[deepsand]

Before you become too celebratory, you might undertake to study precisely how Patent & Copyright Laws actually work wordwide.



BTW, nice job of evading the matter of an affirmative act having been committed by the defendant.

[WinTard]

You wouldn't work for the RIAA, and are trying to justify your job, would you? Or sway public opinion? IMHO you are not going to win in the Court of Public Opinion. Sorry... Please note in a democracy, the Public ultimately rules! Sorry again to burst your bubble... Yes, politicians listen to the vast majority of the public. Then the lawmakers and lawyers, listen to the politicians... That is the way the system functions. Even paid for SIG lobbyist can't do anything about that.

[deepsand]

Sorry to break your bubble, but the U.S. is not a democracy, but a Representative Republic, one specifically designed so as to guard against tyrannies of the majority as you here advocate.


As for the rest, the Universe is a cold, uncaring place, one that gives not a whit about either your personal wants & desires, or your so-called "Court of Public Opinion." Said "Court" once held that the Earth was flat; and, that the Universe was Terra-centric. So much for the judgement of that "court."
Message was edited by: deepsand; to eliminate gratuituous "+" symbols inserted by posting function.

[backbuster]

I don't think there can be any question that the defendant in this case violated copyright laws. She did make the music available to the public without permission from the copyright holder. What I find ridiculous is the amount of the settlement $80,000 per song made available. How can anyone justify that amount? The jury in this case must have been in a hurry to get home "OK she's guilty lets give her the max and get out of here". I can see further appeals coming in this case as the amount of the settlement cannot be justified.

[deepsand]

The actual no. of songs involved was in excess of 1700 !



Additionally, she lost the 1st trial, after which she refused a settlement offer that was significantly less than the original judgement, deciding instead to gamble on winning the 2nd trial, and lost the bet.
Message was edited by: deepsand; to correct post function's formatting errors

[bigpicture]

I engage lawyers almost every day with their endless splitting hairs about the meaning of language and the interpertation of intent. In the end the law is just a particular kind of philosophy that some people subscribe to like it is real. In my business dealings the only time lawyers are involved is when there is disagreement and bad faith. Actual business is conducted on common understandings and agreements, not endless machinations with words.

[drklassen]

Quote

Since you obviously reject the notion of intangible property, you will presumably then have no objection to anyone taking any of your financial assets.

I have no qualms about anyone copying them and/or distributing those copies. Go ahead. See, they are not so intangible. They are markers of "stored labor" that allow me to trade my labor for things I want indirecty.

Quote

> All I can do is copy them and redistribute the.

Quote

You can; but, you cannot require that others allow you to freely do so.

That's kinda moot to my point---that being nothing is stolen if I do this.

[drklassen]

When I buy a copy of an idea-in-fixed-format, that copy is wholely mine. There are no licenses involved. Unless one is sorry enough to live in a state that passed a version of UCITA that tries to move all this stuff into the realm of contract law instead of product law where it belongs. I buy a thing and I can do with that thing whatever I desire to do---except distribute unauthorized copies and/or make derivative works for some (no longer) limited period of time.

[drklassen]

>I don't think there can be any question that the defendant in this case violated copyright laws.





Actually, there is a question. Yes, she put files on a shared directory that was visible to others. The big question at hand was: is that distribution of unauthorized copies? This court appears to believe the answer is yes. I disagree. If there were unauthorized copies made, they were by other people and not the defendant. Holding her responsible for that sets a very scary precedent. One that implies libraries can be held responsible for borrowers who rip CD's, or even you if your friend makes a copy of an MP3 from your player.

[deepsand]

As "labor" is work done, i.e. energy expended, and a "marker" is merely a symbol, a "marker" of "stored labor" is an intangible. Likewise for financial assets; look it up.

[deepsand]

"... I can do with that thing whatever I desire to do ... . "



Once more, incorrect; look it up.

[deepsand]

"Actually, there is a question."



Your persisting in ignoring the repeated mention of the fact that the defendant committed an affirmative act that served to speak as to her intent to facilitate the making of unlawful copies is mere sophistry.

[drklassen]

Nice---you snipped the other half of my statement. That's called intellectual dishonesty.

[deepsand]

When

* You are merely repeat that which has been previously said several times

* You continue to ignore previous substantive rebuttal to same

* The meaning of your statement is not misrepresented

there is no intellectual dishonesty beyond that of your own making, which you here repeat.



You'll need more than sophomoric sophistry to here prevail.

[WinTard]

I agree with drklassen's posts.

~~~~~~~~~~~
When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself.
~ Wayne Dyer, American motivational Speaker and Author of self-help best selling books. b.1940

Don't judge a man by his opinions, but what his opinions have made of him.
~ Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

[deepsand]

Repetitive & non-substantive.



Purpose? Just to have the last word?

[quackadilly]

Geeze man..... it's a compliment.....take it while you can get it.

[deepsand]

Did you misread her post?



Sh'es been unable to logically support her position, and here merely signs her agreement with another another who has likewise been soundly rebutted.

[WinTard]

So you say... Well, let me be more explicit.

I disagree with your posts. I won't bother arguing with you. You are not worth it.

It appears YOU want the last word. So be it. LOL!

~~~~~~~~~
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
~ Winston Churchill

Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
~ Mark Twain

Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.
~ Robert Quillen

Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.
~ Mahatma Gandhi

We are approaching a new age of synthesis. Knowledge cannot be merely a degree or a skill... it demands a broader vision, capabilities in critical thinking and logical deduction without which we cannot have constructive progress.
~ Li Ka Shing

Without continual growth and progress, such words as improvement, achievement, and success have no meaning.
~ Benjamin Franklin

If we can really understand the problem, the answer will come out of it, because the answer is not separate from the problem.
~ Jiddu Krishnamurti

The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress.
~Joseph Joubert, 1754-1824, French Moralist and Essayist

[Boomshadow]

Yeah, yeah, but we elect our representatives, our senators, and our electors for the President democratically; that is each citizen over the age of 18 gets one vote. And I vote that $1.92 million is too high a verdict--especially since I defy the RIAA to prove they've ever paid their artists--the people they claim to support--a dime of any of their winnings so far.