What is Digg?116 Comments
- noreturn, on 10/12/2007, -11/+75And what exactly would using Piratebay accomplish? The data still resides on your computer, and if that computer is in the US, is covered by this ruling's precedent.
This ruling is a load of crap. Having a file available for download should not constitute distribution, just as owning a gun and placing it in a position for it to be stolen does not make you an illegal arms dealer. They can't even prove that Kazaa would have properly transmitted the file should they have attempted to download it. ***** the RIAA and this ***** of a judge. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+48fine, this judgement is fine
but then if this is the case i want EVERY "accidental" DATA LEAKER prosecuted to the full extent of the law for illegally distrubuting hundreds of thousands of people's personal information
that is some ***** right there, they are allowed to leak our data but if we leak our files on accident we get sued? for what? a 7 dollar loss? but the big corporations get away with a slap on the wrist after allowing hundreds of thousands of peoples identities to be stolen? - BrokenBeta, on 10/12/2007, -15/+44Well, I know I may be dugg down for this (I'm playing devil's advocate), but the judge has a point, doesn't she?
The idea that "distribution" requires physical exchange is a bit of a legal relic nowadays, because it doesn't. Offering a file for download does really qualify as distribution in just about any meaning of the word. Unless you deliberately drop all connections to the client, you're giving them the stuff they asked for. Which is what distribution is.
Pardon my sacrilige, but it does really seem like the judge is right. - PecanHead, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27Uh... maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't this make sense? Letting people download copyrighted files from you *is* distribution (and hence, copyright infringement). This judge is simply interpreting the law as it is written - which is her job. If you don't like the law, you need to talk to congress.
To whom is this news? - orientis, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21@noreturn I agree completely. This sounds like a moral or an ethical argument from the judge, couched in legal terms. I don't think the law agrees with the judge, but hey, now it might. Awesome.
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I know I'm going to get buried here, but just because you don't want something to be illegal, that doesn't legalize it.
When you make music files available via the Internet, you're essentially distributing copies to people. It's no different than making physical copies of a CD and just handing them out to people on the street.
Where the RIAA goes too far is when they declare that making personal copies for private use is illegal, attempt to keep their monopoly on popular music, and extort exhorbidant fees from people, hoping they don't wise up and see how the case against them is a house of cards at best. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -19/+32That's in the US only, though. Just use Piratebay instead.
- SSX4life, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Gotta love the fact that the RIAA / MPAA is trying to set precedent in the court system here in the USA. Money truncates almost all other forms of law here in the USA. It's not who is right or wrong, it's who has the most cash to defend themselves.
RIAA burn in hell for your back door antics and attempts to set policies and laws that hurt your customer base while improving your profits!
If you want to do something about this problem donate to the EFF - http://secure.eff.org/support
--ssx-- - Necoras, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14The problem is that these aren't necessarily even files... they're pointers to files. By this definition putting a pointer to copyrighted material will be illegal. The problem with that is that this is how the Internet works. Every link in the WORLD goes to content which is automatically copyrighted the second it's put online. Therefore, every link in the WORLD now becomes illegal in US law. That's ridiculous.
- nevetS, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13There is a very real difference between "making available for download" and distribution. Distribution means that somebody actually downloaded it.
Say you are guilty of using Kazaa. And say you had 2000 songs available on your PC for 24 hours when you tried out the service. I don't know the actual number off the top of my head, but lets say that it's $100 per copyright violation.
Would you be offering up $200,000.00 to settle the suit, or would you ask for evidence in each and every instance that a song was SUCCESSFULLY downloaded from your PC?
Infering distribution from making available is akin to inferring bankruptcy from financial distress. Bankruptcy happens as a result, financial distress often leads to distress, but the two are not implicitly paired. - MellerTime, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Pfft... This is Digg. Who reads the articles? We go solely for the inflammatory headlines and 2-sentence descriptions!
- underthelinux, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22This, to me, sounds like if i left the door of my house open, and someone came and stole things from my house, i would be liable.
I may not be eligible for insurance, but I certainly should not be a criminal. - Sarki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9As the article notes, this is the approval of one basis of copyright infringement _claims_. From TFA:
In her order, the judge noted that in a copyright infringement case, the plaintiff needs to do two things: demonstrate ownership of the material and show that the party accused of infringement "violated at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under 17 U.S.C. ยง 106." Making songs available for download fulfills the second requirement, wrote Judge Aiken. - mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This is specifically about Kazza and people that the RIAA "bots" found "sharing" material.. but the PC owners didn't realize that Kazza was sharing the files.. they might not have even been using the program but still had it running "hidden". The RIAA is trying to make RUNNING a program like Kazza "illegal" on it's own.. then they don't have to prosecute "per song" just prove you have the program up and running... This is to close a hole in their cases where they have to PROVE you had infringing material and you INTENDED to share it. They're removing "intent" from the suits... or at least making "running P2P" == "intent".
This bodes badly for Linux fans because while "bare" Bittorrent is P2P on a per file basis, it makes search programs a legal liability EVEN IF YOU DON'T USE THEM ILLEGALLY!! Remember too, these are the same lawyers that want to keep the laws from being tightened on PRETEXTING. See a pattern... if you AREN'T doing something illegal, but they are trying to crackdown on ALL P2P they want to get you ILLEGALLY as well by corrupting legal networks with "illegal" material using fake credentials. I think P2P is a boon for things like Linux and OSS where files are large and people volunteer to help out... and "volunteers" are EXACTLY what the suits want done away with... just wait until MS gets hint of this legal strategy to fight OSS!!! - dodoporridge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"You don't make files available for download accidentally; there is some conscious act."
That's not true. Some users don't understand that everything they've downloaded might exist in a public folder that is shared by default. In that case, they made no "conscious act" to make their files available. - mulling, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Wow, this effectively outlaws iTunes. The sharing feature in iTunes definitely makes tracks available for distribution, so how exactly is that not infringement?
Same goes for the Zune. The sharing feature makes tracks available for download, even if it's only limited to three plays...it's still infringement. Their agreement with Universal doesn't indemnify their users from any other claims. - BenWilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The news article totally misrepresents what actually happened. First, the judge was considering a motion for summary judgment, which basically says "the other side can't prove their case, so we win." The court said the RIAA had a strong enough claim to move forward. RIAA then asked for the defendant (Perez) to be excused from the lawsuit because RIAA believe the children are the real defendants. Virtually none of the judge's opinion touches intellectual property issues, instead dealing with matters of procedure.
Federal courts have long agreed that online distribution is infringement. Look at the Supreme Court holding in MGM v. Grokster, where the Court found infringement based on online distribution. I can't believe EFF is trying to persuade the District Court of Oregon to ignore the Supreme Court's clear holding in the matter.
I also can't believe this is even newsworthy. - asdfrewq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"So, you're position is people stealing stuff have the ethical high ground? I'm not real fond of the RIAA tactics but there's imply no excuse for stealing other people's work. You're in the wrong if you do it."
You know what, even though you're technically right and I somewhat agree with you, I believe this is a far more complicated issue then you make it seem.
Simply put, the recording industry has set itself up a business model where it can pretty much legally steal money from artists and get away with because it owns all the major distribution and marketing channels. It's true that this is changing thanks to the internet, and that's pretty much what the RIAA is trying to stop.
Is it unethical to steal from a thief? I don't know, and I'm not really game to go there. But I'd sure as hell prefer not to fund that theft. - asdfrewq, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12"This, to me, sounds like if i left the door of my house open, and someone came and stole things from my house, i would be liable.
I may not be eligible for insurance, but I certainly should not be a criminal."
It's not the same. By installing Kazza or any other p2p program and having copyrighted files available in your shared folder, it's more like letting your mates steal someone else's possessions from your house. - Jonny5alive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15Your going to get dugg down but your right.
The arguments file sharers use to justify downloading music and movies are just getting pathetic.
We all know it's illegal. Stop making stupid excuses for your actions and admit that your breaking the law. - johnbr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I'm going to also get Dugg down by playing devil's advocate.
If someone put your social security number or your credit card number on a website, wouldn't that be criminal? Whether or not anyone ever downloaded it, wouldn't you still consider that to be a breach of your privacy?
Wouldn't you want that company (or person) punished, to discourage people from publishing SSNs and CC# in the future? My answer (for myself) would be "yes, I would lke them punished for publishing information about me, or even information about where information about me could be found."
Oh, and for the record, the RIAA is a vile organization that seems to be trying very hard to win the "Montgomery Burns Organization of the Year" award. - dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@ somerandomnerd
Having large packs of cats roaming around your house stealing meat seems to be a bigger problem than the RIAA. - Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7People who follow laws without question, simply because they are "the law", don't deserve to live in a free country.
- dracflamloc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Olik,
"You don't make files available for download accidentally; there is some conscious act. A conscious act with the purpose, that someone download it is the same as intent. Since making a file available serves no purpose other than for others to download it, it is fair to say that that is your purpose. The only argument is whether purpose is enough or whether you must actually be successful. The analogy would be to someone who went out of his way to encourage someone to take a product that he had manufactured in violation of copyright."
Thats completely incorrect. Many computers ship with settings that allow shared folders by default. You wouldn't believe how many people have brand new computers with iTunes on it on a college network that have sharing on. They have no idea. Waht about those people that turn on windows sharing so they can move files between their own home network computers, or to their xbox 360? That will then be illegal.
Any how do you propose to handle security-based intrusions? If a person has spyware on their computer, which opens up their files, can they be held for copyright infringement? According to this they might. What if the spyware was on as a result of a flaw in Internet Explorer? Can Microsoft be held for copyright infringement? Who's at fault?
This makes no sense whatsoever. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Car analogies do not work. You are talking about a physical object that when borrowed is no longer available to be used by you.
Copying of mp3 files and sharing them is not theft of a physical object but is a theft of potential income in that the copyright owner of the song has rights that are being ignored by the copying party.
Let me put it this way:
If you are an artist and someone takes a high-res scan of one of your paintings and makes it available as a free lithograph does that hurt you?
It helps in that many more people will be exposed to your work but it also negatively impacts your ability to sell future lithographs when they are available for free.
You still have your original painting but the creation of a copy has diminished the value of it. Granted, a buyer may only want the original as any copy loses something in the transfer from one medium to another. (If you can't tell the difference between a 128K sample and a CD than you may not care.)
So, buyers who only want original works will still buy from you but those other people will go after the free versions (of slightly lesser quality.)
Some will argue that those are customers who would have never paid for a copy but, if they would never pay for a copy why should they get the benefit of owning a copy?
The music industry is going through a change, just as the "buggy whip" makers did when we went to horseless carriages. The only difference is that the music industry still has money to spend on lawyers. - kethraal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"Do you think it would be ok for me to go to my local mall and give out free directions to places where people can get illegal goods?"
Yes, actually... I do think that would be OK. Whether or not the person chooses to go get said goods is his choice. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If make a bunck of copies of a Harry Potter book and put them up for sale on ebay, Im guilty whether or not someone actually bought the book. This is no different.
- johnnykwest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Screw the RIAA. Support places like Magnatune.com. There *are* places you can find new talented artists, places that let you purchase music for reasonable prices after trying them out for free, and places that actually pay the artists a decent cut for their talent.
The more you support alternative sources (to the RIAA) the more popular those places will become and the more talented artists will realize they can actually make money for themselves and say 'sionara and ***** you' to the RIAA. - Aeiri, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It's not saying online distribution isn't copyright infringement. Online distribution IS copyright infringement, and the EFF isn't claiming that.
It's saying putting a file in a shared folder is not copyright infringement UNTIL someone actually downloads it.
It's not copyright infringement until something is actually COPIED, hence, COPYright, the RIGHT to COPY.
Saying you would be willing to copy is like saying you would be willing to distribute marijuana. It's not illegal until you actually perform the act. - Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I agree with BrokenBeta: this ruling does make sense.
The article makes a comparison to libraries, which make copyrighted works available for people to borrow and potentially copy. But in the case of a library, the primary use -- borrowing a book, reading it, and returning it -- is non-infringing, and even though a patron *could* photocopy all the pages of a book he's borrowed, allowing people to do that is not the reason why the books are on the shelves.
On the other hand, a file-sharing network like KaZaA has no non-infringing "borrow, read, return" use-case. If you voluntarily make a file available for others to download, you do so specifically to allow others to infringe its copyright by downloading it from you, and that sounds like reasonable grounds for a charge of contributory copyright infringement.
(Note that I say *voluntarily*, though -- if your files were shared against your knowledge by a worm or something, it's the author of the worm who's responsible for the contributory copyright infringement. The plaintiff should have to prove that the files were shared voluntarily.) - olik, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8You don't make files available for download accidentally; there is some conscious act. A conscious act with the purpose, that someone download it is the same as intent. Since making a file available serves no purpose other than for others to download it, it is fair to say that that is your purpose. The only argument is whether purpose is enough or whether you must actually be successful. The analogy would be to someone who went out of his way to encourage someone to take a product that he had manufactured in violation of copyright.
- Jonny5alive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9@Necoras
Do you think it would be ok for me to go to my local mall and give out free directions to places where people can get illegal goods? - CygnusX1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What's with all the analogies?
It's not like someone stealing a gun from you and you being liable for being an illegal arms dealer, or an accomplice to murder...
It is more like, you being liable for distribution of electronic files.
It's crap, I agree. These analogies are just unnecessary fluff and distraction away from the issue. - danakin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I'll get dugg down I'm sure, but this is a pretty easy ruling. Distribution is simply any way of geting item A to place X from place Y. So the ruling is right, to a point.
Simply having the files available for download does not incur copyright infringement however (the actual distribution must occur first), which is what RIAA is going for.
In any case, screw off, RIAA. - farley2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"1. I scoff openly at anyone who thinks that music, movies, or anything else is going to remain available as a free download for all eternity. We're in a transitional phase. Those who make these decisions still haven't quite figured out how to make the business end of these new technologies work properly. Believe me, they will.
"
Why don't you think they will? I look at the era of LPs, cassettes, VHS and even DVDs and I see piracy available on all those platforms. I can't think of a reason digital copies would be different. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Good finally some common sense.
Clearly making a file available, or even part of a file available is distribution on a gargantuan scale. - tranix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Burn backup copies of all my movies & cds, set them on my porch, they get stolen = I'm now a distributor and get sewed?
- Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"This is why people found with drugs are often accused of "intent to distribute" rather than distribution itself."
And if "intent to distribute" is considered an offense, why not "intent to infringe" as well? - rfMetro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, piracy has existed throughout the current era of media production and distribution (well, maybe we just started a new era and everything you mentioned is the previous era, but that's a different discussion), but never on this scale. There exist countless individuals who have thousands and thousands of illegally downloaded songs and movies, and these aren't career criminals. They're high school students, they're housewives...it could be ANYONE with enough storage space and, at this point, a pretty rudimentary knowledge of how to operate a computer.
It's not as if with the advent of MP3's and internet file sharing MPAA/RIAA's customer base all spontaneously died, only to be replaced by lawless, responsibility-shirking evil clones. We're the same people we were 10 years ago. At some point the scale will even out: someone will create an attractive and profitable business model for digital media distribution, and/or the costs of digital music/movies/etc. will continue to fall, and/or the ramifications for pirating will outweigh the cost of the goods, all coming together to create a situation where the majority of rational consumers will buy their music and movies from the copyright holders at the set price.
In the meanwhile, I just find it funny that MPAA/RIAA think suing their customers (and by customers I mean the constantly dwindling list of individuals who have ANY interest in the tripe they continue to hustle) is the best course of action to accomplish that goal. - Mufflegrump, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Um...did you just threaten the life of a federal judge?
- Concotelli, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Taiki,
To answer your question: Yes, I do believe that is copyright infringment. If you copy a book, then make more copies and distribute them, that's infringement. Remember, somebody owns the rights to that book. The person who created it deserves to be compensated for every copy that's created. Same goes for music.
I may be in the minority, but the judge was right to rule this way. People who make music file available to download may not want to believe they are illegal distributors, but they are. - ElBruelsio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Your argument has absolutely no merit. How is the store owner guilty of stealing when someone else took the product? Its the store owner's property, you cannot be guilty of stealing something you already own. You're really trying to stretch that analogy and its not working.
Besides, do you want to shop in a retail store where every single product is locked up in a glass case like in the electronics department? To do so would mean the store would have to carry nearly a 1 to 1 relationship of employees to customers in order for the store to turnover purchases in a reasonable amount of time. Obviously this is a ridiculous expectation and a business model that would never succeed. - rfMetro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31. I scoff openly at anyone who thinks that music, movies, or anything else is going to remain available as a free download for all eternity. We're in a transitional phase. Those who make these decisions still haven't quite figured out how to make the business end of these new technologies work properly. Believe me, they will.
2. I also think it's hilarious and pathetic that the MPAA/RIAA refuse to admit to any flaw in their business strategy, and seem to prefer the idea of suing themselves away from their imminent demise to behaving in a manner consistent with the current technological and financial climate.
THEREFORE, I'm excited to see how this whole thing will play out, but not until such time as MPAA/RIAA has been sufficiently bitch-slapped by the invisible hand. - TheSolomon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2BrokenBeta: He's talking about sharing your music library to those on your network from within iTunes.
The sharing feature in iTunes doesn't provide you a copy of the song, it only allows you to listen to the songs as long as the share is active. (As in, you can't copy them directly to your library from an iTunes sharing session.) If I recall correctly, I also believe you get the songs at a lower quality than the original, since you're essentially "streaming" them from the owner's library. All of this sounds like the perfect example of the "borrow and return" scheme that libraries employ, except in this case it'd be more like letting you read from the book while I'm holding it open for you. With iTunes, never do you actually get ahold of the song, so you can never copy it for yourself. - DoorFrame, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You can only sue for civil cases. I'm not sure what point you're making.
- ElBruelsio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Definition 2b of distribution as found on www.m-w.com:
"to give out or deliver especially to members of a group"
Use it at your own risk. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3DIE RIAA!!! DIE!!!
- digitally5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If distributing information is illegal, then search engines are committing the biggest infringement. The moment I write a comment on a blog site, that information is automatically copyrighted to me as the owner. Google will then index (COPY) that page across their many servers. The issue here then is that companies are trying to make digital information tangible like their products in the real world.
- ElBruelsio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree completely. Most of these analogies overlay the idea of electronic distribution of files onto a situation that is completely irrelevant. You're not doing your argument justice. In fact, laying out a poorly formed analogy isn't really making an argument at all.
In the world of the Internet, allowing someone to download a file is distributing it. iTunes distributes music. nVidia distributes drivers for their graphics cards. Rooster Teeth distributes Red vs Blue videos. Just because you don't physically hand someone something doesn't mean the definition does not apply. - Grayfox777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hey, I guess parents should start teaching kids not to share. If you're sharing, you're giving something to someone else... and that's distribution! Oh no! Sharing is terrible!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 117 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is