Slashdot Mirror
Law Profs File Friend-of-Court Brief Against RIAA
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A group of 10 copyright law professors has filed an amicus curiae ('friend of the court') brief on the side of the defendant in Capitol v. Thomas, agreeing with the judge's recent decision that the $222,000 verdict won by the RIAA appears to be tainted by a 'manifest error of law.' The clear and well-written 14-page brief (PDF) argues that the 'making available' jury instruction, which the RIAA had requested and the judge ultimately accepted, was in fact a 'manifest error of law,' making the point, among others, that an interpretation of a statute should begin with the words of the statute. My only criticism of the brief is that it overstates the authorities relied on by the RIAA, citing cases which never decided the 'making available' issue as cases which had decided it in the RIAA's favor."
As it turns out, the MPAA, close ally to the RIAA, has come forth with a more controversial view. They suggest that proof of actual distribution shouldn't be required. From their brief (PDF): "Mandating that proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against massive copyright infringement in many instances."
you accuse someone of something, then come up and say that 'proof is not required'. get a load of that !!! back to middle ages. next ; witch hunting, death by stoning, and dung for dinner.
well, since it has come to this, i am hereby accusing all MPAA, RIAA members of child abuse, child pornography, treason. remember, PROOF IS NOT REQUIRED.
Read radical news here
We should all just boycott buying any CD's or DVD's at all. Don't download anything from iTunes or any of the other stores, either. If we make a strong stance and hit them in the wallet, maybe...just maybe...they'll get the message.
"Mandating that proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against massive copyright infringement in many instances."
If they can't prove the distribution, then how do they know the copyright infringement is happening?
Oh, certainly! If RIAA accuses someone of breaking a law, it is certainly a terrible burden on them to have to prove that, following the actual wording of the law Congress chose, an offense actually happened. Who among us hasn't had the same problem, from time to time?
If I went to Alice's bank, and demanded that they give me all of her money, because Alice died and left it to me, it would be a great hardship for me to have to show that Alice actually died, and actually willed the money as I claimed. Why, with the onerous burden of proof in my lap, I might not be able to collect anything! Just because there's an outside chance that she's still alive and doesn't know me from Adam doesn't mean that the bank shouldn't take my word for it.
I can say, absolutely honestly, that I have more sympathy with RIAA on this issue, than I have ever had with them on any other. Just don't ask me to prove it.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
They'll no longer need a *case* to sue. Free monies for our favourite shambling corporate presence.
As independent authors, musicians and Free software developers and movie makers prove again and again, creating wonderful works of art and creativity does not require copyrights for a monetary incentive.
Movies, perhaps, require more financial support, but note: without copyrights, each of us would be exposed to many more movies which will all be far more accessible (non-copyrighted material can be distributed much more easily). So even if less movies are made, we will still enjoy more of them.
When you buy a piece of software, music or pay to see a movie, your money is not supporting the artists, or even supporting further creation. What you are supporting is a lobby that furthers laws to benefit companies to the great detriment of society. You are funding the enemies of society.
Please do not pay the copyright lobby to pass more anti-society laws.
Thanks.
"Quiet, quiet! There are ways of telling if she is a witch. Tell me. What do you do with witches?"
"Burn them!"
"And what else do you burn?"
"More witches! Um... Wood!"
"Does wood sink in water?"
"No! No! It floats!"
"And what else floats in water?"
"A duck!"
"So, logically..."
"If she weighs the same as a duck, then she must be made of wood! And therefore... a witch! Burn her!"
all the "proof" you need.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
I don't know whether to be worried or relieved. It worries me that a judge somewhere is going to buy into that, at which point we can all kiss "innocent until proven guilty" goodbye. On the other hand this could turn out very well indeed if they get laughed out of court and be made to play by the same rules as everyone else.
God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
One thing worth remembering of course is that the RIAA is not alone, it has little clones all over the world that follow in the footsteps of it's master (not least because they want to be able to buy resell rights for RIAA member companies' products). Here in South Africa for example we have ASAMI - which as gone so far as to say in public that 'recording a TV-show on your VCR is technically copyright infringement but we don't intend to prosecute that one simply because it would be impractical in cost compared to the damage done".
Actually, South Africa has a subset of copyright law known as Fair Dealing which is pretty much identical in wording to the US Fair Use law and recoridng a TV show to VCR is entirely legal. So is showing a DVD of a documentary to a class of schoolchildren.
Of course they have happily confused plagiarism with copyright whenever it suited them and love to call it 'theft' - despite the fact that copyright infringement isn't theft - it's a civil infringement not a criminal one - and stories of large scale seizures of 'pirate DVD manufacturing warehouses' are common on the news.
So the impact that these kinds of idiocies in the US legal system has is global because the RIAA's minions will attempt to subvert any laws in any countries to suit.
Let's just see what we have in this post (a fairly representative sample I think):
-Merely making it available is the same actually giving somebody a copy... by that thinking if I forget to lock my door and somebody steals my fridge... I'm as guilty of theft as he is ? I would go so far as saying that sharing music isn't copyright infringement at all, downloading it may well be, but making it available (Especially as it frequently happens without the person's knowledge) is not. It could even be argued that there is significant legal uses for sharing music - for example to save a friend who also owns the same album the massive effort involved in a format shift you already made. If others now download the music from you as WELL - without your intent... are you still guilty ? This is a side-effect of the technology and has nothing to do with what you did - sharing with somebody who had the RIGHT to get a copy of the music (he already PAID for it). There is no such thing as 'attempted' infringements in civil cases, especially not copyright.
-Oh we shouldn't need to actually PROOF our claims. Not only is it enough to say you 'made it available', heck they think they don't even need to back that up !
-When they THEMSELVES download the music which this entire thing is about them claiming to own in order to proof it's available from you... that download BY THEM can be counted for damages ? How the hell are they damaged if they download their OWN music ? Before I pointed out one example of a P2P usage to share with a valid, authorized downloader - who could be MORE valid and authorized than the copyright owner ? They could try to make a case against a CD-owner having the right to DOWNLOAD rather than RIP digital copies -- but surely not that the OWNER of the copyright isn't an authorized downloader ! What is worse, if they are damaging their own copyright by downloading it... wouldn't that make this a case of evidence obtained illegally (through the breach of the very law in fact they are trying to proof you breached ?). It's not just legally unsound, it's logically unsound (to put it politely).
And that's not even thinking of things like copy protection mechanisms which are outright attempts to make it impossible to excercise our fair user rights. It seems clear to me they only care about that side of copyright law they can abuse to make money. They cannot get rid of fair use law outright, so they try to technologically strong-arm it away from us.
Frankly, I believe that a judge should say that no person or corporation can claim protection under a law they repeatedly and continuously fail to respect. If you do not respect fair use (which implies no effort made to prevent people from making backup copies), how can you claim protection under the rest of the copyright act ?
How much longer are we going to put up with this ?
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Last time I checked that was the law 'round these parts. Unless we're in Mother Russia where it's the other way around and you have to sit in a cage during your "trial". People *might* be stealing from my house, so they should have to pay me as if they were. I can't proove it, but c'mon, thing of how I'm (probably) being wronged!
Ze Atomic Device! It iz Ztolen!
The RIAA wants to restate this as "Better to make all eleven persons pay than to let one innocent man off the hook."
Five congenital liars, a serial killer, six child molesters, several sewer rats and a starving weasel applied to the same court for status as "Friends of the RIAA".
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Proof of actually committing the crime shouldn't be an obstacle of someone getting convicted of committing the crime.
Hmmm sounds fishy to me... ;-)
"To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
This whole thing also shows that they are in a fairly visible prospectus to challenge and over turn any and all laws related to "fair use".
If they get their way; you will only have radio and TV. Items such as VCR's, PVR's, tape decks, and anything that can record will be prohibited by law. You won't even be able to own one of these devices for personal use. This is the goal of eliminating these rights of the public to own recording equipment. They will control what you see and hear.
Damned commies.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
Until proven, there is no massive copyright infringement in a case against an individual. Indeed, it would be rather curious to accuse an individual of "massive" copyright infringement; that would require tens of thousands of instances by a casual reading.
Heck, seeding that much over BitTorrent with a one megabit upstream would take years.
No wonder the MAFIAA would be more comfortable with being able to make accusations without having any proof.
Totally insane. MPAA is making a laughing stock of itself with the claim that proof isn't required.
"pay to see a movie, your money is not supporting the artists"
This is not really true. Box office revenues go to the companies that make the movies. In turn, they pay to the people who work on them, which is different from making music.
Finally, copyright exists to protect the rights of everyone - do not attack the concept itself on the basis that it is being heavily misused but recognize the issue itself!
Someone once pointed out that under the "making available" theory, most men with a wife or girlfriend could easily be charged with involvement in prostitution. After all, if a man leaves his woman home alone or lets her go out in public by herself, she could very easily make herself sexually available to any passing man.
This isn't entirely hypothetical, of course; there are some parts of the world where men do take this attitude.
Somehow, I think I'd rather not have such legal theories adopted where I live. I think my wife would agree.
I've also noticed that we often have tools like knives lying on our kitchen counters. Those knives have often been out, and even used, when we have visitors. Kitchen knives could be used to kill people. So are we "making available" dangerous weapons when we give visitors such easy access to our kitchen knives? (Sometimes we've even put steak knives on the table, knowingly and with the intention that they be used. ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Fletcher: "Your honor, I object!"
Judge Stevens: "Why?"
Fletcher: "Because it's devastating to my case!"
Judge Stevens: "Over-ruled."
Fletcher: "Good call!"
-- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
the RIAA knows it is violating the law and tricking judges into believing their bullshit.
If someone steals a pizza and gives you a slice, does that mean you were going to buy a slice or even a whole pizza?
No, that's not a loss to the pizza joint. Only the original pizza is the loss. While we know pizzas can't replicate, it still bears resemblance.
Are you breaking the law by accepting a free slice from a stranger? I can't say you are. You may be playing gastronomical roulette, but not breaking the law.
Even if the pizza could replicate, accepting a free copy slice still isn't breaking the law. You're not initiating the replication. So, it's easy to see how the RIAA could make the false claims that their merchandise trickling downstream is a loss. They are, however ignoring the simple fact that there is no reliable way to determine how many recipients of said merch were potential customers. Probably a lot smaller amount than you think.
How many people buy the product after eating a free sample at the grocery store? They still give away free samples to increase the chances of purchase.
If the RIAA and MPAA want to truly stop piracy, the first thing they need to do is secure their supply chain. The second thing is, stop releasing r5 DVDs in asia before theatrical releases. And third, adapt their business model to the changing market. The only two CDs I've bought in the past 15 years have both been new releases by Paul McCartney. Buying mainstream music doesn't support artists. Since I don't listen to mainstream music, I don't have much to worry about.
The CD is a dead format. The DVD will be dead in less than 10 years.
The industry would rather lobby congress to pass laws to protect their revenues than adapt their business model to the changing market.
CD's are a niche product these days. When I go to the mall, I pass through FYE on the way to the movie theater. The only people I see buying CDs are over 50 or foreigners. Bands should give their music away for free in mp3 format, still sell a physical CD made in small batches for a price, and charge advertisers for reaching their audience. Ad supported music seems silly, but it's highly targeted and you know your demographic.
There I just solved the music business model.
They're using their grammar skills there.
"You've got music and movies on your home network, but we don't think your WiFi is secure. Someone might have driven by and downloaded it. We can't prove that anyone did, but the law says we don't need to. We just need to think it happened. We think it happened. That will be $3000 please."
If I left a CD sitting on a park bench and walked away from it, haven't I made it available? If CDs were in my car with the windows open and someone reached in and took them was I making them available? In each of these cases the "IP owners" aren't getting paid. So am I guilty of some hideous crime? The logic of being convicted on making available is just pure crap.
Indeed... there is no proof that you owe me rent for taking up space on my computer screen, but since having to prove that you did so would be an onerous burden on myself, we'll just find a judgment of $150,000 in my favour and be done with it. Fork it over!!
And it'd be tough to prove that you aren't squatting in my rental house, but having to come up with such proof is depriving me of revenue. So we'll just find in my favour and now it's up to you to cough it up!!
To reword the MPAA quote in terms of the above,
"Mandating such proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving rental owners of a practical remedy against massive squatter infringement in many instances."
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
So that means that if I go into the reception area of the MPAA offices and they have magazines on the table they are "making available" copyrighted materials to the public since any one can walk in and start transcribing the contents within them.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
"If I went to Alice's bank, and demanded that they give me all of her money, because Alice died and left it to me, it would be a great hardship for me to have to show that Alice actually died, and actually willed the money as I claimed. Why, with the onerous burden of proof in my lap, I might not be able to collect anything! Just because there's an outside chance that she's still alive and doesn't know me from Adam doesn't mean that the bank shouldn't take my word for it."
The solution is simple: Kill Alice. Mail the corpse to the bank.
What? gaining the required proof involves blatantly criminal acts? No worse than what the RIAA does, and they suffer no penalties...
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I think that your analogy is a good illustration, but it is also important to recognize the limitations of the analogy. In the case of the library, you can not borrow their copy of a DVD without depriving them of their physical media for some time and you can return it without copying it, if you wish. In the filesharing case, at no point is the lender deprived of their copy of the media and you can't "borrow" it, except by copying it.
I think that this distinction is important because it seems very clear to me that filesharing is NOT like library lending in these important ways. This both makes filesharing appear more ethically questionable than library lending (which I believe it is) and also to protect library lending from criticism when the side of the argument representing copyright holders wants to use the same analogy against libraries.
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
because it has been done. More than once and long ago. That issue has been pretty solidly decided.
That's true, you know. Mandating proof of actual distribution, instead of just making available, really makes it a lot harder to prove copyright infringement. They are right when they claim it's very inconvenient for fighting piracy...
But you know what? The law's not supposed to be "convenient" for anybody! Claiming "the law doesn't apply here since it's not convenient for my interests" doesn't really work.
too, along with Electronic Frontier Foundation, US Internet Industry Association, Public Knowledge, and Computer & Communications Industry Association, on the side of Jammie Thomas. Also joining in with the RIAA and MPAA is an amicus curiae "Thomas D. Sydnor II of the Progress and Freedom Foundation", whatever the heck that is. Apparently Sydnor was a lawyer for content owners before he set up this "foundation". Here is a complete list of the amicus briefs. Some good reading in there. My prediction: the RIAA's 'making available' theory is dead in the water in Duluth, and the RIAA's only trial is going to result in a do-over.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
They HAVE been getting the message. People have stopped buying CDs in droves. As a result, more and more record companies are dropping "DRM" and limited-use "licenses" for their music.
Study after study (as mentioned here on Slashdot just a couple of days ago) have found that most people are perfectly willing to pay for music... but they are NOT willing to pay too much, or to pay full price for "use-protected", limited music, or to pay $20 for a CD that only has one or two good songs on it.
They want to pay per song, and get unlimited use for their money.
I agree completely that we should not be supporting the "copyright lobby" (including organizations like RIAA and MPAA, and their members).
However, that is not an argument against copyright or the copyright laws. Rather, it is only an argument against the abuse of same.
Statistics have shown, time and again, that the number of privately owned firearms in the United States has little or no correlation to the number of people who ABUSE firearms (commit crimes). Therefore, the fact that some people do abuse them is not a valid argument against the possession of firearms. Their legitimate use by those who do not abuse them far outweighs the occasional harm that occurs. (This is a statistical fact, regardless of how you may feel about it politically.)
In the same way, the fact that some people and organizations have found ways to abuse copyright laws to the detriment of the public, is not a valid argument against reasonable copyright laws. Ways to stop the abuse must be found... WITHOUT destroying all the good that is otherwise accomplished. And there is a lot of that.
The MPAA's suggestion that 'proof of distribution is not required' is hogwash. They can go up to anyone at random (and likely someone with big deep pockets) and say "you stole" (they never say infringed). The deep pocketed person says "show proof" and the MPAA says "we don't need any!" This violates the law in a very real way. They better have proof, and not just circumstantial. For years the RIAA/MPAA have been very much overstepping their boundries (damaging other much larger industries in the process). The right to copy "Copyright" has been tainted and twisted around. It used to be 14 years. Now its 70 years past the death of the author. Nothing in North America has entered the public domain in the last 80 years. This is ridiculous! The right to copy "Copyright" has been so badly eroded, than now most people think it means rights of creators alone. There is no longer a right to copy. The common collective advances in ideas, literature, music, architecture, film, design, engineering, and most other creative works have remained stagnant in western society for 70 years. If you were a drug company, would you come up with a new effective drug, or would you do nothing? ALL businesses would do nothing. Microsoft did NOTHING with Internet Exploder for 10 years. No innovation. They re-assembled their Exploder team AFTER a new and much better version of Firefox came out. Then they were playing catch-up (and still are). There is no right to copy any more, and the MPAA wants to negate the need for proof in the courts. Its corporate welfare. Its disgusting!
Mandating that proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against massive copyright infringement in many instances.
On the other hand, failing to mandate that proof could have the pernicious effect of depriving individual citizens of a practical remedy against erroneous copyright infringement charges in many instances.
And "erroneous copyright infringement charges" often come with a permanently-impoverishing price tag.
Last week, I returned a defective MP3 player to the manufacturer for warranty replacement. Before it died, I had 8gig of legal copies of music I BOUGHT. Fortunately, I was able to connect it to a computer and delete the data, because if I had not been sophisticated enough to do that, by RIAA 's dreams, I would have been 'making available'. This situation has degenerated to where the RIAA and it's cohorts potentially make more money from lawsuits that actual sales of content.
If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?
A female newscaster is interviewing the leader of a Youth club:
Interviewer: So, Mr. Jones, what are you going to do with these children on this adventure holiday?
Mr Jones: We're going to teach them climbing, abseiling, canoeing, archery, shooting...
Interviewer: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible isn't it?
Jones: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the range.
Interviewer: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
Jones: I don't see how, we will be teaching them proper range discipline before they even touch a firearm.
Interviewer: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
Jones: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute but you're not one are you?
is that copyright infringement is a tort offense. The criminal legislation is taken up because the organisations tell the lawmakers that they are losing money. And they are now "forgetting" that this is why proof is needed: show the law should be applied.
Well, OK.
Now, when you take someone to court for the criminal case, PROVE your losses.
If you take through civil court, show your damages. AT BEST it would be the cost of the media (and you should give them the media).
This nonsense, in my perhaps non-objective view, seems to have gotten considerably worse since Bush has been in office.
It's a "leadership" thing. If the leader of our country can kidnap people off the streets with no charges, and no proof, then hold them for years without actual proof of wrong doing (in some cases, to release them years later after finding they had the wrong guy), then doesn't this set an example for the rest of the nation?
The idea that upon gaining power, you fire everyone who is not slavishly loyal to you and your "party" -- that's always been considered nepotism, discrimination, corruption. It's something dictators did in their countries -- placing their nephew, or their niece's brother-in-law, etc....all to keep in 'in the family -- maybe even the mafia did things this way -- you were in or out based on your blood. With Bush -- its based on your past political record and who you know. Nothing to do with ability to do the job, or fairness. He has set the example for the nation to follow. I was *SHOCKED*, when early on, he removed long time US representatives to some function of the 'americas'...and replaced them with novice bush-conservatives that had no experience.
Now, it's considered 'normal', to not need proof -- if you are not against the "bad thing", then you are obviously "for it" because you are a criminal. Normal restrictions of law -- things that corporations wouldn't try in normal times have jumped -- because -- again -- the example. Bush comes in and claims wide sweeping powers that have never been part of law or the constitution. He just grabs and no one who has the ability to stop him is willing to say "no". He gets what he wants by taking it acting as if it is his "divine" right to have had it in the first place. Why should he ask? It's his. He's the monarch of the States. So
laws move toward the 'extremes' of sanity -- oh, someone was smoking pot in your parking lot -- sorry we are confiscating your store. What? You didn't know your tenants were growing pot? Don't you conduct surprise
inspections on them on a regular basis? That's your fault. Confiscate.
Latest -- Bush tells EPS dude to put CA in its place because (his words) "why should I help them? they didn't vote for me" (he actually said that when CA was being gouged on the spot energy market, paying 100-1000 times as much as normal market rates. When that happens at 'gas stations', you can bet the government moves toward controlling 'gouging', but when it happens to a state? Neh...
Things have become very 'tit-for-tat' -- across the board and through-out society. In nearly every negative behavior Bush has demonstrated, from lower-academic performance, and poor communication skills, to tromping on whoever he feels like -- and pushing past the boundaries of legality because it is his right -- he's on a mission from God. He must replace every person he c)an with someone loyal to the neo-conservatives.
This was the plan laid out in the 80's -- when christian groups found it wasn't enough just to get leaders elected. They needed their people appointed to every possible government position. You see it in CA, where several county court houses are refusing to perform marriages -- of any sort, as long as gays are able to marry. Fertility doctors who refuse to do embryo implantation because the parents are both women. All of these "professional" and "official" positions being "religionized".
So of course we see court cases that would be stopped in their tracks if we had a government "of the people", but who get to run amok causing damage for years until they randomly run up against someone who hasn't been replaced or somehow 'got a conscience'. Meanwhile, while Bush is in office suspending normal rule of law, Corporate raiders find they can get away with many tactics of questionable legality or things that are outright "illegal" and not supported by the constitution. The burden of proof of crime has been put by the wayside -- we can threaten and prosecute -
Because the actual statistics in the United States (you can disbelieve if you want but don't argue with me until you LOOK THEM UP) say that more gun ownership in the United States SAVES many more innocent lives than are lost by crime or accident every year! According to responsible studies, by a factor of about 3.
Personally, I believe that saved lives are better than lost lives, and that the lives of non-violent "innocent" citizens are more valuable to society than the lives of violent criminals.
If you disagree with those ideas, by all means keep arguing the way you are. But if you do agree with the above assertion, then you should be IN FAVOR of private gun ownership, because ALL the available evidence -- even the figures kept by the Department of Justice itself -- say that gun ownership, and even handgun ownership, prevents more loss of life than it causes, by a very wide margin.
So don't come to me again on your high horse and talk about who values life more. Not until you learn some actual facts, anyway. Until you do, I have nothing more to say to you.
All original creative works are automatically copyrighted. There is no non-copyrighted works of this sort until the copyright expires. This is a matter of law. The creator has the right to distribute his work as he sees fit (for free, or as if in the public domain, etc.) Thus, one should not talk about the distinction between copyrighted and non-copyrighted works. There are things which cannot be copyrighted, such as names and ideas, but that is because they are covered by trademark and patent law. We are not talking about those things.
What many of you are trying to say is that when a creator or copyright holder limits distribution then certain rights apply, however, there is no high or low copyright (filing for copyright allows for more damages in court though). All copyrights are the same. The RIAA or any corporation does not have a special copyright not available to Joe Six Pack. Radiohead may distribute their music for free, but it is still copyrighted. Remember that Copyleft and GPL work with copyright law to force compliance.
You cannot make analogies in law. Laws such as copyright are high specific. You cannot compare copyright law to laws governing murder, for example. As a rule, you must learn each law on its own and not try to apply analogies. You can make analogies when you are drafting legislation, but here we are talking about lawyering.
Law works on precedence. Judges don't want to work any harder than they have to, so stick to existing or governing law where someone else did the work. Cases of conflict in precedence have to be resolved on appeal.
Copyrights can be lost and works can be distributed into the public domain, but don't count on this to save you in court. Copyrights do not have to be vigorously defended.
It seems many people here seem to be confused about the issue a bit, IMHO.
The **AA is arguing that "making available" is as bad as "distribution".
Many people here are saying things like "if I leave my door unlocked, does that make me a possible accomplice to the thief who cleans out my apartment", or "if I leave steak knives on the table, does that make me a possible accessory to murder".
The thing is, putting files (to which you don't own the distribution rights) up on a *file sharing* network is akin to leaving unlocked the door to a hotel room, and posting a message outside saying "Room 1313 is open, help yourself to anything you see". Or putting the steak knives on the table with an invitation to stab the person in the next chair if they annoy you.
So, while I think the **AA are a bunch of greedy, self-serving, short-sighted, malicious bastards, I can actually see some merit in some of their arguments.
They still have a burden of proof, though - they must prove the alleged victim - er, perpetrator - deliberately "made available" the files in question, and that the files in question were actually material to which they owned the distribution rights.
It seems many of the cases so far have been absent even that much information, with tenuous or even non-existent links between an anonymous online presence and a real person.
That, their egregious abuse of legal processes, their extortionate threats, and the ludicrous damages claimed, are turning into a footgun of stupendous proportions.
This French Revolution you speak of?
Bah! Let them eat cake!
P.S. Don;t tell them that the cake is a lie, though!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
So why would companies or conservative leaning courts thing that 'evidence' of some 'violation' is needed to assign a Draconian sentence --- "to make an example", "to send a message" to all terrorists, wrong doers and file sharers that the US will hunt you down, guilty or not, and make you pay.
As for Bush -- he needs to be removed from office, so yesterday , with prejudice by official powers to try to give some reassurance to the world that our system isn't completely broken and to "send a message" and "make an example" to his followers, that his actions and his example are not acceptable in our society.
In the European Union we have a law that says it's legal to download and use whatever you want (copyrighted films, music, warez, porn, whatever) but it is illegal to share and/or make available and use commercially.
Laws and 'justice' in the US is just ridiculous. If you put your dog in your microwave you can sue the microwave company for not putting the manual that you can't dry animals with it, win and get a million dollar for it...
The US is corrupt as fsck.
Here be signatures
Should I turn myself for attempted robbery if I was standing outside a bank today but never went in.
Based on the no proof rule that the MPAA proposes everything we do is up for any interpretation.
MPAA:I am suing you for owning that movie!~~~ Me: Why? I bought it fair and square!~~~ MPAA:You failed to lock away the movie media in a approved biometric safe, so therefore we cannot prove you did not pirate the movie after you bought it.~~~ Me: Since when do I have to keep my movies in a safe?~~~ MPAA:Since we made the government say so. --In Soviet Russia, the Disc plays you!
I used to do tech support for Creative Labs, and they always had us emphasize the need to back up your files from your device before sending it in, as it WOULD be formatted before anything else was done.
I was told to explain to them that it gave the repair team a baseline to work from, but I had several higher ups also tell me that it was a common industry practice at the request of the major media distributors to fight media 'piracy'.
Judging by the number of calls I got just asking how to get files onto the device, I suspect this actually had some effect. (effect on exactly what is open to debate)
Pure anecdote, so it doesn't count for much, but I know what I was told by people who should know.
I am also posting AC in case any of them are still there. Has nothing to do with me, as I'm not there anymore.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
No, really? I think every plaintiff in any criminal case would clearly agree that the burden of proving that a violation actually occurred completely wipes out entire categories of law. Cops, for example, and Alberto Gonzalez really think Habeas Corpus is outdated, and prevents all kinds of innovation and progress towards criminalizing EVERYONE. Doubtless, this old legal doctrine deprives lots of copyright plaintiffs as well.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
By this argument every library in America is guilty of making copyrighted material available. Since their intent is to "loan" copyrighted material and they make no effort to prevent its subsequent copying and redistribution I think every library in America should be fined billions and billions of dollars.