I think you need to revisit RIAA vs Thomas. Making available is indeed infringement. IMO making available is infringement. As a juror I would only need to see the will to share on one parties behalf, not the anonymous downloader on the other end to constitute infringement.
I don't read it like you do. My take on it is: Music transcoded to.mp3 is ok and authorized under fair use (meaning you don't need the copyright holders permission). Music transcoded to.mp3 and then placed in a location that exposes said file to mass distribution is an unauthorized copy by the copyright statutes.
RIAA is not making case for converted cd's in your private collection as being infringing works.
Dude, they are a bunch of foaming at the mouth idiots here. If they aren't smart enough to read the brief or at LEAST page 15, then there is no helping the clueless.
From page 15 of the brief:
Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed.mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs. Moreover, Defendant had no authorization to distribute Plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings from his KaZaA shared folder.
Each of the 11 sound recordings on Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' Complaint were stored in the.mp3 format in the shared folder on Defendant's computer hard drive, and each of these eleven files were actually disseminated from Defendant's computer."
This is another case of someone putting up their music collection for distribution. RIAA is not maintaining that simply exercising your fair use rights is copyright infringement. Do you not yet understand why your collective voice is simply relegated to whacko status by your representatives?
The range of statutory award is $18k - $3.6 million. $220K is in the lowest 6% of that range. I really don't care to debate or refute any point. The jury and courts already have. If you really had a grasp of what statutory means you wouldn't bother. In fact, neither will I. If you have evidence you'll present it. If don't you won't.
I have no idea what you mean by "I won't repeat my evidence"? Is it English or something?
Well, if your so god damned smart why didn't you pro-bono for Ms. Thompson. Or are you stating that no one involved had a grasp on this like you do?
All that RIAA had to do was prove 51%. It is a civil case...
No evidence of distribution does not mean she didn't violate copyright. Look up statutory damages on google. You really do not know what you are talking about.
NO, it was the juries job to determine: 1. Guilty/Not Guilty 2. In the face of it being impossible to determine actual damages, go with a STATUTORY rather than COMPENSATORY award. Statutory allows the jury a great amount of leeway without having to calculate the incalculable.
I keep receipts for all our licensed product. It's called a fire safe. You put in this code, it opens up, and in papers goes. It's amazing what technology is capable of these days. I also have a credit card trail.
I have worked at both Mac and PC consultancies. Going out to business to update or install new systems and they hand you a disk with a serial number with a wink and a nod. We all know what that is.
Software is pirated because it is easy to do so. Software is pirated because the chance of getting caught is slight. I temporarily admin'd at a graphic arts and design firm where I made the owner actually email me asking me to install Quark Express on WAY more machines than they had licensing for. I did this to C.M.A (cover my ass).
If you buy that whole naive business owner argument, well you may be just as naive.
Bottom line: Hushmail makes no bones about the pro's and con's of client vs. server side encryption. They in no way obfuscate. It's all academic anyways since they were compelled by court order.
I am just simply calling some liars here, er, well liars when they are stating that Hushmail doesn't document this particular fact. Then once it is pointed out that they indeed do, the liars then go to plan B and say, well it's hard to find. When it is then pointed out that in 3 clicks from the main page you can find this information it's on to plan C and say, well they aren't technically proficient... Well who's fault is that? It's true that STUPID criminals get caught first.
Private keys HAVE to be stored SOMEWHERE. Hushmail is not going to market themselves as a company that enables complete anonymity for thugs, drug dealers, mafioso, etc. They are a legitimate service for legitimate privacy needs. Hushmail had the emails in clear text BEFORE they were encrypted btw.
I don't see where any of this is Hushmails fault. They had parties that where willfully engaging in illicit activities and sought to cover their tracks by encrypted emails. The only problem is that the criminal element overstepped their technical ability. The Hushmail service makes a distinct notice on their technical FAQ of the differences between client side and server side encryption.
Check out the link:
https://www.hushmail.com/hushmail/showHelpFile.php?file=compatibility/java/index.html Particular line items to read:
1. Passphrase decrypted on web server: discusses where the crypt/de-crypt takes place 2. Private key decrypted on web server: discusses where the pk crypt/de-crypt takes place
This only takes three clicks to get to. I really think the collective intelligence of/. readers and editorial staff are is either slipping or very much jaded and agenda poisoned.
Here is better link:
https://www.hushmail.com/hushmail/showHelpFile.php?file=compatibility/java/index.html
It is a simple table matrix of differences. If you can't take away the pro/con and what it means to run your encryption scheme on a 3rd party server then you have overstepped your technical competency. This is no fault of Hushmail. They spell it out in black in white.
I am so tired of a board like slashdot with the false arrogance of presumed superiority vs. the masses.
Actually they are quite forthcoming, you just need to practice what is called 'Due Diligence' and READ. I know it's an uncommon skill nowadays. Sorry if the users where too god damned stupid to read up and educate themselves. I guess that is why prisons are mostly filled with stupid prisoners.
You do realize you have the only reasonable response so far? As the years go by I see more/s'ers losing grip with reality. It's sad to see so many otherwise intelligent people not think for themselves and going off half-cocked.
Netflix watch now looks good 'enough'. Maybe if we had Internet 2 / IPV6 it would be better. I think for instant viewing it is as good as it gets currently. I have to give Netflix a pass on this. What is the alternative for realtime streaming?
Save me a bunch of money every year: Netflix and the hard to find and yet amazing ability not to HAVE IT NOW. Since when did TV become such a big issue?
So all this time/.'ers state that Copyright infringement isn't theft. Then you go on to talk about 25 tracks being worth $1 per track! You have got to be kidding. We aren't talking about theft and therefore the subsequent value. We are talking about willful copyright infringement and defendant who openly lied on the stand.
They didn't fine her based on $25 worth of file sharing, they fined her on 25 counts of copyright infringement. What is it you don't understand? It doesn't matter if the source material being infringed on was $1 or $100 per in piece. It is the nature of willful infringement that she was fined on. She had total and flippant dis-regard for someone else's efforts.
You guys are WAY out of touch with reality.
Cmon' all you idiots... She WILLFULLY shared this. As in PREMEDITATED. What don't you fucking get about this?
News flash, you can't give some one a copy of what is yours. It is not your right to make copies of and make available. You have went WAY outside of fair use at that point.
All your minority whining is going to do is disenfranchise you from the public at large as condescending and know-it-alls. She is lucky she got away with only a $222K fine. If you ain't got the time, don't do the crime. The collective moral compass here is as fucked up as the industries want of un-workable DRM. I am a fan of NEITHER DRM or wanton copy right infringement. I don't purchase DRM'd music and I don't share it out. That is how I avoid $222K in fines.
Did ever occur to you that this is Miss Thompson's fault? That she is responsible? I forgot that in the USA nothing is ever anyones fault.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you even BOTHER to read the brief? You're ignorant until you have. You basically have one long rant that says: Look at me, I'm stupid
I think you need to revisit RIAA vs Thomas. Making available is indeed infringement. IMO making available is infringement. As a juror I would only need to see the will to share on one parties behalf, not the anonymous downloader on the other end to constitute infringement.
I don't read it like you do. My take on it is: Music transcoded to .mp3 is ok and authorized under fair use (meaning you don't need the copyright holders permission). Music transcoded to .mp3 and then placed in a location that exposes said file to mass distribution is an unauthorized copy by the copyright statutes.
RIAA is not making case for converted cd's in your private collection as being infringing works.
Dude, they are a bunch of foaming at the mouth idiots here. If they aren't smart enough to read the brief or at LEAST page 15, then there is no helping the clueless.
From page 15 of the brief: Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs. Moreover, Defendant had no authorization to distribute Plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings from his KaZaA shared folder.
Each of the 11 sound recordings on Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' Complaint were stored in the .mp3 format in the shared folder on Defendant's computer hard drive, and each of these eleven files were actually disseminated from Defendant's computer."
This is another case of someone putting up their music collection for distribution. RIAA is not maintaining that simply exercising your fair use rights is copyright infringement. Do you not yet understand why your collective voice is simply relegated to whacko status by your representatives?
The range of statutory award is $18k - $3.6 million. $220K is in the lowest 6% of that range. I really don't care to debate or refute any point. The jury and courts already have. If you really had a grasp of what statutory means you wouldn't bother. In fact, neither will I. If you have evidence you'll present it. If don't you won't. I have no idea what you mean by "I won't repeat my evidence"? Is it English or something?
Well, if your so god damned smart why didn't you pro-bono for Ms. Thompson. Or are you stating that no one involved had a grasp on this like you do? All that RIAA had to do was prove 51%. It is a civil case...
Yes, given that the damages are in the lowest 6th percentile and determined by a normal group of ordinary joe's that represent society. Yes I sure am.
No evidence of distribution does not mean she didn't violate copyright. Look up statutory damages on google. You really do not know what you are talking about.
What's not right is distributing something that isn't yours to distribute.
NO, it was the juries job to determine: 1. Guilty/Not Guilty 2. In the face of it being impossible to determine actual damages, go with a STATUTORY rather than COMPENSATORY award. Statutory allows the jury a great amount of leeway without having to calculate the incalculable.
I keep receipts for all our licensed product. It's called a fire safe. You put in this code, it opens up, and in papers goes. It's amazing what technology is capable of these days. I also have a credit card trail.
I have worked at both Mac and PC consultancies. Going out to business to update or install new systems and they hand you a disk with a serial number with a wink and a nod. We all know what that is.
Software is pirated because it is easy to do so. Software is pirated because the chance of getting caught is slight. I temporarily admin'd at a graphic arts and design firm where I made the owner actually email me asking me to install Quark Express on WAY more machines than they had licensing for. I did this to C.M.A (cover my ass).
If you buy that whole naive business owner argument, well you may be just as naive.
Bottom line: Hushmail makes no bones about the pro's and con's of client vs. server side encryption. They in no way obfuscate. It's all academic anyways since they were compelled by court order. I am just simply calling some liars here, er, well liars when they are stating that Hushmail doesn't document this particular fact. Then once it is pointed out that they indeed do, the liars then go to plan B and say, well it's hard to find. When it is then pointed out that in 3 clicks from the main page you can find this information it's on to plan C and say, well they aren't technically proficient... Well who's fault is that? It's true that STUPID criminals get caught first. Private keys HAVE to be stored SOMEWHERE. Hushmail is not going to market themselves as a company that enables complete anonymity for thugs, drug dealers, mafioso, etc. They are a legitimate service for legitimate privacy needs. Hushmail had the emails in clear text BEFORE they were encrypted btw.
I don't see where any of this is Hushmails fault. They had parties that where willfully engaging in illicit activities and sought to cover their tracks by encrypted emails. The only problem is that the criminal element overstepped their technical ability. The Hushmail service makes a distinct notice on their technical FAQ of the differences between client side and server side encryption.
/. readers and editorial staff are is either slipping or very much jaded and agenda poisoned.
Check out the link:
https://www.hushmail.com/hushmail/showHelpFile.php?file=compatibility/java/index.html
Particular line items to read:
1. Passphrase decrypted on web server: discusses where the crypt/de-crypt takes place
2. Private key decrypted on web server: discusses where the pk crypt/de-crypt takes place
This only takes three clicks to get to. I really think the collective intelligence of
Here is better link: https://www.hushmail.com/hushmail/showHelpFile.php?file=compatibility/java/index.html It is a simple table matrix of differences. If you can't take away the pro/con and what it means to run your encryption scheme on a 3rd party server then you have overstepped your technical competency. This is no fault of Hushmail. They spell it out in black in white. I am so tired of a board like slashdot with the false arrogance of presumed superiority vs. the masses.
Actually, I would expect someone to hit their technical FAQ http://www.hushmail.com/help-faqs2?PHPSESSID=eec0a49a477ecd863c4f97f20849d434#roleofjava
Actually they are quite forthcoming, you just need to practice what is called 'Due Diligence' and READ. I know it's an uncommon skill nowadays. Sorry if the users where too god damned stupid to read up and educate themselves. I guess that is why prisons are mostly filled with stupid prisoners.
You do realize you have the only reasonable response so far? As the years go by I see more /s'ers losing grip with reality. It's sad to see so many otherwise intelligent people not think for themselves and going off half-cocked.
They were compelled under court order you dolt.
Well, some of us are blaming her for losing. She was guilty before she went in. It just took lawyers, a judge, and a jury to make it official.
Netflix watch now looks good 'enough'. Maybe if we had Internet 2 / IPV6 it would be better. I think for instant viewing it is as good as it gets currently. I have to give Netflix a pass on this. What is the alternative for realtime streaming?
Save me a bunch of money every year: Netflix and the hard to find and yet amazing ability not to HAVE IT NOW. Since when did TV become such a big issue?
So all this time /.'ers state that Copyright infringement isn't theft. Then you go on to talk about 25 tracks being worth $1 per track! You have got to be kidding. We aren't talking about theft and therefore the subsequent value. We are talking about willful copyright infringement and defendant who openly lied on the stand.
They didn't fine her based on $25 worth of file sharing, they fined her on 25 counts of copyright infringement. What is it you don't understand? It doesn't matter if the source material being infringed on was $1 or $100 per in piece. It is the nature of willful infringement that she was fined on. She had total and flippant dis-regard for someone else's efforts.
You guys are WAY out of touch with reality.
I tend to believe that Jammie Thompson ruined her life over 24 songs. The jury was just the mechanism to bring it to reality.
/.'ers were able to get theirs on the quick.
And I thought Steve Jobs had the only reality distortion device on the planet. I guess most
Cmon' all you idiots... She WILLFULLY shared this. As in PREMEDITATED. What don't you fucking get about this?
News flash, you can't give some one a copy of what is yours. It is not your right to make copies of and make available. You have went WAY outside of fair use at that point.
All your minority whining is going to do is disenfranchise you from the public at large as condescending and know-it-alls. She is lucky she got away with only a $222K fine. If you ain't got the time, don't do the crime. The collective moral compass here is as fucked up as the industries want of un-workable DRM. I am a fan of NEITHER DRM or wanton copy right infringement. I don't purchase DRM'd music and I don't share it out. That is how I avoid $222K in fines.
Did ever occur to you that this is Miss Thompson's fault? That she is responsible? I forgot that in the USA nothing is ever anyones fault.