ease of violation is not relavant to the issue that im speaking to, which is is the person hosting or downloading the mp3's liable? I propose that its the downloader and therefore the ease of ripping isnt particulary important. The reason why the courts didn't take this argument in the napster case is because of the ease of stealing argument which makes sense. But if the legal attention switches to the host, it becomes less important how difficult it is to get it there.
That's entirely irrelvant. Music is in fact being illegally downloaded. The issue at hand is who's breaking the law and who is liable. If the supplier has a copy of their music, then its not illegal, and its well within fair use.
I guess you dont know much about courts if you assume they use their brains. Very few judges do. Also if the courts can establish that leaving your files on your computer is legal (which they should for the reasons above) then the burden is now for the RIAA to go after the downloaders, which they cant spy on like they can the suppliers.
You wouldnt see that because like the courts, you dont use your brain.
more appropiately, its like leaving copy machines in a library and telling people that they can only copy the books if they can do so legally (ie educational reasons). I assume a good number of people have rights to the music they download, and there is no reason for me, nor the courts, to presume otherwise.
You do if you own the music, and you do if the music you're downloading is legal, yet hard to find. The RIAA could easily begin to seek out and punish people posting live recordings. Furthermore, if the mp3's on my computer are legal it is not my problem if while on a legal service someone else decides to download the music I have there. The much bigger issue, and the reason why the RIAA is hated so much is how it treats its artists. Very few artists make a lot of money on sales, only with tours. The feeling is that their protection isnt helping copyrights for artists but rather linning the pockets of a few fatcats.
The court doesn't overturn itself all the time. Actually it hardly ever does. It only redefines, limits the scope and applies other rulings in other ways. If the court actually overturned a lot of decisions (from the supreme court, not lower courts) you'd see a very very different outcome in many situations. The court is first and foremost concerned with previous rullings and their authority to act!!
Slashdot Mirror
ease of violation is not relavant to the issue that im speaking to, which is is the person hosting or downloading the mp3's liable? I propose that its the downloader and therefore the ease of ripping isnt particulary important. The reason why the courts didn't take this argument in the napster case is because of the ease of stealing argument which makes sense. But if the legal attention switches to the host, it becomes less important how difficult it is to get it there.
That's entirely irrelvant. Music is in fact being illegally downloaded. The issue at hand is who's breaking the law and who is liable. If the supplier has a copy of their music, then its not illegal, and its well within fair use. I guess you dont know much about courts if you assume they use their brains. Very few judges do. Also if the courts can establish that leaving your files on your computer is legal (which they should for the reasons above) then the burden is now for the RIAA to go after the downloaders, which they cant spy on like they can the suppliers. You wouldnt see that because like the courts, you dont use your brain.
more appropiately, its like leaving copy machines in a library and telling people that they can only copy the books if they can do so legally (ie educational reasons). I assume a good number of people have rights to the music they download, and there is no reason for me, nor the courts, to presume otherwise.
You do if you own the music, and you do if the music you're downloading is legal, yet hard to find. The RIAA could easily begin to seek out and punish people posting live recordings. Furthermore, if the mp3's on my computer are legal it is not my problem if while on a legal service someone else decides to download the music I have there. The much bigger issue, and the reason why the RIAA is hated so much is how it treats its artists. Very few artists make a lot of money on sales, only with tours. The feeling is that their protection isnt helping copyrights for artists but rather linning the pockets of a few fatcats.
The court doesn't overturn itself all the time. Actually it hardly ever does. It only redefines, limits the scope and applies other rulings in other ways. If the court actually overturned a lot of decisions (from the supreme court, not lower courts) you'd see a very very different outcome in many situations. The court is first and foremost concerned with previous rullings and their authority to act!!