Judge — "Making Available" Is Stealing Music

JonathanF writes "If you were hoping judges would see reason and realize that just using a program that could violate copyright law is about as illegal as leaving your back door unlocked, think again. An Arizona district judge has ruled that a couple who hosted files in KaZaA is liable for over $40K in damages just because they 'made available' songs that could have been pirated by someone, somewhere. There's legal precedent, but how long do we have before the BitTorrent crew is sued?" The New York case testing the same theory is still pending.

Comments

Bizarre...

[RazorDaze]

The files weren't transfered, but they were available, and that's supposed to be the same as distributing?

Is that like being too fugly to get laid, getting busted for prostitution?

Re:Bizarre...

[ArsenneLupin]

You must not watch COPS, because you would know that there is no such thing as too fugly to be a prostitute. I think he's speaking about the customer, not the supplier.

Re:One of my soulseek folders reads

[larry bagina]

And where do you keep your spell checker?

Re:Geek Speak Criminal Definition

[Lane.exe]

Heh heh, and if that were true, how would one prove their innocence 'through evidence'... drink the 6-pack? :-)

Well, yes, but I'd recommend against that. :) You might try calling a witness and putting on testimony, or testify yourself. Testimony is evidence.

but now the laws have been incrementally changed to the point where just over one usage is consider proof, yes proof not intent, of dealing.

What laws, please? I'm going to be a prosecutor in less than a year. I'd really like to know about this great boon to my profession.

Re: Ooops

[Anonymous Coward]

by Goobermunch (771199) on Monday August 27, @10:41PM (#20379635)
...
--AC

Some people are so careless...

--CmdrTaco

Assless Chaps are the answer

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

I think that to really show the defendants the error of their ways, they should be given the punishment of having to wear assless chaps to a gay bar.

I bet they never 'leave their back door open' again!

Re:Geek Speak Criminal Definition

[Beardo the Bearded]

Law is even weirder than that.

Right now I'm wearing a red shirt.

Let's say I murdered someone tonight and all the witnesses thought I was wearing a blue shirt. If I was convicted, then my shirt is now blue from a legal standpoint. This is despite the fact that is is really a red shirt. Legally, it's blue. Logic and sanity are not necessarily used when determining the finer points of the law.

This is the same shirt I was wearing when I asked my law professor about this question. (I might have been wearing the blue one. It was the one mandatory law class, three years ago.)

What this means is that if you are convicted of using BitTorrent to transfer mp3s over your modems, then the protocol is a program, the T1 is a modem, and you're doing more time than a bank robber.

IANAL. YMMV. CYLDFD. WDTAM?

Back in my day...

[kn0tw0rk]

... we were lucky to have used toilet paper to hold over the raised hiroglyphics to take rubbings of with the bloody stumps of our fingers, and we counted ourselves lucky to be edumacated.

Re:Geek Speak Criminal Definition

[richie2000]

This is the same shirt I was wearing when I asked my law professor about this question. (...) (It was the one mandatory law class, three years ago.) Please take off your t-shirt and step away from it, right now. The sanitizers are on their way.

Man, I am lucky!

[Derek Loev]

Good thing I have Comcast, now I don't have to worry about making ANY files available with bittorrent.

Re:I see

[Angostura]

Or alternatively - judges judge based on the quality of the case and evidence presented to them?

Re:Awful title

[Dunbal]

Let people think for themselves!

      You sound like a terrorist. Please report to the Ministry of Love immediately.