Proof that Music File Sharing IS Legal

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by planes
I could call up the FBI and tell them I just made a copy of a cd
that I bought and was playing it right now on my mp3 player; give them my address; and phone number. He'd say if its for your own use we are not interested.
I believe you are correct here, but it is not because the FBI doesn't care. This concept IS ABSOLUTLY LEGAL. The making personal backups of music and software was validated as legal by many court cases. This includes recording from LPs to cassettes etc. Recording music from the radio and videotaping television shows IS LEGAL. You can time shift TV shows for your own convienience. You can remove the commercials. You can also loan any of your property (including purchased media and personally recorded media.) It is all PERFECTLY LEGAL. No guilt is required. No fear is necessary.

I am not a lawyer, but I follow this pretty closely. If anyone can contradict these "facts", please correct me immediately.

But, please only LEGAL arguments, I can't take anymore orthogonal arguments. (e.g. "I don't like it so, it can't be legal", "What you have written is morally wrong, it can't be legal", "This would destroy capitalistic and/or socialized economies everywhere, it can't be legal") It either, is legislation passed into law, validated by a court, or it is not. This is a simple question.

Also, Planes, would you mind commenting on my Digital Copyright thread (http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14277). It makes a logical argument that has not been mentioned in this thread.

<join>

Originally posted by aqlo
Yes Cap everything you listed is perfectly legal and most of it has been tested in court and/or legislature, there have even been whole corporations built on these principles like TIVO

Good, agreement between two people on something. It's a start.

Now, I'm going to push my luck...

In my mind, there is only one useful argument strategy to defend P2P from both the RIAA and questions like Plane is asking. That is to make a clear concise argument as to why P2P sharing of music is actually, currently, legal. This will give the people that are currently being threatened by the RIAA a clear defense. "We're innocent of charges." If the arguement is clear enough it will give them grounds to ask for damages from the RIAA.

What most people are doing is first assuming that this is illegal and everyone is guilty of breaking the law. Then, making clever arguments about: why they want it to be legal; why it is good and useful; why they don't care that it is illegal. And for god sake seriously putting forth the argument that, "If it's legal it will destroy capitalism as we know it, but that's OK because it is just a simple paradigm shift to take us to communism (or socialism, liberalism, utilitarianism, or anarchy) and that will fix everything right up."

Please don't take these arguments before a jury in Texas, they'll give you the death penalty just for using the phrase, "paradigm shift."

Before you go saying, "Yeah that's all fine and dandy, but we don't have that argument because it really is illegal and we're all guilty." Let me give it a try.

Please stop me when, I go astray.

Assuming, my above post is true...

1. All the above are still true if you switch, cassette to CD-R, and video tape to DVD-R.

Specifically, I say this is true. I can record from the radio (or my legally purchased: LPs, 8-tracks, cassettes, or CD) to a CD-R. I can record from my TV (or my legally purchased: 8mm film, laser disks, video tape) to DVD-R. All of these devices currently exist as consumer hardware, no computer required)

Still with me?

2. All the above still holds true replacing CD-R and DVD-R with hard disk.

Pretty much I'm saying Tivo is legal. This is important because, if someone alleges this is not legal, at least one people on the jury is likely to have a Tivo. This is one of the reasons that video taping from TV is considered fair use. If the jury says it is legal, it is legal. That is how it works.

Still with me?

3. Replace radio with internet-radio. TV with internet-TV.

Specifically, if I can record it from WABC on the radio, I can record it from WABC.com.

Still with me? There is a small leap coming up, but don't worry I'll point it out when we get there.

4. Now, we have to assure ourselves, here, that radio, TV and their digital counterparts are indeed legal.

This seems simple enough, but there is a potential dependency here. Radio and TV stations pay licensing fees to the copyright holder for rights to broadcast a given song or program. This is what makes them legal. So I'm assuming they pay and stay legal to broadcast. However, the radio/tv station clearly cannot burn a bunch of CDs/DVDs and go handing them out to their customers and friends. This would be illegal. They do not have unlimited distribution rights.

Here is the important question. If people record songs from the radio or internet radio, does the radio station become guilty of "facilitating" piracy? I say NO, their guilt and innocence cannot change depending upon something that is outside of their control. And I say that this is true, even though, before they broadcast they know there is a pretty good chance that someone may be recording it. This is important because I'm going to need it to make a short conceptual leap in a minute.

Before I go on, let's be clear. I'm saying the radio station is legal.

5. Sharing. It appears decided that you can share your media with your friends if you hand deliver the media to them. In other words if I hand you my hard disk (or cd, DVD etc.) and you return it later it is legal for me. This makes no copies, hence, no copyright violation.

I say this is true even if I know that there is a chance that you may make a copy of this. This kind of interaction seems like it has been settled for years as legal.

OK?

6. Network sharing. If I share the same hard disk as in 5 above and allow someone I KNOW to connect, I clearly don't become guilty piracy. As I didn't make any copies. However, I could still be guilty of "facilitating" piracy. Am I?

***Leap Warning*** I say not and here is why. There are two possible cases that could happen:
a) My friend DOES NOT copy anything. Perhaps he just played the song from the hard drive without saving it. DMCA specifically allows ephemeral copies for uses like this. If my friend does not actually commit piracy, it seems difficult to accept that I am guilty of "facilitating" piracy. It is a possibility, but in the radio station case above we said that they were NOT "facilitating" piracy even if they knew that it would be a possibility.

I say, "I am not guilty of "facilitating" piracy in this case."
***Can you make this leap?***

b) My friend DOES pirate something. Am I guilty of "facilitating" piracy? His behavior was out of my hands. It does not seem that his remote behavior should change my guilt. This was not true in 4 or 5 above.

I say, "I am not guilty of "facilitating" piracy in this case."
***Can you make this leap?***


7. Network sharing. If I share the same hard disk as in 5 above and allow someone I DON't KNOW to connect. Am I guilty of "facilitating" piracy?

I say, "I am not guilty of "facilitating" piracy in this case." for the same reasons as 6. a) & b)
***Can you make this leap?***

QED

The sharers, currently being threatened by the RIAA, are innocent of breaking any law.


I know that I did not show that the receivers are innocent, but they are not currently being threatened. I leave this as an exercise to the student.

CaptainMorgan

[CaptainMorgan]

There have been similar arguments on three separate threads. Most have degenerated into philosophical battles and have wandered far from their original topics.

p2p legality (http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&postid=162877#post162877)
** Music Industry screws the consumer again (http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&postid=162882#post162882)
Librarian or criminal mastermind? (http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14371)

I hope you will allow me to consolidate them here. I know this is a highjack. I do not claim the right to highjack. Or claim that I deserve to highjack. I just would like permission to do so, in order to keep my sanity. (If I ever had any.)

My sincere apologies to: Voodoo Child, MemeticMage, and Guy Smiley.

As evidence of my good intentions to all. I offer the fact that I worked from sunset to sunrise preparing the above post.

I hope you will allow me this liberty, this once.

CaptainMorgan

[phalkon30]

If I understand correctly what you're doing here, next time just write it in a .txt file in notepad, or use the preview button while waiting to post

[Malicious Intent]

When you get taken to court, you can say all that to the judge and be hailed a hero by the p2p world!

[aqlo]

OK Cap I'm going to summarize your argument for you.

If I make legal back-up copies of all my CDs and DVDs and stick them out in my front yard, it's not my fault if 15 million people stop by and quickly make copies of them while I'm not looking.

Have I got it?

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by aqlo
OK Cap I'm going to summarize your argument for you.

If I make legal back-up copies of all my CDs and DVDs and stick them out in my front yard, it's not my fault if 15 million people stop by and quickly make copies of them while I'm not looking.

Have I got it?

--Legally-----------------------------------
Yes, I am saying that you are not legally responsible for their behavior. They may be commiting illegal behavior. But you are not.

Specifically, I DO NOT CLAIM, that this is morally a good thing, or that this is a reason that people should share, or that this is a reason that people should copy. I DO NOT CLAIM that this makes the world a better place.

I simply claim that this is a plausible legal defence for the people currently being supoenaed by the RIAA.

I also think, but have not validated sources, that the EFF is currently making similar arguments. Any references to others making similar arguments would be greatly appreciated.

--Philosophically-----------------------------------
Philosophically, I believe that the current copyright law is untrue as written. Specifically, it is inconsistant with itself in such a manner that it can be easily shown that by writing this post I have violated your copyright on something.

Untrue/unclear laws are A BAD THING. If you want specific examples google "deep linking". People are being sued for violating the law. But NO LAWYER anywhere on this planet can tell you which behaviors are legal and which are not . Specifically, their must be a lawsuit. The lawsuit will then determine the law (as a precidence). The defendant of the suit, CAN be found guilty without ever having the possibility of knowing the law.

This is A BAD THING.

[Malicious Intent]

But these programs are around specifically for people to take the files from your hard drive. Its the equivilent of leaving your CD collection on the lawn with a signpost saying "please help yourself to a copy"

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by Malicious Intent
But these programs are around specifically for people to take the files from your hard drive. Its the equivilent of leaving your CD collection on the lawn with a signpost saying "please help yourself to a copy"

--Legally-------------------------------
If you are intent on "faciliting piracy" you CAN make yourself violate the law.

However, I don't think that this was your point at all. I think you're asking it this case reaches that point. The case you describe above DOES seem logically closer to a violation, but I'm not completely convinced that it is there yet.

Assuming you didn't mean, "Physically take the CD, it's yours keep it." (Legal)

Consider, a slight modification to your sign. "Please listen to this music and return the CD when you are done." I think this is a fair statement of your intentions.

I think this situation is clearly legal for you in the following cases:

1. People take the CDs away and either listen to them or copy them. How can you know what they are doing? Either way it was not what you were intending. Libraries are based upon this principle, of course.
2. People listen to the CDs on your front lawn and return them immediately when they are done.

In the case that, someone while sitting on your lawn, people rip the song to their iPod so they can "time shift" and listen to it later. I would say that this is NOT in the same clearly legal group as the others (for you), though there is probably a lawyer that could make a good "Fair-Use" defense for the rippers actions. If this is true then it moves to the clearly legal case (for you). IMHO, I would call this a legally defensibly position for you.

However, if your intentions wereA sign that says, "Please pirate a copy and return me the disk." would probably get you all the way to illegal facilitation of copyright.

[Malicious Intent]

I think you are missing something very vital. What you need to remember is that this is an entirely new area of law. Riding your bike on the pavement was not illegal until the bike was invented. You need to wait for court cases or acts of parliament (American equivilent? Bills?) to be passed. As soon as the first case goes through court, then the precedent will be set. What you really need to ask yourself is would this arguement stand up in court? Will law writers think - "ahh, good point!"?
Perhaps you are right, currently you are not breaking any laws, but you will be soon, especially because they are the ones with the money. It is more likely that not getting caught will become more important than some twisted logic in court.

[CaptainMorgan]

I think that you eloquently stated what I am thinking but am failing to adequately put down in words.

Originally posted by Malicious Intent
What you need to remember is that this is an entirely new area of law. Riding your bike on the pavement was not illegal until the bike was invented. You need to wait for court cases or acts of parliament (American equivilent? Bills?) to be passed. As soon as the first case goes through court, then the precedent will be set.

However, what I really want to stress is that ,"entirely new areas of law" SHOULD be decided by representive democracy. (Parliment, in your case, Congress in the U.S.) Deciding, "entirely new law" by court case really means deciding law by comparitive analogies. Two self interested sides attempt to make their best comparison to something currently legal and illegal. This system is easily swayed by the people willing to put the most time and effort into ground work.

In the RIAA case the ground work is all of the news stories, press releases, anti-Piracy (preloaded word) web sites. It is easy to see from this zeropaid that the RIAA ground work is being quite successful. Most everyone already assumes the file sharers are guilty, before any evidence is presented. Prejudice (Pre-Judging) is a bad thing in a jury.

To visualize this concept, think of a news reporter asking random people ont the street, "Do you think 'p2p file sharing' users are breaking the law?" Now think about this same situation 2 years ago. The answers you likely have in your head are. Now: "Yes", Then: "Huh?" What is the difference? Groundwork.

What you really need to ask yourself is would this arguement stand up in court? Will law writers think - "ahh, good point!"?

My guess is, YES. This could convice lay people on a jury. If they are not already beat to death by predudicial RIAA ground work.

But what I really want to know is what you think. If you were charged, would you bounce this argument off of your lawyer (soliciter?) or would you just try to settle?

some twisted logic in court.

Questions: How twisted do you think this logic is? I actually think that each step is pretty intuitive. Is it twisted because it is the first time you have heard it? Or is it obtuse?

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by MainManMoe
Perfect sense and perfect sense....That a jury in Texas would react biased at the words paradigm shift and socialism only means America is a bad example because of their famous ignorance (your generalization, I tend to agree). But lets go along with it for the sake of argument.[QUOTE]

In the U.S. we are judged by a jury of our peers. The "death penalty" part was, of course, a joke based upon common external prejudices toward Texans. But, the logic holds, a random jury of any U.S. citizens would give no sympathy to let's all become socialist type of arguments. No judgments, it just doesn't pull any weight.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MainManMoe
1. Different nations, different laws..the law in Texas may not be the same in China. Filesharing is global, not just American. This entire piece is written as if it was. Certainly most countries would scoff at the idea that "it is legal if a jury says so", frankly I dont even believe that is the case in America, although I wouldnt be totally surprised.

Actually, the whole thing was written from a U.S. point of view, as these are the people currently being threatened by the RIAA. It says this at the top of the piece, and at the end. However, the most recient U.S. laws were derived from the WIPO treaty. (See the links I posted to you on p2p legality.) You might be suprised how similar they are to yours. But, this is just a guess.

Question 1: By the way, how do jurys work in your country? I have sat on several jurys and I can assure you that if the jury says innocent, the defendant goes free and pays no penalty, and in Texas you have the right to a jury trial for any offense. Texas has some of the most liberal laws in the country on this.

One example of the relevance of this is, that in my country for example, because it is not illegal to record from the radio, radio dj's have a legal obligation to "voice over" at least a small part of the start or ending of a tune. This way copying for distribution will always be inferior quality. If your comparison to radio should hold water, sharing mp3's would only be legal as long as we "unwillingly facilitate" sharing of "ruined" songs.

As I mentioned above, the proof was goal directed. You may have to modify the proof, to suit your specific needs. I do think that if, I understood your country's legal system's rules, I could probably modify the above proof. I bet you could too.

Question 2: I am interested in knowing if you think the argument is logically sound for its intended use. I realise you may have to make some assumptions about U.S. law, but I assure you that the above analog copyright facts are correct.

Question 3: Where does your country stand on recording internet radio? There are many of those stations that do not have the "talk over" policy.

Interesting (I think) anticdote: In the U.S. there is a large broadcasting company, Clear Channel Communications, that owns about 150 radio stations across the country. They have discussed selling (or withholding) this talk over/bumper announcement as an extra cost "feature". Their logic is exactly the opposite of what you said though. Their thought is that the bumper talk after the song, ("You've just heard, Korn's latest ...") helps to sell CDs. As this is how consumers know what to go buy. Record companies should have to pay for this feature. (Note: they have moved away from talking over the end of the songs it causes listeners to get annoyed and change the station.)

2. If you are on a network, each user has a seperate user account. I assume you mean you leave the material accesible to all users. Comparing this to radio doesnt even merit a response, and the argument that it is simply stored there for your own enjoyment while unfortunately accesible to others would be contested by the fact that you could easily have stored this in your personal user account. If nothing else, it does open room for a discussion of malicious intent. Also this is limited to intranet. When you share on the internet you can make all the leaps you want, its not going to change the fact that you are making copyrighted music available for free distribution, and even doing it in exchange for other copyrighted material.

I actually have seen many people with their entire hard drive shared. Usually this is in windows file sharing on a local network, and the user is usually nieve about what can happen, or simply doesn't care. It happens all the time. I have actually seen this using web sharing as well. I suppose you could find people with their entire disk shared on gnutella as well. Ignorance it not malice. Actually EFF just put out a release telling everyone to turn off logging on all of their systems, to protect the privacy rights of system users. Ignorance is bliss.

I say personal file sharing, personal web sharing, and (insert your favorite p2p program here) are all equivalent. I also think my radio comparison holds.

Question 4: I used the radio comparison all over the proof. At which line number do you thing the argument breaks down? Give me an opportunity to improve it, if I can.

3. In your last statement you leave it to the student to prove the reciever innocent. Obviously thats impossible, no further comment should be needed.

I think, it can be done if you don't automatically assume they are guilty. There are plenty of "fair-use" defenses. I will take a crack at it if anyone is interested.

[jonnymnemonic]

I'm not sure what number it breaks down, but the key is the difference between duplication and loaning, and that's how your average rational person will see it. If when they get music from your hard drive YOU no longer have access to it until they (virtually) return it, then no one will have a problem with this. Of course, the technology to make that possible isn't quite there yet.

Incidentally, you could attempt to use a similar argument for a lot of things. Post Windows Server 2003 on UseNet and if they try to bust you, you just say, "Well, I didn't know anyone would download it and use it illegally!" Or send a virus to 20 million people in email and if they try to bust you, just say, "Well, I didn't know they'd click on it and get infected! That was THEIR fault, not mine, because THEY clicked on the attachments." Etc, etc. Trying to avoid responsibility for your part in things is a reasonable line of defense, don't get me wrong, but I wouldn't bet money on it working.

In any case, copyright-violation cases are civil affairs and when fair use comes up the most important thing that the juries and judges look at is the financial effect on the copyright owner. If the opposing lawyer can make a decent case that people are less likely to buy something if they already got it (or a reasonable facsimile) for free, then you lose the case, especially if the copyrighted work was distributed in a way, or for a price, or on a media that the copyright owner didn't agree to.

Personally, my defense, should I ever get busted, will be to look like the dumbest guy to ever use a computer. "Sorry, Your Honor, I didn't even know the stuff was available to others, because I was still busy trying to find my Any key." ;)

[Krypt0]

...you are responsible to an extent to prevent people from having un-authorized access to your media. You might be allowed by law to make copies for your own personal use, correct; but you also are responsible that you maintain the copyright, and limit access to that media to only people who are authorized.

I guarantee you that any court system will say the same thing; especially when you WILLINGLY share (I.E. have the ability to disable file sharing) copyrighted works.

In your example of having copied movies outside in your lawn, you have no right to have them so that the public can access them when THEY have no rights to the copyrights.

Think again about how, if you run a network, YOU (the administrator) are responsible for what happens on the network. EXAMPLE: the news story how a webmaster got jail time for somebody else posting instructions how to make a bomb. He (the webmaster) didn't post it, but he was held responsible for it.

I’m not 100% sure on what the hell I just said, so please excuse me if it’s not valid, or make any sense. Just something to think about… cheers!

[yes, I’m still on vacation, but I just had to check zp forums really quick…..lol]

[Peppermint]

Originally posted by Krypt0
...you are responsible to an extent to prevent people from having un-authorized access to your media. You might be allowed by law to make copies for your own personal use, correct; but you also are responsible that you maintain the copyright, and limit access to that media to only people who are authorized.

I guarantee you that any court system will say the same thing; especially when you WILLINGLY share (I.E. have the ability to disable file sharing) copyrighted works.

In your example of having copied movies outside in your lawn, you have no right to have them so that the public can access them when THEY have no rights to the copyrights.

Think again about how, if you run a network, YOU (the administrator) are responsible for what happens on the network. EXAMPLE: the news story how a webmaster got jail time for somebody else posting instructions how to make a bomb. He (the webmaster) didn't post it, but he was held responsible for it.

I’m not 100% sure on what the hell I just said, so please excuse me if it’s not valid, or make any sense. Just something to think about… cheers!

[yes, I’m still on vacation, but I just had to check zp forums really quick…..lol]
Some criminal and I guess civil prosecutions can bring the defendants INTENT into the picture. I don't know if the copyright law uses the words "with intent to...".

However, if the prosecution can convince the jury of your intent that could play a part in your case.

[Krypt0]

Originally posted by Peppermint
Some criminal and I guess civil prosecutions can bring the defendants INTENT into the picture. I don't know if the copyright law uses the words "with intent to...".

However, if the prosecution can convince the jury of your intent that could play a part in your case.

exactly what I was trying to say.. lol
thanks!

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by aqlo
Cap the serious problem with your argument is that a plurality of people in different places and situations all have "owner" style access at the same time. If I do this with recorded media, make a bunch of copies and distribute them widely, I'm a pirate. The jury will want to know why the intenet is different.

What I hear you saying here, is that you are not convinced by my proof. Can you be more specific? At what number point does the argument break down for you? Give me a chance to fix the logic if it is wrong or clarify it if it is obtuse.

My answer is that I'm participating in an artist-promotion system similar to radio, but I'm not sharing eminem and other marketable properties and 99% of the people using KMD are. So that isn't a good enough answer.

Agreed.

This will be though
http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&postid=161294#post161294

I think jonnymnemonic makes an interesting argument supporting digital rights management. And then using the DRM to support file sharing. I think it creates an analogy that is very close to the physical world model. You can share something you own and possibly sell the songs you don't like. I think this is a logically and legally sound position to take.

I think that jonnymnemonic's inferences as to the impact this will have on the RIAA are even possible, but I don't think they are probable. I could be wrong.

Where I differ, is where jonnymnemonic says,:

Originally posted by jonnymnemonic
The only reason the human race has not yet begun to create such a gigantic global super-library is that loaning over a network is not legal, and the reason it's NOT legal is lack of DRM to enforce the validity of the loans.

Obviously, I am arguing that it IS legal. Also I am saying that DRM is not required to make it legal.

If the RIAA actually sues and wins against the file sharers it has threatened, DRM will be talked of as the ONLY possible way sharing can be legal. This is probably a logically false argument.

One major word of caution. The very people jonnymnemonic is trying to hurt with DRM are strongly supporting DRM. Either they are not seeing jonnymnemonic's vision for their evisceration, or they have a similar probability assessment as I do. I think probably the latter, but I have no evidence.

Speaking personally, as a long time geek, I think you are going to hate DRM when it comes to practical implementations. Especially in France*. But that is just me.

* This is not a troll. There was a recent decision that DRM encoded music CDs are "cripple ware". I woman sued over this and recovered her money because it would not play in her car CD player. Personally, I wonder why she had to sue over this at all.

[aqlo]

I don't member the numbers right now, I'm serious when I say this collar cuts off blood flow to the brain.

The point where your argument fails to convince me (in the old-fashioned way where it seems like a viable argument in court, not the abstract mental way where you are succeeding admirably) is when the jury already "knows" I'm just making excuses. And you have covered that, you are already aware of the weakness there as compared to 2 or 3 years ago when both sides could have an equal shot at educating the jury.

The other point is when I'm using say Kazaa which has already been sued and shifted the blame off to us the user, establishing a sort of negative precedent (thanks Sharman) which is like putting my legal backup copies into a front yard which already has a sign on the easement looking right at me which says "Danger do not store media here by order of the Police"

OK I have the #s in front of me now, the points where you will lose the jury are 6b or certainly 6c, you are certainly an accessory and more likely (based on the prejudicial coverage) the main criminal at that point. And 6a is pretty touchy because you have no way of knowing nothing is copied, if your friend listens to it an illegal 2nd copy certainly exists even if only temporarily. And you intended that to happen.

And if you used Kazaa then you were hanging out in a den of thieves when it happened and probably wearing an "I like to steal" kind of t-shirt too.

The last thing I want to do is discourage you, but these are challenges you should definitely work to overcome.

As for DRM I'm fascinated with the idea of using their tools against them, that particular basic MO has served me well in a wide variety of situations. (so thanks for repeating Jonny's best bits again for the minds watching, someone will see even more gold there I'm hoping.)

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by jonnymnemonic
I'm not sure what number it breaks down, but the key is the difference between duplication and loaning, and that's how your average rational person will see it.

I do understand your DRM argument and I agree with you that your argument is logically and legally correct. However, if I can correctly make the inference chain above. I say that it too is logically and legally correct.

Can you help me fix any holes?

In any case, copyright-violation cases are civil affairs and when fair use comes up the most important thing that the juries and judges look at is the financial effect on the copyright owner.

Yes they do look at effects, but only AFTER they have determined guilt or innocence. I sat on a jury like this once.

A woman fell in a store, and she sued the store for more money then they were willing to pay (which was quite alot). She produced estimates of lost wages and pain and suffering and tons of other possible damages. However, she did not show that the store did anything wrong. Our jury found, that the store did nothing wrong. As a result of this the jury could not even consider awarding her money from the store. This is a true story. That is how it actually works.

Personally, my defense, should I ever get busted, will be to look like the dumbest guy to ever use a computer. "Sorry, Your Honor, I didn't even know the stuff was available to others, because I was still busy trying to find my Any key." ;)

I am just trying to provide these people with the best possible defense.

You have one-upped me.

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by Krypt0
...you are responsible to an extent to prevent people from having un-authorized access to your media. You might be allowed by law to make copies for your own personal use, correct; but you also are responsible that you maintain the copyright, and limit access to that media to only people who are authorized.

I think this statement is false, and here is why. There is no licensing relationship between me and anyone else. Hence there is no way to agree or possibly define authorized people. Can you site any examples of people being responsible for preventing access to a music CD? I may be wrong here but I am pretty confident.

In your example of having copied movies outside in your lawn, you have no right to have them so that the public can access them when THEY have no rights to the copyrights.

Again, I think this statement is false. Access is not copying. Surely I can throw the CDs away, or give the CDs away. By the same rule the person I gave them to can give them back to me.

Think again about how, if you run a network, YOU (the administrator) are responsible for what happens on the network. EXAMPLE: the news story how a webmaster got jail time for somebody else posting instructions how to make a bomb. He (the webmaster) didn't post it, but he was held responsible for it.

This is a very good point. I saw that story as well, but I forget the details. Was it an inditement or a verdict?

Thank you for posting on your vacation! I appreciated it very much.

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by Peppermint
Some criminal and I guess civil prosecutions can bring the defendants INTENT into the picture. I don't know if the copyright law uses the words "with intent to...".

However, if the prosecution can convince the jury of your intent that could play a part in your case.

I am not a lawyer, but I think this generally comes into play in the situation where the defence is saying, "Yes, what you allege happened did happen. And yes it was illegal BUT, it was an accident (or I didn't know it was illegal, etc.)

On the other hand, I am very interested which numbered points above you would apply, what you said about intend above. Please help me.

[aqlo]

You have one-upped me. Jane Doe is using this "I'm stupid" argument in the Verizon appeal, it seems to have worked against her so far. Sad too, because a full 100% of the Kazaa users I have helped irl lately had no idea what all they were sharing until I showed them.

I hope you can get something out of this next bit, i was going to give it to planes but he doesn't need it after all, he noted it independently in his last post.

~
*turns on radio, music comes out from broadcasters*
Seems legal to me

*turns on tv, music comes out from cable*
Legal? Sure it is, I paid for it didn't I?

*turns on computer, music comes out from the same exact cable*
How could this not be legal? What would make me think it wasn't? It's the same bill, I paid it, what's the difference.
~

If you have any defendants who can't be proven unstupid like Jane Doe, I would suggest that perhaps the music-program thingie was already on the computer when they first started learning how to use it and they had no idea learning was a crime. If the person who put it there intended for them to use it only for legal purposes but they couldn't know any better? Or if they downloaded it based on a spam sent to them that didn't say anything about being illegal? (There is tons of this out there, particularly for Kazaa products.)

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by aqlo
I don't member the numbers right now, I'm serious when I say this collar cuts off blood flow to the brain.

The point where your argument fails to convince me (in the old-fashioned way where it seems like a viable argument in court, not the abstract mental way where you are succeeding admirably) is when the jury already "knows" I'm just making excuses. And you have covered that,

LMAO!!!!!

you are already aware of the weakness there as compared to 2 or 3 years ago when both sides could have an equal shot at educating the jury.

The other point is when I'm using say Kazaa which has already been sued and shifted the blame off to us the user, establishing a sort of negative precedent (thanks Sharman) which is like putting my legal backup copies into a front yard which already has a sign on the easement looking right at me which says "Danger do not store media here by order of the Police"

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

OK I have the #s in front of me now, the points where you will lose the jury are 6b or certainly 6c, you are certainly an accessory and more likely (based on the prejudicial coverage) the main criminal at that point. And 6a is pretty touchy because you have no way of knowing nothing is copied, if your friend listens to it an illegal 2nd copy certainly exists even if only temporarily. And you intended that to happen.

I just went back to re-read my original. Damn, I do get preachy. I'm an asshole. I probably should not have stayed up all night on that one.

I agree that 6b and, I think you mean, 7 are the weakest parts of the pitch. I still think they are logically true. But, I could use a marketing guy to help me sell it better. You're right, 6a is the key. It is really required, I sell this as a no brainer in order to make the disturbing contrast with 6b. By disturbing I mean, nobody likes their liberties to depend solely on the actions of someone out of their control.

A mediocre example is loaning your car to someone, and then later getting a parking ticket notice in the mail. You loaned the car, he broke the law, you are responsible, mostly because you're easier to catch. (Someone has to be responsible don't they?)

If anyone can come up with a better analogy let me know. The DMCA specifically allows ephemeral copies so you can cache or otherwise facilitate accessing the media. So I'm not as worried about that.

And if you used Kazaa then you were hanging out in a den of thieves when it happened and probably wearing an "I like to steal" kind of t-shirt too.

You're killing me here...

The last thing I want to do is discourage you, but these are challenges you should definitely work to overcome.

As for DRM I'm fascinated with the idea of using their tools against them, that particular basic MO has served me well in a wide variety of situations. (so thanks for repeating Jonny's best bits again for the minds watching, someone will see even more gold there I'm hoping.)

Ground work. What this is, is ground work. If we can sell this "proof" or any well though out argument, like Jonny's (owner's can loan their stuff), to the people on this site. They will take it home and mention it to their friends and so on. This is one of the best ways I know to combat the RIAA ground work.

Imagine this exchange:
"Isn't file sharing illegal?"
"Why would you say that? It's just like, (insert logical argument here.)
"Oh, yeah. I guess you're right"
"You know the music industry is a bunch of greedy, teenager stabbing, money grubbing, capitalist pigs. It is just another one of their shitty scare tactics to extort money from the working poor..."
"Hey you're making a lot of sense. I think I'll become a socialist!" :;)

[Omyn]

Face it even if you do get taken to court, your not going to be able to win anyway.

Their lawyers are much too strong and powerful and are an incredible lvl 39 with fire and psychic ability, while mine on the other hand is rated at lvl 9 and his only ability is to consume large amounts of alcohol
(pokemon reference)

[Kooperman]

Originally posted by CaptainMorgan
I just went back to re-read my original. Damn, I do get preachy. I'm an asshole. I probably should not have stayed up all night on that one.

I agree that 6b and, I think you mean, 7 are the weakest parts of the pitch. I still think they are logically true. But, I could use a marketing guy to help me sell it better.
Be sure you don't hire the same marketing "specialists" that the RIAA uses......

[Afn]

Originally posted by CaptainMorgan
Actually, the whole thing was written from a U.S. point of view, as these are the people currently being threatened by the RIAA. It says this at the top of the piece, and at the end. However, the most recient U.S. laws were derived from the WIPO treaty. (See the links I posted to you on p2p legality.) You might be suprised how similar they are to yours. But, this is just a guess.

Question 1: By the way, how do jurys work in your country? I have sat on several jurys and I can assure you that if the jury says innocent, the defendant goes free and pays no penalty, and in Texas you have the right to a jury trial for any offense. Texas has some of the most liberal laws in the country on this.



As I mentioned above, the proof was goal directed. You may have to modify the proof, to suit your specific needs. I do think that if, I understood your country's legal system's rules, I could probably modify the above proof. I bet you could too.

Question 2: I am interested in knowing if you think the argument is logically sound for its intended use. I realise you may have to make some assumptions about U.S. law, but I assure you that the above analog copyright facts are correct.

Question 3: Where does your country stand on recording internet radio? There are many of those stations that do not have the "talk over" policy.

Interesting (I think) anticdote: In the U.S. there is a large broadcasting company, Clear Channel Communications, that owns about 150 radio stations across the country. They have discussed selling (or withholding) this talk over/bumper announcement as an extra cost "feature". Their logic is exactly the opposite of what you said though. Their thought is that the bumper talk after the song, ("You've just heard, Korn's latest ...") helps to sell CDs. As this is how consumers know what to go buy. Record companies should have to pay for this feature. (Note: they have moved away from talking over the end of the songs it causes listeners to get annoyed and change the station.)



I actually have seen many people with their entire hard drive shared. Usually this is in windows file sharing on a local network, and the user is usually nieve about what can happen, or simply doesn't care. It happens all the time. I have actually seen this using web sharing as well. I suppose you could find people with their entire disk shared on gnutella as well. Ignorance it not malice. Actually EFF just put out a release telling everyone to turn off logging on all of their systems, to protect the privacy rights of system users. Ignorance is bliss.

I say personal file sharing, personal web sharing, and (insert your favorite p2p program here) are all equivalent. I also think my radio comparison holds.


I think, it can be done if you don't automatically assume they are guilty. There are plenty of "fair-use" defenses.



Radio is something I know. Before the pro-business lobby got congress to allow companies like clear com to own 100 to 200 stations, corporations were limited in how many stations and other media they could own.

Clear com is disasterous for free media. The claim is they have to own many stations to make a profit.

The FCC used to have a public service requirment, stations had to serve the public. With satellite distribution, local programming was turned off and local talent fired to get a free 'feed' of a national show. All the station had to do was buy a computerized ad insert system and automate the entire operation.

Once there was only radio, then radio competed with television, and now television is competing with net, p2p, im, cell phones....

There needs to be a way to pay people to live, so they can create works of art. My thoughts are thier is so much free content, that it will depress the value of information to nothing.

It is a known fact that many computer books are poor quality, and the publishing industry is pushing more books than anyone has time to read.

We have thousands of shareware and freeware, some of it good, great even, like ad-aware.

We have communications networks that are noncommerial and provide information, like irc networks and zeropaid. Ten years ago, businesses did not have to compete with irc/bbs services.

Finally there is something called, 'in the public interest' or in the public good. For example, if a failed theme park goes bankrupt, it may be in the public good to use public money to turn the bankrupt theme park into a national park. It is said that this is in the public good.

File sharing is in the public good. There is a real benefit to sharing information and sharing information digitally.

The question is the RIAA's claim that filesharing is industry destroying, vile and evil to the content industries, or is file sharing a natural right, like freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

My own view is the broadcasting/publishing/media industries have had a great profitable success, but the future places information before profit. Will it distroy the industry?

Who knows. I think the people who produce compact discs are smart enough to give people what they want. If people want free content, people will get free content. The industry will change it's business models or go extinct.

One final point, the riaa has a captive audiance that is willing to promote the riaa message. Radio and television companies get millions of advertising dollars for promoting what the music and movie industry is selling.

To say the debate is fixed, slanted, one sided, .... yes it is.

[aqlo]

Their lawyers are much too strong and powerful and are an incredible lvl 39 with fire and psychic ability, while mine on the other hand is rated at lvl 9 and his only ability is to consume large amounts of alcohol True enough, but to our advantage They are "Team Rocket"

To protect the world from communization
(and secretly unite every corporation)
To fight the evils of freedom and truth
and preserve those bjs in the dj booth ...

[cheapprick]

As entertaining as this debate is, it reaffirms my relief that Canada and the US are at different places on copyright law.

I can see where people can be accused of copyright infringement, but it seriously disturbs me to hear it described as piracy. P2P fails to meet that model by removing the financial gain.

[aqlo]

Gonna have to speed this one up guys
http://zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?threadid=14484

Yes CP I believe Canada coped with this in a better way.

About "piracy": If Sir Walter and Sir Francis had confined themselves to just trying to make duplicates of the Armada and the Mercantiles instead of looting and sinking them then Spain would have ruled the world.

[CaptainMorgan]

I've been working hard to keep this thread on track. The primary track being how do we make an argument that defends, the people currently being threatened. I do this pragmatically. I believe that if that situation goes badly, everything gets harder for "us" (us, being the collective group of people that come to this site).

Very few of "us" have expressed the interest that, "Those file sharers are evil. They should be fined their life savings, garnish their future wages, and maybe throw those bastards in jail." For the most part, all of "us" want the RIAA to stop threatening these people. And if/when it comes to actual law suits, "we" want the RIAA to lose.

Many of "us" have nearly come to blows about why we want this. This is a situation that I usually call, "Violent Agreement." ("Can't you seen that my reasons for file sharing, and wanting to destroy the RIAA are much more pure than your shallow reasons for file sharing, and wanting to destroy the RIAA.")

I really don't want this thread to go that way, but I do want to respond to Afn. So I am going to try and be very careful here.

If I was a super hero, my super power would be, "Paralyzing Self Reflection".

I am going to respond in several different *voices* from several different *mental states*. It is going to look stupid, but I would like everyone to consider this *voice* before flaming me.

Originally posted by Afn
Radio is something I know. Before the pro-business lobby got congress to allow companies like clear com to own 100 to 200 stations, corporations were limited in how many stations and other media they could own.

Clear com is disastrous for free media. The claim is they have to own many stations to make a profit.

The FCC used to have a public service requirement, stations had to serve the public. With satellite distribution, local programming was turned off and local talent fired to get a free 'feed' of a national show. All the station had to do was buy a computerized ad insert system and automate the entire operation.

*philosophically* I support Clear Channels right to own many stations. The fact that they are large is not defacto evidence that they are evil. I am not saying that Clear Channel is not evil. Just that growing a company doesn't prove it is evil.

*practically* The Clear Channel stations I used to listen to suck. Clear Channel the amount of commercial time they play and the types of commercials they play have made listening to these stations intolerable. I turned them off. I do not claim that being large makes Clear Channel suck, but I do claim that, they do indeed, suck.

Once there was only radio, then radio competed with television, and now television is competing with net, p2p, im, cell phones....

There needs to be a way to pay people to live, so they can create works of art. My thoughts are their is so much free content, that it will depress the value of information to nothing.

It is a known fact that many computer books are poor quality, and the publishing industry is pushing more books than anyone has time to read.

We have thousands of shareware and freeware, some of it good, great even, like ad-aware.

We have communications networks that are noncommerial and provide information, like irc networks and zeropaid. Ten years ago, businesses did not have to compete with irc/bbs services.

*logically* What you say is true. I agree.
*philosophically* From other threads, I see where you are going. I disagree, but I would rather debate philosophy in the lounge.
*academically* I don't thing you have clearly expressed, yourself here for the people who haven't read the other threads.

"There needs to be a way to pay people to live, so they can create works of art."
*philosophically* I believe there is and there always be. It does, however, require you to pay attention to, both art and business.
*personally* I have a brother who is the best performing drummer you have ever heard. Musicians love to play with him. He is a good person. He has socialist style views but he is not political. Most importantly, he is a terrible business man. He really wants to make money, but he is unwilling to put any thought into it. I am not making any analogies to people on this site. This is just a personal story.

"My thoughts are their is so much free content, that it will depress the value of information to nothing."

*philosophically* The value (read price) of each piece of information may go down, but as long as people WANT the information the value can never be zero. If you want it, it has value to you. How much, you must decide. As we distribute the information consumer access model from 50,000 (read current file sharers), to 6 billion people (read all people on the planet). Even if, prices go down total value to the producer can still go up.

Finally there is something called, 'in the public interest' or in the public good. For example, if a failed theme park goes bankrupt, it may be in the public good to use public money to turn the bankrupt theme park into a national park. It is said that this is in the public good.

File sharing is in the public good. There is a real benefit to sharing information and sharing information digitally.

*pragmatically* I would like you to further develop this argument here. I think empathy can be a strong weapon when doing "ground work".

The question is the RIAA's claim that filesharing is industry destroying, vile and evil to the content industries, or is file sharing a natural right, like freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

My own view is the broadcasting/publishing/media industries have had a great profitable success, but the future places information before profit. Will it destroy the industry?

*economically* File sharing and the RIAA are openly competing for the same information consumers. What the RIAA is doing is basic business 101. Crush the competition. Neither side can destroy the industry. To do so they would both have to cease to exist.
*philosophically* I'm not convinced that information access is a "right" or natural or otherwise.
*pragmatically" Please, try and convince me that information access is a "natural right". It will help the ground work.

Who knows. I think the people who produce compact discs are smart enough to give people what they want. If people want free content, people will get free content. The industry will change it's business models or go extinct.

*empirically* There are many things that currently use similar business models. Commercial TV, Google, Yahoo. Even to some extent Amazon and Ebay.

One final point, the riaa has a captive audience that is willing to promote the riaa message. Radio and television companies get millions of advertising dollars for promoting what the music and movie industry is selling.

*Cheering Loudly* Broadcasters are important symbiots of the RIAA. They are the only ones who can keep them in line. The NAB would crush the RIAA like a grape if we promised never to invent "p2p broadcasting".

*philosophically* I know that file sharing is "p2p broadcasting".
*practically* No one should ever say that.

To say the debate is fixed, slanted, one sided, .... yes it is.

*practically* We are trying to fix that here.

[Sephiroth]

I always have the urge to ask this whenever people try to play lawyer.

So CaptainMorgan or anyone else do you have a law degree and are you a practicing lawyer?

[Kooperman]

And my wish is that a poster who indeed does make thought provoking and insightful remarks would talk TO the fellow members....not talk DOWN to us by lecturing or orating. Perhaps too many years of taking notes have caused that reaction, I don't know......but Professor Morgan has definitely put me in deja vuville. But I'm still hanging in.....

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by Sephiroth
I always have the urge to ask this whenever people try to play lawyer.

So CaptainMorgan or anyone else do you have a law degree and are you a practicing lawyer?

I am not a lawyer, nor do I have a law degree. As a matter of fact, I don't even like lawyers. I have been a juror before on several occasions. That means, I have sat with eleven other people and decided cases like the ones addressed in this thread. My advice is NOT as good as asking a competent lawyer. It might be as good as an incompetent lawyer though.

From a juror's perspective, (U.S.) I can tell you, for certain, one unsettling thing. The best lawyer wins. Period.

The actual "whole truth" has very little to do with it. The "truth" for a jury is the facts and arguments that are selected and presented to them. In a court room the jury is the least knowledgeable group in the room. Remember, OJ, you watching on TV got more details then the jury. Remember, they get send out of the court room a lot when the juicy stuff comes out. The total picture, whether or not this is good for the country or world is not considered.

I also don't think that the U.S. legal system is the best possible system that could exist. In many cases, Monkeys throwing darts would be preferable. If people started experimenting with p2p justice system. The legal system would probably begin to evolve rather quickly.

Remember, in cases like this. Ones where special interest groups are trying to establish precident. (Instead of, asking experts to actually create well thought out laws, that, as a set, support the common good.) Convincing the average Joe is the most important thing. Jurys are made of average Joes.

I am NOT playing lawyer! What I am doing is attempting to MANIPULATE your preconceived notions. The reason I am doing it, is if you or anyone you know should happen to be on one of these jurys, I want you to view what these defendants have done in the best possible light, for them.

This is PURELY SELF INTEREST on my part. If the defendants win, the world is a better place, FOR ME. It might be in your self interest as well. In that case spread these types of discussions to every average Joe you know.

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by cheapprick
I can see where people can be accused of copyright infringement, but it seriously disturbs me to hear it described as piracy. P2P fails to meet that model by removing the financial gain.

This is a very good point! I've never actually thought about it that way. I actually used the word piracy because, (I think) this is the word that the RIAA is touting to the press on many instances. To me it is a word preloaded with negative connotation. I don't know if the word piracy is actually define in statute though.

I do like pirates, though. Arr, Arr, Arg. I got me parrot, on me shoulder as we speak. Arr, arr, arr.

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by Kooperman
And my wish is that a poster who indeed does make thought provoking and insightful remarks would talk TO the fellow members....not talk DOWN to us by lecturing or orating. Perhaps too many years of taking notes have caused that reaction, I don't know......but Professor Morgan has definitely put me in deja vuville. But I'm still hanging in.....

Point well taken. I will try to tone it down. When I started this thread, I was involved in a lot of very intellectual, but counter productive, "flame" wars. I think I am over compensating.

I really appreciate your effort to hang with me, and especially the kind words.

Arr, Arr, Arr...

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by aqlo
[B]Gonna have to speed this one up guys
http://zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?threadid=14484


Shit! This came sooner than I thought.

I hope, if you support these poor people, you will begin making counter RIAA ground work arguments to every average Joe you know.

[Pebbles100]

Originally posted by CaptainMorgan
I am not a lawyer, nor do I have a law degree. As a matter of fact, I don't even like lawyers. I have been a juror before on several occasions. That means, I have sat with eleven other people and decided cases like the ones addressed in this thread. My advice is NOT as good as asking a competent lawyer. It might be as good as an incompetent lawyer though.

From a juror's perspective, (U.S.) I can tell you, for certain, one unsettling thing. The best lawyer wins. Period.

I've been trying to keep myself out of this one -- but I have to agree with you here. I've been a juror before, (on a civil suit), and regardless of the 'law', the best lawyer did win..the defense won. It sounds unrealistic, but "good" lawyers can convince you that 'the sky is red, not blue'. It's hard to understand until you've sat on a jury....

[Ken17625]

Again, I think this statement is false. Access is not copying.

Ok, well define "access".

What would it mean to "access" a file?

[aqlo]

What would it mean to "access" a file?
It would be like opening a book or seeing a painting, or listening to a song.

If you come to my house you can listen to my songs. But maybe you couldn't come to my house. Then phones were invented, and even though friends were far away we could share the moment sometimes. It wasn't as good as coming to my house, but it helped. And then better and better connections were invented by the telephone company weren't they? And we could hook up to more and more people at once yes? And now we are all hooked together like one big happy family, sharing everything, and no one has to be shut in or left out anymore.

Thanks, America. We'll get through the hard times easier with this. . . .

It was a slow day
And the sun was beating
On the soldiers by the side of the road
There was a bright light
A shattering of shop windows
The bomb in the baby carriage
Was wired to the radio
These are the days of miracle and wonder
This is the long distance call
The way the camera follows us in slo-mo
The way we look to us all
The way we look to a distant constellation
That's dying in a corner of the sky
These are the days of miracle and wonder
And don't cry baby, don't cry
Don't cry

It was a dry wind
And it swept across the desert
And it curled into the circle of birth
And the dead sand
Falling on the children
The mothers and the fathers
And the automatic earth
These are the days of miracle and wonder
This is the long distance call
The way the camera follows us in slo-mo
The way we look to us all
The way we look to a distant constellation
That's dying in a corner of the sky
These are the days of miracle and wonder
And don't cry baby, don't cry
Don't cry

It's a turn-around jump shot
It's everybody jump start
It's every generation throws a hero up the pop charts
Medicine is magical and magical is art
The Boy in the Bubble
And the baby with the baboon heart

And I believe
These are the days of lasers in the jungle
Lasers in the jungle somewhere
Staccato signals of constant information
A loose affiliation of millionaires
And billionaires and baby
These are the days of miracle and wonder
This is the long distance call
The way the camera follows us in slo-mo
The way we look to us all
The way we look to a distant constellation
That's dying in a corner of the sky
These are the days of miracle and wonder
And don't cry baby, don't cry
Don't cry
--Simon

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by Ken17625
Ok, well define "access".

What would it mean to "access" a file?

In the case of the CD on the front lawn. To let people browse them, play them right there or ask you to borrow them and take them away.

What I am saying is that this is legally the same as, having a box of hammers, books, or 8-track tapes on your front lawn. Each of these things might have a copyright owner, a patent owner, or a trademark owner but that does not limit anyone's right to read the book, listen to the tape, or hammer a nail.

In the case of a file on a computer it means, to "read" a file.

I have another analogy, and I would like feedback on its clarity.
(I made all of this up, but how would you know the difference.)

"At my house, I have a 100 CD changer connected to my stereo. I also have two sets of speakers connected to my stereo, one upstairs and one downstairs. I can turn the speakers on and off independantly, playing upstairs, downstairs, or both. Because I hate going up and down the stairs, I purchased two remote controls that work all of this. The whole system works very nicely for me."

"Me and my servents play whatever we are the mood for, sometimes upstairs, sometimes downstairs, and sometimes both. Othertimes, I open my windows and play the music loud so I can hear it outside with my mates on the croquette lawn and the tennis court. I'm pretty sure I'm not breaking any copyright laws, as I purchased all of my CDs from regular retail outlets at full retail price."

So far (I say) this is completely legal.

But what if I tell you that, "This is really an apartment complex. I live with four roomates downstairs. Four other people live upstairs. The stairs actually outside. The two apartments are leased by two different people." Otherwise the stereo set is still the same, and the croquette lawn is still nice.

Question: Is this still legal? Can eight unrelated people live in two different apartments and all access the same music collection?

I think so, what about you?

[aqlo]

Our forefathers had the same problems as we do, they wanted to get the product from the producer to the consumer without paying a bunch of middlemen that didn't do any work. Tea is the type for all this, a Royal Charter (fiat licensing system) sucked the food right out of the mouths of both the tea-producers and the distributors. The only alternative to this protected trade was the black market, and every one of the guys who signed that document was up to their armpits in it.

Let's see what they said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

The original has "property" at this point. It's clearly a quote from Locke, and Locke has "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property." It got edited in committee, and the exact quote was sacrificed to set a precedent: Happiness under law is the property of him who holds it.

Now let's look at something from the case-of-war in the same document:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

What? What do we do to him for restricting trade?

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/declare.htm

[CaptainMorgan]

Aqlo, I'm speechless. (Which is pretty rare) I think I'm coming around on the whole natural right argument.

I was reviewing the thread again and you have several other gems that I have not responded to:

"The Boy In The Rubble", was an excellent suggestion. In your honor, I did something that I think is clearly not illegal (even though many of you think it is).

I must caution you though, copying song lyrics is clearly illegal. I'm going to have to turn you in. :;)

If you have any defendants who can't be proven unstupid like Jane Doe, I would suggest that perhaps the music-program thingie was already on the computer when they first started learning how to use it and they had no idea learning was a crime. If the person who put it there intended for them to use it only for legal purposes but they couldn't know any better? Or if they downloaded it based on a spam sent to them that didn't say anything about being illegal? (There is tons of this out there, particularly for Kazaa products.)

I like this. I thought this was lame the first time I read it, but I was wrong. When you think about it, p2p is very much like google. Search, find, click. Just how exactly would an average Joe person spot the difference?

*turns on radio, music comes out from broadcasters*
Seems legal to me

*turns on tv, music comes out from cable*
Legal? Sure it is, I paid for it didn't I?

*turns on computer, music comes out from the same exact cable*
How could this not be legal? What would make me think it wasn't? It's the same bill, I paid it, what's the difference.

This is another one that I failed to grasp the first time as well. It's cool, I pay for cable TV, I paid for the Internet. If the cable company doesn't scramble the channels I didn't pay for, am I breaking the law when I watch them? I think not. If no one blocks the internet things I didn't pay for what is the difference? I think this is very average Joe worthy. Excellent.

Clue me on "Team Rocket"? I must be too old.

The whole level 39 vs level 9, lawyer thing got me thinking though.

The predecessor to the Ultima game series was a game called Aklabeth - World of Doom. In that game there were some illusion based monsters called Mimics, if I remember correctly. These monsters were very weak, except they could cast the illusion that they were other types of stronger monsters. Using this illusion, they had the same powers as the strong monsters when in battle. However, you could simply "Disbelieve" them and they were instantly vanquished.

For some reason, I am seeing parallels here.

[CaptainMorgan]

A gentleman left a message requesting, thoughts on the amnesty program. I sent him this. What do y'all think? Is it too obuse?

---------------------------

Dear Farhad Manjoo,

Please keep me anonymous.

This following was posted on zeropaid.com. I have copied it in its entirety, but I have removed its authorship attributions.

I am now a criminal. So are you.

You now have in your possession a pirated computer file with its copyright management information removed. If the original author searched your machine and found this file, he could easily receive subpoena for all of your personal information, and with that "de facto" evidence threaten you with a lawsuit. You could be threatened with; possession of a pirated work, intent to distribute pirated works, (you are indeed in the digital publishing industy) and tampering with the work's copyright management information.

If you wish to claim that you have a "fair-use" for having this document; you must first acknowledge that this file is indeed copyrighted. This means that normally your possession of the file would be illegal, but owing to your particular circumstances you should be excluded from prosecution. You must convince either the original author or a judge, perhaps you would win, perhaps not.

It is clear, however, that I cannot win a fair-use exclusion in this case. I knowingly copied the file, removed the CMI and distributed it.

This leaves you in a serious dilemma. You have knowledge of a crime. It is clear that you know what I have done is a crime. I have told you. You MUST report me to the proper authorities. However, you have promised in your invitation for discussion posted on ZeroPaid.com that I "can remain anonymous." You have a duty as a journalist to protect my anonymity. Are you willing to go to jail for me? Or, are you willing to risk your journalistic reputation?
-----
Or perhaps, just perhaps. This file is not copyrighted at all. But, come on now. That is just stupid.

There are two discussion threads on ZeroPaid.com which will attempt to convince you of just that point.

Music Sharing is indeed currently legal,
http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&postid=163843

and

Digital copyright law itself is impossibly flawed.
http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14277

They are worth a read. I'm convinced.

Anonymously yours,


*** Caution *** Pirated Material Follows.

Reasons not to consider the Amnesty offer

a) It makes your identity known where it might otherwise not have been, or might have been insignificant until you spoke up
b) Having done so it fails to protect you from any criminal action (RIAA actions are civil, they have no control over real prosecutors)
c) It also fails to protect you from civil actions by any other body (such as the MPAA)
d) It greatly hurts the cases of any current defendants, if a multitude of people sign this document they each serve as witnesses for the idea that sharing is a crime, something that has not yet been adjudicated
e) It encourages further harassment along these lines at a time when many questions are up in the air
f) It does not apply to anyone who has already been subpoenaed
g) It constitutes a waiver of many rights to which you might otherwise be entitled

Under no circumstances whatsoever would I sign such an onerous document, there is no advantage in doing so which can outweigh the overwhelming disadvantages.

[aqlo]

In your honor, I did something that I think is clearly not illegal Good work. As a private person I am permitted to hope that you were not alone in doing this. Although my work had already been "fixed in a tangible form" before I posted it, I have since reviewed its publication, as I am entitled to do from time to time, and upon discovering the potential for abuse I have asserted all those rights which already pertained to me, including "shrinkwrap" provisions towards appropriate use.
copying song lyrics is clearly illegal Not at all, I have provisional licensing and draft agreements in front of me at this moment, and have proceeded at every step in "good faith" that what I am doing is legal. Please note that I made use of selected material belonging to Paul Simon entirely for the purpose of promoting core telephony advances and encouraging users to support them. I further assert that their usage in a discussion regarding runaway copyright vs freedom of information is uniquely appropriate in that that context is the birthplace and proper home of the idea from which this marketing is derived; and that the intended and proper owner of this marketing idea is one of the telecommunications companies which also participated (with full knowledge of my intent) in delivering them to you. Furthermore they will be glad to assist you in relaying it back to them in as many iterations as are necessary to make this point, please test this to your satisfaction as soon as you can.

[Sephiroth]

Originally posted by CaptainMorgan
I am not a lawyer, nor do I have a law degree. As a matter of fact, I don't even like lawyers. I have been a juror before on several occasions. That means, I have sat with eleven other people and decided cases like the ones addressed in this thread. My advice is NOT as good as asking a competent lawyer. It might be as good as an incompetent lawyer though.

I am NOT playing lawyer! What I am doing is attempting to MANIPULATE your preconceived notions. The reason I am doing it, is if you or anyone you know should happen to be on one of these jurys, I want you to view what these defendants have done in the best possible light, for them.

This is PURELY SELF INTEREST on my part.

1. Then stop pretending you are a lawyer.

2. Just because you served on a jury and watch judge judy does not make you a lawyer.

3. Yes you are playing lawyer and you should stop. Manipulating people is also not a very good thing to be doing especially since your not a lawyer and therefore people who are smart arent going to take you seriously.

4. Giving people amateur legal advice and acting like you know what your talking about when you dont for your own entertainment and "self interest" is not only wrong but you should stop.

5. Spare me the long winded speeches.

[aqlo]

My advice is NOT as good I haven't heard any advice, merely brainstorming. Please remove any legal advice you may have given (if such does exist) as it would constitute an infringement on the bar. Note that this cannot be applied to anecdotes, leading questions, or listings of your own reasons for believing things, but would include direct instructions to any standing defendant or potential defendant as to their own particular case.

I'm not a lawyer either Sephiroth, but I have served as an expert witness on several occasions and am often called upon to do research in the course of litigation.

Tell me please, why do you think file-sharing should be legal and how would you suggest that this could be achieved?

[CaptainMorgan]

Aglo, (post -2) You are brilliant!

I have since reviewed its publication, as I am entitled to do from time to time, and upon discovering the potential for abuse I have asserted all those rights which already pertained to me, including "shrinkwrap" provisions towards appropriate use.

Would you mind emailing farhad@salon.com and letting him know of your displeasure.

------
Aglo, (post -1) Thank you.

------
Sephiroth, I understand that I am a pompous ass. Point ceded.

However, every thread has a particular point and purpose. It is usually declared in the top most post. In this case:

In my mind, there is only one useful argument strategy to defend P2P from both the RIAA and questions like Plane is asking. That is to make a clear concise argument as to why P2P sharing of music is actually, currently, legal. This will give the people that are currently being threatened by the RIAA a clear defense. "We're innocent of charges." If the arguement is clear enough it will give them grounds to ask for damages from the RIAA.

I am sincerely interested in any of your thoughts that can actually help these 261 people right now and the rest of us down the road.

------
All, I have changed my Avatar. It was starting to creep me out given the change in circumstances this week. Also, I have added a disclaimer footer so everyone knows that, I am not a lawyer. I am just here to manipulate you.

[Afn]

Originally posted by CaptainMorgan


*philosophically* I support Clear Channels right to own many stations. The fact that they are large is not defacto evidence that they are evil. I am not saying that Clear Channel is not evil. Just that growing a company doesn't prove it is evil.

*practically* The Clear Channel stations I used to listen to suck. Clear Channel the amount of commercial time they play and the types of commercials they play have made listening to these stations intolerable. I turned them off. I do not claim that being large makes Clear Channel suck, but I do claim that, they do indeed, suck.



3) *logically* What you say is true. I agree.
*philosophically* From other threads, I see where you are going. I disagree, but I would rather debate philosophy in the lounge.
1)
*academically* I don't thing you have clearly expressed, yourself here for the people who haven't read the other threads.

"There needs to be a way to pay people to live, so they can create works of art."
*philosophically* I believe there is and there always be. It does, however, require you to pay attention to, both art and business.
*personally* I have a brother who is the best performing drummer you have ever heard. Musicians love to play with him. He is a good person. He has socialist style views but he is not political. Most importantly, he is a terrible business man. He really wants to make money, but he is unwilling to put any thought into it. I am not making any analogies to people on this site. This is just a personal story.

"My thoughts are their is so much free content, that it will depress the value of information to nothing."

*philosophically* The value (read price) of each piece of information may go down, but as long as people WANT the information the value 2) can never be zero. If you want it, it has value to you. How much, you must decide. As we distribute the information consumer access model from 50,000 (read current file sharers), to 6 billion people (read all people on the planet). Even if, prices go down total value to the producer can still go up.



*pragmatically* I would like you to further develop this argument here. I think empathy can be a strong weapon when doing "ground work".



*economically* File sharing and the RIAA are openly competing for the same information consumers. What the RIAA is doing is basic business 101. Crush the competition. Neither side can destroy the industry. To do so they would both have to cease to exist.
*philosophically* I'm not convinced that information access is a "right" or natural or otherwise.
*pragmatically" Please, try and convince me that information access is a "natural right". It will help the ground work.



*empirically* There are many things that currently use similar business models. Commercial TV, Google, Yahoo. Even to some extent Amazon and Ebay.



*Cheering Loudly* Broadcasters are important symbiots of the RIAA. They are the only ones who can keep them in line. The NAB would crush the RIAA like a grape if we promised never to invent "p2p broadcasting".

*philosophically* I know that file sharing is "p2p broadcasting".
*practically* No one should ever say that.



*practically* We are trying to fix that here.

1) This is chat, not academia. Yes it is true I wanted to get my phd, but alas, unless I give 10 million dollars for an annex to a university of my choice, it is not going to happen.

2) Never say never, bond film as I recall. We all base our assumptions on what we know. Content producers in the last century were few, media was few. The net makes media an on demand 24/7 experiece. When something is everywhere, it depresses the price.

Alot of bad media designed to get money will fail. Alot of good media will never be produced thanks to peer to peer distribution.

3) Clearcom is bad for democracy of information. Democracy of information providers was the nexus and the reason for the communications acts before broadcasting laws were gutted in 1996 and community service requirements were fundamentally gutted during Reagan's tenure as president.

Well Friend a fine post, and thanks for dissecting my splatterings of thought!

I will leave you with one more:

260 million to 300 million americans all on p2p, or 3 billion wired world wide. Each with a p2p. Each with the ability to produce, say one hour of programming a day.

If just Americans produce 1 hour of content a day, that is 260 MILLION hours of content produced every day.

Most of it, 99.99999% will be junk.

At 260 million producers, that is 26 hours of outstanding programming generated every day.

If brodcasting can survive, let me know.

[Kooperman]

Will file traders face the music?


By John Borland and Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
September 9, 2003, 9:59 AM PT


Charles Dumond of San Mateo, Calif., learned that he was targeted in a landmark series of recording industry piracy lawsuits only when reporters started calling his home on Monday.
One of 261 people named by the Recording Industry Association of America in an unprecedented wave of lawsuits aimed at alleged "egregious" file traders, an angry Dumont said the accusations had taken him wholly by surprise.

"Personally, I have not done this," Dumond said in a brief phone conversation Monday night. "There may be other family members who do this. But the (Internet service provider) bill is in my name."




Dumond's experience was likely repeated hundreds of times in the last 24 hours, as lawsuit targets heard about the actions filed against them from reporters long before they saw legal documents or talked to an attorney.

Many of the lawsuit targets will likely end up settling with the RIAA in the largest copyright enforcement operation ever mounted against ordinary Internet users. But as details emerge, casting some of the defendants as parents of Kazaa-loving children or otherwise unwitting owners of file-swapping computers, some RIAA suits may turn out to be more complicated than they appear.

The suits themselves are simple. Filed in near-identical form in courthouses around the country, they are bare-bones copyright infringement claims, each listing a short number of works that each defendant allegedly offered to the public through file-swapping services such as Kazaa. Investigators downloaded and verified the authenticity of each of these allegedly infringing files, RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a conference call, as he announced the lawsuits.

Each suit contains a name and an address that has been provided by the alleged file swapper's ISP as part of an unusual subpoena process the Digital Millennium Copyright Act authorized. The RIAA has issued more than 1,500 subpoenas for alleged file swappers' personal information but has not said why it sued just 261 people of the larger pool of potential defendants.

But those addresses lead only to a single name on an ISP account. Many of those are likely to be sole account holders. Some, such as Dumond, will have an account several family members use. Others may use company computers or even be linked to wireless access points that serve the public without maintaining records of who is logged in at any particular time.

Mark Lemley, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, predicts that the RIAA will encounter problems if it sued someone who shared his or her Internet connection through a Wi-Fi wireless network. "Opening a computer to a Wi-Fi network...is definitely not an act of direct infringement, so the RIAA would need to find the people who actually did the uploading," he said.

In general, the RIAA's lawsuits against alleged file swappers are believed to stand a reasonable chance of succeeding. Every court that's considered the topic has concluded that illegal copyright infringing is omnipresent on peer-to-peer networks. But legal experts still caution that there are plenty of ways the RIAA's phalanx of attorneys could slip up.

First, the alleged copyright infringer could have a valid "fair use" defense for file sharing. The defendant might have "wanted to analyze a certain song for a music theory class but (was) unable to find a copy anywhere else," said Megan Gray, an attorney in Washington, D.C., who specializes in intellectual property cases.

Furthermore, Gray said, the file trader might be liable for damages but so impoverished that there's no way the RIAA member companies can collect. Finally, a minor child could have been the person trading files, and whether a parent is liable for a child's actions varies state by state, she said.

Dumond, the San Mateo resident, declined to give more information about his family or his own personal situation, criticizing the process that has made him a public figure without warning. "I am not a Kazaa user. I don't share music files on the Internet," he said. "Also, I received no letters prior to this, nothing from the RIAA, nothing from my ISP, nothing from anyone, which I think is inappropriate."

Another way an alleged file trader might succeed in defending a lawsuit is by relying on the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), which could provide some form of legal immunization for peer-to-peer users. Napster unsuccessfully invoked the AHRA when the music industry sued it into oblivion, but courts might be more sympathetic to individual users, some legal experts believe.

The law says no lawsuit may be brought that alleges copyright infringement based on the "noncommercial use by a consumer of such a (digital audio recording device) or medium for making digital musical recordings." The latest generation of multimedia PCs that are equipped with CD and DVD burners may qualify as a digital audio recording device, the thinking goes, which would mean the AHRA applies.

Jessica Litman, a law professor at Wayne State University who testified before Congress when the AHRA was being debated, said it's "an argument I'd expect to see made, and it's possible that it will succeed.

"It's absolutely clear from the legislative history that Congress' attempt at the time was to protect all noncommercial forms of music copying, period. Consumers were exempt from making noncommercial copies of digital or analog music recordings...The argument hasn't been made since (Napster), but there hasn't been a consumer in front of the court. With a consumer in front of the court, the argument becomes significantly more compelling."

Like Dumond, Lynette Neuman, a Concord, Calif., resident also named by the RIAA lawsuits said she was given no warning before reporters contacted her. She also declined to divulge any information about her own situation.

Many RIAA lawsuit targets are still waiting to see what they are accused of before deciding whether to fight or settle.

"What I don't know is exactly what I'm supposed to have done," Dumond said.

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by Afn
Well Friend a fine post, and thanks for dissecting my splatterings of thought!

It is an honor to be called your friend. You have some of the most provoking thoughts around. (Or is it thought provoking? I get those confused.)

I will leave you with one more:

260 million to 300 million americans all on p2p, or 3 billion wired world wide. Each with a p2p. Each with the ability to produce, say one hour of programming a day.

If just Americans produce 1 hour of content a day, that is 260 MILLION hours of content produced every day.

Most of it, 99.99999% will be junk.

At 260 million producers, that is 26 hours of outstanding programming generated every day.

If brodcasting can survive, let me know.

However, if you look at it differently, we each only have to be "outstanding" for .00036 seconds each 26 hour day.

I'll go first, "W..."

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by Kooperman
[Jessica Litman, a law professor at Wayne State University who testified before Congress when the AHRA was being debated, said it's "an argument I'd expect to see made, and it's possible that it will succeed.

"It's absolutely clear from the legislative history that Congress' attempt at the time was to protect all noncommercial forms of music copying, period. Consumers were exempt from making noncommercial copies of digital or analog music recordings...The argument hasn't been made since (Napster), but there hasn't been a consumer in front of the court. With a consumer in front of the court, the argument becomes significantly more compelling."

Hear Hear!!!

Isn't it a recipe for disaster, when someone who IS a law professor, and who took part in creating the law, CAN'T tell unequivocally what behavior is and is not allowed under the law.

Open question for all: Is a law actually a law. If, there exists no person, who knows what it means? Is this not one of the definitions of tyranny our founding fathers used. Paraphrasing, "We make a law. We have certain intentions about the law. We behave according to this law. You an external authority then declare our law illegal and charge us for violating your current whim."

[MainManMoe]

Hello Morgan. Im sorry to agree with some that your theory is bollocks from one end to the other. I do however think it very worthy of you to try and find arguments these 261 people can use in court, good luck. Let me just quote "The suits themselves are simple. Filed in near-identical form in courthouses around the country, they are bare-bones copyright infringement claims, each listing a short number of works that each defendant allegedly offered to the public through file-swapping services such as Kazaa. Investigators downloaded and verified the authenticity of each of these allegedly infringing files, RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a conference call, as he announced the lawsuits." ..its not gonna be easy to beat around that bush.


I do want to say this. If you know anything about law, then you know it is rather the common than not, that laws and their specific applications are constantly questioned. This is also the reason for the wide use of "legal precedence" in court cases. I think it only natural that such a thing as a copy right law can be deemed "too vaguely defined" in a time like this. That does not have anything to do with "tyrannical laws", if you ask me.


Anyways Morgan, I want to thank you for your long and interesting posts. You obviously use both time and energy on this, your interest shines through and I'd like to say you are the type of poster that makes me enjoy comming here, even though we do not agree (on anything so far haha). LONG LIVE THE LONG WINDED POSTS! Lol

Ps: I agree with Sepiroth that we should be carefull not to sound so "smart" that we may fool the more gullible into thinking we are speaking "the truth". Fact is, these 261 users have a very poor case. A very, very poor case.

[aqlo]

these 261 users have a very poor case Too true mainmanmoe, we will have to see how it sorts out on the ground case-by-case but I suspect that most of those 261 people are actually going to have to settle, and each one that does is going to hammer another spike into a railroad track that we need to get diverted before it gets out to our neighborhood.

But I buy into the idea that we can help educate future jurors. People posting and the people that they talk to, and people yahoo-ing in and the people that they talk to, and the people they talk to, can each do their part by helping spread whichever ideas seem attractive or workable or believable to them. It doesn't really matter whether it's the ideas I like or you like or not, people can keep passing it on until it reaches someone who can use it.

If that isn't peer-to-peer I don't know what is.

[CaptainMorgan]

MainManMoe, Thank you for the kind words.

Originally posted by MainManMoe
..its not gonna be easy to beat around that bush.
*emotionally* I agree with you.
*pragmatically" I'm not going to agree with you here. :;)

I do want to say this. If you know anything about law, then you know it is rather the common than not, that laws and their specific applications are constantly questioned. This is also the reason for the wide use of "legal precedence" in court cases. I think it only natural that such a thing as a copy right law can be deemed "too vaguely defined" in a time like this. That does not have anything to do with "tyrannical laws", if you ask me.
I agree with you here. But tyranny makes a good sound bite.

I don't think that in this particular instance, (one of profound change in technology) that amending the law through precedence is a "good" thing. I think it would be much "better" if there was at least some academic debate about what currently is legal and what these new changes will mean to those existing rights. Also differences between the physical and the mathematical worlds should be at least noted for posterity. Even if people are unable to "believe" them at this time. How did Gallalio say it, "And yet it does move." (Ref: Oxymoron thread).

'And I say, "What about Breakfast at Tiffany's"...'

Well maybe not that. But how about this.
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Benjamin Franklin
That's one thing we got.

[AuronFFX]

Well Im gonna admit that I have not read all of this thread as it is many pages long at this point. So if my ideas have already been brought up go ahead and disregaurd. I belive that legally under the DMCA your fair use is limited to your own personal use. When you own a cd you can do whatever you want with it. Once you involve a second party your fair use rights go out the window. The rights afforded to you under the fair use clause of the DMCA apply only to you, the only way to allow someone else access to your CD is to sell or loan the CD to them, at which point you lose your fair use rights. So if I have a cd and i make a copy and then sell the cd, i must destroy my copy. Ive heard that under a strict reading of the DMCA you are violating copywright if you play a CD in your car for someone who doesnt own that CD. The CD is licensened to you for your own listning and you are not authorized to let someone else listen to it.

Also there is a precident for internet copywright violations, while no one has been prosecuted for p2p protocol, many have been prosecuted for posting files on web sites. The only difference between posting a file on a web page and sharing a file on p2p is the protocol. Meaning with a web page the path would look like this
123.345.67.9:80/song.mp3
while a p2p path would look like this
123.345.67.9:6929/song.mp3

In both instances you are offering song.mp3 to the public. The only difference is the port that someone connects to on your computer. As I said the DMCA has already been tested for conecting to an IP on port 80. So there should not be any difference.

The sad fact is filesharing copywrighted information is illegal. It shouldnt be but it is and it has been found to be that way in court already. The good news is that the reason it is illegal is because of corrupt laws like the DMCA, and once the public finds out the extent that their civil liberties have been limited they will lobby congress to repeal the DMCA. Also I belive the DMCA could be held as unconstitutional by the supreme court if theres a good enough legal team against it. Copywright is intended to encourage the production of art forms. If you can prove the DMCA discourages the production of art forms you might be able to have the DMCA or parts of the DMCA struck down.

[aqlo]

your fair use is limited to your own personal use There's some great stuff in these threads about using DRM to make it possible to loan your song to your friend and not have it while he's playing it, this might be a way around your current argument but I'm going to hope we don't need it right now.The only difference between posting a file on a web page and sharing a file on p2p is the protocol I disagree, I think the "look and feel" will be more important in court than some talking head declaring things the same. The "look and feel" of a webpage demonstrates that you have stolen someone else's work, incorporated it into your own, and fixed that into a tangible form.

The "look and feel" of a p2p is no different from google or Ask Jeeves™; and if you look deeper then at the process, at what's going on behind the scenes, it's no different from what every phone company and ISP does all day long. If they are going to go after us they are going to have to go after them. They have already annoyed them a bit and that has marshalled enormous resources for us. I am spending some of those resources this very minute.

[CaptainMorgan]

AuronFFX, I appreciate your comments. I don't expect everyone to agree copyright is illegal. But one of the interesting things is, that at the beginning of the thread NOBODY, seemed to even give the idea a second thought. Guilty until proven guilty was the general attitude.

On a personal note: It would be useful to me to know, if reading the original post in this thread would have any effect on your views. Could I convince you to read just that one? If it has no effect, that is ok. It just would be useful to me to know.

You make some strong technical points. Welcome to the thread, you're sucked in now.

----
I don't want everybody. I would settle for just one clever person who agrees with this on the first jury. Is that too much to ask?

[aqlo]

In the Pokemon cartoon the world is shared with a new form of intelligence brought about by unexpected and unexplained effects of our own time's technology, called "Pocket Monsters." Most young people seem to roam about the countryside trying to help "train" these exotic creatures and assist them in reaching to their own destiny and active evolution. But some kids are just mean, spoiled, from corrupt decadent noble families.

So as our heroes Ash Brock and Misty wander along on their "pokemon journey" they strive to improve their own understanding as well as that of their little familiars. But they also fight them for sport !!! The pokemon love it and the kids love it and it's all very ritualistic like what the Boddidharma brung to China. With me so far?

Anyway every episode just as Ash is about to find a rare new pokemon in some exotic place that will help him learn lessons about wisdom and responsibility and grow one step closer to becoming a man, down comes a big balloon with Jessie and James and they steal his pokemon and they say this rhyme thing

Lookin for trouble?
Make it double!

And then it varies a bit, but always similar to what I posted the other night.

To Protect the world for our domination
And unite all peoples in our nation!
To denounce the evils of Truth and Good
And boink all the children in our neighborhood!

Jessie!

James !

Team Rocket

And this is really a mistake because Ash has got about 30 little fckers in his pocket including a rare electrical pokemon and all they have got is a retarded one that speaks English and can't fit into things so they have to haul him around with them. But he can help detect other pokemon and he's all they can really use because they don't speak any pokemon.

So anyway they have a fight, the pokemon do all the fighting, usually Team Rocket think to escape in their balloon though with stuff that isn't really theirs. So our kids go on on their journey and stop at the next school, and Ash starts eying the champion of that school and thinking stupid aggressive things which he will have to learn to overcome, because if he can win a match he gets another badge towards manhood. So they set up a ring and fight the pokemon like roosters, it's great sport.

Down comes this balloon ....

And so on. Team Rocket always loses though, because they set up a stand or scam somewhere where they have licenses and papers of various kinds, entitling them to this or that, impossible things you know like owning a piece of land or selling a pokemon to someone.

And all the stuff they have stolen goes free with the people whose journey each it belongs to, and from them to another when the time is come.

Here's their current gay homepage
http://lavender.fortunecity.com/powell/58/

[aqlo]

The secret faces of the RIAA

[Kooperman]

Yow! And you've refined the Happy Haliburton avatar!

[CaptainMorgan]

Thank you. I am one step farther along in my quest for universal knowledge.

Originally posted by aqlo
The secret faces of the RIAA

That would make such a good web site defacing, now wouldn't it. But, I suppose people would assume that is illegal too...

P.S. Why don't you add that to your sig file :;)

[AuronFFX]

Originally posted by CaptainMorgan
On a personal note: It would be useful to me to know, if reading the original post in this thread would have any effect on your views. Could I convince you to read just that one? If it has no effect, that is ok. It just would be useful to me to know.
[/B]

I did read the first thread and the rest of the first page, I meant I hadn't read through every individual post.

I disagree, I think the "look and feel" will be more important in court than some talking head declaring things the same. The "look and feel" of a webpage demonstrates that you have stolen someone else's work, incorporated it into your own, and fixed that into a tangible form.

I think you misunderstood what I mean. Im not talking about stealing a webpage. Im talking about posting an mp3 on a website. Leme give an example. I am running linux and I have apache installed. So if you were to connect to my ip adress on port 80(the port for http) you would get my index page. Lets say that on my index page I have a link to an mp3 named song.mp3 on my hard drive somewhere. Assume my IP adress is 1.2.3.4
You type
1.2.3.4:80
into your web browser this sends a request to my computer. Apache recieves this request and generates a html page listing the files in my root directory with links to those files
<html>
<a href="song.mp3">song.mp3</a>
</html>
You then click this above link which is translated to
1.2.3.4:80/song.mp3
Then your browser downloads the file.

People have already been sued and given jail time for sharing copywrighted materials in this way.

With a p2p program like kazaa again I am running a host(like apache) which recieves requests on a certain port. For this example i will use port 6969 as the port that my computer uses for fasttrack.

So if you wanted to check a list of files that i am sharing you would send a request to my ip adress on port 6969
your fasttrack browser(Kazaa) will send a request to
1.2.3.4:6969
My fast track host will send you a list of the avalable files which your browser will give you a list of with links to those files(Result window)
song.mp3
You then double click the link and your browser downloads the file from me @
1.2.3.4:6969/song.mp3

The look and feel of these two methods are different but the same action is taking place. And from my viewpoint(linux system admin) they are nearly identical, except for the protocol.

Infact I would assume that posting information on a p2p program would be more illegal then on a web site. With a web site the only people who have access to it are those who you give the URL to. With p2p you give access to millions of people you do not know. Its like posting a metallica album on a website and then listing in google and lycos.

Please dont misconstrue my beliefs on the law as an endorsement to the riaa. I am a staunch adversary. I belive though that the only way to get through this is to either change the laws. Or to embrace a new filesharing method that masks the posters of information. As for the recievers, I belive that downloading copywrighted music has a chance to be demed legal.

[aqlo]

Jorge posted one of the war documents
http://www.nonesuch.org/p2prevolution.pdf

Covers a lot of this stuff in vivid very positive detail.

No Auron i didn't miss your argument, thanks for covering anyone who did though. And thanks especially for that masterful analysis of what the talking head would say, there's some serious stuff there that I was overlooking. Probably lay it out in the other thread though, great job on your part.

What I mean with the "look and feel" is when I get to your webpage and it says like "Jane Doe's Private Crib" or "The 1337 Cool Corporation" and blinking on and off it says "I steal whatever isn't tied down on the internet" or "Pamela Anderson Slept Here" and the actual link says "Bandit Babes Presents ... song.mp3" or maybe "song.mp3 ripped"

Whereas when I find you on Kazaa Gold say for $29.95 it's just a search entry and as soon as I "visit" your song it's my song and soon after that it's other peoples song, fully automatically. I say this last part, the deadly part, is no different from what takes place in every nodebox up and down every fiber-optic cable ever laid.

To get your idea of "look and feel" which is particularly applicable to someone who already knows how this stuff works, someone would have to educate all 12 jurors to the point where they were capable of linear thought. I don't see how that could happen. I can't get results that good with 12 random gainfully employed "programmers".

[metale]

Excellent CaptainMorgan.

Bravo!
:fire

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by aqlo
Jorge posted one of the war documents
http://www.nonesuch.org/p2prevolution.pdf

Covers a lot of this stuff in vivid very positive detail.

This is a must read. I makes the most coherint argument of "inevitability" that I have ever heard. It opens up an entire other front in the war. Not only is file sharing legal now (my thoughts), it will always be legal in the future, this will be a good thing for everyone including smart musicians, smart advertisers, and smart businessmen (his thoughts).

[AuronFFX]

To get your idea of "look and feel" which is particularly applicable to someone who already knows how this stuff works, someone would have to educate all 12 jurors to the point where they were capable of linear thought. I don't see how that could happen. I can't get results that good with 12 random gainfully employed "programmers". [/B]

I totally agree with you, odds are if it went to trial a jury would not be able to understand the similarities between the 2 protocols.

A jury isnt who you need to convince though. A jury wont set precidence for future trials. The place where this will get decided once and for all is the supreme court. And they will look at it with alot more scrutiny then a jury.

And I also agree that the two are different in that each client has the ablility to instantly host a file that they download. The argument the riaa will make is once you sign on to a p2p network and turn on sharing(or fail to turn off) you take on the liability of a host not a client.

Also the riaa could make a quick easy comparison between the 2 protocols by using url blaze and showing the output to a jury.

[Afn]

Originally posted by AuronFFX


A jury isnt who you need to convince though. A jury wont set precidence for future trials. The place where this will get decided once and for all is the supreme court. And they will look at it with alot more scrutiny then a jury.



When you look at great leaders, Gandi for example, he used the system against the system to create reform.

Copyright is a system, if you believe in the system, the system works. If you do not believe in the system, the system fails. The RIAA wants YOU, yes YOU to believe in the myth of controlled distribution. They want you to believe compact discs are worth $20 each and that they never colluded to fix compact disc prices.

Distroy the myth of copyright, prove it is obsolete and explain why a new system that ensures equal access to information is needed, then everyone wins.

The American Founding fathers did not want a government "Stamp Tax", or a corporation fixing prices and dumping tea in the colonies. This lead to the Boston Tea Party. It was the corporation's collusion with the british government that made a few people draft a few documents called declaration of independence.

Today, we have corporations that lobby for laws that let corporations profit unchecked. Copyright is a law that corporations, disney corporporation's ceo was documented to have pressured congress to extend the copyright terms 75 years+.

1. Freedom of information. Imagine a world where all the books are digitally signed, libraries are gone, and you get a citizen access card based on a score that some corporation has assigned to you.

No card. No read. No view. No access.

2. Freedom of information is vital to the health and welfare of any nation/state's citizens. (nation-state is a myth, but that is another thread for another time.) Lock up information so only the privledged have access, not because of cost, but of greed to control information for profit, and I think you will have Orwell's 1984.

Revolutions ARE fought because of the few who control , and millions who must "work for the man" yet live in poverty, filth and diesease for not good reason.

[CaptainMorgan]

Originally posted by Afn
Copyright is a system, if you believe in the system, the system works. If you do not believe in the system, the system fails. The RIAA wants YOU, yes YOU to believe in the myth of controlled distribution. They want you to believe compact discs are worth $20 each and that they never colluded to fix compact disc prices.

Distroy the myth of copyright, prove it is obsolete and explain why a new system that ensures equal access to information is needed, then everyone wins.

Wow! Well spoken, I have been trying explain this "disbelief" concept. But I have not managed to do it this clearly.

Actually your entire argument is pretty persuasive, which of course is the main point of this thread. I say, "Take it to the people." If you can get 1 in 12 "liberals" with your argument, and I can get 1 in 12 "conservatives". I think the whole digital copyright falacy will simply evaporate.

Will you comment on my "oxymoron" thread? I explores the same falacy from an orthogonal perspective.

[CaptainMorgan]

I sit here listening to internet radio as I do every day.

Radio Paradise (http://radioparadice.com/) for you who were wondering.

Currently, I'm listening to: Michael Franti & Spearhead - Pray For Grace
I like this song, and I recorded it yesterday.

Before that came: Gomez - Shot Shot
I didn't like that much so I didn't record it.

Before that came: Cake - Italian Leather Sofa
I really like this song, but I didn't record it.

Question 1:
Can I record, Cake - Italian Leather Sofa, Now? Eventhough it is not playing?

It's just a simple technical problem. TIVO lets me do this on TV.
Is this legal or illegal.
I don't have TIVO for Radio Paradise. Can I use LimeWire?
Is this legal or illegal.

When my wife gets home, she would like to play: Michael Franti & Spearhead - Pray For Grace, and Cake - Italian Leather Sofa, because she couldn't listen while at work. I know that time shifting is "fair-use" and currently legal under current laws. I told her I would record them. For her.

Yesterday, I told her that I would fold the clothes as soon as they were dry. I forgot to do it when the drier finished. (real time) But I did it before she noticed the next morning. (store and forward) I don't think, I broke any laws by forgetting and then fixing my mistake in that case.

Question 2:
Is this a persuasive argument? Would this appeal to common folk?

Question 3:
Would persuading people that, using LimeWire for this purpose (downloading) is legal ?

Question 4:
If successful would this persuade the same people that accidentally using LimeWire for serving files should not be punished?

[Afn]

Originally posted by CaptainMorgan
This is a must read. I makes the most coherint argument of "inevitability" that I have ever heard. It opens up an entire other front in the war. Not only is file sharing legal now (my thoughts), it will always be legal in the future, this will be a good thing for everyone including smart musicians, smart advertisers, and smart businessmen (his thoughts).

Reading that pdf, I am reminded of the statement, "all news is local."

1) Large scale networks will survive. Do not tell me who, where or when.
2) Local like national news is advertiser dependent, or to put it another way, you need sponsors that are creating real wealth and want to support your business.
3) Entertainment as we know it is in trouble. Propaganda does not change the fact of an on-demand world. The leaders today may, control it --- long term, entertainment is a dangrous speculative business.
4) Newspapers, the few that serve in most if not all cities are multi-county single market, no competitor businesses. Newspaper may die, but I doubt ebay is going to be the market leader. Please do not tell Jeff at amazon to start USA TODAY via Amazon.com. Death to all dailies if that were to happen.
5) Yes, I am ranting. Good paper, but the role of technology is left out. People want a good thing. p2p is good. real good, long term I think, as well as my business, needs to think out of the box because tech is changing to fast. oops! I said to much. Good luck friends. I need some friends.

:)

[Afn]

Originally posted by CaptainMorgan
I sit here listening to internet radio as I do every day.

1) Question 1:
Can I record, Cake - Italian Leather Sofa, Now? Eventhough it is not playing?

It's just a simple technical problem. TIVO lets me do this on TV.
Is this legal or illegal.
I don't have TIVO for Radio Paradise. Can I use LimeWire?
Is this legal or illegal.

When my wife gets home, she would like to play: Michael Franti & Spearhead - Pray For Grace, and Cake - Italian Leather Sofa, because she couldn't listen while at work. I know that time shifting is "fair-use" and currently legal under current laws. I told her I would record them. For her.

Yesterday, I told her that I would fold the clothes as soon as they were dry. I forgot to do it when the drier finished. (real time) But I did it before she noticed the next morning. (store and forward) I don't think, I broke any laws by forgetting and then fixing my mistake in that case.

2) Question 2:
Is this a persuasive argument? Would this appeal to common folk?

3) Question 3:
Would persuading people that, using LimeWire for this purpose (downloading) is legal ?

4) Question 4:
If successful would this persuade the same people that accidentally using LimeWire for serving files should not be punished?

1) 'fair use' yes, define fair use. I define fair use as any use educational, meaning for education. :)
2) The general pubic does not care if it is 3rd generation VHS or DVD.
3) If Limewire is seen as the logical progression of DVD, TV, CABLE, Broadcast... ect. A logical extrapolation can be made. Hey, I am not an IP lawyer on this point. It is what a resonable consumer can be 'lead' to believe.
4) Is access to information a punishable offense? (as an aside: who uses limewire anyway?) the bill of rights clearly says, Freedom of the press.

[aqlo]

The most important thing to keep in mind about natural rights is that they won't stand up in a court of law. They can't be legislated and are treacherous to adjudicate. You won't find a word about them in actual case law short of the supremes that counts for anything and they don't come into the subject of the body of the constitution.

But you can find the process by which they operate laid out in the first 2 sections of the Bill of Rights.

1) What we do, we will do, and they can't stop us;
2) Not even with their guns, because we have guns too.

[CaptainMorgan]

I'm going to link this here rather than crosspost it as it is long.

News Story Premise (http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&postid=164871#post164871)

Yet again, I am full of myself, but it is would be good if many stories were written like this. Think of it as counter RIAA ground work.

I am not a journalist. I am here to manipulate you.

---
Nice paraphrase, Aqlo

[anotherjustme]

I have a quick question...

Here is a quote of original problem and two replies with posible solutions...

Originally posted by Mr Angry
I have received this notice today through my ISP

I am writing on behalf of Symantec Corporation. Symantec owns the trademarks and holds the copyrights for numerous computer software products, including but not limited to a suite of computer utility and antivirus software products under the U.S. registered trademarks NORTON SYSTEMWORKS® and NORTON ANTIVIRUS®, and other software bearing the "Norton" or "Symantec" brand names. Symantec also holds the registered trademark in the U.S. and other countries for its name, SYMANTEC®. Symantec's rights are evidenced by, among other things, registrations of its trademarks and copyrights with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the United States Copyright Office.

As you know, unauthorized use of Symantec's trademarks, and unauthorized copying and/or distribution of Symantec's copyrighted works, is a violation of federal and state laws. It is illegal to produce, sell or distribute such unauthorized works.

Symantec has been notified that ISP provides Internet access for the IP address listed below. We have determined that unauthorized copying and distribution of one or more of our products (Please see evidence below), is taking place from that address. Such distribution is not authorized by Symantec, its agents or the law and thus constitutes infringement.

Based on the above, the deliberate and clear infringement of Symantec's protected copyright and trademark rights, and the harm to Symantec's business and goodwill from the infringing use, Symantec demands that you immediately investigate and take action to stop this infringing activity, and inform us of the results of your actions. Symantec believes that the entire Internet community benefits when these matters are resolved cooperatively. Accordingly, we appreciate your efforts toward this common goal.

The information contained in this notification is accurate. Under penalty of perjury, the undersigned is authorized to act on behalf of Symantec with respect to this matter.

Thank you very much for your immediate assistance regarding this matter, and please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.

Sincerely,
Chansonette Connolly
Manager, Worldwide Brand Protection
Legal Department
Symantec Corporation

Notice ID: 303528
Title:Norton Personal Firewall 2003
Infringement Source:Gnutella
Initial Infringement Timestamp:23 Sep 2003 03:39:04 GMT
Recent Infringement Timestamp:23 Sep 2003 11:40:55 GMT
Infringement Address: xx.xxx.xxx.xxx
Infringement Site: xx.xxx.xxx.xxx
Infringer Username:xx.xxx.xxx.xxx
Infringing Filename:Symantec_Norton_Personal_Firewall_2003_6. 0-9RETAIL.exe
Infringing Filesize:24410834

I guess I will be having some problems
:( :( :( :( :(
Originally posted by crf
You probably won't be in trouble if you delete the offending file. You should do that, I think.
Originally posted by Raf111
Or run and buy original software, and if they can prove that the one you've been using earlier, was a pirated version, you can say that your original CD was scratched and you needed a replacement. Since by buing their software, you did not purchase just a CD that the software is on, but you have prurchased the right to own and use the program itself, you are allowed to obtain any backup copy of that software from any source... as long as it's the same as the one you have already paid for...

So my question is... Can those posible solutions solve his problem? Is this a posible answer for those that are being attacked?

Also... I'd like to hear some oppinions in this matter...

They Had Their Chance!
(http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=15202)

I don't know what to think...

[aqlo]

No I don't think 0s and 1s are a viable solution for anybody who is already in trouble. For them the best thing I have offered so far is the required telecom waivers for "good faith" retransmission which riaa signed in order to get cable and phone service.

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

Would you mind emailing farhad@salon.com and letting him know of your displeasure.

I knew I had seen that link before.

Interesting.