They have evidence that she was running Kazaa (last I checked, that's not illegal). They may have evidence (if they get the right HD) that she was "making available" 24 songs (that's not illegal either).
Does the RIAA have evidence that actual uploads to other people occurred? That's what copyright infringement is. IMO, they have to show that she actually uploaded copyrighted content to other Kazaa users in order to prove that she is guilty of copyright infringement. As far as I know, they have no such evidence.
The RIAA has compelling evidence that she did lots of things which aren't illegal. They have no evidence (from what I've seen), compelling or otherwise, that any copyright infringement actually occurred.
She shouldn't be charged with any criminal activities acted out by other individuals. She did not force them to download from her. She is responsible only for the content she downloaded.
You have that backwards, uploading is copyright infringement. She is on trial for uploading content to others, not downloading for herself.
There are lots of hints that she is actually guilty
Guilty of what though? It looks pretty obvious that she's guilty of running Kazaa, but that's not illegal. The RIAA can potentially show that she was "making available" 24 songs, but that's not illegal either.
The *real* question is whether the RIAA has any evidence that she actually uploaded files to other people, which would be where the copyright infringement occurred.
There's a little more to it than that. E-Ink (the company) markets an electrophoretic display. However, lots of people refer to electrophoretic displays as "eInk". They are using it as a generic term just like your examples. I have no problem with that. I do it myself all the time.
This is a little different though. Pixel Qi is not making an electrophoretic display, they're making an LCD display.
It's accepted that people call all facial tissue "Kleenex". However, if you referred to a paper towel or a napkin as "Kleenex", people will look at you funny. I was just trying to point out that people were saying "Kleenex", when what we're really talking about here is a napkin. Whether or not "Kleenex" is the generic terminology for a facial tissue is beside the point. It's not a facial tissue, that's the point.
In the end though, it's not a big deal as far as the terminology. However, if you want to understand the technology of what Pixel Qi is doing (which I assume Slashdotters are interested in), it's important to recognize that it has nothing to do with eInk, but rather is something completely different. Otherwise it will lead to some confusion and people asking things like "How are they putting an eInk layer in front of the LCD layer", when they're obviously not.
I think the distinction here is that e-ink is only one type of e-paper (although probably the most well known at this point because of the Kindle). Pixel Qi is not using e-ink, they are using a form of LCD. It's a completely different technology.
You're right. People get the terms mixed up all the time. E-Ink is the name of a company that markets a specific implementation of epaper technology (electrophoretic display). There are other technologies that also qualify as epaper (including variations on LCD, which is what Pixel Qi uses). As far as I know, Pixel Qi has nothing to do with e-Ink. Lots of people just get confused and thing e-Ink == epaper, which is not true.
It can't. The open source implementation may or may not count as a circumvention tool, but it clearly is not infringing on Adobe's copyrights, so a DMCA takedown is inappropriate. But, since companies routinely abuse DMCA takedown notices against things that are not under their copyright, and the government looks the other way, they continue to do so.
Windows Vista is really not as bad as people think.
Most of the people who are complaining about it seem to only be doing so because it's currently popular to make fun of Vista. Most of the time they don't really have any specific problems that they can point to, or else the ones that they do mention have long since been fixed. Vista's biggest problem is that it started to get some bad PR, and it's just been snowballing ever since. There's nothing really wrong with it, other than not being able to recover from an initially bad reputation.
I think they knew from the start it wouldn't last forever, but they probably thought that they could scare enough people by the time it blew up in their faces that it didn't matter.
Unfortunately, given the number of people who believe that copyright infringement is theft and believe that you can get sued for downloading, their fear campaign seems to be working.
Is my email address being harvested when I opt out?
Yes.
Has anybody had similar experience?
I thought it was common knowledge that the only thing opting out to a spam does is confirm to the spammer that they've got a real/valid email address. The end result is that you just encourage them to send you more spam.
there is nothing stopping two people outside the RIAA colluding such that one sues the other, using the same arguments as the RIAA, and intentionally loses. This then sets the precedent.
I'm pretty sure that would seriously piss off any judge that caught you doing that. I assume there are some serious penalties for trying to "game" the system like that.
That's exactly what the people who are trying to control music distribution want. They don't want anyone to produce and distribute any music that they can't play middleman to.
That's the real reason they're fighting P2P. They're terrified of it, not because of some lost sales, but because it is a competitor. What they fear is that artists will start realizing that P2P is popular enough that they don't need the RIAA companies anymore. Their main goal isn't to win any of these legal cases, but to make people afraid of downloading from P2P networks. The RIAA is more worried about people downloading Indie music from P2P than they are their own music.
That's a nice theory, except that there have been lots of companies that abuse the DMCA takedown notices, and the government never holds them accountable. "under penalty of perjury" doesn't hold any significant threat if nobody is ever penalized.
Slashdot Mirror
The RIAA's evidence is compelling.
Yeah, but what does it really show.
They have evidence that she was running Kazaa (last I checked, that's not illegal).
They may have evidence (if they get the right HD) that she was "making available" 24 songs (that's not illegal either).
Does the RIAA have evidence that actual uploads to other people occurred? That's what copyright infringement is. IMO, they have to show that she actually uploaded copyrighted content to other Kazaa users in order to prove that she is guilty of copyright infringement. As far as I know, they have no such evidence.
The RIAA has compelling evidence that she did lots of things which aren't illegal. They have no evidence (from what I've seen), compelling or otherwise, that any copyright infringement actually occurred.
She shouldn't be charged with any criminal activities acted out by other individuals. She did not force them to download from her. She is responsible only for the content she downloaded.
You have that backwards, uploading is copyright infringement. She is on trial for uploading content to others, not downloading for herself.
There are lots of hints that she is actually guilty
Guilty of what though? It looks pretty obvious that she's guilty of running Kazaa, but that's not illegal. The RIAA can potentially show that she was "making available" 24 songs, but that's not illegal either.
The *real* question is whether the RIAA has any evidence that she actually uploaded files to other people, which would be where the copyright infringement occurred.
... and she's "obviously guilty" only if the "evidence" collected by an unlicensed PI is admissible.
The whole point of this is that the things that make her look "obviously guilty" are highly questionable.
Who says it's hard? The usenet service I use filters out almost all of the spam for me. They seem to do a pretty good job of it.
There's a little more to it than that. E-Ink (the company) markets an electrophoretic display. However, lots of people refer to electrophoretic displays as "eInk". They are using it as a generic term just like your examples. I have no problem with that. I do it myself all the time.
This is a little different though. Pixel Qi is not making an electrophoretic display, they're making an LCD display.
It's accepted that people call all facial tissue "Kleenex". However, if you referred to a paper towel or a napkin as "Kleenex", people will look at you funny. I was just trying to point out that people were saying "Kleenex", when what we're really talking about here is a napkin. Whether or not "Kleenex" is the generic terminology for a facial tissue is beside the point. It's not a facial tissue, that's the point.
In the end though, it's not a big deal as far as the terminology. However, if you want to understand the technology of what Pixel Qi is doing (which I assume Slashdotters are interested in), it's important to recognize that it has nothing to do with eInk, but rather is something completely different. Otherwise it will lead to some confusion and people asking things like "How are they putting an eInk layer in front of the LCD layer", when they're obviously not.
I think the distinction here is that e-ink is only one type of e-paper (although probably the most well known at this point because of the Kindle). Pixel Qi is not using e-ink, they are using a form of LCD. It's a completely different technology.
You're right. People get the terms mixed up all the time. E-Ink is the name of a company that markets a specific implementation of epaper technology (electrophoretic display). There are other technologies that also qualify as epaper (including variations on LCD, which is what Pixel Qi uses). As far as I know, Pixel Qi has nothing to do with e-Ink. Lots of people just get confused and thing e-Ink == epaper, which is not true.
It can't. The open source implementation may or may not count as a circumvention tool, but it clearly is not infringing on Adobe's copyrights, so a DMCA takedown is inappropriate. But, since companies routinely abuse DMCA takedown notices against things that are not under their copyright, and the government looks the other way, they continue to do so.
Windows Vista is really not as bad as people think.
Most of the people who are complaining about it seem to only be doing so because it's currently popular to make fun of Vista. Most of the time they don't really have any specific problems that they can point to, or else the ones that they do mention have long since been fixed. Vista's biggest problem is that it started to get some bad PR, and it's just been snowballing ever since. There's nothing really wrong with it, other than not being able to recover from an initially bad reputation.
Now, maybe I'm an idiot for buying into the "Vista: bad" hype
Yes, you are.
Just tell us what you're doing so we can prepare for 7.
They're taking Windows Mojave and renaming it "Windows 7". See, now you don't have to worry about buying the evil Vista!
So basically everything that can be written has been written?
Google "everything that can be written has been written", 388 results.
You plagiarist! :)
If someone takes all your money and/or possessions, you can get those things back.
In this economy? :)
I think they knew from the start it wouldn't last forever, but they probably thought that they could scare enough people by the time it blew up in their faces that it didn't matter.
Unfortunately, given the number of people who believe that copyright infringement is theft and believe that you can get sued for downloading, their fear campaign seems to be working.
Do their verdicts get overturned?
What verdicts? I don't recall the RIAA ever winning a single case. Well, one, but that verdict has already been set aside by the judge.
Was I a fool for opting out?
Yes.
Is my email address being harvested when I opt out?
Yes.
Has anybody had similar experience?
I thought it was common knowledge that the only thing opting out to a spam does is confirm to the spammer that they've got a real/valid email address. The end result is that you just encourage them to send you more spam.
What percentage of "zero" did they get?
it is the people who are being sued by the RIAA/MPAA that are doing questionably legal things.
You've got to be kidding.
it's been made pretty clear that if you get caught downloading
Nobody has been sued for downloading.
you can and most likely will get sued. (and lose.)
The RIAA has not won a single one of these cases.
And, as far as I've read, the laws and precedents support this.
Apparently you have not read very far (or at all).
there is nothing stopping two people outside the RIAA colluding such that one sues the other, using the same arguments as the RIAA, and intentionally loses. This then sets the precedent.
I'm pretty sure that would seriously piss off any judge that caught you doing that. I assume there are some serious penalties for trying to "game" the system like that.
That's exactly what the people who are trying to control music distribution want. They don't want anyone to produce and distribute any music that they can't play middleman to.
That's the real reason they're fighting P2P. They're terrified of it, not because of some lost sales, but because it is a competitor. What they fear is that artists will start realizing that P2P is popular enough that they don't need the RIAA companies anymore. Their main goal isn't to win any of these legal cases, but to make people afraid of downloading from P2P networks. The RIAA is more worried about people downloading Indie music from P2P than they are their own music.
So before modding me a troll, or flamebait, or calling me an MS fanboi or shill, please post some technical arguments as to why Linux is better.
You must be new here.
Because every file TPB has is legally able to be there.
Actually, every file TPB has is completely legal.
blatantly offering items which they know they have no right to be distributing
TPB doesn't distribute anything.
It sounds like you don't really know what TPB does.
Um, pretty sure that breaking copyright is illegal.
True. Good thing this has nothing to do with breaking copyright.
So which niche is this targetting?
The same niche that buys Segways... Doh!
That's a nice theory, except that there have been lots of companies that abuse the DMCA takedown notices, and the government never holds them accountable. "under penalty of perjury" doesn't hold any significant threat if nobody is ever penalized.