Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 34417339)

It is actually even illegal to distribute silence in a recorded work, the precedent for this was set in 2002 . I didn't say there was anything illegal in distributing the title of copyrighted works - copyright affords no protection to song titles due to their relative lack of uniqueness. What you were suggesting initially was "impersonation" which could be construed by the popular band, group, artiste in question as a wilful attempt to undervalue or misrepresent their copyrighted works.

You cannot create an "original" MP3 of anything that is not covered by existing copyright laws. Once something is created, copyright applies automatically (your copyright, admittedly). Putting something which is the result of a creative endeavour in the public domain and claiming it is not copyrighted would not be factually correct and the creator (copyright holder) would be well within his / her / their rights to sue.

It would not, however, make sense for you to sue yourself but you can rest assured, as evidenced in the Batt case referenced above, "Where there's a hit there's a writ".

It's a very convoluted area of law, but law nonetheless.

That'll be £48.70 + VAT thanks.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 34417339)

It is actually even illegal to distribute silence in a recorded work, the precedent for this was set in 2002 . I didn't say there was anything illegal in distributing the title of copyrighted works - copyright affords no protection to song titles due to their relative lack of uniqueness. What you were suggesting initially was "impersonation" which could be construed by the popular band, group, artiste in question as a wilful attempt to undervalue or misrepresent their copyrighted works.

You cannot create an "original" MP3 of anything that is not covered by existing copyright laws. Once something is created, copyright applies automatically (your copyright, admittedly). Putting something which is the result of a creative endeavour in the public domain and claiming it is not copyrighted would not be factually correct and the creator (copyright holder) would be well within his / her / their rights to sue.

It would not, however, make sense for you to sue yourself but you can rest assured, as evidenced in the Batt case referenced above, "Where there's a hit there's a writ".

It's a very convoluted area of law, but law nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Mr. Angry

That'll be £48.70 + VAT thanks.

Originally Posted by Tricky (Post 34417370)

But officer I only download 1's and 0's it just the defragmentation on my drive that arranges them into something that sounds good on my stereo. It's magic!

Originally Posted by danielf (Post 34417355)

Ah, but presumably this means that in order to bring proceedings against someone for distributing copyrighted materials (without the permission of the copyright holder), it still has to be proved that this person was indeed distributing said materials. Which would be kind of hard unless a copy of the materials was actually obtained? Unless reasonable suspicion is sufficient that is.

Originally Posted by danielf (Post 34417355)

Oh... You didn't actually say you wanted it did you? I genuiney thought you just wanted to know if I had it :)

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 34417373)

The RIAA did not need to provide physical proof of Jammie Thomas's distribution of copyrighted works, merely providing enough compelling evidence of her intent / ability to do so was enough. Interestingly none of the recipients of her illegally "distributed" works were / have been charged. The woman was an idiot - as was her chosen method of defence.

Originally Posted by Mr. Angry

Ignorance is no defence - you have 28 days*.


*Does anyone have Moorcrofts number?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 34417373)

The RIAA did not need to provide physical proof of Jammie Thomas's distribution of copyrighted works, merely providing enough compelling evidence of her intent / ability to do so was enough.

Originally Posted by brundles (Post 34417449)

This is the bit that worries me about the way they're orchestrating these trials. There are a large number of PCs out there with file sharing enabled for a home LAN where the owners don't realise they're sharing them across the internet too. That's the ability to share but only because of the ignorance of the user - not because of any intent to do so.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 34417402)

Good one!!

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 34417504)

Brundles, sharing music files on any network (whether internet accessible or not) is technically illegal - just look at the numbers of universities and companies that have been sued.

Originally Posted by SOSAGES (Post 34417896)

in no way a defence but............
all p2p software can be used to share legit files. When some p2p software is installed it will (depending on software) select a folder that it will "share" with other users, what happens if this just happens to contain my mp3 collection i paid for :( damn software i didnt know !