Even better answers (although the questions aren't analagous to 6 and 7 at all):
Lawyer: I want to use my computer to steal money from my neighbor's bank accounts, how can I set it up to do that?
IT guy: It's possible to do that, but it's a criminal offense. I wouldn't help you do it, and I advise you not to try. You'll get caught and go to jail. (More helpful than "You can't.")
Lawyer: Well what if we routed it through a web site in Russia, how could I do it then?
IT guy: Routing it through Russia doesn't make it any more legal than it was before. My advice is, don't even think about it. (More helpful than "You can't.")
Lawyer: Well doesn't the fact that my neighbor once used my computer give me the right to access his bank accounts?
IT guy: No it doesn't. (This answer is actually responsive, although the question is out of left field.)
Lawyer: Thanks, IT guy. I've learned a lot from you today about what is and isn't legal. This has been very informative. Let's do it again sometime.
Perjury? I never said any such thing. Anyone who commits perjury is extremely stupid. Ask Scooter Libby.
It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone who addresses straw men and not my actual words. Goodbye, and may you have only innocent clients - for their sake. And be careful not to fall off that high horse.
Country Lawyer, you have missed my point entirely. I'm in my 60s and have no interest in downloading copyrighted material, especially what passes for music today. And I'm paranoid enough to be afraid to even try (which you would notice if you read the earlier part of my original comment). I even have security on my router. But I'm fascinated by p2p technology and the anarchy that it represents.
It is my non-lawyer opinion that the recording industry is seriously abusing existing copyright law and engaging in legalized extortion, just because they can. So I'm cheering for the people that they are sueing, the scofflaws and the innocent alike. Do you get the impression sometimes that a lot of others agree with me? Someday soon the RIAA will wake up and see that their former business model is dead, to everyone's benefit, including their own. The more that p2p filesharing becomes uncontrollable by the RIAA, the sooner that day will come, and that's why I cheer for the scofflaws. Call me a subversive or other names if you want, but American resistance to unfair laws is as old as the Boston Tea Party.
All of the very reasonable questions that were left unanswered by Mr. Beckerman, an expert in the field, should convince anyone that the present copyright law is a mess. No one who buys a CD (or an online mp3 file) has any idea what rights they actually have to their purchase. According to the RIAA, they have none at all. I'm far from the only one who thinks that what the RIAA is doing is immoral, if not illegal. The defendents haven't even had their day in court yet, from what I can tell. The RIAA seems to be afraid to actually try a test case. When someone fights back (at great expense, of course), they skulk away.
I understand that you, as a lawyer, are required to be shocked (SHOCKED!) when someone even considers breaking a law, even if the law is an ass. After a lifetime of lawyering, you might even think that way full-time. But I hope that my "open router" suggestion will make it just a little more difficult for the RIAA to sue guilty downloaders (or uploaders) successfully, and hasten the day when this travesty ends.
Now get off your high horse, OK?
I hoped that my original question might cause discussion of the Zuleta case in Georgia (which I learned about on Mr. Beckerman's website, recordingindustryvpeople.blogspot.com). RIAA withdrew its claim against Zuleta because he had an open wireless router and a roomate. The name on the Kazaa! account in question was the roommate's first name.
All this brings to mind my good friend Rusty, who went to law school while in his 40's. He jokes that he tested out of the course in which they teach law students how to be arrogant a_____s. He demonstrated his considerable skills in that area to the satisfaction of the faculty.
Of course not. But if you were defending me, would you use it as an argument in my favor? How much weight do you think it would carry? I know, you can only speculate, but sometimes informed speculation is all that we have.
It seems to me that if you download anything for which the "sewers" or "sue-ers" own the copyright, you are taking a risk of getting caught, however small. On a p2p network such as eMule, the incomplete files that you are currently downloading are temporarily avaliable for download by others until a file is complete and you have a chance to move it out of your shared folder. While you are connected to the network, you can see the IP addresses of the people who are downloading to you and from you.
If you want to let your paranoia run free, imagine that the RIAA has banks of computers connected to the p2p network offering lots of desirable copyrighted material. Then they capture the IP addresses of everyone who connects to them to download something.
As a practical matter, it appears that the RIAA is only going after people who are OFFERING copyrighted material, and not people who download. If I were to share my entire collection of legally-purchased music, the RIAA would let me "settle" by paying them $750 for each song that I already own legally, even though I downloaded nothing. I know, it doesn't make sense to accuse the people OFFERING files of downloading everything that they offer, but none of the rest of their arguments make sense either.
I would like to ask a lawyer who is willing to actually answer questions about the "open Wi-Fi" defense: "Oops, I never put any password protection on my home wireless network. Whoever did all that downloading must live in another apartment somewhere close by. Or maybe it was a wardriver who parked in front of my house." Letting your neighbors "borrow" a little bandwidth from your broadband connection might be a cheap alibi.
Slashdot Mirror
Even better answers (although the questions aren't analagous to 6 and 7 at all): Lawyer: I want to use my computer to steal money from my neighbor's bank accounts, how can I set it up to do that? IT guy: It's possible to do that, but it's a criminal offense. I wouldn't help you do it, and I advise you not to try. You'll get caught and go to jail. (More helpful than "You can't.") Lawyer: Well what if we routed it through a web site in Russia, how could I do it then? IT guy: Routing it through Russia doesn't make it any more legal than it was before. My advice is, don't even think about it. (More helpful than "You can't.") Lawyer: Well doesn't the fact that my neighbor once used my computer give me the right to access his bank accounts? IT guy: No it doesn't. (This answer is actually responsive, although the question is out of left field.) Lawyer: Thanks, IT guy. I've learned a lot from you today about what is and isn't legal. This has been very informative. Let's do it again sometime.
Perjury? I never said any such thing. Anyone who commits perjury is extremely stupid. Ask Scooter Libby. It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone who addresses straw men and not my actual words. Goodbye, and may you have only innocent clients - for their sake. And be careful not to fall off that high horse.
Country Lawyer, you have missed my point entirely. I'm in my 60s and have no interest in downloading copyrighted material, especially what passes for music today. And I'm paranoid enough to be afraid to even try (which you would notice if you read the earlier part of my original comment). I even have security on my router. But I'm fascinated by p2p technology and the anarchy that it represents. It is my non-lawyer opinion that the recording industry is seriously abusing existing copyright law and engaging in legalized extortion, just because they can. So I'm cheering for the people that they are sueing, the scofflaws and the innocent alike. Do you get the impression sometimes that a lot of others agree with me? Someday soon the RIAA will wake up and see that their former business model is dead, to everyone's benefit, including their own. The more that p2p filesharing becomes uncontrollable by the RIAA, the sooner that day will come, and that's why I cheer for the scofflaws. Call me a subversive or other names if you want, but American resistance to unfair laws is as old as the Boston Tea Party. All of the very reasonable questions that were left unanswered by Mr. Beckerman, an expert in the field, should convince anyone that the present copyright law is a mess. No one who buys a CD (or an online mp3 file) has any idea what rights they actually have to their purchase. According to the RIAA, they have none at all. I'm far from the only one who thinks that what the RIAA is doing is immoral, if not illegal. The defendents haven't even had their day in court yet, from what I can tell. The RIAA seems to be afraid to actually try a test case. When someone fights back (at great expense, of course), they skulk away. I understand that you, as a lawyer, are required to be shocked (SHOCKED!) when someone even considers breaking a law, even if the law is an ass. After a lifetime of lawyering, you might even think that way full-time. But I hope that my "open router" suggestion will make it just a little more difficult for the RIAA to sue guilty downloaders (or uploaders) successfully, and hasten the day when this travesty ends. Now get off your high horse, OK?
I hoped that my original question might cause discussion of the Zuleta case in Georgia (which I learned about on Mr. Beckerman's website, recordingindustryvpeople.blogspot.com). RIAA withdrew its claim against Zuleta because he had an open wireless router and a roomate. The name on the Kazaa! account in question was the roommate's first name. All this brings to mind my good friend Rusty, who went to law school while in his 40's. He jokes that he tested out of the course in which they teach law students how to be arrogant a_____s. He demonstrated his considerable skills in that area to the satisfaction of the faculty.
Techstar, you put your finger on exactly what has annoyed everyone so much. Thanks.
Of course not. But if you were defending me, would you use it as an argument in my favor? How much weight do you think it would carry? I know, you can only speculate, but sometimes informed speculation is all that we have.
It seems to me that if you download anything for which the "sewers" or "sue-ers" own the copyright, you are taking a risk of getting caught, however small. On a p2p network such as eMule, the incomplete files that you are currently downloading are temporarily avaliable for download by others until a file is complete and you have a chance to move it out of your shared folder. While you are connected to the network, you can see the IP addresses of the people who are downloading to you and from you.
If you want to let your paranoia run free, imagine that the RIAA has banks of computers connected to the p2p network offering lots of desirable copyrighted material. Then they capture the IP addresses of everyone who connects to them to download something.
As a practical matter, it appears that the RIAA is only going after people who are OFFERING copyrighted material, and not people who download. If I were to share my entire collection of legally-purchased music, the RIAA would let me "settle" by paying them $750 for each song that I already own legally, even though I downloaded nothing. I know, it doesn't make sense to accuse the people OFFERING files of downloading everything that they offer, but none of the rest of their arguments make sense either.
I would like to ask a lawyer who is willing to actually answer questions about the "open Wi-Fi" defense: "Oops, I never put any password protection on my home wireless network. Whoever did all that downloading must live in another apartment somewhere close by. Or maybe it was a wardriver who parked in front of my house." Letting your neighbors "borrow" a little bandwidth from your broadband connection might be a cheap alibi.