In a roundabout way, you pay for the radio through listening to advertisements. (meaning, the advertisers pay for you to listen to the radio)
Passing the recording on to a third party would not be acceptable, if I understand the law correctly. I don't think your friend would be able to send it to you under fair use.
I'm not saying the law in this case is RIGHT, but I think this is the law.
Funny, there was an article in this month's Wired about companies that study P2P downloading and tell the record companies which tracks should be the next single to release off an album. Unfortunately, the article is not on the website yet (I don't think).
If someone who commits a murder goes to someone else and says, "Hey, I committed this murder," they haven't confessed? Especially if they, say, take out a newspaper ad to advertise the fact that they committed the murder? You don't think that might be a basis for a conviction? And civil court's not even 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
People who share files on P2P networks are advertising the fact that they are sharing files, plain and simple.
So if I photocopy a book in its entirety and start giving out copies, does that make it OK? At what point do we protect the rights of the producer of a good to make sure they are able to make a living off of it?
I know this point of view is unpopular here - but I don't believe in granting rights to people based on the amount of money they have, whether they have very little money or a ton of money and are looking to rake in more.
The RIAA can't issue criminal suits, they're not a law enforcement agency.
If this is really so unpopular, then no law enforcement agency is going to be willing to press charges on this - it would end up causing too much of a public outcry, and public outcry means elected officials' heads will roll. I don't care how much the RIAA bankrolls the politicians, candidates with a lot of money can still lose elections.
I'd be willing to bet the courts will throw illegally obtained evidence out. The courts aren't just there for the protection of the big bad companies, ya know. (Yeah, yeah, flame on on that)
There's no way to justify that stealing something is OK just because it's from a big bad company, sorry. Just because something is widespread doesn't make it morally right.
I don't admit anywhere publicly whether I pirate stuff or not;-)
But I can think of at least three people very quickly that I know that don't pirate software - and I know a few people that don't pirate anything that is not Microsoft.
Just because it's widespread doesn't mean it's morally right - don't try to fool yourself otherwise.
Wouldn't the date of the Act (1997) precede any of the commonly used file sharing programs? So file sharing was illegal prior to the invention of Napster, Grokster, Kazaa, etc, and therefore was illegal prior to widespread file sharing?
I find it hard to believe that anyone who is Net-aware enough to have heard of and use Kazaa is not Net-aware enough to have heard that file sharing is copyright infringement. Good God, it's been all over the news for years!
I am not familiar enough with the NET act to comment on it, but I don't see the relevance in what you stated above to copyright infringement.
The DMCA has nothing to do with this - anyone publishing their hard drive's contents on the web through a file sharing service has given up their right to privacy regarding the files they are advertising that they have.
What new law was passed that criminalized this behavior? Wasn't copyright infringement been illegal long before file sharing became popular?
The problem here is not new laws outlawing a common behavior, it is the common acceptance that breaking the law is OK. I worry about this, now that I have a kid - I am not sure how to explain to him that breaking some laws is OK but not others, that stealing is OK as long as you are only hurting some big faceless entity that charges too much for their stuff anyway.
I don't agree with the RIAA's tactics, I think they are going overboard, but I have chosen to respond by boycotting albums on record labels that are members of the RIAA. A specific band's music is not essential to my health and well-being, and there is plenty of music out there that is not owned by RIAA companies - and those companies I give my dollars to.
Exactly how does it differ? Can we really use the intent of the manufacturer to determine the legality of the product?
If I recall correctly, there was a suit a short time back being brought against one of the satellite companies because they were going after people who bought card programmers from websites that were advertising the use of the programmers to circumvent paying for the satellite service. Some of the people who the satellite companies were going after had bought the card programmers for perfectly legal business purposes - I think one of the people didn't even own a satellite dish. Does that make it OK for the satellite company to go after them?
Um, the US has a bunch more citizens than the number that voted in the last election. Look here.
According to these numbers, less than 20 percent of the population uses file sharing services - and I doubt that ALL of the people who use file sharing services use them for illegal purposes - either using them to transfer personal data, downloaded it and installed it but don't use it anymore, etc. I'd be really curious to know exactly how The Yankee Group established those statistics and who funded the study.
I don't think any new laws were passed to enable the RIAA to file copyright infringement suits, and I don't think the majority of citizens download pirated software/music. Could you site a source, please?
I hate to be a gomer here, but in this case I would still think it's the managers' fault - managers are responsible for enforcing workplace policies, whether it's 'get your job done' or 'follow the safety procedures'. If someone's not following safety procedures, they should be reprimanded or fired because they are posing a liability to themselves and others. Ultimately, management is responsible for everything that goes on in a workplace.
OTOH, I am not a sue-happy type person - I think most of the product liability suits these days should be thrown out of court. I think this case may be an exception, however, since it involves safety in the workplace. The real questions, I think, are:
1. Is there actual medical data to back up these claims? Is there some sort of proof that these people became sick (or sicker than they would have become) as a result of working at IBM?
2. When did IBM know about the hazards and what did they do to mitigate the hazards once they knew?
(I think there is still a certain amount of liability even if they didn't know, but I think punitive damages should only be sought if they knew and did nothing to mitigate the damage. Either way, if there is proof that something at IBM caused the medical problems, they should at least be liable for the medical bills.)
Whether a computer was involved or not, Cordell should have brought her kid in from the car before doing ANYTHING else. I don't care if you're unloading groceries, laundry, running to answer the phone, whatever, you don't leave a kid, especially that young, in a car unattended for any length of time - even long enough to run in to a convenience store - without running the risk of something bad happening, whether it's death or kidnapping or whatever.
Safety checks in the game wouldn't have mattered, the kid should have been brought in before the computer was even turned on.
Given the remarkable aplomb NYC seems to have handled this outage with, I think terrorists may be considering power grids LESS of a viable target. The residents just aren't reacting in a way that would encourage thinking that mass chaos would be triggered by a power outage (I'm talking about outside of the inconvenience of the outage itself).
I am proud of the reactions of the residents of the affected areas.
Slashdot Mirror
Try telling that to your waiter next time you eat out at a restaurant ;-)
In a roundabout way, you pay for the radio through listening to advertisements. (meaning, the advertisers pay for you to listen to the radio)
Passing the recording on to a third party would not be acceptable, if I understand the law correctly. I don't think your friend would be able to send it to you under fair use.
I'm not saying the law in this case is RIGHT, but I think this is the law.
Actually, the DMCA made it legal for the RIAA to obtain subpoenas this way. Icky, yes, illegal, no.
Funny, there was an article in this month's Wired about companies that study P2P downloading and tell the record companies which tracks should be the next single to release off an album. Unfortunately, the article is not on the website yet (I don't think).
If someone who commits a murder goes to someone else and says, "Hey, I committed this murder," they haven't confessed? Especially if they, say, take out a newspaper ad to advertise the fact that they committed the murder? You don't think that might be a basis for a conviction? And civil court's not even 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
People who share files on P2P networks are advertising the fact that they are sharing files, plain and simple.
So if I photocopy a book in its entirety and start giving out copies, does that make it OK? At what point do we protect the rights of the producer of a good to make sure they are able to make a living off of it?
I know this point of view is unpopular here - but I don't believe in granting rights to people based on the amount of money they have, whether they have very little money or a ton of money and are looking to rake in more.
The RIAA can't issue criminal suits, they're not a law enforcement agency.
If this is really so unpopular, then no law enforcement agency is going to be willing to press charges on this - it would end up causing too much of a public outcry, and public outcry means elected officials' heads will roll. I don't care how much the RIAA bankrolls the politicians, candidates with a lot of money can still lose elections.
I'd be willing to bet the courts will throw illegally obtained evidence out. The courts aren't just there for the protection of the big bad companies, ya know. (Yeah, yeah, flame on on that)
There's no way to justify that stealing something is OK just because it's from a big bad company, sorry. Just because something is widespread doesn't make it morally right.
I don't admit anywhere publicly whether I pirate stuff or not ;-)
But I can think of at least three people very quickly that I know that don't pirate software - and I know a few people that don't pirate anything that is not Microsoft.
Just because it's widespread doesn't mean it's morally right - don't try to fool yourself otherwise.
Wouldn't the date of the Act (1997) precede any of the commonly used file sharing programs? So file sharing was illegal prior to the invention of Napster, Grokster, Kazaa, etc, and therefore was illegal prior to widespread file sharing?
The Audio Home Recording Act only allows first-generation recordings - not making copies of copies of copies of copies. Look here.
The DMCA didn't outlaw making copies - it still allows fair use copies - see page 4 of this PDF.
I find it hard to believe that anyone who is Net-aware enough to have heard of and use Kazaa is not Net-aware enough to have heard that file sharing is copyright infringement. Good God, it's been all over the news for years!
I am not familiar enough with the NET act to comment on it, but I don't see the relevance in what you stated above to copyright infringement.
The DMCA has nothing to do with this - anyone publishing their hard drive's contents on the web through a file sharing service has given up their right to privacy regarding the files they are advertising that they have.
What new law was passed that criminalized this behavior? Wasn't copyright infringement been illegal long before file sharing became popular?
The problem here is not new laws outlawing a common behavior, it is the common acceptance that breaking the law is OK. I worry about this, now that I have a kid - I am not sure how to explain to him that breaking some laws is OK but not others, that stealing is OK as long as you are only hurting some big faceless entity that charges too much for their stuff anyway.
I don't agree with the RIAA's tactics, I think they are going overboard, but I have chosen to respond by boycotting albums on record labels that are members of the RIAA. A specific band's music is not essential to my health and well-being, and there is plenty of music out there that is not owned by RIAA companies - and those companies I give my dollars to.
Exactly how does it differ? Can we really use the intent of the manufacturer to determine the legality of the product?
If I recall correctly, there was a suit a short time back being brought against one of the satellite companies because they were going after people who bought card programmers from websites that were advertising the use of the programmers to circumvent paying for the satellite service. Some of the people who the satellite companies were going after had bought the card programmers for perfectly legal business purposes - I think one of the people didn't even own a satellite dish. Does that make it OK for the satellite company to go after them?
Um, the US has a bunch more citizens than the number that voted in the last election. Look here.
According to these numbers, less than 20 percent of the population uses file sharing services - and I doubt that ALL of the people who use file sharing services use them for illegal purposes - either using them to transfer personal data, downloaded it and installed it but don't use it anymore, etc. I'd be really curious to know exactly how The Yankee Group established those statistics and who funded the study.
So we should prosecute Ginsu when I stab you with my kitchen knife? Or maybe we should sue the company I bought the knife from?
I don't think any new laws were passed to enable the RIAA to file copyright infringement suits, and I don't think the majority of citizens download pirated software/music. Could you site a source, please?
And if you can, and the patches are free, does that mean that the OS is now free?
(Yeah, yeah, I know, the EULA says they're free if you have a legitimate copy of the OS, but it's still a nice pie-in-the sky...)
I hate to be a gomer here, but in this case I would still think it's the managers' fault - managers are responsible for enforcing workplace policies, whether it's 'get your job done' or 'follow the safety procedures'. If someone's not following safety procedures, they should be reprimanded or fired because they are posing a liability to themselves and others. Ultimately, management is responsible for everything that goes on in a workplace.
OTOH, I am not a sue-happy type person - I think most of the product liability suits these days should be thrown out of court. I think this case may be an exception, however, since it involves safety in the workplace. The real questions, I think, are:
1. Is there actual medical data to back up these claims? Is there some sort of proof that these people became sick (or sicker than they would have become) as a result of working at IBM?
2. When did IBM know about the hazards and what did they do to mitigate the hazards once they knew?
(I think there is still a certain amount of liability even if they didn't know, but I think punitive damages should only be sought if they knew and did nothing to mitigate the damage. Either way, if there is proof that something at IBM caused the medical problems, they should at least be liable for the medical bills.)
Disclaimer: IANAL, but...
Whether a computer was involved or not, Cordell should have brought her kid in from the car before doing ANYTHING else. I don't care if you're unloading groceries, laundry, running to answer the phone, whatever, you don't leave a kid, especially that young, in a car unattended for any length of time - even long enough to run in to a convenience store - without running the risk of something bad happening, whether it's death or kidnapping or whatever.
Safety checks in the game wouldn't have mattered, the kid should have been brought in before the computer was even turned on.
Nope, it's still there...on my infant son's liquid Benadryl.
Given the remarkable aplomb NYC seems to have handled this outage with, I think terrorists may be considering power grids LESS of a viable target. The residents just aren't reacting in a way that would encourage thinking that mass chaos would be triggered by a power outage (I'm talking about outside of the inconvenience of the outage itself).
I am proud of the reactions of the residents of the affected areas.
Please tell me they didn't spend a day, plus taking the computer to the repair shop, trying to get rid of little ole MSBlast....
</cringe>