Comments on: Judge nails RIAA ‘making available’ claim

By: knife geek

knife geek — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:51:22 +0000

I’m glad to see this get shoved in their faces like this. I realize that piracy is out of control but they’re making people not even want to buy their products at all.

By: Anon e. mouse

Anon e. mouse — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:55:44 +0000

Well, my 2 cents is that the RIAA should implement a different strategy to remedy file sharing in the same manner that gaming consoles have, such as the ps3 and 360. the fact that the blue ray disk has such a large file size makes it ineconomical to pirate due to reduced quality, need of blue ray burners/drives etc. for the software to actually run. The 360 on the other hand limits LiVE connectivity if it detects modification.

I know the analogy above uses technichal limitations to keep it’s userbase on track, but If the RIAA used something such as a subscription system, wherein people could pay to subscribe to their favorite artists similar to an RSS feed or bonus content (think HD music video’s) then there wouldnt be as much p2p of songs.

On topic, w00t for the judge!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:50:18 +0000

Tron rules on this one.

By: sigh!!

sigh!! — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:51:16 +0000

sigh!!!
Fassbender Says:
What’s the difference here?

the difference is not that they made the gun available, but they actually supplied it for the purpose of maiming… the music ruling is only in regards to making it available for copy, not the actual copying - which is the illegal part of the equation.

By: tron

tron — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:34:55 +0000

Fassbender: “If one person hands another a loaded gun and that other person kills someone with it, they have “made it available”, so both are equally liable.

What’s the difference here?”

If I hand someone a loaded gun and they shoot me with it, did I just commit suicide?

By: Faethe

Faethe — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:21:13 +0000

Zune got rid of the 3 day delete period with the latest update.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:51:13 +0000

@ Fassbender,

First, what you’re describing is a criminal action, not a civil one.

Second, unless the person who handed the loaded gun to the murderer specifically told the murderer to kill so and so, then the person who supplied the weapon is not liable. Otherwise, all gun stores across the nation would be liable for making the guns available and murders result because of that making available.

Third, it’s against the law to hold someone else responsible for another’s actions, unless you can prove the person acting was forced, payed or otherwise compensated for their actions by someone else.

Just my two cents.

By: Dreddsnik

Dreddsnik — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:02:45 +0000

Thinking about it, I think you might have a point there Fassbender. Hadn’t thought of it that way.

By: Dreddsnik

Dreddsnik — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:50:06 +0000

” If “making available” is to be considered illegal, then using the sharing feature on the microsoft zune media player is opening many microsoft customers up to lawsuit. Especially when the drm can be removed by many inexpensive or freeware means. ”

They get around that by crippling this feature.
The transferred songs auto-delete after 3 plays.

If they eliminated DRM restrictions this feature could have made
this very stiff competition for the Ipod.

The one corporation with enough capitol to stand up to the labels,
and it would rather kiss their butts.

Ironic bhavior from a Corporation that was built on infringement.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:31:37 +0000

Absolutely wrong. I wouldn’t even think both are liable in your horrible analogy, either.

By: Fassbender

Fassbender — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:57:01 +0000

If one person hands another a loaded gun and that other person kills someone with it, they have “made it available”, so both are equally liable.

What’s the difference here?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:32:34 +0000

yeah but microsoft pays royalties to the RIAA. I believe I read somewhere about some artists refusing to play on the Zune. (I own one)

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:40:54 +0000

If “making available” is to be considered illegal, then using the sharing feature on the microsoft zune media player is opening many microsoft customers up to lawsuit. Especially when the drm can be removed by many inexpensive or freeware means.