The use of the data is irrelevant to whether it is real or imaginary, or if the law should apply. And, while the character of the use is one consideration in determining whether a copy is fair use, personal use is not a mitigating use, as critique or criticism would be.
Hmm, I can buy this (the original) version for $5.00 or I can by this other version that seems to be exactly the same for $1.00. Which should I choose?
"File sharing" is blatant commercial theft and commercial distribution. It is also precisely what all those IP/copyright laws were written to address.
"File sharers" get a benefit from what they do. They are paid in kind; they are paid in music, movies, etc. for which they have not paid. Their gain is the value of the IP in the form of the money they did not spend to get it.
I don't get your point. In both instances, someone else's work is being used without compensation. And, one does profit from "file sharing" simply by virtue of not having to pay for the works one gets through "file sharing" for which one would otherwise have to pay.
Every story I see on Slashdot about copyright, so-called file sharing, the.*AA, etc. people complain that Intellectual Property (IP) is not real property and no one is losing anything when IP rights and copyrights are violated. But, the "assets" everyone is talking about are IP. If it is not wrong to redistribute the IP of others, why is this wrong?
Really, this just highlights the hypocrisy of so many Slashdotters and FLOSS supporters of "file sharing".
The "assets" are intellectual property, just like songs and movies. It sounds to me like you are making a case that IP is an asset and misappropriating said asset is wrong. That would make so-called file sharing wrong.
But, it does not protect one from answering a question that may result in losing the civil case in question, LibTard. Are you really such as stupid fuck? You must be, because you keep trying to change the discussion which is the sign of a stupid mind unable to argue the question at hand.
Everything I said holds true for civil court as well. In fact, it is even more dangerous in civil court because one can not refuse to testify.
You are splitting non-existent hairs. If you had read the thread, you would see that countertrolling specified a course of action for the "other party" against "using social networks to demonstrate the other party... is lying". I demonstrated how his course of action could result in demonstrating a habit of lying when it suits him.
I see. And, exactly where did you get your law degree from? And, what experiences have you had with the legal system?
A picture is hearsay?
Tell me, please, what would you consider "Tamper proof" evidence? An actual paper photograph? A video? Where, exactly, is the line for you?
The reason is that civil cases are civil, not criminal. There is no protection against self-incrimination in a civil case. If you substitute plaintiff for defendant in my statement above, it is still valid.
But, when one's social networking statements contradict one's testimony, it casts reasonable doubt on one's testimony, especially if having lied in one's statements bolsters one's testimony.
Perjury is often hard to prove, and, more importantly, one does not have to testify for Facebook information to be used. For example, if one claims an alibi, yet one's Facebook information contradicts that information.
You are considered innocent. But, this is about determining if one is guilty, it is about the evidence and testimony. If it is word against word, then it comes down to who is more trustworthy in the minds of the jury. The advantage goes to whomever is not shown to be less trustworthy.
By admitting to lying, one would cast one's own character into doubt. "If one lied about this, then would he lie about that?" The presumption of innocence does not extend to a presumption of honesty in testimony. It is about how one is treated and how the decision is rendered. It is why a prosecutor has to make a case and the defendant doesn't have to do a thing. If the prosecutor can not make his case, then the judge can just declare that the case has not been made and dismiss the case.
In civil trials, things are a bit different. There is no presumption of innocence.
It is private, for various values of "private". It is not as private as a diary one let's no one else know about. But, it is more private than putting information up on a publicly available website.
Often the legal definition of "private" hinges on the not-so-precise "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard.
In civil cases, one may not have a choice. And, if one's alibi is contradicted by what one put on a social networking site, the point is moot.
"The defendant claims to have been out with his friends on the night and at the time in question, but in his Facebook profile, he states he did not go with the friends because he had no money to do so."
One would only be considered not guilty if the prosecution or plaintiff did not present any evidence. Even if it came down to word vs word, the plaintiff or prosecution would, or at least should, win because one would have shown that one's word is not reliable.
When one is involved in a court case, there is discovery where each party is allowed to investigate and examine the other party, including the other party's private documents such as diaries, for evidence. The court can issue a subpoena for said private documents. Facebook and other social networking sites fall under "private documents".
I have no idea why everyone is surprised at this. It has been like this literally for centuries.
"So, you are claiming you lied to your friends and family, but told the truth to the plaintiff. Is that right? And, you are telling the truth now? If you are willing to lie to your friends and family about this, why should the court believe any of your testimony?"
Oh, look, another tin-foil hat wearing paranoid leftist. You and the idiot above immediately lose any credibility when you say "republicans are fascist". By claiming that Obama is center right, you show exactly how left you are.
Now, shut the fuck up before you make an even greater fool of yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
The use of the data is irrelevant to whether it is real or imaginary, or if the law should apply. And, while the character of the use is one consideration in determining whether a copy is fair use, personal use is not a mitigating use, as critique or criticism would be.
Hmm, I can buy this (the original) version for $5.00 or I can by this other version that seems to be exactly the same for $1.00. Which should I choose?
"File sharing" is blatant commercial theft and commercial distribution. It is also precisely what all those IP/copyright laws were written to address.
"File sharers" get a benefit from what they do. They are paid in kind; they are paid in music, movies, etc. for which they have not paid. Their gain is the value of the IP in the form of the money they did not spend to get it.
It is also wrong to take something someone worked hard on and give it away as if you did the hard work.
I don't get your point. In both instances, someone else's work is being used without compensation. And, one does profit from "file sharing" simply by virtue of not having to pay for the works one gets through "file sharing" for which one would otherwise have to pay.
Every story I see on Slashdot about copyright, so-called file sharing, the .*AA, etc. people complain that Intellectual Property (IP) is not real property and no one is losing anything when IP rights and copyrights are violated. But, the "assets" everyone is talking about are IP. If it is not wrong to redistribute the IP of others, why is this wrong?
Really, this just highlights the hypocrisy of so many Slashdotters and FLOSS supporters of "file sharing".
The "assets" are intellectual property, just like songs and movies. It sounds to me like you are making a case that IP is an asset and misappropriating said asset is wrong. That would make so-called file sharing wrong.
Is that your position?
But, it does not protect one from answering a question that may result in losing the civil case in question, LibTard. Are you really such as stupid fuck? You must be, because you keep trying to change the discussion which is the sign of a stupid mind unable to argue the question at hand.
Well, LibTard, I have very recent knowledge. And, that was not his point. Maybe you should go take a reading comprehension course.
OK, libretard, I see you have never been involved in an actual civil trial. What is it like being a lying moron?
Everything I said holds true for civil court as well. In fact, it is even more dangerous in civil court because one can not refuse to testify.
... is lying". I demonstrated how his course of action could result in demonstrating a habit of lying when it suits him.
You are splitting non-existent hairs. If you had read the thread, you would see that countertrolling specified a course of action for the "other party" against "using social networks to demonstrate the other party
I see. And, exactly where did you get your law degree from? And, what experiences have you had with the legal system?
A picture is hearsay? Tell me, please, what would you consider "Tamper proof" evidence? An actual paper photograph? A video? Where, exactly, is the line for you?
All one has to do is answer "That is correct" or "That is not correct".
The reason is that civil cases are civil, not criminal. There is no protection against self-incrimination in a civil case. If you substitute plaintiff for defendant in my statement above, it is still valid.
But, when one's social networking statements contradict one's testimony, it casts reasonable doubt on one's testimony, especially if having lied in one's statements bolsters one's testimony.
Perjury is often hard to prove, and, more importantly, one does not have to testify for Facebook information to be used. For example, if one claims an alibi, yet one's Facebook information contradicts that information.
Oh, and how is the evidence tainted?
See, that is where you are making your mistake.
You are considered innocent. But, this is about determining if one is guilty, it is about the evidence and testimony. If it is word against word, then it comes down to who is more trustworthy in the minds of the jury. The advantage goes to whomever is not shown to be less trustworthy.
By admitting to lying, one would cast one's own character into doubt. "If one lied about this, then would he lie about that?" The presumption of innocence does not extend to a presumption of honesty in testimony. It is about how one is treated and how the decision is rendered. It is why a prosecutor has to make a case and the defendant doesn't have to do a thing. If the prosecutor can not make his case, then the judge can just declare that the case has not been made and dismiss the case.
In civil trials, things are a bit different. There is no presumption of innocence.
It is private, for various values of "private". It is not as private as a diary one let's no one else know about. But, it is more private than putting information up on a publicly available website.
Often the legal definition of "private" hinges on the not-so-precise "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard.
In civil cases, one may not have a choice. And, if one's alibi is contradicted by what one put on a social networking site, the point is moot.
"The defendant claims to have been out with his friends on the night and at the time in question, but in his Facebook profile, he states he did not go with the friends because he had no money to do so."
"It is also in your best interest to lie in court if you are guilty, is that not correct?"
The penalty of perjury is often less than the penalty of losing the case, whether the case is civil or criminal.
One would only be considered not guilty if the prosecution or plaintiff did not present any evidence. Even if it came down to word vs word, the plaintiff or prosecution would, or at least should, win because one would have shown that one's word is not reliable.
When one is involved in a court case, there is discovery where each party is allowed to investigate and examine the other party, including the other party's private documents such as diaries, for evidence. The court can issue a subpoena for said private documents. Facebook and other social networking sites fall under "private documents".
I have no idea why everyone is surprised at this. It has been like this literally for centuries.
"So, you are claiming you lied to your friends and family, but told the truth to the plaintiff. Is that right? And, you are telling the truth now? If you are willing to lie to your friends and family about this, why should the court believe any of your testimony?"
Oh, look, another tin-foil hat wearing paranoid leftist. You and the idiot above immediately lose any credibility when you say "republicans are fascist". By claiming that Obama is center right, you show exactly how left you are. Now, shut the fuck up before you make an even greater fool of yourself.
Wow, you are a true tinfoil hat wearing paranoid, aren't you? You are so far left that pointing out how you are wrong would do no good what so ever.