Judge: File-swapping tools are legal

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

  1. Citizen Bob

    PTravel Guest

    To be clear: Congress did nothing in this regard. Sony v. Universal was a
    Supreme Court case, and its finding that consumer off-air recording was fair
    use is what authorized copying TV shows with a VCR. Neither the video
    manufacturers deep pockets, or Congress' evaluation of the law had nothing
    to do with it -- there is no statutory law that specifically addresses VCRs.

     
    PTravel, Nov 5, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Citizen Bob

    PTravel Guest

    Tell that to all the people arrested, tried and imprisoned for violating it.

    The fact that a law may be widely ignored does not render it "unenforceable"
    or "illegitimate."

     
    PTravel, Nov 5, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Citizen Bob

    Citizen Bob Guest

    Spoken like a true statist.

    Zeig Heil!
    The fact that this statuatory law does not have the consent of the
    governed tells you that it is not legitimate under common law.
    However, we will have to wait for a jury trial to see Common Law in
    operation.

    Remember it was statuatory law that forced blacks to sit in the back
    of buses. It was common law that freed them. It all began with that
    lone juror who voted not guilty when a black violated statuatory law.
    You are full of it. A juror can vote his conscience if he wants to. It
    is against the law to hold a juror accountable for his decision.

    You are one of the biggest statists I have seen in a long time. Have
    fun goosestepping in the street.
    Only in certain states, the fascist ones.
    You never heard of a hung jury?

    As a statist you hold that a defendant is guilty until a unanimous
    jury pronounced him innocent. That is clearly wrong.

    A defendant is innocent until a unanimous jury pronounces him guilty.
    A hung jury has not pronounced guilt, so the defendant remains
    innocent. He has been exonerated, unless the persecution wants to try
    him again. Even then he is innocent until a unanimous jury pronounces
    him guilty.
    Congress passed the Brady Law in which it made clear that the FBI is
    required by law to destroy all information about applicants within a
    short period of time. The FBI ignored that part of the law and kept
    the information in clear violation of the express dictates of the law.

    The US SC ruled that the FBI did not have to obey the law - it could
    do whatever it wanted with the information, in defiance of the law.

    You are so much of a statist that you no longer know what reality is.


    --

    "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 5, 2006
    #43
  4. Citizen Bob

    Citizen Bob Guest

    It does far more than that. It sets precendents in "case law". The
    second person to become a defendant can use that case to provide a
    defense.
    That British nanny who was tried for that little kid's death was
    exonerated by the judge when the jury returned a murder conviction.


    --

    "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 5, 2006
    #44
  5. Citizen Bob

    Citizen Bob Guest

    Judges claim otherwise. They claim that nullification is in violation
    of statuatory law. But they are wrong. Statuatory law allows for
    nullification because no one can force a juror from voting their
    conscience.

    However the Kriho case has set a dangerous precedent whereby a juror
    can be cited for contempt of court if he does not *voluntarily*
    disclose that he will not obey court instructions, which include
    veiled threats not to nullify.

    However like so many man-made laws, that one is not enforceable as
    long as the juror keeps his mouth shut. If forced to respond he can
    always say that he had reasonable doubt and them ramble about
    something that sounds doubtful.
    The public doesn't give a rat's ass. All it is concerned about is the
    next sale at WalMart.


    --

    "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 5, 2006
    #45
  6. Citizen Bob

    PTravel Guest

    No, spoken like a lawyer who understands the Constitutional framework for
    this country and has no agenda.
    Yes, that's right. I'm a Nazi because I understand the law.
    Consent of the governed has nothing to do with statutory preemption of
    copyright common law. Congress made that determination.
    There have been lots of copyright infringement jury trials. None of them,
    since 1978 when the law was changed, recognize common law copyright and,
    indeed, they can't since Congress precluded it.
    I don't know where you're getting your information, but you're completely
    wrong. It was the Civil Rights Act of (I think) 1968 that made segregation
    illegal.

    No, son, I am not "full of it." You, however, are rude and insulting,
    precluding any kind of rational conversation with you.

    This is basic high school civics which, either, you haven't yet taken or
    didn't pay much attention to. Perhaps if you had actually studied the
    Constitution, instead of relying on whatever whacko websites, pamphlets and
    radio pundits who spout this junk, you'd be able to discuss this topic
    intelligently, calmly and in an adult fashion.
    And, with that, it's back to your trailer with you.
     
    PTravel, Nov 5, 2006
    #46
  7. Citizen Bob

    Paul Hyett Guest

    In rec.video.dvd.tech on Sun, 5 Nov 2006, Citizen Bob wrote :
    That's right, you haven't visited ukpm for a while... :)
    Even Britain isn't *that* bad!
    He clearly doesn't understand concepts like 'innocent until proven
    guilty' & 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
     
    Paul Hyett, Nov 5, 2006
    #47
  8. Citizen Bob

    Mark Jones Guest

    A juror can vote however they want to and can't be coerced
    into voting any specific way.

    What are you basing your belief on this being illegal?

    Actually, the reason to have a jury is so that it is the person's
    "peers" who are making the final judgement and not the
    government.
     
    Mark Jones, Nov 5, 2006
    #48
  9. Citizen Bob

    PTravel Guest

    Quite right. And a juror also takes an oath to follow the instructions of
    the judge when it comes to the law. When he violates that oath, he violates
    the law.
    On the legal requirement that jurors follow the judge's instructions as to
    the law, as well as 16 years experience as a trial lawyer.

    The peers make a factual judgment, only, i.e. did the accused engage in
    specific conduct or not. The peers do not make a legal, ethical or moral
    judgment as to whether a specific law should be enforced or not.
     
    PTravel, Nov 5, 2006
    #49
  10. Citizen Bob

    Quanta Guest


    Frankly Ptravel, it is this arrogance repeated over and over that really is
    unnecessary. Is that what you say in court? I have 35 years experience in
    my field....so what?
     
    Quanta, Nov 6, 2006
    #50
  11. Citizen Bob

    Mark Jones Guest

    Like I wrote earlier, each juror is free to vote as they see fit,
    for whatever reason they want. The judge and lawyers may
    not like this, but it is in fact the case.

    Just because you have been a trial lawyer for 16 years, does
    not mean that I have to agree with your position when there
    is plenty of available information that clearly shows that you
    are wrong.

    A conviction of a pot grower was recently overturned by a
    federal appeals court because a juror was told that she would
    get in trouble if she didn't follow the judges instructions exactly.
    Here is what one of the appeals court judges had to say:

    "Jurors cannot fairly determine the outcome of a case if they
    believe they will face 'trouble' for a conclusion they reach as
    jurors," said the opinion by Judge Betty Fletcher. "The threat
    of punishment works a coercive influence on the jury's
    independence."

    I fully support the conclusion drawn by this federal appeals
    court. Jurors should have full immunity for anything they say
    while deciding a case, or else the system is doomed. If jurors
    need to be afraid of legal problems for doing their civic duty,
    even fewer people will be willing to serve.
     
    Mark Jones, Nov 6, 2006
    #51
  12. Citizen Bob

    Mark Jones Guest

    Try this website and see what you think.

    http://www.fija.org/index.php?page=displaytxt&id=162&refer=news
     
    Mark Jones, Nov 6, 2006
    #52
  13. Citizen Bob

    PTravel Guest

    So, I expect that when someone challenges you on your expertise in your
    field, you react the same way.
     
    PTravel, Nov 6, 2006
    #53
  14. Citizen Bob

    PTravel Guest

    PTravel, Nov 6, 2006
    #54
  15. Citizen Bob

    Paul Hyett Guest

    In rec.video.dvd.tech on Sun, 5 Nov 2006, PTravel wrote :
    No they don't. The oath is for them to decide guilt or innocence on the
    evidence presented, subject to their own judgement.
    The whole point of juries is that they are *not* legal experts, and
    therefore not subject to potential political pressure to get the verdict
    the state wants.
    Yes they do - that's the whole point of having juries in the first
    place!

    If you were on a case where a homeowner was charged with murder for
    killing a violent intruder in self-defence, whose side would you be on?

    If I didn't know better, I could easily believe you have no legal
    knowledge whatsoever, given your lack of understanding of the jury's
    role.
     
    Paul Hyett, Nov 6, 2006
    #55
  16. Citizen Bob

    Paul Hyett Guest

    In rec.video.dvd.tech on Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Mark Jones wrote :
    Perhaps 'PTravel' should read up on the famous precedent-setting William
    Penn case.

    http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/penntrial.htm
    In Britain the conviction wouldn't have been overturned, as jurors are
    not allowed to ever discuss what motivated their decision, outside of
    the jury room.
     
    Paul Hyett, Nov 6, 2006
    #56
  17. Citizen Bob

    Paul Hyett Guest

    In rec.video.dvd.tech on Sun, 5 Nov 2006, Citizen Bob wrote :
    I thought that he was referring to a judge overruling a jury to pass a
    guilty verdict, rather than vice versa.
     
    Paul Hyett, Nov 6, 2006
    #57
  18. Citizen Bob

    Paul Hyett Guest

    In rec.video.dvd.tech on Sun, 5 Nov 2006, PTravel wrote :
    The above is a contradiction.
    No, you're a 'Nazi' because you apply the law unquestioningly - if you'd
    been living in Germany between 1933 & 1945, no doubt you'd have blindly
    shipped Jews off to the camps, despite knowing full well what would
    happen to them, just because it was 'the law'.
     
    Paul Hyett, Nov 6, 2006
    #58
  19. Citizen Bob

    Mark Jones Guest

    That is the exact problem that I have with people like PTravel.
    An unthinking "Yes Sir!" response when told to do something.
     
    Mark Jones, Nov 6, 2006
    #59
  20. Citizen Bob

    Citizen Bob Guest

    What is "immediate family"? Who are "friends"?

    What about making a copy and giving it to my wife, my immediate family
    and my friends towatch - and not charging them for anything more than
    the cost of the medium?

    I have no idea WTF "immediate family" means. I do know that not even
    the most jaded demagogue would use such incredibly asinine language in
    a law he expected to be passed much less obeyed. But let's move on - I
    really don't care to waste time with something so idiotic as
    "immediate family".

    Now we come to the term "friends" which you admit fall within the
    protection of Fair Use.

    From Websters Online: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/friends

    friend: 1 a : one attached to another by affection or esteem b :
    ACQUAINTANCE; 2 a : one that is not hostile b : one that is of the
    same nation, party, or group; 3 : one that favors or promotes
    something (as a charity); 4 : a favored companion

    I have lots of friends who meet those criteria. In fact the people on
    the P2P networks are my friends based on the above definition. Most of
    my friends on P2P and I are:

    1) attached by esteem;
    2) not hostile;
    3) of the same group;
    4) favor or promote something;
    5) favored companions.

    Let's see how you weasel word your way out of this one.

    BTW. we all know you are making your crap up as you go along. You are
    just a shill for the greedy entertainment industry. Don't be surprised
    to learn that at any one time there are over a million of my friends
    on the P2P networks worldwide. They don't give a rat's ass about your
    stinkin' bullshit "laws".

    Read my sig below - it is 100% the truth. And my friends and I know
    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 6, 2006
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.