatic grounds this would be completely insane, the courts would be overwhelmed. But I'm not sure if this exception is enshrined in law.

--
Female Prison Rape in NY
Re:It's A Brave New World. by Spamalope · 2006-01-27 12:52 · Score: 1

Say you get sued for DOWNLOADING, not uploading, 5 $GENERIC songs. Could you not simply go out and buy the CDs that those songs are on (cash purchase at used record store) and claim fair use?

Nope. The mp3 is a different 'work' even if derived from the same CD you own. Under the current (BS) laws you may make an mp3 yourself if you don't have to bypass content protection. You may not aquire an mp3 somebody else created without infringing.

Anyone know what would happen if he could produce byte identical mp3s to the downloaded ones, and show he legally possesed the mp3s? i.e. You can get a copy of a work you have rights to (CD). You can make an mp3 (format shift). Can you get a copy of that mp3? (legally)
Re:It's A Brave New World. by shawn(at)fsu · 2006-01-27 18:46 · Score: 1

What are you responding to. I wasnt talking about shadows of doubt or proponderence of evidence I was talking about people using defences they don't understand. I was responding to the AC saying a person using the defence mentioed earlier could be found guilty of perjury.

--
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
Re:It's A Brave New World. by bentcd · 2006-01-28 08:50 · Score: 1

You referred to the lawyer providing doubt. If it's a civil case, then doubt isn't enough.

--
sigs are hazardous to your health

Sharing Volume by cpearson · 2006-01-27 04:56 · Score: 1

It would be interesting if they release just how many copyrighted files where being shared and their monthly bandwidth usage.

Google Wireless Maps

--
Windows Vista Help Forum

Puh! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 04:58 · Score: 3, Funny

Evidence, schmevidence!

Doesn't include Damages by benito27uk · 2006-01-27 05:00 · Score: 1

The announcement today is only the immediate payment that they have to make, the decision on the final determination of costs and damages is still pending.

The costs for one of the filesharers is estimated at £13,500 but there have been no estimates on what amount of damages they will have to pay on top.

Office Space said it best by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 05:00 · Score: 0

If your getting something for nothing that you are supposed to pay for, then it is called stealing.

Re:Office Space said it best by gol · 2006-01-27 05:03 · Score: 1

not true, by your definition all forms of charity would be stealing
it's copyright infringement, it may seem like stealing to you, but the law here in blighty says thats it's copyright infringement

--
-Drew
Re:Office Space said it best by LiquidCoooled · 2006-01-27 05:03 · Score: 1

I get free music all day long on the radio.
I used to make mix tapes of all my favorite music by listening to the charts on a Sunday afternoon.

The internet is just a modern version of that - nobody can show direct proof that sales are dropping because of people doing what they have always done.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper
Re:Office Space said it best by Spy+der+Mann · 2006-01-27 05:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

If your getting something for nothing that you are supposed to pay for, then it is called stealing.

Wrong! Stealing = Taking the property of someone without permission (Destruction of others' property is taken into account, too). The overinflated prices the RIAA sets on music do NOT make that money their property. Besides their prices are on the labelled, stamped, colored, decorated, copy-protected, and maybe even autographed CD's - but not on the music itself. And even that is nothing compared to the "additional costs" that are nothing but price fixing.

So what this guy stole are actually one or two dollars, who rightfully belong to the music groups. Why then do the courts make him pay so much to the recording labels? This doesn't make sense at all.

Tell me, who's the one really stealing?
Re:Office Space said it best by RingDev · 2006-01-27 05:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

"Wrong! Stealing = Taking the property of someone without permission (Destruction of others' property is taken into account, too)."

If you consider the content "Property" then, yes it is stealing. The only difference between "stealing" digital content VS. physical content is the reproduction costs and ease of access. In both cases you enter an agreement (for sales), for $x I will give you ownership of this copy of this content (whether it's an MP3 download, a DVD, or a car). You don't get reproduction or redistrobution rights. You get fair use (IE: you can drive the car, sell the car, and crash the car, but you can't create a new production plant that builds that car. Just like you can listen to an MPG, you can sell an MPG, but you can make many copies of the MPG and distribute them)

The person DOWNLOADING the music is stealing. The person HOSTING the music, is violating copywrite laws.

Personally, I'd say swat the downloaders with the actual legal download cost per song they get busted with (proven to be illegally downloaded). And sue the people hosting the music for patent infringement with big penalties. Make it clear that you are going after the people distributing the music, not ma and pa who's teenager downloaded a handful of music.

-Rick

--
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Re:Office Space said it best by Inda · 2006-01-27 05:28 · Score: 1

"I get free music all day long on the radio."

Only in the UK you don't get it free. There is newly classified 'tax' that we all have to pay in order to receive radio and TV signals. We can go to gaol (do not pass Go) if we refuse to pay.

It's not free Sir.

--
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Re:Office Space said it best by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 05:38 · Score: 0

I think your first point might be closer if one was expected to pay for charity--but then it wouldn't be charity.

As to the second point--I know bugger all about laws in Blighty.
Re:Office Space said it best by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 05:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

Blah blah blah

Value is a funny thing. Something is worth whatever people are willing to pay for it. If people will pay $20 for a CD, then it's worth $20, even if you disagree. You don't get to decide how much things are worth.

That being said, it's still stealing. Since you see nothing wrong with copyright infringement (as this comment proves), I'm sure you wouldn't mind if I, uh, "borrowed" your computer for a while. Just post your IP, username, password, and favorite remote connection utility (telnet, ssh, VNC, Remote Desktop, whatever).

I just want to "borrow" your computer for a bit, play around with it, download some questionable material, troll the Wikipedia, nothing serious. I'm sure you see no problem with that, because you have no problem with copyright infringement, so that wouldn't be stealing after all.

Whenever someone starts mincing words ("copyright infringement" vs "stealing") it's in a (feeble) attempt to justify their sins. File sharing is morally wrong: you know that. Stealing CDs is morally wrong: you know that. Yet your entire post was a poor attempt to construct an argument where it wasn't wrong. Just like how Clinton redefined sex, you're redefining morals to try and free yourself from the wrongs you've commited. It doesn't work.
Re:Office Space said it best by Stone+Pony · 2006-01-27 06:01 · Score: 1

That's amazing, because I had the radio on in my car this morning; and I'm about to go home now and I'll have the radio on again; and no-one has mentioned this "newly classified tax" to me at all.
So I'm guessing that you're talking out of your backside.
Re:Office Space said it best by Spy+der+Mann · 2006-01-27 06:27 · Score: 1

Whenever someone starts mincing words ("copyright infringement" vs "stealing") it's in a (feeble) attempt to justify their sins. File sharing is morally wrong: you know that.

No, I believe it is morally right, and I think you're only supporting the status quo with your statement.
Re:Office Space said it best by Kjella · 2006-01-27 06:28 · Score: 1

And sue the people hosting the music for patent infringement with big penalties. Make it clear that you are going after the people distributing the music, not ma and pa who's teenager downloaded a handful of music.

Hosting the music? Like on a website? I'm sorry, the 1990s called and want their arguments back. In case you missed out on P2P technology, let me explain it to you. 1 teenager with a handful of music on p2p x millions of teenagers = a huge library of almost all popular music with no central server. If s/he doesn't delete them as s/he grows tired of them and keep them in the shared folder (the default in all P2P programs I've seen), one teenager could supply thousands of people with tons of music without doing anything else than downloading a handful of music now and then.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Office Space said it best by plumby · 2006-01-27 06:39 · Score: 1

The only difference between "stealing" digital content VS. physical content is the reproduction costs and ease of access.
No. The major difference is that when someone steals physical content, the original owner no longer has that content. If I walk into a CD shop and nick a CD, then the shop no longer has that CD. This is a clear, direct loss.

If you download the album off of someone else's computer, no-one has directly lost anything. You could argue that the band/label have lost their opportunity to sell you it, but

a) you may never have planned to buy it in the first place (in which case, who's lost what?)
b) you may like it so much that you actually go out and buy it (in which case, everyone's gained.

So there is a possibility of actual loss in this situation, but it's no more than that.

As an example, back in the Amiga days, I will admit that 'a friend' (gotta be careful what I admit to) got copies of virtually every Amiga game that ever came out. If 'the friend' found himself playing the game for more than a day, he then (every single time) went out and bought it, including several that he hadn't even considered buying before playing. What actual damage was done there? Contrast that with a hypothetical situation where someone nicked a copy of every single game from Game and then went back and paid for the ones he liked.

I'm not claiming that there is never any loss as a result of piracy, but it is nowhere near as clean cut as some people claim (and in at least some cases there is gain instead) and claiming that it's pretty much exactly the same as physical theft is just ridiculous.
Re:Office Space said it best by daft_one · 2006-01-27 06:55 · Score: 1

Actually that's called "unjust enrichment"... Like "stealing" cable TV.
Re:Office Space said it best by RingDev · 2006-01-27 06:55 · Score: 1

"one teenager could supply thousands of people with tons of music without doing anything else than downloading a handful of music now and then."

Yes, and that would be hosting. Don't want to host? Turn off hosting, most P2P clients (all that I have seen) have that option be it No-host, don't share, leech mode, what ever. If you are distributing the content, then yes, you are violating copywrite laws, and IMNSHO the RIAA has every right to nail you to a cross.

-Rick

--
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Re:Office Space said it best by RingDev · 2006-01-27 07:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Luckily for 'your friend' there are many legal options to do this. Both Amazon.com and iTunes offer preview copies of songs, and with services like Yahoo music you can get 'lease' song you want legally and if you want to keep it for ever, you can buy it at will.

You are looking at this from a 'possible loss' point of view. Let's turn the tables and look at it as a 'definate gain' possibility.

Let's say that you like song ABC. You like it very much, enough to the point that you are willing to give up $12 for the band's latest CD. You the consumer see a gain in $10 worth of music and the label sees a gain of $10 cash. Now, if you are given the option to get that same CD for free and you take it, you have now seen a gain of $10 in music, but the creater of the music has not seen any gains.

At this point, you have definately gained money, and the label has definately NOT gained money. But there is more to the story. You see, that label had to pay to have the albumn produced and mastered, it had to pay the performers and buy the rights. That one $10 CD might have cost $5 million to record, produce, and market (notice I'm not including production, distrobution, or sales). True, the label will make a but load of copies to recoup that lose and make a profit. But since that is the case each copy of the content can be given an exact value. If we print and ship 1 million CDs we can say that each copy costs the label $5.

So now we have a consumer who has gained $10 in music and the label who has not been reimbersed the $5 it cost them. So the customer gains and the label loses (albeit half of what the consumer gains).

Is it unfair then to goto the consumer who downloaded the must and require them to pay the $5?

-Rick

--
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Re:Office Space said it best by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 07:18 · Score: 0

Is it unfair then to goto the consumer who downloaded the must and require them to pay the $5?

$5? Isn't it something like $100,000 each infringement? Stealing the CD from the store and getting caught is cheaper.
Re:Office Space said it best by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 07:21 · Score: 0

Maybe you are refering to a TV Licence, but as the name implies you only need it for TV and not radio. There is certainly no tax on radio.
Re:Office Space said it best by AzureWrathHal · 2006-01-27 07:49 · Score: 1

Morals are not universal. Morals are simply a human judgement of their own actions.

What you believe to be morally right or wrong is not right or wrong universally just because you say it is. Morally wrong to you, sure, but you can't make that judgement for someone else. If you could there would be a lot less crazy religions. All you can do are state your opinions, and an opinion and $3.50 will get you a coffee at starbucks.

Legally right or wrong is another story alltogether. Which is a debate I chose not to have.
Re:Office Space said it best by RingDev · 2006-01-27 08:00 · Score: 1

That is where the position matters, the person downloading the content isn't guilty of copyright infringment, they should be guilty of petty theft or recieving stolen property at the worst.

-Rick

--
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Re:Office Space said it best by funkatron · 2006-01-27 08:45 · Score: 1

Value is a funny thing. Something is worth whatever people are willing to pay for it. If people will pay $20 for a CD, then it's worth $20, even if you disagree. You don't get to decide how much things are worth.

Very true, just remember that other people are prepared to pay $0 for an mp3 which therefore means that the music is worth $0 without the packaging

--
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
Re:Office Space said it best by Travelsonic · 2006-01-27 08:48 · Score: 1

Whenever someone starts mincing words ("copyright infringement" vs "stealing") it's in a (feeble) attempt to justify their sins.

I hear this, yet I see less of that and more pointless accusations. Please prove this, or forever hold your bullshit. ^_^

File sharing is morally wrong: you know that.

No, I don't "know" that. I know you consider all file-sharing wrong even if there is legal file-sharing does and can occur. I know that file-sharing legal goods is morally sound, I also know that you made a false generalization. File-sharing is only bad if the intentions are not following the laws, that does not make the technology only bad especially since there is legal content that is shared.

I just want to "borrow" your computer for a bit, play around with it, download some questionable material, troll the Wikipedia, nothing serious. I'm sure you see no problem with that, because you have no problem with copyright infringement, so that wouldn't be stealing after all.

Straw man flaimbait. First of all you make a comparison that compares two different bits (stealing a computer and copying data) and make them equal, then you continue by making the false assumption that his denouncing calling illegal file-sharing anything but that as saying it is O.K.

I am through with this post. If anything, you should be modded down not for your belief that it is stealing, but for the fact that you try to prove your point through accusations and unbacked assumptions and bad analogies.

--
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Re:Office Space said it best by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 09:10 · Score: 0

IP, username, password, and remote access program.

If you really believe in sharing other people's property, let's see you share yours.
Re:Office Space said it best by StormReaver · 2006-01-27 09:17 · Score: 1

[snip price fixing and other legal irrelevancies]

I am not a lawyer, but copying law seems very simple to me on a fundamental level, both legally and morally.

1) A copyright holder of any given work has the exclusive right to license and distribute that work.

2) Anyone else can acquire that work only with the permission of the copyright holder.

3) In the case of music, the copyright holders require a certain amount of money in exchange for granting you permission to acquire that work for personal use.

4) If you acquire the work, but don't pay the copyright holder, you are denying the copyright holder his legal due while profiting at his expense (you have his work, but he doesn't have your money). You have taken something from the copyright holder without recompense. This is stealing.

On a moral level, copyright holders are entitled to dictate what they will accept as compensation to give you the fruits of their work. You are entitled to refuse, but then are not entitled to the copyright holder's work.

I fail to see the confusion. It is very simple.

Note that I am purposely not getting into the complications of exceptions via deal making, nor am I getting to arguments about copyright duration or the irrelevancies of how musicians are treated by the music cartel since they are both red herrings.
Re:Office Space said it best by cliffski · 2006-01-27 11:00 · Score: 1

The people who own the product can set any price they want. I make videogames, and I set their price. you can moan about the price (and some people do), but the answer is "dont fcking buy it then". If you dont like the price of a product, tough shit, music aint clothing or shelter, you dont need it to live. If you feel so passionate about free music, nobody will stop you releasing music YOU created for free, its when you tell toher people who create products what price THEY should charge for them that they get upset, and who can blame them. How would you like it if I demanded that YOU work for free?

--
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Re:Office Space said it best by plumby · 2006-01-27 12:23 · Score: 1

Luckily for 'your friend' there are many legal options to do this. Both Amazon.com and iTunes offer preview copies of songs
One of the reasons "my friend" has not done this kind of thing since the early '90s, but even with Amazon/iTunes, a 30 second sample of the track isn't the same as putting the entire album on and seeing if you think it's worth buying.
So now we have a consumer who has gained $10 in music and the label who has not been reimbersed the $5 it cost them. So the customer gains and the label loses (albeit half of what the consumer gains).
I think you're missing the point about someone not intending on buying it anyway.

Let's take your album example. The album costs $5M to record, and the amount of CDs sold (or copies made) has absolutely no effect on that figure. It is a fixed cost.

Once the album is made, I have three options relating to it
1) Buy the album - I get the album. The record company gets their $10.
2) Don't aquire the album at all - I don't get the album. The record company get $0.
3) I get the album illegally - I get the album. The record company gets $0.

As mentioned, none of this has made the slightest difference to the $5M cost to produce.

The question is, what would I have done if I couldn't have done #3? If it was #1, then by pirating the album, I've deprived the company of $10 that they would have got. If it was #2, I've not deprived them of anything.

A more obvious example - I know plenty of people who do still pirate software, and in most (admittedly not all) cases, the people would not have bought the software if they could not have got hold of it for free. For instance, I know a fair few people using pirate versions of Office who, if they could not have got hold of the pirate version, would have used Open Office instead (let's ignore the 'Open Office is better anyway' discussion). In this situation, who is being deprived of what by these people pirating Office?
Re:Office Space said it best by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 12:42 · Score: 0

...violating copywrite laws...

For fuck's sakes, it's copyright, unless of course you were actually talking about laws regarding the writing of copy.
Re:Office Space said it best by shatteredsilicon · 2006-01-28 05:45 · Score: 1

In which case you are saying that taxation is stealing. You may have a point, there, mind you.

Declining CD sales are inevitable? by digitaldc · 2006-01-27 05:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

The BPI says it believes internet music-swapping has led to a decline in sales of singles since 1999.

As for the opinion that most music today just isn't that great (IMHO) and therefore leads to declining CD sales - was never mentioned.

People legally downloading songs, on the other hand, might have been another argument, but that wasn't mentioned either.

--
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson

Re:Declining CD sales are inevitable? by hattig · 2006-01-27 05:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Increases in costs (taxes, etc) in Britain since 1999 mean that people have less money to spend on frivolous things.

Increase in uptake of alternative media (games consoles, DVDs, etc) also meant that limited budget is being spread around more things.

Of course people are going to stop buying music. It's the easiest thing to access (radio, tv) and it isn't important to own. Especially if it isn't that good.
Re:Declining CD sales are inevitable? by teh+kurisu · 2006-01-27 05:23 · Score: 1

Plus, the fact that CD singles were never good value for money. They conveniently ignore the fact that album sales have not declined, as have CD sales overall.
Re:Declining CD sales are inevitable? by geekee · 2006-01-27 06:28 · Score: 1

"As for the opinion that most music today just isn't that great (IMHO) and therefore leads to declining CD sales - was never mentioned."

Not another person saying music today is not as good as the crap I listened to growing up. Give me a break.

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:Declining CD sales are inevitable? by IdolizingStewie · 2006-01-27 08:37 · Score: 1

And conveniently forgetting that the music they listened to growing up is still mostly on RIAA labels. Lynyrd Skynyrd's on MCA, Led Zeppelin's on Atlantic Records, the Rolling Stones' older stuff is Decca, etc.

BPI by NetworkNed · 2006-01-27 05:06 · Score: 1

I was doing a quick scan of the comments before IRTFA, and I couldv'e sworn I saw British Pornographic Industry. Which would have made this a heck of a lot more interesting. Although some might say pop music these days is just pornography instead of an actual art.

They deserve what they got. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 05:08 · Score: 1, Funny

Anyone who is caught downloading music illegally should be held to the full extent of the law. It's unfortunate that people these days think they should get things for free. Unless maybe you're some communist. And in that case you should move to Venezuela. Just remember when you download music illegally, you're basically downloading communism. Who the hell wants to support that....

Re:They deserve what they got. by NetworkNed · 2006-01-27 05:17 · Score: 2, Funny

Venezuela is a federal republic, which is pretty darn different than communism. However, if you want to download Britney Spears, you'd probably be called a 'pinko' for another reason.

A law is just what is declared to be a law. by Maljin+Jolt · 2006-01-27 05:12 · Score: 3, Funny

Two British men have been found guilty of illegally sharing music via a P2P network.

Perhaps they should consider to seek political asylum in France.

--
There you are, staring at me again.

Scary by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-01-27 05:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

The first defendant, from King's Lynn, said the BPI had no direct evidence of infringement, but the judges dismissed this

I'm no law scholar here, but doesn't the judge have to actually refuse any defendant's claim with some logical arguement instead of simply claiming "nah, I'm pretend I didn't hear that?"

Re:Scary by joe+155 · 2006-01-27 05:31 · Score: 0

A judge can do whatever the hell he wants in his court... if he really wanted he could put his fingers in his ear and go "nah nah nah nah" all the way through any evidence he didn't like. A judge cannot be prosecuted for anything he does wrong luike that in court... Still if the judge used an unsound legal arguement then the defendant should appeal by way of case stated to the high court (I don't remember which division it is... maybe chancery), still its likely the defendant was just trying desperately to avoid a fine for his wrong-doing and judge's arguement used was legally sound

--
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Re:Scary by shark72 · 2006-01-27 05:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

"I'm no law scholar here, but doesn't the judge have to actually refuse any defendant's claim with some logical arguement instead of simply claiming "nah, I'm pretend I didn't hear that?""

Yes.

I'm guessing you're assuming this didn't happen because you didn't read about it in the article? Keep in mind that it's a 15-sentence writeup on a mainstream news website. The brevity of the writeup should not be taken to mean that something didn't happen just because it did not go into detail.

The likelihood is that the judge did look at all the evidence and deem that the guy was full of crap. My guess is that he was trying some of the the typical Slashdot defenses ("maybe somebody was sitting in my driveway tapping into my wireless network!", "maybe those were just a thousand Excel spreadsheet files which I happened to rename after songs by popular artists!", and so on) and found out that real courts usually work in a much more matter-of-fact way than many Slashdotters are aware.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:Scary by gnuASM · 2006-01-27 08:25 · Score: 1

A judge can do whatever the hell he wants in his court... A judge cannot be prosecuted for anything he does wrong luike that in court...
Let's remember that this is from the U.K. I do not know much about their justice system, so this may be entirely true. In the U.S., however, the People hold the Power (though extremely rarely ever excerted), and there are means to discipline and, yes, prosecute judges in the U.S. Here in Wyoming, we have the Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics which may investigate and take disciplinary action, including removal from bench.
And depending on the situation, the judge may also be investigated by the U.S. Dept. of Justice's Civil Rights Division for criminal prosecution. NOBODY in government is above the law, nor do they have arbitrary or absolute powers. People simply need to stand up absolutely for their rights and utilize the representatives and agencies that exist for the purpose of excerting your powers and rights in whatever country you reside in.
Re:Scary by Farmer+Tim · 2006-01-27 11:12 · Score: 1

NOBODY in government is above the law, nor do they have arbitrary or absolute powers.

To qualify the grandparent post: anything a judge does in court is fine, as long as it isn't in itself illegal, and it isn't overruled by a higher court on appeal (this is true in both the US and UK; the US does not have a monopoly on judicial oversight). No other investigating body becomes involved if there is no evidence of impropriety.

So, yes, putting his fingers in his ears and going "nah nah nah nah" would be perfectly legal, but it would also be grounds for appeal and so rather unwise if he wanted his verdict to stand (besides, most judges would simply declare the evidence inadmissable and charge anyone trying to present it with contempt rather than wasting everyone's time).

--
Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.

More information? by Teiresias_UK · 2006-01-27 05:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

According to the Register:

The organisation began pursuing alleged copyright infringers in October 2004, and to date has come to terms with 88 people, some of whom have paid up to £6,500 to avoid a court hearing.

Considering the number of people downloading music from P2P clients in the UK, you're going to have to be really really unlucky to be one of the 88.

One thing to consider is how 'targetted' these cases were. Do we know if the BPI are chasing the people who are providing the files for download or just those downloading? I believe the RIAA were doing chasing the content providers in attempt to 'cut off the supply' of files available for download.

It might also be interesting to find out what client that these guys were using - more for my own personal benefit so I never use it ...

That is a bad misconception. by mosb1000 · 2006-01-27 05:20 · Score: 1

That is a dangerous misconception to have. Copyright infringement can be prosecuted criminally.

Bravo! by stlhawkeye · 2006-01-27 05:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

The more of these people who are legitimately caught via law enforcement instead of bullying extortionistic letters from the attorneys of the content cartels, the better. This can only be good for the rest of us, who never download anything illegally, and just want the government to keep its laws off of P2P technology. This is how copyright infringement should be handled - as a law enforcement matter - rather than lobbyists trying to make DRM a legally-mandated hardware feature for new playback devices. This is a great example of people who really are breaking law getting caught and punished via the court system rather than pushed around by a bunch of attorneys. I expect this to be universally lauded on Slashdot.

Unless, of course, we don't really care about P2P and just want free music and all of our righteous and indignant howling over curtails on p2p technology is a reaction to having buy all the trash music we claim so much to hate.

--
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib

Re:Bravo! by ursabear · 2006-01-27 06:09 · Score: 1

Wow! Well-said!

There has been so much interest, news, and noise about this lately. I'm personally glad that the world is examining whether or not music transferred (against the wishes of the music owners) is a problem. I'm glad folks express their opinions on this subject. However, it surprises me just how many people complain about the "music industry", but don't seem to mind not paying for their music.

Hard to see, the dark side is... but people have to make a living somehow, and creative people are no different. If someone spends time to create, write, and distribute software that is sold, why is that so different than someone who spends time to create, perform, record, and distribute music?

--
A Passionate Independent Musician
Re:Bravo! by Deliveranc3 · 2006-01-27 08:31 · Score: 1

You remind me of a rich french merchant applauding Robspierre.

We want free information, we'll take the battles as they come.

And the least risky and seemingly most proffitable is music...

We know that more music will be produced once the industry falls in fact the quality will probably rise. Artists only get about 3-4% of a sale currently, and most of the rest is spent marketing music in various ways...

We're not being unrational or really acting unilaterally. We're trying something out... And if sharing works then I'll see if we can convince people to shoot non-sharing people... :P
Re:Bravo! by stlhawkeye · 2006-01-27 08:49 · Score: 1

We want free information, we'll take the battles as they come.
Information is free. If you want to listen to music for free, turn the radio on. If you want free books, borrow them from the library. Free CDs and movies? The same. I haven't paid to rent a DVD in years, the public library has a fair collection that you can borrow for no charge, they even have an external drop-box and the late fee is like eighty cents. Our library even has a web interface to reserve hard-to-find copies from other libraries. They ship them over to the branch near my house and I get an email when they're in so I know to go pick them on the way home from work.
By couching mass copyright infringment in terms of "free information" when it already is free (in terms of both libre and gratis), what you really want is a copy of it to keep forever and ever. If all we truly wanted was to "try before we buy", there's ways to do that that are perfectly legal. You can listen to a goodly clip on iTunes, even. Or hear it on the radio. Listen to a friend's copy. It's out there.
No, what you want is free CDs, it's that simple. And free movies and TV shows.
And the least risky and seemingly most proffitable is music...
I don't understand what profit and risk have to do with the desire for information to be free. Or is this just a confession that what you really want to do is screw a bunch of corporate amalgams that have too long enjoyed an exclusive and captive market place. I can respect that goal in principle, if you had the courage to just admit it.
We know that more music will be produced once the industry falls in fact the quality will probably rise. Artists only get about 3-4% of a sale currently, and most of the rest is spent marketing music in various ways...
Because 3-4% of whatever they make off selling millions of albums nationwide using the resources of global distribution channels is greater than the $0 they get from you downloading copies for free. That's some easy math.
We're not being unrational or really acting unilaterally.
No, I didn't accuse you of being irrational. Only of hiding your true motivations. This whole thing all boils down to free shit. Sometimes it's "protect P2P," sometimes it's "privacy", sometimes it's "information wants to be free," it's always something. But it's rare to see a Slashdot poster just come out and say, "I can't help myself, I love the trash that BMG turns out and can't bring myself to pay for it. My iTunes is cluttered up with pirated copies of Cotton-Eye Joe, Mambo #5, and all the other trash on MTV that I act like I'm too smart to like." That's what this boils down to for a lot of people. There's an added bonus of knowing that every time you don't buy a CD some jackass CEO in a $4,000 suit twitches in a board meeting.
We're trying something out... And if sharing works then I'll see if we can convince people to shoot non-sharing people... :P
This is as close as I've seen anybody on Slashdot come to admitting what this is all about. We want free shit, and we'll rationalize it one of our many moralistic crusades to save the world from all the evil people out there who expect to get paid for doing work.

--
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Re:Bravo! by Shimbo · 2006-01-27 10:10 · Score: 2, Informative

The more of these people who are legitimately caught via law enforcement instead of bullying extortionistic letters from the attorneys of the content cartels, the better.

Erm, this was a civil case, brought by the BPI against people who got the letter and declined to settle.
Re:Bravo! by stlhawkeye · 2006-01-30 04:31 · Score: 1

Erm, I didn't say otherwise. Erm.

--
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib

Yuk yuk yuk by BarryNorton · 2006-01-27 05:23 · Score: 0, Offtopic

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22british+pornogra phic+industry+site%3Aslashdot.org

Better just to pay. by mosb1000 · 2006-01-27 05:26 · Score: 1

Who wants to move to France? That would be a real punishment for their crime!

possible defense? by joincamp · 2006-01-27 05:28 · Score: 1, Interesting

What if you own an album that is unplayable(scratched) or hard to convert(vinyl), then download it because you are unwilling to be extorted by paying several times for your content. It is easy to leech and not give back(although shunned upon). I also don't see how they can prove if you were sharing it. You may be listed as a peer, but have your upload turned off. Also, stuff like peerguardian will likely block most snoops ip's so you wouldnt be giving them any of it. The point being, if you already own the content, and if you arent contributing to piracy, would they be able to still convict you?

Re:possible defense? by TeknoHog · 2006-01-27 06:46 · Score: 1

What if you own an album that is unplayable(scratched) or hard to convert(vinyl), then download it because you are unwilling to be extorted by paying several times for your content.
Wasn't this the whole point of CD technology? To re-sell music that people already had in vinyl format?

--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Re:possible defense? by rblum · 2006-01-27 07:23 · Score: 1

I'd think that a competent lawyer would make the argument that you bought the vinyl knowing its technical limitations. And that's really what you bought - a piece of vinyl that happens to contain content, not perpetual rights to that content.

IANAL. I happen to live off another commonly copied media form, though - so this certainly holds a lot of interest to me.
Re:possible defense? by shark72 · 2006-01-27 07:30 · Score: 1

"What if you own an album that is unplayable(scratched) or hard to convert(vinyl), then download it because you are unwilling to be extorted by paying several times for your content."

The guys were purportedly sharing thousands of tracks each. What are the odds that each one of those songs was download to replaced damaged media? Keep in mind that there's something known colloquially in the legal profession as the "laugh test." In short, if you couldn't tell your friends that each and every track in your share directory is something that you downloaded because your original CD was scratched without your friends laughing at you, it would not make a good defense in court.

"It is easy to leech and not give back(although shunned upon). I also don't see how they can prove if you were sharing it. You may be listed as a peer, but have your upload turned off."

With software. Or, just by downloading it (cue the "if they downloaded it then they broke the law!" morons in 5..4..3..). Don't make the dangerous assumption that the record industry can't find people as smart or smarter than you to work the technical side of things. It's in their best interest to have their cases as tight as possible, as they've made some serious blunders in the past.

"Also, stuff like peerguardian will likely block most snoops ip's so you wouldnt be giving them any of it."

Pity they didn't use peerguardian, then. If they go back to sharing music, hopefully somebody will clue them in to it.

"The point being, if you already own the content, and if you arent contributing to piracy, would they be able to still convict you?"

It would likely be a civil case, so "convict" isn't the right phrase -- I believe it would be "find you liable." However, you are correct: if you are not pirating music, the odds are low (but not zero) that you will be found liable for piracy. Similarly, if you are not jaywalking, the odds are that you will not be ticketed for jaywalking... but you never know!

However, this likely does not relate to the case reported by the BBC.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:possible defense? by joincamp · 2006-01-27 07:30 · Score: 1

if you bought vinyls now, i can see your point, but what if you have old collections before you knew it had limitations. also, that does not address scratched/damaged media.
Re:possible defense? by joincamp · 2006-01-27 07:40 · Score: 1

yeah, I wasn't really talking about this case. these guys are screwed. I was just thinking about if someone was caught downloading a cd from BT or something. they can't see other stuff you are sharing, if you are even sharing anything at all. there entire case rests on that one download, how strong of an arguement would the backup arguement be?
Re:possible defense? by joincamp · 2006-01-27 07:48 · Score: 1

"Their entire case rests..."

i suck at life.
Re:possible defense? by rblum · 2006-01-27 08:17 · Score: 1

If you ever bought vinyl, you *knew* it would scratch. If you damage your media, it's gone. Your problem. At least under current law. (I.e. if you accidentally spill coffee on a book, it's not like you're entitled to a new one...)
Re:possible defense? by joincamp · 2006-01-27 08:58 · Score: 1

right, but is it wrong to accept a free replacement for that book that you legally bought as opposed to rebuying it? How is it right that you can Tivo a show, but wrong to download it if your Tivo messed up? All the pirates are doing in that kind of case is providing a useful service for free that the RIAA is too greedy let happen. I understand there are many holes in this, but I am just trying to play devil's advocate for a minute.
Re:possible defense? by joincamp · 2006-01-27 09:17 · Score: 1

also, in response to your "laugh test"(not in this case, but if they caught you downloading a ton of tracks without sharing them), there are many situations in which you could legally own a ton of damaged cd's and such. fire, kids, cd-eating player, bad breakup resulting in property damage, etc. could cause massive damage. Say you had 100 cd's damaged, would you want to rebuy every single one of them? I certainly wouldnt. Also, the line is not very clear. Imagine you let a friend borrow your cd. He liked it so much he went out and bought one himself, however when he returned it, it was scratched. I don't think anyone would have a problem of accepting a backup copy from your friend. In fact, you brought more business to the artist and made a new fan. Certainly no one would punish you for making that copy. Now do this on the internet, and suddenly it is illegal. That is all my point is. Somewhere in there is a line you apparently arent supossed to cross, even though the outcome and intentions are the same. I guess that teh intarweb is the devil. Thats the only conclusion I can come up with.

you can break the law through "intent..." by SIGFPE · 2006-01-27 05:39 · Score: 0

It's fine to buy flour, but not if you think it's cocaine. And if you buy cocaine thinking it's flour you're probably fine too. In other words, it's what you think that matters. In the book 1984 they called this "thoughtcrime". As Winston Smith said "Thoughtcrime is the only crime that matters".

--
-- SIGFPE

Mea culpa by Stone+Pony · 2006-01-27 05:45 · Score: 1

Make that "copyrighted". Sorry. Every crappy message board in the world has an "edit" function, except the one run by the uber-geek technomeisters. Go figure...

Re:Mea culpa by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 06:15 · Score: 0

Maybe try previewing next time? The button is right there next to submit, and it would make you look like less of an asshat.
Re:Mea culpa by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 06:24 · Score: 0

Every crappy message board in the world has an "edit" function, except the one run by the uber-geek technomeisters. Go figure...

Have you tried the highly advanced "search" function? It's the very model of modern utility. Er, this is 1995, right?
Re:Mea culpa by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 23:37 · Score: 0

The trolls would have a field day with an edit function...

And despite what the MPAA say in the DVD trailer.. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 05:46 · Score: 0

..Buying pirated DVDs is NOT stealing. Stealing pirated DVDs would be stealing. Cnuts

Quit stealing my idea! by geekee · 2006-01-27 05:56 · Score: 1

"Copyright infringement is NOT STEALING!!!!

Grrr..."

Quit stealing my idea!!!!. Oh wait...

--
Vote for Pedro

other piracy news by Lurking+Grue · 2006-01-27 06:01 · Score: 3, Funny

Last week, based-upon a tip from the RIAA, the US took action against the global piracy problem. Fortunately for the men on the ship there were no bootleg CDs or illegally downloaded mp3 files onboard. In a formal statement released after the event, an RIAA spokesman was quoted as saying, "There's no need to detain these individuals. We regret the inconvenience this has caused the innocent folks on that ship."

When questioned privately about the incident earlier this week, one RIAA representative said, "Damn! I was sure there was piracy going on out there."

Re:other piracy news by Lurking+Grue · 2006-01-27 06:35 · Score: 1

Please don't mod the parent message "interesting." I was joking. (perhaps badly, but joking nonetheless.)

Ugh.
Re:other piracy news by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 06:39 · Score: 0

I think this is typically how most /. moderators moderate. Without even reading the full post.
Re:other piracy news by marvinglenn · 2006-01-27 09:20 · Score: 1

The parent should have been modded 'funny'.
The link is to a story on CNN about actual naval pirates... the ones that jump on your cruise ship and you have to 'swash-buckle' them off.
It's a shame that our language has been diluted such that 'piracy' has become a synonym for 'copyright infringement'.

--
The whores get mad when the sluts give it away for free.

Bad Lawyers by TorontoImporter · 2006-01-27 06:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

I agree with some earlier comments regarding a bad defence. There are many reasons that the judge in this case got away with deciding them in this manner:

1. Bad lawyers for the defendants. (There was obviously a lack of professionalism)

2. Most lawyers in both the U.S. and Europe have little, if no understanding of the copyright system. For example in the U.S. alone the copyright laws have been amended so many times that only a handful of lawyers even understand what the law "says", let alone is interpreted as.

3. Pressure! (These lower court decisions obviously have huge pressure inflicted by the lobbying groups involved, it would take a good lawyer to get taken seriously)

4. The arguments involved in defending yourself for these sort of cases tends to be much more complicated then typical civil action. In these cases the defendant must prove "lack of evidence" under a much wider argument generally along privacy, fair use, copyright details, what is infringment etc...

5. The judges in these cases generally don't have a lot of precedents to refer to.

6. The world is undecided currently on what to do with the Internet in a legal sense of rights and fair use.

Hope this clarifies some issues a bit.

Re:Bad Lawyers by shark72 · 2006-01-27 06:24 · Score: 1

"Bad lawyers for the defendants. (There was obviously a lack of professionalism)"

Obviously? You were able to glean from the 15-word writeup that the defendant's lawyers were unprofessional? Perhaps the fellows really were sharing all those songs with Kazaa or whatever? It's interesting that a common sentiment on Slashdot is "There are millions and millions of filesharers! You can't stop us!" and then when the occasional unlucky few out of the millions and millions get caught, a common assumption is that it must be a misunderstanding.

"Most lawyers in both the U.S. and Europe have little, if no understanding of the copyright system. For example in the U.S. alone the copyright laws have been amended so many times that only a handful of lawyers even understand what the law "says", let alone is interpreted as."

"Don't put thousands of copyrighted works in your share directory if you don't have the right to do so" is straightforward enough.

"The judges in these cases generally don't have a lot of precedents to refer to."

Judges have been hearing civil and criminal copyright cases since before our grandparents were born.

"The world is undecided currently on what to do with the Internet in a legal sense of rights and fair use.

The fact that some people think that putting thousands of copyrighted files in your share directory without permission is morally acceptable makes little difference here. This is why we have laws: to protect society against human nature.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:Bad Lawyers by geekee · 2006-01-27 07:54 · Score: 1

"I agree with some earlier comments regarding a bad defence. There are many reasons that the judge in this case got away with deciding them in this manner:"

7. They're guilty.

I hope this clarifies things even more.

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:Bad Lawyers by TorontoImporter · 2006-01-27 08:05 · Score: 1

"Bad lawyers for the defendants. (There was obviously a lack of professionalism)"

Obviously? You were able to glean from the 15-word writeup that the defendant's lawyers were unprofessional? Perhaps the fellows really were sharing all those songs with Kazaa or whatever? It's interesting that a common sentiment on Slashdot is "There are millions and millions of filesharers! You can't stop us!" and then when the occasional unlucky few out of the millions and millions get caught, a common assumption is that it must be a misunderstanding.

You apparently assume that filesharing is not a "person's" right upon purchase. You are entitled to your opinion. Many people disagree with your opinion. I was able to "glean" from the 15-word write up because my father is a copyright lawyer and we discuss these cases and agree that most people have little, or improper defence counsel.

"Most lawyers in both the U.S. and Europe have little, if no understanding of the copyright system. For example in the U.S. alone the copyright laws have been amended so many times that only a handful of lawyers even understand what the law "says", let alone is interpreted as."

"Don't put thousands of copyrighted works in your share directory if you don't have the right to do so" is straightforward enough.

I disagree. You are assuming an understanding of copyright. You are assuming that placing songs which you have purchased in a share directory is infringment of copyright. You are entitled to your opinion.

"The judges in these cases generally don't have a lot of precedents to refer to."

Judges have been hearing civil and criminal copyright cases since before our grandparents were born.

As new technologies emerge, interpretation and protection of copyrights evolves. What constitutes digital protections and digital copyright infringment is still under lots of argument (see http://www.eff.org/)

"The world is undecided currently on what to do with the Internet in a legal sense of rights and fair use.

The fact that some people think that putting thousands of copyrighted files in your share directory without permission is morally acceptable makes little difference here. This is why we have laws: to protect society against human nature.

Apparently you believe special interest/lobbying groups such as the R.I.A.A. and European equivalents are here to protect society against human nature. Perhaps people have the right to share what they purchase with their friends, but once again you are entitled to your own opinion.
Re:Bad Lawyers by Shimbo · 2006-01-27 10:31 · Score: 1

You were able to glean from the 15-word writeup that the defendant's lawyers were unprofessional?

Well, that's likely the truth: any sane lawyer would have told them to settle. Getting a summary judgement against you with a defence of "I didn't know it was illegal" sounds a bit lame. Possibly they weren't legally represented, this being a civil case; or the defendents were just too pig-headed to take advice.

You're right though the details are a bit thin: maybe there will be a better report in tomorrow's newspapers.

Truco ( == I call BS ) by hummassa · 2006-01-27 06:26 · Score: 1

Blank files / random-bytes-generated files are not eligible for copyright protection in the US or in Brasil (those are the jurisdictions whose copyrights law I am somewhat familiar)

--
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048

Re:Truco ( == I call BS ) by bentcd · 2006-01-27 12:14 · Score: 1

That may be the case. I recall a controversy about someone wanting to enforce copyright on a CD track with only silence, but I have no idea if that worked out or not. I rather hope it didn't.
Anyway, if the **AA wanted to enforce copyright on the files, they would really only have to add some creative content to them. It should cost them no more than a few minutes to have some hack put together a few notes in a music program and put that in there in stead of blank files.
Someone should patent this business method . . . :-)
1) Create "creative" content
2) Arrange to have it appear on P2P
3) Sue the hell out of everyone
4) $$$$
The plan seems to be lacking something though . . .

--
sigs are hazardous to your health

Civil not criminal by TheRappingShoe · 2006-01-27 07:13 · Score: 2, Informative

It should be noted that this was a civil prosecution, not a criminal one: The term "illegal" refers only to criminal cases and not civil cases such as this. Also, the judge seems to have ruled against the defendents for simply making the files AVAILABLE for download - whether they actully uploaded them to anyone else or not.

Re:Civil not criminal by squiggleslash · 2006-01-28 12:10 · Score: 1

...which may violate British copyright laws anyway. British copyright laws have little or no concept of "fair use" (there are some very strict and limited rights you have codified in law, but not many, and they concern specific applications, not general principles.) If you make a copy of someone else's work, you're probably - unless there's some permission or licence, written or implied - in breach of copyright.
So if you've ripped your CD to your hard disk, or copied someone else's MP3s to your disk, you're probably already there. And clearly you don't have an licence, implied or written, to stick them in a folder to be advertised and transmitted by your P2P client.
If this is the reasoning (and I really don't know, and I'm not a lawyer), then it's kind of funny, because P2P clients aren't simply infringing copyright, but they're actually using their software to advertise the fact! P2P is, for the most part, putting a big target for the lawyers on your head anyway, this is one better.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Sales increasing over the past six years by Scorchio · 2006-01-27 07:14 · Score: 1

This press release on the BPI site explains how 2005 was the best year for sales in history, beating 2004, which in turn beat 2003, which beat 2002, which beat... and so on.

From the press release: This high comes after six years of year-on-year growth in artist album sales from 87.7m [units] in 1999 to 126.2m in 2005, an increase of 44% in just six years.

It's sad to see this once powerful industry decimated by p2p piracy.

"Oh, wait..."

Speaking of ignorance by burndive · 2006-01-27 08:03 · Score: 1

The Congress shall have Power...

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

-United States Constitution: Article I Section 8

--
...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."

Re:Speaking of ignorance by Travelsonic · 2006-01-27 10:37 · Score: 1

Keywords: Limited time. I think that the basic concept of copyrights is good the way the founding fathers had it, but 95 - 100+years easily is NOT what any person using common sense would call a limited time.

--
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Re:Speaking of ignorance by Catbeller · 2006-01-27 12:57 · Score: 1

Damned straight. LIMITED TIME. A hundred years plus is a word game. 100+ years = forever and a day. That's four generations. The case gets revisited in a hundred years, and then they decide that's long enough in 2106? Copyright as we know it will have been dead for a century -- no one will notice if it goes on past that date, or maybe the successor to the U.S. government will just rule the term extensions eternal by the Unitary Executive law making process -- one man, one vote, and George Bush the Seventh will be that man.

And damn the Supreme Court for ignoring that bit of sanity. "If there is a time limit, then that's okee. The Congress can decide what a reasonable limit is. It's not up to the Court to decide what the law should be...". Retch!!!!

The "Strict Constructionist" nonsense. The framers weren't inspired by God, their word isn't holy writ, and if they were alive today they would tar and feather those weaseling sons and a daughter of a bitch. OF course they were supposed to fix that damned law!! They are a check on sporadically overweening powers of the legislative and the executive branches.

And they selectively decide when they will be so literal. I notice Thomas and Roberts and the other dingos had no problem second-guessing the lawmakers when it was about right-to-die law in Oregon. They were ALL OVER smacking down legislators when it came to their religious views and the War on Some Drugs.
Re:Speaking of ignorance by vague+disclaimer · 2006-01-30 07:29 · Score: 1

And this has exactly what to do with me?

Sharing is not Downloading by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-27 09:34 · Score: 0

It is quite simple actually.

If you own the album you have the right to download a copy for youself. This is covered by the fair use and is the same as making a copy for yourself.

If you own the album you have you do not have the right to share (upload) the content to other people.

So that make P2P distribution like bittorrent a highly unlikely candidate for that purpose but ftp is very good for that purpose, simply because bittorrent downloads and uploads at the same time.

They were not "found guilty" - they were sued by Muzungo · 2006-01-28 12:24 · Score: 1

The men were found *liable*. In other words, the BPI sued them, and the court then has to decide "who's more likely to be right ?". Even 51% is enough. But its between the BPI and them. A crime on the other hand, is between all of us and whoddunit. That's why its "US v x", or over here, "R v x". In that case, the court has to be sure (beyond a reasonable doubt) that they did it. Let's be clear about this: regardless of the rights and wrongs of copyright infringement (and lets not start that one), these men were not charged with a crime.

Slashdot Mirror

UK Has First Verdict in P2P Case

193 comments