Download Case Rules In Favor of Music Companies
 

Copyright laws were broken. Punishment follows...

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/US/...ory?id=8219984

Nothing?

no one cares, they too busy copying netflix DVDs and downloading the Nirvana discog!

jesus no power :D

Winning a handful of small lawsuits is an excellent starting point (foundation) to bolster future litigation efforts. I guess it's more fun to whine and bitch than actually embrace the problem at hand.

I don't see a problem as long as i'm not changing it and calling it my own AND making $ from it I would have to agree if it's on the radio for the public to freely record whats the difference

All good news.

its all about antiquated laws and quality

tape it off of a radio, you get a very inferior product (no one cares)
video your TV screen - very inferior copy (no one cares)
use a VCR - inferior copy that degrades over time (most people don't care)

until now law considered that copies were inferior/degradeable. until now law considered that if you wanted to use VCR technology to send out a million copies of the newest movie to you global 'friends' you had to buy a shitload of VCR's, pay for space and electricity, and buy a million blank tapes, pay for shipping... - all to produce inferior degradeable copies.

these are the laws that our friend gideon bases his arguments on.

then came the internet

now billions of exact copies of any digital media can be made - perfect and no degredation over time, and perfect when a copy is made from a copy - at (virtually) no cost to the individuals.

it is time that the law considers the new technologies, and the ramifications that are entirely different from those that were true in the time of gideons best friend - the VCR.

it is time

you want a perfect copy of something digital? well the news is - 'that' is someones product and property - PAY FOR IT at least once, if you want it in your life. Just because you heard something on the radio should not give you license to get a perfect personal copy for free.

if you don't want people to have personal perfect copies then don't licience it to streams that would allow digital copies to be made. (SIRUS, etc)

you can't have it both ways.

BTW everything i am talking about is pay for it at least once (either direct, by subcription, or via piracy tax).

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blo...een-dealt.html

list of all the mistakes in the decision

looks like your going to have a long appeal in this one too.

Hopefully the appeal does not go through, and it sticks. It would be great if there was a precedent like this at the Federal level.

The guy admitted he did it, said on the stand that he has done this sort of thing for a long time and then got caught and punished. Good. That is how it supposed to work. I'm not sure how they came up with the amount, but the amount doesn't really matter. He has said he will declare bankruptcy so the people who had their stuff illegally downloaded and the RIAA will never see a dime.

Hopefully though this will help send a message that if you get caught it could bankrupt you and helps to stop some people from doing this.

All that said I think the RIAA is using these cases as a way to set case law precedent and slowly work their way towards the sites and services that people use to illegally download.

In other words, don't leave your door unlocked unless you expect to be robbed.

The only way that could happen is if they lost at the lower court level then won at the Appellate level.*




*Maybe. That was in Federal court and they do things a lot differently, but I would imagine that part still holds true. I doubt every Federal case heard was citable.

I decided to look at your blog, but pretty much had to stop after:

1. If the plaintiffs wish to prove distribution, they should have to prove:
(a) dissemination of copies
(b) to the public

Since the defendant already admitted it on the stand.

True. I just feel like the RIAA realizes now that suing individuals doesn't work. They have won over 30,000 cases and yet downloading is still more prevalent then ever before. I have a feeling they are now picking their fights in order to set some precedence. But like you say it will depend on what court the fights take place in and what outcome happens at what level.

And if it is published. Unfortunately, not all Appellate decisions are published, and if not published, not a reliance.

Very true. The legal system is so full of rules/regulation it is like navigating a mine field.

he admitted downloading
he has no way of knowing how many people accessed the copies on his machine

big difference
they convicted him on distribution without any proof that any were distributed because he admitted downloading.

Sharing = distribution

His appeal [should it happen] has nothing to do with whether or not he was distributing.

don't get sucked in baddog - gideon has a convenient logic that defies all argument - you will find your sanity slipping away soon if you continue....

I reccommend that you find a brick wall near you and yell at it - it will be much more productive.

I am bored. Waiting for 15 minutes to take the dog on a run.

He comes up with some interesting concepts. So fun to play with.

carry on then :thumbsup

Well, Buddy is looking at me like it is time for me to put some shoes on and we go expend some energy.

Maybe later.

Seems the judge has set the fine at $675,000.

Nice message the attorney wanted to send, does he use this argument in all cases?

I have to admit, I was a little confused as to what the message was supposed to be.

that make available arguement again

if you share and no one connects to you is it distribution
NO

sharing != distribution

sharing + proof someone downloaded from you = distribution



that the point of the arguement you stopped read from because you don't agree with

he admitted to doing it. that in itself, is proof you fucking idiot.

he admitted sharing

he did not admit distributing

the two are not equal.

since distribution is the act that is actionable only a moron would claim it was proof of a crime.

from the article:

"Joel Tenenbaum, of Providence, R.I., admitted in court that he downloaded and distributed 30 songs."

Jesus christ, I didn't really realize how sick in the fucking head you are. You ignore everything that doesn't agree with your absurd views anytime anyone says anything... and you respond with long winded, point by point diatribes that ignore the point completely.

FUCK OFF ... you are not even in this industry to begin with.

anyway... i have no intention of debating the obvious with you or engaging you in your delusional state of mind.

your bullshit is getting old though for sure.

ah i see so an interpretation or summary of an actual statement should supercede the actual statement.

so if you admit that you were driving a car
and you admit you didn't check the speedometer

that if a rephase that you admitted you were driving and speeding that should be enough to convict you of a crime of speeding even though that not actually what you admitted too.

look at the actual questions and what he actually admitted to.

as for the 30 songs in question, they were only proven to be given to a company (media sentry) who by the very nature of them being hired to investigate was authorized to recieve them.

Giving files to someone who is authorized to recieve them has never been explictly ruled to be a crime. And has enough of a bases of entrapment (especially in a case where the infringement is always initiated by the downloader) that it should not be considered.

I believe that this is another one of those knock down bogus precedents of the past cases, not a guy actually trying to get off on a crime.

the order of arguements makes me suspect that.

Good!!! Any positive news is great news!

Then why are they not whining about that decision? They are talking about an appeal based on the fact that he was not allowed to argue fair use.

No one [other than you] is arguing the distribution issue.

do you not understand that fair use is connected to the illegal vs legal distribution.

if the person who is downloading from his sharing (initiated by the downloader) has a fair use right to the content. There is no illegal distribution. It would be just as legal as if copyright holder and explictly said it was ok to get it from him.

for two reasons
1. it beyond his control (initiated by the user)
2. the act is covered by fair use and therefore outside the scope of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder.



claiming the he admitted he was guilty simple because he acknowledged that he shared the file, and that media sentry downloaded 30 songs from his folders (initiated by media sentry)