The 'reasonable penalties' is the part I'm concerned about. If you look at the laws (all 50 million different ones) it looks like "up to $25,000 per copyright infringement" and "up to 2 years in jail".
Hard to say what they want to hand out. Will it be sliding scale? 50GB of music gets you $12,000 fine. 200GB of music gets you Man-1...err..I mean 2 years in jail. 300GB of music gets you murder....umm... I mean Class E felony + 3 years in jail + $20,000 fine.
You know, I would love to. But when they "incorrectly" seize my computers and throw me in jail, they'll find the 700GB of mp3's that isn't random noise.
You can get 160GB drives now for $99 - $120. That's breaking the $1/GB mark. So as long as you've got the slots or cards, you can easily get to 1/2 a TB without too much coin. Depends on what's important to you--plus the longer you wait, the cheaper it'll get.
Read the s.671 anyway, and nothing more than a semicolon and a sentence about Uruguay was added, even in the "PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS" section.
Please be more specific. Also curious how the heck you found out about it (if there is an 'it')
I'm surprised the number of people here actually rooting for Walmart. Walmart can survive without the dvd rental business (it has for years). Netflix--that's all there is. Walmart is getting into it just like Microsoft got into the web browser business.
Jon Katz? Does he still write articles. It must be a good 2 years since I've had the displeasure. Maybe I had filtered him out, although I doubt it since I did enjoy reading the flames. Maybe he's just admitted that he's not 16 anymore.
Correct, you are not allowed to distribute any copyrighted works that do not belong to you unless you have the permission from the copyright holder. Even for non-profit reasons. (And mp3.com was doing it for a profit)
Mp3.com was doing that, and they were illegal in doing so. (However, that doesn't mean the downloader's are 100% safe--many laws out there hit both sides of an illegal transaction -- drugs, prostitution, etc)
No mention was made whether or not you're allowed to download mp3's you own the CD's from. The only thing I found were quotes that I have already linked to above. While looking for law-links, (and not finding any) I didn't even come across where it's illegal for you to download mp3's you don't own. However, I am guessing that it falls under the illegal use of copying a copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission. After all, downloading an mp3 you don't have is in essence copying it.
There is that old rumor you might see on web sites that people say the mp3's for download are only for evaluation purposes only, and if you don't own them you must delete them after 24 hours. Many people incorrectly think that this absolves them from hosting mp3's. Not true. However, maybe there is truth based in this for the downloader.
One of the most interesting laws people should check out is the Net Act of '96. This purposely defines the words "for profit/gain". Basically this closes a loop hole for those who trade mp3's, thinking that they are not making any money of it.. it must be ok. While this may help in leniency of a sentence, the Net Act describes that "for profit" can also mean getting other copyrighted works in return (trading)
I'll go check. I have seen other references. It may take a while, since I'm busy at work.
But in the meantime, I'd like to point out that with the RIAA buying legislation to suit their needs, even if this representative is currently wrong, his official comments reflect the thoughts of a powerful organization with a 100 million dollar budget'd legal department.
If they want to bury you for downloading an mp3, I'm sure they could. Did the student who made a search engine at a university really break the law? Doubtful! (Even google is first contacted to stop links to questionable content first. (think Xenu) ) This kid wasn't given a chance to filter, and had to settle for $12,000.
Slashdot Mirror
Or go bankrupt, then lose?
Nah. The 6 to 10 weeks thing will mean they will spread it out. Probably split it up by state. And pick the poorest people they can.
Oh my god, how many artists did they quote!?! It must be part of their contract.
Hard to say what they want to hand out. Will it be sliding scale? 50GB of music gets you $12,000 fine. 200GB of music gets you Man-1...err..I mean 2 years in jail. 300GB of music gets you murder....umm... I mean Class E felony + 3 years in jail + $20,000 fine.
Uh... oh... !~~
Tell that to the 100 people they're sueing.
You know, I would love to. But when they "incorrectly" seize my computers and throw me in jail, they'll find the 700GB of mp3's that isn't random noise.
Anything for the further pursuit of beer!!!
The RIAA isn't far behind.
Read the s.671 anyway, and nothing more than a semicolon and a sentence about Uruguay was added, even in the "PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS" section.
Please be more specific. Also curious how the heck you found out about it (if there is an 'it')
I get the 'eeeeeeeeeee' feeling also. It drowns out with enough beeeeer.
How sinister. That's like finding who the true brewers of Red Dog is.
OH yea. Believe me. If I wanted to move to your shit-hole country, I would.
I'm surprised the number of people here actually rooting for Walmart. Walmart can survive without the dvd rental business (it has for years). Netflix--that's all there is. Walmart is getting into it just like Microsoft got into the web browser business.
Jon Katz? Does he still write articles. It must be a good 2 years since I've had the displeasure. Maybe I had filtered him out, although I doubt it since I did enjoy reading the flames. Maybe he's just admitted that he's not 16 anymore.
Coulnd't they just replace "indefinately" to 1 month until you have to return the DVD's?
I'm all for Hollywood Videos as an alternative, but I dislike paying 'new' rental prices for such 'new' films like Ghost Busters.
Yea. I feel sorry for those that rented Requiem For A Dream" from Blockbuster.
Mp3.com was doing that, and they were illegal in doing so. (However, that doesn't mean the downloader's are 100% safe--many laws out there hit both sides of an illegal transaction -- drugs, prostitution, etc)
No mention was made whether or not you're allowed to download mp3's you own the CD's from. The only thing I found were quotes that I have already linked to above. While looking for law-links, (and not finding any) I didn't even come across where it's illegal for you to download mp3's you don't own. However, I am guessing that it falls under the illegal use of copying a copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission. After all, downloading an mp3 you don't have is in essence copying it.
There is that old rumor you might see on web sites that people say the mp3's for download are only for evaluation purposes only, and if you don't own them you must delete them after 24 hours. Many people incorrectly think that this absolves them from hosting mp3's. Not true. However, maybe there is truth based in this for the downloader.
One of the most interesting laws people should check out is the Net Act of '96. This purposely defines the words "for profit/gain". Basically this closes a loop hole for those who trade mp3's, thinking that they are not making any money of it.. it must be ok. While this may help in leniency of a sentence, the Net Act describes that "for profit" can also mean getting other copyrighted works in return (trading)
True. All I could find were some solid quotes at EFF.org that mentioned the downloading mp3's of a CD you own are still up for debate.
But in the meantime, I'd like to point out that with the RIAA buying legislation to suit their needs, even if this representative is currently wrong, his official comments reflect the thoughts of a powerful organization with a 100 million dollar budget'd legal department.
If they want to bury you for downloading an mp3, I'm sure they could. Did the student who made a search engine at a university really break the law? Doubtful! (Even google is first contacted to stop links to questionable content first. (think Xenu) ) This kid wasn't given a chance to filter, and had to settle for $12,000.
I often share files large files over my home network. So a 100Mb card is definately worth it for me, instead of a 10Mb card.
He had to switch to the MIS major after finding out he couldn't hack Software Development II.