Comments on: Wired in ‘No Proof Needed’ RIAA, MPAA row

By: the group of interested patent law professors

the group of interested patent law professors — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:04:27 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:58:23 +0000

Sharing a song doesn’t cost them a sale at all if the recipient had no intention of buying it. That’s just sour grapes. Next, having music in a shared folder does not prove distribution, indirect or otherwise. It may never be uploaded, and users have control over that also. They may well be there so others will think they’re not leechers, and will share with them. Who knows what infringes copyright anyway, as the RIAA won’t make their list publicly available so it’s their own fault we don’t know what we can share. Even if it actually infringed copyright, it still requires proof, and may not apply to local law, and in any case sharing is good and harmless.

By: Ja

Ja — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:02:49 +0000

Whats the difference between sharing music and going out on the street and plying the music for everyone to hear it? Or is that copyright infringement too?

By: Rekrul

Rekrul — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:58:15 +0000

What difference does it make? If “making available” is declared not to be infringement, you can bet your life savings that there will be a bill before Congress within a month that specifically defines “making available” as infringement. If the current laws go against them, they just buy new ones.

By: Dreddsnik

Dreddsnik — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:00:09 +0000

” Uh, anybody see a contradiction with what they are saying, and what is needed to be guilty? The event must be proven w/o a reasonable doubt. ”

That’s for Criminal Trials.
That’s why they won’t try these folks in criminal court.

In Civil court the burden of prove is actually ” more likely than not ” or something like that.

These cases would not survive criminal due process.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:43:15 +0000

What a wonderful idea. So in the next murder or rape trial, shall we convict them without any actual evidence of a crime being commited?? This beggars belief. How can they except people to swallow this horse manure.

I have another great idea, let’s just ignore established law and create our own. Ye, that’s what the music industry is doing. doubtless, if they lose this case, they will lobby for more extreme penalties using their bought and paid for politicians and governments. ACTA will soon become top priority for reprobate politicians around the globe.

By: Havvy

Havvy — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:01:13 +0000

Uh, anybody see a contradiction with what they are saying, and what is needed to be guilty? The event must be proven w/o a reasonable doubt. Having a possibility is not reasonable doubt.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:41:06 +0000

ancient brit,

actually according to the RIAA they are the victems of theft as you have then cost them a sale.

By: ancient brit

ancient brit — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:53:14 +0000

So I leave a CD on my garden wall while I pop inside for a drink. Someone picks it up and takes it away, I am by the MPAA judgement guilty of distribution, by my reckoning I am the victim of theft.