Slashdot Mirror
RIAA's $222k Verdict Is Likely To Be Set Aside
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Apparently the RIAA's 'big gun' didn't fare so well this morning in Duluth, when he tried to persuade the judge in Capitol v. Thomas that the part of the Copyright Act which says 'by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending', can be disregarded. According to an in-person account by Wired.com the Judge indicated that he is likely to grant a mistrial, setting aside the $222,000 jury verdict based upon his incorrect jury instruction, and that he will probably hand down his decision in September. Just yesterday some of the same lawyers got rebuffed by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in their attempt to argue that Cablevision's online storage for its customers constitutes a copyright infringement, in Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings. There, too, the content owners had argued that the wording of the Copyright Act did not mean what it said. There, too, the Court politely but firmly disagreed."
I don't think that's going to stand up. Undercover cops buy drugs and the state doesn't have to prosecute them for buying them. Why couldn't investigators "illegally" download copyrighted material and still have it considered infringing on the part of the defendant, but not be prosecuted?
Not defending the RIAA, but just pointing out something that seems illogical to me.
Start a happiness pandemic
I do not think that that word means what you think it does.
Even if the 'making available' argument doesn't stand under current law, you can expect attempted copyright infringement to be made illegal when congress gets back from vacation.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The judge should strip them of their right to practice until the successfully pass an English language exam showing that they can actually read and comprehend words.
It's the only way they know how to play.
"in-person accounts" of things either - even if it's Wired.
Look at what happened to the two border patrol agents the Bush Administration is holding as political prisoners for arresting a drug runner who has ties to the Mexican Mafia and therefore to Bush.
The court of appeals said verbally that they were aghast, the prosecution ADMITTED that their star witness (the drug runner) lied under oath. The court of appeals in open court said that they couldn't see possibly how this was a valid prosecution under the law.
10 months later, after the Bush admin / Mexican mafia threaten the judges, they "somehow" now see how preventing the defense from showing that the drug runner had been caught running multiple loads even while under his "immunity agreement" with the prosecution - while the drug runner was claiming it was a "one time only thing" because "he needed money for his grandmother's operation" - was legally valid and no new trial is warranted.
My prediction: the judge who said this, will get a phone call from the Prez or several Congresscritters, or a visit from certain branches of covert government and/or MafiAA stooges, and will "magically" put off the ruling for 6 months and then issue the opposite opinion when he thinks nobody is looking.
I think it's an indication that judges do read ABA journals, that word does get around, and that perhaps there is a hope that these tactics are being exposed for what they are, a colossal rort of the legal system for private gain. You can fool some of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time, it appears.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
"Ya see, the Copyright Act, was just a big joke. I mean, when they were making it, they didn't even know about leasing non-physical things like music and software. Because, if it can apply to non-physical or non-real things, it's obvious that this so called Copyright Act isn't real in the first place."
As for the Congress getting more blatantly in bed with **AA, keep it up and I suspect people will stop writing them checks too, ass well as ignoring them generally. That's kind of the way these things seem to work in other countries.
By my reckoning, RIAA has had 20+ yrs to get a consumer usable act *started*, much less its act together, and failed. The model of selling the same tunes 12x to the same person in a digital age, threatening to break people "legally", and indiscriminately sucking off education resources, just doesn't cut it. Time to shape up or ship out, guys.
[song]
Welcome to duloc
such a perfect town
Here we have some rules let us lay them down
Don't make waves
Stay in line
and we'll get on just fine
Duloc is a perfect place
Please keep off of the grass
shine your shoes
wipe your...face
Duloc is
Duloc is
Duloc is a perfect place!
[/song]
Oh wait, DulUTH? My bad.
...or is it just too tempting?
I wrote a (very) short piece on this after the music industry had a wee get together in Kristiansand back in June last year.
One of the outcomes reported was the recognition that monetising, instead of prosecuting, was a better idea. Is it just the wheels moving slowly or is the easy path involve a lot less work for a lot more short term gain?
The Mothership
If the judge screws up when he gives the jury instructions, that is a reversible error of law.
The judge is the boss of the courtroom, and can't just screw it up like that. It's his job, as the law expert, to explain to the jury (who, btw, were too stupid to get out of jury duty) how the law is. If you screw up the instructions, you screw up the verdict.
Garbage In, Garbage Out.
It's so bad I think the judge should cover the court costs personally. Anyone screwing up like that as a lawyer would be slapped with malpractice. Should we not hold jusdges to the same standard?
What's this mean for WoW Glider, that's basically the same thing, only quicker?
but to set aside a jury's verdict is fairly unamerican
Not when the judge in question gave an incorrect interpretation regarding a point of law to the jury that almost certainly affected the verdict. I think it's a sign of a pretty good judge when he has the balls to say he made a mistake big enough to warrant a do-over.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
It's time to bribe....ummm...I mean fund the campaigns of incumbent congressmen. The judges are much harder to buy off.
did you read the part where it said the verdict would be set aside because of bad jury instructions ... if the jury gave the wrong answer because they were asked the wrong question it should be set aside.
If MediaSentry hacked her to frame her, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
R3 got DoS'ed by them, after all.
Often Police Officers are reasonably doing what members of the public commonly do, out of a belief that someone is a criminal. If the belief is reasonably formed, I applaud them for it--the police shouldn't be prevented from, in the course of an investigation, pretending to be a regular Joe or Sally in order to see if someone is selling drugs, for example.
But you run into real problems, too--I've heard stories from people who work in environments where, because the police expect there to be corruption, the police send in undercover people all the time and repeatedly try to get non-criminals to engage in criminal activity. It's one thing to notice someone is dealing drugs or traveling with drugs--it's quite another to ask them to help you transport those drugs by weaseling them into it. "Oh, you're flying down to such-and-such a city for your sister's birthday? Could you drop this package of mine off with an old friend?" That kind of thing.
Some cops behave better than others, and of course they have a job to do. It's hard to find the line, sometimes, but it's important to remember that there is one.
With the RIAA, obviously it's different: this is a private group copying something they've sold to you, saying you're the one who's copied it, and then suing you for it.
As an Artist, of course I think we need copyrights, because I spend months or years of my life writing a book. But going after a pirate (or a ninja) who probably wouldn't have paid for the book in the first place isn't helpful to me: it generates bad will, it's a bigger drain on society than the copy is, and I'd rather have the book read by someone who didn't pay for it than have it be not read by someone who wouldn't have read it otherwise.
I'm not saying I'd never enforce copyright, nor that people should be violating it. But suing everyone who does is not the right answer.
Thousands are enslaved every day. A River of In
None of this means a damned thing if the RIAA succeeds in getting their private gestapo made into an arm of the Department of Justice. Remember, they are pushing a bill to create a Federal framework for billing the US Government for both civil and criminal actions using Federal officers to do their dirty work. Even if you don't download music, you're gonna pay through the nose in tax dollars and the loss of more civil rights as the government bureaucrats try to ram through new laws to "support their mission" - mandatory ISP snooping and filtering, legitimized abuse of due process, lower standards of evidence, and a grab bag of laws to "protect jobs" (that's the rationale being currently used to get this bill passed). We're setting ourselves up for an Orwellian nightmare of epic proportions if this nightmare passes.
He's not saying that the Jury's verdict is wrong, he's saying that the decision was made on incorrect information. The fact that they based their decision on were wrong. If a Jury found a man guilty of murder but it turned out that the prosecution had hidden facts that would have exonerated the defendant, would you consider that "unamerican"?
I, personally, am an adherent to the principle of jury nullification. I think that's the point of having a jury in the first place. A judge is far more qualified to appraise the "legality" of a case than a legal lay-person. Juries should be instructed to exercise their own judgment taking into account their own values, the circumstances unique, and the legal arguments that take place between the lawyers as arbitrated by the judge. In that order!
Of course, in America, if anyone tries to make a jury aware of this inherent right during the course of a trial, it is grounds for a mistrial. Look it up.
I, personally, am an adherent to the principle of jury nullification.
As was John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. The really sad thing is that all jurors should already be aware of their absolute rights as arbiters of facts *and* the law, but peoples' knowledge of how their own government works is a joke nowadays.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
To be honest, either she ignored her council, or got seriously bad advice, because she'd have been better off fessing to file sharing up from the start, and accepting the risk of what even the RIAA originally expected to be a much smaller fine.
I fail to see how she would have been better off. She'd have faced the same situation -- $750 to $150,000 per infringement, plus court costs -- without the possibility of being found not liable (i.e., let off the hook).
At least one member of the jury didn't appear to fully understand the evidence, at least with regard to whether the drive failed or was thrown out to try to beat the rap, and given that they felt $222k was in any way a reasonable penalty for a handful of $1 music files I certainly don't think hindsight demonstrates there was much mercy for the defendant to throw herself upon.
I thought much the same thing about the defendant's strategy as you did, at first glance, but after looking at the alternative I really think it was the best choice of a poor lot.
And who knows, maybe the verdict gets overturned to boot? Would this second-guessing have occurred if the defendant simply admitted liability and hoped for "low" damages to come back from the jury?
Undercover cops buy drugs and the state doesn't have to prosecute them for buying them.
I understand the point, but it doesn't apply. In the drugs case, the cops didn't legally manufacture the legal to posses drugs. The drugs in question were not legal. In the RIAA case, the recordings were legally created by RIAA members and then downloaded by the legal copyright holder. It would be different if the actual songs were illegal products not produced by RIAA members. If she provided underground detailed bomb or meth manufacturing instructions in an audio file, then the distribution of an illegal product may be the issue, not copyright infringement.
The truth shall set you free!
Ohmigosh! A nightmare of Orwellian proportions. Winston? Where are you? Are you okay?
the police shouldn't be prevented from, in the course of an investigation, pretending to be a regular Joe or Sally in order to see if someone is selling drugs, for example.
Yes they should, drugs shouldn't be illegal!
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Look on the bright side. Western society is in terminal decline anyway. When archaeologists of the next great civilisation look back at us, the RIAA's efforts to turn corporate policy into federal law are going to be seen as something of a barometer... if they are even remembered at all.
Look, I'm no fan of the RIAA, but to set aside a jury's verdict is fairly unamerican. A jury listened to the facts, contemplated the charges, and rendered a verdict.
They were essentially mis-instructed in the charges.
Setting that aside is something that courts should be loathe to do, and should only be done at the appellate level by seasoned, reasoned jurists.
Lawyers are officers of the court. They must act within the bounds of the court process. To give purposefully misleading information to the judge is outside what they are supposed to do. The judge is not and can not be an expert in everything. The lawyers in the case are supposed to bring up everything relevant, and the judge decides points of law and the juries points of fact. But, the judge decided a point of law incorrectly, essentially because the lawyers on one side lied to the judge. That is a violation of the process and should require a mistrial. The jury made a decision based on incorrect instructions. Thus the decision they made may have been correct based on their information, but may not have been correct if they were properly instructed. The judge gave them one last chance to convince him that the information provided to the judge was correct, and he indicated that he does not believe the instructions he gave the jury were correct, and thus he should declare a mistrial.
As for whether that's right or wrong or whatever, that's what's happening here, and well within the rules of order. It was started because the lawyers on one side misinformed the judge. And that's simply not allowed.
Learn to love Alaska
Don't be silly, it was quite obvious she was guilty as charged, the only grossly unfair thing was the punishment.
She was charged of having committed copyright infringement in two different ways. The first charge was incorrect and only happened because the RIAA's lawyers lied to the court, and the evidence for the second charge is most likely incorrect as well.
I beg to differ. There's no doubt that noone's downloading your crappy product but your unlicensed investigators...
Also, lol - people still use kabaaaaaa ?
Requiem for the American Dream
This is not a catch-22 for copyright holders. I am a photographer, and I have prosecuted copyright infringement several time. I find EVIDENCE that someone copied the images illegally, by finding copies published in placed that did not license them. The RIAA already does this -- when they find actual unauthorized copies (like CDs at flea markets).
Lawyers are officers of the court. They must act within the bounds ...
Bravo, you win the Internet. That is a well-reasoned and informed presentation of the situation.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
That's perhaps the fourth time I've seen that in this thread. RIAA trolls sure do have a lot of free time.
Requiem for the American Dream
Watch as yet another RIAA lawyer makes a complete ass of himself... and in the Midwestern normal town capital of the world no less... why do i feel like Garrison Kieler should be commenting on this.
Quote: "The defense is arguing that if the investigators are not liable for downloading the content illegally, then the content must be authorized by the RIAA."
It is actually the other way around: the defense is arguing that SINCE the downloading was previously authorized by the RIAA as part of the investigation, no infringement took place! You can't illegally copy your own goods, or goods that you are authorized to copy by the copyright holder!
Setting aside a jury verdict of innocence would be unamerican, setting aside a "guilty" verdict due to incorrect "facts of law" being given in with the judges instructions to the jury however is not.
This is however not a criminal case but a civil matter of liability in relation to copyright law, in which case the plaintiffs should show actual real harm. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, however just because you have a fist and it is publicly viewable, that does not mean I can sue you over the possibility you could have broken my nose.
"Judge, let's just forget about this little part of the law, because it's very inconvenient for us..."
Lawyers are officers of the court. They must act within the bounds of the court process. To give purposefully misleading information to the judge is outside what they are supposed to do. The judge is not and can not be an expert in everything. The lawyers in the case are supposed to bring up everything relevant, and the judge decides points of law and the juries points of fact. But, the judge decided a point of law incorrectly, essentially because the lawyers on one side lied to the judge. That is a violation of the process and should require a mistrial. The jury made a decision based on incorrect instructions. Thus the decision they made may have been correct based on their information, but may not have been correct if they were properly instructed. The judge gave them one last chance to convince him that the information provided to the judge was correct, and he indicated that he does not believe the instructions he gave the jury were correct, and thus he should declare a mistrial. As for whether that's right or wrong or whatever, that's what's happening here, and well within the rules of order. It was started because the lawyers on one side misinformed the judge. And that's simply not allowed.
Well spoken, AK.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I'm not siding with the RIAA..
That's perhaps the fourth time I've seen that in this thread. RIAA trolls sure do have a lot of free time.
Dear easyTree, I hope you get modded up for your astute RIAA troll-detection skills. I've noticed that this shill who writes these things always loves to start off with something like that. "Nobody hates the RIAA more than me, but......" "I'm no fan of the RIAA, but..." "Sure I don't like their heavy handed methods, but...." I've seen a million of them. It's the surest tip-off. The saving grace of these guys is their bottomless stupidity.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I'm no fan of the RIAA, but I like my toast to come out of the toaster before it's burnt.
Sure I don't like their heavy handed methods, but my next door neighbor has a gigantic dog that actually outmasses me.
I just want to mess with your statistics on this one :)
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Your trying to mess with his statistics? Get back to Marketing you non-standard deviation, before we turn the dogs loose!
You talk about how the supposed "Justice" system really operates, and they call you a "troll."
Truly amazing.
you don't understand. this is slashdot. it doesn't matter how blatantly guilty she is, we have to find a way to twist logic to make piracy seem ok.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
People universally hate the RIAA - not unreasonable considering the current climate - any support, no matter how 'well disguised' stands-out like a wolf at a sheep-shearing contest.
I suggest that their PR-dollars would be better spent by trying to compete within their purported area of expertise.
Requiem for the American Dream
I suggest that their PR-dollars would be better spent by trying to compete within their purported area of expertise.
Did you say "compete"? What's that? That's not a word they're familiar with.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I noticed this when my original comment got modded troll :)
However since she was found to have used the same username for her file sharing app as she did for email and other websites, I think anyone who thinks she wasn't guilty of filesharing is being silly.
Also, not many people seem to be able to handle the idea that obvious guilt is not the same thing as deserving the harsh fine she got.
that seems like a pretty loose instruction. Could it be grounds for mistrial because people have been shown to make decisions based on their feelings ("their own values") rather than the facts presented to them?
In this day and age I don't know that I think the judgment of the average person counts for much, especially in a legal sense, without some guidance. Doubly so in a technology related case.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
since she was found to have used the same username for her file sharing app as she did for email and other websites, I think anyone who thinks she wasn't guilty of filesharing is being silly
I guess you're not familiar with the facts. There was ZERO evidence that she had used the "file sharing app". There was evidence that(a) her computer had been malfunctioning, and (b) someone had used a "file sharing app", and (c) that someone had used defendant's frequent user name. The techie from Best Buy testified that the computer was irretrievably corrupted and infected. I.e., all of the facts were completely consistent with a 'zombie' situation.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
So, genius, explain to me how you upload something without making a copy.
Typically it is legal to make a copy of material under fair use guidelines. Whether the copy is on a CD or on a server or some other medium is generally irrelevant. What is relevant is whether mens rea can be proven and whether the use clearly falls outside fair use guidelines. Upload stuff to a website saying "Warez here - come and get it" and you likely are committing a copyright violation. But simply putting files on a server is not an automatic copyright infringement. The issue is a lot more complicated than that.
Both sides copy, and as you say, the act of copying without permission is illegal.
This statement could not be more wrong. Copying material is not an automatic copyright infringement and both case law as well as legislation have strongly established this fact. All copyright infringements require the act of copying but not all copying is an automatic copyright infringement.
that 'someone' used her username, on her pc, and the evidence did not point to anyone else but her actually having downloaded the files, just that she had some virii, same as millions of other people.
I remain convinced she did download the songs, just not that she deserved the fine
Undercover cops buy drugs and the state doesn't have to prosecute them for buying them.
Police officers are sanctioned by the government to enforce the law. The RIAA and other private organizations do not (and should not) share the same legal protections as a police officer sanctioned with enforcing the laws. The act of trafficking schedule 1 controlled substances is always illegal for private citizens. Making a copy of copyrighted material often is entirely legal under fair use doctrine. Furthermore selling controlled substances without a license is a felony whereas selling copyrighted material without any special license is frequently legal.
If the plaintiff had assistance from legally sanctioned law enforcement authorities who, in the process of a properly conducted investigation, concluded that there was reasonable grounds to suspect attempted copyright infringement then it would seem more likely to be acceptable as evidence. But just because some private investigator found "evidence" doesn't mean a court will or should automatically allow it to be presented.
Why couldn't investigators "illegally" download copyrighted material and still have it considered infringing on the part of the defendant, but not be prosecuted?
Because a private citizen cannot manufacture a crime against another private citizen. Without getting into the particulars of any given case is is easy to think of situations where the defendant was not attempting to commit copyright infringement. Making copies of copyrighted material is not prima facia evidence of copyright infringement.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, SirShmoopie, I just want to make sure you recited the correct facts.
There was no evidence that she had done it, and there was her sworn testimony that she had not. If you equate her sworn testimony to no evidence at all, that is your prerogative, but in my view your doing so betrays a certain bias.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
This "Wow, modded troll for TELLIN THOSE SLASHDOT SHEEPLE LIKE IT IS, MAN!" routine you're so fond of doesn't fool anyone, not even yourself. You have never been a victim and you will never be a martyr.
The GP did specifically write "without permission". Under any reasonable readings of that expression,...
Don't confuse reasonable readings with legal interpretations. Fair use copying does not, under any circumstances I am aware of, require permission from the copyright holder. The GP post you refer to is at best ambiguous on this point and I see no reason why anyone should assume your broad interpretation of "without permission" since permission is not necessarily required.
There should be something like Godwin's law against the use of the term "unamerican." I'm not sure I've ever seen it used in a valid argument.
I was flipping bits on an abacus, newb.
The argument is that the copy was authorized, and therefore no infringement took place. I think I may see a flaw.
The MPAA-vs-2600 DeCSS trial introduced a concept to me that I had never heard or thought of. I call it "secret and complex authorization." Recall that 1201 prohibits you from bypassing a technological measure that effectively prohibits access without authorization, and since the judge in that case ruled that DeCSS violated 1201, it follows that DeCSS' author and users did not have authorization.
No DVD that I have ever seen, contains any text explaining whether or not you are authorized to bypass the tech measure. Nor does it contain any text or license granting authorization for you to bypass CSS in some ways but not others.
And yet, in order to play a DVD, you must bypass CSS every time. MPAA has not sued any user for playing a CSS-protected DVD that the user owns, on a Sony DVD player.
Ergo, the implication (though it is not explicitly spelled out anywhere) is that all MPAA members do authorize all their users to bypass CSS -- break the copy protection -- if they happen to be using a DVDCCA-licensed player when they do it. That makes sense and everyone knows it's true, but it is not written anywhere, and no user has any proof that playing a DVD is legal. Yet DVDs have been on the market for many years now and no one has been sued for merely watching one.
The conditions under which authorization is granted, are secret (never ever communicated from the copyright holder to the user) and complex (they apply to the user depending on whether the manufacturer of the player they're using (a third party) signed an agreement with Yet Another third party (DVDCSS), something which the user is not going to have any idea about). Any time someone plays a DVD, they don't really have any idea of whether or not they are violating DMCA, nor is there a way to find out, except to get sued. Authorization is never communicated.
This is the status quo and has been tolerated by the courts for several years now. It's the world we live in.
If I were the RIAA in this case, I would exercise the godlike power this implies. They don't need for the question of whether or not the PI had authorization to make the copy, to be a simple matter of black and white, and more than MPAA is required to make the question of whether or not watching a DVD is authorized, to be black or white. It is accepted that MPAA's granting of authorization doesn't need to be codified or explained in advance, and can be selectively applied to some parties and not others (e.g. when you use DeCSS, you and the DeCSS author are in violation, but the drive manufacturer and the computer maker are magically not in trouble). MPAA's conditions of authorization to bypass CSS, boil down to simply whether they like you or dislike you. It's really that simple, as logically murky as it seems.
Couldn't RIAA use this power as well? Can't they say that their PI is authorized to generally download RIAA's copyrighted works, but declare that a specific instance of downloading, was unauthorized? It doesn't need to make sense; it's their prerogative to grant authorization however they like.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Perhaps you can name or reference the bill(s) in question?
You're quite right - my apologies. Links here:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/26/0340215
I think I have to step into the mouth of the lion here, and disagree.
Here's why. In my opinion, the RIAA are a bunch of thugs who are using the law and legal system like a club. I'm sure we agree on that: they seem to be intent on bullying as many people as possible into submission -- with little regard to whether or not these people have done what they're accused of or not.
This is not, however, mutually exclusive with my other opinion: downloading music files that you're not authorized to download is stealing. I'm not referring to the legal sense of the word, because it seems like there's still some ambiguity there. Instead, I mean strictly in the sense of "It is wrong to take things you have not paid for, if you have not been invited to do so by the people who made it." It's my further opinion that all the excuses in the world don't make this acceptable.
The problem becomes that here an slashdot, and most other technically-oriented sites, it is very difficult to get across the second - and /unrelated/ - opinion without people assuming you're a RIAA shill.
So you'll see disclaimers like "I'm not fan of the RIAA, but...". I don't bother making those disclaimers -- when I make posts ont his subject, I'm not talking about RIAA, but about downloading. However, I can understand why people do -- a futile attempt to have the content of their post actually read, without the poster being automatically disregarded as being a RIAA shill.
Look on the bright side. Western society is in terminal decline anyway.
OK... if that's the bright side-- dare I ask what the downside is?
I can understand why people do -- a futile attempt to have the content of their post actually read, without the poster being automatically disregarded as being a RIAA shill.
Which honest people don't worry themselves about. Honest people just say what's on their minds. Shills, however, are "bent on attempt[ing] to have the content of their post actually read" because they are being paid to have their content read.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The downside is that after the Roman Empire passed its peak, it took five hundred years for Rome to fall, and a further millennium for the whole thing to be extinguished. We have only a lifetime of decline to look forward to, as do our children's children, even unto the next 20 generations; only in a few centuries will this rotten carcass actually start the creative process of decomposition.
Sorry you asked? ;)
I can understand why people do -- a futile attempt to have the content of their post actually read, without the poster being automatically disregarded as being a RIAA shill.
Which honest people don't worry themselves about. Honest people just say what's on their minds. Shills, however, are "bent on attempt[ing] to have the content of their post actually read" because they are being paid to have their content read.
Aren't you making the same judgments-without-proof here that OP was? Surely it's possible that those honest people are tired of getting modded troll, and so make a pre-emptive attempt to differentiate their stance from an association with or condoning of RIAA's actions.
I can understand why people do -- a futile attempt to have the content of their post actually read, without the poster being automatically disregarded as being a RIAA shill.
Which honest people don't worry themselves about. Honest people just say what's on their minds. Shills, however, are "bent on attempt[ing] to have the content of their post actually read" because they are being paid to have their content read.
Aren't you making the same judgments-without-proof here that OP was? Surely it's possible that those honest people are tired of getting modded troll, and so make a pre-emptive attempt to differentiate their stance from an association with or condoning of RIAA's actions.
Yeah, it's possible, just like it's possible you don't have an agenda either.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
So the RIAA thinks they can disregard any part of the law as they see fit? Who do they think they are, the President of the US?
By all means, go after the most egregious offenders--but that is a relatively small bunch. As I said, I am in favor of copyrights, because of course artists need incentives to create and investors need incentives to invest in those artistic creations that are expensive.
But copyrights should be used to protect your work against exploitation, and even as stick to use if people refuse a request that they stop doing something that you don't like with your work. (They're welcome to criticize, of course, and they have a legal right to.) But the request should be made first. Not as part of a $5,000 settlement fee complete some rather restrictive terms. (Doesn't the agreement limit your ability to speak out against copyright law? I vaguely remember that.)
Thousands are enslaved every day. A River of In
...but fair use doesn't cover making backup copies - it's different.
Fair use certainly can cover backup copies as that would generally be a form of space shifting which was most notably upheld in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). The legalese you quoted are examples (indicated by the quote "for purposes such as"), not an exhaustive list of what constitutes fair use.
There is a four part test to determine if a copy is fair use. Considerations include the "purpose and character of use" and "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". Despite the fact that the whole work is being copied, backup copies are highly unlikely to be viewed as copyright infringement absent some additional circumstances. Backups are unlikely to prejudice additional sales, diminish sales, or supersede the original work in any way.
It's fine for the copyright holder to explicitly grant the right to make a backup copy but as far as I know they would be on thin legal ground if they tried to prevent it absent some explicit agreement on your part.
It's a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Neither is illegal.
Not according to the Plagiarism Checker, it says "The owner of a copyright gets to decide who can legally make copies of that work. It is illegal to copy large sections of someone else's copyrighted work without permission, even if you give the original author credit." If that's not enough, then let's see what the Copyright Office says: "It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright." Notice the government itself says it's illegal.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I can understand why people do -- a futile attempt to have the content of their post actually read, without the poster being automatically disregarded as being a RIAA shill.
Which honest people don't worry themselves about. Honest people just say what's on their minds. Shills, however, are "bent on attempt[ing] to have the content of their post actually read" because they are being paid to have their content read.
Aren't you making the same judgments-without-proof here that OP was? Surely it's possible that those honest people are tired of getting modded troll, and so make a pre-emptive attempt to differentiate their stance from an association with or condoning of RIAA's actions.
Yeah, it's possible, just like it's possible you don't have an agenda either.
At first I laughed, because I thought you were joking - then it occurred to me that if you went to that much trouble, you probably weren't.
I've made my position clear all along - in fact, I spelled it out very specifically in the original reply to your comment. I'm not sure what gain there was in checking back through my older comments, but you will find that I've been very consistent for years: a) I think that downloading copyrighted content without permissions is stealing. b) When I even bother to mention it (rarely as it's not relevant to "a") I think that there is no excuse for what RIAA is doing and hope that their counsel is eventually subject to censure at minimum for going along with it. But again I stress these are two completely different things.
I do feel compelled to point out that the link you provided to demonstrate my so-called agenda points out a valid technical fact: in a peer to peer system: it's extremely difficult to download without also uploading. But why let facts get in the way of a bit of good old-fashioned innuendo?
I've been reading your blog and postings -- and even some briefs -- for a while now, and have always been impressed with the amount of thought and diligence that goes into your work. Based on that, I thought that this could be an interesting conversation.
I felt that I made an intelligent and reasonable set of arguments which would be responded to in kind; but instead I get an emotion-based reply that only served to prove the point I was originally trying to make. I suppose I should take some pleasure in that, but I find that I'm disappointed. From many here, I would have expected this; but not from you.
I felt that I made an intelligent and reasonable set of arguments which would be responded to in kind; but instead I get an emotion-based reply
Sorry you're so "intelligent and reasonable" and I'm so "emotional". I guess your points must have been intelligent and reasonable if you think they are, and I guess my "emotion-based reply" is unworthy of you.
I've been reading your comments for several years, and I believe there is some reason which you are not disclosing why you continually take the position, unsupported by any citation to legal precedent, that "downloading copyrighted content without permissions is stealing". Yes you have been open about that being your position, but you have not been open about your personal reasons for repeatedly espousing that incorrect statement of law at every juncture, when it is almost invariably offtopic.
The entire subject of the oral argument in Capitol v. Thomas is the distribution right, not the reproduction right; the erroneous jury instruction had to do with the distribution right, not the reproduction right; the reason a new trial is needed is because of the a mistake regarding the distribution right, not the reproduction right. Yet you insist on using this post as a platform to repeat, over and over again, your misstatement of law regarding the reproduction right, one which you have previously uttered probably several hundred times before on Slashdot, always without benefit of citation to legal authority.
Is it really so odd that your defense of an obvious RIAA shill posting various posts under an "AC" designation attracts attention? Sorry if I'm too "emotional" for your "intelligent and reasonable" highness.
If you want to have a "reasonable" and "intelligent" dialogue you need to do 2 things:
1. disclose the real reason that you keep looking for a platform to spout your opinion on downloading, and
2. either cite your authority for it, or admit you have none.
See, the way I look at things, there is no contradiction between being "emotional" and being "intelligent and reasonable", but there is a contradiction between "intelligent and reasonable" on the hand, and "intellectually dishonest" on the other.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
My opinions are just that - my opinions. I guess I can understand where you think I have an ulterior motive, but I don't -- I'm just sounding off with my opinions when it's topically appropriate, the same as everyone else here.
Yes you have been open about that being your position, but you have not been open about your personal reasons for repeatedly espousing that incorrect statement of law at every juncture, when it is almost invariably offtopic.
My replies are without exception on-topic to the post I reply to. When they are not, I label them as "OT" in the subject. Further, I challenge you to find any instance in which I make an incorrect statement of law, keeping in mind that in order to do so, it must be a statement (that is, not a question) and posed as a factual interpretation of law. I suspect you won't have much luck, because I try to stick to what I know when I post.
The entire subject of the oral argument in Capitol v. Thomas [blogspot.com] is the distribution right...Yet you insist on using this post as a platform to repeat, over and over again, your misstatement of law regarding the reproduction right
I've done nothing of the sort. In an on-topic reply to your implication that the only reason for someone to post a disclaimer is that they are a RIAA shill, I cited my own personal beliefs to give an example of why someone might make that disclaimer while not being a shill. You'll note I wasn't even really defending the poster - for all I know he really /is/ a RIAA shill (but I still suspect that he's not).
As far as incorrect statements of law: see above challenge. My posts are generally not about the law, unless it's in the form of a question or idea.
f you want to have a "reasonable" and "intelligent" dialogue you need to do 2 things:
Actually, I don't, but I'll try to answer these points anyway in the interest of hoping to come to an understanding.
1. disclose the real reason that you keep looking for a platform to spout your opinion on downloading, and
I don't look for platform to do anything. When it's appropriate to the topic at hand, I may choose to mention it - it is my opinion, and I'm entitled to do so. The closest thing I have to ulterior motive is my tangental involvement in the games industry, where the same casual attitude about downloading not being equal to stealing is killing indy game developers, and is moving the industry as a whole towards console games. But that's a lesser factor - for the most part, I reply as my own values indicate I should.
Either cite your authority for it, or admit you have none.
Cite my authority to hold an opinion and be vocal about it? Why should I have to do that? I'm not stating these things as points of law, I'm stating them as a product of my own value system. I need no more authority than anyone else to do that.
See, the way I look at things, there is no contradiction between being "emotional" and being "intelligent and reasonable", but there is a contradiction between "intelligent and reasonable" on the hand, and "intellectually dishonest" on the other.
So you're now calling me "intellectually dishonest" because it's unfathomable that my posts have no ulterior motive?
You've done a good job of diverting this away from my original point, which is that there are other reasons besides being a RIAA shill for someone to say "I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, but..."
I rather thought we were on the same side here: that is, opposed to the way RIAA and counsel are abusing the legal system to extort money out of their victims. But unless I'm missing something, you are not able to draw that dividing line that allows one disapprove of RIAA tactic
First, apologies for the delay in my reply. Work has been hell for the last couple of days.
No problem. It's been hell for me too. It's not like I didn't have enough work to keep me busy while I was waiting.
But... on to the topic at hand: My opinions are just that - my opinions. I guess I can understand where you think I have an ulterior motive, but I don't -- I'm just sounding off with my opinions when it's topically appropriate, the same as everyone else here.
Good.
My replies are without exception on-topic to the post I reply to. When they are not, I label them as "OT" in the subject.
This post was about an erroneous instruction on the distribution right; your statement of your opinion related to the reproduction right, not the distribution right. You didn't label it off topic.
Further, I challenge you to find any instance in which I make an incorrect statement of law
Your offtopic statement was an incorrect statement of the law. You said : "downloading copyrighted content without permissions is stealing". (In addition, it was offtopic, since it related to the reproduction right, not the distribution right.)
The closest thing I have to ulterior motive is my tangental involvement in the games industry, where the same casual attitude about downloading not being equal to stealing is killing indy game developers, and is moving the industry as a whole towards console games.
Thank you for disclosing that. It's not so tangential as you think. It permeates many of your posts. You have leapt to the RIAA's defense on many issues, including things which are not related directly to copyright at all, such as their collusive conduct, etc.
Cite my authority to hold an opinion and be vocal about it? Why should I have to do that? I'm not stating these things as points of law, I'm stating them as a product of my own value system. I need no more authority than anyone else to do that.
Thanks for clarifying that. So please clarify it when you post it, because you state things as though they are the law, when they are not. If it is your personal feeling that 'downloading things without permission is morally wrong', say so; don't incorrectly say that 'downloading things without permission is stealing'.
So you're now calling me "intellectually dishonest" because it's unfathomable that my posts have no ulterior motive?
No, the reason I felt your posts were 'intellectually dishonest' because (a) you weren't disclosing your personal reasons for having an axe to grind, and (b) you were making statements of legal opinion that were wrong and you were not supporting them with any authority.
You've done a good job of diverting this away from my original point, which is that there are other reasons besides being a RIAA shill for someone to say "I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, but..."
Yes well I think we've exhausted that subject. Your continued defense of apparent RIAA-shill posts is at least now explainable in view of your 'tangential' involvement in gaming and anger at people who download games without paying for them.
I rather thought we were on the same side here:
Well we've made some progress, at least in terms of being clear with each other, and you at least profess to agree with me that the RIAA's tactics are improper. But it seems to me that we are on different sides, in that you often look for opportunities to leap to their defense. I find their conduct to be indefensible, and I loathe the very ground they walk on. My sympathies are with the victims of these cruel bullies. And those you so often defend can rot in hell.
Not that I have strong feelings about it.
Go in peace, PowerOfGraySkull, I mean you no harm, but please (a) be cautious in your pronouncements which sound like statements of law, and (b) think twice before being the "devil's advocate", because this devil has a legion of highly paid advocates already.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
she's been blatantly downloading copyrighted music and probably warez, and no surprise, some of the dodgy sites she visited infected her machine with malware.
So she is ripping artists off, and probably part of a botnet that sends me spam.
Explain again why I give a damn about this person? (unless of course I am a lawyer that wants to make money defending people like her...)
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Are you are saying the judge was wrong?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Go in peace, PowerOfGraySkull...
I only wish I could, but what kind of geek would I be if I were able to just let it go...
Without getting into a quoting frenzy, here are my points of disagreement:
1. My reply was specifically to your comments; it was not to the article itself. Therefore, it was not offtopic. I label comments as offtopic when they are offtopic to the post I am replying to.
2. My comment was not a statement of law, it was a strongly worded statement of opinion. I did not say "downloading copyrighted content is illegal". I said it is "stealing"; which is a moral judgement. The law and morality often go into completely different directions (and this is generally a good thing - who in their right mind wants morality to be legislated?) On slashdot and elsewhere, do you read every firmly-stated opinion as a statement of legal fact? I'm going to assume not -- so why would this be different?
3. Games connection: my beliefs on this subject (and willingness to speak of them) predate my involvement in the gaming industry, which is why I'm comfortable in saying the influence would be a minor one if any at all.
4. RIAA - I've never defended them. The closest I've come is implying that I can understand why they are doing something, but you'll never see me defend their behavior. By way of comparison, I can understand why some murderers have killed -- but that's a far cry from defending them, believing that they were justified, or even thinking that they don't deserve justice. The ability to empathize does imply agreement or support.