Comments on: Harvard’s Charles Nesson battles the RIAA http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17406 p2pnet.net - reader powered Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:43:11 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Eddie http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17406/comment-page-1#comment-944144 Eddie Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:30:33 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17406#comment-944144 The problem with the argument above is that this not about a specific business model. This is about copyright infringement. Uploading music on the internet where millions of people have access to it is broadcasting and is clearly copyright infringement. By the way there was a lawsuit back in the eighties with regard to home taping. The Sony betamax case. The television and movie industry went through a similiar transition, and after everyone changed with the times home video has turned the motion picture business. The problem with the argument above is that this not about a specific business model. This is about copyright infringement. Uploading music on the internet where millions of people have access to it is broadcasting and is clearly copyright infringement. By the way there was a lawsuit back in the eighties with regard to home taping. The Sony betamax case. The television and movie industry went through a similiar transition, and after everyone changed with the times home video has turned the motion picture business.

]]> By: stw http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17406/comment-page-1#comment-864705 stw Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:48:17 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17406#comment-864705 i feel the argument to ACTUALLY produce current copyright licensing for all files in question should be raised. And those files in question be compared to the SSH hash on the CD. Isn't significant reduction in quality NOT infringement for personal use covered under 'fair use'? I never heard of an RIAA lawsuit for kids taping radio broadcasts to cassette, or movies to VHS. This is clearly a business model issue. I have been following the abusive, draconian tactics of the asshats @ RIAA, and it will be clearly a 'stay tuned', now that a highly respected, learned law professor will properly shove their 'ex parte' circumvention up their gluteus maximus, and i pray there are court sanctions in the billions, pursuant: Rule 11(b)(3) requires that a representation in a pleading have evidentiary support and one wonders if the Plaintiffs are intentionally flouting that requirement in order to make their discovery efforts more convenient or to avoid paying the proper filing fees. In my view, the Court would be well within its power to direct the Plaintiffs to show cause why they have not violated Rule 11(b) with their allegations respecting joinder. . i feel the argument to ACTUALLY produce current copyright licensing for all files in question should be raised. And those files in question be compared to the SSH hash on the CD. Isn’t significant reduction in quality NOT infringement for personal use covered under ‘fair use’? I never heard of an RIAA lawsuit for kids taping radio broadcasts to cassette, or movies to VHS. This is clearly a business model issue.

I have been following the abusive, draconian tactics of the asshats @ RIAA, and it will be clearly a ’stay tuned’, now that a highly respected, learned law professor will properly shove their ‘ex parte’ circumvention up their gluteus maximus, and i pray there are court sanctions in the billions, pursuant:

Rule 11(b)(3) requires that a representation in a pleading have evidentiary support and one wonders if the Plaintiffs are intentionally flouting that requirement in order to make their discovery efforts more convenient or to avoid paying the proper filing fees. In my view, the Court would be well within its power to direct the Plaintiffs to show cause why they have not violated Rule 11(b) with their allegations respecting joinder. .

]]>