Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Users

User: iemeeltje

iemeeltje's activity in the archive.

Stories
0
Comments
3
First seen
Last seen
Profile
(view on slashdot.org)

Comments · 3

  1. Re:Shared Folders do not equal P2P on Judge Rules Shared Files Folder Not Enough · · Score: 2, Funny

    In that case Microsoft would be a co-conspiritor to distributing copyrighted materials (?) :-)

  2. Re:Intent to share ? on Judge Rules Shared Files Folder Not Enough · · Score: 1

    This seems a bit mixed up. First, having a shared folder does _not_ mean "intent to share". Even if it means "intent to share", it doesn't mean that any sharing and any copyright violation happened. If I offer everyone on Slashdot to copy my complete music collection, and nobody takes up the offer, then no copyright violation has happened. On the other hand, many on Slashdot have in the past argued that having an unprotected open wireless connection shows "intent to share", but they are wrong, and courts have decided they are wrong. All really seems to depend on interpretation... Soliciting to a crime or attempt to commit a crime is 'sometimes' punishable, sometimes it isn't (criminal law). Publicly sharing a folder feels to me like an attempt to commit a crime, but could be diminished by the user's stupidity (not knowing how to set permissions and such). However, in order to claim damages by the plaintiff there should be evidence of "sharing". So I'm not claiming that (like in technical) "sharing a folder" is the same as "distributing files", only the intent to share files which may or may not be an offense. If "sharing a folder (with copyrighted material)" is not an attempt to an offense then why share a folder with copyrighted material ? Doesn't the defendant have to prove non-intent or is the full burden of intent on the plaintiff. Just sharing my thoughts on the subject, my credo in such cases is "don't get caught"...
  3. Intent to share ? on Judge Rules Shared Files Folder Not Enough · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Copyrighted files on a shared folder is indeed not equal to sharing copyrighted files. However doesn't this show "intent to share" ? Don't know a lot on the US justice system (criminal, civil etc.) but I guess the proverb "stupidity doesn't mean innocense" still holds. To me it seems the plaintiff needs to prove actual sharing in order to get damages (?)