RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider - Page 2

Mr Angry · 18-10-2007, 16:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

But there is a huge difference

There isn't really a huge difference.

She was found guilty of distributing the songs without the prosecution even having to provide anything beyond information relevant to her IP and username. They had no physical proof that she had distributed anything - certainly not her hard drive - yet a guilty verdict was arrived at on the basis of the IP and traffic info provided by safenet - the very same info that Giganews don't "monitor or record".

Just because Giganews maintain that they themselves don't monitor or record stuff does not mean that others in the consultative pay of interested parties don't.

18-10-2007, 16:55

but my point is usenet stores files centrally. Yes this relies on uses uploading but if a user does not upload to the server he/she has not distributed. The whole architecture of usenet and p2p/BT is fundamentally different technically

Mr Angry · 18-10-2007, 17:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

but my point is usenet stores files centrally. Yes this relies on uses uploading but if a user does not upload to the server he/she has not distributed. The whole architecture of usenet and p2p/BT is fundamentally different technically

I appreciate that Zing - but the bottom line is that theft is theft.

18-10-2007, 17:06

yeah I do not dispute that but the law is tighter on the distributer that much is clear. The case you pointed to clearly says the damages are per song and it also clearly states its cuz it was shared ie distributed

Mr Angry · 18-10-2007, 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

yeah I do not dispute that but the law is tighter on the distributer that much is clear. The case you pointed to clearly says the damages are per song and it also clearly states its cuz it was shared ie distributed

Yes, but let's not lose sight of the facts here.

The prosecution did not have her physical drive (the distributing "host") ergo her culpability as a distributor was proven by records obtained and provided by Safenet.

This has set a precedent in more than one key area - ie. they don't need to catch you with or find you in possession of the materials - whether you are uploading them or not. They simply require a trail in the shape of an IP or logging identifier.

Distribution is not a numbers game - one person sharing a copy with one other person is distributing that copy.

She "shared / distributed" 1,702 files but was found guilty of "sharing / distributing" only 24 of those. What made the other 1,678 not worthy of a fine?

18-10-2007, 17:21

as you say they prob traced it. That being the case they wont find me sharing/distributing anything as I think p2p and BT is the spawn of the devil

Mr Angry · 18-10-2007, 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

as you say they prob traced it. That being the case they wont find me sharing/distributing anything as I think p2p and BT is the spawn of the devil

A wise move, I think the heady days of copyright theft being seen as "you can't catch me" behaviour are slowly coming to an end.

TheNorm · 18-10-2007, 17:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

...This has set a precedent in more than one key area - ... They simply require a trail in the shape of an IP or logging identifier.
...

And if one's mac has been cloned...?

Sirius · 18-10-2007, 18:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNorm

And if one's mac has been cloned...?

That would be my defense. It would be for Virgin to prove my modem had NOT been cloned.

danielf · 18-10-2007, 18:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

She "shared / distributed" 1,702 files but was found guilty of "sharing / distributing" only 24 of those. What made the other 1,678 not worthy of a fine?

Perhaps there was no evidence of her sharing the files? I would presume the files need to be downloaded by the person filing the claim in order to prove they were distributed. I can create an mp3 of white noise and put it on p2p naming it after a popular song by a popular band. I wouldn't be breaking any laws in doing so.

Mr Angry · 18-10-2007, 18:31

Juror Michael Hegg stated "The jury was convinced that Thomas was a pirate after hearing evidence that the Kazaa account RIAA investigators were monitoring matched Thomas' internet protocol and modem addresses."

It's a good thing cloning modems is impossible, or something.

---------- Post added at 19:31 ---------- Previous post was at 19:23 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

Perhaps there was no evidence of her sharing the files?

If there were no evidence of her sharing the files then they would not have been submitted as such.

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

I would presume the files need to be downloaded by the person filing the claim in order to prove they were distributed.

No, "Making available" is sufficient. The actual act of distribution is largely irrelevant. Think of it as "intent to supply" - it does not actually have to take place to be an offence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

I can create an mp3 of white noise and put it on p2p naming it after a popular song by a popular band. I wouldn't be breaking any laws in doing so.

Actually, you would.

danielf · 18-10-2007, 18:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Actually, you would.

What law would I be breaking then?

Mr Angry · 18-10-2007, 18:48

If you have the money I'll set aside the time.

danielf · 18-10-2007, 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

If you have the money I'll set aside the time.

I have the money

Seriously: I doubt it is illegal to 'distribute the title of copyrighted materials', if so, the people in the 'what are you listening to now' thread would be in serious trouble. If I put an mp3 online that claims to be a copyrighted material but is in fact not, then surely I would not be breaching copyrights?

Mr Angry · 18-10-2007, 19:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

I have the money

Seriously: I doubt it is illegal to 'distribute the title of copyrighted materials', if so, the people in the 'what are you listening to now' thread would be in serious trouble. If I put an mp3 online that claims to be a copyrighted material but is in fact not, then surely I would not be breaching copyrights?

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 Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£48.70 + VAT thanks.