Canada is currently in a minority government position with popular vote also being split very evenly across the country.
Since the current government in Canada is a Conservative 'minority government', and the usual byproduct of a minority government is special interest groups having larger spheres of power.
It would be somewhat safe to assume that 90,000 people in a Facebook group would have some sort of say and influence regarding a special interest bill (such as C-61).
Copyright issues even for big media is not enough for a politician in Canada to torpedo his chance of looking 'current' with technological issues and possibly losing votes in the 18-40 demographic.
"Bad lawyers for the defendants. (There was obviously a lack of professionalism)"
Obviously? You were able to glean from the 15-word writeup that the defendant's lawyers were unprofessional? Perhaps the fellows really were sharing all those songs with Kazaa or whatever? It's interesting that a common sentiment on Slashdot is "There are millions and millions of filesharers! You can't stop us!" and then when the occasional unlucky few out of the millions and millions get caught, a common assumption is that it must be a misunderstanding.
You apparently assume that filesharing is not a "person's" right upon purchase. You are entitled to your opinion. Many people disagree with your opinion. I was able to "glean" from the 15-word write up because my father is a copyright lawyer and we discuss these cases and agree that most people have little, or improper defence counsel.
"Most lawyers in both the U.S. and Europe have little, if no understanding of the copyright system. For example in the U.S. alone the copyright laws have been amended so many times that only a handful of lawyers even understand what the law "says", let alone is interpreted as."
"Don't put thousands of copyrighted works in your share directory if you don't have the right to do so" is straightforward enough.
I disagree. You are assuming an understanding of copyright. You are assuming that placing songs which you have purchased in a share directory is infringment of copyright. You are entitled to your opinion.
"The judges in these cases generally don't have a lot of precedents to refer to."
Judges have been hearing civil and criminal copyright cases since before our grandparents were born.
As new technologies emerge, interpretation and protection of copyrights evolves. What constitutes digital protections and digital copyright infringment is still under lots of argument (see http://www.eff.org/)
"The world is undecided currently on what to do with the Internet in a legal sense of rights and fair use.
The fact that some people think that putting thousands of copyrighted files in your share directory without permission is morally acceptable makes little difference here. This is why we have laws: to protect society against human nature.
Apparently you believe special interest/lobbying groups such as the R.I.A.A. and European equivalents are here to protect society against human nature. Perhaps people have the right to share what they purchase with their friends, but once again you are entitled to your own opinion.
I agree with some earlier comments regarding a bad defence. There are many reasons that the judge in this case got away with deciding them in this manner:
1. Bad lawyers for the defendants. (There was obviously a lack of professionalism)
2. Most lawyers in both the U.S. and Europe have little, if no understanding of the copyright system. For example in the U.S. alone the copyright laws have been amended so many times that only a handful of lawyers even understand what the law "says", let alone is interpreted as.
3. Pressure! (These lower court decisions obviously have huge pressure inflicted by the lobbying groups involved, it would take a good lawyer to get taken seriously)
4. The arguments involved in defending yourself for these sort of cases tends to be much more complicated then typical civil action. In these cases the defendant must prove "lack of evidence" under a much wider argument generally along privacy, fair use, copyright details, what is infringment etc...
5. The judges in these cases generally don't have a lot of precedents to refer to.
6. The world is undecided currently on what to do with the Internet in a legal sense of rights and fair use.
The Problem with the RIAA is that it serves a "Special Interest". Earlier replies have noted things such as: "When will it End", and "Stop suing your customer base". The problem is that an organization such as the RIAA must constantly justify its existence by having a mission, thus the problem with special interests, is that their "interests" always relate only to a "special" usually beneficial relationship for which they were formed in the first place(e.g. serving the record companies interests). In my smallish life experience groups like the RIAA crash and burn horribly, but only after they have pushed as far as possible, in which case the parent (record labels) disown their bastard child (i.e. "they lost sight of their goals" etc...)Anyways that's my two cents.
It seems that we are approaching the end of the "Big Labels". Here are the reasons I predict for the downfall of these aforementioned labels.
1. People can gather, record, produce, and distribute their music anywhere in the world from a single computer.
2. Everyone inherently seems to feel that music has been overpriced and overmanaged for a long time.
3. People don't mind paying to download.
4. p2p downloaders statistically (RIAA numbers!)are the biggest customers of pay per download.
5. Inevitability of open formats which are cross-platform for distributing all sorts of music and video type files.
With business cycles there tends to be shifts in certain industries. For example sometimes an industry will be in a shift of Centralization (Big Labels for distribution of millions of CD's/Vinyl/Tapes), future market conditions can cause this shift to head in the other direction (Indie Labels, Web Distribution) which is Decentralization.
The music industry is decentralizating and with more and more artists forming their own labels the Big Labels become useless empty shells with only their intellectual property left to earn them money. The death of the CD will be the death of the Big Labels for this will remove the last reason for their existence.
In response to the Firefox slowing I think that although the percentage increase is slowing there will still be growth to around 20 percent. It is important that we keep "Browsers" which are becoming increasing important, as transparent as possible. This is why I'm a believer in Firefox ever since my brother "converted" me.
I make a very strong effort to get my friends to use Firefox. I have even converted my Indian business partner to use it. All you really need to do is show someone how to work "Tabs".
After this they have a reason to use it instead of IE... other than hating Microsoft. I think it's important that people recommend Firefox as I believe Microsoft's interests to be extremely controlling and Pro-Microsoft(which is to be expected). The data mining out there is getting out of control so the least we can do is keep it as transparent as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Canada is currently in a minority government position with popular vote also being split very evenly across the country.
Since the current government in Canada is a Conservative 'minority government', and the usual byproduct of a minority government is special interest groups having larger spheres of power. It would be somewhat safe to assume that 90,000 people in a Facebook group would have some sort of say and influence regarding a special interest bill (such as C-61).
Copyright issues even for big media is not enough for a politician in Canada to torpedo his chance of looking 'current' with technological issues and possibly losing votes in the 18-40 demographic.
"Bad lawyers for the defendants. (There was obviously a lack of professionalism)"
Obviously? You were able to glean from the 15-word writeup that the defendant's lawyers were unprofessional? Perhaps the fellows really were sharing all those songs with Kazaa or whatever? It's interesting that a common sentiment on Slashdot is "There are millions and millions of filesharers! You can't stop us!" and then when the occasional unlucky few out of the millions and millions get caught, a common assumption is that it must be a misunderstanding.
You apparently assume that filesharing is not a "person's" right upon purchase. You are entitled to your opinion. Many people disagree with your opinion. I was able to "glean" from the 15-word write up because my father is a copyright lawyer and we discuss these cases and agree that most people have little, or improper defence counsel.
"Most lawyers in both the U.S. and Europe have little, if no understanding of the copyright system. For example in the U.S. alone the copyright laws have been amended so many times that only a handful of lawyers even understand what the law "says", let alone is interpreted as."
"Don't put thousands of copyrighted works in your share directory if you don't have the right to do so" is straightforward enough.
I disagree. You are assuming an understanding of copyright. You are assuming that placing songs which you have purchased in a share directory is infringment of copyright. You are entitled to your opinion.
"The judges in these cases generally don't have a lot of precedents to refer to."
Judges have been hearing civil and criminal copyright cases since before our grandparents were born.
As new technologies emerge, interpretation and protection of copyrights evolves. What constitutes digital protections and digital copyright infringment is still under lots of argument (see http://www.eff.org/)
"The world is undecided currently on what to do with the Internet in a legal sense of rights and fair use.
The fact that some people think that putting thousands of copyrighted files in your share directory without permission is morally acceptable makes little difference here. This is why we have laws: to protect society against human nature.
Apparently you believe special interest/lobbying groups such as the R.I.A.A. and European equivalents are here to protect society against human nature. Perhaps people have the right to share what they purchase with their friends, but once again you are entitled to your own opinion.
I agree with some earlier comments regarding a bad defence. There are many reasons that the judge in this case got away with deciding them in this manner:
1. Bad lawyers for the defendants. (There was obviously a lack of professionalism)
2. Most lawyers in both the U.S. and Europe have little, if no understanding of the copyright system. For example in the U.S. alone the copyright laws have been amended so many times that only a handful of lawyers even understand what the law "says", let alone is interpreted as.
3. Pressure! (These lower court decisions obviously have huge pressure inflicted by the lobbying groups involved, it would take a good lawyer to get taken seriously)
4. The arguments involved in defending yourself for these sort of cases tends to be much more complicated then typical civil action. In these cases the defendant must prove "lack of evidence" under a much wider argument generally along privacy, fair use, copyright details, what is infringment etc...
5. The judges in these cases generally don't have a lot of precedents to refer to.
6. The world is undecided currently on what to do with the Internet in a legal sense of rights and fair use.
Hope this clarifies some issues a bit.
The Problem with the RIAA is that it serves a "Special Interest". Earlier replies have noted things such as: "When will it End", and "Stop suing your customer base". The problem is that an organization such as the RIAA must constantly justify its existence by having a mission, thus the problem with special interests, is that their "interests" always relate only to a "special" usually beneficial relationship for which they were formed in the first place(e.g. serving the record companies interests). In my smallish life experience groups like the RIAA crash and burn horribly, but only after they have pushed as far as possible, in which case the parent (record labels) disown their bastard child (i.e. "they lost sight of their goals" etc...)Anyways that's my two cents.
1. People can gather, record, produce, and distribute their music anywhere in the world from a single computer.
2. Everyone inherently seems to feel that music has been overpriced and overmanaged for a long time.
3. People don't mind paying to download.
4. p2p downloaders statistically (RIAA numbers!)are the biggest customers of pay per download.
5. Inevitability of open formats which are cross-platform for distributing all sorts of music and video type files.
With business cycles there tends to be shifts in certain industries. For example sometimes an industry will be in a shift of Centralization (Big Labels for distribution of millions of CD's/Vinyl/Tapes), future market conditions can cause this shift to head in the other direction (Indie Labels, Web Distribution) which is Decentralization. The music industry is decentralizating and with more and more artists forming their own labels the Big Labels become useless empty shells with only their intellectual property left to earn them money. The death of the CD will be the death of the Big Labels for this will remove the last reason for their existence.
In response to the Firefox slowing I think that although the percentage increase is slowing there will still be growth to around 20 percent. It is important that we keep "Browsers" which are becoming increasing important, as transparent as possible. This is why I'm a believer in Firefox ever since my brother "converted" me. I make a very strong effort to get my friends to use Firefox. I have even converted my Indian business partner to use it. All you really need to do is show someone how to work "Tabs". After this they have a reason to use it instead of IE... other than hating Microsoft. I think it's important that people recommend Firefox as I believe Microsoft's interests to be extremely controlling and Pro-Microsoft(which is to be expected). The data mining out there is getting out of control so the least we can do is keep it as transparent as possible.