1 + 1 = 2 is not an argument. It is a literal fact. "fish" is not an argument.
I was going to make a quick comment but have decided to correct your misconceptions.
Yes, it is possible to come to the correct conclusion using faulty logic, but it is very unlikely and it would only matter if both parties agreed on the conclusion. However, in this case, we do not. You agree with him, so to you it does not matter that his reasoning faulty, but to me, who does not agree with his conclusion, it matters a great deal.
Consider:
All As are Bs
All Cs are Bs
Are all As Cs?
Now, if one knows all As are in fact Cs, using just the facts above and coming to the conclusion that all As are Cs is OK even if the reasoning is false (Bs may contain to non-overlapping sets of items, As and Cs). But, if one does not know or believe that all As are Cs, then the reasoning if false and the conclusion is unsupported. There is no reason to believe from the evidence given that all As are Cs.
In this case, the poster made a statement and backed it up with fallacies. I do not agree with his statement and showed him why I do not agree with him.
A fallacious argument does not support its conclusion. As the conclusion is in question, there is no reason to believe his conclusion.
However, whether the copying was fair use or not is not the student's call but rather it is the court's call. This is the real world, not grade school. That is the whole point of the suit. One does not call "Fair use" and all is well. One must prove fair use before the court.
Do you even know what the law says? It says 70 years after the death of the author or, if a work for hire, 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter.
That sounds like a long but limited time to me. Or, do you use some other definition for unlimited which means "A time I think is short enough"?
In other words, the only time was during the time all laws were being set up and ironed out. Yes, the United States of American and all its laws did not spring into existence fully formed and complete. It did take a little time. But, once the law was set, it was set.
an improper argument does not imply its results are wrong.
A fallacious argument DOES imply that the results are wrong. Suggesting otherwise is foolishness.
We have the right to peaceful assembly, and last time I checked that didn't come with a clause saying "monitored by the government" after it.
Show me where is says that government monitoring of such peaceful assembly is absolutely prohibited.
Try just living at home. Want to walk from the shower to the bedroom naked? Don't, someone could be looking in your windows and press charges, and you could be classified as a sexual predator and the rest of your life is ruined.
That is false.
Have you ever actually tried to walk around and find a place where you could not be seen by cameras?
It is not hard where I live or where my family lives. Maybe you are just paranoid.
The standards for searches are practically non-existent, illegally obtained evidence is always used, and your local municipality can tell you what brand of toothpaste you are allowed to buy.
I have not lived a life time? Please, tell me how old I am as you seem to know. Please tell me what I do and do not know and what I have and have not seen, as you seem to think you know.
Please tell me how long a lifetime you have lived and we shall see.
Apparently you don't know the difference between prosecuted and persecuted. IP addresses can change and be spoofed, but logs contain a record of who acquired an IP address when and spoofed IP addresses make sustained bidirectional communication difficult. Anyone who knows anything about networking knows this to be true.
Also, you apparently don't know the difference between a trial and a penalty.
It is amusing that you decry that having lots of money means one can win through extended litigation. As near as I can tell, that is the way it is anywhere there are free-market lawyers.
If one offers something for free to anyone over the internet, one has no expectation of privacy. It is not extortion when one is defending their legally granted rights.
Please tell us where you are as you admit you are not an American and obviously have no understanding of many, if not all, legal systems.
That is a bald-faced lie. It is, in fact, limited by law to "70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a work for hire (e.g., those created by a corporation) then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication". That is in no way unlimited.
Please show where in American history there was a time when people were free to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. Remember, if there is N copies of a work in existence authorized by the copyright holder and an action occurs without the copyright holders consent after which there are N+1 copies then copying has taken place and unless it falls under fair use, which is for a court to decide, then it is copyright infringement.
Please explain how this person is not getting a fair trial.
Please explain where in U.S. law it says one has an absolute right to privacy that can not be violate, at all, ever.
One other thing, fair use is a defense and the court gets to decide whether it is a valid defense. It is not, however, a reason to quash the subpoena because whether it falls under fair use is the question the court must decide.
He is not saying "I didn't do it, it wasn't me". He is saying "I don't want them to know who I am because I think I have a right to privacy and anonymity" and "I had a valid fair use right to do it anyway."
And, he is not using this as a defense against the suit. He is using it as part of a motion to quash the subpoena.
Unfortunately, this is not about political discourse. This is about copyright law and civil litigation of same. The right to anonymous speech is not absolute, even in "democratic discourse" and political speech, ex: Someone states he is going to kill the President. In this case, a person is accused of violating the copyrights held by a different "person". That is not "democratic discourse" anymore than threatening or expressing a will to kill a government official.
In other words, it does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, and thus is not an absolute right and so this guy's argument about having a "First Amendment right to privacy" is bullshit.
I am not quite sure about the last bit of your post, but if I am reading it right, you are asking for a catch-22 involving all civil suits and subpoenas.
The purpose of the subpoena is to gather evidence in a case, but you want the case to be proved before the subpoena is served. If the case is proved, then the subpoena is not necessary, but if the case is not proved you don't want them to be able to get a subpoena to gather evidence to prove the case.
This would be a double-edged sword because then if one wished to sue a company, one would have to prove the case against the company before getting a subpoena to get evidence against the company.
Article 1 Section 8 "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Article 3 Section 1 "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
USC 28A Rule 45 is the law concerning subpoenas in civil trials, which this case is.
As the making of copyright law is a power of Congress, the power to make law concerning copyright law is delegated to the federal government and not the states.
You have failed on multiple levels.
Now, please post the article and section of the Constitution of the United States where it says that you have an absolute right to privacy and anonymity.
Except that in choosing to claim he may have had a fair use right to "share" the songs on the computer, he has admitted he was the person behind the IP address who had the songs on his computer.
One does not have an absolute constitutional right to privacy or anonymity, especially when interacting with in public space, such as on the internet. You might not want your identity made available, but all it takes is a subpoena to get it. Seeing as the RIAA is suing those they believe are violating their copyrights, they have a valid reason to request the subpoena, namely to properly name the defendant. "I don't want them to sue me because I don't think I did anything wrong" is not a valid reason to quash a subpoena because no one wants to be sued and the suit in question is about whether one did something wrong. The fact that it involves the Internet doesn't matter either. If plaintiff had your University parking pass number, do you think the court would refuse to allow a subpoena to get your name from the University?
Giving away or selling unauthorized copies of a work, be they physical or electronic, is not fair use. It really is as simple as that. Just because it is effectively free to make and give those copies away doesn't make doing it fair use. Just because you made no money making and giving the copies away don't make it fair use. Just because you are a poor college student using a university network, doesn't make it fair use. Whether or not making the copies is fair use is for the court to decide, not the respondent.
He may as well have said, literally, "I don't want them to have my name because I don't want to be sued and I don't think I did anything wrong."
Every time one uses either or both of these arguments, you look like a selfish, childish asshole.
it begins to explain why so many innocent people are rotting away in prisons today.
Please provide the number of "innocent people are rotting away in prisons" and the percentage of the same as to the whole prison population. Remember, pretty much everyone in prison claims to be innocent, even those who have been convicted of rape because their DNA was present INSIDE the victim.
If a jury isn't allowed to make informed decisions over every aspect of the evidence (including moral turpitude and actual intent) an not just the exact letter of the law
One can claim their intent was benign, but that doesn't mean that their actions were legal or even moral. A man who killed a doctor who provides late term abortions stated his intent was to save the lives of babies. In this case, Childs stated his intent was one thing, but his actions showed they were another. Also, please define "informed", because I want to know if your definition of "informed" includes being told things that are misleading at best and outright lies at worst. Do you believe that questionable claims should be allowed as testimony?
When the juror said that the jury is told exactly how they are allowed or not allowed to apply the letter of the law, that make me wonder why we have a jury at all.
So, you think it is wrong for an expert (the judge) to instruct laymen what the law says and how they need to consider it, right? Interesting concept you have there. So, you would have no problem with a jury finding someone guilty of murder because the shooter claimed he was defending himself when he shot his victim in the back after said victim mugged the shooter, because that could be considered self-defense because the dead man could have gone to the shooter's house or may have mugged someone else. (Yes, I have seen that reasoning used). The fact is most people do not know or understand the law and need instructions on how to apply it while on a jury. Otherwise, one ends up with different people on the same jury using their own (mis)interpretations of the law. Until we have professional juries who are provided with an education in the law via university, etc., there will have jury instruction.
I have to agree and wonder about what 'The Deacon' said in that the jury is the last line of defense
They are, in a way. First and foremost, the jury is supposed to be impartial, so as to provide the defendant a fair hearing. The jury can also decide the evidence does not meet the criteria of "beyond a reasonable doubt", especially if they do not trust the police and/or prosecution. The jury, if it decides a law is unjust, can vote to acquit. But, the jury must understand what the law is and how it applies and must not be led astray by its emotions, apathy, or influence by sources that are less than trustworthy. That is why jurors are not supposed to watch the news or read reports on the crime or trial, so as not to bias the jury against the defendant or the prosecution.
The "American Jury Institute"? Is that really what you want to throw out?
What a crock of shit. A bunch of people out to get criminals off by trying the law instead of the criminal. They and you are a group who deserve to be the victims of crimes.
Slashdot Mirror
1 + 1 = 2 is not an argument. It is a literal fact.
"fish" is not an argument.
I was going to make a quick comment but have decided to correct your misconceptions.
Yes, it is possible to come to the correct conclusion using faulty logic, but it is very unlikely and it would only matter if both parties agreed on the conclusion. However, in this case, we do not. You agree with him, so to you it does not matter that his reasoning faulty, but to me, who does not agree with his conclusion, it matters a great deal.
Consider:
Now, if one knows all As are in fact Cs, using just the facts above and coming to the conclusion that all As are Cs is OK even if the reasoning is false (Bs may contain to non-overlapping sets of items, As and Cs). But, if one does not know or believe that all As are Cs, then the reasoning if false and the conclusion is unsupported. There is no reason to believe from the evidence given that all As are Cs.
In this case, the poster made a statement and backed it up with fallacies. I do not agree with his statement and showed him why I do not agree with him.
A fallacious argument does not support its conclusion. As the conclusion is in question, there is no reason to believe his conclusion.
However, whether the copying was fair use or not is not the student's call but rather it is the court's call. This is the real world, not grade school. That is the whole point of the suit. One does not call "Fair use" and all is well. One must prove fair use before the court.
Do you even know what the law says? It says 70 years after the death of the author or, if a work for hire, 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter.
That sounds like a long but limited time to me. Or, do you use some other definition for unlimited which means "A time I think is short enough"?
In other words, there is not explicit or inferred absolute right to privacy.
Thanks for playing.
There is an inferred right to privacy, but it is not an absolute right to privacy. There is a big difference and that is my point.
In other words, the only time was during the time all laws were being set up and ironed out. Yes, the United States of American and all its laws did not spring into existence fully formed and complete. It did take a little time. But, once the law was set, it was set.
What, exactly, have YOU done to do any of the above? What exactly have you done to take personal responsibility for the system and to fix the system?
A fallacious argument DOES imply that the results are wrong. Suggesting otherwise is foolishness.
Show me where is says that government monitoring of such peaceful assembly is absolutely prohibited.
That is false.
It is not hard where I live or where my family lives. Maybe you are just paranoid.
Citations needed.
I have not lived a life time? Please, tell me how old I am as you seem to know. Please tell me what I do and do not know and what I have and have not seen, as you seem to think you know.
Please tell me how long a lifetime you have lived and we shall see.
Apparently you don't know the difference between prosecuted and persecuted. IP addresses can change and be spoofed, but logs contain a record of who acquired an IP address when and spoofed IP addresses make sustained bidirectional communication difficult. Anyone who knows anything about networking knows this to be true.
Also, you apparently don't know the difference between a trial and a penalty.
It is amusing that you decry that having lots of money means one can win through extended litigation. As near as I can tell, that is the way it is anywhere there are free-market lawyers.
If one offers something for free to anyone over the internet, one has no expectation of privacy. It is not extortion when one is defending their legally granted rights.
Please tell us where you are as you admit you are not an American and obviously have no understanding of many, if not all, legal systems.
That is a bald-faced lie. It is, in fact, limited by law to "70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a work for hire (e.g., those created by a corporation) then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication". That is in no way unlimited.
Please show where in American history there was a time when people were free to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. Remember, if there is N copies of a work in existence authorized by the copyright holder and an action occurs without the copyright holders consent after which there are N+1 copies then copying has taken place and unless it falls under fair use, which is for a court to decide, then it is copyright infringement.
Please explain how this person is not getting a fair trial.
Please explain where in U.S. law it says one has an absolute right to privacy that can not be violate, at all, ever.
One other thing, fair use is a defense and the court gets to decide whether it is a valid defense. It is not, however, a reason to quash the subpoena because whether it falls under fair use is the question the court must decide.
He is not saying "I didn't do it, it wasn't me". He is saying "I don't want them to know who I am because I think I have a right to privacy and anonymity" and "I had a valid fair use right to do it anyway."
And, he is not using this as a defense against the suit. He is using it as part of a motion to quash the subpoena.
You fail at your argument because you are using false dichotomy, slippery slope, appeal to emotion, and appeal to fear. It is just one big fallacy.
Unfortunately, this is not about political discourse. This is about copyright law and civil litigation of same. The right to anonymous speech is not absolute, even in "democratic discourse" and political speech, ex: Someone states he is going to kill the President. In this case, a person is accused of violating the copyrights held by a different "person". That is not "democratic discourse" anymore than threatening or expressing a will to kill a government official.
In other words, it does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, and thus is not an absolute right and so this guy's argument about having a "First Amendment right to privacy" is bullshit.
I am not quite sure about the last bit of your post, but if I am reading it right, you are asking for a catch-22 involving all civil suits and subpoenas.
The purpose of the subpoena is to gather evidence in a case, but you want the case to be proved before the subpoena is served. If the case is proved, then the subpoena is not necessary, but if the case is not proved you don't want them to be able to get a subpoena to gather evidence to prove the case.
This would be a double-edged sword because then if one wished to sue a company, one would have to prove the case against the company before getting a subpoena to get evidence against the company.
Article 1 Section 8 "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Article 3 Section 1 "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
USC 28A Rule 45 is the law concerning subpoenas in civil trials, which this case is.
As the making of copyright law is a power of Congress, the power to make law concerning copyright law is delegated to the federal government and not the states.
You have failed on multiple levels.
Now, please post the article and section of the Constitution of the United States where it says that you have an absolute right to privacy and anonymity.
You do that and let me know how that works out for you, m'kay?
Except that in choosing to claim he may have had a fair use right to "share" the songs on the computer, he has admitted he was the person behind the IP address who had the songs on his computer.
One does not have an absolute constitutional right to privacy or anonymity, especially when interacting with in public space, such as on the internet. You might not want your identity made available, but all it takes is a subpoena to get it. Seeing as the RIAA is suing those they believe are violating their copyrights, they have a valid reason to request the subpoena, namely to properly name the defendant. "I don't want them to sue me because I don't think I did anything wrong" is not a valid reason to quash a subpoena because no one wants to be sued and the suit in question is about whether one did something wrong. The fact that it involves the Internet doesn't matter either. If plaintiff had your University parking pass number, do you think the court would refuse to allow a subpoena to get your name from the University?
Giving away or selling unauthorized copies of a work, be they physical or electronic, is not fair use. It really is as simple as that. Just because it is effectively free to make and give those copies away doesn't make doing it fair use. Just because you made no money making and giving the copies away don't make it fair use. Just because you are a poor college student using a university network, doesn't make it fair use. Whether or not making the copies is fair use is for the court to decide, not the respondent.
He may as well have said, literally, "I don't want them to have my name because I don't want to be sued and I don't think I did anything wrong."
Every time one uses either or both of these arguments, you look like a selfish, childish asshole.
Ok, I am going to work this backwards.
Please provide the number of "innocent people are rotting away in prisons" and the percentage of the same as to the whole prison population. Remember, pretty much everyone in prison claims to be innocent, even those who have been convicted of rape because their DNA was present INSIDE the victim.
One can claim their intent was benign, but that doesn't mean that their actions were legal or even moral. A man who killed a doctor who provides late term abortions stated his intent was to save the lives of babies. In this case, Childs stated his intent was one thing, but his actions showed they were another. Also, please define "informed", because I want to know if your definition of "informed" includes being told things that are misleading at best and outright lies at worst. Do you believe that questionable claims should be allowed as testimony?
So, you think it is wrong for an expert (the judge) to instruct laymen what the law says and how they need to consider it, right? Interesting concept you have there. So, you would have no problem with a jury finding someone guilty of murder because the shooter claimed he was defending himself when he shot his victim in the back after said victim mugged the shooter, because that could be considered self-defense because the dead man could have gone to the shooter's house or may have mugged someone else. (Yes, I have seen that reasoning used). The fact is most people do not know or understand the law and need instructions on how to apply it while on a jury. Otherwise, one ends up with different people on the same jury using their own (mis)interpretations of the law. Until we have professional juries who are provided with an education in the law via university, etc., there will have jury instruction.
They are, in a way. First and foremost, the jury is supposed to be impartial, so as to provide the defendant a fair hearing. The jury can also decide the evidence does not meet the criteria of "beyond a reasonable doubt", especially if they do not trust the police and/or prosecution. The jury, if it decides a law is unjust, can vote to acquit. But, the jury must understand what the law is and how it applies and must not be led astray by its emotions, apathy, or influence by sources that are less than trustworthy. That is why jurors are not supposed to watch the news or read reports on the crime or trial, so as not to bias the jury against the defendant or the prosecution.
He intended to prevent access. In this case, the harm was the prevention of access. Therefore, he intended to do harm, QED.
The "American Jury Institute"? Is that really what you want to throw out?
What a crock of shit. A bunch of people out to get criminals off by trying the law instead of the criminal. They and you are a group who deserve to be the victims of crimes.