Quote:
Originally Posted by Socks
from: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/200...ict-finalized/
Judge Finalizes $675,000 RIAA Piracy Verdict, Won?t Gag Defendant
Excerpts:
"Gertner also expanded on a pretrial ruling in which she declared Tenenbaum could not render a so-called ?fair use? defense. Tenenbaum claimed that his file sharing was not counter to the Copyright Act. The act provides up to $150,000 in damages for each infringement, and the figures are left to jurors."
"In the Tenenbaum case, the judge wrote Monday that Tenenbaum?s version of fair use was ? so broad that it would swallow the copyright protections that Congress created, defying both statute and precedent.?
That ruling was a major blow to what was expected to be a key point of argument for the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, which represented Tenenbaum and is now seeking a new trial. Ahead of the summer trial, Gertner precluded the fair-use defense with a brief order without much elaboration." |
you do realize that this is the guy trying to argue that filesharing for personal use should automatically be fair use. And even i said that was way to much. fair use extended to that level is insane
That would basically mean if it was out there you could get it for free, WITHOUT ever paying for it.
the arguement i have repeatedly made was for not paying for a song/video twice. once you bought the right to view, you should have the right to use any technology to timeshift/backup/recover that content for a later viewing.
this ruling however does not stop him from attempting to argue that his actions were protected by the fair use already defined by the court.
and as i have repeatedly pointed out in the case of bit torrent (which only gives out pieces of the file) and the current ruling in the RPVR case he still has a lot on the table to argue in favor of.