RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

and that will be an incite into the earnings off MR A fair play that man

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

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 Mr. Angry

That'll be £48.70 + VAT thanks.

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

[Tricky]

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!

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Tricky

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!

Not really. I'm just trying to establish if they need to actually obtain a copy of the item as prove that you were sharing something. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by danielf

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.

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 danielf

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

Ignorance is no defence - you have 28 days*.


*Does anyone have Moorcrofts number?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

Ah, fair enough

Originally Posted by Mr. Angry

Ignorance is no defence - you have 28 days*.


*Does anyone have Moorcrofts number?

Here you go:
http://www.moorcroft.com/Site/Contact/
That'll be £50 ex VAT

[Mr Angry]

Good one!!

[brundles]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

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.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by brundles

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.

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.

[Chicken]

It is technically illegal for me to listen to the music the neighbours are playing on their hifi too. Maybe I should inform the RIAA instead of the council next time they start playing it at 3am

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Good one!!

Oh the irony: the actual site for Moorcroft debt recovery is

http://www.moordebt.com/

What idiot thought that one up

[brundles]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

I'm not disputing that but if the case is hinged on the ability technically being there - as it was here - then it doesn't matter if music was there and shared. The fact that an unsecure directory (take that My Music one Windows creates which may well be empty) is open because Windows tried to be helpful would under these grounds be enough.

[SOSAGES]

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 !

[Dai]

Originally Posted by SOSAGES

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 !

I was amazed a few years back when I started using p2p to find that a considerable number of users actually had shared their *whole* harddisk.
These presumably the more naive users, but there were many many occasions when listing their shared stuff would display root windows files.

Not exactly relevant, but an indicator of just how unknowing some of these people can be.