|
Jedakiah
|
 |
« on: October 16, 2007, 12:38:48 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jakestaby
Guest
|
|
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2007, 01:09:27 PM » |
|
Good thing I don't use usenet.com.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jakestaby
Guest
|
|
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2007, 01:10:26 PM » |
|
"Defendant customizes its service to make it as convenient and seamless as possible for subscribers to distribute and obtain copyrighted music without authorization and without paying for that music." LOL, who uses usenet for music anyway? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
b.ho
Guest
|
|
« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2007, 04:36:56 PM » |
|
i'm actually more shocked that the woman, Jammie Thomas , paid over 200k for 24 songs. WOW.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jedakiah
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 16, 2007, 04:38:37 PM » |
|
She didn't pay, she is appealing her case. The entire jusry was computer illeterate, some of them have never used the internet. Because of this they didn't even think it possible to spoof an IP address.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jedakiah
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2007, 02:23:10 PM » |
|
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/10/17/2019252.shtml I wonder when the law will start siding with itself. I have watched copyright law for some time and I am constantly amazed at how often a judge will decide that this straight forward law doesn't apply but that stretching this other law to the max does. I fancy myself a relatively unbiased and well read person on these topics. And I still find it funny that most of these defendants don't throw even close to all their ammunition at the RIAA. I think these are the major weak points in most of their cases: - The RIAA attempts to equate this with theft. Nobody is stealing anything in any of these situations. They are just obtaining copies of a copyrighted work, which is possibly copyright infringement.
- Is it really copyright infringement when no one is redistributing it for profit? When the original author is still given credit for the material? And when it is just a digital copy (For example: Would it be copyright infringement for your computer to copy the song into RAM?)
- How would digital copies be any less of an infringement than a radio station?
- According to US law (I believe it is in the constitution) you cannot sue for very much more than the actual amount of damages inflicted. When you can legally obtain a song for 70 cents, is it legal to sue for $150,000 per infringement?
- Of course the ever popular it wasn't me it was an IP argument if you're just trying to dodge the bullet.
- Show me proof that "illegal" downloading is hurting the industry.
There is plenty more. But I do believe that if any one of these cases (with the possible exception of the Jammie Thomas one) were to bring up all these points in court they would win. And it would be a precedent setting case. PS. Since I am not a lawyer it is all to possible that I don't know what I'm talking about. Please point out my stupidity that be the case.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 18, 2007, 02:25:21 PM by Jedakiah »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Powdered!
Guest
|
|
« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2007, 11:45:51 AM » |
|
radios pay royalties when they play a song, i believe
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Latro
Guest
|
|
« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2007, 11:57:35 AM » |
|
Its also not damages based on current price of a song but damages are fines set at a certain point based on the value of a song. I think the fine set for breaking copyrights on a song was something like $2,300. So the problem also would include re-writing copyright laws so some one doesn't get screwed for making 1 copy of a $.70 song.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jedakiah
|
|
« Reply #8 on: October 19, 2007, 12:03:38 PM » |
|
I haven't had time to research this. But I am pretty sure that paying a royalty for songs was introduced with internet radio.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jedakiah
|
|
« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2007, 12:04:53 PM » |
|
Its also not damages based on current price of a song but damages are fines set at a certain point based on the value of a song. I think the fine set for breaking copyrights on a song was something like $2,300. So the problem also would include re-writing copyright laws so some one doesn't get screwed for making 1 copy of a $.70 song.
I know in the Jammie Thomas case they pursued the maximum penalty which was $150,000 per song. But they clearly didn't get it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jakestaby
Guest
|
|
« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2007, 01:19:05 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jedakiah
|
|
« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2007, 01:27:49 PM » |
|
Interesting. I have read that you may have to assemble a file once you get it off usenet.. I don't understand what this entail?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jakestaby
Guest
|
|
« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2007, 06:32:51 PM » |
|
It means you get 15-50 .rar files. You have to use winrar or a similar program. All it does is extract data from each file individually, creating one file.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jedakiah
|
|
« Reply #13 on: October 19, 2007, 07:44:24 PM » |
|
Oh, I thought it mentioned something about binary files and I was assuming those were different than anything I've encountered.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Duracell
o_O
Sr. Member
Posts: 467
#inlo
|
|
« Reply #14 on: October 20, 2007, 05:12:34 PM » |
|
I haven't had time to research this. But I am pretty sure that paying a royalty for songs was introduced with internet radio.
1. No, they've always been there. 2. Usenet is bad. Or rather, torrents are better. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
