Well, once a suit has been commenced, RIAA will have access to discovery procedures.
Basically they can subject your computer to forensic analysis (which is much better than people often think it is), and they can ask you under oath. That, combined with their logs -- which will in part be verified by the ISP -- all seem convincing.
Plus, they're a big industry association with a good reputation. You're just some guy, and are probably a music pirate. They have a lot to lose if they aren't straightforward, and copyright suits are so open-and-shut, especially factually, that there's not even a good reason for them to make it up.
On the whole, much as I dislike them, I'd generally be inclined to believe that RIAA's evidence was accurate, if the matter had progressed that far, unless some significant hole in it could be found.
There's a reason why so many people settle. Because they really did it, and they know (or are advised by counsel) that they stand no chance in court.
If I had a client in one of these matters who really hadn't done it, then it might be worthwhile to fight, but it doesn't make much sense to do so when they're right.
If only they were bringing trademark infringement suits or something, where it's not quite as plaintiff-friendly.
Were you to be making a copy of the records you own, the law seems to be pretty clear on that point - you're allowed to make a backup copy.
The law is not clear on this at all. But feel free to point to a relevant statute. 107 is your best bet, but is unclear. 108 is only for libraries, et al. 117 is only for software where you own a copy of it (EULAs interfere with this). 1008 has nothing to do with whether you own it, but requires special devices or media -- computer rips don't qualify.
Or did you purchase a license to a certain song and the vinyl was merely the distribution media?
This virtually never happens. EULAs in the computer realm are hotly disputed and pretty much limited to there. When you buy copies, as a rule, you just buy them. No license is involved. Hell, the idea of a use license is stupid in the extreme to begin with, and evokes Bobbs-Merril.
The record companies have recently become schizoid in their attitudes favoring one interpretation or the other depending on the restriction they're trying to put on you to make more money.
I have never heard of record companies suggesting that they license when they sell CDs, etc. I do hear a lot of people on the Internet misunderstanding copyright law to that effect, however.
That takes a fair amount of work.
Sweat of the brow is not a constitutional justification for copyright. Whether work is hard or easy makes no difference.
AHRA does not cover ripping to mp3. It only covers rips made through analog equipment or to analog media, or through certain specified digital equipment, or to certain specified digital media.
Computers, and hard disks in computers, do not qualify, per the Diamond case (which first set forth the theory of space shifting). Instead, you'd want consumer grade DAT, Minidisc, or Audio CDR (as distinguished from regular, cheaper, CDR).
Space shifting is a form of fair use, but downloading in order to avoid the burden of space shifting might not be looked on so favorably.
Here, all copyright suits can only be heard in federal court. RIAA would probably allege damages of $150,000 per work infringed. Plus court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
If you don't respond promptly, it is likely that a default judgment will be entered against you. If you don't pay, it isn't long before the local sheriff has seized and auctioned off your personal belongings, debts owed to you, your savings, your wages have been garnished, etc. in order to pay for the debt. It is possible to lose your house, car, etc. They do have a right to do this, by the way, if the proper process has been followed.
Depending on what the judgment is, you may or may not be able to discharge it in bankruptcy. If you cannot, you're stuck with it for life, or until you pay it off.
Ignoring a lawsuit brought against you is among the stupidest things you could do.
Because they only need a preponderance of evidence. That is, if it was marginally more likely that you did it, based on the IP log, than that someone else did it, it is proof that it was you.
Or to put it another way, if, based on the IP log, there is a 51% chance it was you, then that's proof it was you.
If a woman owns a gold mine from which is extracted $100,000 / year, it helps her on her deathbed to know that it will go to her daughters. The feeling evoked by owning the copyright to a perennially popular book will be quite similar.
The problem is that what if she owns a gold mine that is contaminated with radioactive waste -- nothing is likely to be extracted from it, it provides no profit, and is unlikely to in the future. That's what most creative works are like.
I see no reason to harm the public with a continuing copyright term if it provides no benefit for virtually all authors, and only benefits the authors who, most likely, have been making significant sums of money ever since they wrote the work.
To hell with their expectations.
We grant copyrights solely to promote the public interest. Not as a form of social welfare that is limited to highly successful authors. If you want to help support the children of authors, a much better, much more reliable, far more equitable, way to to do this is to encourage authors to get life insurance, and to provide benefits to everyone from the government in similar situations.
You're basically saying that if you win the lottery, we've got to give special treatment to your kids.
And remember, most authors never make a penny from their copyrights. Since copyrights are only supposed to be an incentive to get them to create, and are burdensome to the public, this is highly wasteful. It causes a big public harm with no corresponding good, since if the incentive is basically nil, the author evidently would've created the book anyway.
Similarly, a short copyright, if it would incentivize a work, means that longer ones are bad since they add no public good, but do result in a public harm. Terms should be as short as possible to incentivize the most works. We don't want to try to incentivize all works, since that would simply not be worth the cost. We want to avoid going into the realm of diminishing returns.
Plus, fixed terms are predictable. They let authors know their time is running out and that they need to take advantage of the work while they can (getting the work in the public eye is something we want to encourage), and allow competitors to have stability in structuring their business, so that they know on what date to start up the presses and to print out a copy of the then-public domain book. (getting the book in the public domain is something we want to encourage, especially if it helps bring down the price to commodity levels)
* Technically, the Constitution only allows protection for "useful arts", so by a strict interpretation, copyright protection for base entertainment like Star Wars is illegal.
See, you evidently don't know much about copyright law, or you wouldn't say this.
In 1789, when the Constitution was written, 'science' meant general knowledge, and 'the useful arts' meant applied technology.
This is why the structure of the clause goes: science/useful arts -- authors/inventors -- writings/discoveries.
Plus, you see remnants of the old meaning of arts: state of the art technology, patents only being granted if not anticipated by prior art, or if not obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. And why patents -- properly called utility patents, for what we're discussing -- require usefulness, while copyrights avoid protecting useful things all the time. (i.e. you can patent but not copyright a process; you can patent a machine, but not copyright its shape, etc.)
So you shouldn't oughta play at strict interpretation.
I didn't even know there were open and shut trademark cases. Have you gone through the Polaroid factors with regards to this case? Have you taken account of the fact that Apple's use of the mark is with regards to the name of a good, and TD's use of the mark is with regards to a service they provide?
Do you have any ideas as to how copyright and IP law can change to successfully deal with the kinds of technological metamorphosis we have come to take for granted?
I have some thoughts on copyright law, but I'm still developing them into a real proposal. They're not thought out enough yet, by far.
I have a few ideas regarding patent and trademark law as well, but my real passion and focus is copyright. What's really needed are a few more people with similar interest areas, for a wholesale reform. (I know trademark law, but it's not my thing; I avoid patent law whenever possible)
Of course, I develop my proposals solely in light of what I think would best serve the overall public interest. I don't bother trying to pander to industry groups at all, really, save where I think that their interests happily seem to be aligned in some way with what I'd propose anyway.
Given that it is industry that controls the world's copyright agenda, and virtually no attention is paid to the public interest, I have no expectation of my proposals ever actually accomplishing anything.
What they wanted to say, and what they actually wrote, are two different things.
Tell me about it. Nevertheless, courts will have the final say as to interpretation. They do not have to read it literally.
I often find that people here think of courts as being pretty dumb, in a Captain-Kirk-tricking-the-machine-into-self-destru cting sort of way.
It doesn't actually work like that. Judges are actually pretty smart -- quite possibly smarter than you or I -- and are equipped with paradox-absorbing crumple zones.
But feel free to put it to the test! I enjoy watching a good tragedy of hubris.
No, you can't. The music is different because he rerecords it. Al is not a good example for parody though, since he just gets permission, and doesn't rely on his rights.
A parody relies on taking material from the original in order to invoke it. A parody of something is pointless if you can't tell what it's a parody of.
Taking the music is part of the same deal as the lyrics -- you can't parody without it.
Of course, not all parodies are fair uses, but they frequently are, if they really are a parody, instead of just using the word like a talisman.
As for confusion, that's a trademark issue, not copyright. Plus you screwed it up: it's similar enough that the music, divorced from the lyrics, would be confusingly similar. But you have to view the parody as a whole, and as a whole, a parodic song isn't confusing generally.
You are reading the wrong part of the statute. You need to look at the four factors. They're what's determinative, not the preambular text.
This is evident if you even read what you quote:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
Given the plain language there, the examples are examples of fair use for the purpose of comment, for example.
Comment that was not a fair use is entirely possible as far as the statute is concerned.
So again, the four factors control. Given that the courts are unanimous on this, and they're not without some influence as to how things work out in the end, you might want to try again, with a proper analysis this time.
Trademarks cannot act as a quasi-copyright or quasi-patent. It is not unusual for trademarks on copyrighted works or patented inventions to be lost upon the expiration of the other rights. E.g. the Shredded Wheat case.
The trademark might last on shirts, but for entertainment services, books, movies, etc. a Mickey Mouse trademark would probably hit the public domain in a big way if the Steamboat Willy copyright ran out.
That would be a really bad idea. After all, most lawsuits are based in honest disputes. You'd be severely penalizing the loser for what might be mere bad luck, and not bad faith.
As another poster has noted, you're thinking of trademark issues, not copyright issues.
The four factors for copyright fair use (which parodies generally rely upon) are at 17 USC 106. From what it sounds as though the purported infringer here did, I think it would be a fair use, in that he was basically taking what he needed to in order to draw the associations for his parody, without providing a substitute for the original. (This is a gross summation of the real analysis, but I don't want to get into the nitty gritty)
Some of us have always wanted to live on or under a proper bridge.
Wait, are you saying you're a troll?;)
Do you really, truly disagree?
I think that you're misunderstanding me. I don't think that this is a good law, and I do think that copyright law needs radical reforms. But that doesn't mean I can't read the law as it stands now, and determine how a court will interpret and apply it, which is rather crucial if you're going to get dragged before one. Making passionate, even well-reasoned arguments, as you're doing, won't serve as an effective defense here. You're better off making policy arguments and getting Congress to make the appropriate changes in the law, than in trying to defend yourself, at least by pursuing these lines.
This is just critical assessment. Whether I'd prefer it to happen this way or not doesn't factor in to whether I think it's likely, any more than a meteorologist that wants a sunny day will delude himself when he sees obvious signs of rain.
The copyright holder can of course establish the proof by downloading from whoever they're targeting. But then since the copyright holder already has rights to the movie (duh), there is nothing wrong in giving a copy of the movie back to him. It's difficult to prove that the user is infringing only by virtue of having a copy of the copyrighted material either, as the grandparent post explained.
I assure you, that line of argument will not work. If the copyright holder, in an effort to root out copyright infringers, downloads his work from you, you're in trouble.
To achieve this, the copyright holder can either upload the file to the guy (entrapment)
That's not entrapment. Entrapment is when someone makes you do something illegal that you otherwise would not have done. But if you're a downloader, you likely don't much care who you download from; if it wasn't the copyright holder (in disguise) it would just be someone else. As you'd do it anyway, you weren't entrapped.
It's a lot like how it isn't entrapment for an undercover policeman to sell drugs to you. It's only entrapment if he makes you buy them, or puts a lot of pressure on you to buy them, and you would not have bought them from anyone otherwise.
Groups of lawyers are collectively known as a firm, not a cache. Horde is not inappropriate, however.
Cf. to the John Adams line in '1776': I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more are become a congress.
Incidentally, it sounds to me like you have dangerously few lawyers working for you. You should probably retain more.;)
Is there such a thing as legitimate download of copyrighted material?
Yes.
For a copyrighted work, downloading it is legitimate if it is done 1) by the copyright holder, 2) with the authorization, express or implied, of the copyright holder, 3) in a manner that is not infringing pursuant to relevant law.
For example, most of the content of this web page is copyrighted, but it's pretty certainly not illegal to download it, at least not to read it.
For instance, if I own a DVD, would I be within my rights to go and download a rip of that dvd?
Maybe. But likely not, and you'd want to be carful to just download, and not do something else in the process.
If so, doesn't it become very difficult for authorities to prove who is and is not violating copyright by downloading from services like Bit Torrent?
No. Usually it is extremely easy to successfully claim copyright infringement. Defendants in an infringement case have a very hard time. Plaintiffs have it pretty easy.
Also, Bit Torrent downloads and uploads simultaneously, and these are two different kinds of infringement, and what serves as a justification or excuse for one might not for the other.
In which case, they end up being jointly and severally liable, and the Romans kill everyone, counting on the rebellious slaves to sort it out amongst themselves later.
Shorter terms are also part of the proposal. But generally, I would reduce the scope of copyright in pretty much all particulars. My goal is to maximize the public benefit of the copyright system.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, once a suit has been commenced, RIAA will have access to discovery procedures.
Basically they can subject your computer to forensic analysis (which is much better than people often think it is), and they can ask you under oath. That, combined with their logs -- which will in part be verified by the ISP -- all seem convincing.
Plus, they're a big industry association with a good reputation. You're just some guy, and are probably a music pirate. They have a lot to lose if they aren't straightforward, and copyright suits are so open-and-shut, especially factually, that there's not even a good reason for them to make it up.
On the whole, much as I dislike them, I'd generally be inclined to believe that RIAA's evidence was accurate, if the matter had progressed that far, unless some significant hole in it could be found.
There's a reason why so many people settle. Because they really did it, and they know (or are advised by counsel) that they stand no chance in court.
If I had a client in one of these matters who really hadn't done it, then it might be worthwhile to fight, but it doesn't make much sense to do so when they're right.
If only they were bringing trademark infringement suits or something, where it's not quite as plaintiff-friendly.
Were you to be making a copy of the records you own, the law seems to be pretty clear on that point - you're allowed to make a backup copy.
The law is not clear on this at all. But feel free to point to a relevant statute. 107 is your best bet, but is unclear. 108 is only for libraries, et al. 117 is only for software where you own a copy of it (EULAs interfere with this). 1008 has nothing to do with whether you own it, but requires special devices or media -- computer rips don't qualify.
Or did you purchase a license to a certain song and the vinyl was merely the distribution media?
This virtually never happens. EULAs in the computer realm are hotly disputed and pretty much limited to there. When you buy copies, as a rule, you just buy them. No license is involved. Hell, the idea of a use license is stupid in the extreme to begin with, and evokes Bobbs-Merril.
The record companies have recently become schizoid in their attitudes favoring one interpretation or the other depending on the restriction they're trying to put on you to make more money.
I have never heard of record companies suggesting that they license when they sell CDs, etc. I do hear a lot of people on the Internet misunderstanding copyright law to that effect, however.
That takes a fair amount of work.
Sweat of the brow is not a constitutional justification for copyright. Whether work is hard or easy makes no difference.
AHRA does not cover ripping to mp3. It only covers rips made through analog equipment or to analog media, or through certain specified digital equipment, or to certain specified digital media.
Computers, and hard disks in computers, do not qualify, per the Diamond case (which first set forth the theory of space shifting). Instead, you'd want consumer grade DAT, Minidisc, or Audio CDR (as distinguished from regular, cheaper, CDR).
Space shifting is a form of fair use, but downloading in order to avoid the burden of space shifting might not be looked on so favorably.
Well, it wouldn't shake out that way in the US.
Here, all copyright suits can only be heard in federal court. RIAA would probably allege damages of $150,000 per work infringed. Plus court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
If you don't respond promptly, it is likely that a default judgment will be entered against you. If you don't pay, it isn't long before the local sheriff has seized and auctioned off your personal belongings, debts owed to you, your savings, your wages have been garnished, etc. in order to pay for the debt. It is possible to lose your house, car, etc. They do have a right to do this, by the way, if the proper process has been followed.
Depending on what the judgment is, you may or may not be able to discharge it in bankruptcy. If you cannot, you're stuck with it for life, or until you pay it off.
Ignoring a lawsuit brought against you is among the stupidest things you could do.
Because they only need a preponderance of evidence. That is, if it was marginally more likely that you did it, based on the IP log, than that someone else did it, it is proof that it was you.
Or to put it another way, if, based on the IP log, there is a 51% chance it was you, then that's proof it was you.
Absolute proof is not required.
If a woman owns a gold mine from which is extracted $100,000 / year, it helps her on her deathbed to know that it will go to her daughters. The feeling evoked by owning the copyright to a perennially popular book will be quite similar.
The problem is that what if she owns a gold mine that is contaminated with radioactive waste -- nothing is likely to be extracted from it, it provides no profit, and is unlikely to in the future. That's what most creative works are like.
I see no reason to harm the public with a continuing copyright term if it provides no benefit for virtually all authors, and only benefits the authors who, most likely, have been making significant sums of money ever since they wrote the work.
To hell with their expectations.
We grant copyrights solely to promote the public interest. Not as a form of social welfare that is limited to highly successful authors. If you want to help support the children of authors, a much better, much more reliable, far more equitable, way to to do this is to encourage authors to get life insurance, and to provide benefits to everyone from the government in similar situations.
You're basically saying that if you win the lottery, we've got to give special treatment to your kids.
And remember, most authors never make a penny from their copyrights. Since copyrights are only supposed to be an incentive to get them to create, and are burdensome to the public, this is highly wasteful. It causes a big public harm with no corresponding good, since if the incentive is basically nil, the author evidently would've created the book anyway.
Similarly, a short copyright, if it would incentivize a work, means that longer ones are bad since they add no public good, but do result in a public harm. Terms should be as short as possible to incentivize the most works. We don't want to try to incentivize all works, since that would simply not be worth the cost. We want to avoid going into the realm of diminishing returns.
Plus, fixed terms are predictable. They let authors know their time is running out and that they need to take advantage of the work while they can (getting the work in the public eye is something we want to encourage), and allow competitors to have stability in structuring their business, so that they know on what date to start up the presses and to print out a copy of the then-public domain book. (getting the book in the public domain is something we want to encourage, especially if it helps bring down the price to commodity levels)
* Technically, the Constitution only allows protection for "useful arts", so by a strict interpretation, copyright protection for base entertainment like Star Wars is illegal.
See, you evidently don't know much about copyright law, or you wouldn't say this.
In 1789, when the Constitution was written, 'science' meant general knowledge, and 'the useful arts' meant applied technology.
This is why the structure of the clause goes:
science/useful arts -- authors/inventors -- writings/discoveries.
Plus, you see remnants of the old meaning of arts: state of the art technology, patents only being granted if not anticipated by prior art, or if not obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. And why patents -- properly called utility patents, for what we're discussing -- require usefulness, while copyrights avoid protecting useful things all the time. (i.e. you can patent but not copyright a process; you can patent a machine, but not copyright its shape, etc.)
So you shouldn't oughta play at strict interpretation.
I didn't even know there were open and shut trademark cases. Have you gone through the Polaroid factors with regards to this case? Have you taken account of the fact that Apple's use of the mark is with regards to the name of a good, and TD's use of the mark is with regards to a service they provide?
Well just hop a flight. It worked for Dmitry Skylarov!
Do you have any ideas as to how copyright and IP law can change to successfully deal with the kinds of technological metamorphosis we have come to take for granted?
I have some thoughts on copyright law, but I'm still developing them into a real proposal. They're not thought out enough yet, by far.
I have a few ideas regarding patent and trademark law as well, but my real passion and focus is copyright. What's really needed are a few more people with similar interest areas, for a wholesale reform. (I know trademark law, but it's not my thing; I avoid patent law whenever possible)
Of course, I develop my proposals solely in light of what I think would best serve the overall public interest. I don't bother trying to pander to industry groups at all, really, save where I think that their interests happily seem to be aligned in some way with what I'd propose anyway.
Given that it is industry that controls the world's copyright agenda, and virtually no attention is paid to the public interest, I have no expectation of my proposals ever actually accomplishing anything.
What they wanted to say, and what they actually wrote, are two different things.
u cting sort of way.
Tell me about it. Nevertheless, courts will have the final say as to interpretation. They do not have to read it literally.
I often find that people here think of courts as being pretty dumb, in a Captain-Kirk-tricking-the-machine-into-self-destr
It doesn't actually work like that. Judges are actually pretty smart -- quite possibly smarter than you or I -- and are equipped with paradox-absorbing crumple zones.
But feel free to put it to the test! I enjoy watching a good tragedy of hubris.
No, you can't. The music is different because he rerecords it. Al is not a good example for parody though, since he just gets permission, and doesn't rely on his rights.
A parody relies on taking material from the original in order to invoke it. A parody of something is pointless if you can't tell what it's a parody of.
Taking the music is part of the same deal as the lyrics -- you can't parody without it.
Of course, not all parodies are fair uses, but they frequently are, if they really are a parody, instead of just using the word like a talisman.
As for confusion, that's a trademark issue, not copyright. Plus you screwed it up: it's similar enough that the music, divorced from the lyrics, would be confusingly similar. But you have to view the parody as a whole, and as a whole, a parodic song isn't confusing generally.
I swear, it's just amateur hour in here today.
You are reading the wrong part of the statute. You need to look at the four factors. They're what's determinative, not the preambular text.
This is evident if you even read what you quote:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
Given the plain language there, the examples are examples of fair use for the purpose of comment, for example.
Comment that was not a fair use is entirely possible as far as the statute is concerned.
So again, the four factors control. Given that the courts are unanimous on this, and they're not without some influence as to how things work out in the end, you might want to try again, with a proper analysis this time.
Actually this is not all that clear.
Trademarks cannot act as a quasi-copyright or quasi-patent. It is not unusual for trademarks on copyrighted works or patented inventions to be lost upon the expiration of the other rights. E.g. the Shredded Wheat case.
The trademark might last on shirts, but for entertainment services, books, movies, etc. a Mickey Mouse trademark would probably hit the public domain in a big way if the Steamboat Willy copyright ran out.
Those are examples of what might be fair use, but they're just illustrative. Nothing says that criticism is always fair.
The four factors enumerated in the statute are the important part. You need to read the language written there more carefully.
That would be a really bad idea. After all, most lawsuits are based in honest disputes. You'd be severely penalizing the loser for what might be mere bad luck, and not bad faith.
Trade you. ;)
As another poster has noted, you're thinking of trademark issues, not copyright issues.
The four factors for copyright fair use (which parodies generally rely upon) are at 17 USC 106. From what it sounds as though the purported infringer here did, I think it would be a fair use, in that he was basically taking what he needed to in order to draw the associations for his parody, without providing a substitute for the original. (This is a gross summation of the real analysis, but I don't want to get into the nitty gritty)
Some of us have always wanted to live on or under a proper bridge.
;)
Wait, are you saying you're a troll?
Do you really, truly disagree?
I think that you're misunderstanding me. I don't think that this is a good law, and I do think that copyright law needs radical reforms. But that doesn't mean I can't read the law as it stands now, and determine how a court will interpret and apply it, which is rather crucial if you're going to get dragged before one. Making passionate, even well-reasoned arguments, as you're doing, won't serve as an effective defense here. You're better off making policy arguments and getting Congress to make the appropriate changes in the law, than in trying to defend yourself, at least by pursuing these lines.
This is just critical assessment. Whether I'd prefer it to happen this way or not doesn't factor in to whether I think it's likely, any more than a meteorologist that wants a sunny day will delude himself when he sees obvious signs of rain.
I think that the type of commercial distribution envisioned by the statute is that conducted by, or under the authorization of, the copyright holder.
Not that of infringers.
I will bet money that a court would interpret the statute in this fashion. (Though it'll probably be a year or two before that happens, at a minimum)
The copyright holder can of course establish the proof by downloading from whoever they're targeting. But then since the copyright holder already has rights to the movie (duh), there is nothing wrong in giving a copy of the movie back to him. It's difficult to prove that the user is infringing only by virtue of having a copy of the copyrighted material either, as the grandparent post explained.
I assure you, that line of argument will not work. If the copyright holder, in an effort to root out copyright infringers, downloads his work from you, you're in trouble.
To achieve this, the copyright holder can either upload the file to the guy (entrapment)
That's not entrapment. Entrapment is when someone makes you do something illegal that you otherwise would not have done. But if you're a downloader, you likely don't much care who you download from; if it wasn't the copyright holder (in disguise) it would just be someone else. As you'd do it anyway, you weren't entrapped.
It's a lot like how it isn't entrapment for an undercover policeman to sell drugs to you. It's only entrapment if he makes you buy them, or puts a lot of pressure on you to buy them, and you would not have bought them from anyone otherwise.
Your mistake is a pretty common one.
Groups of lawyers are collectively known as a firm, not a cache. Horde is not inappropriate, however.
;)
Cf. to the John Adams line in '1776': I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more are become a congress.
Incidentally, it sounds to me like you have dangerously few lawyers working for you. You should probably retain more.
Is there such a thing as legitimate download of copyrighted material?
Yes.
For a copyrighted work, downloading it is legitimate if it is done 1) by the copyright holder, 2) with the authorization, express or implied, of the copyright holder, 3) in a manner that is not infringing pursuant to relevant law.
For example, most of the content of this web page is copyrighted, but it's pretty certainly not illegal to download it, at least not to read it.
For instance, if I own a DVD, would I be within my rights to go and download a rip of that dvd?
Maybe. But likely not, and you'd want to be carful to just download, and not do something else in the process.
If so, doesn't it become very difficult for authorities to prove who is and is not violating copyright by downloading from services like Bit Torrent?
No. Usually it is extremely easy to successfully claim copyright infringement. Defendants in an infringement case have a very hard time. Plaintiffs have it pretty easy.
Also, Bit Torrent downloads and uploads simultaneously, and these are two different kinds of infringement, and what serves as a justification or excuse for one might not for the other.
In which case, they end up being jointly and severally liable, and the Romans kill everyone, counting on the rebellious slaves to sort it out amongst themselves later.
And if you think that argument will work, I'm willing to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, and throw in the Holland Tunnel for free.
Shorter terms are also part of the proposal. But generally, I would reduce the scope of copyright in pretty much all particulars. My goal is to maximize the public benefit of the copyright system.