Posted on 07/24/2007 10:39:23 AM PDT by ShadowAce
Just in time for the theatrical release of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, a judge has held that an Internet-based service may not offer its users an invisibility cloak.
The court ordered TorrentSpy to preserve server log data, and make it available to the Motion Picture Association of America as part of the ongoing litigation between them.
TorrentSpy objected to the initial request for the preservation and production of the server logs on a number of grounds. Its lawyers claimed that preserving the data would be an undue burden requiring great technical resources and significant funds.
But the judge was having none of it. She accused the defense either of laboring under a lack of knowledge and expertise or, even worse, a lack of candor. She found that the defense had miscalculated the amount of data that would be stored as a result of the order. The judge further noted that any costs incurred would be significantly lower than estimated.
TorrentSpy tried to stiff-arm the plaintiff's motion, offering policy and legal arguments, ranging from unrelated statutes to the First Amendment. Again, the judge was unmoved. She held that the defendant's privacy policy did not insulate it from having to produce the requested materials in a discovery proceeding.
Finally, the defense claimed that proper jurisdiction resided in the Netherlands, where TorrentSpy located its primary server, and so that nation's laws governing personal data protection should apply. But the judge rejected the argument because the defendants are residents of--and maintain servers in--the United States.
While Harry Potter may need an invisibility cloak to fight evil, the average Internet user does not need a cloak to use the Internet. The anonymity TorrentSpy has offered its users facilitates the mass distribution of content without permission or compensation to the owners of the copyrights in those works.
Since the Napster 1.0 days, people who have chosen to transfer creative content unlawfully over the Internet have used a litany of excuses to justify their behavior. The most popular excuse seems to be that only large corporations suffer from the lost sales. Recently, file sharers have claimed that they are opinion makers and style influencers.
Contrary to popular belief, digital file sharing has a direct impact on independent artists as well as major label artists. As an example, an influential artist in a niche music genre has established that the bulk of his catalog is available on torrent streams. Significantly, he has discovered his digital-only release on the streams. Though he continues to release well-received albums, he is not able to tour so record sales support his music career.
To his surprise, one infringer actually included an e-mail address in his torrent posting of the digital-only album. The artist contacted the poster to request that the album be removed, and nothing happened. The artist resubmitted the request. Responding with a proclamation that he was the artist's biggest fan and a sincere apology, the infringer removed the album.
Not content to apologize and move on, the infringer provided arguments why the artist was wrong not to have his digital-only release available for file sharing for free, including the lack of radio air play available for the artist. While the poster acknowledged in the response that his activity was illegal, he did not offer to compensate the artist for all the albums that had been transmitted through the torrent.
An invisibility cloak does more than just protect the identity of those who use the Internet for illegal or unlawful activity. It encourages individuals from taking responsibility for their actions. And in providing an invisibility cloak to its users, TorrentSpy has been converted from a passive participant to an active collaborator in their activities.
I suspect that they did not and that the broadcast had tacit approval from Michael Moore despite his claims that it was unauthorized (authorization would have prohibited an Oscar nomination for the film).
I'd like to remove the invisibility cloak and unmask this artist. Just curious.
___________________________________
Do you work for free? Or, to be more accurate, if your paycheck were stolen after you did the work and you had no way of getting it back would that be ok with you? That is what this is about, theft.
It isn't theft. It's piracy. Theft is an entirely different animal.
APf
No, but it happens every April 15th anyway.
Thank you. One of my peeves is people who don’t know (or refuse to make the distinction between) the differences between piracy and theft.
Mine, too. I’m not sure why it bugs me so much. I think it’s because those folks calling it “theft” are dishonestly trying to classify 14-year old basement dwelling teens downloading some crummy rap album into the same group as shoplifters, carjackers and strong arm robbers.
I have no patience for it.
APf
-------------------------------------
You two may split hairs and chuckle like a couple of those 14 year olds in the basement but the point is that piracy is theft and no matter which word you use it is wrong, immoral, dishonest and illegal.
What I have no patience for is moral relativism.
I find it amusing that she didn’t mention the name of the “independent artist”, as doing so might cost him a significant part of his for-pay audience, who often resent complicity with the RIAA.
I will add that *any* indirect support for the music business because of their allegedly supporting artists, is totally dead, since the RIAA got the legal right to treat artists as minimum wage contract employees with NO residual rights to the royalties of the artists own music.
That’s like saying you shouldn’t crack down on highly profitable sweatshops, because otherwise they won’t be able to give their slaves a bowl a rice a day. And you don’t want to hurt a bunch of starving slaves, now do you?
It's not splitting hairs to differentiate between crimes
... chuckle like a couple of those 14 year olds in the basement but the point is that piracy is theft...
That is the point--and piracy is NOT theft.
... and no matter which word you use it is wrong, immoral, dishonest and illegal.
Agreed wholeheartedly.
What I have no patience for is moral relativism.
Not sure why this statement is here, but I agree with that as well.
No, it isn’t theft. It’s piracy. Read the definition above.
And I have written no hint of “moral relativism” anywhere. I have not come out for or against piracy, so spare me the hysterics.
As Rush says, words mean things. How can you muster the thoughts to add to the discussion when you can’t even get the terminology correct?
APf
I think we should go after these file sharers full force, just as soon as we’ve nabbed every other criminal in our society who is committing more serious offenses (jaywalking, for example).
I’m not in the recording industry and I see you point but it is not the issue.
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.