Slashdot Mirror
Fair Use Defense Dismissed In SONY V. Tenenbaum
Several readers sent us updates from the Boston courtroom where, mere hours before the start of trial, a federal judge ruled out fair use as a defense. Wired writes that "the outcome is already shaping up to resemble the only other file sharing trial," in which the RIAA got a $1.92M judgement against Jammie Thomas-Rassert. The defendant, Joel Tenenbaum, has already essentially admitted to sharing music files, and the entire defense put together by Harvard Prof. Charles Nesson and his students turned on the question of fair use. The judge wrote that the proposed defense would be "so broad it would swallow the copyright protections that Congress has created." Jury selection is complete and opening arguments will begin tomorrow morning. Here is the Twitter feed organized by Prof. Nesson's law students.
All European countries? Spain is the only one, and lawmakers are trying to change that.
A Magic the Gathering Article and Forum Aggregator
Because it's not legal in the U.S., nor is there any precedent of case law to suggest Tenenbaum's actions were legal? In fact, all the case law to date only reinforces the concept that what Joel did was illegal, and essentially sets fire to any and all copyright law that's ever existed.
All European countries? Spain is the only one, and lawmakers are trying to change that.
Dutch law allows it, although of course the local copy of the RIAA would like to change that as well.
Quoted from the article, for those too lazy to read it:
Under Dutch law, downloading games and software is illegal, but sharing copied films and music is not. The Dutch copyright law allows consumers to make a copy of CD's and DVD's they own, and to store those copies as files on their personal computers.
So there you have it.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
To answer your question: no, it doesn't.
uploading is -not- allowed, downloading is. More accurately: distribution is not allowed, downloading is.
The distinction is a bit vague, as B downloading from A inherently means A is uploading to B, but quite technically a download and an upload are separate processes, hinging mostly on who initiated what.
Again this applies only to music and video (tv/movies). This doesn't apply to e.g. software* and books.
* yes, you're allowed to distribute linux distros and such. Please read these posts within the appropriate context.
If a juror even mentions jury nullification, they'll be off the bench in no time flat. Stop getting legal advice from pamphlets.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The problem is the punishment they are applying... if it's 1.920.000 USD then in my opinion it's way too much. I am not a lawyer but let's do some math:
- punishment -> 1 920 000 USD
- yearly income of this guy -> 60 000 USD (a supposition)
- working to pay the punishment 32 years!!!
so... to pay a 1 920 000 USD punishment in his case is an equivalent of being condemned for a working camp for 32 years... well not exactly working camp but I guess you get my point. So is it really fair? They should be defending this guy for a fair punishment and not this inflated bullshit RIAA is trying get him into.
My 2 cents.
I know /. likes to think redistributing mp3s is fair use since it's lossy compression and people wouldn't have bought the song anyway, but that's a very tortured explanation and out of touch with reality.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Unless the laws in question allow me to consume ANYTHING from them without any further interference, what basis would they have for collecting that money from me? Potential piracy? Uh...I don't see how that would stick.
It already has in Canada under the blank media levy. Don't be so quick to disbelieve.
As I understand it, it's the same way here in US, except that it does apply to software, books, or anything governed by copyright. The idea is that the uploader is the one doing the distributing, which makes sense to me.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Because "fair use" has nothing to do with the meanings of the words "fair" and "use". You can't look at a scenario and go "well, that seems fair". "fair use" is a specific legal term that covers a specific set of criteria that have to be applied to a situation. The judge is saving the defense wasted effort by saying ahead of time "no, there is no way you could possibly have fallen under enough of these criteria for that defense to fly".
USC 17 107
Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall includeâ"
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Poland is the next one. You can copy for your friends and family for non commercial use.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
No, it really isn't. Downloading is also technically illegal, it's just harder to prove, and there's less damages to shoot for, which is why RIAA and the likes are going for uploaders (and not just any one, but those which shared a large number of files and/or for a long time, and where there is generally ample evidence to prove that uploading happened).
If you actually believe that then I suggest you get an FFL and try it out in reality.
May come as a surprise to you, but you don't need to be an FFL holder to sell a gun, just like you don't need to have a business license as a car dealer to sell a car.
And my point is that in most cases that defense doesn't fly.
Incorrect. This is a state law issue. In Nevada, I can sell my 9mm pistol to my neighbor's brother, and if he turns out to live in NY city and not on my neighbors couch as I'd assumed and takes it back to NY with him, ATF can't do jack shit to me. If I lived in California, however, I'd be in violation of state law for not transferring via state-approved procedures.... but even then, the ATF still wouldn't show up at my door, it would be California DOJ dragging me off to the clink.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Juries aren't supposed to rewrite legislation
They're not? Someone tell that to the founding fathers:
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!