Then iPod owners will no longer support this absurd DRM scheme.
And the whining RIAA can keep complaining that they are losing money from "filesharing", when they are really losing it because they are stupid businesspeople.
They just love digging their own grave if it lets them take someone else with them (Apple).
If the sale happened that way I don't see how he could have known he was buying stolen goods.
She was selling him something fairly new for about 1/5th its actual value. It would not have been reasonable for him to think she didn't know its value. It was new.
People are frequently convicted of theft by receiving. The knowledge element is frequently proven by large pricing discrepancies.
You can speculate about the possibility of innocence, and it is something that a jury will decide rather than ourselves. However, at first glance, it looks like a common case of a thief and a fence.
It's illegal to buy a laptop from someone if it turns out that laptop was stolen, even if you didn't know that when you bought it? Is it also illegal for me to think that's excessive?
No. It's illegal to buy a laptop when you know or should know that it is stolen. Obviously, this guy should have known that it was stolen... And we don't necessarily believe him when he says that the lady told him it was not.
Microsoft, the most innovative company in history is about to embark on a bold new way of doing things. They are going to open up the APIs for their search engine (that noone uses), their messenger service (that noone uses), and their Desktop search service (which surprisingly, nobody uses).
Oh wait a sec, this just in... they're going to open up the APIs for Windows users only.
Of course, Google and Yahoo, whose services people do use, opened up their APIs sometime around 1997.
Looks like he thinks hotlinking is okay for everyone except Fuddruckers.
Well, no shit. Fuddruckers made commercial use of his work to promote their product. The others simply linked to it, and probably gave him credit, or at least notified their users that they were being sent to an external website.
He recreated the game in Flash. Whether he was authorized to do that or not, we don't know. But recreating the game in Flash is definitely creating something.
sells music from independent labels, and when you do a search for an artist they don't have, it provides a link to a list of artists that are "like" the artist you were searching for.
There are a few points of view being expressed here that I find to be utterly short-sighted.
1. That they aren't taking up that much of his bandwidth... Who cares? That's not the point. They are using his creative work to promote their product and giving him no credit. People normally get paid when a company uses their work this way.
2. That he is missing out on an opportunity to get more exposure or some sweet marketing deal from this... Bullshit. They have shown they are willing to steal his work. Why in the hell would he want to make a deal with someone like that???
3. That all those poor little children don't deserve to be accosted by these foul images of slaughterhouses... That's just too bad. There's a lot of things about the real world that are distressing. It's not this guy's job to protect them from it all.
What he did was an excellent way to get revenge on these bastards. He might not have a copyright claim (since they hotlinked instead of copying), but at least he can get some laughs at their expense.
Her lawyer says that they have no case because they did not claim that any unauthorized user downloaded the songs from her.
They only alleged (1) that the songs were "available for download" and (2) that they had downloaded them and determined that it was their property.
One is not copyright infringement. To have copyright infringement, copying or distribution has to happen. Making them available without more is not illegal until someone downloads them from you.
Two is also not copyright infringement because the people downloading the files are agents of the copyright holder and are authorized to make copies of the material.
Since the plaintiffs didn't allege any specific instance of copyright infringement, the case should be dismissed.
It seems to me (being a lawyer myself) that the plaintiffs could prove that copyright infringement probably occurred... but that's not the issue.
The issue is that they have to allege specific instances of infringement. If they don't allege actual instances of infringement, they don't get a chance to prove anything.
A win on this point would destroy nearly all of the RIAA's litigation against Kazaa users, because the RIAA cannot determine what others have downloaded from Kazaa... only what they have downloaded. It might be a different story for Bittorrent users.
Without getting into the details of what hearsay is and isn't, I'd say that your typical everyday logs will likely fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and be admissible for the truth of their contents. Depends on the circumstances surrounding their making, of course.
Fed. R. Evid. 801(a) "A 'statement' is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion."
Fed. R. Evid. 801(b) "A declarant is a person who makes a statement."
A statement created by a computer program (without human intervention) is not hearsay because it does not contain any human statements.
However, a proper foundation would have to be laid in order to admit it. This would require an expert who could examine the program and testify as to how it functioned.
This new approach makes it a lot harder for them to win at trial. All they have is a file that lists some IP addresses.
In the previous cases they hired people who connected to p2p filesharers and observed what exactly was being shared.
Not a single one of their previous cases has gone to trial. It's not cost effective for them to go to trial even when they can win!
The formula is simple...
1. Send threatening lawyer letters to people you believe to have violated your copyright... 2. Wait for a response... 3. Look for an admission of guilt... 4. Profit!
Of course, if you include state governments, there are so many examples that to list any of them would not do justice to the rampant disdain our state legislatures and police have had for the First Amendment. To imply that it is limited to state universities is quite strange... but clearly partisan.
"Thus, although the Fifth Amendment may protect an individual from complying with a subpoena for the production of his personal records in his possession because the very act of production may constitute a compulsory authentication of incriminating information, see Fisher v. United States, supra, a seizure of the same materials by law enforcement officers differs in a crucial respect - the individual against whom the search is directed is not required to aid in the discovery, production, or authentication of incriminating evidence."
The case that actually creates this right is Boyd v. United States. In fact, that case held that personal papers could not even be used against a defendant if they were seized pursuant to a valid warrant. Over the years though, other cases have weakened Boyd, and it no longer prohibits using personal papers if they have been seized and can be authenticated without testimony of the defendant.
As you pointed out, other cases make exceptions for tax records and for corporations.
If the government requires someone to provide their encryption key, it is effectively requiring them to do an act that admits "Yes, these files are mine." And that is not allowed under current case law interpreting the Fifth Amendment.
I mean, the cops can go to a judge and get a warrant to search your house if they have probable cause to think there is something illegal in there, and you have to let them in.
Uh, no. A warrant is not an order to the person searched. It is a permission slip to the police. Most people presented with a warrant will let the police in because they don't want their door to get knocked off its hinges. But that is their choice.
Want to bet?
Heh, no I don't wanna bet. Regarding the application of the privilege to documents, I am pretty sure that it applies to some documents (like diaries), but I will agree with you that it doesn't apply to ALL documents.
If you have a personal diary on your harddrive, you shouldn't have to give up your encryption keys to the police so that they can read your innermost thoughts.
don't see what that problem is, as long as due process is respected.
Wouldn't you agree that due process involves not being forced to incriminate yourself?
In the US you cannot be forced to testify against yourself and IIRC that includes documents you have written. I would assume that British citizens have similar rights.
If I'm in another state, and a restriction that's OK in one state isn't OK in the state I'm in, that restriction goes poof for anything I do in the state I'm in.
Google is accused of "intentional interference with contractual relations". That is a common law tort which exists in California as well as Washington.
There are two issues here: 1) Did Google interfere with the contract? 2) Was it a valid contract?
The state's law which applies to question 1 should be California if Google's actions took place in California.
But for number 2, the state's law that applies should be Washington. Remember, Google had to know that this contract existed. And assuming they knew about it, they must have known that it was a Washington contract and not a California contract.
And why would Washington's laws have an effect over a company based in California and therefore operating under CA law, where these things are illegal?
It is more like Google is trying to push California law on MS.
The issue is that Google intentionally interfered with MS's Washington contract with a Washington employee. If it's a valid contract in Washington, Google could be liable in a Washington court or possibly even in a California court.
But Google thinks a California court will apply California law to invalidate a Washington contract and reimburse them for their loss in the Washington courts. This looks like a desperate strategy to me.
You do realize that you can install linux on the mac mini, and I'm sure PPC has better support than ARM, or you can just use fink (like bsd ports) to install *nix apps under OSX? Not to mention the mac mini is much more powerfull....
You do realize that all he wants to do is stream files don't you? And that this is about 1/5th the price of a mac mini?
Are the people stupid for accepting it? Possibly, but what's their alternative? Switch out of the mainstream, which would be great. Or suck it up, which is more likely.
The alternative is to refuse to buy DRMed content. As noted, DRM is not yet the only option... it will only become that way after enough people have bought into it. It's like Windows and computers. Once enough people buy into it, it becomes the standard.
For downloaded content, there are labels that sell their music as non-DRM mp3s. You can encourage the market to go that way by buying their content, if you like it. However, I am not suggesting that you change your preferences for music just because of the format.
Is there content you genuinely wish to see, but you deprive yourself because you object to the model by which it's sold to you?
So far, no. We are not yet in a situation where DRMed content is the only option. You don't have to buy your music from Napster. You can buy the same music on CD for about the same price, without DRM.
If you're of the opinion that "The RIAA makes crappy music" and "The MPAA makes crappy movies", then it's a bit disingenuous for you to declare as "stupid" those people who live with the restrictions to see the content they want to see/hear.
You are putting words into my mouth. I talked about no longer being able to consume mainstream culture without accepting DRM. I like mainstream culture. I do not think that I should have to accept DRM to consume it. Eventually, I will, because that will be the only option left.
Regular CDs are not going to be sold forever. When enough people are buying off Napster and iTunes, the major labels will stop selling CDs. They did the same thing with LPs, 8-tracks and audio casettes. They have profitted every time there has been a format change, because every 10-20 years, people have had to restock their music libraries with the new format.
DRM transfers the same business model to digital files. Ten years from now, you will not have the same computer that you have now... you will have to repurchase all of those songs you bought from Napster... and so will I.
Even if you keep the same computer and you never lose the music due to harddrive failure, Microsoft will keep upgrading their DRM, and with time, the OS on your old PC will no longer support the latest DRM that's in use. So you will have to keep an old computer around just to play the music you bought with it.
The whole thing is designed to screw you over under the guise of protecting their copyrights.
When I say that people are stupid for accepting DRM, that's exactly what I mean.
Slashdot Mirror
Then iPod owners will no longer support this absurd DRM scheme. And the whining RIAA can keep complaining that they are losing money from "filesharing", when they are really losing it because they are stupid businesspeople. They just love digging their own grave if it lets them take someone else with them (Apple).
If the sale happened that way I don't see how he could have known he was buying stolen goods.
She was selling him something fairly new for about 1/5th its actual value. It would not have been reasonable for him to think she didn't know its value. It was new.
People are frequently convicted of theft by receiving. The knowledge element is frequently proven by large pricing discrepancies.
You can speculate about the possibility of innocence, and it is something that a jury will decide rather than ourselves. However, at first glance, it looks like a common case of a thief and a fence.
It's illegal to buy a laptop from someone if it turns out that laptop was stolen, even if you didn't know that when you bought it? Is it also illegal for me to think that's excessive?
No. It's illegal to buy a laptop when you know or should know that it is stolen. Obviously, this guy should have known that it was stolen... And we don't necessarily believe him when he says that the lady told him it was not.
So, nice trolling, I was stupid enough to get hit.
Thanks. It's hard work you know...
I was going more for a +5 funny than a +3 Insightful, but I'll take what I can get.
--- VERY IMPORTANT NEWS - VERY IMPORTANT NEWS ---
Microsoft, the most innovative company in history is about to embark on a bold new way of doing things. They are going to open up the APIs for their search engine (that noone uses), their messenger service (that noone uses), and their Desktop search service (which surprisingly, nobody uses).
Oh wait a sec, this just in... they're going to open up the APIs for Windows users only.
Of course, Google and Yahoo, whose services people do use, opened up their APIs sometime around 1997.
--- VERY IMPORTANT NEWS - VERY IMPORTANT NEWS ---
Looks like he thinks hotlinking is okay for everyone except Fuddruckers.
Well, no shit. Fuddruckers made commercial use of his work to promote their product. The others simply linked to it, and probably gave him credit, or at least notified their users that they were being sent to an external website.
he didn't "create" anything.
He recreated the game in Flash. Whether he was authorized to do that or not, we don't know. But recreating the game in Flash is definitely creating something.
sells music from independent labels, and when you do a search for an artist they don't have, it provides a link to a list of artists that are "like" the artist you were searching for.
There are a few points of view being expressed here that I find to be utterly short-sighted.
1. That they aren't taking up that much of his bandwidth... Who cares? That's not the point. They are using his creative work to promote their product and giving him no credit. People normally get paid when a company uses their work this way.
2. That he is missing out on an opportunity to get more exposure or some sweet marketing deal from this... Bullshit. They have shown they are willing to steal his work. Why in the hell would he want to make a deal with someone like that???
3. That all those poor little children don't deserve to be accosted by these foul images of slaughterhouses... That's just too bad. There's a lot of things about the real world that are distressing. It's not this guy's job to protect them from it all.
What he did was an excellent way to get revenge on these bastards. He might not have a copyright claim (since they hotlinked instead of copying), but at least he can get some laughs at their expense.
Her lawyer says that they have no case because they did not claim that any unauthorized user downloaded the songs from her.
They only alleged (1) that the songs were "available for download" and (2) that they had downloaded them and determined that it was their property.
One is not copyright infringement. To have copyright infringement, copying or distribution has to happen. Making them available without more is not illegal until someone downloads them from you.
Two is also not copyright infringement because the people downloading the files are agents of the copyright holder and are authorized to make copies of the material.
Since the plaintiffs didn't allege any specific instance of copyright infringement, the case should be dismissed.
It seems to me (being a lawyer myself) that the plaintiffs could prove that copyright infringement probably occurred... but that's not the issue.
The issue is that they have to allege specific instances of infringement. If they don't allege actual instances of infringement, they don't get a chance to prove anything.
A win on this point would destroy nearly all of the RIAA's litigation against Kazaa users, because the RIAA cannot determine what others have downloaded from Kazaa... only what they have downloaded. It might be a different story for Bittorrent users.
That's great lawyering!
I am Buddha. Therefore, I make the rules.
Get your religions straight before you start making sophomoric analogies.
Buddha is not Yahweh or Allah or God. Buddha doesn't make the rules, but simply recognizes them for what they are.
Without getting into the details of what hearsay is and isn't, I'd say that your typical everyday logs will likely fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and be admissible for the truth of their contents. Depends on the circumstances surrounding their making, of course.
Fed. R. Evid. 801(a)
"A 'statement' is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion."
Fed. R. Evid. 801(b)
"A declarant is a person who makes a statement."
A statement created by a computer program (without human intervention) is not hearsay because it does not contain any human statements.
However, a proper foundation would have to be laid in order to admit it. This would require an expert who could examine the program and testify as to how it functioned.
Actually, it is.
Obviously you post as an anonymous coward, because you have no faith in your own correctness.
When you solicit, you are seeking to get someone to do something FOR you... not AGAINST you.
Actually, you are wrong.
This new approach makes it a lot harder for them to win at trial. All they have is a file that lists some IP addresses.
In the previous cases they hired people who connected to p2p filesharers and observed what exactly was being shared.
Not a single one of their previous cases has gone to trial. It's not cost effective for them to go to trial even when they can win!
The formula is simple...
1. Send threatening lawyer letters to people you believe to have violated your copyright...
2. Wait for a response...
3. Look for an admission of guilt...
4. Profit!
IIRC, there are some very serious laws about adults who solicit children for criminal activity.
Being stupid and making it easy for someone to victimize you is not the same as soliciting a crime.
If anyone can give actual provable examples of the US government abridging Constitutionally protected free speech, I'd love to hear it.
What parallel universe do you live in where you think that the Federal Government has never violated the First Amendment?
Here is one example. And here is another.
Of course, if you include state governments, there are so many examples that to list any of them would not do justice to the rampant disdain our state legislatures and police have had for the First Amendment. To imply that it is limited to state universities is quite strange... but clearly partisan.
You're not talking about laws. You're talking about contracts.
If it doesn't make sense to you... don't take the job.
I just did a little research into this, and I am now certain that a court in the US would not allow compelled production of encryption keys.
Read Andresen v. Maryland:
"Thus, although the Fifth Amendment may protect an individual from complying with a subpoena for the production of his personal records in his possession because the very act of production may constitute a compulsory authentication of incriminating information, see Fisher v. United States, supra, a seizure of the same materials by law enforcement officers differs in a crucial respect - the individual against whom the search is directed is not required to aid in the discovery, production, or authentication of incriminating evidence."
The case that actually creates this right is Boyd v. United States. In fact, that case held that personal papers could not even be used against a defendant if they were seized pursuant to a valid warrant. Over the years though, other cases have weakened Boyd, and it no longer prohibits using personal papers if they have been seized and can be authenticated without testimony of the defendant.
As you pointed out, other cases make exceptions for tax records and for corporations.
If the government requires someone to provide their encryption key, it is effectively requiring them to do an act that admits "Yes, these files are mine." And that is not allowed under current case law interpreting the Fifth Amendment.
I mean, the cops can go to a judge and get a warrant to search your house if they have probable cause to think there is something illegal in there, and you have to let them in.
Uh, no. A warrant is not an order to the person searched. It is a permission slip to the police. Most people presented with a warrant will let the police in because they don't want their door to get knocked off its hinges. But that is their choice.
Want to bet?
Heh, no I don't wanna bet. Regarding the application of the privilege to documents, I am pretty sure that it applies to some documents (like diaries), but I will agree with you that it doesn't apply to ALL documents.
If you have a personal diary on your harddrive, you shouldn't have to give up your encryption keys to the police so that they can read your innermost thoughts.
don't see what that problem is, as long as due process is respected.
Wouldn't you agree that due process involves not being forced to incriminate yourself?
In the US you cannot be forced to testify against yourself and IIRC that includes documents you have written. I would assume that British citizens have similar rights.
If I'm in another state, and a restriction that's OK in one state isn't OK in the state I'm in, that restriction goes poof for anything I do in the state I'm in.
Google is accused of "intentional interference with contractual relations". That is a common law tort which exists in California as well as Washington.
There are two issues here:
1) Did Google interfere with the contract?
2) Was it a valid contract?
The state's law which applies to question 1 should be California if Google's actions took place in California.
But for number 2, the state's law that applies should be Washington. Remember, Google had to know that this contract existed. And assuming they knew about it, they must have known that it was a Washington contract and not a California contract.
And why would Washington's laws have an effect over a company based in California and therefore operating under CA law, where these things are illegal?
It is more like Google is trying to push California law on MS.
The issue is that Google intentionally interfered with MS's Washington contract with a Washington employee. If it's a valid contract in Washington, Google could be liable in a Washington court or possibly even in a California court.
But Google thinks a California court will apply California law to invalidate a Washington contract and reimburse them for their loss in the Washington courts. This looks like a desperate strategy to me.
You do realize that you can install linux on the mac mini, and I'm sure PPC has better support than ARM, or you can just use fink (like bsd ports) to install *nix apps under OSX? Not to mention the mac mini is much more powerfull....
You do realize that all he wants to do is stream files don't you? And that this is about 1/5th the price of a mac mini?
Are the people stupid for accepting it? Possibly, but what's their alternative? Switch out of the mainstream, which would be great. Or suck it up, which is more likely.
The alternative is to refuse to buy DRMed content. As noted, DRM is not yet the only option... it will only become that way after enough people have bought into it. It's like Windows and computers. Once enough people buy into it, it becomes the standard.
For downloaded content, there are labels that sell their music as non-DRM mp3s. You can encourage the market to go that way by buying their content, if you like it. However, I am not suggesting that you change your preferences for music just because of the format.
Is there content you genuinely wish to see, but you deprive yourself because you object to the model by which it's sold to you?
So far, no. We are not yet in a situation where DRMed content is the only option. You don't have to buy your music from Napster. You can buy the same music on CD for about the same price, without DRM.
If you're of the opinion that "The RIAA makes crappy music" and "The MPAA makes crappy movies", then it's a bit disingenuous for you to declare as "stupid" those people who live with the restrictions to see the content they want to see/hear.
You are putting words into my mouth. I talked about no longer being able to consume mainstream culture without accepting DRM. I like mainstream culture. I do not think that I should have to accept DRM to consume it. Eventually, I will, because that will be the only option left.
Regular CDs are not going to be sold forever. When enough people are buying off Napster and iTunes, the major labels will stop selling CDs. They did the same thing with LPs, 8-tracks and audio casettes. They have profitted every time there has been a format change, because every 10-20 years, people have had to restock their music libraries with the new format.
DRM transfers the same business model to digital files. Ten years from now, you will not have the same computer that you have now... you will have to repurchase all of those songs you bought from Napster... and so will I.
Even if you keep the same computer and you never lose the music due to harddrive failure, Microsoft will keep upgrading their DRM, and with time, the OS on your old PC will no longer support the latest DRM that's in use. So you will have to keep an old computer around just to play the music you bought with it.
The whole thing is designed to screw you over under the guise of protecting their copyrights.
When I say that people are stupid for accepting DRM, that's exactly what I mean.