Posted on 12/25/2005 3:39:47 PM PST by Momaw Nadon
The arguement is that the songs (even if legally owned) are available for "uploading" to other computers and that constitutes piracy and a loss of potential income. I can copy a song for my own use, but if I sell that copy or even give that copy away physically or via uploading I am violating copy-right. If music files are on my computer legitmately, but then I make my music files freely available via peer to peer, the RIAA claims that I am robbing them of potential revenue from folks who would otherwise buy the music. I don't think the mom has a leg to stand on unfortunatley.
How did they get onto her computer? Installing software on someones computer or HACKING it, without their knowlege or concent is a FEDERAL CRIME.....
So, what I want to know Mr. RIAA folks.. is how the hell do you know what is on this computer in the first place? Seems to me any "evidence" you have is fruit of the poison tree.
They wouldn't have to. They could use the peer-to-peer download software to determine the IP address of the computer, then backtrack the address to the user's internet service provider, who they would subpoena for the identity of the user with the lease on that IP address at the time in question.
I didn't accuse you of anything. I said do whatever you think is right. I don't know what you do. But yeah... IF and that's IF you are participating in illegal file sharing... then yeah... I think you're a thief. Surely my opinion of the activity means nothing to you??? So don't let it stress you.
Yes, Virginia, botnets exists and run unbeknownst to the owners of the machines. Is that the case here? Who knows. The mother sure doesn't and neither does the prosecution. Is it likely that the kids downloaded the software? Sure. It's also likely the machine was unknowingly compromised.
You can insist all you want about how the mother should watch everything her children do on the Internet (yea..right... don't let them go to the library), but in the end, the mother herself could have launched the virus without knowing it. Her only response when accused would be that it must have been a friend, since she is unaware of any other possibility.
And by posting to the root, you are posting in general, thereby welcoming comments to your 'opinions.' Next time, target your post if you are intending on a more personnal communication, yet still in public. Of course, if you expect no comments on your 'opinions' then may I suggest private replies.
If it was found that the kids did actually download the music, then they should pay for the music they had. Period. They should not be charged absurd numbers ($7500? please). They claimed to find hundreds of mp3s on her computer. Assume 1,000 songs and an average of 15 songs per $15 album, the appropriate fine should be 66 albums * $15, or $990.
The fact is, they did not push the music to anyone. The RIAA would claim that thousands of people may have downloaded the music, therefore the woman owes thousands. Again, they would have to prove that. Of course, the main problem is that the owners machine did not put the music on anyone else's machine. In fact, anyone that did receive the music from her machine was actually pulling it from her (that's how the protocol would work.. request oriented). So, she would be blameless if 10,000 people took the music from her. Just as blameless as the people that she got it from are for her 'crime'.
As for free mp3's, no... but I do think they should be less expensive then they currently are. This would be the motivation behind the p2p file networks. If CDs cost $2-5, people wouldn't even bother with p2p networks.
And no, I don't download mp3s. I stopped listening to the ramblings of minstrels in the mid 90s, both 'musicians' and hollywoord 'actors.'
Yes, if the machine was set up to share files, this is true.
Always glad to spread the good news. While Grokster was nasty, we just don't know how much of an impact it really will have. Even though it was quite bad, it may not have the impact of overturning Betamax even though it should. So far, there is good news on this front in that its application seems fairly limited so far.
Personally... I think a CD with 13 or so songs on it for 10 bucks isn't a bad price.
I do think that a person illegally downloading mp3's have to pay some sort of punitive damages. Maybe 7k is to much. Maybe not. But it can't be just you got caught so you have to pay for what you stole. That's my opinion.
>
If they did download it from her computer, then their case that she made copyrighted files available for others to download on Kazaa or whatever network is valid, sorry.
The variables that may well contribute towards her potential exoneration are not necessarily based on the letter of the law. But if the letter of the law is all that matters here, it doesn't matter if a guest or children's playmate did this. If the files were downloaded from her computer, their claim holds water.
>
I don't know what law is being referred to here. There is a new law about this stuff, but I don't know its specifics.
They can allege she had files on her computer and they were available to others via Kazaa, but that's not a violation of copyright. Only listening to the files and not paying for them would be a violation of copyright. If the new law says making them available is "against the law", then it's a criminal prosecution? Not civil? Does the new law entitle the "victim" of a criminal act to recover damages? Why would that be so. If it's a criminal violation, why would the state not prosecute. It would not be a civil matter. Meaning, if you rob a bank, the state prosecutes. The bank doesn't sue you to get the money back.
The "law" is about copyrights and no copyright violation has occurred until she listens to the music without paying. If there has been some explicit expansion of that law to state that mere possession of copyrighted material is an act that damages the "victim", then . . . would we not all need to have kept receipts for every book any of us has ever purchased -- to prove our innocence of having acquired them without paying? And does not a public library do this very thing? Even with music?
I have a problem with all this. Until they show that she listened to the music without paying, with dates and times in the claim and a witness, I don't see a violation of copyright.
The problem here is that they apparently know. You don't get sued for downloading, but for offering to upload. Kazaa or some similar program was broadcasting her willingness to share music. That's my reading of the case.
I've made a fair amount of money removing Kazaa and other spyware from small company computers. Like IM, it can work through firewalls unless specifically blocked.
Why? She could have downloaded a nice pinstriped Pierre Cardin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.