I didn't think, and I still do not think that it was fundamentally necessary to my argument.
And yet it is, since it's te very cause for the subpoena. And you have repeatedly acted as if it were fundamentally necessary.
The only thing I was attempting to establish is that it is false to say that one cannot be legally harassed unless having done something illegal.
So what? I think I've already stated that the point of my comments was unrelated to that.
I do not think it necessary to provide a robust well-established counter-example to blanket statements.
"All odd integers are prime" Response: "No, 9."
I have not provided any proper rigorous examination as to why this is a valid counter-example. I merely need show that there is one.
Formal logic wise: if one makes a "for all" assertion, then one must provide a rigorous argument for that assertion.
However, if one makes a "there exists" assertion, then one must merely provide a single candidate.
In general human discussion, then the restrictions are a bit more relaxed... this isn't debate club. And so for a "for all", one should only need to present an argument for why it is likely, and for a "there exists", one should only need present a likely candidate.
You still haven't understood my point. Therefore, I recommend that you read my posts again, and keep doing so until you understand. I will not explain the same thing again, and I expect that your next reply, if it ever happens, comes after you have understood my point. Failure to comply with that requirement will only serve to convince me that you don't want to understand (notice how I'm avoiding the use of the word "troll", despite all the reasons you're giving me to use it).
I suspected that it were the correct spelling in Commonwealth English. This is why I didn't say it were wrong, but rather that it was simply kept without changing it.
However, since I am American, when I'm talking about a neighbor I spell it an entirely different way, and if I were to spell it in the same way as Commonwealth English, then it would be "wrong".
And your suspicion was correct: I was taught British English (or as I like to call it, English, because seriously, English English just sounds bad). Anyway, as correct as all of that might be, I fail to see its relevance.
You're making a lot of progress towards actually providing criticism in a polite and respectful way.
Well, dammit. I try to be disrespectful just once, and I achieve the opposite effect. I guess I just can't be anything other than a nice guy.
Now, I'm aware that I am a little mysandronist. Which is why, one should always consider the audience that one is speaking to.
I'm offended that the best suggestion you can give me is to suggest that I need to be more like a man... even if you only mean it figuratively. Fuck systemic sexism.
I wasn't suggesting that you need to be more like a man. "Man up" means "don't be a pussy", and... OK, forget about it, that's sexist too.
As for the audience... I'm actually speaking to an unknown being, about whom I know nothing. Now, that entity can make any number of claims about itself, but they are ultimately non-verifiable, or at least not easily verifiable by me. Therefore, I find it reasonable to assume that any assumptions (and excuse my being redundant) or details regarding the audience are largely irrelevant. For all I know, you could be an extremely well programmed AI, or a farmer from Kentucky with a beard that covers his bellybutton. Or just who you claim to be, who knows.
Stop for two seconds. (Imperative, because you're simply factually wrong.) Read the bolded part of my requote...
Now, if you cannot understand how that means that the neighbor knows that he was a guest, then you're a hopeless case.
I entirely understand your argument. I am actually reading your text.
It is my presumption that ALL parties to the hypothetical situation were aware of ALL facts that I presented to establish the hypothetical situation, unless specifically stated otherwise.
This is supported by me stating in the hypothetical what the people do not know.
Except that not even once did you present as fact that the neighbour knew that the one that damaged his plant was a guest of mine. It was merely implied, and the only point I raised was that it should have been presented as fact, seeing how important it is for your argument. So I don't think I'm the hopeless case here (and since I see it coming already, no that doesn't mean I think you're the hopeless case), nor the one that is "factually wrong" (and please note how, despite that, I didn't use the imperative).
That's why he says that it "failed a constitutional challenge".
True. My mistake, it seems I missed that part.
The Conseil constitutionnel ruled that the HADOPI law in its first form was anticonstitutional in that only a judge, after a trial, could restrict freedom of speech.
Then the law was modified so that the HADOPI authority would need to send its data to a judge for an accelerated procedure (as with traffic violations).
The Conseil Constitutionnel ruled that the new version of the HADOPI law was constitutional last December, so you might want to update your sources.
Aye, Sir. Sources updated, since you have provided facts that contradict the information I previously had. Thank you.
That's assuming that making a copy is infringement, which isn't always necessarily the case.
Before those goal posts go flying out of sight, remember that the original question was:
if every song comes out on youtube and I can download it as an MP3 Am I pirating music if I can simply get it that way ?
And so yes, provided it's a copyrighted song, making a copy under those circumstances is infringement.
In which country? Certainly not in all of them.
As for derivative works... Is ripping a CD (even an individual song off of that CD) to mp3 files considered "making a derivative work"? I don't think so.
No, it's making a copy. Perhaps you were confused because I mentioned "making a derivative work" in my previous answer. If you rip the audio from a music video, you have not copied the music video. Instead, you have created a derivative work of the video comprising just the soundtrack.
When you rip a CD or a song from a CD, however, you are making a copy. You are also "format-shifting", which is allowable fair use under the Betamax doctrine. You can also be making an archival copy, which is also allowable fair use. These are all fine. They are distinct, however, from ripping audio from a video on YouTube.
Again, in which country? Normally, I'd assume Ireland, since it's the country related to the article, but the original question is unrelated to the article, and therefore such an assumption cannot be made so easily.
As for ripping not being a derivative work, we seem to agree on that. I was just mentioning it because I know a few instances of people trying to change laws so it's a derivative work, following the ridiculous logic that "ripping to a lossy format implies loss of information, and therefore it's no longer the same work so it can't be a copy".
As an aside, many have tried the song-vs-album argument in the past. Tenenbaum even tried this argument, saying that because he only copied individual songs, they were only a few minutes out of an hour-long album, so he was "sampling" at best. This, of course, failed. The album is a copyrighted compilation of copyrighted works. The individual songs are copyrighted works themselves.
That's assuming that making a copy is infringement, which isn't always necessarily the case. As for derivative works... Is ripping a CD (even an individual song off of that CD) to mp3 files considered "making a derivative work"? I don't think so.
If there's a levy to cover for alleged damages caused by an action, then said action cannot be illegal. Illegal actions are to be prosecuted, not overlooked in exchange for a payment. Therefore, in countries where "a certain amount per blank DVD" (or CD, or whatever) is paid, making a copy of copyrighted content falls under "fair use" provisions and is not "kinda-sorta-infringement". In fact, even without a levy in place it could still be fair use.
In France? Last I heard about that was the French Supreme Court ruling that such measures were against the French Constitution, so you might want to double-check that.
Banned? No, they didn't. What they did was simply not making it mandatory (i.e. not a EU-level law), but members of the EU can still have such measures in their national laws.
This is simply confrontational. I don't expect you to respond to me saying "fuck off" or "stop being an asshole".
And who was it that responded to me saying "stop being an asshole"?
This was quoted 100% accurately. Even the spelling of "neighbour".
That spelling is correct.
Yeah, he possibly could, but it is irrelevant to the counter-example in the original argument. Because it was irrelevant, I did not see a point in addressing it, or even including it just to be ignored.
To this excerpt, you say I am "mutilating" it.
In my personal opinion, trimming something doesn't count as "mutilating".
It counts, when you "trim" parts that are relevant to the meaning of the quote. Also, you saying something's irrelevant doesn't make it so.
If you're admitting to a mistake, then accepted.
However, you simply do not seem to be able to let it go that I didn't provide the "perfect example", and you bit my head off. I tell you to stop being an asshole, and what is your response? To continue being an asshole.
Not really, but I guess there's nothing I can do if you see it that way. Just a bit of advice: if someone doesn't say "Aye, sir" to your every word, that doesn't mean he's being an asshole.
You even eventually tell me to "man up"... good to know that everything on the internet has to cater to masculine more of confrontational argument. *beats chest à la King Kong*
Do you know what "figuratively speaking" means? Or what "man up" means?
I did not explicitly state that my hypothetical situation occurred on Earth. Yet this implicit element did not seem to offend you.
When a person is presenting a hypothetical situation, they must naturally use a finite amount of information to establish the situation. I was of the belief that when presenting my hypothetical that it would be understood that all parties were entirely aware of all the facts presented in the hypothetical. By saying he is a guest, thus everyone involved in the hypothetical situation, would thus know that he were a guest.
Guess I'll have to remind you that not even once have I said anything about the guest being a guest, but rather about the neighbour knowing that he was a guest. Really, are you even reading what I write? That's the second time you prove you aren't.
Anyway, specifically stating that the hypothesis happens on Earth is ridiculous. Specifically stating that the neighbour knows that the guest is a guest, and of whom is he a guest, is not only not ridiculous, but necessary, since there are other possibilities with the same or a simillar outcome (happening outside of Earth, one the other hand, not so much unless you happen to be Orson Scott Card).
Now, when you are presenting your own hypothetical situations, you are entirely free to follow your own personal tastes and opinions about how they should be presented.
You even make it clear that you're criticizing the presentation and not the substance of my argument:
[snip]
This is awesome news, because since you are insisting that there is no critic on substance of my hypothetical, all of your criticism is based on... opinion!
That's kind of why you should be couching your criticism in polite language... because you're relating your own opinion. (I thought they covered this in elementary school, however I might be wrong, you might be autistic, or you could just be anti-social.)
If I presented an argument that stated that I could charge you for destruction of property in my original hypothetical, then you would be right to say, "shut up, you're wrong." Even to perhaps coat it with liberal confrontational statements like "you're an idiot," or the like. And it would be warranted, because I would be factually wrong.
However, we're not arguing fact here... we're simply arguing over sty
I took your criticism to "behave like a adult, and not like a spoiled brat that can't take criticism." (I did paraphrasing you some here.)
Since you wanted to talk about how I don't take criticism, I presented to you -- as criticism -- a proper way to offer criticism so that the person won't freak out and get pissy.
However, you apparently do not understand how to properly couch criticism to make it non-offensive, and perhaps you need a more clear explanation as to why "I wonder if" is there. This is because it makes the comment less hostile, and rude. This use of the subjunctive as well as indirection is by far the most common way to express demands and criticism to others.
"Pass the salt" is rude. "Would you pass the salt" is less rude. "Can you pass the salt?" even less rude, and "Could you pass the salt?" is close to the least rude possible in English without going overboard. "Would you please be able to pass the salt, if it would not be too difficult?" has started to become smacking of pretentiousness, however, when an individual is extremely hostile, sometimes this could possibly become necessary.
Notice, how when I'm presenting my criticism, I am not ordering you around with the imperative form at all? Rather, I'm couching things in hypotheticals, subjunctives, and indirection. This allows an individual to more easily accept that the criticism is not intended to injure or upset them.
Because it is perfectly natural for a person to respond to hostile criticism with hostile responses, one should not be surprised that when one is not bothered to concern yourself with the pleasantries of civility, that others will not concern themselves with the same.
TL;DR: Please sugar-coat your every word when talking to me. I have a fragile heart.
Which obviously, I will not do. I call things as I see them, and if you can't take it, two words: man up.
When presenting a hypothetical situation one need not present all of the information explicitly.
Because you say so?
My hypothetical -- as presented -- served the purpose it was designed for... showing that it is possible for one can be disrupted by legal process, even if someone hasn't done anything wrong.
Again, I never denied that your hypothesis served its purpose. I think it's like the second or third time I say this.
In fact, I did not even strictly intend my hypothetical to be a proper analogy.
Really? I'd have never noticed had you not stated it...
I was simply intending to produce a hypothetical which demonstrated a counter-example to the assertion that one has a right to not be bothered, unless one does something illegal.
If the reader has to connect a few dots or two, perhaps the author felt that the dots should be easily connectible.
Again, the dots were connected by this particular reader just fine, thank you very much. Are you really getting the point of my posts at all?
But upon reviewing your previous posts together... I would like to revisit some of your statements.
This should be fun.
I was just pointing out how it's not a good analogy.
Followed by:
The analogy and the hypothetical are fine.
Interesting.
The second quote was a reference to how the analogy served its purpose, the first one was a reference to how it was a good example worded poorly. I see no problem here, except for the poor wording on my part, but I'd assume that you of all people should be able to forgive that.
Now, let's look at this:
In fact, you don't even understand what you're saying: since when is my neighbour knowing that the other dude was a guest of mine a necessary precondition for the neighbour to a suit involving either my guest or me?
Linking is linking. "But linking to an infringing file is not the same as linking to a website that links to an infringing file, which in turn is not the same as linking to a website that links to a website that links to an infringing file", I hear you say. Well, that was exactly my point: if it's the act of linking that matters, regardless of the level of indirection, linking to infringing files is the same as linking to websites that link to infringing files (with any number of intermediate steps); if the level of indirection matters (that is, what is illegal is only linking to infringing files), then nobody should be liable for linking to websites that link to infringing files (again, with any number of intermediate steps).
Furthermore, in the first case whoever sues would have to be able to prove that the person being sued knew that infringing files could be accessed from the sued person's website, once more with any number of intermediate steps. So they'd have to effectively prove that the defendant browsed about half of the Internet starting with his own website, and in doing so found infringing content. Which is ridiculous.
By your actions and statements, usually.
Therefore, if my actions are the same regardless of there being any infringement, and I have no way of knowing if there's any infringement, and I never admit that it's my intention to aid in said infringement, it's OK... Well, then the OBT guys have it easy, they just have to deny that they intended to help people to infringe.
Since it has been upmodded quite a bit for being "Informative", I would say that generally people already got the point.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that your explanation is lacking. People can still get the point of a badly explained example. Hell, I myself got the point, do I really have to repeat that it's not the point that I'm arguing, but the exposition of said point?
I'm sorry I didn't meet your sufficient pedantry level, and that you cannot make a simple inference.
Again, get off yourself. Do I have to remind you that I made that simple inference just fine, as shown by my reference to the missing information probably being implied for the sake of the argument?
If you want to give criticism, give it in a more non-combative way. Starting of with something like, "Your analogy and hypothetical situation are fine, but I wonder if it needs to be more clearly stated that your neighbor knows that you know who your guest is?"
Excuse me, what? Now I know you're not even making the slightest effort to read and/or understand my posts. If anything, it would be "but I wonder if it needs to be more clearly stated that your neighbour knows that the person that damaged his plant is your guest". And even then it wouldn't be a correct interpretation of my words, because I do not wonder if it needs to be more clearly stated: I'm certain that it needs to be more clearly stated. Not because I don't see it being implied, not because I don't get the point, but because there are other possibilities that render the whole hypothesis moot, so it's best to explicitly rule them out from the start.
Please, if you don't even get what I'm saying refrain from discussing it. It only serves to make me lose time I won't ever get back, and to embarrass you.
To which I would respond, "you obviously understood that this is a necessary precondition to a suit, so why do I have to tell you that the little plus sign between the two symbols representing the value of two represents addition?"
Get off yourself. Specially considering you just proved you don't even understand what I'm saying. In fact, you don't even understand what you're saying: since when is my neighbour knowing that the other dude was a guest of mine a necessary precondition for the neighbour to a suit involving either my guest or me? After all (and that was one of the points of my first reply to you) he can subpoena every neighbour just in case they know anything. And that should backfire, of course, one can't go just filing suits "just in case".
I wouldn't call it a double standard. It's the way the legal system works.
How do you call it when the same act (linking) is punished or unpunished depending on the level of indirection of said act? Or when an act that may or may not be illegal (because hosting torrents or linking to them is only "aiding and abetting" copyright infringement if the use of said torrents is copyright infringement) is punished despite the inability of the person being sued to know if there was any infringement?
It's not just where you link, it is about what your intent was when you created the link, and many other factors. It is impossible to make a general decision without factoring in these things, and impossible to write a law that explicitly enumerates absolutely every possible situation, so we're down to judges and juries trying to make sense of it all.
Trying and failing.
How do they know my intentions, by the way? They can't assume I intend to aid on infringing copyright since I have no way of knowing if any given use of what I offer (be it a link, a tracker, or anything else) is infringing. Therefore, it is clear that my intention is not to aid on infringing, because for that to happen I would need to know for sure that there's infringing acts being carried out and not do anything to prevent them. It's like the old comparison about the guy that sells guns: unless he knew I intended to kill someone, selling me a gun wasn't "aiding and abetting" murder. By that logic, unless I know at least one of the guys accessing the torrent I link to is committing copyright infringement, I'm not aiding and abetting copyright infringement. And given the fact that I have no way of knowing that...
Given the complexities, I think it works fairly ok.
The ones being sued disagree. I, despite not being sued (or having been sued), disagree.
or have users submit a form that demonstrates their ownership of copyright or permission to distribute.
Then they would get sued because even if the uploader had permission to distribute, the downloader didn't have permission to download. Then they would have to make it so you can't access their tracker to download any given file unless you show them proof that you have permission to download it...
Basically, my question is - what reason is there to run an un-vetted tracker, other than to facilitate copyright infringement?
To facilitate non-infringing filesharing, obviously. He who runs the tracker has no way of knowing if any given download or upload associated to the tracker constitutes infringement.
What is the motive? Those who are distributing their own material via torrent can easily run their own trackers.
I can't stop if I haven't started. You, on the other hand...
I specifically stated that the person is a guest.
But you didn't specifically state that the owner of the plant knew it, which was exactly my point. Could it be that you started learning how to read and write last week? 'Cause it sure seems so.
We're not dealing with real world shit, we're dealing with a hypothetical set of events in order to demonstrate a legal notion.
No, we're dealing with a craptabulous analogy and your inability to properly word what you want to communicate. Stating that X is a guest of Y (which is what you stated) does not imply that Z knows that X is a guest of Y (which is the core of your example).
OF COURSE the real world version of this hypothetical is going to be complicated.
Not really. It's your analogy that seems complicated because of your failure in properly covering certain details.
Now get off yourself, and shut up. The analogy is fine, and the hypothetical is fine, if you would just put away your retarded trolling.
You're in no position to tell me to shut up. The analogy and the hypothetical are fine, what is not fine is the way you explain it. And the only one that's trolling here is you. So get off yourself and shut up. And learn to behave like the adult I'd assume you are, and not like a spoiled brat that can't take criticism. Grow the fuck up.
I really have no idea exactly where the line is drawn. Ultimately it comes down to case law.
Nice double standard. There is no reason to sue me if I link to a page that links to an infringing torrent, and not sue me if I link to a page that links to a page that links to an infringing torrent. Both are links to non-infringing material. Then again, there is no reason to sue me if I link to a page that links to an infringing torrent, since I need not know what that page links to. Furthermore, the page might have started linking to the infringing torrent after I linked to the page: am I supposed to regularly visit all pages I link to, and cease linking to them if they start linking to infringing torrents? Oh, wait, the MPAA/RIAA will do that for me.
Bottom line: the whole thing is getting pretty retarded. Someone please inject some common sense in the brains of those guys.
Coming up with hypothetical variations of the argument that contradict facts given
Which is something I didn't do.
does not attack the argument in any way.
Great, 'cause I didn't intend to attack the argument. I was just pointing out how it's not a good analogy.
In particular, to answer your question, because the plaintiff knew them to be a guest of yours. This was explicitly stated as a given to the hypothetical.
Except it wasn't. I fail to see where you explicitly say the owner of the plant knows that the person responsible for damaging it is a guest of mine. OK, so it might have been implied for the sake of the argument, but that raises the question of how he knew, provided he knew neither me nor my guest. I take it that I told him myself?
This certainly gives them reason and belief to presume that you know the tortfeasor's name.
*agrees*
Of course, it is entirely possible that you do not actually know the name of the tortfeasor, and they made an incorrect assumption that you only invite individuals over, whom you know.
But since it is reasonable to believe that any reasonable person would not invite strangers over as guests, you're stuck establishing this assertion in court.
Even then, if you did win, and it was established that you do not know the identity of the individual (and you're not simply being contemptuous of the court) the court would likely still order you to provide everything you do know about the individual.
And I would obey that order. My complaint was not about the results of the subpoena, but rather about the reasons behind it. You have now properly adressed that, however, so I shall say no more about this.
Even if I agree with the rest of your post, there's a little something that I find somewhat objectionable, if only because it's impossible to apply in a rational way without incurring in a double standard:
So yes, if you link to a webpage that links to an illegal torrent, you are guilty.
And if I link to a webpage that links to a webpage that links to an illegal torrent? And if I link to a webpage that links to a webpage that links to a webpage that links to an illegal torrent? And if... Well, you get the idea. Do I have to check every link of every webpage I link to, and every link of each of the linked pages, and so on and so forth, to the Infinite and Beyond?
Also, "illegal torrent"? Even if a torrent file itself could be considered illegal, which I doubt it could be in most cases (it's what an individual user does with that file, or with the contents obtained through it, that could be illegal), what is legal is not always and everywhere a constant. Therefore, do I have to limit my actions or activities just because there's that slim chance that what I do could potentially be used by citizens of some other country to break the laws that apply to them (laws which I need not know, by the way, and which have absolutely nothing to do with me)? In particular, if websites that host torrent files that allow to download copyrighted works are legal in my country, do I have to deny access to all foreign IP adresses if I build one such site, considering that it is not my responsibility to know if such downloads are legal anywhere else, or if any given user regardless of their origin has the legal right to perform any such downloads under some fair use provision (e.g. if they already own that work, which in most places with non-retarded laws gives them the right to make a copy of it)?
Not so much, even if we take into account only "what counts" according to you.
what counts is what judges and men with guns call "infringement" and "aiding and abetting".
And that is not the same everywhere, which was exactly my point. Judges and men with guns don't call "infringement" and "aiding and abetting" the same things in all places.
Logic and reason have no place at the table in this contest.
And who claimed they did?
So do not hang your hopes on legalese hair splitting, for the final outcome of this is pretty much predetermined.
I do not hang any hopes on anything, so don't worry...
The question here would be: how does the neighbour know that I know the dude who damaged his plant? Though clearly, in the case of OBT the ISP knows who the people behind OBT are, but your example, unless the owner of the plant plans to subpoena all of his neighbours, it's not a good analogy. And that's assuming he has proof that at least one neighbour knows something about what happened, which he might not have. After all the culprit could have been somebody completely unrelated to anyone else living in that building.
The fact that they profited, or not, is completely irrellevant for the question if they did anything illegal or not.
That depends. Now, I'm not too knowledgeable with regards to swedish IP law (it was a swedish court, right?), but I know there are countries where it's precisely the existence of profit that makes it illegal... Just saying, maybe it's the same in Sweden, maybe not.
Not necessarily. What you call "copyright infringement" may not be considered "copyright infringement" in certain places under certain circumstances. See the recent rulings of courts in Spain regarding that topic, for example.
Which brings me to the major point against the ruling that OBT, TPB or any other simillar site is "aiding or abetting copyright infringement": they are not, because they have no means of knowing if what any given user of their services does is "copyright infringement".
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't think, and I still do not think that it was fundamentally necessary to my argument.
And yet it is, since it's te very cause for the subpoena. And you have repeatedly acted as if it were fundamentally necessary.
The only thing I was attempting to establish is that it is false to say that one cannot be legally harassed unless having done something illegal.
So what? I think I've already stated that the point of my comments was unrelated to that.
I do not think it necessary to provide a robust well-established counter-example to blanket statements.
"All odd integers are prime" Response: "No, 9."
I have not provided any proper rigorous examination as to why this is a valid counter-example. I merely need show that there is one.
Formal logic wise: if one makes a "for all" assertion, then one must provide a rigorous argument for that assertion.
However, if one makes a "there exists" assertion, then one must merely provide a single candidate.
In general human discussion, then the restrictions are a bit more relaxed... this isn't debate club. And so for a "for all", one should only need to present an argument for why it is likely, and for a "there exists", one should only need present a likely candidate.
You still haven't understood my point. Therefore, I recommend that you read my posts again, and keep doing so until you understand. I will not explain the same thing again, and I expect that your next reply, if it ever happens, comes after you have understood my point. Failure to comply with that requirement will only serve to convince me that you don't want to understand (notice how I'm avoiding the use of the word "troll", despite all the reasons you're giving me to use it).
I suspected that it were the correct spelling in Commonwealth English. This is why I didn't say it were wrong, but rather that it was simply kept without changing it.
However, since I am American, when I'm talking about a neighbor I spell it an entirely different way, and if I were to spell it in the same way as Commonwealth English, then it would be "wrong".
And your suspicion was correct: I was taught British English (or as I like to call it, English, because seriously, English English just sounds bad). Anyway, as correct as all of that might be, I fail to see its relevance.
You're making a lot of progress towards actually providing criticism in a polite and respectful way.
Well, dammit. I try to be disrespectful just once, and I achieve the opposite effect. I guess I just can't be anything other than a nice guy.
Now, I'm aware that I am a little mysandronist. Which is why, one should always consider the audience that one is speaking to.
I'm offended that the best suggestion you can give me is to suggest that I need to be more like a man... even if you only mean it figuratively. Fuck systemic sexism.
I wasn't suggesting that you need to be more like a man. "Man up" means "don't be a pussy", and... OK, forget about it, that's sexist too.
As for the audience... I'm actually speaking to an unknown being, about whom I know nothing. Now, that entity can make any number of claims about itself, but they are ultimately non-verifiable, or at least not easily verifiable by me. Therefore, I find it reasonable to assume that any assumptions (and excuse my being redundant) or details regarding the audience are largely irrelevant. For all I know, you could be an extremely well programmed AI, or a farmer from Kentucky with a beard that covers his bellybutton. Or just who you claim to be, who knows.
Stop for two seconds. (Imperative, because you're simply factually wrong.) Read the bolded part of my requote...
Now, if you cannot understand how that means that the neighbor knows that he was a guest, then you're a hopeless case.
I entirely understand your argument. I am actually reading your text.
It is my presumption that ALL parties to the hypothetical situation were aware of ALL facts that I presented to establish the hypothetical situation, unless specifically stated otherwise.
This is supported by me stating in the hypothetical what the people do not know.
Except that not even once did you present as fact that the neighbour knew that the one that damaged his plant was a guest of mine. It was merely implied, and the only point I raised was that it should have been presented as fact, seeing how important it is for your argument. So I don't think I'm the hopeless case here (and since I see it coming already, no that doesn't mean I think you're the hopeless case), nor the one that is "factually wrong" (and please note how, despite that, I didn't use the imperative).
That's why he says that it "failed a constitutional challenge".
True. My mistake, it seems I missed that part.
The Conseil constitutionnel ruled that the HADOPI law in its first form was anticonstitutional in that only a judge, after a trial, could restrict freedom of speech.
Then the law was modified so that the HADOPI authority would need to send its data to a judge for an accelerated procedure (as with traffic violations).
The Conseil Constitutionnel ruled that the new version of the HADOPI law was constitutional last December, so you might want to update your sources.
Aye, Sir. Sources updated, since you have provided facts that contradict the information I previously had. Thank you.
That's assuming that making a copy is infringement, which isn't always necessarily the case.
Before those goal posts go flying out of sight, remember that the original question was:
if every song comes out on youtube
and I can download it as an MP3
Am I pirating music if I can simply get it that way ?
And so yes, provided it's a copyrighted song, making a copy under those circumstances is infringement.
In which country? Certainly not in all of them.
As for derivative works... Is ripping a CD (even an individual song off of that CD) to mp3 files considered "making a derivative work"? I don't think so.
No, it's making a copy. Perhaps you were confused because I mentioned "making a derivative work" in my previous answer. If you rip the audio from a music video, you have not copied the music video. Instead, you have created a derivative work of the video comprising just the soundtrack.
When you rip a CD or a song from a CD, however, you are making a copy. You are also "format-shifting", which is allowable fair use under the Betamax doctrine. You can also be making an archival copy, which is also allowable fair use. These are all fine. They are distinct, however, from ripping audio from a video on YouTube.
Again, in which country? Normally, I'd assume Ireland, since it's the country related to the article, but the original question is unrelated to the article, and therefore such an assumption cannot be made so easily.
As for ripping not being a derivative work, we seem to agree on that. I was just mentioning it because I know a few instances of people trying to change laws so it's a derivative work, following the ridiculous logic that "ripping to a lossy format implies loss of information, and therefore it's no longer the same work so it can't be a copy".
As an aside, many have tried the song-vs-album argument in the past. Tenenbaum even tried this argument, saying that because he only copied individual songs, they were only a few minutes out of an hour-long album, so he was "sampling" at best. This, of course, failed. The album is a copyrighted compilation of copyrighted works. The individual songs are copyrighted works themselves.
*agrees*
That's assuming that making a copy is infringement, which isn't always necessarily the case. As for derivative works... Is ripping a CD (even an individual song off of that CD) to mp3 files considered "making a derivative work"? I don't think so.
If there's a levy to cover for alleged damages caused by an action, then said action cannot be illegal. Illegal actions are to be prosecuted, not overlooked in exchange for a payment. Therefore, in countries where "a certain amount per blank DVD" (or CD, or whatever) is paid, making a copy of copyrighted content falls under "fair use" provisions and is not "kinda-sorta-infringement". In fact, even without a levy in place it could still be fair use.
In France? Last I heard about that was the French Supreme Court ruling that such measures were against the French Constitution, so you might want to double-check that.
Just in case you weren't being ironic (that doesn't usually get through very well on the Interwebs): Copyrighted != illegal to download
Banned? No, they didn't. What they did was simply not making it mandatory (i.e. not a EU-level law), but members of the EU can still have such measures in their national laws.
This is simply confrontational. I don't expect you to respond to me saying "fuck off" or "stop being an asshole".
And who was it that responded to me saying "stop being an asshole"?
This was quoted 100% accurately. Even the spelling of "neighbour".
That spelling is correct.
Yeah, he possibly could, but it is irrelevant to the counter-example in the original argument. Because it was irrelevant, I did not see a point in addressing it, or even including it just to be ignored.
To this excerpt, you say I am "mutilating" it.
In my personal opinion, trimming something doesn't count as "mutilating".
It counts, when you "trim" parts that are relevant to the meaning of the quote. Also, you saying something's irrelevant doesn't make it so.
If you're admitting to a mistake, then accepted.
However, you simply do not seem to be able to let it go that I didn't provide the "perfect example", and you bit my head off. I tell you to stop being an asshole, and what is your response? To continue being an asshole.
Not really, but I guess there's nothing I can do if you see it that way. Just a bit of advice: if someone doesn't say "Aye, sir" to your every word, that doesn't mean he's being an asshole.
You even eventually tell me to "man up"... good to know that everything on the internet has to cater to masculine more of confrontational argument. *beats chest à la King Kong*
Do you know what "figuratively speaking" means? Or what "man up" means?
I did not explicitly state that my hypothetical situation occurred on Earth. Yet this implicit element did not seem to offend you.
When a person is presenting a hypothetical situation, they must naturally use a finite amount of information to establish the situation. I was of the belief that when presenting my hypothetical that it would be understood that all parties were entirely aware of all the facts presented in the hypothetical. By saying he is a guest, thus everyone involved in the hypothetical situation, would thus know that he were a guest.
Guess I'll have to remind you that not even once have I said anything about the guest being a guest, but rather about the neighbour knowing that he was a guest. Really, are you even reading what I write? That's the second time you prove you aren't.
Anyway, specifically stating that the hypothesis happens on Earth is ridiculous. Specifically stating that the neighbour knows that the guest is a guest, and of whom is he a guest, is not only not ridiculous, but necessary, since there are other possibilities with the same or a simillar outcome (happening outside of Earth, one the other hand, not so much unless you happen to be Orson Scott Card).
Now, when you are presenting your own hypothetical situations, you are entirely free to follow your own personal tastes and opinions about how they should be presented.
You even make it clear that you're criticizing the presentation and not the substance of my argument:
[snip]
This is awesome news, because since you are insisting that there is no critic on substance of my hypothetical, all of your criticism is based on... opinion!
That's kind of why you should be couching your criticism in polite language... because you're relating your own opinion. (I thought they covered this in elementary school, however I might be wrong, you might be autistic, or you could just be anti-social.)
If I presented an argument that stated that I could charge you for destruction of property in my original hypothetical, then you would be right to say, "shut up, you're wrong." Even to perhaps coat it with liberal confrontational statements like "you're an idiot," or the like. And it would be warranted, because I would be factually wrong.
However, we're not arguing fact here... we're simply arguing over sty
two words: man up.
I'm a woman.
That's irrelevant. Women can "man up" just fine.
I took your criticism to "behave like a adult, and not like a spoiled brat that can't take criticism." (I did paraphrasing you some here.)
Since you wanted to talk about how I don't take criticism, I presented to you -- as criticism -- a proper way to offer criticism so that the person won't freak out and get pissy.
However, you apparently do not understand how to properly couch criticism to make it non-offensive, and perhaps you need a more clear explanation as to why "I wonder if" is there. This is because it makes the comment less hostile, and rude. This use of the subjunctive as well as indirection is by far the most common way to express demands and criticism to others.
"Pass the salt" is rude. "Would you pass the salt" is less rude. "Can you pass the salt?" even less rude, and "Could you pass the salt?" is close to the least rude possible in English without going overboard. "Would you please be able to pass the salt, if it would not be too difficult?" has started to become smacking of pretentiousness, however, when an individual is extremely hostile, sometimes this could possibly become necessary.
Notice, how when I'm presenting my criticism, I am not ordering you around with the imperative form at all? Rather, I'm couching things in hypotheticals, subjunctives, and indirection. This allows an individual to more easily accept that the criticism is not intended to injure or upset them.
Because it is perfectly natural for a person to respond to hostile criticism with hostile responses, one should not be surprised that when one is not bothered to concern yourself with the pleasantries of civility, that others will not concern themselves with the same.
TL;DR: Please sugar-coat your every word when talking to me. I have a fragile heart.
Which obviously, I will not do. I call things as I see them, and if you can't take it, two words: man up.
When presenting a hypothetical situation one need not present all of the information explicitly.
Because you say so?
My hypothetical -- as presented -- served the purpose it was designed for... showing that it is possible for one can be disrupted by legal process, even if someone hasn't done anything wrong.
Again, I never denied that your hypothesis served its purpose. I think it's like the second or third time I say this.
In fact, I did not even strictly intend my hypothetical to be a proper analogy.
Really? I'd have never noticed had you not stated it...
I was simply intending to produce a hypothetical which demonstrated a counter-example to the assertion that one has a right to not be bothered, unless one does something illegal.
If the reader has to connect a few dots or two, perhaps the author felt that the dots should be easily connectible.
Again, the dots were connected by this particular reader just fine, thank you very much. Are you really getting the point of my posts at all?
But upon reviewing your previous posts together... I would like to revisit some of your statements.
This should be fun.
I was just pointing out how it's not a good analogy.
Followed by:
The analogy and the hypothetical are fine.
Interesting.
The second quote was a reference to how the analogy served its purpose, the first one was a reference to how it was a good example worded poorly. I see no problem here, except for the poor wording on my part, but I'd assume that you of all people should be able to forgive that.
Now, let's look at this:
In fact, you don't even understand what you're saying: since when is my neighbour knowing that the other dude was a guest of mine a necessary precondition for the neighbour to a suit involving either my guest or me?
Not the same act. The context matters.
Linking is linking. "But linking to an infringing file is not the same as linking to a website that links to an infringing file, which in turn is not the same as linking to a website that links to a website that links to an infringing file", I hear you say. Well, that was exactly my point: if it's the act of linking that matters, regardless of the level of indirection, linking to infringing files is the same as linking to websites that link to infringing files (with any number of intermediate steps); if the level of indirection matters (that is, what is illegal is only linking to infringing files), then nobody should be liable for linking to websites that link to infringing files (again, with any number of intermediate steps).
Furthermore, in the first case whoever sues would have to be able to prove that the person being sued knew that infringing files could be accessed from the sued person's website, once more with any number of intermediate steps. So they'd have to effectively prove that the defendant browsed about half of the Internet starting with his own website, and in doing so found infringing content. Which is ridiculous.
By your actions and statements, usually.
Therefore, if my actions are the same regardless of there being any infringement, and I have no way of knowing if there's any infringement, and I never admit that it's my intention to aid in said infringement, it's OK... Well, then the OBT guys have it easy, they just have to deny that they intended to help people to infringe.
Since it has been upmodded quite a bit for being "Informative", I would say that generally people already got the point.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that your explanation is lacking. People can still get the point of a badly explained example. Hell, I myself got the point, do I really have to repeat that it's not the point that I'm arguing, but the exposition of said point?
I'm sorry I didn't meet your sufficient pedantry level, and that you cannot make a simple inference.
Again, get off yourself. Do I have to remind you that I made that simple inference just fine, as shown by my reference to the missing information probably being implied for the sake of the argument?
If you want to give criticism, give it in a more non-combative way. Starting of with something like, "Your analogy and hypothetical situation are fine, but I wonder if it needs to be more clearly stated that your neighbor knows that you know who your guest is?"
Excuse me, what? Now I know you're not even making the slightest effort to read and/or understand my posts. If anything, it would be "but I wonder if it needs to be more clearly stated that your neighbour knows that the person that damaged his plant is your guest". And even then it wouldn't be a correct interpretation of my words, because I do not wonder if it needs to be more clearly stated: I'm certain that it needs to be more clearly stated. Not because I don't see it being implied, not because I don't get the point, but because there are other possibilities that render the whole hypothesis moot, so it's best to explicitly rule them out from the start.
Please, if you don't even get what I'm saying refrain from discussing it. It only serves to make me lose time I won't ever get back, and to embarrass you.
To which I would respond, "you obviously understood that this is a necessary precondition to a suit, so why do I have to tell you that the little plus sign between the two symbols representing the value of two represents addition?"
Get off yourself. Specially considering you just proved you don't even understand what I'm saying. In fact, you don't even understand what you're saying: since when is my neighbour knowing that the other dude was a guest of mine a necessary precondition for the neighbour to a suit involving either my guest or me? After all (and that was one of the points of my first reply to you) he can subpoena every neighbour just in case they know anything. And that should backfire, of course, one can't go just filing suits "just in case".
I wouldn't call it a double standard. It's the way the legal system works.
How do you call it when the same act (linking) is punished or unpunished depending on the level of indirection of said act? Or when an act that may or may not be illegal (because hosting torrents or linking to them is only "aiding and abetting" copyright infringement if the use of said torrents is copyright infringement) is punished despite the inability of the person being sued to know if there was any infringement?
It's not just where you link, it is about what your intent was when you created the link, and many other factors. It is impossible to make a general decision without factoring in these things, and impossible to write a law that explicitly enumerates absolutely every possible situation, so we're down to judges and juries trying to make sense of it all.
Trying and failing.
How do they know my intentions, by the way? They can't assume I intend to aid on infringing copyright since I have no way of knowing if any given use of what I offer (be it a link, a tracker, or anything else) is infringing. Therefore, it is clear that my intention is not to aid on infringing, because for that to happen I would need to know for sure that there's infringing acts being carried out and not do anything to prevent them.
It's like the old comparison about the guy that sells guns: unless he knew I intended to kill someone, selling me a gun wasn't "aiding and abetting" murder. By that logic, unless I know at least one of the guys accessing the torrent I link to is committing copyright infringement, I'm not aiding and abetting copyright infringement. And given the fact that I have no way of knowing that...
Given the complexities, I think it works fairly ok.
The ones being sued disagree. I, despite not being sued (or having been sued), disagree.
or have users submit a form that demonstrates their ownership of copyright or permission to distribute.
Then they would get sued because even if the uploader had permission to distribute, the downloader didn't have permission to download. Then they would have to make it so you can't access their tracker to download any given file unless you show them proof that you have permission to download it...
Basically, my question is - what reason is there to run an un-vetted tracker, other than to facilitate copyright infringement?
To facilitate non-infringing filesharing, obviously. He who runs the tracker has no way of knowing if any given download or upload associated to the tracker constitutes infringement.
What is the motive? Those who are distributing their own material via torrent can easily run their own trackers.
That is, if they have the resources.
Stop being an asshole.
I can't stop if I haven't started. You, on the other hand...
I specifically stated that the person is a guest.
But you didn't specifically state that the owner of the plant knew it, which was exactly my point. Could it be that you started learning how to read and write last week? 'Cause it sure seems so.
We're not dealing with real world shit, we're dealing with a hypothetical set of events in order to demonstrate a legal notion.
No, we're dealing with a craptabulous analogy and your inability to properly word what you want to communicate. Stating that X is a guest of Y (which is what you stated) does not imply that Z knows that X is a guest of Y (which is the core of your example).
OF COURSE the real world version of this hypothetical is going to be complicated.
Not really. It's your analogy that seems complicated because of your failure in properly covering certain details.
Now get off yourself, and shut up. The analogy is fine, and the hypothetical is fine, if you would just put away your retarded trolling.
You're in no position to tell me to shut up. The analogy and the hypothetical are fine, what is not fine is the way you explain it. And the only one that's trolling here is you. So get off yourself and shut up. And learn to behave like the adult I'd assume you are, and not like a spoiled brat that can't take criticism. Grow the fuck up.
I really have no idea exactly where the line is drawn. Ultimately it comes down to case law.
Nice double standard. There is no reason to sue me if I link to a page that links to an infringing torrent, and not sue me if I link to a page that links to a page that links to an infringing torrent. Both are links to non-infringing material.
Then again, there is no reason to sue me if I link to a page that links to an infringing torrent, since I need not know what that page links to. Furthermore, the page might have started linking to the infringing torrent after I linked to the page: am I supposed to regularly visit all pages I link to, and cease linking to them if they start linking to infringing torrents? Oh, wait, the MPAA/RIAA will do that for me.
Bottom line: the whole thing is getting pretty retarded. Someone please inject some common sense in the brains of those guys.
Coming up with hypothetical variations of the argument that contradict facts given
Which is something I didn't do.
does not attack the argument in any way.
Great, 'cause I didn't intend to attack the argument. I was just pointing out how it's not a good analogy.
In particular, to answer your question, because the plaintiff knew them to be a guest of yours. This was explicitly stated as a given to the hypothetical.
Except it wasn't. I fail to see where you explicitly say the owner of the plant knows that the person responsible for damaging it is a guest of mine. OK, so it might have been implied for the sake of the argument, but that raises the question of how he knew, provided he knew neither me nor my guest. I take it that I told him myself?
This certainly gives them reason and belief to presume that you know the tortfeasor's name.
*agrees*
Of course, it is entirely possible that you do not actually know the name of the tortfeasor, and they made an incorrect assumption that you only invite individuals over, whom you know.
But since it is reasonable to believe that any reasonable person would not invite strangers over as guests, you're stuck establishing this assertion in court.
Even then, if you did win, and it was established that you do not know the identity of the individual (and you're not simply being contemptuous of the court) the court would likely still order you to provide everything you do know about the individual.
And I would obey that order. My complaint was not about the results of the subpoena, but rather about the reasons behind it. You have now properly adressed that, however, so I shall say no more about this.
Except violating the GPL is illegal pretty much anywhere. Sharing pop music and shitty hollywood movies, on the other hand, not so much.
Even if I agree with the rest of your post, there's a little something that I find somewhat objectionable, if only because it's impossible to apply in a rational way without incurring in a double standard:
So yes, if you link to a webpage that links to an illegal torrent, you are guilty.
And if I link to a webpage that links to a webpage that links to an illegal torrent? And if I link to a webpage that links to a webpage that links to a webpage that links to an illegal torrent? And if... Well, you get the idea. Do I have to check every link of every webpage I link to, and every link of each of the linked pages, and so on and so forth, to the Infinite and Beyond?
Also, "illegal torrent"? Even if a torrent file itself could be considered illegal, which I doubt it could be in most cases (it's what an individual user does with that file, or with the contents obtained through it, that could be illegal), what is legal is not always and everywhere a constant. Therefore, do I have to limit my actions or activities just because there's that slim chance that what I do could potentially be used by citizens of some other country to break the laws that apply to them (laws which I need not know, by the way, and which have absolutely nothing to do with me)?
In particular, if websites that host torrent files that allow to download copyrighted works are legal in my country, do I have to deny access to all foreign IP adresses if I build one such site, considering that it is not my responsibility to know if such downloads are legal anywhere else, or if any given user regardless of their origin has the legal right to perform any such downloads under some fair use provision (e.g. if they already own that work, which in most places with non-retarded laws gives them the right to make a copy of it)?
This is of course largely irrelevant.
Not so much, even if we take into account only "what counts" according to you.
what counts is what judges and men with guns call "infringement" and "aiding and abetting".
And that is not the same everywhere, which was exactly my point. Judges and men with guns don't call "infringement" and "aiding and abetting" the same things in all places.
Logic and reason have no place at the table in this contest.
And who claimed they did?
So do not hang your hopes on legalese hair splitting, for the final outcome of this is pretty much predetermined.
I do not hang any hopes on anything, so don't worry...
The question here would be: how does the neighbour know that I know the dude who damaged his plant? Though clearly, in the case of OBT the ISP knows who the people behind OBT are, but your example, unless the owner of the plant plans to subpoena all of his neighbours, it's not a good analogy. And that's assuming he has proof that at least one neighbour knows something about what happened, which he might not have. After all the culprit could have been somebody completely unrelated to anyone else living in that building.
The fact that they profited, or not, is completely irrellevant for the question if they did anything illegal or not.
That depends. Now, I'm not too knowledgeable with regards to swedish IP law (it was a swedish court, right?), but I know there are countries where it's precisely the existence of profit that makes it illegal... Just saying, maybe it's the same in Sweden, maybe not.
with intent of copyright infringement
Not necessarily. What you call "copyright infringement" may not be considered "copyright infringement" in certain places under certain circumstances. See the recent rulings of courts in Spain regarding that topic, for example.
Which brings me to the major point against the ruling that OBT, TPB or any other simillar site is "aiding or abetting copyright infringement": they are not, because they have no means of knowing if what any given user of their services does is "copyright infringement".