Let's say I drive recklessly and wind up with my car precariously perched on the edge of a bridge, front two wheels off and the car seesawing a bit. It's 100% my fault and I shouldn't try to avoid the blame. But then this guy comes along and nudges the bumper, sending my car over the edge and into the river. It's still ultimately my fault, but that guy - that guy is a total dick.
Meh, I was more talking about faith as in which of the majority of flavors of Christianity you pick. As long as you are a catholic or protestant, this is not considered to be an issue in a candidacy. If you are of a "fringe" (I don't mean any special denigration in the term - I think all religion is bunk) like Mormonism or Jehovah's Witness, it will become an issue. Both of these religions are fairly "new" in historical terms and have traditions and history that separate their followers from the mainstream.
As long as you say your faith is a private matter, I think it doesn't hamper you too much in a Republican race. I think it's more of a hindrance to be very evangelical than it is to go the other way. Just look at Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee. It's especially not a problem if you are the looking for the Democratic nomination. And once in the general election, it's not that huge of an issue anyway. As long as you don't give the impression that you're just giving lip service to religion and don't really believe in it. If they feel you are a Christian in name only, that gets you bad PR.
And yeah, I agree that the Republican's have their platform strongly influenced by the religious right. But I think working as a candidate within that party, you can get away with the faith being a private thing as long as you have bona fides in other areas of being a Republican. From what I've seen right now, most Republicans would love an alternative that just seemed more Republican, with the religious question being much less important than that.
What's really weird is even though I have/. set to "Low Bandwidth", this story ignores it. The summary on the main page has a graphic icon next to it rather than the Low Bandwidth standard text link. And clicking on the article leads to the full high bandwidth layout (with the new "improvements").
In general, faith is not an issue these days. America typically makes it an issue when someone is evangelical. In other words, it appears that they would base their decisions on the principles of their religion rather than on the technical merits (pros and cons) of the decision.
The other times when it is an issue is in "fringe" religion. By fringe, I mean it's a religion when it's more obvious to people that the religion is made up. As opposed to religions that are so old and established that's it's easier to forget their shaky origins.
Agreed, I think this is definitely a possible confusion. But I think when people talk about "downloading music" in regards to these RIAA cases and such, they are talking about both downloading and keeping. That is the typical reason to download (rather than, for example, streaming).
If you're talking about just the bits going across the wire, that's something that's just nearly impossible to prove in court. As you said, I'm sure the RIAA would love to make that illegal, too. And they'd probably have legal ground, too, considering that the person listening to it could constitute a loss of revenue under current crappy laws (well, American at least, and I'm sure many other countries). But they'd have to prove she received all the bits and actually listened to them. Highly unlikely. It's like trying to prove that someone groped you in a dark alley with no observers.
Sorry, never meant to imply it wouldn't be classified as theft under current legal systems. I'm trying to say that it IS different and should be treated differently. A big part of it is the question of revenue lost. Do you actually think these people with 10,000 songs on their iPod would have actually purchased them? Not likely. Same with people who pirate software that is way to expensive to be worth it for them. Yes, right now our legal system would find them guilty. But hopefully that will change in the future.
Agree with your first post, but I have to disagree with the theft part of this post. As the other poster pointed out, making copies is a bit different than stealing physical property.
Personally, I hope we'll eventually move into a time when copyrights are vastly rewritten. I'd like to see it changed to a simple exclusive license on commercial distribution and reproduction for a short period like ten years. During that time and after, I'd like it to be perfectly legal to make and distribute copies for free. It should not be transferrable, only inheritable by the creator's heirs.
Yes, this is radically different than things are now. But I think it's just facing the realities of our current level of civilization. Copyright is the right of anyone to copy a work. Society decided to cede this right to the creator based on factors that were true at the time. We're working in a different set of factors now and the old rules don't apply.
I understand that this will put a lot of people out of business and change how people can and can't make money. It may shrink the overall amount of money that can be made on copyrighted works. It may also greatly reduce the amount of works made. But history is about change, and change isn't always pretty.
If you had really meant that originally, you would have just said it was rehashing an old argument. Instead, you said I was
Using US law to argue against someone who's telling us the law in the APPLICABLE country? Who is this "someone"? Cause the someone I responded to was talking about the US, which was the applicable country in my post. If you were really griping about rehashing, you would have posted this comment to Hassman's post, cause he was the one doing the rehashing. Or to the AC who replied to him, because he was furthering the rehash. Instead you posted it to me. Curious.
Careful you don't trip while you're back-pedaling.
Hassman makes comments about the RIAA and MPAA. He also addresses a comment to the slashdot crowd in general saying downloading [unauthorized] music and movies is illegal. Being addressed to slashdot users, you can pretty safely assume he wasn't talking about the laws in Sweden. He was talking about the US, as statistially speaking this is where the large majority of slashdot posters live.
Anonymous Coward "corrects" Hassman telling him downloading is not illegal. He does not say "in Sweden", so you must also assume he was talking about the US.
I correct AC by showing him a case in which the RIAA sued someone for downloading songs and they won.
Please keep in mind that sometimes thread go off in different directions and may actually discuss things OTHER than the original article. I can understand you saying the original Hassman article is off-topic for that reason, but not mine.
His claim was that it was not illegal to download copyrighted material without authorization. He claimed it was only illegal to upload them. I showed him the successful court case in which someone lost a case that was about them downloading. I really do think this clearly disproves that downloading is legal while only uploading is illegal. You may claim that's not what he meant, but I further point out the following quote from the rant:
Copyright law restricts the distribution of works by limiting peoples ability to copy/share it. It does NOT, however, restrict anyone from recieving a copy. Remember this! He didn't say "downloading is less likely to get you sued." He said it does not restrict anyone from receiving a copy. Again, all it takes is one court case to show that yes, it is against the law.
Now, as for why that isn't the majority of the cases? It's much harder to prove someone downloaded a file than it is to prove they uploaded it. It's simply a matter of logistics. If they are uploading it, you can download it from them, thus proving they provided a copy.
But to prove they downloaded it, you need to show that they received a complete copy and kept it. And who would they download it from? Not from you (the RIAA), as that would put you in the position of actually providing the downloading, throwing all kinds of kinks into your case. So it's much more difficult for them to get between the downloader and the uploader to monitor what the downloader is getting. But in this case, they woman admitted to doing just that and tried to use the excuse that she was "sampling" the music.
Can you give me an example of something that is "illegal" but is a matter for only civil court? Sure thing, I'll give you a few examples:
Trespassing: This can be both a civil and a criminal. Either way, the law says you cannot trespass onto someone else's land. Therefore, doing so would be illegal.
Defamation: Again, defaming someone is illegal. But it is a civil court matter.
The problem here is that "illegal" is more of a generic term, not a specific legal term. It just means "against the law." If you do something that is "perfectly legal," you can't get convicted in civil or criminal court. But if it's "illegal", then you broke the law. This can mean written laws/statutes, or it can mean common law.
Think of it this way - a criminal case is one in which the plaintiff is always the government, a civil one is one in which the plaintiff is an individual. Both are cases for the legal system.
Oh, and one more thing. Notice that my post was in reply to a post that was in reply to one talking about the MPAA and RIAA and was addressed to the people of slashdot, which are statistically speaking, people in the USA.
I think you're misreading what I'm saying. I never said what you're disproving. Let's try an analogy.
First off, just because something is a fruit does not mean it's not a vegetable. Vegetable is a term defined by the US agricultural bureaucracy. Fruit means "the ripened ovary of a seed-bearing plant.
Hope that makes things clearer. With this phrasing, it's clear that I'm not claiming just because something is a vegetable then it means it's not a fruit.
The double negatives in your posts and mine are starting to make my head spin.
The reason I posted that was that it linked to actual statutes and helped people look at the appropriate sections to decide for themselves. To me, that's not irrelevant or worthless.
So far, AFAIK no one has been prosecuted under these statues for simply downloading. But that is more due to the PR fallout I've explained in other posts.
But that's moot, as we're talking more set theory here. It's a lot harder to write set theory as a subject line. That was just a shorthand way to get the point across and I think most people got it.
Sorry, but I have to disagree and I'd say the statutes and court decisions would back me up. The thing is that you often have to prove that it is "willful." The fake-iTunes analogy you gave is true, but misses the point. It's illegal to steal someones bag. But you could accidentally take someone's bag because you thought it was yours. It would be unlikely that you would be charged with theft. However, just because there is this exception, it does not prove that taking someone's bag is legal.
The issue here is people downloading from Kazaa, BitTorrent, etc. They're places that people are giving away free copies of music and movies. A reasonable person should be able to think critically and realize that this is likely to not be legitimate. In much the same way, a person who repeatedly buys jewelry at far below its value from someone without any credentials could be charged not just with possession of stolen property but with actual trafficking of stolen goods.
And that's what it's all about, the context. Go back to the original poster. He was making a common sense point that people downloading music and movies from Pirate Bay should admit that they know it's illegal (assuming most countries that follow common copyright laws) and drop the act.
Oh, I would agree with you on saying that you could download a copy of a song you already own a download for and it would (if you get a competent judge) be perfectly legal. But again, this is a matter of context. The posts I was responding to were not about that. Even when I posted this, the OP just said it didn't matter because it was one case and the RIAA used "tricks." The term downloading, in this context, did mean the downloading of files the defendant didn't already own. Just like if you got a copy of a cd you already owned, the "copying" wouldn't really be "copying" in terms of copyright infringement. So you statement "It was the copying the songs that was the problem" wouldn't make much sense there. Yes, ultimately, it's the infringement that is what is illegal. But to determine what is infringement, you have to use words like "downloading" in proper context.
I'm not really seeing your issue about my use of "illegal." Taken in the context, that's exactly how I was using it. Breaking copyright law, whether it be the civil or criminal parts of it. Either one would be illegal, otherwise there's no basis on which you could win a court case.
I think you missed the point; copyright has nothing at all to do with the issue of downloading the material.... What people are talking about is unauthorized downloading. It really is splitting hairs. What is the difference between this statement and me saying: Copyright has nothing at all to do with the issue of copying the material. What people are talking about is unauthorized copying. See what I mean? I get your point but I really do not think people are confused by this and are thinking that maybe it's illegal to download music from iTunes. Or downloading music from artists who publicly state that they are ok with their music being shared online. I think most people are smart enough to figure out that we're talking about is unauthorized downloading/copying of copyrighted material without having to write that out every time. I understand if you disagree with that viewpoint, though.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a horrible attitude. You're going to need us fatties in case the plane crashes in the mountains and you have to resort to cannibalism.
5 pack of 12 inch extension cords (3 prong)
5 pack of 12 inch extension cords (2 prong)
What you do with the $100+ savings is your business.
Sure! You're that 100th guy, and you DON'T EVEN OWN A TV.
That's Nader.
Let's say I drive recklessly and wind up with my car precariously perched on the edge of a bridge, front two wheels off and the car seesawing a bit. It's 100% my fault and I shouldn't try to avoid the blame. But then this guy comes along and nudges the bumper, sending my car over the edge and into the river. It's still ultimately my fault, but that guy - that guy is a total dick.
Meh, I was more talking about faith as in which of the majority of flavors of Christianity you pick. As long as you are a catholic or protestant, this is not considered to be an issue in a candidacy. If you are of a "fringe" (I don't mean any special denigration in the term - I think all religion is bunk) like Mormonism or Jehovah's Witness, it will become an issue. Both of these religions are fairly "new" in historical terms and have traditions and history that separate their followers from the mainstream.
As long as you say your faith is a private matter, I think it doesn't hamper you too much in a Republican race. I think it's more of a hindrance to be very evangelical than it is to go the other way. Just look at Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee. It's especially not a problem if you are the looking for the Democratic nomination. And once in the general election, it's not that huge of an issue anyway. As long as you don't give the impression that you're just giving lip service to religion and don't really believe in it. If they feel you are a Christian in name only, that gets you bad PR.
And yeah, I agree that the Republican's have their platform strongly influenced by the religious right. But I think working as a candidate within that party, you can get away with the faith being a private thing as long as you have bona fides in other areas of being a Republican. From what I've seen right now, most Republicans would love an alternative that just seemed more Republican, with the religious question being much less important than that.
What's really weird is even though I have /. set to "Low Bandwidth", this story ignores it. The summary on the main page has a graphic icon next to it rather than the Low Bandwidth standard text link. And clicking on the article leads to the full high bandwidth layout (with the new "improvements").
In general, faith is not an issue these days. America typically makes it an issue when someone is evangelical. In other words, it appears that they would base their decisions on the principles of their religion rather than on the technical merits (pros and cons) of the decision.
The other times when it is an issue is in "fringe" religion. By fringe, I mean it's a religion when it's more obvious to people that the religion is made up. As opposed to religions that are so old and established that's it's easier to forget their shaky origins.
Agreed, I think this is definitely a possible confusion. But I think when people talk about "downloading music" in regards to these RIAA cases and such, they are talking about both downloading and keeping. That is the typical reason to download (rather than, for example, streaming).
If you're talking about just the bits going across the wire, that's something that's just nearly impossible to prove in court. As you said, I'm sure the RIAA would love to make that illegal, too. And they'd probably have legal ground, too, considering that the person listening to it could constitute a loss of revenue under current crappy laws (well, American at least, and I'm sure many other countries). But they'd have to prove she received all the bits and actually listened to them. Highly unlikely. It's like trying to prove that someone groped you in a dark alley with no observers.
Sorry, never meant to imply it wouldn't be classified as theft under current legal systems. I'm trying to say that it IS different and should be treated differently. A big part of it is the question of revenue lost. Do you actually think these people with 10,000 songs on their iPod would have actually purchased them? Not likely. Same with people who pirate software that is way to expensive to be worth it for them. Yes, right now our legal system would find them guilty. But hopefully that will change in the future.
Agree with your first post, but I have to disagree with the theft part of this post. As the other poster pointed out, making copies is a bit different than stealing physical property.
Personally, I hope we'll eventually move into a time when copyrights are vastly rewritten. I'd like to see it changed to a simple exclusive license on commercial distribution and reproduction for a short period like ten years. During that time and after, I'd like it to be perfectly legal to make and distribute copies for free. It should not be transferrable, only inheritable by the creator's heirs.
Yes, this is radically different than things are now. But I think it's just facing the realities of our current level of civilization. Copyright is the right of anyone to copy a work. Society decided to cede this right to the creator based on factors that were true at the time. We're working in a different set of factors now and the old rules don't apply.
I understand that this will put a lot of people out of business and change how people can and can't make money. It may shrink the overall amount of money that can be made on copyrighted works. It may also greatly reduce the amount of works made. But history is about change, and change isn't always pretty.
Careful you don't trip while you're back-pedaling.
Let me recap this for you:
Hassman makes comments about the RIAA and MPAA. He also addresses a comment to the slashdot crowd in general saying downloading [unauthorized] music and movies is illegal. Being addressed to slashdot users, you can pretty safely assume he wasn't talking about the laws in Sweden. He was talking about the US, as statistially speaking this is where the large majority of slashdot posters live.
Anonymous Coward "corrects" Hassman telling him downloading is not illegal. He does not say "in Sweden", so you must also assume he was talking about the US.
I correct AC by showing him a case in which the RIAA sued someone for downloading songs and they won.
Please keep in mind that sometimes thread go off in different directions and may actually discuss things OTHER than the original article. I can understand you saying the original Hassman article is off-topic for that reason, but not mine.
Now, as for why that isn't the majority of the cases? It's much harder to prove someone downloaded a file than it is to prove they uploaded it. It's simply a matter of logistics. If they are uploading it, you can download it from them, thus proving they provided a copy.
But to prove they downloaded it, you need to show that they received a complete copy and kept it. And who would they download it from? Not from you (the RIAA), as that would put you in the position of actually providing the downloading, throwing all kinds of kinks into your case. So it's much more difficult for them to get between the downloader and the uploader to monitor what the downloader is getting. But in this case, they woman admitted to doing just that and tried to use the excuse that she was "sampling" the music.
I think most people get this.
Trespassing: This can be both a civil and a criminal. Either way, the law says you cannot trespass onto someone else's land. Therefore, doing so would be illegal.
Defamation: Again, defaming someone is illegal. But it is a civil court matter.
The problem here is that "illegal" is more of a generic term, not a specific legal term. It just means "against the law." If you do something that is "perfectly legal," you can't get convicted in civil or criminal court. But if it's "illegal", then you broke the law. This can mean written laws/statutes, or it can mean common law.
Think of it this way - a criminal case is one in which the plaintiff is always the government, a civil one is one in which the plaintiff is an individual. Both are cases for the legal system.
Oh, and one more thing. Notice that my post was in reply to a post that was in reply to one talking about the MPAA and RIAA and was addressed to the people of slashdot, which are statistically speaking, people in the USA.
Fucktard.
I'll stop being redundantly right when others stop begin redundantly wrong.
FYI, it was already moderated very highly before I referred to it in a grand total of ONE OTHER POST. Wow, that's really milking it alright.
Could it be that's why I put "(At least in the US)" in my subject line? Thanks, Captain Obvious.
I think you're misreading what I'm saying. I never said what you're disproving. Let's try an analogy.
First off, just because something is a fruit does not mean it's not a vegetable. Vegetable is a term defined by the US agricultural bureaucracy. Fruit means "the ripened ovary of a seed-bearing plant.
Hope that makes things clearer. With this phrasing, it's clear that I'm not claiming just because something is a vegetable then it means it's not a fruit.
The double negatives in your posts and mine are starting to make my head spin.
The reason I posted that was that it linked to actual statutes and helped people look at the appropriate sections to decide for themselves. To me, that's not irrelevant or worthless.
So far, AFAIK no one has been prosecuted under these statues for simply downloading. But that is more due to the PR fallout I've explained in other posts.
You fail at math.
;)
illegal != !civil
Applying ! to both sides would give you:
!illegal == civil
But that's moot, as we're talking more set theory here. It's a lot harder to write set theory as a subject line. That was just a shorthand way to get the point across and I think most people got it.
Sorry, but I have to disagree and I'd say the statutes and court decisions would back me up. The thing is that you often have to prove that it is "willful." The fake-iTunes analogy you gave is true, but misses the point. It's illegal to steal someones bag. But you could accidentally take someone's bag because you thought it was yours. It would be unlikely that you would be charged with theft. However, just because there is this exception, it does not prove that taking someone's bag is legal.
The issue here is people downloading from Kazaa, BitTorrent, etc. They're places that people are giving away free copies of music and movies. A reasonable person should be able to think critically and realize that this is likely to not be legitimate. In much the same way, a person who repeatedly buys jewelry at far below its value from someone without any credentials could be charged not just with possession of stolen property but with actual trafficking of stolen goods.
And that's what it's all about, the context. Go back to the original poster. He was making a common sense point that people downloading music and movies from Pirate Bay should admit that they know it's illegal (assuming most countries that follow common copyright laws) and drop the act.
Oh, I would agree with you on saying that you could download a copy of a song you already own a download for and it would (if you get a competent judge) be perfectly legal. But again, this is a matter of context. The posts I was responding to were not about that. Even when I posted this, the OP just said it didn't matter because it was one case and the RIAA used "tricks." The term downloading, in this context, did mean the downloading of files the defendant didn't already own. Just like if you got a copy of a cd you already owned, the "copying" wouldn't really be "copying" in terms of copyright infringement. So you statement "It was the copying the songs that was the problem" wouldn't make much sense there. Yes, ultimately, it's the infringement that is what is illegal. But to determine what is infringement, you have to use words like "downloading" in proper context.
I'm not really seeing your issue about my use of "illegal." Taken in the context, that's exactly how I was using it. Breaking copyright law, whether it be the civil or criminal parts of it. Either one would be illegal, otherwise there's no basis on which you could win a court case.
I think my post in another sub-thread is very relevant:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=436904&cid=22248796
Alas, all good things must come to an end.