SIPRnet isn't the internet.
You can't pull up google or any internet website while on SIPRnet nor can you do so on the TOP SECRET network. They are not connected (for obvious reasons)
Do you really think that's more likely than the defendant just stealing some music?
Actually someone coming up and getting on your wifi and downloading music is much more likely than you breaking into a major label's office and making a copy of the source files for the song, deleting them behind you.
Or perhaps you meant to say "More likely than the defendant just committing copyright infringement" Theft has a definition, it is not synonymous with copyright infringement.
The litigation is questionable and is used as a means to threaten thousands of people (some innocent) into simply paying up by settling which most would have done.
It's a business model, not trying to right a wrong.
The fact that alleged copyright infringers may not see the inside of a court room due to it is secondary.
I apologize, it appears you brought up "Criminal Copyright Infringement",which this case and the overwhelming majority of copyright infringement cases aren't, while the standard for this sort of case has been substantially lowered (in 1909,1982 and again in 1997) you aren't going to see that many of those cases for people infringing by file sharing.
Again you are mistaken. Copyright infringement is a civil matter and is why the plaintiff is a private person or organization instead of the government or "The people". There are many federal laws that cover civil matters, it's not a new concept. Here is a link that better goes into the differences.
As for your delivery, pull the stick out of your ass, being told you are wrong isn't the end of the world, welcome to the internet.
Copyright infringement is not a crime, it is a civil matter.
You are a victim of the industries use of words such as "Theft" and "Pirate" (War crimes on the high seas, yar!). You have associated the sharing of information with a crime. Which is what the copyright industries wanted, it pushes the debate in their favor and allows them to further push around grandmothers who never installed "Kazaa" as well as lobby politicians for protectionist laws that overextend what copyright and patents were originally for, "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
He was saying, finally admitting you are gay while everyone else clearly knew so, to the point that your own mother is trying to get decent dates for you.
He is up for re-election in November. Imagine that.
It's amazing how a bunch of Attorney Generals suddenly go into overdrive 2 months before certain November date with lawsuits that are not exactly great on a legal basis, but great for headlines.
1909 - Phonograph (Pretty much the crux of the entire act)
1976 - Television, motion pictures, sound recordings, and radio (see House report number 94-1476)
1998 - Internet (DMCA)
I can probably come up with more examples if you need.
Thomas Edison's Patents are the reason Hollywood exists. Studios fled to California where enforcement of those patents wouldn't happen and by the time US Marshalls got that far out the patents had expired.
Every major organization that now heavily relies on IP was a "pirate" at one time or another.
Slashdot Mirror
SIPRnet isn't the internet. You can't pull up google or any internet website while on SIPRnet nor can you do so on the TOP SECRET network. They are not connected (for obvious reasons)
Do you really think that's more likely than the defendant just stealing some music?
Actually someone coming up and getting on your wifi and downloading music is much more likely than you breaking into a major label's office and making a copy of the source files for the song, deleting them behind you.
Or perhaps you meant to say "More likely than the defendant just committing copyright infringement" Theft has a definition, it is not synonymous with copyright infringement.
The litigation is questionable and is used as a means to threaten thousands of people (some innocent) into simply paying up by settling which most would have done. It's a business model, not trying to right a wrong. The fact that alleged copyright infringers may not see the inside of a court room due to it is secondary.
I apologize, it appears you brought up "Criminal Copyright Infringement",which this case and the overwhelming majority of copyright infringement cases aren't, while the standard for this sort of case has been substantially lowered (in 1909,1982 and again in 1997) you aren't going to see that many of those cases for people infringing by file sharing.
Again you are mistaken. Copyright infringement is a civil matter and is why the plaintiff is a private person or organization instead of the government or "The people". There are many federal laws that cover civil matters, it's not a new concept. Here is a link that better goes into the differences.
As for your delivery, pull the stick out of your ass, being told you are wrong isn't the end of the world, welcome to the internet.
You are an Anonymous Coward and I usually don't reply to you, but it is not a crime, it is a civil matter.
This is why we should not tolerate terms like "Theft" and "Pirate" being thrown around.
Copyright infringement is not a crime, it is a civil matter.
You are a victim of the industries use of words such as "Theft" and "Pirate" (War crimes on the high seas, yar!). You have associated the sharing of information with a crime. Which is what the copyright industries wanted, it pushes the debate in their favor and allows them to further push around grandmothers who never installed "Kazaa" as well as lobby politicians for protectionist laws that overextend what copyright and patents were originally for, "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
do (process can be abused);
Abuse it;
while
He was saying, finally admitting you are gay while everyone else clearly knew so, to the point that your own mother is trying to get decent dates for you.
He is up for re-election in November. Imagine that. It's amazing how a bunch of Attorney Generals suddenly go into overdrive 2 months before certain November date with lawsuits that are not exactly great on a legal basis, but great for headlines.
Swedish rape laws are a bit different than the ones you know about. Much more strict as well. http://www.thelocal.se/19376/20090511/
Every 20 years, change something slightly and re-patent it. Works for pharmaceuticals.
1909 - Phonograph (Pretty much the crux of the entire act) 1976 - Television, motion pictures, sound recordings, and radio (see House report number 94-1476) 1998 - Internet (DMCA) I can probably come up with more examples if you need.
Thomas Edison's Patents are the reason Hollywood exists. Studios fled to California where enforcement of those patents wouldn't happen and by the time US Marshalls got that far out the patents had expired. Every major organization that now heavily relies on IP was a "pirate" at one time or another.