Go back to your original question. You were asking whether you could evade detection by using an open wi fi router connection. And I'm telling you that's an improper question. And you know it is.
Now you're invoking the Zuleta case, where the defendant DID NOT infringe any copyright. What does that have to do with the fact pattern you posited -- one where a person DID infringe a copyright with an open wi fi router connection?
You're incredibly on the mark, "dahwang". Even about my being impolite. Questions 6 and 7 brought out the worst in me, because they seemed to be asking for ways to skirt the law. Just the kind of question an RIAA troll would like to ask me.
Dear techstar and larry:
When someone comes into me, as my client, with me as their lawyer, it's not an interview like this. They come in with a problem, I do my best to help them with their problem. If anyone does the interviewing it's me, trying to get the facts from the client.
If someone came into my office and wanted to have a consultation, and asked me the kind of questions that were asked in questions 6 and 7, questions which seem to be about how to skirt the law-- and people have contacted me and asked me questions like those -- I assume they are RIAA investigators and tell them I can't help them.
When you first put in your Answer you say "Defendant Demands a Trial by Jury" in your Answer. Then you're entitled to a jury trial. If you neglect to do it, you may be deemed to have waived your right to a jury trial.
I've thought a lot about the many comments which related to my manner of responding to questions 6 and 7, and I accept their verdict : I was rude and disrespectful.
Then I asked myself why, since I'm not usually quite that obnoxious.
Here's why I think it happened.
1. I go into everything public assuming that anything is being monitored by the RIAA, because it is.
2. I assume that everyone who asks me questions or makes comments could be an RIAA troll, because some of them are.
3. Both questions seem to ask questions about how to skirt the law. The first about whether doing something illegal from an "offshore" site would stand on a different legal footing than doing it from an American site. The other about whether buying a cd gives you rights in the songs that were contained on the cd, such as a perpetual right to get new copies from any source you like, based upon a perpetual "listening right". I found both questions to be rather odd.
I found it hard to believe that either question was an honest, good faith question, and responded sarcastically and impatiently.
I guess the fact that the questions were so positively moderated, and ultimately selected by the Interviews editor, indicates that they were honest, good faith questions from real Slashdotters so I should have just answered them respectfully. So to the questioners, if you are good guys, I apologize. And to those who complained about me, those of you who are not RIAA trolls, I apologize as well.
I've also noticed a lot of frustration, and anger, for not telling people that it's ok to make copies from a cd to your computer, keep them and use them on your computer, and keep them and use them on your mp3 player as you see fit, so long as it's for your personal use.
Some people seem to assume it's because I don't know anything about the law, or don't know what an mp3 is, or something like that. After all, it seems like a simple enough question, and common sense would dictate that the answer should be yes, that it's ok. But there are no cases on the subject, and there is caselaw to the effect that your computer is not a personal audio device like an iPod is. And if you see the EFF article on the subject, "RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use", you'll see that the RIAA has flip flopped on this issue.
So I could go ahead, act knowledgeable, and tell you "sure, go ahead, that's perfectly legal". Or I could also go ahead, act knowledgeable, and tell you "no, that's absolutely illegal".
In either case I would be guessing, and I would be dishonest in pretending to know the answer to a question on which the jury is still out. So I would appreciate your cutting me some slack.
I accept the verdict of the moderators. I should have been more polite and explained why his flamebait was in error. Better yet, I shouldn't have swallowed the 'bait'. I should have just stayed away from that comment.
1. I think this is offtopic, because the lawsuits are based on sharing files, even legally acquired files, and are not actually based on downloading (although of course if they find evidence of actual downloading after the suit is begun, they will be glad to throw that into the mix).
2. The RIAA and its brethren are suing everywhere.
3. As to the downloading issue, if an American downloads a copyrighted song illegally, and the site from which he downloaded it was in Russia, do you seriously believe the courts would consider that a defense?
"Conjecture" is exactly what it would take to answer a few of the questions. Some were easy to answer: there is no listening right. What is not so easy is whether copies for personal use are "fair use". See EFF Article "RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use"
If by "quality legal analysis" you mean speculation, I don't feel that that would be helpful in this environment. I might do that in a scholarly setting among lawyers, but in this environment I could easily mislead people. I'm trying to help, not hurt, people.
I know what an MP3 is. Just didn't know what MP3's he was talking about. He didn't say how he got the MP3's.
Can't assume that RIAA are just agreeing that everybody can make all the copies they want for personal use.
See what EFF has reported.
The questioner was assuming that there is some "listening right" which follows you even after you no longer have the cd anymore. I.e., he is suggesting that you can go rip a copy of the song from somewhere, without reference to the copyright laws, because your past ownership of a cd with the song on it gave you a perpetual "listening right". That is total fiction.
In response to that much more clear question, the answer is that the RIAA is going to come after you no matter where you got the files from. They're not suing people because they have evidence of downloading. They're suing them because they have evidence of the files residing in a shared files folder.
If you had a shared files folder with 500 RIAA songs in it, and you paid 99 cents to iTunes or whomever for each and every one of them, the RIAA would come after you and demand a settlement in the exact same amount as if every one of the song files had been pirated.
When I said "I don't know what you're talking about" I meant why he would think that it taking place in another country would be a defense, or would make him less subject to persecution or even prosecution. This is an international wave of litigation.
Also the present wave isn't presently about downloading primarily. It's primarily about the RIAA's allegations of 'distribution'. If you bought and paid for every single RIAA song file in your shared files folder it wouldn't mean a thing to them. They will still sue you, and will insist on every penny, because it is your 'sharing' of those songs that they know about, and that they are after.
"When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc. I don't know what gives you this idea."
His response wasn't "what about making a copy on your hard drive and copying that to your ipod?" If he'd asked that question I would have said "there is no legal answer to that question at this time."
Instead his response was:
"It seems strange to me that a copyright lawyer hasn't heard of the fair use rights granted by US copyright law (Title 17, section 107). The person asking the legal question is better informed than the lawyer!"
Slashdot Mirror
Lending to a friend? YES
Making mix tapes? DON'T KNOW
Playing it at a party (private or public)? YES
Selling it? YES
Go back to your original question. You were asking whether you could evade detection by using an open wi fi router connection. And I'm telling you that's an improper question. And you know it is.
Now you're invoking the Zuleta case, where the defendant DID NOT infringe any copyright. What does that have to do with the fact pattern you posited -- one where a person DID infringe a copyright with an open wi fi router connection?
Answer: nothing.
You're incredibly on the mark, "dahwang". Even about my being impolite. Questions 6 and 7 brought out the worst in me, because they seemed to be asking for ways to skirt the law. Just the kind of question an RIAA troll would like to ask me.
Lawyer: I want to use my computer to steal money from my neighbor's bank accounts, how can I set it up to do that?
IT guy: You can't.
Lawyer: Well what if we routed it through a web site in Russia, how could I do it then?
You can't.
Lawyer: Well doesn't the fact that my neighbor once used my computer give me the right to access his bank accounts?
IT guy: No it doesn't.
Lawyer: Boy, your answers are unhelpful, and I'm getting the impression you know nothing about computers. Didn't you see Richard Pryor in Superman II?
Thank you spirittraveller. It was questions 6 and 7 that really got to me, because they both seemed to be looking for ways to skirt the law.
Dear techstar and larry:
When someone comes into me, as my client, with me as their lawyer, it's not an interview like this. They come in with a problem, I do my best to help them with their problem. If anyone does the interviewing it's me, trying to get the facts from the client.
If someone came into my office and wanted to have a consultation, and asked me the kind of questions that were asked in questions 6 and 7, questions which seem to be about how to skirt the law-- and people have contacted me and asked me questions like those -- I assume they are RIAA investigators and tell them I can't help them.
When you first put in your Answer you say "Defendant Demands a Trial by Jury" in your Answer. Then you're entitled to a jury trial. If you neglect to do it, you may be deemed to have waived your right to a jury trial.
Questions 6 and 7.
I've thought a lot about the many comments which related to my manner of responding to questions 6 and 7, and I accept their verdict : I was rude and disrespectful.
Then I asked myself why, since I'm not usually quite that obnoxious.
Here's why I think it happened.
1. I go into everything public assuming that anything is being monitored by the RIAA, because it is.
2. I assume that everyone who asks me questions or makes comments could be an RIAA troll, because some of them are.
3. Both questions seem to ask questions about how to skirt the law. The first about whether doing something illegal from an "offshore" site would stand on a different legal footing than doing it from an American site. The other about whether buying a cd gives you rights in the songs that were contained on the cd, such as a perpetual right to get new copies from any source you like, based upon a perpetual "listening right". I found both questions to be rather odd.
I found it hard to believe that either question was an honest, good faith question, and responded sarcastically and impatiently.
I guess the fact that the questions were so positively moderated, and ultimately selected by the Interviews editor, indicates that they were honest, good faith questions from real Slashdotters so I should have just answered them respectfully. So to the questioners, if you are good guys, I apologize. And to those who complained about me, those of you who are not RIAA trolls, I apologize as well.
I've also noticed a lot of frustration, and anger, for not telling people that it's ok to make copies from a cd to your computer, keep them and use them on your computer, and keep them and use them on your mp3 player as you see fit, so long as it's for your personal use. Some people seem to assume it's because I don't know anything about the law, or don't know what an mp3 is, or something like that. After all, it seems like a simple enough question, and common sense would dictate that the answer should be yes, that it's ok. But there are no cases on the subject, and there is caselaw to the effect that your computer is not a personal audio device like an iPod is. And if you see the EFF article on the subject, "RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use", you'll see that the RIAA has flip flopped on this issue.
So I could go ahead, act knowledgeable, and tell you "sure, go ahead, that's perfectly legal". Or I could also go ahead, act knowledgeable, and tell you "no, that's absolutely illegal".
In either case I would be guessing, and I would be dishonest in pretending to know the answer to a question on which the jury is still out. So I would appreciate your cutting me some slack.
I accept the verdict of the moderators. I should have been more polite and explained why his flamebait was in error. Better yet, I shouldn't have swallowed the 'bait'. I should have just stayed away from that comment.
1. I think this is offtopic, because the lawsuits are based on sharing files, even legally acquired files, and are not actually based on downloading (although of course if they find evidence of actual downloading after the suit is begun, they will be glad to throw that into the mix). 2. The RIAA and its brethren are suing everywhere. 3. As to the downloading issue, if an American downloads a copyrighted song illegally, and the site from which he downloaded it was in Russia, do you seriously believe the courts would consider that a defense?
I wasn't "arguing on behalf of" anybody. I was answering questions.
Glad you're so sure. But See EFF Article "RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use"
"Conjecture" is exactly what it would take to answer a few of the questions. Some were easy to answer: there is no listening right. What is not so easy is whether copies for personal use are "fair use". See EFF Article "RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use"
The issue about copies for personal use is an area in which the RIAA has flip flopped. See EFF Article "RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use"
If by "quality legal analysis" you mean speculation, I don't feel that that would be helpful in this environment. I might do that in a scholarly setting among lawyers, but in this environment I could easily mislead people. I'm trying to help, not hurt, people.
No reputable lawyer is going to tell you how to evade the law.
If you think it's safe to rely on that assumption see what EFF has to say.
You can't safely assume anything in this crazy climate. See EFF article on making personal copies.
I know what an MP3 is. Just didn't know what MP3's he was talking about. He didn't say how he got the MP3's. Can't assume that RIAA are just agreeing that everybody can make all the copies they want for personal use. See what EFF has reported.
It's a physical object. If you lose it and want to replace it you have to buy another.
Sure you can listen to it.
The questioner was assuming that there is some "listening right" which follows you even after you no longer have the cd anymore. I.e., he is suggesting that you can go rip a copy of the song from somewhere, without reference to the copyright laws, because your past ownership of a cd with the song on it gave you a perpetual "listening right". That is total fiction.
You are correct. The RIAA is only going after people who are sharing files.
In response to that much more clear question, the answer is that the RIAA is going to come after you no matter where you got the files from. They're not suing people because they have evidence of downloading. They're suing them because they have evidence of the files residing in a shared files folder.
If you had a shared files folder with 500 RIAA songs in it, and you paid 99 cents to iTunes or whomever for each and every one of them, the RIAA would come after you and demand a settlement in the exact same amount as if every one of the song files had been pirated.
When I said "I don't know what you're talking about" I meant why he would think that it taking place in another country would be a defense, or would make him less subject to persecution or even prosecution. This is an international wave of litigation.
Also the present wave isn't presently about downloading primarily. It's primarily about the RIAA's allegations of 'distribution'. If you bought and paid for every single RIAA song file in your shared files folder it wouldn't mean a thing to them. They will still sue you, and will insist on every penny, because it is your 'sharing' of those songs that they know about, and that they are after.
You're losing the thread of what was said.
I said:
"When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc. I don't know what gives you this idea."
His response wasn't "what about making a copy on your hard drive and copying that to your ipod?" If he'd asked that question I would have said "there is no legal answer to that question at this time."
Instead his response was:
"It seems strange to me that a copyright lawyer hasn't heard of the fair use rights granted by US copyright law (Title 17, section 107). The person asking the legal question is better informed than the lawyer!"