What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
85 Comments
- chicoer2001, on 10/10/2007, -5/+40So if distribution is illegal, why not sue libraries. They offer CDs for free, which you can burn.
- Dhalsim007, on 10/10/2007, -5/+20I think it's a strong case, provided that the judge understands the complexity of the issue. You could always have a judge that doesn't know what a web page is, like that guy in Britain.
- magus_melchior, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Wasn't that particular judge in Britain only clarifying the definition of "web page" for the record?
- tjordan83, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15I have always thought of the same thing. I mean you could even go as far as movie rental places.
- MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16ter·ror·ist (tĕr'ər-ĭst) n. An individual and/or organization who uses violence, terror, and/or intimidation to achieve a result. Sound familiar? The RIAA are a bunch of terrorists.
- moocow1452, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12This could mean deep crap for the RIAA, do you think they will bribe?
- shellacked, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10ideapower: Are you saying the "entire point" of P2P networks is to create a source for making illegal copies of DVDs??
- MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Actually, the movie industry fought hard against video rentals, but ultimately lost in court. The music insustry had more luck, and was able to ban CD rentals.
- austin63, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12So if I left a burned CD in my car and somebody stole them, I would be liable for infringement. If so, simply having the CD's laying in the open would be considered ongoing infringement as i would "make them available" to commit a crime.
- ideapower, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7But the library doesn't lend a "copy" - it's the actual product that was legally purchased.
- Hubris, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The point isn't whether KaZaA demonstrates intent to distribute...but whether proof of distribution has actually occurred. Without demonstrable proof of copyright infringement, it's difficult to claim damages - which are the basis of the civil suits. Intent to distribute wouldn't mean the cash cow the RIAA have today.
- Slovenian6474, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I wouldn't go that far. They use a lot of intimidation but not exactly intimidation towards violence which that definition implies. Now extortionists maybe....
- SouthsideIrish, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7If you have a cd in a car, and it is stolen, it would only be infringement if YOU continue to play the cd. Whoever has the cd, has the right to play it. Stupid!
- Bossman1086, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Transferring files, yes. But no where does it say that it exists for the purpose of transferring COPYRIGHTED files. Users do that themselves. I know of plenty legal and good uses for p2p clients.
- NJank, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4A shared folder is a place you have made available for other people. limited public, maybe? In any case, with Kazaa, or the like, by using it you have put up a big sign saying, "hey, anyone who wants one, grab one of these CD copies I made (against copyright law) and use it for your own purposes." Granted, with file sharing, the sign gets put up before the copy gets made. A better analogy might be: here's this book I bought, and this photocopier that I own. I'm just going to hang the key to the room outside the door, and put up a sign saying "free copies of book XYZ inside this room, help yourself". I'm not sure what you'd call it, but one way or another you've provided a path for replication in violation of copyright. With filesharing, also, distribution is inherently tied to replication.
- fangorious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4you own the physical medium, you don't purchase a right to distribute copies of the content on that medium. If you were to take someone else's designer tiles, alter the design and begin redistributing them without first obtaining an agreement to do so, you would indeed be vulnerable to legal action. You are allowed to do whatever you want with you property for your own personal use (mixing in a laugh track, painting over your tiles, etc), it's the distribution of those alterations that is illegal.
- andycr512, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Are stores guilty of copyright infringement when people steal CD's from them because they "made them available"?
At any rate, the entire argument is a joke. - orca94, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Wrong... A legally purchased CD inherently comes with a license allowing you to use the material on it. Music that was downloaded on your computer (without some general publc license, or from itunes or some other legit online store) doesn't, so you're legally not allowed to use it.
- ideapower, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day. You can't be guilty of COPYright infringement if you didn't make a COPY without having the RIGHTS to do so.
- Myonosken, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I dunno if he was clarifying, but at least he made it well known he had problems- many of the idiots on the RIAA cases don't even make it public that they don't understand all the issues.
Also I think that the judge handed over the case to someone else in the end. - ideapower, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Distribution is legal. It's illegal distribution that's illegal.
I know that sounds obvious, but you're clearly not aware of the difference. - geekee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The cops are terrorists too by your definition, imbecile.
- theskyman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Rude
Ignorant
Arrogant
***** - MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"when does the issue of reasonable doubt come up?"
In a civil case? Never. - londubh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I'll have my crocodile tears ready if they lose.
- orca94, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Because when you borrow material from a library or video store the copy you're using is licensed. Only one user (as in operate, obviously a few people can listen or watch) can use the material at a given time which is what the license allows. The stuff you get from libraries is not intended to be copied. Library material is intended to be used and returned, not copied, just like with books. When you copy stuff and distribute stuff online you're allowing several people to simoultaneously use material that was originally licensed for one person's use. When you buy software, a movie, or music you're really paying for the license to use that IP not for the physical packaging which is essentially worthless without the llicense.
- fangorious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Most p2p apps allow you to block IP addresses/ranges. If you can show you made a good faith effort to block other people from connecting to your share you could argue you only had it up so you could access your own files remotely.
- arkmtech, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7You fail at satire... sad. ;-( Furthermore, the RIAA = terrorists, and buying CDs = supporting terrorism.
- fangorious, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5commie
- adooga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You really believe your govt would defend libraries against big business?
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Lending a cd to someone does not violate copyright. The act of burning it does. The library expects you to follow the law when they lend you something. Offering something on Kazaa is offering a copy, not the original song. See the difference?
- adooga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, intellectual property is a perfectly valid construct, there are just alot of issues to deal with in bringing the related laws up to date.
- Professr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4You don't say?
- agentx216, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually all public library are from the govt...that's where they get the funding from.
- orca94, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Because you only own one license to the IP. If you distribute the songs to your friends than more than one person is able to use the music at once which in violation of the license you have to that music. You're not buying the music, you're buying the right to use one copy of the music. Just like there is a difference between buying a Beatles CD ($20) and buying the Beatles Catalog (close to a Billion dollars) that Michael Jackson owns (and will soon lose to Sony because he's so far in debt).
- AlanLivingston, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Isn't this essentially the Napster defense that has already failed?
- tsteele93, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I'm not aware of the difference. How is a library "legal distribution?" Do libraries have some right to share copyrighted content that may be copied illegally, but you and I do not share that same right?
- haggie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4So, what's next? The RIAA has a security guard placed outside my home to make sure none of my friends borrow any of my CDs?
- MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You don't need a special license to rent out videos.
- orca94, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm definitely not on the side of Big Media, I definitely think they overcharge for ***** and are in collusion with one another to drive up prices. They restrict access to purchased media way too much(DRM). Not to mention that they own IP rights for far too long. Mickey Mouse is still copyrighted?
I'm trying to explain the law as it is.
And IP is kind of important to an extent. If it weren't for IP most Western economies would be in the *****. Technology, manufacturing processes and methods, designs, and research findings all constitute IP that's much more important than that latest (*****) Cash Money track. - Travelsonic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"I know of plenty legal and good uses for p2p clients."
And distributing copyrighted files can be one of them if you have permission.
Copyrighted or not is not what matters, it is having permission to distribute those copyrighted works that matters, and the distinction matters IMO. - MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Libraries are granted special exemptions to many copyright laws.
- andycr512, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"The proper role of the government is to protect individuals from initiation of force."
The proper role of the government is to ONLY take away the people's rights if it is necessary to avoid removing other rights, or if they deem it a fair trade to lose one right to gain another. Copyright as it is only exists to encourage the authoring of new creative works. The restrictions it places on the people are only allowed because it was decided that the creative works would not often be made if it weren't for the enforcement of an artificial restriction on the copying of said works. Copyright should ONLY be enforced, therefore, when there is a great lack of creative works. This is not such a time. - MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That would be hard to do, considering you get a license when you buy the movie. That's all the license you need.
http://www.mplc.com/aboutLaw.php - geekee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The record industry isn't interested in the cash. They want a stick to pound Kazaa out of existence for as low a price as possible, hence the settlements.
- Lightspeed2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1noone needs your ***** agreement. the music has a copyright, if you steal it, you commit copyright infringment. the world doesnt revolve around you, fag
- andycr512, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Please read.
"The proper role of the government is to ONLY take away the people's rights if it is necessary to avoid removing other rights"
By stealing his car, I would be removing his right to drive it, to have it, to look at it, to do anything with it.
Freedom is defined as the ability to do anything without directly and intentionally removing anyone else's ability to do anything. - igraham09, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2What do you mean "could?"
To me, that's the entire point of Blockbuster and the like. - andycr512, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, they should not. Please read.
"take away the people's rights if it is necessary to avoid removing other rights"
By taking his car, I would be removing his right to drive it, use it, etc. thus, there must be legislation against my taking of his car - and, in fact, there is. - heavyal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Exactly. The thing I see happening is that even though distribution cant be proven in and of itself, the RIAA willl just turn around and start hammering on the 'intent' to distribute argument all over again. After all, why would you have a file in your shared folder if the intent were *not* to distribute it? If they go at it from that angle then all they have to do is prove the intent, and since programs such as Kazaa are specifically built to download and redistribute content I would imagine this would be a slam dunk. Of course, ianal so I guess this whole nit-picking thing has some value but I don't see this as a serious 'win' regardless. Personally, I just wish the RIAA would go away and die, but thats obviously not going to happen any time soon so I guess we just have to keep picking away at these little details.
-
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is