Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Everything Else => Topic started by: House of Mustard on July 20, 2005, 01:21:24 PM
-
So, CNN reported two things that I thought were interesting, but I'm too lazy to make two threads.
The first is that Scotty, from the original Star Trek, has died.
The second, is this cool article about hyperfast internet -- 100 megs per second.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/20/technology/broadband.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
-
The first is that Scotty, from the original Star Trek, has died.
.....i still needed to be beamed up
-
we all did...
but sooner or later it had to happen...
Scotty: beam me up god.
God then beamed him up thusly and lo it twas groovy ever more...
-
Looking at internet options in Montréal, I already have (reasonably priced) access to speeds of 3-5 mbps, which almost gets into T2 territory.
100mbps is crazy, though.
-
But I have no use for internet that fast other than piracy. Do they wish to make piracy easier for me?
???
-
Its only considered piracy when you share copyright items
-
so it's jsut simple theft when you take them? Is this like Bill Clinton and his definition of "sex"? (Ie, Monica had sex for what she did to him, but even though he got the pleasure, he wasn't having sex?)
-
Let us just be honest with ourselves. It's only illegal when someone else does it.
-
actually they can not press charges for people downloading the information it is only when you let others upload it that allows the police to take actions
-
now, I've not looked at the law, but that sounds very much like Internet hearsay. When you download a song or file, you are making a copy of it. Thus while someone has made it available for you, YOU are the one actually duplicating it. The reason legal action is rarely taken is because arresting one song downloader is a waste of resources when you can hit the "dealer."
-
It is not just that, I studied Economic Crime Investigation and have written some papers on peer-to-peer file sharing, nothing major, but I did learn a lot. There reason why they go after the dealers and not the people downloading it is because it would be too easy to prove the following things for the defendant:
1) They own the original and what to have a back up copy (this is legal)
2) It was not me some one spoofed my IP or MAC address
3) It was not me I was not home, some one else was on my computer doing it
4) A hacker hijacked my computer and did it.
For these reasons it makes it A LOT easier to go after the person who is letting others download it from them. No you can not use #1 and #4 as excuses. #2 and #3 are now harder to prove because they police are tracking where it is coming from, and can then hold the own of the computer responsible even if they are not the one doing it.
-
Which is all well and good, but no one answered my question.
My husband answered it for me though. If super-broadband became widely used, I could see Blockbuster or some other startup offering movie downloads for rental. You know, pay $1, download this file and it will delete itself in 24 hours. With internet that fast it would be faster than going to the store.
Maybe more people would start posting tv shows online too.
-
that is a good point, maybe soon television will be come out dated
-
well, that doesn't make it legal to do it though. Just unenforceable. It may sound like a semantic, but when you start talking ethics and morals, it becomes important.
-
never said it was legal. Just said that no police action is taken when people download
-
Its only considered piracy when you share copyright items
I think that pretty much amounts to the same thing.
-
My husband answered it for me though. If super-broadband became widely used, I could see Blockbuster or some other startup offering movie downloads for rental. You know, pay $1, download this file and it will delete itself in 24 hours. With internet that fast it would be faster than going to the store.
Actually, these kinds of services already exist, and have for some time (Movielink is one example). They would certainly become more popular, however. They tend to be more expensive than $1, however.
On topic, I would highly recommend (all Americans, at least) visit www.eff.org, and an excellent book on the topic is Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, available online here: http://www.free-culture.org/
Stutory damages for filesharing in America are insane for individuals. ("$150,000" per "willful infringement"). Over the past 5 years, just four of the students the RIAA has sued have been sued for a total of more than six times the TOTAL amount the RIAA makes in CD sales in a year.
-
There lawsuits do not go to court most times, the RIAA is looking for out of court settlements, but if need by the can drain a persons bank account so that they are forced to either plead guilty or settle out of court.
-
Naturally they don't go to court. If the RIAA actually took these to court asking for those kinds of damages, the American public would get riled up pretty durn quickly.
However, the amounts they ask generally do cause the defendants to go broke (or borrow large sums of money). They are trying to use scare tactics, however (in a sort of legal version of what the mafia did).
One of their targets was a 12 year-old living on welfare.
-
What do you mean legal mafia......I bet if you and an independent person, who understands the RICO act, looking at just the facts (with out names) they would consider what the RIAA is doing as illegal.
But I do not like what the RIAA is doing, or how they are going about it
-
The RICO Act, to my understanding, requires something to be found illegal before RICO protections can apply (at least since its scope has been limited in the past few decades). So I don't see how RICO would show that the RIAA's actions are illegal. They're certainly questionable, however. And, it may be argued, monopolistic.
The RIAA and MPAA are, in my opinion, incredibly wrong in how they use their legal and political clout. Even Hilary Rosen made a remark sharply complaining about tactics Apple was using that she herself worked hard to allow them to use (well, not specifically allow Apple to use them, but to allow those tactics).
-
Internet 2, as it's called, has been around for about a year now and ya it's fast, Entropy didn't believe me when I first told him about it. I've been watching it for about 4-5 months at it's official site http://www.internet2.edu/
-
Sorry for all the quotes....
Section 1962, sets forth the following prohibited activities:
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity,..........
"Racketeering activity" generally means (1) any act or threat involving, among other things, gambling, which is a felony under state law
Taken from http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/rico.htm
The fenlony is excessive punishment
The Court announced that the standard under the Eighth Amendment was that punishments are barred when they are ''excessive'' in relation to the crime committed. A ''punishment is 'excessive' and unconstitutional if it ..... (2) is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime.''
taken from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment08/06.html
The RIAA is using threats of a lawsuit of $250,000 USD per song (or copyrighted item). That is grossly out of proportinat to the crime if you ask me, hence why I think that the pushing around of an individual person with these threats of lawsuits could be seen as a RICO violation.
-
I see. You make a good point.
Are you involved with the EFF? You ought to be.
-
Threatening lawsuits is not a crime and therefore, is unlikely to be a RICO violation. To be a RICO violation, some criminal activity must be occurring, generally a felony. Filing false lawsuits or threatening harassing lawsuits, would not be a felony or even a misdemeanor.
Remember, that in the U.S. legal system, not everthing is criminal. Filing a frivolous claim, false prosecution, and false threats of prosecution are claims to be brought in civil court as a tort action. Thus, I would be skeptical of any RICO claim against RIAA.
-
Threatening a lawsuit isn't a crime. But neither is telling someoen they'll be protected if they give you some money: you could be selling services as a body or security guard.
However, if you're telling someone they'll be protected in that you will not have your hired goons come and trash the place.... well. that's racketeering, and it's illegal. i don't see why you can't make a case that threatening a lawsuit with the intent of destroying someone's life, esp when the amount is excessive and unreasonable, is the same thing.
-
Part of the problem is that "excessive and unreasonable" amount is legal.
-
Actually, if someone is selling services that are objectively unreasonable (either because the are worthless or excessively priced) then they can face potential civil and criminal lawsuits.
For example: many companies sell credit protection that will provide absolutely no service to the consumer. For those companies that really do nothing, they can be convicted for criminal fraud (or larceny by trick). However, these companies tend to disappear before a state attorney general gets around to prosecuting them. If the service is not entirely worthless but excessive then the company could face civil lawsuits for violation of consumer protection acts or lawsuits based on tort or contract law.
In addition, if the price is objectively excessive (to the point were no reasonable person would sign the contract), then the contract is voidable. However, convincing a judge that a contract is unreasonable or excessive is difficult as the judge probable makes over $120,000 a year and probably took a paycut to become a judge. Wealthy people (like judges, lawyers, and doctors) seem to be willing to pay just about anything for everything.
Anyways, enough on contract law.
-
So, the question is, could you get the RIAA in trouble for demanding $150k per song you're sharing?
-
No because it's their property (or at least the cooperations they represent) they have the right to demand what every they want for that, you on the other hand have the right to not buy that product. I'm tired of the theifs trying to point the finger at someone else instead of takeing responceability for their actions.
-
And I"M tired of peopel so wrapped up in the system that they defend it in all circumstances, without any regard to the purpose and function of that system.
Money is a medium of information transfer. The moment it stops being that and starts being the most important thing (That is, the moment any corporation becomes more powerful than any person) capitalism is broken.
-
The Fines that the RIAA are tying to get is $250,000 USD per song.....Now if the fine was only like $100 per song I do not think that I would have any real problem with what they are trying to do. $100 per song is reasonable and is a big enough fine that will deter most people away from it, because they will see more people going to court and being found guilty. Also the people against it would not be as popular because it is not the BIG giant pushing the little people around. It would turn into a company trying to stop people from stealing from them. I have downloaded songs, most of the time I do this in order to find out if I would like the CD....I know most people do not do this, most people will D/L the whole CD and never buy it. This is not right, and some people do need to stop it. In moderation it would be ok, but the line of moderation is too hard to draw.
-
No, Sprig, I think you've got the concept wrong there. They are not asking for a payment for a service with a lawsuit. THey're asking for consequences. They are asking for a punishment. A punishment that far outstrips the potential damage said crime causes.
-
Commit theft and steal a family's car, and you get a few months in prision, and/or a fine. This fine will be unlikely to be equal to the cost of the car. So why is it reasonable to have the fine for stealing a song by approximately 150 thousand times the cost of the song?
-
In addition, if you steal a car, that takes a car away from someone else. Not so with mp3s.
When the RIAA reported a 4% drop in sales (which could have been caused be a plethora of things, not excluding the rise in Indie music and popular boycotting of RIAA-supported music), several times as many CDs worth of music were being traded online as were being sold. So if that magnitude of filesharing causes such a small drop (and I think it's a stretch to assume that filesharing is the cause of that drop in sales), I don't really think you can compare it to "stealing" in the traditional sense at all.
Personally, I believe that if you really think an artist is good, you should put your money where your mouth is and support them financially. I think it's important.
But the RIAA and MPAA need to stop this extortion.
Spriggan, if you haven't read it yet, you need to read Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig, a Law Prof at Stanford (in terms of IP credentials, he was involved in the Microsoft antitrust case, among several others).
You can download the book for free online at www.free-culture.org
-
I recently heard that the sales of CDs has gone up, Have not check it out for myself, but if it has then the RIAA argument would be completely false.
Side note: good point both JadeKnight and Entropy
-
Oh, and the maximum fine is $150k per "willful violation" according to Lessig, unless it's been upped in the past few years.
-
I want to reiterate my stance. I'm not saying that stealing music should be legal and there's nothing wrong with it. i'm saying that the draconian and mafioso style behavior of the organizations trying to prosecute are out of line and should be curbed.
-
I'm more or less with Saint E on this one.