Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Backtracks After Embarrassing P2P Defendant
Harmony writes "When the RIAA sued Sgt. Nicholas Paternoster, it included a screenshot of a shared folder with over 4,600 files — some of which were pornographic images unrelated to the case. Last week, the RIAA got permission from a judge to, as a 'professional courtesy,' swap out the original exhibit for one with only the 350+ songs the defendant is accused of sharing on Kazaa. The RIAA's carelessness may come back to haunt it, however: 'After the suit was filed — and the exhibit made public — Sgt. Paternoster decided to fight back, filing a counterclaim accusing the RIAA of violating his privacy and seeking to "shame Counter-Plaintiff... into giving in to their unreasonable demands regarding their copyrighted materials."'"
In The Deathly Hallows by JKR there is this conversation: (nah, it is not a spoiler. Don't worry.)
"You don't understand, Harry, nobody could understand unless they have lived with the goblins. To a goblin, the rightful and true master of any object is its maker, not the purchaser. All goblin-made objects are, in goblin eyes, rightfully theirs."
"But if it was bought ---"
"---then they would consider it rented by one who had paid the money. They have, however, great difficulty with the idea of goblin-made objects passing from wizard to wizard. [snip] I believe he thinks, as do the fiercest of his kind, that it ought to have been returned to the goblins once the original purchaser died. They consider our habit of keeping goblin-made objects, passing them from wizard to wizard without further payment, little more than theft."
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
"Unknowing possession" is the argument put forth by every sneak thief and druggie who ever got caught with something illegal on their person. The courts are used to trying cases where that is used as an argument. In this case, if the computer really was commonly left unattended in a place accessible by a large number of people, it will be difficult to fix legal responsibility on the titular owner.
I think the fact that they intentionally put out images of content that they don't own the rights to, and have no legal standing to sue regarding, does put them in an actionable position, especially given the nature of the content. Their whole information gathering process is pretty shady already, but if they're routinely scanning content that they don't actually have rights to, that's much shadier.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I've been pirating like a maniac for the past 8 years or so. I've got around 500 albums on my computer that I've never paid for. I used to feel bad about it in the past, but I'm having mixed feelings at the moment.
up until about 2 years ago, I always intended to legally purchase these cds someday (No, seriously) once I get out of college and into the real world. At ~$15 each it would come to $7500, which I suppose is a lot but spread over a few years, it wouldn't really kill me. The problem is I can't stand to contribute a single cent to the sleazy companies behind the RIAA. On the other hand, I am getting a bit tired of mp3 quality and I'd like to have actual cds to rip into a lossless format.
Any suggestions? Anyone else feeling the same way?
Interesting choice of words too. They're not interested in compensation. They want retribution. I have a feeling if they could extract the payment in blood they'd take that route.
"A Porn Tester"
Co-incidence?! I THINK NOT
This reminds me of arguments I used to have with a musician friend of mine (who IMO, was a very good musician, but very computer illiterate at the time). He was a struggling musician type, He'd been in several bar bands through college, cut a few basement-recorded CDs that they would try to sell at shows, always hoping to "get a contract" and "have their shot," without ever making any money except for the few bucks that they would get from the clubs they played at. Well, he used to decry Napster as stealing from musicians, while I would argue that they aren't stealing from musicians so much as stealing from the record companies. He believed that record companies were there to help musicians make money, and that stealing from them, meant they couldn't pay musicians as much.
His attitude did a complete 360 when one of his band mates, who had done all their computer mixing and CD burning, created a website. It featured schedules, and club's sites linked to it. In addition, you could download their entire album in lo-fi, and two songs in hi-fi, and you could order a CD for about six bucks. They didn't get rich, but it was the first time they made any significant money off of their recordings (better than selling them at shows, anyway).
He had finally realized what I had been trying to tell him: the recording industry is a middleman, that makes their money connecting artists with consumers. Modern technology has eliminated the need for such middlemen, and that is why they are up in arms. They have carved out a niche as necessary parasites of artists, and seeing that necessity vanishing, are lashing out in any way they can to hold on to the position of power they held when limited technology made them useful.
This is always what happens when a middle-man sees their position becoming obsolete. Another great example is health care. Why does socialized medicine have no chance. Is it because the people don't want it? Hardly. Is it because doctors don't want it? Not really. Is it because the existing insurance companies don't want it? Bingo! After all, pass true national health care today, and every health insurance company (with their average 18% overhead, as opposed to Medicare's 2%) is out of business tomorrow (Ever wonder why, after Clinton's absolute failure with his plan for socialized medicine, Kerry came along with his plan that you could have any private insurance you wanted, but the government would pay the bill). Another example. Do you think defense lawyers who defend drug dealers want to see any drugs legalized? HELL NO! Illegal drug sales are their bread and butter. Legalize pot and many of them would have to go out and get real jobs.