 |  | 
jchambers28
join:2007-05-12
Alma, AR | Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. amen | |
| | | | | boltz
join:2000-12-06
Guelph, ON | Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. -But your honor, I didn't know the coffee was hot | |
| | | | floydb_1982
join:2004-08-25
Kent, WA
 ·Clearwire Wireless
 ·Comcast
| Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. -But your honor I didn't know that seat belts are required by the law to be used at all times when driving on the road.
-But your honor I didn't know it was illegal to drive the wrong way and doge rush hour traffic on the freeway.
-But your honor I didn't know jaywalking was a crime.
-But your honor I had no idea stealing a purse was a crime.
-But your honor I didn't know that setting a tree on fire in the nation forest would start a forest wild fire.
-But your honor how was I to know that shaking a baby to death would kill it. | |
| | | 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| You misunderstand the difference between law and someone's private copyright notice. With law, it is your responsibility to know it it. Ignorance is not a defense. With a copyright, you probably are not under the same obligation. It's probably like a trademark, it is the responsibility of the works owner to make sure other people know their work isn't free. It's probably the reason companies have to put the copyright notices onto products. In this case the RIAA failed to stop people from distributing their copyrighted works without a copyright attached. And they have decided to blame the lowest on the totem pole, the person furthest away from the original copyright notice, the people who didn't originally separate the work from the copyright notice. It would make sense that people who have never seen the copyright couldn't get punished beyond forfeiting the downloaded mp3s and any money earned or derived works. | |
| | | | 
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
| Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. said by insomniac84  :You misunderstand the difference between law and someone's private copyright notice. With law, it is your responsibility to know it it. Ignorance is not a defense. With a copyright, you probably are not under the same obligation. It's probably like a trademark, it is the responsibility of the works owner to make sure other people know their work isn't free. It's probably the reason companies have to put the copyright notices onto products. In this case the RIAA failed to stop people from distributing their copyrighted works without a copyright attached. And they have decided to blame the lowest on the totem pole, the person furthest away from the original copyright notice, the people who didn't originally separate the work from the copyright notice. It would make sense that people who have never seen the copyright couldn't get punished beyond forfeiting the downloaded mp3s and any money earned or derived works. if she's in university right now, it's been a minimum 3 years since the "infringement" i remember having a car when the whole DCMA thing was around so it was atleast 2 years ago when it was put in place, i would start checking dates.
because if at the time it wasn't law then it falls onto the situation of how can i do a crime when it was legal when i did it. ? | |
| | | | | CWO333
join:2005-02-24
Chicago, IL
 ·1and1
| Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. said by BonezX :because if at the time it wasn't law then it falls onto the situation of how can i do a crime when it was legal when i did it. ? And that falls into the protection you get from the United States Constitution here in the US. Its called an Ex Post Facto law. Basically stating that if it was legal when you did it, you can't be punished for it if it becomes illegal later as long as you stopped doing it when it became illegal. | |
| | | | | | 
bhlonewolf_tom
@rr.com
| Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. said by CWO333 :said by BonezX :because if at the time it wasn't law then it falls onto the situation of how can i do a crime when it was legal when i did it. ? And that falls into the protection you get from the United States Constitution here in the US. Its called an Ex Post Facto law. Basically stating that if it was legal when you did it, you can't be punished for it if it becomes illegal later as long as you stopped doing it when it became illegal. But when was copyright violation ever _legal_??? Sorry, that's just silly. | |
| | | | | | |
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
edit:
August 12th, @01:05AM
| Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. said by bhlonewolf_tom :said by CWO333 :said by BonezX :because if at the time it wasn't law then it falls onto the situation of how can i do a crime when it was legal when i did it. ? And that falls into the protection you get from the United States Constitution here in the US. Its called an Ex Post Facto law. Basically stating that if it was legal when you did it, you can't be punished for it if it becomes illegal later as long as you stopped doing it when it became illegal. But when was copyright violation ever _legal_??? Sorry, that's just silly. file trading was defined as copyright violation as per the DMCA draft, before then it was classified under fair use laws.
the DMCA was drafted into law in 1998. | |
| | | | | | | | | quatrix
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
| Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. said by qworster :SURE! Treat your customers like CRIMINALS-that will keep them buying your product!The RIAA couldn't buy a clue with a thousand dollar bill! Their criminal "customers" aren't buying products even now, and their "sharing" stops others from buying the products as well. Paying, law-abiding customers are left alone. Stop trying to make up excuses. | |
| | | | | | 
stomp357
join:2003-04-13
Lake Charles, LA
·Suddenlink
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. said by quatrix :said by qworster :SURE! Treat your customers like CRIMINALS-that will keep them buying your product!The RIAA couldn't buy a clue with a thousand dollar bill! Their criminal "customers" aren't buying products even now, and their "sharing" stops others from buying the products as well. Paying, law-abiding customers are left alone. Stop trying to make up excuses. How did somebody posting .mp3s stop you from buying a CD? You couldn't help yourself, & downloaded it anyways? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | dentman42
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. I had quit buying CDs before Napster because I was sick of paying ridiculous prices for 1 or 2 good songs. Napster and the like made it possible for me to try out a CD before I bought it and as a result, I started buying the CDs that proved to be worthwhile. So file sharing had me buying dozens of CDs a year, up from 0 in 5+ years. Now I won't buy CDs from RIAA labels BECAUSE of their current attitude. So their sue-happy ways are LOSING them sales.
But it was never about sales. It's about the fact that artists no longer need to sell themselves into indentured servitude with the RIAA. The Internet and even CDR drives allow the artist to produce and distribute their own work, without the RIAA taking the lion's share of the proceeeds, and the Internet makes it possible for the artists to self-promote as well. | |
| | | |
bhlonewolf_tom
@rr.com
| said by insomniac84 :You misunderstand the difference between law and someone's private copyright notice. With law, it is your responsibility to know it it. Ignorance is not a defense. With a copyright, you probably are not under the same obligation. It's probably like a trademark, it is the responsibility of the works owner to make sure other people know their work isn't free. It's probably the reason companies have to put the copyright notices onto products. In this case the RIAA failed to stop people from distributing their copyrighted works without a copyright attached. And they have decided to blame the lowest on the totem pole, the person furthest away from the original copyright notice, the people who didn't originally separate the work from the copyright notice. It would make sense that people who have never seen the copyright couldn't get punished beyond forfeiting the downloaded mp3s and any money earned or derived works. I agree that ignorance is not a defense, however, you do not need to display a copyright notice to be protected. It's often a good idea to do so, but the work is protected as soon as it is transcribed into a fixed medium, regardless of copyright registration and notice.
Having said that, common sense applies here, and if a case went to trial, it would likely impact the outcome. | |
| | | 
BIGMIKE
"I do not know with what weapons World W
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Westminster, CA
| said by cdru :said by n1zuk :If there is no copyright notice on an .mp3, how would a 16 year old know?  Common sense? Coming soon to a courtroom near you: -But your honor, I didn't know it was against the law to speed. -But your honor, I didn't know it was against the law to secretly take money from the company -But your honor, I didn't know it was against the law to kill someone. dumblaws Blythe ca
You are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at least two cows. | |
| | | Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| "Common sense?"
And as Albert Einstein noted, common sense tells us the world is flat. 
As for your other observations, each one is taught to any potential infringers long before they even have the opportunity to infringe. When you test for a driver's license, you're told not to speed. When you're hired by a company they teach you how to handle their money. The third example is learned through repeated, intensive exposure by the culture at large (family, religion, media, etc.).
As for downloading music, unless someone spends enough time immersed in a culture where such practices are discussed regularly, there are no explained rules as to what's legal and what's not and for many noobs, I can see justifiable confusion over where the line (if any) is drawn. | |
| | | 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| said by cdru :Coming soon to a courtroom near you: -But your honor, I didn't know it was against the law to speed. This one would be tough because there are little reminders every 500 feet or so on some roads (US 20 in Western Mass comes to mind!). | |
| | | 
badtrip
East Bay
Premium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA
·Comcast
| said by cdru :Common sense? You are assuming the average 16 year old has the same notion of "common sense" that an adult does. This is not true.
Let's pretend that we have an ignorant teenager, which in this case we surely do. Please note I am only using the term "ignorant" as defined, not a put down.
I'm sure an ignorant teen has difficulties telling the difference between methods of transmission of their favorite music. To a person that is largely ignorant of the recording companies methods of operation, a song download from KAZAA is basically the same as borrowing your friend's CD except for the benefits of being able to listen to and share the song however and whenever the ignorant teen pleases indefinitely. It is an enhancement, something that is good--not a illegality.
When I was a teen, I certainly couldn't afford to buy tapes or albums so I mostly taped friend's albums/tapes or got mix tapes from DJ friends, etc. A tape/album was a luxury, or something I had to wait for xmas for. An extremely small percentage of the music I "owned" was actually purchased by me or my parents. I guess in today's climate and definitions, what I did was illegal but I did not and still do not see any illegalities in what I did.
Further, on average, teens have a very limited concept of monetary value. I can see how a teenager could participate in filesharing and not fathom why anyone would think it is wrong. | |
| |
grow_TFU
@charter.com
| said by n1zuk :"But I don't buy any CDs in the store. I get all my music free on the Internet." If there is no copyright notice on an .mp3, how would a 16 year old know? I think you're giving too much credit to today's youth. She really didn't know I bet. Don't forget, kids today are coddled and handed everything these days. They are not taught right from wrong much these days. Shoot first, ask questions later. That's the common attitude of today's youth. btw, I'm only 22, not some old geezer and that's how I see it. | |
| | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
moderated:
August 11th, @01:32PM
| Re: Got it for free, shared it for free. said by grow_TFU :
I think you're giving too much credit to today's youth. She really didn't know I bet. Don't forget, kids today are coddled and handed everything these days. They are not taught right from wrong much these days. Shoot first, ask questions later. That's the common attitude of today's youth. btw, I'm only 22, not some old geezer and that's how I see it.
If you're 22, I'm 22. | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| the stupid thing is, if you compair what can legally happen to you. stealing a CD from Walmart will effect you less then downloading the same CD(even without uploading). yep thats right making a copy off someone is considered worse by the RIAA then Shoplifting.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | 
MisterMarcus
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA | If I were the judge I'd throw this out and sanction the defense attorney for even suggesting it.
With all the media, press, etc. abound regarding music sharing there's just NO WAY she didn't know it wasn't legal. | |
| | | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| Re: Even at $200 each, she could face a huge bill the judge should drop it to 99 cents per MP3 downloaded. that is the avg retail value per track and as such that is all that the record goons "Lost".
then again i have no sympathy for the major artists who whine about loosing money to p2p, considering they still have 3 beach homes in Malibu and 10 Ferraris when plenty of good bands are still in a beatup van playing local clubs.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | Capharnaum
join:2006-06-19
Montreal, QC
| Re: Even at $200 each, she could face a huge bill said by Kearnstd :the judge should drop it to 99 cents per MP3 downloaded. that is the avg retail value per track and as such that is all that the record goons "Lost". Then again, they may not have lost 99 cents per MP3 Download. If she had been unable to download the songs, maybe she would only have bought 2-3 cds.
This whole thing is just so pathetic though, RIAA is making the public paid courts lose their time on these cases and it's the people that fits the bill. | |
| | | | 
PoloDude
Premium,VIP
join:2006-03-29
East Northport, NY | Re: Even at $200 each, she could face a huge bill I wonder if any one ever offered just to give them back.
"Yes you Honor, I am sorry and I will give all of my original downloaded mp3 files back." | |
| | | | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | so again using downloaded media value for a full album, thats 9.99 per. using iTunes pricing.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | quatrix
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
| said by Kearnstd :the judge should drop it to 99 cents per MP3 downloaded. that is the avg retail value per track and as such that is all that the record goons "Lost". Unless you're as clueless as the media, you realize that these lawsuits have nothing to do with downloading, but UPLOADING/SHARING. It's not about the defendant not spending a dollar for a song. It's about the 50 people who downloaded it from her and didn't spend 50 X $1. | |
| | | | Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN
| Re: Even at $200 each, she could face a huge bill "It's about the 50 people who downloaded it from her and didn't spend 50 X $1."
and the RIAA lawyers can measure this in court...How??
"Well your honor, at appears that 3 people downloaded the song from her, that means that those people will share it to other people, and so on and so on....So we have accurately predicted the damages that this girl has done to our huge enterprise of a leech company, and we predict that she should pay 1 x 3 x 1,000,000, due to all the users on the internet that COULD have downloaded it" | |
| | | | | | | horsemouth
Premium
join:2002-03-13
canada | Re: Even at $200 each, she could face a huge bill I know it is OT but I must say that I love the Pepsi cat shot. | |
| | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL | she didn't "plead guilty" You never plead guilty in a civil trial. | |
| | horsemouth
Premium
join:2002-03-13
canada | Re: she didn't "plead guilty" I expect that any day now you will hear that a HMV and all the MORONS inside was blown up. I for one will never buy another cd or darken the door of the scum. | |
| agill81
join:2007-02-26
Aliso Viejo, CA | RIAA Can Kiss.... RIAA is suing people and profiting the money and not giving it to the music artists.....Screw the RIAA. Kiss my butt. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
Ooooleoh
@comcast.net
 from:
TK Junk Mail
thumbs down from:
dentman42
| File Sharing C'mon!! Everyone who uses a computer today knows what an MP3 is and that sharing popular songs heard on the radio is illegal. Even 8 years olds know this. I would assume that 75 year olds who have no interest in technology and can barely operate a microwave oven may not know but even then... sharing of music stories are all over the internet, news talk radio (which 75 year olds listen too), TV news, network news and even in local papers across amerika. The point is, this kid knew. It's like the lady who pleaded innocent years ago to driving in the car pool lane when she was the only person in the car. She told the judge she was pregnant and therefore there were really TWO people in the car. She got off but you know it will only happen that ONE time.
My point.. this kid will probably get away with it this ONE time and then no one else will. Oh and claiming you didn't know a law doesn't allow you to get away with it either. | |
| | DJMASACRE
join:2008-05-27
Nepean, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| Re: File Sharing said by Ooooleoh :
C'mon!! Everyone who uses a computer today knows what an MP3 is and that sharing popular songs heard on the radio is illegal. Even 8 years olds know this. I would assume that 75 year olds who have no interest in technology and can barely operate a microwave oven may not know but even then... sharing of music stories are all over the internet, news talk radio (which 75 year olds listen too), TV news, network news and even in local papers across amerika. The point is, this kid knew. It's like the lady who pleaded innocent years ago to driving in the car pool lane when she was the only person in the car. She told the judge she was pregnant and therefore there were really TWO people in the car. She got off but you know it will only happen that ONE time.
My point.. this kid will probably get away with it this ONE time and then no one else will. Oh and claiming you didn't know a law doesn't allow you to get away with it either.
theres nothing good on the radio ... | |
| | | 
don1p2
join:2004-06-11
Boston, MA
| Re: File Sharing said by DJMASACRE :said by Ooooleoh :
C'mon!! Everyone who uses a computer today knows what an MP3 is and that sharing popular songs heard on the radio is illegal. Even 8 years olds know this...The point is, this kid knew.
theres nothing good on the radio ... Don't over-estimate the common sense of today's kids. They can be a pretty naive, and clueless crowd.
A search on Yahoo Answers, which has evolved into a hang-out for tweeners and the recently post-pubescent, of the keywords..."limewire" and "legal" yields these 1700 questions posted:
»answers.yahoo.com/search/search_···re+legal
And some of the "answers" are pretty hilarious in a head-shaking sort of way  . | |
| | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| Look this was a 16 year old kid. If I (or most of us) was punished as an adult for every single thing I did as a minor I would probably still be in jail and would be paying off the fines for the rest of my life. Now if they want to make an example, I think that the first case made the point. Suing a minor who caused no real harm (as in a wrecked car) just makes them look even more like the monsters the general public believe them to be. | |
| Dan888
join:2007-08-21
Wilmington, DE | damage ratio 200 dollars per infringement is still roughly a 200 to 1 ratio to actual damages, which in my opinion is still a ridiculous ratio. | |
| | 
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·WOW Internet and C..
·Comcast
| Re: damage ratio said by Dan888 :200 dollars per infringement is still roughly a 200 to 1 ratio to actual damages, which in my opinion is still a ridiculous ratio. It's extremely low compared to federal statutory damages. | |
| | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Re: damage ratio Does that apply in this case? I had no idea statutory damages could be so incredibly high when considering the implications of this particular situation. | |
| | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·WOW Internet and C..
·Comcast
| Re: damage ratio said by SRFireside :Does that apply in this case? I had no idea statutory damages could be so incredibly high when considering the implications of this particular situation. It's such a crap shoot in these cases. Uncharted territory and all. It's much easier in those cases where it's a knowing infringement done by infringeres that sell pirated materials.
I would hope that the courts would just give her a slap on the wrist and assess relatively low levels of damages. But, if the court gets angry for some reason or feels she is lying, being deceptive, etc. then who knows. Some judges can be insanely difficult to deal with or have preconceived prejudices one way or another. | |
| 
cork1958
Cork
join:2000-02-26
Fruitport, MI | Ignorance of the law........ Is still no excuse. Although it sounds good as heck!! | |
| | jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY
| Re: Ignorance of the law........ You know, on a deeper level, I have a major problem with the "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". You know why?
Because, how, exactly, is a reasonable person supposed to be knowledgable about the law in every jurisdiction they might come under during the course of their lives without incurring what I would consider an undue burden?
Why is there no requirement on the government to make some effort to inform the public of the laws before they can be held accountable for following them?
For instance, I learned how to drive in New York State in the Finger Lakes region (no where near the city). I went through drivers ed in a public school. I read the driving handbook put out by the DMV for that area. This was in 1998. I have recieved no updates or notices from the DMV when renewing my license as to updated rules/laws.
Here's 2 points. When I learned how to drive, there was a rule:
If a pedestrian is in a crosswalk in your lane, you have to stop for them. If they are on the other side of the street, you do not.
At some point, that law changed to if the pedestrian is in the crosswalk at all, you have to stop.
How would I ever know that change occured? I found out via word of mouth, but really - I'm *sure* I don't find out every driving change that way.
Here's an even worse example in my opinion:
You can make a right on a red light if it's safe to do so, and you've come to a complete stop first - unless there is a NO RIGHT ON RED sign posted at that intersection.
If I go to Manhattan however, you cannot make any rights on red. Now, I didn't even *go to another state*! Why would I, as a reasonable individual think the state set driving laws would change *within* my state in only *one* city?
Even knowing that laws change going to another state, how am I supposed to know what the different laws are? We pay lawyers because there are so many laws - it's a full time job. Are we really expecting every citizen to only become lawyers? Is this reasonable? We don't expect every citizen to know how to design computers or perform heart surgery, but becoming a lawyer takes as much or more school, training and time keeping current.
Finally, how many times do we see posted on this forum and others that even Lawyers who are *specalists* in a legal area don't actually know what will happen in court when dealing with a particular law. So a rich citizen who has nothing to do but try and not be ignorant of the law and hires the best lawyers cannot actually know what is legal or not in all cases.
Am I alone in thinking the above is ludicrous? We need a much better system where normal citizens have a chance!
I am much more in favor of a "Reasonable person" standard. Sort of like negligence - would the accused have been negligant to not know of that law?
--
Opera 9.51(Build 10081); Windows XP Pro SP3;Intel C2Q6600; 3GB DDR2 1066; 1M/128k DSL; Antivir Personal; Comodo Firewall Pro 3;Proxomitron 4.5j Sidki 2008beta,GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3 | |
| | | rszkodzi2
join:2002-12-22
Croton On Hudson, NY
| Re: Ignorance of the law........ You know your right, and everyone will agree to this.
I learned this in law school.
However given the opposite stance, most if not all jurisdictions will adopt an ignorance no excuse position.
Why ?
Because if they don't then everyone will use the "I didn't know the law" defense.
It is the resposibility of the jurisdiction to not form unduly complex laws that cannot be followed by logic or common sense. If they do, you can always use the defense that the law is unjust and fight that way. For example you cannot reasonably have a 20 MPH speed limit enforced within 50 feet of a sign that says 55 MPH. That would be unjustly forcing the driver to brake very hard to obey and most would not do that.
Oh ... By the way ... If you enter NYC limits on any highway there is always a sign that says no right on red in NYC. That sign should also be near the city limits on regular streets as well.
If your ever in a jam about a grandfathered law like the crosswalk, you can claim you were following the law as written when taught, if you have that paperwork or can find that reference. Your defense would be that you were reasonably and safely following the law as learned. Most judges will drop or lower the charge and inform you of the new law and where to find it. Your next infraction you will have no excuse.
MP3's ... Well by now everyone should know right from wrong on the copyright issues. If a child can navigate facebook and myspace and build stunning sites, then there is a reasonable expectation they should know that MP3's are copyrighted in this ubiquitous litigious time, and there are major sources where you can check like iTunes.
I'm not against the free nation here. I think the MPAA and RIAA are thugs and mobsters trying to protect their profits, not the rights of the songwriters.
They have sown their fields and now need to reap their deeds. That means no more superprofits ... er I mean superbands. Most people trade music for free.
Regards,
Rich | |
|
oooohhlleeeoohyu
@comcast.net
| I agree with you Completely.... As you travel around just the United States of |
|
|
|
Innocent Infringement Defense May Work for RIAA Victim
·
·
Even at $200 each, she could face a huge bill
