It'll be interesting, if there is a new trial where the RIAA has to prove distribution, whether the judge considers MediaSentry downloads to be proof of infringement. I guess technically it is, but that also raises the question of whether or not the amount of downloads has any bearing on the size of the penalty/fine. If MediaSentry can download from you to show infringement, can they do it 1000 times in order to try and increase the fine? I would hope the answer is "No", but what would the court say?
If MediaSentry downloads do not count as infringement, then the RIAA is pretty much screwed. It's going to be virtually impossible for the RIAA to prove distribution over the internet between independent parties. The only possibility I can think of is if they start getting trace data from ISPs showing P2P traffic.
Yeah, I noticed that too. The article says that it's 140 yrs old "relative to earth's time frame". I assume what they mean is that it's 28,000 + 140 years old, meaning that the light we are seeing from it started reaching us 140 years ago.
You're correct, but they're not suing people for downloading from the RIAA. It's the unauthorized people who are uploading that are illegally distributing the files.
Could I save a few dollars by home brewing? Maybe.. but let's not forget all the "learning" batches, the time it takes, and the waiting! Oh, the waiting!
I always say that the most difficult thing to learn about brewing is patience.;)
Find a homebrew club in your area, or just a local brewer (most of them are really friendly and happy to help out a beginner), and it will cut way down on the learning curve. It's really not that difficult to make beer as good as or better than anything you can buy in the store (even the more expensive stuff). The best place to start, if you're interested, is http://www.howtobrew.com/
Yeah, it's a hobby. You should be doing it because you enjoy it. Saving money is just a nice side benefit.
However, if homebrewing is costing you more than commercial beer, you must be doing something wrong. It should be a lot cheaper, even factoring in equipment costs over time, etc.
Are you talking US dollars? Where do you shop, those prices sound really high. I don't think I've ever spent $50 - $60 for a batch. Even extract brewing is cheaper than that.
One of the biggest challenges to improving your brewing is brewing to style.
It depends on what your goal is. If you want to enter a competition that scores based on adherence to style, then yes, brewing to style will improve your beer. If your goal is just to make good beer, then style doesn't really matter.
Three strikes of actually being found guilty in a court of law, or three strikes of wild accusations thrown around by anybody with content to protect (and very little, if any, proof)?
If Media Sentry downloads your kids book report from your server, it's not copyright infringement. Distributing your own content is not illegal, it'd be kind of silly if it were.
Most P2P software will automatically share files in your download directory as well as sharing the chunks of files that are currently being downloaded. The average user is often unaware that it is doing so, and in most cases can not turn off this functionality even if they wanted to. They can choose whether or not to include additional directories for sharing, but the two examples above will be shared whether or not the user gives their consent.
Is the P2P software legally able to make an "offer to distribute" on behalf of the user, to the extent that the user is liable even if they never gave their consent or were even aware that it was doing so?
Have there been any movies released yet with that flag turned on? The last time I heard about it (admittedly a long time ago), it was a feature that was possible, but all of the movie studios said they were not going to use it for now. Have they started using it? As far as I know, you still get HD over component analog video cables for Blu-ray movies.
Your house is private property, which is why people are not allowed to enter. It has nothing to do with whether the door is locked or not.
This situation is similar to putting up a big sign in your yard that is visible from public property, and then complaining about people who look at it. If you want it to be private, then don't make it visible from public property. Same thing with a URL. If you want the content to be private, then don't make the link publicly accessible. If you do make it public, you can't complain when people look.
If the maintenance/development cost (including the cost of finding people to support it) of your current platform is higher than the cost to switch to another one, then switch. If not, then stay where you are (assuming that the current platform meets your needs, etc).
I've had the same thing happen to me in the past. I received two letters forwarded by an ISP from the MPAA. Both of which were for the distribution of files that I never had, and wouldn't even want. Something was definitely flawed in their detection methods. I don't know if the RIAA cases are using the same or similar software.
Slashdot Mirror
It'll be interesting, if there is a new trial where the RIAA has to prove distribution, whether the judge considers MediaSentry downloads to be proof of infringement. I guess technically it is, but that also raises the question of whether or not the amount of downloads has any bearing on the size of the penalty/fine. If MediaSentry can download from you to show infringement, can they do it 1000 times in order to try and increase the fine? I would hope the answer is "No", but what would the court say?
If MediaSentry downloads do not count as infringement, then the RIAA is pretty much screwed. It's going to be virtually impossible for the RIAA to prove distribution over the internet between independent parties. The only possibility I can think of is if they start getting trace data from ISPs showing P2P traffic.
Yeah, I noticed that too. The article says that it's 140 yrs old "relative to earth's time frame". I assume what they mean is that it's 28,000 + 140 years old, meaning that the light we are seeing from it started reaching us 140 years ago.
It's not copyright infringement if you're distributing your own material.
Not really, and this has already been addressed by the courts in shooting down the "making available" theory.
Basically "attempted copyright infringement" does not exist. If the song was never distributed, then infringement did not occur.
You're correct, but they're not suing people for downloading from the RIAA. It's the unauthorized people who are uploading that are illegally distributing the files.
Actually, the federal law specifically allows the states to restrict it if they want. Most don't, but there are still a couple that do.
Could I save a few dollars by home brewing? Maybe.. but let's not forget all the "learning" batches, the time it takes, and the waiting! Oh, the waiting!
;)
I always say that the most difficult thing to learn about brewing is patience.
Find a homebrew club in your area, or just a local brewer (most of them are really friendly and happy to help out a beginner), and it will cut way down on the learning curve. It's really not that difficult to make beer as good as or better than anything you can buy in the store (even the more expensive stuff). The best place to start, if you're interested, is http://www.howtobrew.com/
Yeah, it's a hobby. You should be doing it because you enjoy it. Saving money is just a nice side benefit.
However, if homebrewing is costing you more than commercial beer, you must be doing something wrong. It should be a lot cheaper, even factoring in equipment costs over time, etc.
Are you talking US dollars? Where do you shop, those prices sound really high. I don't think I've ever spent $50 - $60 for a batch. Even extract brewing is cheaper than that.
One of the biggest challenges to improving your brewing is brewing to style.
It depends on what your goal is. If you want to enter a competition that scores based on adherence to style, then yes, brewing to style will improve your beer. If your goal is just to make good beer, then style doesn't really matter.
Three strikes of actually being found guilty in a court of law, or three strikes of wild accusations thrown around by anybody with content to protect (and very little, if any, proof)?
You could just as easily say that no one really believes their Monster cables make their stereos sound better.
;)
Knowledgeable people don't believe it.
And yet, that company is still in business.
The world is full of stupid people.
I think for most people there is a psychological relationship between how expensive something is and how good it is.
Yep, see above.
If Media Sentry downloads your kids book report from your server, it's not copyright infringement. Distributing your own content is not illegal, it'd be kind of silly if it were.
The "foreign government" is not taxing you, they're taxing the NY citizen that bought your product.
Most P2P software will automatically share files in your download directory as well as sharing the chunks of files that are currently being downloaded. The average user is often unaware that it is doing so, and in most cases can not turn off this functionality even if they wanted to. They can choose whether or not to include additional directories for sharing, but the two examples above will be shared whether or not the user gives their consent.
Is the P2P software legally able to make an "offer to distribute" on behalf of the user, to the extent that the user is liable even if they never gave their consent or were even aware that it was doing so?
the difference between "making available" and "offer to distribute"? They basically sound like the same thing to me.
They're complaining that the auction favored the highest bidder. Yeah, that sounds like Darl's intellectual level.
Have there been any movies released yet with that flag turned on? The last time I heard about it (admittedly a long time ago), it was a feature that was possible, but all of the movie studios said they were not going to use it for now. Have they started using it? As far as I know, you still get HD over component analog video cables for Blu-ray movies.
They mean it needs to be at a temperature close to -460F. In other words... it'll be way too expensive to turn the AC in your house down that far.
Are there any states where they are licensed to investigate?
Your house is private property, which is why people are not allowed to enter. It has nothing to do with whether the door is locked or not.
This situation is similar to putting up a big sign in your yard that is visible from public property, and then complaining about people who look at it. If you want it to be private, then don't make it visible from public property. Same thing with a URL. If you want the content to be private, then don't make the link publicly accessible. If you do make it public, you can't complain when people look.
He gets oodles of money funneled to his causes through various third parties (the big media corporations), neatly bypassing campaign funding laws.
The (D) next to his name pretty much stands for "Disney", not Democrat.
If the maintenance/development cost (including the cost of finding people to support it) of your current platform is higher than the cost to switch to another one, then switch. If not, then stay where you are (assuming that the current platform meets your needs, etc).
I've had the same thing happen to me in the past. I received two letters forwarded by an ISP from the MPAA. Both of which were for the distribution of files that I never had, and wouldn't even want. Something was definitely flawed in their detection methods. I don't know if the RIAA cases are using the same or similar software.
There's a big difference between driving the average speed of everyone else on the road versus what this guy did. But I think you knew that.