[smax013]

quackadilly said:

Trying to keep it on topic.......but it keeps getting pulled from my control........ ?:|

But, will do.

You have contributed to it just as much as the other has.

[drklassen]

"She just 'happened' to put them 'somewhere insecure' where others 'might have been able ... '?"

In other words, folks are to be held responsible for the wrongs of others. What she did with her property is moot; she did not infringe whatsoever---those were her files to do with as she pleased. That other people copied them is their onus, not hers. Continuing to assert that Kazaa has only one function, despite being shown several times that there are non-infringing uses (ala the Betamax decision) is silly. That the jury bought is frightens me. That others are able to use Kazaa to infringe (i.e. copy someone elses files) is absolutely not proof that that is its sole use (again, ala Betamax).



As for personal ripping, you have stated:

"Ripping a CD may or may not be legal, depending on the particular circumstances." and "That depends on the specific license granted via purchase of the CD; and, who, other than yourself, is using the copies."

Which is shear idiocy since there are no licenses involved. I buy a CD (or mp3 or software or a book or a painting or a sculpture or...) that copy is now my property. I can lend it, I can copy it (so long as I don't distribute give them to others), I can sell it or even give it away (so long as all copies I made go with it or are destroyed). The only places where this is not true are the idiotic states that passed UCITA laws that turn EULA's, which are meaningless statements in light of decades old product laws, into true contracts. Well, even that's not true since those UCITA laws have not been tested in courts against product law.



So, if you disagree with my interpretation of your statements, go ahead and tell us when ripping is legal. Or are you really just an RIAA shill---always ready to say when something is infringment but never willing to state specific instances of fair use copying?

[quackadilly]

"You have contributed to it just as much as the other has."



Alright alright......at least I've attempted to bring it back on topic.

-----

Anyways, what's your understanding of this. Was she charged for 24 or 1702 songs?

[deepsand]

To repeat, the count of 24 is irrelevant minutiae; the judgement granted by the jury was based on the totality of her offenses. Backing into a "per song penalty," which was, by the way, both well within the prescibed limits and far less than the maximum allowed which some jurors wanted, based on such count is an exercise in statistical nonsense.

[deepsand]

"In other words, folks are to be held responsible for the wrongs of others."



She was held accountable only for her own act, that of knowingly and intentionally facilitating the making of illegal duplicates.



"those were her files to do with as she pleased"



Therein lies the crucial flaw in your position. She did not have the right to allow other to copy such.



"That others are able to use Kazaa to infringe (i.e. copy someone elses files) is absolutely not proof that that is its sole use"



Already addressed and disposed of. To legally share copyrighted material would require that the material be transferred from one party to another; Kazaa cannot transfer a data file from one user to another, but only allow its duplication. True transfer here would require that the source copy be destroyed following the creation of the copy.

"the Betamax decision"



Another false analogy. Video taping allows for "time shifting," a use that was held to be Fair Use; said ruling did not allow for unrestricted copying.



"there are re no licenses involved"



Again, incorrect. You own only the physical media; the content is subject to licensed use, be it implicit or explicit. This is no different than, for example, a book.



"are you really just an RIAA shill"



Yet another ad hominem attack.

[quackadilly]

Why are you dancing around it? Just answer the question....



How many songs was she CHARGED for?

[deepsand]

I am quit with you, owing to your inability to engage in rational discourse.

[quackadilly]

Straight from CNN:



"A federal jury Thursday found a 32-year-old Minnesota woman guilty of illegally downloading music from the Internet and fined her $80,000 each -- a total of $1.9 million -- for 24 songs."





How am I not being rational?

[drklassen]

"She was held accountable
only for her own act, that of knowingly and intentionally facilitating
the making of illegal duplicates."

All she did was put files on a server, what others did was their own crime.

"Therein lies the crucial flaw in your position. She did not have the right to allow other to copy such."

And how does one "allow" another person to do something without control over that person. She put files on a server---if for her own use, for backup, for whatever. So long as she doesn't put up a sign saying "here, copy these" where is her crime? Of course, you're going to just continue to assert that Kazaa is that sign ignoring the fact that there are non-infringing uses.

"To legally share..."

You are willfully ignoring the non-infringing use I posited, substituting your own and then attacking that. Strawman. See above.



"Again, incorrect. You
own only the physical media; the content is subject to licensed use, be
it implicit or explicit. This is no different than, for example, a book."

Bzzzzzt. I own that copy of the content---again, unless UCITA is the law of your land. In my state, it isn't so contract law is not in play and any EULA anyone sticks into anything I buy is entirely moot.

[rgreen4]

Gentlemen: Since this discussion has gone on to the point of degenerating into personal back and forths, and all relevant point have been covered an nauseum in the some 200 posts, it is time to call a pause. I am now locking this thread.