Judge: File-swapping tools are legal

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Citizen Bob, Nov 2, 2006.

  1. Citizen Bob

    Citizen Bob Guest

    Copyright ©2006 CNET Networks, Inc.

    http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-998363.html

    Judge: File-swapping tools are legal
    By John Borland
    Staff Writer, CNET News.com
    Published: April 25, 2003, 12:46 PM PDT

    A federal judge in Los Angeles has handed a stunning court victory to
    file-swapping services Streamcast Networks and Grokster, dismissing
    much of the record industry and movie studios' lawsuit against the two
    companies.

    In an almost complete reversal of previous victories for the record
    labels and movie studios, federal court Judge Stephen Wilson ruled
    that Streamcast--parent of the Morpheus software--and Grokster were
    not liable for copyright infringements that took place using their
    software. The ruling does not directly affect Kazaa, software
    distributed by Sharman Networks, which has also been targeted by the
    entertainment industry.

    "Defendants distribute and support software, the users of which can
    and do choose to employ it for both lawful and unlawful ends," Wilson
    wrote in his opinion, released Friday. "Grokster and StreamCast are
    not significantly different from companies that sell home video
    recorders or copy machines, both of which can be and are used to
    infringe copyrights."

    The ruling is the second major setback to date to the entertainment
    industry's efforts to keep a tight rein on online file-swapping,
    following a similiar decision in the Netherlands last year that found
    that Kazaa was not liable for its users' copyright infringements. If
    upheld, the decision could lead artists, record labels and movie
    studios to cast new legal strategies that they have until now been
    reluctant to try, including bringing lawsuits against individuals who
    copy unauthorized works over Napster-like networks.

    According to the major record labels, file-swapping is a major
    contributor to declines in music sales over the past few years, a
    trend that has thrown the industry into disarray. Debt-ridden media
    conglomerates are now considering sales of their music divisions even
    as they begin to test paid online music services intended to compete
    with free file-swapping networks and turn the tide.

    Attorneys called the ruling a blow for entertainment and record
    companies trying to stop the networks used to swap unauthorized copies
    of their works.

    "This is a very serious setback for the record industry and other
    content industries, because they've uniformly won these cases in the
    U.S.," Mark Radcliffe, an intellectual property attorney at Gray Cary
    Ware & Freidenrich said.

    While the ruling in no way validates the legality of downloading
    copyrighted music online, it would shield companies providing
    decentralized file-swapping software such as Gnutella from liability
    for the actions of people using their products.

    As such, it could provide new leverage for file-swapping companies
    such as Grokster, Streamcast and Sharman in negotiations with record
    companies and other copyright holders to license works legitimately.
    Since Napster's $1 billion settlement offer with the record industry
    in 2001, file-swapping companies have repeatedly sought an amicable
    settlement with copyright holders but have been almost universally
    rebuffed.

    The court's ruling applies only to existing versions of the Morpheus
    and Grokster software. Earlier versions of the software, which
    functioned slightly differently, could potentially leave the companies
    open to liability.

    A spokeswoman for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
    said the copyright holders were deeply disappointed in the decision
    and would certainly appeal.

    "We feel strongly that those who encourage, facilitate and profit from
    piracy should be held accountable for actions," MPAA spokeswoman Marta
    Grutka said. "We're hoping that people aren't taking this as an
    invitation to continue along the path of what is clearly illegal
    activity."

    Recording industry officials said they saw some good in the ruling,
    but that they too would immediately appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of
    Appeals.

    "We are pleased with the Court's affirmation that individual users are
    accountable for illegally uploading and downloading copyrighted works
    off of publicly accessible peer-to-peer networks," said Recording
    Industry Association of America (RIAA) chief executive officer Hilary
    Rosen in a statement. "(But) businesses that intentionally facilitate
    massive piracy should not be able to evade responsibility for their
    actions."


    Wilson's decision comes in the most closely watched Net copyright case
    since Napster's demise.

    The two pieces of file-swapping software affected by Friday's ruling
    remain among the most popular downloads on the Net, although they
    operate deep in the shadow of market leader Kazaa. Morpheus--once the
    undisputed leader--has fallen to about 120,000 downloads per week,
    according to Download.com, a software aggregation site operated by
    News.com publisher CNET Networks. Kazaa, by contrast, was downloaded
    more than 2.7 million times during the past week.

    The RIAA and the MPAA sued Streamcast, Grokster, and the original
    parent company of Kazaa's software in October 2001, and the case has
    been making its way slowly through court since that time.

    In late 2002, both sides asked the judge for summary judgment, or a
    quick ruling in their favor before going to a full trial. Wilson's
    decision in favor of the file-swapping companies Friday was tied to
    that months-old series of requests.

    The decision does not directly affect Kazaa, at least not immediately.
    At the time that Grokster and Streamcast were arguing for summary
    judgment, Wilson had not yet ruled that the Australia-based Sharman
    Networks could be sued in the United States.

    Sharman is scheduled to meet with RIAA and MPAA attorneys in court on
    Monday, to argue over whether its counterclaim against the record
    labels and movie studios should be dismissed. Friday's ruling,
    however, could change the direction of that hearing.

    The judge's surprise ruling marked the first validation of an argument
    that file-swapping supporters have been making since Napster's first
    controversial arrival. Peer-to-peer file-trading is a technology that
    can be used for activities well beyond copyright infringement, and the
    technology should not be blocked altogether to stop solely its illegal
    uses, these backers have said.

    In making that argument, the judge looked back to the landmark 1984
    Supreme Court ruling that upheld the legality of Sony's Betamax
    videocassette recorder (VCR). That decision helped establish the
    doctrine of "substantial noninfringing use," which protects technology
    providers that distribute products--like the VCR or photocopier--that
    can be used for both legal and illegal purposes.

    "We are absolutely very proud of this judge for having the unusual
    capacity to be able to grasp the technology and its future benefit to
    taxpayers and shareholders around the world," said Wayne Rosso,
    president of Grokster. "Technology is usually way ahead of courts and
    legislature. The fact that judge was able to acutely comprehend (this
    technology) is a credit to the legal system."

    Not like Napster
    Much of Wilson's ruling hung on the technological differences between
    Napster and the newer, decentralized file-swapping services.

    Napster's service opened itself to liability for its users' actions by
    actively playing a role in connecting people who were downloading and
    uploading songs--a little like a physical swap meet provides the
    facilities for people exchanging illegal material, the judge said. By
    contrast, Grokster and Streamcast distributed software to people and
    had no control over what their users did afterwards, Wilson said.

    When users search for and initiate transfers of files using the
    Grokster client, they do so without any information being transmitted
    to or through any computers owned or controlled by Grokster," Wilson
    wrote. "Neither Grokster nor StreamCast provides the site and
    facilities" for direct infringement. "If either defendant closed their
    doors and deactivated all computers within their control, users of
    their products could continue sharing files with little or no
    interruption."

    It didn't matter that the companies were aware generally of copyright
    infringement happening using their software, Wilson added--they would
    have to know of specific instances of infringement and be able to do
    something about it, to be liable for those users' actions.

    That stands in stark contrast to an earlier ruling against
    file-swapping company Aimster, in which the judge explicitly said the
    file-trading company did not need to know about individual acts of
    copyright infringement as they were happening to be held liable for
    the illegal activity.

    Friday's decision is likely to send shock waves throughout the
    copyright and technology communities, which have adjusted slowly over
    the last year to the notion that file-trading services such as these
    were mostly likely illegal. Technology companies have complained that
    the repeated lawsuits have stifled innovation, but many also have
    begun to move forward in alliances with authorized music--and
    film-distribution services.

    The case will certainly be appealed. Because different courts have
    come to very different conclusions about the law, the issue could go
    as high as the U.S. Supreme Court, a process that would likely take
    years.

    "This is far from over," said Fred von Lohmann, an Electronic Frontier
    Foundation attorney who has represented Streamcast in the case. "This
    is not the end, but it sends a very strong message to the technology
    community that the court understands the risk to innovation."

    In the interim, the ruling is likely to produce another round of
    interest in legislation affecting copyright issue on the Net--an
    outcome that Wilson himself foresaw.

    Policy, "as well as history, supports our consistent deference to
    Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for
    copyrighted materials," Wilson wrote. "Congress has the constitutional
    authority and the institutional ability to accommodate fully the
    raised permutations of competing interests that are inevitably
    implicated by such new technology...Additional legislative guidance
    may be well-counseled."


    --

    "First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
    make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
    pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
    outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
    the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
    justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the
    world."
    --Clarence Darrow
     
    Citizen Bob, Nov 2, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Citizen Bob" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    | Copyright ©2006 CNET Networks, Inc.
    |
    | http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-998363.html
    |
    | Judge: File-swapping tools are legal
    | By John Borland
    | Staff Writer, CNET News.com
    | Published: April 25, 2003, 12:46 PM PDT

    ^^^^

    This judgment has been overruled by so many other court cases, the list is
    way too long...

    JaF
     
    Just a Friend, Nov 2, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Citizen Bob

    traffik33 Guest

    Just a Friend wrote:
    > "Citizen Bob" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > | Copyright ©2006 CNET Networks, Inc.
    > |
    > | http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-998363.html
    > |
    > | Judge: File-swapping tools are legal
    > | By John Borland
    > | Staff Writer, CNET News.com
    > | Published: April 25, 2003, 12:46 PM PDT
    >
    > ^^^^
    >
    > This judgment has been overruled by so many other court cases, the list is
    > way too long...
    >
    > JaF


    No sympathy for the music industry. Decades of stupidity have caused
    their
    own problems. Overpriced product with most albums consisting of 50%
    filler
    hardly worth listening to.

    --
    "Well Good Grief.....What is wrong with these eBay sellers?

    Yahoo is free. No listing fees. No final value fees. Yahoo has a bulk
    loader.
    Your listings actually show up in the search. Your listings also show
    up in
    Yahoo's shopping search. Yahoo has more traffic than eBay stores.

    But eBay sellers want to pay $15.95 month store fees. 5 cent listing
    fees.
    10% final value fees. And for all these fees eBay buries their store
    items
    on the back end of eBay and they don't even show up in the search.

    Sellers could have it all and not even a small percentage of eBay's
    store sellers
    can grasp the concept of listing and selling for free on Yahoo and
    keeping all their profits."

    ----------
    "Sellers could have it all, and with so many working so hard to make
    minimum
    wage on eBay, they don't even get it. As simple as taking a day to move
    their listings
    to Yahoo and eBay would be slashing their fees and bending over
    backwards
    trying to get them back. All that potential. What a waste. "

    --------------
    It's somewhat rare for the typical eBay seller to actually DO
    something.
    You are in a small minority.

    I realize in many cases, sellers have immediate financial needs, but
    judging from the completed auctions I seriously doubt the majority
    of sellers a making more than minimum wage for their time (at best).

    Reading the pathetic pleading on eBays message boards I wonder
    if any of these people are even capable of understanding what
    an incredible event it would be if they simply turned their backs
    on eBay and moved their listings to Yahoo.

    At this point it should be a "no brainer" and is well within their
    reach.
    It would send eBay reeling. And improve the situation for online
    sellers
    for years to come.

    Instead of meek lambs, struggling for their survivial on eBay,
    sellers would be saying, "YES, WE DID THAT".

    --------------
     
    traffik33, Nov 2, 2006
    #3
  4. Citizen Bob

    PTravel Guest

    "Just a Friend" <> wrote in message
    news:CQr2h.1929$...
    > "Citizen Bob" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > | Copyright ©2006 CNET Networks, Inc.
    > |
    > | http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-998363.html
    > |
    > | Judge: File-swapping tools are legal
    > | By John Borland
    > | Staff Writer, CNET News.com
    > | Published: April 25, 2003, 12:46 PM PDT
    >
    > ^^^^
    >
    > This judgment has been overruled by so many other court cases, the list is
    > way too long...
    >
    > JaF


    This judgment has not been overruled. As far as I know, there are no 9th
    Circuit appellate opinions addressing this (though I may be wrong). Circuit
    Courts of Appeal opinions are controlling in their own circuits. This is a
    district court opinion, so it is not controlling anywhere, but would be
    considered extremely persuasive, particularly since it originates from the
    Central District, which, along with the Northen District of California, are
    considered "leading" districts for intellectual property law. I haven't
    read the opinion, but I'm very familiar with Judge Wilson, and have
    litigated before him previously. He's not sloppy and he's very smart. This
    is a significant holding and, contrary to your contention, is valid law.


    >
    >
     
    PTravel, Nov 2, 2006
    #4
  5. "PTravel" wrote ...
    > This judgment has not been overruled. As far as I know, there are no 9th
    > Circuit appellate opinions addressing this (though I may be wrong).
    > Circuit Courts of Appeal opinions are controlling in their own circuits.
    > This is a district court opinion, so it is not controlling anywhere, but
    > would be considered extremely persuasive, particularly since it originates
    > from the Central District, which, along with the Northen District of
    > California, are considered "leading" districts for intellectual property
    > law. I haven't read the opinion, but I'm very familiar with Judge Wilson,
    > and have litigated before him previously. He's not sloppy and he's very
    > smart. This is a significant holding and, contrary to your contention, is
    > valid law.


    Does this ruling apply to the tool itself, or to how people USE the tool?
    Even lock picks have a legitimate use if you are a locksmith, etc. And
    fast cars aren't illegal just because bank robbers use them to get away
    from the crime-scent/authorities, or even because some people break
    the speed limit in them.

    Does this actually change the concept of "fair use" or the intent of the
    copyright laws?
     
    Richard Crowley, Nov 2, 2006
    #5
  6. Citizen Bob

    PTravel Guest

    "Richard Crowley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "PTravel" wrote ...
    >> This judgment has not been overruled. As far as I know, there are no 9th
    >> Circuit appellate opinions addressing this (though I may be wrong).
    >> Circuit Courts of Appeal opinions are controlling in their own circuits.
    >> This is a district court opinion, so it is not controlling anywhere, but
    >> would be considered extremely persuasive, particularly since it
    >> originates from the Central District, which, along with the Northen
    >> District of California, are considered "leading" districts for
    >> intellectual property law. I haven't read the opinion, but I'm very
    >> familiar with Judge Wilson, and have litigated before him previously.
    >> He's not sloppy and he's very smart. This is a significant holding and,
    >> contrary to your contention, is valid law.

    >
    > Does this ruling apply to the tool itself, or to how people USE the tool?


    I haven't read the opinion, but I suspect only to the tool itself, i.e. if
    you use it to exchange files in violation of copyright, you have infringed.
    Of course, as with any instance of unauthorized copyring, fair use defenses,
    if available, would apply.

    > Even lock picks have a legitimate use if you are a locksmith, etc. And
    > fast cars aren't illegal just because bank robbers use them to get away
    > from the crime-scent/authorities, or even because some people break
    > the speed limit in them.
    >
    > Does this actually change the concept of "fair use" or the intent of the
    > copyright laws?


    As I said, I haven't read the opinion. However, I cannot imagine it
    extending fair use to the kind of conduct that has been held infringing,
    e.g. downloading music, etc.

    >
    >
     
    PTravel, Nov 2, 2006
    #6
  7. Citizen Bob

    JoeBloe Guest

    On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:09:52 GMT, (Citizen Bob) Gave us:

    >
    >Judge



    It's 3 years old, you fucking goddamned cross posting, Usenet
    retard! There has been new litigation opened since then.
     
    JoeBloe, Nov 3, 2006
    #7
  8. Just a Friend wrote:

    > Citizen Bob wrote:


    >| Copyright ©2006 CNET Networks, Inc.
    >|
    >| http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-998363.html
    >|
    >| Judge: File-swapping tools are legal
    >| By John Borland
    >| Staff Writer, CNET News.com
    >| Published: April 25, 2003, 12:46 PM PDT


    >This judgment has been overruled by so many other court cases, the list is
    >way too long...


    The only one I can think of is the Supreme Court decision against
    Grokster (MGM v. Grokster), but the court opinion made it clear that
    the main reason the decision went against Grokster was because the
    company actively promoted the product as for use in illegal downloads.
    From the majority opionion (written by Souter): "Grokster and
    StreamCast are not, however, merely passive recipients of information
    about infringing use. The record is replete with evidence that from
    the moment Grokster and StreamCast began to distribute their free
    software, each one clearly voiced the objective that recipients use it
    to download copyrighted works, and each took active steps to encourage
    infringement."

    On the other hand, Attorney General Reno v. ACLU, which overturned the
    Communications Decency Act, said that there is such a thing as going
    too far in controlling the Internet: "In [an earlier case], we
    remarked that the speech restriction at issue there amounted to
    'burn[ing] the house to roast the pig.' The CDA, casting a far darker
    shadow over free speech, threatens to torch a large segment of the
    Internet community." (And, of course, the grandaddy of "the right of
    non-infringing uses", Sony v. Universal Studios et al., which made
    VCRs legal despite the fact that they could be used to make copies of
    TV shows.)

    -- Don
     
    Don Del Grande, Nov 3, 2006
    #8
  9. Citizen Bob

    jayembee Guest

    "Richard Crowley" <> wrote:

    > Does this ruling apply to the tool itself, or to how people USE the
    > tool? Even lock picks have a legitimate use if you are a locksmith,
    > etc. And fast cars aren't illegal just because bank robbers use them
    > to get away from the crime-scent/authorities, or even because some
    > people break the speed limit in them.
    >
    > Does this actually change the concept of "fair use" or the intent of
    > the copyright laws?


    Probably not. From what I could see in the article presented, the
    decision had nothing to do with the legality of file-sharing. It
    appears only to reiterate Universal, et alia v Sony in that the
    tools themselves are not illegal because they have legitimate,
    non-infringing uses, and that the manufacturers of those tools,
    like Sony and the Betamax, are not liable for losses incurred on
    the part of copyright owners because some people choose to use
    the tools illegally.

    -- jayembee
     
    jayembee, Nov 3, 2006
    #9
  10. Citizen Bob

    Citizen Bob Guest

    On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:40:18 GMT, "Just a Friend"
    <> wrote:

    >| Judge: File-swapping tools are legal
    >| By John Borland
    >| Staff Writer, CNET News.com
    >| Published: April 25, 2003, 12:46 PM PDT


    >This judgment has been overruled by so many other court cases, the list is
    >way too long...


    Provide links, please.

    Conflicting rulings are the stuff from which Supreme Court challenges
    are made.

    Just because a prior ruling is overruled does not make it invalid.


    --

    "First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
    make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
    pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
    outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
    the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
    justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."
    --Clarence Darrow
     
    Citizen Bob, Nov 3, 2006
    #10
  11. Citizen Bob

    Citizen Bob Guest

    On 2 Nov 2006 12:33:18 -0800, "traffik33" <> wrote:

    >Yahoo is free. No listing fees. No final value fees. Yahoo has a bulk
    >loader. >Your listings actually show up in the search. Your listings also show
    >up in >Yahoo's shopping search. Yahoo has more traffic than eBay stores.


    I did not realize that Yahoo Store was free.

    A large Houston-based computer parts distributor, Directron, started
    out in one of those one-room storage-type warehouse units as Houston
    Computer Center and grew to its current size thanks to listing on
    Yahoo Store. It still uses it.


    --

    "First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
    make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
    pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
    outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
    the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
    justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."
    --Clarence Darrow
     
    Citizen Bob, Nov 3, 2006
    #11
  12. Citizen Bob

    Citizen Bob Guest

    On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:14:04 -0800, JoeBloe
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:09:52 GMT, (Citizen Bob) Gave us:
    >
    >>
    >>Judge

    >
    >
    > It's 3 years old, you fucking goddamned cross posting, Usenet
    >retard! There has been new litigation opened since then.


    Leftist queer idiot.


    --

    "First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
    make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
    pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
    outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
    the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
    justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."
    --Clarence Darrow
     
    Citizen Bob, Nov 3, 2006
    #12
  13. Citizen Bob

    Citizen Bob Guest

    On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 03:08:55 GMT, Don Del Grande
    <> wrote:

    >VCRs legal despite the fact that they could be used to make copies of
    >TV shows.)


    I can tape a TV show and give it to a friend as long as I do not
    charge anything for it other than the cost of the VHS tape.

    So why can't you and I be friends and I download something that you
    have?

    Why can't I become friends with 1,000,000 P2Ps and download something
    they have?

    A vague law does not bind. The entertainment industry is using its
    wealth to intimidate people. The Milgram Experiments prove that most
    people need to obey authorities even when they are wrong. I do not let
    the Mob tell me what to do.


    --

    "First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
    make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
    pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
    outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
    the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
    justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."
    --Clarence Darrow
     
    Citizen Bob, Nov 3, 2006
    #13
  14. "Citizen Bob" < wrote...
    > I can tape a TV show and give it to a friend as long as I do not
    > charge anything for it other than the cost of the VHS tape.


    As long as you just make this stuff up as you go along, you
    can justify anything. But don't expect the legal community
    (or law-abiding citizens) to agree with you.
     
    Richard Crowley, Nov 3, 2006
    #14
  15. Citizen Bob

    Citizen Bob Guest

    On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 05:48:42 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
    <> wrote:

    >> I can tape a TV show and give it to a friend as long as I do not
    >> charge anything for it other than the cost of the VHS tape.


    >As long as you just make this stuff up as you go along, you
    >can justify anything. But don't expect the legal community
    >(or law-abiding citizens) to agree with you.


    I don't give a **** what the legal community or law-abiding citizens
    think. All I care about is a jury of my peers.


    --

    "First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
    make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
    pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
    outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
    the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
    justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."
    --Clarence Darrow
     
    Citizen Bob, Nov 3, 2006
    #15
  16. Citizen Bob

    PTravel Guest

    "Citizen Bob" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 03:08:55 GMT, Don Del Grande
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>VCRs legal despite the fact that they could be used to make copies of
    >>TV shows.)

    >
    > I can tape a TV show and give it to a friend as long as I do not
    > charge anything for it other than the cost of the VHS tape.


    No, you cannot. There is no "personal use" exception for copying video
    (though there is, under the AHRA for audio).

    >
    > So why can't you and I be friends and I download something that you
    > have?


    See above. It's infringement whether you use sneaker net or the internet.

    >
    > Why can't I become friends with 1,000,000 P2Ps and download something
    > they have?
    >
    > A vague law does not bind.


    It's not a vague law. The law says: no unauthorized copying, distribution,
    preparation of derivative works, public performance or public display.
    Nothing vague about that.

    > The entertainment industry is using its
    > wealth to intimidate people.


    That's true. Worse, however, is that the entertainment industry is using
    its wealth to buy laws that are contrary to the underlying rationale of
    Article I, Section 8 and the First Amendment.

    > The Milgram Experiments prove that most
    > people need to obey authorities even when they are wrong. I do not let
    > the Mob tell me what to do.


    Be sure to call me when you get sued, then. ;)

    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > "First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
    > make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
    > pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
    > outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
    > the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
    > justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the
    > world."
    > --Clarence Darrow
     
    PTravel, Nov 3, 2006
    #16
  17. Citizen Bob

    Citizen Bob Guest

    On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 09:16:59 -0800, "PTravel"
    <> wrote:

    >> A vague law does not bind.


    >It's not a vague law. The law says: no unauthorized copying, distribution,
    >preparation of derivative works, public performance or public display.
    >Nothing vague about that.


    That is not what's meant by a vague law. A vague law is one where a
    significant number of people do not obey it because they don't
    understand it.

    >That's true. Worse, however, is that the entertainment industry is using
    >its wealth to buy laws that are contrary to the underlying rationale of
    >Article I, Section 8 and the First Amendment.


    Those laws are illegitimate, and therefore do not bind.

    >> The Milgram Experiments prove that most
    >> people need to obey authorities even when they are wrong. I do not let
    >> the Mob tell me what to do.


    >Be sure to call me when you get sued, then. ;)


    It would be a colossal waste of time to sue me because I don't break
    any law. The Mob has mininterpreted the law and someday Congress will
    stop taking bribes and do something to rectify the situation.


    --

    "First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
    make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
    pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
    outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
    the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
    justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."
    --Clarence Darrow
     
    Citizen Bob, Nov 3, 2006
    #17
  18. "PTravel" wrote ...
    > "Citizen Bob" wrote ...
    >> I can tape a TV show and give it to a friend as long as I do not
    >> charge anything for it other than the cost of the VHS tape.

    >
    > No, you cannot. There is no "personal use" exception for copying video
    > (though there is, under the AHRA for audio).


    But the AHRA exception does not allow "sharing" does it?
    I thought it was intended for personal use, specifically for
    format conversion.

    Originally, conversion to cassette (Walkman), to 8-track (car
    players), to CD, and most recently to MP3 (iPod, et.al.)
     
    Richard Crowley, Nov 3, 2006
    #18
  19. Citizen Bob

    PTravel Guest

    "Citizen Bob" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 09:16:59 -0800, "PTravel"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> A vague law does not bind.

    >
    >>It's not a vague law. The law says: no unauthorized copying,
    >>distribution,
    >>preparation of derivative works, public performance or public display.
    >>Nothing vague about that.

    >
    > That is not what's meant by a vague law. A vague law is one where a
    > significant number of people do not obey it because they don't
    > understand it.


    There is a constitutional vagueness standard that would invalidate, and
    render unenforceable, a law that does not comply. The relevant sections of
    the Copyright Act are not unconstitutionally vague.

    >
    >>That's true. Worse, however, is that the entertainment industry is using
    >>its wealth to buy laws that are contrary to the underlying rationale of
    >>Article I, Section 8 and the First Amendment.

    >
    > Those laws are illegitimate, and therefore do not bind.


    The relevant sections of the Copyright Act are not "illegitimate" as a
    matter of law. As such, they are binding.

    >
    >>> The Milgram Experiments prove that most
    >>> people need to obey authorities even when they are wrong. I do not let
    >>> the Mob tell me what to do.

    >
    >>Be sure to call me when you get sued, then. ;)

    >
    > It would be a colossal waste of time to sue me because I don't break
    > any law.


    Then you have nothing to worry about.

    > The Mob has mininterpreted the law and someday Congress will
    > stop taking bribes and do something to rectify the situation.


    I agree that Congress taking bribes to pass laws (and that is exactly what
    lobbyists do) is a serious problem, probably one of the most serious
    problems facing this country. However, as long as the laws it passes comply
    with Constitutional, they are legitimate and enforceable.

    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > "First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
    > make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
    > pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
    > outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
    > the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
    > justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the
    > world."
    > --Clarence Darrow
     
    PTravel, Nov 3, 2006
    #19
  20. Citizen Bob

    PTravel Guest

    "Richard Crowley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "PTravel" wrote ...
    >> "Citizen Bob" wrote ...
    >>> I can tape a TV show and give it to a friend as long as I do not
    >>> charge anything for it other than the cost of the VHS tape.

    >>
    >> No, you cannot. There is no "personal use" exception for copying video
    >> (though there is, under the AHRA for audio).

    >
    > But the AHRA exception does not allow "sharing" does it?
    > I thought it was intended for personal use, specifically for
    > format conversion.


    Format conversion comes within Fair Use and I would argue that, DMCA
    considerations aside, it would extend to video as well as audio, e.g. Fair
    Use permits me transfer a downloaded Google video to my iPod. It's been a
    while since I've had reason to look at the AHRA, but my understanding is
    that it precludes infringement liability for copies made for personal use.
    You may be correct that it does not authorize sharing.

    >
    > Originally, conversion to cassette (Walkman), to 8-track (car
    > players), to CD, and most recently to MP3 (iPod, et.al.)
    >
     
    PTravel, Nov 3, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. THEOLDONE

    What A Judge...We Need More

    THEOLDONE, Jul 18, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    880
    longshotjohn7
    Jul 19, 2003
  2. Gary G. Taylor

    Judge to SCO:

    Gary G. Taylor, Dec 6, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    538
    Thund3rstruck
    Dec 6, 2003
  3. Old Gringo

    Judge Sentences Spammer to Nine Years

    Old Gringo, Apr 8, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    777
    trout
    Apr 9, 2005
  4. Aphelion

    Judge Dredd Anamorphic?

    Aphelion, Jul 3, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    707
    Joshua Zyber
    Jul 3, 2003
  5. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    563
    DVD Verdict
    Nov 8, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page