P2P Threatens ISP Middleman Content Monopoly
on
Comcast Invests in P2P
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Comcast wants a slow hobbled P2P network because P2P ultimately threatens their fat juicy monopoly cable television content delivery monopoly. I don't believe it's oversold bandwidth for one second. Those fiber optic cables are just proportioned 90% cable television crap channels, 10% internet (if not 95/5%). The profit margin on internet is probably ten times greater than the profit margin on cable channels, but losing the cable channels monopoly probably represent a threat to 66% of their revenue. It's all about controlling the delivery of electronic bits.
If bandwidth were to start growing like CPU power grew, every cable television company will be competing against every cable television company in every city market for content delivery. That means eventually a la carte cable television channels. Why is it that allegedly oversold bandwidth doesn't have the slightest effect on the delivery of cable television content?
It looks like Comcast wants to move in on P2P so they can try to dominate it, eventually infest it with commercials, and control it so that it doesn't threaten their content delivery business. Right now almost every Comcast cable television customer is paying for a whole bunch of commercial infested crap they don't really want. Who has time to watch all 200 channels of crap being sent through fiber optic cable 24/7? Comcast could increase internet bandwidth a *hundred fold* if customers could start choosing to knock out the total waste of bandwidth caused by delivery of content nobody wants to watch, including HD bandwidth hogging versions of content nobody wants to watch.
It's imperative for Comcast's long term business survival that they become a P2P middleman, or they are screwed. Since they can't shut down P2P without politically unfeasible anti-trust violations (threatening every web site, every VoIP business, everything on the internet), they are going to try and grab a hold of P2P and use their dominance to try and shape P2P. You damn kids consumers trying to skim the skim, trying to middleman the middleman.
This is Comcast 2.0, as in become the 2 between the Ps.
That, Ladies and Gentlemen, was and *is*, definitions of "is" otherwise alternatively notwithstanding, a *textbook* example of how you PWN. I REST MY CASE.
Internet files which are first downloaded and then by default shared don't typically contain any of the warnings that hard media objects like DVDs and CDs contain. It's as if a "Private Property. No Trespassing." sign has been replace by an unknown individual with a sign that says "Help Yourself. All Rights Ceded."
In the words of Internet people, WTF? Copyright EXPIRES. It's a temporary limited monopoly distribution grant. How is anybody supposed to a priori know if something is copyrighted if they by definition have not viewed every single registered copyrighted work of art in total to know that the file being shared is indeed copyrighted? To know that copyright is being infringed, one has to know that something is copyrighted. You can't typically discern that on the internet, unless you have already viewed and remembered in detail the contents of everything which is currently registered as copyrighted, and keep on doing so in real time, as copyright holders can choose at anytime to voluntarily cede their rights and free its use. That's an insane burden of presumed knowledge. Not to mention how is anybody supposed to know what the actual contents of any file really contain until they look first? Legally mandated presumed omniscience?
Wrong. Media Sentry can infringe if they download a file that turns out to not be a RIAA copyrighted work regardless of any consent given by the RIAA, but turns out to be a copyrighted work owned by a non RIAA entity. This would necessarily be the case for every negative result "deep packet inspection" which must by definition copy data bits into a program automatically to check for infringement (or manually listening to the file). That might not be willful criminal infringement in an individual case, but I would argue a pattern of thousands of "mistakes" would go a long way to establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt evidence for criminal copyright infringement, as well as conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement. Add yet another RICO predicate.
Add in destruction of evidence (failure to maintain records), failure to report copyright infringement (concealment), and we are well on the way to proving the minimum of 3 predicate RICO violations against Media Sentry and the RIAA companies which employ Media Sentry. That will result in forfeiture of not just corporate assets, but civil forfeiture of executive's property (including their primary residence mansions), and lengthy jail terms.
But you would argue the average citizen who uses the internet and P2P programs is presumed to have knowledge of the totality of Title 17 and Title 18 of the United States Code as it applies to Copyrights, along with having intimate knowledge of the totality of every work from start to finish which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, even if you are a minor 10 year old girl?
Let's not rush to judgment. If there is a recorded time stamp of a *transaction* (which consists of *two* parts, the "upload" and the "download"), occurring at a specific IP Address alleged to finger a specific Person at a specific location, and the defendant can produce evidence that she was elsewhere, such as at work or on vacation, when the alleged illegal transaction occurred, who is responsible for the transaction?
However, a contrary example might be you bury some illegal substance in a public park and the other party retrieves that illegal substance at a later time.
But in the case of "making available" on the internet, no "upload" occurs until a simultaneous "download" occurs. The data bits are always in separate unique discrete locations until the transaction wholly occurs (in so far as it constitutes copyright infringement). There are no previously burned cds sitting in a truck behind a warehouse being sold with hijacked cigarettes, nor are the files first copied ("uploaded")to a neutral location in cyberspace.
Also note that if he indeed did factually have a case, there would be no statute of limitations applicable to his lawsuit, even though the civil damages event originally occurred (or perhaps "began" is the better complaint word) over 20 years ago, because copyright protection is ongoing for his lifetime plus 70 years. Perhaps just a cease and desist of the sale of that work would suffice or an injunction against the sale of any live concert until his crowd contribution is removed (along with the statutory copyright infringement penalties). Just like you can't take a picture of some famous actress while she is walking in public and use that image for advertising purposes without explicit consent given by the actress (and EULA boilerplate on the back of tickets would quickly be tossed). I say he has a *damn* good case. Every fan recorded at a live concert should individually sue for statutory damages, and let the bankruptcy courts work out the final distributions HAHAHAHAHA.:P
What if the post card vendor has a rack of postcards displayed in public for sale and I take a picture of those post cards on the rack? Is the vendor guilty (notice I purposely did not use the word "liable") of "making available"?
That clause only applies to CRIMINAL trials. Criminal trials would be titled "UNITED STATES vs. Defendant". Civil trials are titled "RIAA Member Companies vs. Defendant". Criminal trials require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not a preponderance of the evidence. And proving "willful infringement" would be much more difficult. That clause also specifically mentions a "work being prepared for commercial distribution", NOT a work currently being commercially distributed. So it's likely this clause pertains only to early release of material intended for commercial distribution IN THE FUTURE. So that clause would be meant to punish people who upload a forthcoming movie on the internet before that movie has even started playing in movie theaters.
No more IANAL, demonstrate your points if you disagree.:P
I'd say that, as they are being paid by RIAA for this explicit purpose, they are being paid by the copyright holder to violate copyright.
I'd say that makes MediaSentry an authorized agent of the RIAA and labels, and de facto can not infringe. Good point. I'd also say if the converse were true, and "making available" uploading were illegal, exhibition of Media Sentry downloading "evidence" in Court would be proof of willful criminal copyright infringement, and criminal copyright infringement carries JAIL TERMS as punishment, which the Court should be made aware of in all civil trials (if someone admits in Court to felony crime during a civil trial, the Court doesn't ignore it, do they?), so that the agents of the Court can send out warrants for the arrest of Media Sentry employees. Be sure to add that as a RICO predicate as well.
It's *one* transaction. That transaction is either legal OR illegal. It can't be both. And there are *two* parties to every one transaction. Media Sentry is not an authorized police agent. Just like Joe Citizen can't pretend to go undercover, buy drugs from a police officer, and then claim he was merely conducting a private non governmental authorized agent sting operation.
What if I hang a painting in my restaurant? What if I put a statue in my corporate lobby? What about tourists who take photographs of statues and buildings?
Can sculptors file a lawsuit for unequal treatment under the law, for discriminatory protection for different types of USEFUL arts, such as the different protections afforded musicians and sculptors? Or can an artist who creates a statue which is placed in a public park place a camera on or in the statue and sue everyone who looks at the statue for copyright violation? Do post card creators/vendors have to pay royalties for pictures of works of art on those post cards?
How would such case law relate to music which has willfully been released into public domain airwaves as such occurs when a song is played on the radio?
How is a work "original" if it incorporates a public domain word into the lyrics, incorporates a note previously played, or incorporates a previously played chord progression?
So is it a new "original" work if I rap over a copyrighted song, adding new words?
Define original, as it pertains to copyright, citing law, cases, and theory. You have 1 hour to complete your post. This post will account for 100% of your moderation.
First of all, let's be clear that we are talking about a criminal case, not a civil case (since you are quarreling with the "making available" statue. Therefore, it's not nothing to do with the RIAA and absolutely nothing to do with damages in any monetary amount whatsoever. This is purely a criminal statue that provides for jail time.
This is true. But then why originally confuse RIAA with "making available"? There will never ever be a criminal case of "RIAA Member Companies vs. Joe Public". But as the RIAA itself likes to confuse criminal with civil statutes for propaganda purposes (often referencing "piracy" and "theft"), I went along arguing upon as if that rationale was pretended to be legitimate, for the sake of argument. And why not expect such a "making available" clause to be attempted to be inserted into the civil statute? It's not necessarily a waste of time to argue AS IF it could someday be a civil statute clause.
Even given your woeful understanding of the plain language of the statute,
And how about the "woeful understanding" of constitutional law by *lawyers* who pass laws? Fuck the "plain language of the statute". It doesn't mean it isn't garbage.
Read the law again, it's making available on a public computer network -- evidence in trials is not put on public computer networks.
It's still a ridiculous unconstitutional law, without even a pretense of defining "making available", a violation of the 8th Amendment for every feasible possible "ON" statute example. Watching a movie on your laptop which is wireless connected to the internet is technically "making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public". The computer is connected to the network and people walking by as you eat your lunch in a public space can see the movie, can secretly make a copy if you leave the laptop on the lunch table to go to the restroom. It sounds like "members of the public" just means *everybody* who is not the copyright holder and not acting a government official capacity.
The first time someone attempts to throw a citizen in jail (or file any criminal charges whatsoever) for posting a picture of their car on an internet website (technically "making available" a copyrighted image owned by the car manufacturer), this law will be tossed into the dumpster unanimously at both the Appellate and Supreme Court levels.
So let's not assume, let's not pretend, the "making available on a computer network accessible to the public" clause is even on it's face remotely constitutional.
But regardless, on pure constitutional appeal grounds, if you can willfully or accidentally make something available *anywhere* without additional legal penalty, you can likewise similarly make the exact same thing available on "a computer network accessible to members of the public" without breaking any legitimate enforceable law. It's an absurd law to attempt criminalizing the internet. Every file which is viewed or copied on the internet is copyrighted by whomever originally created the file, even though commercial interests like to pretend they are the only persons with rights on the internet.
Civil: There is no "seizure", since there is no government action. The process goes like this: first you file a lawsuit alleging some non-trivial tort. Second, if the court finds that your claim has enough merit to proceed to trial, you enter discovery where you can obtain an order to have the defendant submit their computers to a court-approved expert that will make an image of the hard drives.
That's effectively "seizure", and seizure without due process protection against ancillary incriminating evidence or further civil liability of computer property which is merely ASSUMED to exist.
Reading the timestamps and looking at login records does not qualify as reverse engineering.
There is no law limiting or proscribing the methodology for examination of files located on a computer. Seizure
Well "making an image of the hard drive and presenting the contents as evidence" would be MAKING AVAILABLE the entirety of the contents on that hard drive! Is the RIAA or Federal Government going to be held liable for willful infringement to the tune of $30,000 per copyrighted file "made available" to the Court or any other parties for content that is not the copyright of the RIAA or government? Say you have 10,000 emails, photos, and school paper files saved to your hard drive which are completely the copyrights of the owner of the computer. That's $30,000,000 in demonstrated "making available" liability if the RIAA forces the release of that information, or copies those files, or looks at those files (all necessary prerequisites to submitting evidence against the wishes of the owner). And we haven't even started counting copyright infringement liability for other proprietary content such as software operating systems. I guess Microsoft can't complain about reverse engineering of their operating system by non-Microsoft parties if that operating system happens to be installed on a computer being "examined" (whatever the hell that means) for copyright infringement?
Why can the RIAA examine all files on the internet without penalty on the pretext of checking that the contents aren't violating their copyrights but every individual P2P user cannot also examine all files on the internet without penalty to make sure the contents aren't violating their copyrights too? Uploading files is just giving downloading consent to examination assistance in exactly the same way the RIAA gives Media Sentry downloading examination consent. If you're going to start seizing and examining computers for copyright violation fishing expeditions, every business, government entity, and individual person is going to have claims for seizure and examination from every other business and person. So when a business like the RIAA is found to violate some GPL license, all the computers in their business operations can be seized and examined for the purpose of discovery, effectively shutting that business down?
There is no a priori proof or even reasonable cause to assume any specific computer is at any time "plugged in" to an IP address, let alone a specific Person is responsible for any actions. You can have multiple computers plugged in to the same IP address at different times. This is likely why some percentage of people are being falsely accused and being served with subpoenas and settlement letters.
As you say, the hard drive image is going to "make or break the case". And what better DEMONSTRATED "making available" evidence (to themselves and any other parties) that those examining the contents of hard drives are liable for copyright infringement for every file which is not their specific copyright. And it sure seems you have no problem with baseless "wringing of data" from any hard drive whatsoever on any claimed suspicion from any individual Person.
The relevant key word in that Law is "Person". Computers are not *Persons*; they are inanimate objects. Unless you have witness testimony or visual recording of a specific individual Person putting files in shared internet folders you have absolutely zero evidence of any actions of any Persons. But feel free to put a laptop computer on the stand and get the judge to hold the computer in contempt of Court for failing to testify.
How is tracking and logging internet activity based on IP address matched to a specific individual user any different than a college or government administration wiretapping without a warrant, or without the knowledge or consent of the person being logged and tracked? If colleges can track your internet activity then why can't they follow every student with a hidden camera to record their every action, including looking at students naked in the dorm shower?
If evidence of copyright infringement exists from IP address logs then that is just *further* evidence of additional copyright violation. And these universities and colleges are liable for infringing the intellectual property of students whenever they back up network files information. Students being hit with these RIAA settlement letters need to start adding in their universities in countersuits, for things like copyright infringement, civil rights violations, due process violations, and obstruction of justice (because IP addresses are not *Persons* and any subpoena should not be able to be delivered to any Persons, only delivered to electronic bits which are wholly non-Persons.
Isn't forcing the disclosure of internet surfing activity for civil suit purposes a violation of the Fifth Amendment against self incrimination? Can landlords have their rental properties confiscated if tenants sell drugs without the knowledge of the landlord? How about the Federal Government confiscating municipal street corners? If not, then how can specific pieces of property such as computers be tied to specific actions of individuals with absolutely no evidence of actual specific individual persons committing any actions? It could very well reasonably be a friend, a roommate, a guest, a sibling, an uninvited guest, or any person whatsoever other than the alleged individual pretended to be responsible for all activity which emanates from a so-called "IP address".
No, if you are a ten year old girl you are presumed to have thorough direct explicit knowledge of the entire catalog of all works which have been copyright registered with the government, from word one or second one of an audio/visual work all the way through to the last word or last second of an audio/visual work. Otherwise, you owe the RIAA ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, no excuses. If you don't have ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, say goodbye to your mommy and daddy and start working off a lifetime of indentured servitude.
How do we know they aren't LYING about the checksum hashes? Have they every played a single music file of downloaded "evidence" in any Court? As far as I can tell, the only evidence ever submitted to any Court was screenshots of file titles and perhaps expert testimony saying the files matched their copyrighted content.
We need a massive weighing in of/. programmer expertise on the viability of these checksum hash programs the same way when Ray Beckerman asked/. to weigh in on IP Addresses. Seems to me you can't compare sound waves without by definition completely copying the file for software/inspector examination first.
The RIAA is a trade association whose member companies create, manufacture, and distribute approximately ninety (90) percent of all legitimate sound recordings sold in the United States. What completely wishful thinking! This is why they think they own other people's EARS. Time to start converting all written content created by every individual into duplicate sound versions. Don't just write that college paper on Socrates. Read it aloud and post it as a copyrighted.mp3 sound recording (requesting donations).
Only if they download it from the original creator's IP address is it not copyright infringement. The RIAA does distribute legally to ITunes and Amazon.
What I see really getting the RIAA on the hook for $BILLIONS is creating an iTunes clone site(Z) containing nothing but homemade parodies at $0.99 a track. Inevitably (TM) those files will find their way on to P2P sites like Limewire. Track when the RIAA IP addresses download and inspect those files and sue them for maximum statutory damages. Copy their legal methodology and summary judgement procedure crossing every 'T' and dotting every 'i'.
At a minimum this will make policing bittorent far too risky legally as you are by definition in a swarm uploading and downloading simultaneously.
After the RIAA is destroyed and it's member companies bankrupted files will filter back to more expected content. And copyright might be completely repealed and reduced to length = ZERO. It's only a worthwhile game if you have people with giant multi billion dollar assets attempting to police file copying. But a lot of little guy individual consumers could get very rich from doing this. And the script will have been completely flipped upon the RIAA. You'd think it would be expensive defending yourself against 10 MILLION individual claims of copyright infringement with court filing fee costs spread across at the individual copyright troll level. Pay $300 to win $150,000 or $30,000 if you roll with a percentage chance of winning ranging from 25% to %75 (or whatever, the odds are high expected positive present value payoff).
This is the way to historic EPIC victory. This is the Boston Tea Party of our lifetimes. This is the type of thing they will be talking about 500 years from now! We're going to California! We're on our way to Washington D.C. Yeeeeeeeehhhhhaaaaa!!!!
Well the RIAA claims in TFA that they only download.
The RIAA, in so far as they are also "making available", are making available with no clear demarcation of copyright, further complicating their liability well beyond mere "entrapment". So all those downloads from RIAA hosted files are perfectly legal. Making available man_on_the_moon.mp3 is no different than making available kennedy_moon_speech.mp3 whilst sneaking in a secretly copyrighted song into a title of a public domain presidential speech about putting a man on the moon.
Could you imagine the copyright liability which could be created if you put your own copyrighted files into titles of public domain works and then sued everybody who downloaded or viewed those files? You could get rich off the RIAA by putting your own homemade songs into file titles the RIAA deep packet inspects, by definition copies and views, as they check to see whether the files are copyrighted, and sue for statutory copyright damages. It would be absolutely no different then suing everybody who clicked on or linked to your webpage.
In fact if you download and upload every single file on the internet and "deep packet inspect" those files by viewing or listening to them, you are doing exactly what the RIAA is doing and clamoring to be done with "deep packet inspection" software. It's no different if it done automatically by a program or manually by individual eyes and ears.
So I was correct all along, the RIAA is indeed downloading and "deep packet inspecting" based on file titles alone, even attempting to submit "evidence" of screenshots of file titles. No doubt the RIAA is legally liable for $100s of BILLIONS for mistaken inspection and downloading of content that is not the copyright of RIAA members. If anybody were to subpoena the RIAA download and deep packet inspection records in a countersuit, those record companies will be BANKRUPT from distributing consumer copyrighted parodies and commentaries!
All hail the the arrival of the Era of the Copyright Troll! Time to parody the hell out of everything that is copyrighted, and get paid outrageous legal sums for doing so! You will soon find that the RIAA is the biggest P2P "pirate" in the world (and they have tens of billions in assets -- go get your piece!).
You claim sick people aren't in a position to spend significant amounts of money over the long term but these are the people who are ultimately footing the drug company bills, who are ultimately accounting for 100% of drug company revenues. Insurance and wills are used to raise significant amounts of money already. And insurance clauses could easily already pay lump sums for afflictions. Family, parents, friends already raise significant amounts of money for things like breast cancer research with things like walk-a-thons and tele-thons. Are you saying those efforts are 100% waste?
Sure, $X + $Y is a probability except in the cases where an actual drug has been developed it's known with 100% certainty. The cost of failures is already included in the price of successfully developed drugs. And every time where a drug company is collecting revenue greater than $X + $Y that is money and effort being completely wasted for a solution that is already found. Solely because revenue can be greater than $X + $Y because of patents is there an incentive to lock down exclusivity of use of knowledge, is there an incentive to maintain secrecy in spite of the alleged disclosure requirements of patents (no formula is released into the public domain at patent expiration, drug companies attempt minor changes to extend monopoly exclusivity). And after any drug receives FDA approval there's an incentive to spam advertising and push a drug with marketing and doctor bribery. See the incessant pushing and spamming of the air waves with erectile dysfunction drugs like Viagra and Cialis, the pride and joy, the celebrated epitome of patent system drug company effort as measured by the resources spent on marketing.
Your theory seems to regard charity as an epistemological impossibility even though data shows enormous amounts of charity. Developing a drug is economically no different than growing surplus food. It's done for the purposes of trade, from division of labor specialization, through the incentives of trade to satisfy the wants and needs of others.
And if a drug company doesn't expect patent monopoly protection there's no incentive to continue finding minor improvements, no incentives to use public domain knowledge that can be copied by others in spite of it's proven efficacy. Patents caused wasted energy to fund "roundabout" solutions which can be patented, as opposed to the shortest cheapest distance between two points research.
There are certain classes of products for which the development of the product itself is prohibitively expensive That's 100% completely FALSE. If that were true, then even drug companies would not undertake the R&D risk as they would be definition be expecting to LOSE money on the venture.
but for which the production cost once developed is marginally little. That's how it SHOULD be. That's accurate pricing based on economic REALITY.
For that class of products, the developer is penalized, because they now don't have their initial investment, and all the other competitors can thereby profit better than they can. No, the developers are sick people who completely supply the incentive for the project undertaking in the first place. The only thing sick people care about is getting the drug developed and distributed for as cheap as possible. That by definition maximizes profit for sick people. They could care less if others can benefit from their efforts, and likely would feel even further psychic profit in the form of pride and gratitude.
It doesn't matter WHO does the research. It only matters that the research COSTS $X. Same for the clinical trials which COSTS $Y. Same for every other single different line item expense.
Absent protection, few people would have ANY incentive to take the risk when the next person can do it for nothing. That's just completely 100% FALSE. The incentive lies 100% ultimately with the sick patients who want medical relief from an ailment. If the patients pay up front in advance for all the costs it takes to develop a drug that is by definition cheaper than paying for all the costs it takes to develop the drug PLUS the corporation middleman profit. And those profit margins are obscenely gouging when the patent grants 100% monopoly distribution. The drug company incentives are merely to make a profit off the desperation of sick people. The incentives of sick people are to find a cure for as cheap as possible. And patents are always prohibiting the cheapest cure from being found, and always inhibiting the length of time it takes for a cure to be found because of compelled ignorance (itself an enormous cost when you have to pretend giant jigsaw pieces of technology haven't already been pieced together).
Who's volunteering for these clinical trials? Sick people. The total amount spent on drugs, by definition the total revenues of the drug companies, is the amount that patients are by definition willing to spend for a cure. Patients are more than willing to risk their lives and risk their savings in pursuit of cures. And those cures are cheaper without drug company monopoly patent profit margins. And really rich sick people will be more than willing to pay their "fair share" of R&D financing for the chance of extending and bettering their lives, subsidizing those who are poorer, and resulting in more resources devoted to R&D than occur with obfuscation and watering down of incentives which occurs because of the patent system.
Slashdot Mirror
Comcast wants a slow hobbled P2P network because P2P ultimately threatens their fat juicy monopoly cable television content delivery monopoly. I don't believe it's oversold bandwidth for one second. Those fiber optic cables are just proportioned 90% cable television crap channels, 10% internet (if not 95/5%). The profit margin on internet is probably ten times greater than the profit margin on cable channels, but losing the cable channels monopoly probably represent a threat to 66% of their revenue. It's all about controlling the delivery of electronic bits.
If bandwidth were to start growing like CPU power grew, every cable television company will be competing against every cable television company in every city market for content delivery. That means eventually a la carte cable television channels. Why is it that allegedly oversold bandwidth doesn't have the slightest effect on the delivery of cable television content?
It looks like Comcast wants to move in on P2P so they can try to dominate it, eventually infest it with commercials, and control it so that it doesn't threaten their content delivery business. Right now almost every Comcast cable television customer is paying for a whole bunch of commercial infested crap they don't really want. Who has time to watch all 200 channels of crap being sent through fiber optic cable 24/7? Comcast could increase internet bandwidth a *hundred fold* if customers could start choosing to knock out the total waste of bandwidth caused by delivery of content nobody wants to watch, including HD bandwidth hogging versions of content nobody wants to watch.
It's imperative for Comcast's long term business survival that they become a P2P middleman, or they are screwed. Since they can't shut down P2P without politically unfeasible anti-trust violations (threatening every web site, every VoIP business, everything on the internet), they are going to try and grab a hold of P2P and use their dominance to try and shape P2P. You damn kids consumers trying to skim the skim, trying to middleman the middleman.
This is Comcast 2.0, as in become the 2 between the Ps.
That, Ladies and Gentlemen, was and *is*, definitions of "is" otherwise alternatively notwithstanding, a *textbook* example of how you PWN. I REST MY CASE.
Wrong. Media Sentry can infringe if they download a file that turns out to not be a RIAA copyrighted work regardless of any consent given by the RIAA, but turns out to be a copyrighted work owned by a non RIAA entity. This would necessarily be the case for every negative result "deep packet inspection" which must by definition copy data bits into a program automatically to check for infringement (or manually listening to the file). That might not be willful criminal infringement in an individual case, but I would argue a pattern of thousands of "mistakes" would go a long way to establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt evidence for criminal copyright infringement, as well as conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement. Add yet another RICO predicate.
Add in destruction of evidence (failure to maintain records), failure to report copyright infringement (concealment), and we are well on the way to proving the minimum of 3 predicate RICO violations against Media Sentry and the RIAA companies which employ Media Sentry. That will result in forfeiture of not just corporate assets, but civil forfeiture of executive's property (including their primary residence mansions), and lengthy jail terms.
But you would argue the average citizen who uses the internet and P2P programs is presumed to have knowledge of the totality of Title 17 and Title 18 of the United States Code as it applies to Copyrights, along with having intimate knowledge of the totality of every work from start to finish which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, even if you are a minor 10 year old girl?
Let's not rush to judgment. If there is a recorded time stamp of a *transaction* (which consists of *two* parts, the "upload" and the "download"), occurring at a specific IP Address alleged to finger a specific Person at a specific location, and the defendant can produce evidence that she was elsewhere, such as at work or on vacation, when the alleged illegal transaction occurred, who is responsible for the transaction?
However, a contrary example might be you bury some illegal substance in a public park and the other party retrieves that illegal substance at a later time.
But in the case of "making available" on the internet, no "upload" occurs until a simultaneous "download" occurs. The data bits are always in separate unique discrete locations until the transaction wholly occurs (in so far as it constitutes copyright infringement). There are no previously burned cds sitting in a truck behind a warehouse being sold with hijacked cigarettes, nor are the files first copied ("uploaded")to a neutral location in cyberspace.
Also note that if he indeed did factually have a case, there would be no statute of limitations applicable to his lawsuit, even though the civil damages event originally occurred (or perhaps "began" is the better complaint word) over 20 years ago, because copyright protection is ongoing for his lifetime plus 70 years. Perhaps just a cease and desist of the sale of that work would suffice or an injunction against the sale of any live concert until his crowd contribution is removed (along with the statutory copyright infringement penalties). Just like you can't take a picture of some famous actress while she is walking in public and use that image for advertising purposes without explicit consent given by the actress (and EULA boilerplate on the back of tickets would quickly be tossed). I say he has a *damn* good case. Every fan recorded at a live concert should individually sue for statutory damages, and let the bankruptcy courts work out the final distributions HAHAHAHAHA. :P
You mean the Music And Film Industry Association of America.
What if the post card vendor has a rack of postcards displayed in public for sale and I take a picture of those post cards on the rack? Is the vendor guilty (notice I purposely did not use the word "liable") of "making available"?
That clause only applies to CRIMINAL trials. Criminal trials would be titled "UNITED STATES vs. Defendant". Civil trials are titled "RIAA Member Companies vs. Defendant". Criminal trials require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not a preponderance of the evidence. And proving "willful infringement" would be much more difficult. That clause also specifically mentions a "work being prepared for commercial distribution", NOT a work currently being commercially distributed. So it's likely this clause pertains only to early release of material intended for commercial distribution IN THE FUTURE. So that clause would be meant to punish people who upload a forthcoming movie on the internet before that movie has even started playing in movie theaters.
:P
No more IANAL, demonstrate your points if you disagree.
I'd say that makes MediaSentry an authorized agent of the RIAA and labels, and de facto can not infringe. Good point. I'd also say if the converse were true, and "making available" uploading were illegal, exhibition of Media Sentry downloading "evidence" in Court would be proof of willful criminal copyright infringement, and criminal copyright infringement carries JAIL TERMS as punishment, which the Court should be made aware of in all civil trials (if someone admits in Court to felony crime during a civil trial, the Court doesn't ignore it, do they?), so that the agents of the Court can send out warrants for the arrest of Media Sentry employees. Be sure to add that as a RICO predicate as well.
It's *one* transaction. That transaction is either legal OR illegal. It can't be both. And there are *two* parties to every one transaction. Media Sentry is not an authorized police agent. Just like Joe Citizen can't pretend to go undercover, buy drugs from a police officer, and then claim he was merely conducting a private non governmental authorized agent sting operation.
What if I hang a painting in my restaurant? What if I put a statue in my corporate lobby? What about tourists who take photographs of statues and buildings?
Can sculptors file a lawsuit for unequal treatment under the law, for discriminatory protection for different types of USEFUL arts, such as the different protections afforded musicians and sculptors? Or can an artist who creates a statue which is placed in a public park place a camera on or in the statue and sue everyone who looks at the statue for copyright violation? Do post card creators/vendors have to pay royalties for pictures of works of art on those post cards?
How would such case law relate to music which has willfully been released into public domain airwaves as such occurs when a song is played on the radio?
How is a work "original" if it incorporates a public domain word into the lyrics, incorporates a note previously played, or incorporates a previously played chord progression?
So is it a new "original" work if I rap over a copyrighted song, adding new words?
Define original, as it pertains to copyright, citing law, cases, and theory. You have 1 hour to complete your post. This post will account for 100% of your moderation.
First of all, let's be clear that we are talking about a criminal case, not a civil case (since you are quarreling with the "making available" statue. Therefore, it's not nothing to do with the RIAA and absolutely nothing to do with damages in any monetary amount whatsoever. This is purely a criminal statue that provides for jail time.
This is true. But then why originally confuse RIAA with "making available"? There will never ever be a criminal case of "RIAA Member Companies vs. Joe Public". But as the RIAA itself likes to confuse criminal with civil statutes for propaganda purposes (often referencing "piracy" and "theft"), I went along arguing upon as if that rationale was pretended to be legitimate, for the sake of argument. And why not expect such a "making available" clause to be attempted to be inserted into the civil statute? It's not necessarily a waste of time to argue AS IF it could someday be a civil statute clause.
Even given your woeful understanding of the plain language of the statute,
And how about the "woeful understanding" of constitutional law by *lawyers* who pass laws? Fuck the "plain language of the statute". It doesn't mean it isn't garbage.
Read the law again, it's making available on a public computer network -- evidence in trials is not put on public computer networks.
It's still a ridiculous unconstitutional law, without even a pretense of defining "making available", a violation of the 8th Amendment for every feasible possible "ON" statute example. Watching a movie on your laptop which is wireless connected to the internet is technically "making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public". The computer is connected to the network and people walking by as you eat your lunch in a public space can see the movie, can secretly make a copy if you leave the laptop on the lunch table to go to the restroom. It sounds like "members of the public" just means *everybody* who is not the copyright holder and not acting a government official capacity.
The first time someone attempts to throw a citizen in jail (or file any criminal charges whatsoever) for posting a picture of their car on an internet website (technically "making available" a copyrighted image owned by the car manufacturer), this law will be tossed into the dumpster unanimously at both the Appellate and Supreme Court levels.
So let's not assume, let's not pretend, the "making available on a computer network accessible to the public" clause is even on it's face remotely constitutional.
But regardless, on pure constitutional appeal grounds, if you can willfully or accidentally make something available *anywhere* without additional legal penalty, you can likewise similarly make the exact same thing available on "a computer network accessible to members of the public" without breaking any legitimate enforceable law. It's an absurd law to attempt criminalizing the internet. Every file which is viewed or copied on the internet is copyrighted by whomever originally created the file, even though commercial interests like to pretend they are the only persons with rights on the internet.
Civil: There is no "seizure", since there is no government action. The process goes like this: first you file a lawsuit alleging some non-trivial tort. Second, if the court finds that your claim has enough merit to proceed to trial, you enter discovery where you can obtain an order to have the defendant submit their computers to a court-approved expert that will make an image of the hard drives.
That's effectively "seizure", and seizure without due process protection against ancillary incriminating evidence or further civil liability of computer property which is merely ASSUMED to exist.
Reading the timestamps and looking at login records does not qualify as reverse engineering.
There is no law limiting or proscribing the methodology for examination of files located on a computer. Seizure
Well "making an image of the hard drive and presenting the contents as evidence" would be MAKING AVAILABLE the entirety of the contents on that hard drive! Is the RIAA or Federal Government going to be held liable for willful infringement to the tune of $30,000 per copyrighted file "made available" to the Court or any other parties for content that is not the copyright of the RIAA or government? Say you have 10,000 emails, photos, and school paper files saved to your hard drive which are completely the copyrights of the owner of the computer. That's $30,000,000 in demonstrated "making available" liability if the RIAA forces the release of that information, or copies those files, or looks at those files (all necessary prerequisites to submitting evidence against the wishes of the owner). And we haven't even started counting copyright infringement liability for other proprietary content such as software operating systems. I guess Microsoft can't complain about reverse engineering of their operating system by non-Microsoft parties if that operating system happens to be installed on a computer being "examined" (whatever the hell that means) for copyright infringement?
Why can the RIAA examine all files on the internet without penalty on the pretext of checking that the contents aren't violating their copyrights but every individual P2P user cannot also examine all files on the internet without penalty to make sure the contents aren't violating their copyrights too? Uploading files is just giving downloading consent to examination assistance in exactly the same way the RIAA gives Media Sentry downloading examination consent. If you're going to start seizing and examining computers for copyright violation fishing expeditions, every business, government entity, and individual person is going to have claims for seizure and examination from every other business and person. So when a business like the RIAA is found to violate some GPL license, all the computers in their business operations can be seized and examined for the purpose of discovery, effectively shutting that business down?
There is no a priori proof or even reasonable cause to assume any specific computer is at any time "plugged in" to an IP address, let alone a specific Person is responsible for any actions. You can have multiple computers plugged in to the same IP address at different times. This is likely why some percentage of people are being falsely accused and being served with subpoenas and settlement letters.
As you say, the hard drive image is going to "make or break the case". And what better DEMONSTRATED "making available" evidence (to themselves and any other parties) that those examining the contents of hard drives are liable for copyright infringement for every file which is not their specific copyright. And it sure seems you have no problem with baseless "wringing of data" from any hard drive whatsoever on any claimed suspicion from any individual Person.
The relevant key word in that Law is "Person". Computers are not *Persons*; they are inanimate objects. Unless you have witness testimony or visual recording of a specific individual Person putting files in shared internet folders you have absolutely zero evidence of any actions of any Persons. But feel free to put a laptop computer on the stand and get the judge to hold the computer in contempt of Court for failing to testify.
How is tracking and logging internet activity based on IP address matched to a specific individual user any different than a college or government administration wiretapping without a warrant, or without the knowledge or consent of the person being logged and tracked? If colleges can track your internet activity then why can't they follow every student with a hidden camera to record their every action, including looking at students naked in the dorm shower?
If evidence of copyright infringement exists from IP address logs then that is just *further* evidence of additional copyright violation. And these universities and colleges are liable for infringing the intellectual property of students whenever they back up network files information. Students being hit with these RIAA settlement letters need to start adding in their universities in countersuits, for things like copyright infringement, civil rights violations, due process violations, and obstruction of justice (because IP addresses are not *Persons* and any subpoena should not be able to be delivered to any Persons, only delivered to electronic bits which are wholly non-Persons.
Isn't forcing the disclosure of internet surfing activity for civil suit purposes a violation of the Fifth Amendment against self incrimination? Can landlords have their rental properties confiscated if tenants sell drugs without the knowledge of the landlord? How about the Federal Government confiscating municipal street corners? If not, then how can specific pieces of property such as computers be tied to specific actions of individuals with absolutely no evidence of actual specific individual persons committing any actions? It could very well reasonably be a friend, a roommate, a guest, a sibling, an uninvited guest, or any person whatsoever other than the alleged individual pretended to be responsible for all activity which emanates from a so-called "IP address".
No, if you are a ten year old girl you are presumed to have thorough direct explicit knowledge of the entire catalog of all works which have been copyright registered with the government, from word one or second one of an audio/visual work all the way through to the last word or last second of an audio/visual work. Otherwise, you owe the RIAA ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, no excuses. If you don't have ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, say goodbye to your mommy and daddy and start working off a lifetime of indentured servitude.
How do we know they aren't LYING about the checksum hashes? Have they every played a single music file of downloaded "evidence" in any Court? As far as I can tell, the only evidence ever submitted to any Court was screenshots of file titles and perhaps expert testimony saying the files matched their copyrighted content.
/. programmer expertise on the viability of these checksum hash programs the same way when Ray Beckerman asked /. to weigh in on IP Addresses. Seems to me you can't compare sound waves without by definition completely copying the file for software/inspector examination first.
We need a massive weighing in of
Only if they download it from the original creator's IP address is it not copyright infringement. The RIAA does distribute legally to ITunes and Amazon.
What I see really getting the RIAA on the hook for $BILLIONS is creating an iTunes clone site(Z) containing nothing but homemade parodies at $0.99 a track. Inevitably (TM) those files will find their way on to P2P sites like Limewire. Track when the RIAA IP addresses download and inspect those files and sue them for maximum statutory damages. Copy their legal methodology and summary judgement procedure crossing every 'T' and dotting every 'i'.
At a minimum this will make policing bittorent far too risky legally as you are by definition in a swarm uploading and downloading simultaneously.
After the RIAA is destroyed and it's member companies bankrupted files will filter back to more expected content. And copyright might be completely repealed and reduced to length = ZERO. It's only a worthwhile game if you have people with giant multi billion dollar assets attempting to police file copying. But a lot of little guy individual consumers could get very rich from doing this. And the script will have been completely flipped upon the RIAA. You'd think it would be expensive defending yourself against 10 MILLION individual claims of copyright infringement with court filing fee costs spread across at the individual copyright troll level. Pay $300 to win $150,000 or $30,000 if you roll with a percentage chance of winning ranging from 25% to %75 (or whatever, the odds are high expected positive present value payoff).
This is the way to historic EPIC victory. This is the Boston Tea Party of our lifetimes. This is the type of thing they will be talking about 500 years from now! We're going to California! We're on our way to Washington D.C. Yeeeeeeeehhhhhaaaaa!!!!
Well the RIAA claims in TFA that they only download.
The RIAA, in so far as they are also "making available", are making available with no clear demarcation of copyright, further complicating their liability well beyond mere "entrapment". So all those downloads from RIAA hosted files are perfectly legal. Making available man_on_the_moon.mp3 is no different than making available kennedy_moon_speech.mp3 whilst sneaking in a secretly copyrighted song into a title of a public domain presidential speech about putting a man on the moon.
Could you imagine the copyright liability which could be created if you put your own copyrighted files into titles of public domain works and then sued everybody who downloaded or viewed those files? You could get rich off the RIAA by putting your own homemade songs into file titles the RIAA deep packet inspects, by definition copies and views, as they check to see whether the files are copyrighted, and sue for statutory copyright damages. It would be absolutely no different then suing everybody who clicked on or linked to your webpage.
In fact if you download and upload every single file on the internet and "deep packet inspect" those files by viewing or listening to them, you are doing exactly what the RIAA is doing and clamoring to be done with "deep packet inspection" software. It's no different if it done automatically by a program or manually by individual eyes and ears.
So I was correct all along, the RIAA is indeed downloading and "deep packet inspecting" based on file titles alone, even attempting to submit "evidence" of screenshots of file titles. No doubt the RIAA is legally liable for $100s of BILLIONS for mistaken inspection and downloading of content that is not the copyright of RIAA members. If anybody were to subpoena the RIAA download and deep packet inspection records in a countersuit, those record companies will be BANKRUPT from distributing consumer copyrighted parodies and commentaries!
All hail the the arrival of the Era of the Copyright Troll! Time to parody the hell out of everything that is copyrighted, and get paid outrageous legal sums for doing so! You will soon find that the RIAA is the biggest P2P "pirate" in the world (and they have tens of billions in assets -- go get your piece!).
You claim sick people aren't in a position to spend significant amounts of money over the long term but these are the people who are ultimately footing the drug company bills, who are ultimately accounting for 100% of drug company revenues. Insurance and wills are used to raise significant amounts of money already. And insurance clauses could easily already pay lump sums for afflictions. Family, parents, friends already raise significant amounts of money for things like breast cancer research with things like walk-a-thons and tele-thons. Are you saying those efforts are 100% waste?
Sure, $X + $Y is a probability except in the cases where an actual drug has been developed it's known with 100% certainty. The cost of failures is already included in the price of successfully developed drugs. And every time where a drug company is collecting revenue greater than $X + $Y that is money and effort being completely wasted for a solution that is already found. Solely because revenue can be greater than $X + $Y because of patents is there an incentive to lock down exclusivity of use of knowledge, is there an incentive to maintain secrecy in spite of the alleged disclosure requirements of patents (no formula is released into the public domain at patent expiration, drug companies attempt minor changes to extend monopoly exclusivity). And after any drug receives FDA approval there's an incentive to spam advertising and push a drug with marketing and doctor bribery. See the incessant pushing and spamming of the air waves with erectile dysfunction drugs like Viagra and Cialis, the pride and joy, the celebrated epitome of patent system drug company effort as measured by the resources spent on marketing.
Your theory seems to regard charity as an epistemological impossibility even though data shows enormous amounts of charity. Developing a drug is economically no different than growing surplus food. It's done for the purposes of trade, from division of labor specialization, through the incentives of trade to satisfy the wants and needs of others.
And if a drug company doesn't expect patent monopoly protection there's no incentive to continue finding minor improvements, no incentives to use public domain knowledge that can be copied by others in spite of it's proven efficacy. Patents caused wasted energy to fund "roundabout" solutions which can be patented, as opposed to the shortest cheapest distance between two points research.
Who's volunteering for these clinical trials? Sick people. The total amount spent on drugs, by definition the total revenues of the drug companies, is the amount that patients are by definition willing to spend for a cure. Patients are more than willing to risk their lives and risk their savings in pursuit of cures. And those cures are cheaper without drug company monopoly patent profit margins. And really rich sick people will be more than willing to pay their "fair share" of R&D financing for the chance of extending and bettering their lives, subsidizing those who are poorer, and resulting in more resources devoted to R&D than occur with obfuscation and watering down of incentives which occurs because of the patent system.