[bigpicture]

But I never mentioned "fair use" I mentioned such legal principles as "burden of proof" and "innocent until proven guilty" and making laws that are "unconstitutional" and all the other various ways that the US legal system is broke, and a joke to the rest of the world, and why it is now going down the toilet if you are too blind to notice. Because it no longer serves the interest of the citizens but the interests of big business and big money only. Only the artists should have copyright on the material they create because it is after all their creation, and the recording companies or the RIAA add no value to this.
Edited by: smax013 on Jun 21, 2009

[deepsand]

She could have argued that she was sharing them via Kazaa for her own convenience, but she didn't.



However, it would have been immediately countered that such convenience can be had without making them publicly available; and, that such convenience was legal only to the entent that such did not entail her and/or others duplicating file copies onto another machine, which is precisely what Kazaa does.



That an agent or agents of RIAA downloaded copied from her machine is material only if it were the case that said agent(s) enticed her into making her files available for public sharing; i.e., if she were entrapped. However, entrapment is an affirmative defense; the burden of proof lies with the defendant.



You're grasping at straws, here, attempting to justify a clearly illegal action. That you may not like the Law will not suffice for its being ignored.

[bigpicture]

There was never any mention of guilt or innocence in any of my previous posts. Just questions about who the joke legal system really serves??? and questions about the artists need for the recording companies or the RIAA??? Questions about the usefulness of the copyright system??? Any Fascist regime can make laws to serve itself, but does that make these laws RIGHT. If you look at laws of the past and present there have been some pretty stupid ones, did you know that it used to be illegal to be a vagrant in the US and punishable by jail time. So how was someone going to get to be an non-vagrant???

I know, I know, forgot that the subtle difference between what is "legal" and what is "right" is lost on lawyers. From Shakespeare's time they still want their pound of flesh.
Edited by: smax013 on Jun 21, 2009

[deepsand]

Yes, you clearly evaded the issue of Fair Use, and how file sharing exceeds Fair Use to the extent of being a Copyright violation.



Regarding the burden of proof resting with the Prosecution, the fact that she was convicted, not once, but twice, serves to rebut your implied claim that said priniciple was here set aside.



As for ownership of copyrighted material, your position that only the original creator should possess such, and that he should not be able to transfer such to another party, not only shows a general lack of understanding of Contract Law, but is a blatant rebuff of centuries old Common Law. By what right do you tell others what ownership they can and cannot transfer to others, and what those who receive such can and cannot do with that which they have received? If we allow such restriction on transfer of ownership, then, by extension, anything that you acquire from another, be it real or personal property, can be legally stolen from you, since you are not the original owner.



As regards to issues of Constitutionality, since it is your claim that such are here in play, the burden of proof of such is yours to bear.



You give the appearance of being one who espouses the belief intellectual property is something that others should be required toshare freely, a belief commonly "justified" on the conjecture that "information wants to be free." Setting aside the obvious rebuttal that information wants nothing at all , I look forward to your providing me with the information required for my accessing your financial accounts.



Lastly, ad hominem attacks will not serve to advance your position, but serve only to diminish your voice.

[bigpicture]

Mr RIAA lawyer, as it so happens I do understand Contract Law very well, because that is my job for one of the largest companies in the world. And Contract Law was not invented in the US like you seem to think, contract law supported commerce long before the US existed. And there was no copyright until the advent of copying technology (the printing press) and your antiquated laws in the US are still for printing press technology. And you try to export that crap to the rest of the world, but China is not buying it nor will they buy any more of US debt, or a lot of the other corrupt crap. So soon the US financial system will be "clutching at straws" as will the legal system, when the remaining derivative land mines and commercial real estate bombs go off and the dollar drops to twenty five cents. The issue will not then be about splitting hairs as to what is "fair use", but get rid of the crappy corrupt system, that is manipulated by TPTB.

Here is an example: Is the issue here "fair use" or "harassment". Only in the corrupt US legal system could the RIAA walk away from this one unscathed. Elswhere in the world there would be damages to pay.

"Pierce Law announced the settlement yesterday between Roy and the members of the Recording Industry Association of America. Neither side is to pay the other money.
Roy, who said she did not have a computer in her house at the time of the alleged Internet piracy, thanked the law students and the clinic leaders, attorneys Ashlyn Lembree and Peter S. Wright.

"The outcome is such a relief," Roy wrote in a letter of thanks. "I am still unsettled that the record companies are able to treat upstanding American citizens in this way. Invading people's privacy and accusing people of things that don't even make sense. It is such a sad waste of the courts time."

[deepsand]

How about addressing the substantive issues raised, along with offering proof of your various claims.



To simply continue to evade, offering naught but non sequitur, mis-direction, red herrings and strawmen is to engage in mere sophistry.

[bbvammy]

RIAA is too powerful to fight head on.

Lets weaken them by boycott them.

[deepsand]

An interesting notion; but, how might such be effected? Stop listening to music?

[Yoni]

There is for sure a criminal in this case - the RIAA. How about suing the RIAA for violating not one but several individuals' constitution rights! Wouldn't these magnates deserve to be behind bars? There is an abysmal difference between what this woman did and what she is being held for. The jury that fined this woman with 1.9 million should apply the same severity to the real thief- Right RIAA?
And let ME pull a number out of my hat- "I have a HUGE head!"
Well done RIAA, destroy the life of a woman and 3 kids for 24 songs that aren't yours in the first place only because you don't want to stop shafting customers and singers with an obsolete way of charging for music - NOT.

[Harold3]

I am pleased that PC World has published this article. Too many in the print media (or at least what used to be the print media) tend to be silent on the abusive practices of those pursuing a so-called strong copyright.
Also, I find the publication of press releases "exposing" so-called abuses of copyright dressed-up as "news" to be very unprofessional.
Thank-you for taking the time and responsibility of informing your readers of these abusive practices.

[Harold3]

Haven't your read the Decleration of Indpendence. "A country of, by, and for the corporation". :^0

[deepsand]

The woman was not busted for simply downloading 24 songs, but for illegally sharing over 1700 songs on Kazaa.



As for "violations" of Constitutional rights, kindly cite specifics, along with relevant Case Law to support your claim.

[drklassen]

"Sharing" is simply not covered by copyright. Copyright protects against the making of unauthorized copies, distribution of copies, and creation of derivative works with protection for fair use. All she did was put her music into a shared folder. That's it. The folks who downloaded infringed on copyright and the ONLY thing the RIAA could show is that their authorized agent downloaded copies. So they win by mere speculation that because they could do it, others must have and that the mere act of having your music in an unsecure place is copyright infringement. This now means that if I lend my buddy a CD to listen to, and that buddy rips it, I am now guilty of copyright infringment. That's just absurd.

[WinTard]

Hear! Hear! I couldn't have said it more succinctly or better! I 100% agree with your rationale and ideas.

~~~~~~~~~~
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
~ Edmund Burke

[deepsand]

Argument is flawed, owing to your conflating "sharing" & "duplicating."



If you lend a book to another, which they simply read, the book has been shared. However, if a copy is made for or by that party, without the express permission of the copyright owner, such copy is an unlawful duplicate, not covered by Fair Use.



The same holds true for the CD that you lend, as well as the digital file stored on your computer.



The woman in question did not simply place the music files in question in a locally shared folder, such that all authorized users of that machine could listen to them. Nor is it the case that her machine was compromised by a 3rd party.



Rather, it is the case that she did, knowingly and with intent, offer up said files, via Kazaa, for the express purpose of allowing others to make illegal duplicates. I.e., she engaged in an affirmative act, without which said files could not have be accessed by others. As others cannot simply listen to her files, but must first create local copies, this is not simple "sharing," but rather intentional "duplicating."

[drklassen]

I did not conflate sharing and copying---although this case is at that intersection since the only way for me to "lend my CD" to a friend if my music is in electronic file format only, is to make a copy of it. The same is true for streaming music as well. The real question at issue that nobody has yet answered is how I am allowed to handle the files I bought that contain copywritten works. I can lend a book; I can lend a CD; just becuase it is not in a fixed format, can I no longer lend out my music and books? Of course, the fact that it is NOT in a "fixed format" calls into question if copyright is the correct means to handle audio/video files.



My analogy, however, still stands: the results of this case made the defendant liable for the copying other people did---and specifically the copying done by on authorized to make copies by the copyright holder. The only guilt would be based on the defendents intent; intent that you are inferring from her actions: that she inteded others to make and keep copies of her files.

[deepsand]

As already stated, the defendant engaged in an affirmative act. I.e, by making her files freely available for anyone to copy, which is the only function provided by Kazaa, she affirmed her intent to allow such copying.



The Law here is quite straightforward; you have no legal right to copy, or offer copies of, copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright owner. That digital files are not as easily "lent" as are physical works is irrelevant. If you want to "lend" a copyrighted digital file, you must delete your copy when a copy is created for the borrower.

[WinTard]

You mean I cannot legally borrow or lend a music CD or movie DVD from / to my friends?

How about borrowing it from the Public Library, for free? That too is illegal? Well is it? Oh you mean the little end-user cannot do what municipal governments do publicly? Says who? The RIAA? You?

Now what my friend does with my borrowed copy is his business. Not mine. And vice-versa. PERIOD.

Remember the cornerstone of our justice system? Innocent until PROVEN guilty. If you don't like it, then don't live in a democracy based on FREEDOM and our justice system...

Those who believe in our democratic and just system can further enlighten themselves by reading more here:
Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 1,480,000 for fundamental rights and freedoms. (0.42 seconds)
Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 69,800,000 for fair use doctrine. (0.26 seconds)

And I also highly recommend The Electronic Frontier Foundation especially regarding DRM/DMCA issues vs fundamental fair use rights... They ARE lawyers looking out for US the end-users... Instead of the selfish interests of the RIAA and big corporations gone disgustingly wild and obscene.

~~~~~~~~~~
It is a fine thing to be honest, but it is also very important to be right.
~ Winston Churchill

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
~ Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States of America

An oppressive government is more to be feared than a tiger.
~ Confucius

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
~ Winston Churchill

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
~ Barry M. Goldwater

In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.
~ Confucius

Govern a great nation as you would cook a small fish. Do not overdo it.
~ Lao Tzu

Censorship in any form is the opening wedge for fascism, since it places arbitrary and unwarranted power in the hands of individuals.
~ Jack Parsons from the book "Freedom Is a Two-edged Sword."

[deepsand]

I've already pointed out the important distinction between sharing and duplicating. Therefore, your question is already answered.



Lending a book, a CD, a DVD or any other physical entity is the sharing of a single entity; making a copy of a digital file is duplication.



As for culpability, again, I've already addressed the issue of an affirmative act. In this case, such act affirmed the intent to allow unlawful duplication. By offering the files for duplication via Kazaa, duplication being the only function of Kazaa, the defendant herself removed all doubt as to her intent, thus rebutting the presumption of innocence.



As for "fundamental rights," there is no such right as regards duplicating the fruits of another's labor without compensation. That such is here most easily accomplished is irrelevant.

[3djesus]

Thanks for spending all this time trying to clarify what seems to me to be completely obvious, to me anyway. I think your time would be better spent doing something else however. You could state your case a thousand times and I don't think most of these mental giants will comprehend.....ever. I do appreciate the fact that you, sir actually 'get it'.