The federal gov't tho, has stated that the internet is a scary scary place and that US citizens don't really know what's good for them when they venture out onto it. They recognize in Congress that States are basically out of their league when dealing with gambling over the internet. It's not enough for a State to decide to do something or nothing about it's citizens gambling on the internet. They have, in the form of the UIGEA and an updated interpretation of the Wire Act (from the 1960's!!!), decided that they have the only say about what people should be spending their money on. There would be no issue here if the federal gov't had not gotten involved, however it chose the fight, not the other way around. By allowing interstate internet wagering on Fantasy and Horse Racing, it has allowed internet wagering with or without the State's consent. This means that foreign companies (under the WTO agreements) are allowed to compete. If they are not allowed to compete, then it's protectionism. And if you review the debate on just Horse Racing in the US - that's exactly what it is. In fact the Dept. of Justice considers interent horse racing to be illegal, even though a carve-out exists specifically for it in the UIGEA.
So if you created a very popular website where you (for instance) wrote poems, and had a lot of traffic and you sold ads on that website (or charged a user fee), it's ok for me to come in and take your popular poems and copy them onto someone else's website where they sell banner ads? That is OK because you have created digital goods vs a tangible good? And then the actions of stealing that content are defended by saying, well you didn't want to give it to me or let me use it in any other way so I had no choice? That just holds no water at all. Copyright holders are the only people that get to determine how their property is used. That's it. Using it without that permission is theft. The value is only relevant in this case because they are suing for $xx, regardless of the amount of moeney you may or may not make, it is still theft of IP.
Under the exact letter of the law, yes, you are not able to make a copy and distribute it.
There is a personal use clause in copyright law that does allow you to make a copy of a product for your own personal consumption. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_ Act
Also - it's not entirely free - you are paying fees on blank CD's and other recordable mediums that go back to groups like the RIAA to compensate rights-holders.
And I would still maintain that not many judges would find against you if you say made a mix CD for your girlfriend and managed to get yourself sued by the RIAA.
The owners of the content are the owners. They invest in new content, some that will be profitable, much that will not. It is their risk to take, and their profit to reap. YouTube users are posting this content and YouTube generates ad revenues when those clips are viewed. If Viacomm has or wants to post its content anywhere it has the right to do so. New Media or not, that they 'get it' or not is in my view irrelevant. It is their content to do with as they see fit. Just becuase it has been broadcast does not mean that it's now in the public domain for everyone to have a crack at. Don't forget as well that in many instances Viacomm has an obligation to other parties to make sure the work is protected.
For people to come on here and say that they have a right to see this work, this content for free, that somoene is obliged to provide it to them is nonsense. You don't go to work for free, Slashdot does not give away it's banner advertising for free to their favorite companies, it just does not make sense to me to think in this manner.
That Viacomm needs to rethink it's strategy or 'get with it' (to paraphrase) is really not the issue for me here. If they choose old models that may or may not become obsolete, that is their business, and up to the stockholders of the company to decide.
Bingo. If you own something that someone else wants, you are under no obligation to make it avaiable to them, and if they obtain it without your permission, it's theft.
uh...yes. it does. Since you are not makeng money off of the CD's, and if you were the Post Office is not sharing in that money, they are certainly absolved. Paying someone for a service (indirectly profiting) is completely different than directly profiting off the proceeds of an illegal transaction. In most cases I believe the court would even hold that as long as you weren't selling the CD's to your friends, that you are certainly able to share your music with them for personal use.
In this case the indictment was sealed. No one knew that Mr. Carruthers or the others named were wanted by the DOJ. I'm sure if it had been public knowledge, or if the company had been served, there would have been different travel arrangements made. Whether or not the public company (BOS) would make Mr. Carruthers available to answer, or if the UK would extradite him would of course be a completely different story. But the document in question was sealed on June 1st and sealed tight.
In fact Calvin in the U.S. quite frequently, as early as last weekend according to reports. He is also scheduled to host a Gaming Marketing Conference in Las Vegas next week.
Slashdot Mirror
The federal gov't tho, has stated that the internet is a scary scary place and that US citizens don't really know what's good for them when they venture out onto it. They recognize in Congress that States are basically out of their league when dealing with gambling over the internet. It's not enough for a State to decide to do something or nothing about it's citizens gambling on the internet. They have, in the form of the UIGEA and an updated interpretation of the Wire Act (from the 1960's!!!), decided that they have the only say about what people should be spending their money on.
There would be no issue here if the federal gov't had not gotten involved, however it chose the fight, not the other way around. By allowing interstate internet wagering on Fantasy and Horse Racing, it has allowed internet wagering with or without the State's consent. This means that foreign companies (under the WTO agreements) are allowed to compete. If they are not allowed to compete, then it's protectionism. And if you review the debate on just Horse Racing in the US - that's exactly what it is. In fact the Dept. of Justice considers interent horse racing to be illegal, even though a carve-out exists specifically for it in the UIGEA.
So if you created a very popular website where you (for instance) wrote poems, and had a lot of traffic and you sold ads on that website (or charged a user fee), it's ok for me to come in and take your popular poems and copy them onto someone else's website where they sell banner ads? That is OK because you have created digital goods vs a tangible good? And then the actions of stealing that content are defended by saying, well you didn't want to give it to me or let me use it in any other way so I had no choice? That just holds no water at all. Copyright holders are the only people that get to determine how their property is used. That's it. Using it without that permission is theft. The value is only relevant in this case because they are suing for $xx, regardless of the amount of moeney you may or may not make, it is still theft of IP.
Under the exact letter of the law, yes, you are not able to make a copy and distribute it. There is a personal use clause in copyright law that does allow you to make a copy of a product for your own personal consumption. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_ Act
Also - it's not entirely free - you are paying fees on blank CD's and other recordable mediums that go back to groups like the RIAA to compensate rights-holders.
And I would still maintain that not many judges would find against you if you say made a mix CD for your girlfriend and managed to get yourself sued by the RIAA.
The owners of the content are the owners. They invest in new content, some that will be profitable, much that will not. It is their risk to take, and their profit to reap. YouTube users are posting this content and YouTube generates ad revenues when those clips are viewed. If Viacomm has or wants to post its content anywhere it has the right to do so. New Media or not, that they 'get it' or not is in my view irrelevant. It is their content to do with as they see fit. Just becuase it has been broadcast does not mean that it's now in the public domain for everyone to have a crack at. Don't forget as well that in many instances Viacomm has an obligation to other parties to make sure the work is protected. For people to come on here and say that they have a right to see this work, this content for free, that somoene is obliged to provide it to them is nonsense. You don't go to work for free, Slashdot does not give away it's banner advertising for free to their favorite companies, it just does not make sense to me to think in this manner. That Viacomm needs to rethink it's strategy or 'get with it' (to paraphrase) is really not the issue for me here. If they choose old models that may or may not become obsolete, that is their business, and up to the stockholders of the company to decide.
Bingo. If you own something that someone else wants, you are under no obligation to make it avaiable to them, and if they obtain it without your permission, it's theft.
uh...yes. it does. Since you are not makeng money off of the CD's, and if you were the Post Office is not sharing in that money, they are certainly absolved. Paying someone for a service (indirectly profiting) is completely different than directly profiting off the proceeds of an illegal transaction. In most cases I believe the court would even hold that as long as you weren't selling the CD's to your friends, that you are certainly able to share your music with them for personal use.
In this case the indictment was sealed. No one knew that Mr. Carruthers or the others named were wanted by the DOJ. I'm sure if it had been public knowledge, or if the company had been served, there would have been different travel arrangements made. Whether or not the public company (BOS) would make Mr. Carruthers available to answer, or if the UK would extradite him would of course be a completely different story. But the document in question was sealed on June 1st and sealed tight.
David is not, was not, never has been a US Citizen. He is a UK Citizen. Others named in the Indictment are US citizens
In fact Calvin in the U.S. quite frequently, as early as last weekend according to reports. He is also scheduled to host a Gaming Marketing Conference in Las Vegas next week.