An order of a Judge is necessary to infiltrate an information technology system. E.G the police can not do it on its own. A law that alows this kind of stuff (the infiltration) must have procedures in place to protect the core of someones private livestyle
__ (e.g. german spy laws already does not allow to record conversations between married coupples in their sleeping room about their sick child or what kind of sexgame they want to play that night)
IMO of course its illosoric to assume such procedures are resonable possible if the police snoops on somebodys HDD will they only search in folder My documents and Settings - "terror attack plans" and leave the folder "my 20 birthday" out of their snooping action?!
if you fall under german copyrightlaw you have that "right" to make a copy for personal use 53 of the specific german statute,
but if i understand your american copyrightlaw, making a backup is NOT one one of explicitly mentioned fair use rights (actually it's "defense" not rights if I understand it correctly)
I know about usage/copies for for example criticism, parody, news reporting but NO mentioning of copies for "backup"
unless you actually sell one , no you will not be charged just for setup the sign
The courts/lawyers quote that come up in in the docs linked on NYCL's blog say something like "a mere offer to sale does not violate the rights under [copyrighlaw] unless the offer is actually consumed by the public"
you might get in trouble if you have reproduced the phonorecords you want to sell without the permission of copyrightowners though.
"The statues could be just as easily revised so that "making files available" to the P2P nets becomes sufficient to establish infringement as a matter of law."
This might be true, but remember you guys had this phase when something else people wanted was illegal. (alcohol) And what has it brought in the end?
So what do you think will happen if your GOV will get totally corrupted by Big Content and goes against so many people even more hardcore with "Prohibition 2.0" that they do nowadays with NET-Act and Co?
dear AC,and now remember what (at least some of them) they are selling now after they learned that it will be bought:
mp3s
(yes, they are a bit like a slow learner and needed 7 years to figure that out, but anyway; they now offer the product that was so highly demanded all the years while the internet connections were relatively slow, and suddenly ripping your own CDs into a lossy format is a competing event because the consumersheeps are supposed to buy "product" again in the "new" format by RIAA/Label logic)
[Free consulting advise for the label deciders: you must start offering the songs online in a format called FLAC reasonably prices. Lossless that's the way the consumer walks in these days of better bandwith lines. If you wait again 7 years you lose even more]
Shelly Palmer and Ray Beckerman, Esq., partner at Vandenberg & Feliu LLP, discuss the RIAA's ongoing lawsuits against average citizens who may or may not be illegally downloading recorded music. Running Time 15:09 minutes (File Size: 13.8 MB)
At least Mr. Bestavros seems to know more about what he is talking about then the so called RIAA-"Expert" Doug J. that has no personal knowledge at all about what he claims to be able to testify about for the RIAA!
(shit that my one remaining Mod point expired the day before yesterday, your post would have been worth to be my premier to be Modded Flamebait. Now I just can provide you with those above links so you uninformed clod can learn something if you like)
"We" (as in: The American People vs RIAA) might not yet have the whole DoD on their site, but an Army Sergeant to start with: Maybe this will lead to involvement of DoD later on;-)
So just because you don't see "EMI" itself on the list does not mean Mr. "Nice Guy DRM free downloads" is any better then the others. It might be only PR if one or 2 names aren't mentioned in some cases. In the end, it's always only the "Big Four"
Her lawyer so far has only asked if the judge grant the request itself. No specific sum mentioned yet. It's clearly written in the motion and the [Proposed] Order granting...
1) RIAA's investigation methodes are so fsucking flawed, they accuse people that never ever commited any copyrightinfringements. 2) If it's my name that is on the ISP contract for the leased IP address I risk getting sued even if I had never ever any intention to be a "thief" and "criminal" and have never ever touched any of "their" songs.
blacking out all other issue like morality or law and analysing RIAA's alleged strategy and the real life handling of it, from a strictly logical Point of View the consequence for any person thats name is registered with an ISP would be;
3) So lets pirate stuff as much as I can so that that at least I have made a bargain and not wasted $3750 for nothing when they draw my IP as the next "lucky number" out of their secret "Media Sentry lucky numbers bingo bowl"
disclaimer: No, I vehemently deny that I commit willful copyrighinfringements, but I confess that it isn't my name on the ISP records either;-)
"If a student is consciously making his/her mp3 collection available for others to download, they are violating the law."
what law are you talking about?
"making available" isn't one of those exclusive copyrightowners right like as far as I understand US copyrightlaw. Please show me which paragraph the student is violating.
yes Ray, I read the transcript back then (and also flew over it again right now) [you are talking about the transcript with the paperclip example by the judge, aren't you?].
Me not sure about your reference to absence of "volitation". Could be a german/english syntax misunderstanding!
the parent posting by popo said that if he had no intent to download pirated content with his TiVO like system then he could use the defense of "be able to claim lack of intent." And his headline claimed that intent is the key which logicly would mean if copyrightowner could not prove intent that would be popo's free ride ticket to pirated stuff.
I was refering to your blog 'cause thats where I found the links to all those PDFs and the mentioning of the titles of the laws (FRCP, FRE and Title 17 and all those stuff) It was not my http://www.dict.cc/?s=Absicht to say YOU personly told in your blog what I stated in my above comment to popo's posting. I'm sorry If we might missunderstood each other a bit here.
What I read in http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html is that; 501 "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner[...] is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be." No mentioning of "willfully violating" as a prerequisite to be an infringer.
And 504 (C)(2) says; "In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200."
Of course you as a lawyer know all that and definetly better then me. But popo might not be aware of that, as it seems from his post that he was under the impression that he can comit copyrightinfringements "unintentionally" without being liable for statutory damages.
As I understand your law it is a "tort liability" issue which does not require intent to do something unlawful according to coyprightlaw.
If you can correct my understanding, I would be happy to learn from you.
of course i could be totally wrong as an alien to american law,but AFAIK from Mr. B's blog and all those pdf's and links to your copyrightlaw;
to be guilty of copyrightinfringement isn't a question of intent!
Judge can lower minimum statutory damage per infringed work to $200 instead of $750. if you had no intention, but if you infringe, you infringe no matter what state of mind you had in the act.
"it's more about legally purchasing the right to own the music"
thats exactly what it isn't! while we "normal guys" feel that it is about that, technicly do you NOT own any music. you purchase a license to use it in certain ways
You own a physical object and the right to use this object accordingly to the license you aquire with that (physical) object that embodies the musical performance. In case of a CD the rights you have include that you can resale it as a used CD. If you "buy" music via DRMed download, that right of resale is not included for example
You do not own ANY rights to the music itself. Those rights remain in the hand of those that created the music. A guy from the international branch of the RIAA, IFPI in germany explained that legalese fact a few years ago in a press release where he compared bying a CD with the renting of a car or an appartment.
freeing slaves was once also against the laws of your country!
hiding jews from evil nazis was once also against the law in my country (germany)!
point is, just because something is "against the law" does not make it automaticly morally wrong.
and as long as the labels do not offer the product for sale themself that got infringed by those millions of people then there is not even a single cent monitary damage!
NYCL. I guess he referes "outside" as in "not american citizen, not in america but in Cyprus" according to his blog/flickr page.
and IMO his other comment isn't so wrong after all. Look what had become of the freedoms you americans once had and wherefore so many had died.
You americans now have secret laws you are not supposed to know (and all this stuff about the no fly lists, the national ID stuff, Mr. Bushs ability to get rid of every american he does not like simply by declaring him a terrorist (this habeus thingy/military act thingy IIRC)
So his pointing out that you americans have lost many of the freedoms you were 1or2 generations ago so proud of has some validity IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
actually in number 3 the order of a judge is mentioned as necesssary
:P
Richterliche Anordnung = order by a judge
native german speaker here, so i know what i'm talking about even If I can't say it in english very well though
only the meaning, not exact wording though
An order of a Judge is necessary to infiltrate an information technology system. E.G the police can not do it on its own.
A law that alows this kind of stuff (the infiltration) must have procedures in place to protect the core of someones private livestyle
__
(e.g. german spy laws already does not allow to record conversations between married coupples in their sleeping room about their sick child or what kind of sexgame they want to play that night)
IMO of course its illosoric to assume such procedures are resonable possible if the police snoops on somebodys HDD will they only search in folder My documents and Settings - "terror attack plans" and leave the folder "my 20 birthday" out of their snooping action?!
can i has some hundred or so MOD points please to vote all the other comments about Paul and the otehr stuff in this subtree as
*OF TOPIC*?!
Thanks.
if you fall under german copyrightlaw you have that "right" to make a copy for personal use 53 of the specific german statute,
but if i understand your american copyrightlaw, making a backup is NOT one one of explicitly mentioned fair use rights (actually it's "defense" not rights if I understand it correctly)
I know about usage/copies for for example criticism, parody, news reporting but NO mentioning of copies for "backup"
b
and
c
IANAL, but
unless you actually sell one , no you will not be charged just for setup the sign
The courts/lawyers quote that come up in in the docs linked on NYCL's blog say something like "a mere offer to sale does not violate the rights under [copyrighlaw] unless the offer is actually consumed by the public"
you might get in trouble if you have reproduced the phonorecords you want to sell without the permission of copyrightowners though.
"The statues could be just as easily revised so that "making files available" to the P2P nets becomes sufficient to establish infringement as a matter of law."
This might be true, but remember you guys had this phase when something else people wanted was illegal. (alcohol)
And what has it brought in the end?
So what do you think will happen if your GOV will get totally corrupted by Big Content and goes against so many people even more hardcore with "Prohibition 2.0" that they do nowadays with NET-Act and Co?
dear AC,and now remember what (at least some of them) they are selling now after they learned that it will be bought:
mp3s
(yes, they are a bit like a slow learner and needed 7 years to figure that out, but anyway; they now offer the product that was so highly demanded all the years while the internet connections were relatively slow, and suddenly ripping your own CDs into a lossy format is a competing event because the consumersheeps are supposed to buy "product" again in the "new" format by RIAA/Label logic)
[Free consulting advise for the label deciders: you must start offering the songs online in a format called FLAC reasonably prices. Lossless that's the way the consumer walks in these days of better bandwith lines. If you wait again 7 years you lose even more]
Jury instructions are here: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/jury_instructions.pdf
(via http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/jury-deliberati.html )
http://www.shellypalmerpodcasts.com/?p=52a 30withShellyPalmerEP27.mp3
http://www.shellypalmerpodcasts.com/Podcasts/Medi
Media 3.0 with Shelly Palmer - Episode 27
Shelly Palmer and Ray Beckerman, Esq., partner at Vandenberg & Feliu LLP, discuss the RIAA's ongoing lawsuits against average citizens who may or may not be illegally downloading recorded music. Running Time 15:09 minutes (File Size: 13.8 MB)
why don't you just read what he has to testify?s ta_does1-21_replybestavrosdeclaration
_ lindor_070312RBtoMagisMediaSentryExITranscriptExce rptJacobson
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=ari
At least Mr. Bestavros seems to know more about what he is talking about then the so called RIAA-"Expert" Doug J. that has no personal knowledge at all about what he claims to be able to testify about for the RIAA!
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=umg
(shit that my one remaining Mod point expired the day before yesterday, your post would have been worth to be my premier to be Modded Flamebait. Now I just can provide you with those above links so you uninformed clod can learn something if you like)
"It actually is prohibited by law to sing the two first verses in Germany (iirc)."
I'm happy to inform you that it is not. However the "Horst Wessel Lied" is, since that is original nazi stuff which the Deutschlandlied is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschlandlied
"We" (as in: The American People vs RIAA) might not yet have the whole DoD on their site, but an Army Sergeant to start with: Maybe this will lead to involvement of DoD later on ;-)
7 /07/riaa-backtracks-in-tennessee-case.html
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/200
at least Capitol is EMI.
So just because you don't see "EMI" itself on the list does not mean Mr. "Nice Guy DRM free downloads" is any better then the others.
It might be only PR if one or 2 names aren't mentioned in some cases.
In the end, it's always only the "Big Four"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_EMI_labels
Her lawyer so far has only asked if the judge grant the request itself. ...
No specific sum mentioned yet.
It's clearly written in the motion and the [Proposed] Order granting
"it's not an appealable order."
;-)
As if THAT is something that matters to RIAA.
1) RIAA's investigation methodes are so fsucking flawed, they accuse people that never ever commited any copyrightinfringements.
;-)
2) If it's my name that is on the ISP contract for the leased IP address I risk getting sued even if I had never ever any intention to be a "thief" and "criminal" and have never ever touched any of "their" songs.
blacking out all other issue like morality or law and analysing RIAA's alleged strategy and the real life handling of it, from a strictly logical Point of View the consequence for any person thats name is registered with an ISP would be;
3) So lets pirate stuff as much as I can so that that at least I have made a bargain and not wasted $3750 for nothing when they draw my IP as the next "lucky number" out of their secret "Media Sentry lucky numbers bingo bowl"
disclaimer: No, I vehemently deny that I commit willful copyrighinfringements, but I confess that it isn't my name on the ISP records either
"If a student is consciously making his/her mp3 collection available for others to download, they are violating the law."
what law are you talking about?
"making available" isn't one of those exclusive copyrightowners right like as far as I understand US copyrightlaw.
Please show me which paragraph the student is violating.
faster then NYCL ;-)1 7_austin_severance_order.pdf
texas it was
In re Cases Filed by Recording Companies, W.D. Texas, Austin Division (2004)
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAA_v_ThePeople/200411
the transcriptk tra_barker_070126OralArgumente ktra_v_Barker7 /01/index-of-litigation-documents.html
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=ele
via
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#El
or via
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/200
yes Ray, I read the transcript back then (and also flew over it again right now) [you are talking about the transcript with the paperclip example by the judge, aren't you?].
n tent.html
Me not sure about your reference to absence of "volitation".
Could be a german/english syntax misunderstanding!
According to my favorite dictonary service some lawerese translation would be this
http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/conditional+i
while "Intent", as I thought the parent poster was refering to it in his example, maybe translates in legalese more like
http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/malice.html.
the parent posting by popo said that if he had no intent to download pirated content with his TiVO like system then he could use the defense of "be able to claim lack of intent."
And his headline claimed that intent is the key which logicly would mean if copyrightowner could not prove intent that would be popo's free ride ticket to pirated stuff.
I was refering to your blog 'cause thats where I found the links to all those PDFs and the mentioning of the titles of the laws (FRCP, FRE and Title 17 and all those stuff) It was not my http://www.dict.cc/?s=Absicht to say YOU personly told in your blog what I stated in my above comment to popo's posting. I'm sorry If we might missunderstood each other a bit here.
What I read in http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html is that;
501 "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner[...] is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be."
No mentioning of "willfully violating" as a prerequisite to be an infringer.
And 504 (C)(2) says;
"In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200."
Of course you as a lawyer know all that and definetly better then me.
But popo might not be aware of that, as it seems from his post that he was under the impression that he can comit copyrightinfringements "unintentionally" without being liable for statutory damages.
As I understand your law it is a "tort liability" issue which does not require intent to do something unlawful according to coyprightlaw.
If you can correct my understanding, I would be happy to learn from you.
of course i could be totally wrong as an alien to american law,but AFAIK from Mr. B's blog and all those pdf's and links to your copyrightlaw;
to be guilty of copyrightinfringement isn't a question of intent!
Judge can lower minimum statutory damage per infringed work to $200 instead of $750. if you had no intention, but if you infringe, you infringe no matter what state of mind you had in the act.
"it's more about legally purchasing the right to own the music"
thats exactly what it isn't!
while we "normal guys" feel that it is about that, technicly do you NOT own any music. you purchase a license to use it in certain ways
You own a physical object and the right to use this object accordingly to the license you aquire with that (physical) object that embodies the musical performance. In case of a CD the rights you have include that you can resale it as a used CD. If you "buy" music via DRMed download, that right of resale is not included for example
You do not own ANY rights to the music itself. Those rights remain in the hand of those that created the music.
A guy from the international branch of the RIAA, IFPI in germany explained that legalese fact a few years ago in a press release where he compared bying a CD with the renting of a car or an appartment.
"Copyright infringement is against the law."
freeing slaves was once also against the laws of your country!
hiding jews from evil nazis was once also against the law in my country (germany)!
point is, just because something is "against the law" does not make it automaticly morally wrong.
and as long as the labels do not offer the product for sale themself that got infringed by those millions of people then there is not even a single cent monitary damage!
NYCL.
I guess he referes "outside" as in "not american citizen, not in america but in Cyprus" according to his blog/flickr page.
and IMO his other comment isn't so wrong after all. Look what had become of the freedoms you americans once had and wherefore so many had died.
You americans now have secret laws you are not supposed to know (and all this stuff about the no fly lists, the national ID stuff, Mr. Bushs ability to get rid of every american he does not like simply by declaring him a terrorist (this habeus thingy/military act thingy IIRC)
So his pointing out that you americans have lost many of the freedoms you were 1or2 generations ago so proud of has some validity IMO.