Comments on: RIAA and Top Cop in p2p case

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 01:35:47 +0000

Someone should counter sue for deflamation of character(being accused of commiting criminal acts).

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 01:32:12 +0000

Copyright infringment isn’t illegal, it’s a subjective and civil matter. No matter how much the RIAA/MAA would have you believe that it’s criminal/illegal, thats why they are suing people instead of the state procecuting them in a criminal court.

They keep repeating false allegations.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 02:08:36 +0000

‘Making available’ could also include leaving a window/door open in our home while your music collection is not under lock and key.

And let’s not forget those evil doers at the library who do nothing but ‘making available’.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:39:08 +0000

Please _-Jile-_, if you want to disconnect from the internet, do it already.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:14:02 +0000

“the plaintiff should not only have to prove the act of infringement occured, but there was actual intent to infringe as well.”

Problem: Actual intent can only be proven if the alleged infringer leaves a very clear signed document and the writer knew what infringement is.

Even if a person writes down “I infringed and knew what I was doing” it may not be a proper admission that he “knew” he was infringing, if the person later claims that he knew nothing abot copyright law. And who know anything about copyright law?

BTW, the American Copyright Act has a definitions section. The word “infringement” does not appear on it. See here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101

My personal experience on a major copyright case tells me that even federal judges have no idea what the word means. Visit my site and you will be astounded by the judges decision regarding what is infringemnt. Hundreds of songs belonging to my family were stolen and copyright registered by two music publishers and the judge said there was no infringement of our rights.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

Rafael Venegas

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:33:14 +0000

“Btw, can you name one case where someone was tried and convicted in federal court for ripping and burning a CD for a family member? If you can’t find one, it’s because it hasn’t happened. It’s not a crime. At worst it’s copyright infringement that is arguably allowed by Fair Use. The RIAA and the feds would never even try to go after someone for it.”

Have you seen a DVD lately? They threatens you with legal advise that copying it is a federal crime with five year jail sentenses and a $250,000 fine. No responsible lawyer for the claim is named.

I personally think that what the dvds says is a wrong legal avise that comes from a non lawyer. Just like giving medical advise in public if you are not a medical doctor is wrong so should be wrong to give legal advise if you are not an identifiable lawyer.

When customers are threatened (with wrong legal advise in this case) they feel threatened. Worse, if tomorrow it is legislated to clarify that copying dvd’s for presonal use is legal, you will have millions of dvd’s in circulation that will in essense be giving threatening legal advise that is flat wrong.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:11:07 +0000

youre forgiven

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 05:35:08 +0000

What a constructive rebuttal. Thank you for an intelligent post that really made me rethink my position.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 05:33:12 +0000

Who the hell is Nick?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 05:24:21 +0000

money talks and bullshit walks and according to the government and Arnold swarzenagger (how ever you spell that arogant a–holes name) everybody on the internet might as well just walk because money is the only thing they listen too!!!!!!
which I’ve said in the beginning everybody just thought I was ranting and raving now they are getting the truth aren’t you!!!!!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 03:16:00 +0000

Following the RIAA’s so-called ‘logic’ of the ‘making available’ scenario would imply that anyone leaving their travel case of music CDs on the front seat of their unlocked motor vehicle is liable for copyright infringement as anyone could come by with their laptop, rip the CDs and put them back, just as someone ‘wandering’ by could copy the contents of someone’s shared folder.

Many people are simply not aware of many of the nuances of computer networking whereby some or all of one or more of the disk drives on their machine can be exposed and the data copied from them. Sometimes it could be the result of a trojan inadvertantly downloaded, in some cases it could be surrepticiously installed spyware that a third party knows how to exploit. Sadly, it could be someone who simply could not understand the instructions of how to set up their router or the Windows firewall or some other component and inadvertantly left the barn door open for anyone who wanted to barge in.

Liability for copyright infringement should only extend what one does, not what one doesn’t do, fails to do, doesn’t know to do, doesn’t know how to do, or doesn’t know that it’s possible to do.

Until there are some kind of requirements are established for basic skills and knowledge before one is allowed to purchase a computer and connect it to the internet, true ignorance of technical matters should be permitted as a positive defense to alleged infringement. In other words, the plaintiff should not only have to prove the act of infringement occured, but there was actual intent to infringe as well.

–TurboGeek

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 02:24:17 +0000

Write to the Department of Justice, and Alberto Gonzales, and express your take on the whole situation, plus tell them all about the RIAA.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 01:49:52 +0000

That’s the problem.
They DO know what the internet is capable of, and what it can be used for. It scares them shitless.
Thats why lawmakers follow the RIAA/MPAA company line, ( aside from the fact that they get paid good coin by those corporations ).
Closing off, Controlling, regulating, and moetizing the net for the benefit of wealth and government is what they want.
Filesharing and pron are the excuses used to achieve that goal.

The water is almost boiling now, and we still haven’t left the pot.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 01:46:27 +0000

and, when you are done, read nick’s article in the “sun” about exploding people LOLOLOLOLLOLOLLOLL!!!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 01:45:12 +0000

Hey, Nick ….
Go back to writing for the “raputable” sun :).

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 22:01:39 +0000

I did think about it.

You should try it…and while you’re at it, check out my response to “I’m surprised…” above.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 21:58:59 +0000

Considering the way this article is worded, I’m not surprised by your response.

The courts already recognize the difference between hyperlinks and hosting the actual files. If they didn’t, Google would’ve been sued out of existence a long time ago.

The article is oversimplifying what the RIAA is arguing. The RIAA is suggesting that anyone hosting digital copies of songs for which their member labels hold the recording copyright, should be considered just as guilty of copyright infringement as those people selling or giving away bootleg copies of their albums on street corners. That’s a far cry from “all hyperlinks are illegal!”

Don’t misunderstand, I don’t agree with what the RIAA is suggesting. All I’m saying is that if, by some miracle, the RIAA is able to convince the court to agree with them on this, it will not be as devastating to the internet as Beckerman suggests.

I think Beckerman is letting his little “pro-p2p fan club” go to his head.

Btw, can you name one case where someone was tried and convicted in federal court for ripping and burning a CD for a family member? If you can’t find one, it’s because it hasn’t happened. It’s not a crime. At worst it’s copyright infringement that is arguably allowed by Fair Use. The RIAA and the feds would never even try to go after someone for it.

Take a deep breath, clear your head…and try to think about the situation rationally.

Kudos on your passion for the cause, though.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:53:33 +0000

This poster, and other people who’ve emailed me about this, are quite correct.

I’ve just posted this at the bottom of the story:

—Revision @ 7:17 am Pacific: This piece was originally, and incorrectly, headed ‘RIAA vs Hollywood in p2p case’. That’s the trouble with a one-man editorial team doing things in a hurry. I try hard to avoid mistakes, but they happen and sometimes, they’re embarrassingly dumb, as on this occasion. Sorry. Cheers! Jon.—

I’ve also posted a correction on Digg.

Cheers!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:14:30 +0000

I’ve got something more significant:
Both came from a different area they later claimed to be responsible of,
the both industry associations made themselves to an alternative government and the little man from Austria made himself the leader of Germany. And if my English lacks correctness, it is because I’m from Germany. Das nur so am Rande.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:27:31 +0000

First the user may have a file in this directory that is allowed and actually asked to be shared? I am sure some of the artists would take that position because……

one day there could appear a list of all artists this RIAA group represents and some of our stupid music lovers will wake up and and not listen to their work in protest to their indirect support of these actions.

Most of these artists tunes even involve different levels of protest about various subjects of some unresonable control. How are they going to feel if noone shows up at their concerts because they are helping to fund this. Concerts in which they rap and moan about someone trying to control them. They need to rock in the direction of their own words and people need to blow them off if they support these hunts anymore.

Please someone that has the material make a list of these “artists”. We all know who allowed Sony to use their work to infect peoples computers, I for one threw out their cds since they supported this trash. I never heard of one of those artists slapping a lawsuit on Sony big time, did you?

Boycott the artists that let these idiots use their money to trash these lives of their own fans because they downloaded a song or ten.