What if if a pc user has no idea what the word “circumventing” or “copyright” or “infringement” means? All the jails together are not big enough to imprision these.

And by the way, no two lawyers will aver agree on what “circumventing” or “copyright” or “infringement” means. The meaning depends on who pays the lawyer.

Courts don’t really like to come out and say “This is legal”. They usually duck the issue by saying that it’s not illegal and leave it at that. For example, the content industry and others have asked judges to rule on the act of “librarying”, which is building a library of recorded content. To date, no judge has ruled one way or the other. None of them want to make enemies out of either side, so it remains a grey area.

“The world is a VERY big wheel and its just come full circle on these parasites the infamous R.I.A.Assholes”

You’ve inspired me to come up with a proper definition for RIAA; Really Ignorant Arrogant A**holes.

“If you have a DVD without copyprotection (good luck to find one, even the stupid Content scrambling system (CSS)”

The cheap ones you find in dollar stores don’t seem to have any protection on them.

this is because of the DMCA with it’s provision about copyprotection. It’s not the personal copy that is flat out illegal, it’s the circumventing of the same.

If you have a DVD without copyprotection (good luck to find one, even the stupid Content scrambling system (CSS) which seems to be on even the lamest DVD is “copyprotection” in view of DMCA) you can make that fair use copy like you could in that days before DMCA and “copyprotection” with compact cassettes for example

That the way it has always been, since magnetic tape was invented.

But a problem remains in that DVD show a warning that says that personal copies are illegal and can lead to a 5 year jail sentence (which I suspect has never happened).

this is rather confusing. Can someone please make clear what the rules were (when everyone copied into cassettes) and what the rules are (when everyone copies to blank cd and dvd disks)?

Copyright, is made for the right to do money with a copy.

So, what the hell are they doing?

Johnny Hughes got it right, a file download, is not the copy of a copy. Its a lot of bit and bites from different source to make a new source.

Here is my take:

People should sue the RIAA because :

Eletricity in my house, is my property and I can do what I want with my paid eletricity.
Bandwith is a form of electricity on which I put 1 and 0 (digital information) on it. I share those 1 and 0 to people, because I am not greedy, and it’s my bandwith, my computer, my modem and I pay for all that.
Taking any media, audio or video and digitalize it, transform the material purchased in something different, something new that is represent with 1 and 0. Those representations are different from which one to the other, you can compress the data with different option and parameters. Each program get mathematical algorithm to create the digital files.

So, the digital files is not “the object of the copyright”.

So, the RIAA are abusing my private property on spying my activities.
The RIAA are abusing my right to uses different technology (electricity, bandwith, digitalizer, my computer) that I had pay for, so the right to use my property.
The RIAA chargin 27000$ for a song, when the market ask not even 1$ for a digital song can be compare to a thug that want to sell something of disproportionate value. In that regard, the RIAA abuse the citizen about something that worth 1$, in asking 27000x it’s value. (extortion)

The big problem of the RIAA is not file sharing, it’s the price they ask for their media. A media they create at a cost of half a dollard, is sold 20$ for music and 50$ for movie. Those prices are ridiculously high. So, people boycott them with technology. If The RIAA or their founders, just tried to sell those “song” on the digital market, they would had a better share of the consummer money than trying to bullying them, extorted them, castrate them.

If you hate your consummer, your consummer hate you.

FUCK YOU RIAA.

I love headlines like these.

Not only is the above true … BUT … the resultant file downloaded by Media Sentry was not “In its entirety” downloaded from Mr. Howell.

The P2P program in question downloads files from many different places at the same time and Mr. Howell never really downloads a whole copy of that file unless he is the only seeder that the downloader uses.

It can’t taste much worse than the bullshit he’s been spewing his whole life.

Now that the courts are finally sticking up for the rights of the consumers, and exposing the shady tactics gathered by the cartel’s “legal team”, it’s just a matter of time before they all jump ship. I really hope Jammie Thomas appeals her case soon. As soon as she wins, the parasites won’t have a leg to stand on.

Duh, exactly.

Hang on a minute! Jon, help me out here - I’m sure I saw a quote on these very pages that some RIAA rep had just *recently* said that making these personal copies was ok? Now they’re deciding it’s not ok?! WTF?

They must think that the whole legal system is run by morons that they keep making this extortion racket ever more obvious. It’s not run by morons and it’s not totally corrupt, either. No wonder their cases don’t fly as often and with each passing day, official resistance, like we see here, from the courts grows stronger.

Keep on reporting, Jon. Every little bit adds to the pressure against these c*nts.

All of them are guilty or corrupting governements, judges and cops.

So now there is two possibilities:

1) Justice is done, all the executives and participant to these crimes in the major labels and of course at the RIAA go to jail, and pay heavy fines and some of or all of their properties is repossessed in order to compensate the victims.

Or

2). . . . !!!

I wonder if Mr Gabriel will fly out of his hideout in Denver to make another face saving appeal ?