Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
Right from this article.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...0-per-song.ars
"The trial was an almost entirely one-sided affair. Plaintiffs built their case with forensic evidence collected by MediaSentry, which showed that he was sharing over 800 songs from his computer on August 10, 2004. A subsequent examination of his computer showed that Tenenbaum had used a variety of different peer-to-peer programs, from Napster to KaZaA to AudioGalaxy to iMesh, to obtain music for free, starting in 1999. And he continued to infringe, even after his father warned him in 2002 that he would get sued, even after he received a harshly-worded letter from the plaintiffs? law firm in 2005, even after he was sued in 2007, and all the way through part of 2008.
And when he took the stand on Thursday, Tenenbaum admitted it all, including the fact that he had ?lied? in his written discovery responses and at his first deposition in September 2008"
He got on the stand and admitted everything he has been up to. If he really thought he had a fair use argument and was not allowed to use it wouldn't he have just stayed off the stand then made sure to use that arguement in his appeal?
If you go on the stand and admit that you have sold drugs to a bunch of people, you get found guilty of selling drugs. If you go on the stand and admit that you robbed a bank, you get found guilty of robbing a bank. This guy admitted his guilt. Case is closed. |
fair use is an affirmative defence you must first admit that you did something to claim that it was not actually a crime.
look at the cp entrapment example, you would have to admit that you shot the underage girl before you could claim that tricked by perfect fake id into believe she was over age (see the traci lords case).
the judge denied the fair use defence, he would not even let it be considered that the point
that specifically why it was such a one sided trial.
that also why it is so wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham
I was trying not to answer your more stupid posts but this one is beyond stupid.
US judges don't apply Swedish laws. They apply US law and if they get it wrong the decision gets over turned. I'm not sure if replacing CDs bought is legal or not, maybe you could give the law that says this.
|
and you ar a moron, i didn't say that swedish law was going to apply to this case, i simple said that swedish government declared that being part of a pro-copyright lobby group does not bias the judge.
Currently there is 1 fair use lobby group and dozens of pro-copyright lobby groups
no judges are part of the fair use lobby group
virtually all judges are part of at least 1 pro-copyright lobby group.
It has created a situation where judges have been "educated" into ignoring fair use (like this judge did)
the fact that sweden is the only country that explictly claimed that there was no bias from such an one sided "education" about copyright doesn't change the fact that all most judges have had this one sided "education" about the issue.