What is Digg?67 Comments
- hyperlexic, on 11/04/2007, -2/+34FyreGodess: I agree with you in principle, however if a site makes the claim that they own the license to legally redistribute content/software, how am I supposed to verify this? Now if I go to a site and see all the top albums available for free, I KNOW this is illegal. But what the professor is arguing is the 'slippery slope' of this law. For example, if I go to a site and read an AP news story, how do I know they have a deal with the AP to distribute this story? Am I liable at all if they don't?
- Loonacy, on 11/02/2007, -2/+23So if a torrent site has ads, it's legal?
- inactive, on 11/04/2007, -5/+21*throws radio out the window* Phew... Thanks for your advice about free music, I dodged a bullet there.
- BlueCalico, on 11/04/2007, -3/+14All people are NOT LAWYERS - we can't possibly be responsible because some advertisements break Truth in Advertising laws! This is really a story about how government is trying very hard to find ways to show that they should regulate the Internet. THIS IS RIDICULOUS!
- hipnerd, on 11/04/2007, -5/+15There is the concept that punishments must not be "cruel or unusual" though. One way they can be both is if the punishment is excessive. The fine for stealing a $13.99 CD from Wal*Mart would likely be less than $100 for a first offender. If that CD had 14 songs, a user would be fined well over $1000 for illegally downloading the same material from the Internet. It's excessive and likely unconstitutional.
- hyperlexic, on 11/02/2007, -3/+10FyreGoddess: This is absolutely about 'what you read and what you listen to'. This is a legal argument. You might not know how lawyers work, but if they perceive a loophole to exploit, they will press it as far as it can go. What this professor is arguing is that the way it is structured right now, it leaves far too much leeway for lawyers to set up 'gotcha' traps and use this as a weapon rather than as a defensive protective tool.
"Snow points out that the automatic punishment of copyright law applies to whatever expression may be downloaded. Stories, pictures and videos are all subject to strict punishment under copyright law."
So my example of an AP story is absolutely valid. - kgorczyn, on 11/04/2007, -1/+7Umm... last time I checked I have not seen or heard of anyone getting in trouble for downloading....
- hipnerd, on 11/04/2007, -2/+7I considered more than the actual damages. A shoplifter pays $50 - $100 as a fine for a minor theft like this. That's on top of recompense for the stolen item and reasonable. The phrase "cruel and unusual" is generally, interpreted as a reinforcement of the basic legal maxim that the "punishment should fit the crime". By allowing the record labels to write the laws, we have entered an era where the punishment far exceeds the crime.
A woman facing a $250,000 judgment for downloading 17 songs to her PC is a travesty of justice on its face. - geekee, on 11/04/2007, -0/+5Most retarded argument ever. Even if it was considered speech, which it isn't, not all speech is legal. The classic example is shouting fire in a theater.
FTA
"The very potential for copytraps, with automatic penalties assessed against the innocent downloader, raises First Amendment concern," Snow said. "The First Amendment comes into play because downloading is a form of speech. Downloading is the same as copying, and copying is a form of expression." - Makisupa, on 11/04/2007, -0/+3Actually, SCOTUS held the 8th amendment applies to civil damages, but read my response below.
- VAXcat, on 11/02/2007, -0/+3 I ike to shout "THEATER!" at a crowded fire.
- akeating, on 11/04/2007, -2/+5That's crap. I can't get an artist's song for $.99 through them, but I can through iTunes. Is iTunes legal? How would any consumer know if the company their buying from is legit or not? Hell, what if a company charges $20 a song--that wouldn't insure that the downloads are legal.
Just as someone that gets something from you by lying can be arrested for theft, these companies that claim to be legal should be prosecuted. - sgtpppr, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3Wait until rickroll is determined to be a copyright violation and everyone viewing it has legal papers sent to them.
- 3adkied, on 11/02/2007, -0/+2If they tried that, I think the appropriate response would be for a judge to declare that since they were behind it, and they represent the copyright holders, they do have the authority to give the material away so the downloads were legal.
- hyperlexic, on 11/02/2007, -2/+4alright alright.
- lukehh, on 11/02/2007, -0/+2Ignorance is not Immunity.
I'm fully aware of how torrents play, and why they're necessary at present with ludite MPAA/RIAA.
Is this really Frontpage material? - poppieprong, on 11/02/2007, -0/+2It seems that theorizing about the law is the law professor's favorite past-time. They're especially fond of the "who is responsible for the murder?" hypothetical, where Person A is pushed off a building by Person B, and just as he passes a window on the 13th floor, Person C intentionally shoots Person A.
- turing, on 11/04/2007, -1/+3What a ridiculous article. It is not illegal to download copyright infringing material. This is pure baloney, and note how this article doesn't cite a single case as precedent for his claim. If this were the case, then you would also be liable if you walked into a record store and bought a bootleg record. The record appears to be real, but it was not a licensed reproduction. No one has EVER been prosecuted for purchasing bootlegged records (or CDs, etc..), but the bootleggers (the distributors) HAVE been busted (since they are the ones violating the law).
The logical extensions to 'downloading' being illegal are quite absurd.
(He does cite EMI v. Thomas, but that case talked about 'making available' for upload: it did not discuss 'downloading') - TenebrousX, on 11/01/2007, -1/+3learn to reply
- CCmachined, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2those that are saying it's BS, think about it this way:
say somebody offers you a tape of a song. this is an annonymous person but they claim that the music was produced to be handed out freely. why waste your time and effort finding out if it really is that? you should have the right to take it...
with the internet, the annonymous factor is multiplied and confusion usually follows internet crime.
btw, im much against piracy, but this .... ugh! - TheGort, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2I was gonna make the same point. It has yet to be proven that it's illegal to download. It's only illegal to distribute so far. Hence the Jamie Thompson trail for thing for stuff in the share folder getting distributed. Not that she possibly downloaded those songs.
- Makisupa, on 11/02/2007, -0/+2If they had an agreement to distribute the torrents and pay the music companies ad revenue.
- KibibyteBrain, on 11/04/2007, -0/+2Has anyone ever been sued for downloading a file though? Its mostly the distribution of files. Maybe this just means that under the current law, you should not upload files of which you are not sure of the legal status. This might suck for BT, but hey, some things just aren't "good ideas" under the law, and if you don't like it, change the law.
- zachblume, on 11/02/2007, -1/+3Slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
- cubeeggs, on 11/02/2007, -1/+3Oh noes! Luxuriousity is selling an office program, and OpenOffice.org is ripping them off and giving it away for free!
- bdbr, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1It just seems silly to call copying "free speech" simply because it is "a form of expression". By that rationale, any sort of activity, no matter how illegal, should be protected by the first amendment as a form of expression.
He had a good point about "copytraps", though. I think the argument would have been more effective if he had left the first amendment out of it. I would hope that a judge or jury would take into consideration when someone downloads from a misleading website that makes it appear legal. - hipnerd, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1So you got your panties in a twist because I used the phrase "legal maxim?" I'm a magazine editor and I have a journalism degree. I apologize for having a decent vocabulary. I believe you may be a lawyer, because you want to drag this conversation away from the ethics and morality of destroying a woman's life over $17 worth of pirated material and into case law so that you can put on your I'm-a-superior-douchebag hat.
OK. I have a case for you:
* * *
In UMG v. Lindor, Judge Trager has granted Ms. Lindor's motion to add a defense based on the unconstitutionality of the $750-per-song damages sought by plaintiffs. He rejected the RIAA's arguments that the defense was without merit, that the motion was untimely, that the amendment would prejudice the RIAA, or that Ms. Lindor was required to send a notice to the United States Department of Justice of her defense of unconstitutionality.
Judge Trager ruled:
[P]laintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered.....Furthermore, Lindor provides a sworn affidavit asserting that plaintiffs' actual damages are 70 cents per recording and that plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the Copyright Act that are 1,071 times the actual damages suffered. Aff. of Morlan Ty Rogers, ("Rogers Aff.", [pars.]5, 6. See also Aff. of Aram Sinnreich, ("Sinnreich Aff."), [par.] 2, 3 (attesting that popular music sound recording downloads and consumer license to use same are lawfully obtainable to the public at 99 cents per song, and of that 99 cents, roughly 70 cents per song is paid by the retailer to the record label). As FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) requires that this figure be taken as true for purposes of the motion, Lindor has alleged a factual basis supporting her affirmative defense."
* * *
The judge ruled that the high dollar amount of the fine combined with the low actual cost of the copyrighted material was excessive and may be unconstitutional. That was my exact point and now I have a judge who agrees with me.
Judge > lawyer.
I believe that to overrule me you would now have to appeal to the pope -- but what do I know? I'm not a lawyer... - cliffski, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1you aren't born knowing the laws concerning armed robbery, but good luck using that as a defence kiddo.
- str3ama, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1I agree..but the companies that are prosecuting don't care, I mean we're not born with copyright laws - and we're never taught them. But still you're expected to know them and companies will sue you all the same, regardless of whether you know what DMCA is or limited liability.
- inactive, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1Except that 13.99 CD you are being charged for stealing one copy. Usually those hit with fines and lawsuits are those sharing on a massive scale.
- TheHydrogens, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2I was going to let the lack of using the reply button go once, but twice is just being reckless....
- Makisupa, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1This is some of the worst legal reasoning I have ever read.
- inactive, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2Not only is this professor an idiot for not knowing what free speech is all about, but he is also an idiot for thinkingthat as of right now that ANYONE has ever been prosecuted for file sharing. Or...that anyone has ever been sued for DOWNLOADING. No one has. So, being tricked into downloading will not hurt you. Becuase even if you are too stupid and think that the site is legit and had the right to give you the music, it would still NOT give you the right to share it with others. And that is hte only way you will face punishment.
I love how hte submitter wanted to stress that this guy is a PROFESSOR! So he MUST be smart. - hipnerd, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1erm
- cliffski, on 11/02/2007, -1/+2you have been dugg down by idiots who don't want to hear the truth. in other words, typical leeching digg kiddies.
- BadseedJR, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1All of you that are arguing "this article says it's legal to download music and that is BS" need to take a look again. This says nothing about downloading being legal, it is saying that the automatic punishment for such and activity is the violation of the first amendment. I, personally, agree that a minimum $750 fine is ridiculous for a song that could be purchased for $0.99. "Oh, you didn't pay for that? Well, now you owe us 750 times what it's worth." The copyright laws are obviously flawed, as well as the judicial system for enforcing such a ridiculous penalty. If the record labels think they deserve money in excess of 750 times what it costs to buy their product, they are sadly mistaken.
- inactive, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1...yeah but they aren't punishing DOWNLOADERS.
It's those who share. - cliffski, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1downloading copyrighted content that you know is copyrighted IS an offence, just like buying something that you know to be stolen good is. its the crucial matter of you KNOWING that it is stolen goods that matters.
Try buying some stolen jewellery then bragging about it to the cops to see a real world example. - Travelsonic, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1"... users are responsible for the files they share if they are copyrighted. Simple enough for me."
That they are shared w/ permission from the copyright holder, not in a copyrighted/not copyrighted way, right? - bdbr, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1Copyright law gives the copyright owner the power to decide what copying is legal or not. So you are incorrect in saying that downloading is legal. It just isn't a common reason to sue, because (a) its hard to prove where you got it from, and (b) the damages would be limited to just your one copy - not enough to justify a lot of legal action.
- bdbr, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1Copyright law gives the copyright owner the power to decide what copying is legal or not. So you are incorrect in saying that downloading is legal. It just isn't a common reason to sue, because (a) its hard to prove where you got it from, and (b) the damages would be limited to just your one copy - not enough to justify a lot of legal action.
- saejinn, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1Entrapment is when police convince or coerce someone into committing an illegal act they would have not otherwise have committed. Setting bait on a line is not convincing or coercing anyone.
- Blue_Eon, on 11/04/2007, -1/+2Just because it's the law doesn't make it right. The punishment, no matter in what regard, should ALWAYS fit the crime. Quit splitting hairs over civil and criminal. If you download an album illegally, you should NOT have to pay a fine that is 20 or 30 times the amount of a fine you'd have to pay if you had taken a CD off the shelf and stuffed it in your pocket. Punitive damages can suck my *****...it's crooked and they used the Thomas case to set a ridiculous precedent.
- Makisupa, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1Stop being an internet lawyer. See how I cite to cases to my cases instead of just saying what I want. How about this case hipnerd, which completely destroys your theory. See, I know the law, and I cite my cases. @Blue, are you kidding me? There is a massive difference between civil and criminal in all aspects of law. If you think the Thomas case set the precedent of punitive damages, you are off by about 100 years.
Browning-Ferris Indus. v. Kelco Disposal, 492 U.S. 257 (1989)
We therefore hold, on the basis of the history and purpose of the Eighth Amendment, that its Excessive Fines Clause does not apply to awards of punitive damages in cases between private parties. - link5280, on 11/02/2007, -1/+2Ignorance is always an excuse.... yea right
- Blue_Eon, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1I meant they as in the RIAA. I realize that there have been cases akin to this, but in different realms aside from internet piracy, but this is one of he first ones that the RIAA has actually won in court.
- Rupes, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1that's entrapment is it not? leave it up to the american government to pwn their citizens, i feel sorry for u guys, come up to BC anytime u want I got some dope buds if u wanna smoke up :D
- hipnerd, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1You are actually telling me to stop being an Internet lawyer as you cite case law?
Thanks a lot. You just broke my irony meter. - saejinn, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1"The very potential for copytraps, with automatic penalties assessed against the innocent downloader, raises First Amendment concern," Snow said. "The First Amendment comes into play because downloading is a form of speech. Downloading is the same as copying, and copying is a form of expression."
- bincoder, on 11/02/2007, -0/+0Why is it that everyone on the entire planet other than me knows the diff between the word download and the word upload?
This is amerika, we can download, aka recieve, aka intercept, aka happen to discover... anything that happens to come our way. Doesn't matter if its on paper, the internet, a cb radio, a soviet spy radio, or martian communications to jesus. If we can recieve it, we own it. Nothing illegal about it.
Upload, that's another word with an entirely different meaning. No, we can't do that freely, but we can most certainly do the other. -
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is