![Censorship Censorship](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/censorship_64.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![Media Media](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/media_64.png)
![Music Music](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/music_64.png)
![The Courts The Courts](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/court_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
![News News](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/news_64.png)
EFA Claims No Illegal Material On mp3s4free.net 334
An anonymous reader writes "Electronic Frontiers Australia (www.efa.org.au) claims that the raids organized by the music industry on mp3s4free.net have come up with nothing. Only links to other sites and not copyrighted material have been found.
The music industry is now saying that just
linking is in itself illegal. This does not appear to be supported by Australian law." Update: 10/29 15:26 GMT by T : This story originally referred to "mp3s4free.com," while it should have said -- and has been corrected to read -- "mp3s4free.net."
The linking is in itself illegal? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The linking is in itself illegal? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Dutch judge dismissed the claim, and showed a thorough insight in the technical side of the matter in the summation.
Mazur.
Re:The linking is in itself illegal? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The linking is in itself illegal? (Score:2)
The more things change... (Score:4, Funny)
> Electronic Frontiers Australia (www.efa.org.au) claims that the raids organized by the music industry on mp3s4free.com have come up with nothing. Only links to other sites and not copyrighted material have been found. The music industry is now saying that just linking is in itself illegal.
MP3s, WMDs, it's all the same...
WMDs... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:WMDs... (Score:4, Funny)
Well, the phrase having links to terrorist organisations keeps popping up as a vague but severely incriminating description in the media.
Re:WMDs... (Score:2)
Well, the phrase having links to terrorist organisations keeps popping up as a vague but severely incriminating description in the media.
During the latest fund-raising meeting that George helt along with his henchmen I heard (on CNN I think) that the USA now had the proof that Iraq had had in place a "process of creating a WMD program"..
No, I'm not making this up..
Re:WMDs... (Score:2)
History: Links to Organized Crime (Score:2)
A few decades back, "having links to organized crime" was used, much more often, as a similar undisprovable slam by both the media and government.
In the Xanadu archetecture links were first-class objects, like documents rather than text IN documents, and could be authored in isolation.
And it seemed like every time some A-hole politician or reporter would slam someone a
Re:The more things change... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The more things change... (Score:2, Funny)
No way! Windows Media format files aren't nearly as good as MP3s.
In fact Windows Media files are...
What?! Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Oh, that's a whole different thing then.
Nevermind.
Re:The more things change... (Score:3, Funny)
Good. someone made the WMD/MP3 funny.
Does this mean we'll see also two Representatives suspended from Congress for heckling the Australian Prime Minister on this issue [news.com.au]?
Yes, yes, I'll wait for the air-borne porcine and the Red Sox/Cubs World Series....
Re: U.S. to invade Australia. (Score:2, Insightful)
> The U.S. government is tired of invading poor countries. Since Australians are possibly doing something that is annoying, the U.S. will invade tomorrow.
> Don't worry Australians, it will be less than a year until you get your $87 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for reconstruction, government corruption, and to help make the Halliburton company richer.
Coming to a theatre near you soon... [imdb.com]
Seems they already invaded. Site inaccessible. (Score:2)
Linking should and shouldn't be illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Same with linking. If a site posts links to other sites and one (or more) of them contains something illegal, but the illegal content was neither the overt or covert reason for the link, then that should be fine. But if the purpose of the link is solely or primarily to help you do something illegal then the person posting the link should be regarded as an accomplice.
Obviously this requires discretion on the part of law enforcement agencies and, specifically, judges.
Re:Linking should and shouldn't be illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Note: You might want to make sure the police/judge have some sense of humour before trying it.
Re:Linking should and shouldn't be illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
That analogy works for criminal cases, but what about in a civil case, such as is the case with copyright infringement?
Let me put it this way: You want to break a contract that you signed. You ask me who can help you with that and I say "Fred can, and he lives next door". Should that be illegal?
Re:Linking should and shouldn't be illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
I think they're trying to imply that a pageful of deliberately-aggregated links is exactly the same sort of criminal intent and participation. But what about search engines? the user inputs a parameter ("hitman") and out comes the desired, ah, hit ("Freddie the Knife", "Guido the Strangler", etc). In fairness in the light of the first example, the search engine would have to be indicted on a co-conspiracy charge, just for providing the links.
And such an insanity has no logical stopping point. Pretty soon the coder who wrote the search engine is in the shit for aiding and abetting... the bandwidth provider for providing the access channel... glah. My brain hurts.
Re:Linking should and shouldn't be illegal (Score:5, Funny)
You left out Jack the Ripper. Both a dangerous killer AND a distributor of illegaly encoded music.
Re:Linking should and shouldn't be illegal (Score:2)
Re:Linking should and shouldn't be illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
You may link to a site in good intent - but the (insert favorite explisive here) RIAA can afford good lawers, and a good lawer can probaly twist your own words to make it appear that you not only linked with intent to do something nasty, but are the worst persong on god green earth since original sin came into the big picture.
Lawer: "..but you did now that the site you linked to served MP3s as well as the content you linked to?"
You: "Uhm.. I guess I did see that once, yes.."
Lawer: "So, not only did you
Re:Linking should and shouldn't be illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
But the joke is on me because frank is just really good at hiding his darker nature and he does sell crack and kill people. Whoops, my bad. Made a joke, spend life in prision as an accessory to murder.
Or even worse, franks "frank.com" gets taken over while I'm not looking by a less honest frank. And I am screwed again.
Sound far fetched? Its not. It is simply likely outcomes which are "no more extreme" than your extreme example.
Consider you hate $cientology, and you link to their site on your site, as an example of how screwed in the head you think they are. They change the contents of the page you link to so it contains some of their intellectual property and then get your site and your ISP taken down.
Unlikely? Nope, actually a near-certian outcome.
Since the linked-to content is out of the control of the linker, it is too easy "become guilty" as a result of your innocent act when a target page changes.
Allowing prosecutors and complaining parties to "posit theroies" about your intent is always a bad thing. Consider the "Intent to Sell" clauses of drug laws in the US. The state doesnt have to proove any actual intent, as after "intent to sell" was made a criminal condition, they (re) decided that having more that a certian raw weight of drugs prooves that intent. Sounds clear and obvious and "ok"? Turns out it isn't. Consider that the statute says how many milligrams of LSD is one dose. Then they measure the LSD-soaked paper (the paper weighs several hundred times "one dose") so you have five doses and you go to jail for intent to sell because the raw wight of the innert material takes you over the limit. No abuse there. No sirreee.
You simply cannot trust "the state" to do the right thing. If you could, then you wouldn't need the Bill of Rights (or non US equivalant where you live).
That is your baby in that bathwater. Who do you choose to decide what gets thrown out and how? If you are smart you don't give that power to random strangers.
Re:Linking should and shouldn't be illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the elements of crime is intent. That's the part that requires a jury - both the greatest strength and (as with most things) the greatest weakness of the English-derived legal system at use in the US.
In order to commit a crime, you must knowingly commit an act which deprives another of rights with the intent of so depriving the other party.
(BTW, IANAL)
That's not to say that there aren't statutory crimes, like running a red light, but in cases where an act could have multiple constructions (such as "Where is Bill" -> "Next door" vs. "Where is Bill, I need a good hitman" -> "Next door") the concept of intent must be introduced as a judicial guide.
It's this principle that provides most of the insanity and complexity that comes out of our court system - McDonald's didn't pay a kazillion because some lady burned her lap on coffee, they payed because they it was proven in court that McDonalds corporation was knowingly distributing coffee at dangerously high temperatures - and that proven (in court) intent is what cost the case.
-Ben
Re:Linking should and shouldn't be illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Well then, I guess we can all rest easy that my dog ate my collection of top-40 boy-bands, and sites like this exist only to allow me to make use of my protected right to a backup.
I know I sure feel better that sites like this have a legal reason to exist.
A tad more seriously, though, I've really grown quite tired of this topic. The RIAA sucks, the BSA sucks, the MPAA sucks. Some people will buy, and some people will pirate. Trade groups need to accept that the pirates wouldn't buy their products under any conditions whatsoever (short of giving stuff away), and treat them as the free advertising (rather than "criminals") they serve as.
If I see my pirating friend Steve playing a cool new game, I may go out and buy it. He might never have plunked down a penny for software in his entire life, but some of his friends have and will.
Industry groups only need to worry about this sort of "advertisement" if their product sucks. I have little doubt that the RIAA knows all-too-well the complete crap they push on us, thus their fear of try-before-you-buy. Those who actually have quality products to sell love free advertising, and do their best to get people to check it out.
I seem to recall reading a SciAm article once upon a time that mentioned that, since we've all had to grow filters against advertisements, the single best way for a company to sell products consists of recommendations between friends. So sure, it make perfect sense that the RIAA would sacrifice the single most effective form of advertising - since in this case, it mostly ends up negative.
Okay, I've gone a tad OT here. I just wish the world made a bit more sense. Real, law-abiding people getting screwed by the RIAA (or its AU equivalent) legal machine does not make sense. People wonder why I feel so strongly anti-corporate. I need point no further than the RIAA, and you'll either get it or not, end of discussion.
Re:Linking should and shouldn't be illegal (Score:3, Informative)
Haven't the MPAA tried to get mobile phones banned from cinemas because the punters were texting their mates and telli
Re:Linking should and shouldn't be illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
Otherwise, telling someone how to jay walk is just as bad as telling someone where a hitman is. Or telling someone how to copy something out of a book is as bad as telling someone how to load a gun. Yeah, there's this entire string of things that are good or bad or neither depending on the situation, but that's it, they depend on the situation.
Most of the time, it will require di
Re:Linking should and shouldn't be illegal (Score:2)
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
Australian raids on link site (Score:5, Interesting)
Am I missing something, or are they in very deep legal trouble?
Re:Australian raids on link site (Score:4, Informative)
In that case I suspect the requirements are less onerous than search warrants and they probably only had to show that the property they were looking to seize (Computers, discs and logs etc) would be likely to be or contain evidence that might otherwise be destroyed or removed etc.
Re:Australian raids on link site (Score:2)
Evidence is not restricted to the thing allegedly trafficed. Its not unreasonable to assume that in a virtual operation like this, the computers might contain evidence of the organizations activities.
Response? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Response? (Score:2)
Re:Response? (Score:2)
A copy of the Parliamentary Library's Bills Digest (crib notes for parliamentarians who are not lawyers is here [aph.gov.au] for the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999
Re:Response? (Score:2)
But lets suppose this DID take place in the US, what form of retaliation could we resort to?
Australians can join Net Effect (Score:2)
http://www.users.on.net/grypen/politics/
Please mirror the site if you can, there's a ZIP file (92K) on site for those who want to download it. You can bitch and moan all you like, or you can DO something about it. I plan to.
Quizo69
it's about the intent (Score:4, Interesting)
Linking per se is not illegal, but linking to infringing material will be, especially when you have reasonable belief that the material is illegal.
In the case of google or a search engine, they have a good defence: file a DMCA take down notice to have the infringing material unlinked. It is unreasonable to expect that google would self-police their content, it's just intractible.
But when you have a site set up, specifically to provide references to infringing material, largely for the purpose of allowing people to access that material, then I'm afraid you probably don't have a strong case. It's already looking bad "in principle", despite any technical issues.
Attempting to "beat the system" by using this approach is really not the way forward for any advocacy over rights. It's effectively trying to cheat around the technical points while in principle supporting copyright infringement.
Re:it's about the intent (Score:2)
Offering files under Australian law isn
Re:it's about the intent (Score:2, Informative)
what intent? (Score:2)
I can equally malign the music industry in this case. First, the search warrent was for content they could have gotten without a raid at all: a website and logs. Instead of just downloading the site, the wrecked a man's house and a place of business. Second, I can speciously claim that all of the copyright violation
Wow, good-bye personal rights... (Score:2, Funny)
Me: Um, there's a sketchy guy that hangs out on the corner over there who might know about it.
Cop: FREEZE!! You're under arrest for drug dealing!
Me: Damn you DMCA! Now I'm a drug dealer cause I know where the sketchy people hang out!
2600 (Score:4, Informative)
"Linking Is Bad" is BAD thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a problem with a person or organization. You link to their site as an example of the problem you have with them. (Say you link to the Debold site because they are "election fraudsters".)
If your problem is that they can (a) persue you because you linked to their stuff or (b) change the page you innocently linked to to an infringing content site (you infringe their content, but they don't, so clearly you meant others to infringe their property.)
Plus there is a proof-by-induction problem. You link to a friends page because you like him. Unbenonst to you, he links to infringing material. An over-zealous RIAA decides that the "only possible reason" for you to have linked to such a malcontent was that you must share his every view.
How many link steps does it take to wash an outgoing link?
Suppose you have a bunch of links lying fallow on your friends page that you haven't bothered to clean out for a while. A new user takes over an old firends equally fallow account and posts kiddie porn. Your link reads (and always had read) something innocent like "A young lady who's company I enjoy" but "margrets-life.com" now takes you to naughty-margret the hottest little 12 year old in siagon...
Its a mire.
You sould be able to link to anything. Essentially when you link you are in a crowded stadium and you are pointing your finger across the crowded field (at a possible stranger). Such pointing should not make you responsible for the actions of the person you are pointing at.
Its just too much "who guesses what whom intended where? We'll let the prosicutor who is up for reelection decided... he should be impartial..."
(And yes, this goes for a link that says "crack and murder-for-hire at franks house" because when you wrote it, it might have been a joke. How do you *really know* what frank does in his off time anyway?)
Don't sacrafice your life on the alter of "seeming reasonable".
Re:"Linking Is Bad" is BAD thinking (Score:2)
That's absolutely the best analogy on the subject I've ever seen. Hope you don't mind being quoted!
Re:"Linking Is Bad" is BAD thinking (Score:2)
Suppose you host some infringeing MP3s with the express purpose of making those files available to all and sundry on the Web.
You then meet with a group of "link site" operators in person (no paper/email trail) and disclose to them the URLs of your files. These people then proceed to post the links to your infringeing material on their own sites.
The copyright cops take notice. They find these links to your files over 50% of the sites on the Internet. They track you down
Re:"Linking Is Bad" is BAD thinking (Score:2)
Where is the question?
We are discussing whether those "link site operators" should be held liable. (They shouldn't BTW) If you are stupid enough to commit a actionable offense in public, you deserve what you get. All the "link farmers" did was draw attention to you. For the most part, the l
Re:"Linking Is Bad" is BAD thinking (Score:2)
That "defense" isn't. Take a look at copyright law, you're liable.
Basicly your example boils down to me meeting with a bunch of people and I tell them I'm going to strip naked in a crowded stadium. Those people then stand around the stadium POINTING AT ME. I am illegally exposing myself, even if I claim I had no idea anyone would know which corner to see me in. The people pointing at me are NOT illegally
McCarthy (Score:2)
Didn't we have this evil linking business before? If you merely know someone on the communist blacklist, then you are on the blacklist. Then recurse for those who know you.
Are you now or have you ever been a pirate sympathizer? Do you share in their anti-corp
Right, banning links ruins the web, RIAA are thugs (Score:3, Insightful)
They found NOTHING? Then they ARE guilty! (Score:5, Funny)
How much nothing did they find? No matter--whether it was 4 minutes 33 seconds or only a minute, nothing is still a copyright violation [cnn.com], and John Cage's publishers will have something to say about the nothing that was found!
The question is, how do you remove it?
Re:They found NOTHING? Then they ARE guilty! (Score:2)
Re:They found NOTHING? Then they ARE guilty! (Score:3, Funny)
Listen to it again and you'll agree that the first two seconds sound exactly the same as the next two seconds, and so on. Actually, I'm surprised you didn't notice it before!
Re:They found NOTHING? Then they ARE guilty! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MP3's (Score:5, Insightful)
Rus
Re:MP3's (Score:2)
Suppose I host a site on which I place an MP3 called "Britney's Latest Hit.mp3". Should I expect to get a take-down notice and a lawsuit? Or do you think they'd actually download the MP3 and listen to my 4-year-old daughter Britney banging on 4 saucepans and a plate with a wooden spoon?
Everything is Illegal (Score:2)
Humm. Is this anything like SCO declaring copyright is illegal?
Hazardous way of thinking... (Score:2, Insightful)
trying to make linking illegal is sneaky, because here they are trying to take advantage of a subjective matter (illegal MP3s transfers). This issue is controversial ; thus, trying to enforce a ban on linking will be easier on a subject where people are not focused primarily on this concern. But it should appear much more clearly as a dangerous thing if applied for instance on content shifting trough time etc.
Pardon my English, but the Frenchies still can't admit that they are supposed to speak any
Doesn't this help the music industry out? (Score:4, Interesting)
kiwi
Yay for Oz (Score:3, Insightful)
And why should it be? Just because i know theres a drug dealer down the road and may direct the odd pot head to him. I dont think im breaking the law. Just helping someone feed their addiction.
Immoral as it is, its not illegal.
Not long now (Score:2)
Somwhere else in the world (Score:2)
I coulden't find a story as it was a while ago, but I'm sure some Nordic reader here remembers it?
Internet thingy (Score:3, Funny)
I think that it should be clear by now that the solution to the vast social problems of today is the internet. Where else do we have LINKS to Weapons of Mass Destruction? Where else to do we have nudity and violence galor? Were it not for the violation of our public decency caused by the intrusion of this vile satanic entity, the internet, we would be a peaceful people strong and secure in the bliss of ignorance.
Ignorance of the sins of the internet. The porn. The violence. The pedophiles sitting at their glowing screens temping the virginity of the children. Think of the children and the unlimited amount of smut, porn, nudity, violence, and crime that they are exposed to every single moment they are on the internet. The internet is everywhere. In your schools, in your homes, in cafes and parks, and in every businessplace in the world.
Yes, friends, we must petition our legislators to outlaw this vile corruption that has been visited upon us by the very forces of Hades; whose sole purpose is to consume the souls of our children and turn this blissfully ignorant world into a Hell on Earth.
I tell you now, brothers and sisters, that the root of all evil is money. And the internet's most profitable businesses are crimes against humanity: the violation of women and children who are hapless porn victims, the teenagers temped to steal billions from poor, starving musicians because that theft is merely a mouse click away. Click. Click. Click. Another poor musician starves to death.
We must empower the magnificent defenders of our blissful ignorance to protect us from these might forces of iniquity. The RIAA, The MPAA, our brothers in congress--yes children, you know the ones who share the views of our defenders; those tireless public servants who like the dearly departed Mr Sonny Bono-author of the copyright extension act that prevents Mickey Mouse from being turned into a vile star of pornography, crafted the DMCA, the COPA, and other valiant legislation. But we must have more. We must have an end to this internet thingy. Now. Before it is too late for our children.
Thank you and good night. Please donate heavily to our cause to protect our precious children.
How are links different from citations? (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I infringing copyright if I say "Leopold Stokowski and Mickey Mouse shake hands in Walt Disney's Fantasia?"
Am I committing an indecency if I say "Grove Press created a sensation when they published Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer?"
Am I committing a terrorist act if I say "Nuclear weapons information which the government, in the eighties, claimed was classified, appears in the Encyclopedia Americana?"
I don't think so.
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:2)
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not? Both "crimes" were created entirely by government, not human nature. This is opposed to "natural" crime, i.e. the initiation of force (theft, fraud, threat, assault) which any human being would immediately (and necessarily) identify as "criminal" behavior, or simply behavior which violates the natural human concept of individual liberty. In the absence of government (coercion), neither drug using/selling or copying music would be considere
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:2)
OP wrote: Why not? Both "crimes" were created entirely by government, not human nature.
I don't want to claim that music copyright infringement is moral but, you can hardly claim that these are similar when the effects of the two "crimes" are poles apart!
The latter might reduce the income of an other
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:3, Interesting)
While I agree there are moral implications beyond the law (law != morality is one of the first things you learn in legal units), you analogy is somewhat flawed in that buying drugs is an offence (depending on substance and jurisdiction) mainly because of the harm it causes to the user. I've yet to hear of anyone suffering chronic psychosis from listening to illicitly copied MP3s (though I could probably see it happening with some of today's more popular artists)...
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:4, Insightful)
buying drugs is an offence... mainly because of the harm it causes to the user
I realise this is off-topic, but I feel the need to vent anyway. I have never understood why it is illegal to do harm to yourself. After all, you own your body, is it as least once thing that isn't licensed to you (Does God have a EULA?), and so why shouldn't we be allowed to do whatever we want to it?
The only arguments I can think of are:
Intentional damage to yourself will cost the state money when you check yourself into a hospital. This applies in countries like mine, the UK, but not the USA, where healthcare is not funded by the government. Even in the UK, I wonder how hard it would be to limit the free healthcare to those who did not cause intentional damage to themselves. (It would also be very handy to lump smokers into this category.)
The other argument I can think of is
Being under the influence of drugs may prompt you to cause harm to others. This, surely, can be solved in neater ways than banning drugs outright. Ban them in public places, but allow them at home.
I don't take drugs, I don't even smoke, but banning them does seem unfair.
Anyway... </rant>
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:3, Insightful)
Realizing that drug using/selling is a voluntary act of trade like any other, there is only one possible argument (although government would never word it like this): You don't own your own body. Government owns your body.
Sound far-fetched? Not to me. If you were the owner of your own body, then logically, you would be the only individual on the planet who could possibly decide what is acceptable behavior and what is unacceptable behavior for your body to engage
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:2)
This doesn't, however, mean I don't own my frying pan.
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:2)
Those are all "natural" crimes, i.e. behaviors which are naturally considered immoral (violation of human rights). What exactly makes you think these behaviors would be acceptable in the absence of government?
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:2)
True enough, but why does this not apply to alcohol, which causes deaths of both the imbibers and often innocent bystanders should they be in control of a vehicle, a gun, or a frying pan? Also, I think many drug-related deaths are due to the illegality of the supply -- low quality and contamination casuing complications, dirty needles causing hepatitis and AIDS; excessive prices leading to crime and
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this mean linking a site with links to illegal material is also a crime? Where does it stop? A link of a link of a link? Can you prove that they were purposely attempting to provide aid to gain illegal material?
Your analogy is harsh, your logic surely missing a couple key points. Assisting access to illegal materials requires proof. At least some sort of proof that they were purposely providing aid for illegal services.
To use your brutal analogy. You can't pay your tutition. An old friend lends you a couple hundred that you'll pay back. Later you tell your best friend about this great loaner. Your best friend goes to 'loaner', who ends up being a crack dealer. You are the link. Are you guilty?
This would be one hell of a brutal world if intent is no longer required to be proven.
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not know what aulstailian law says on this, or if this is even the case
Founding Fathers (Score:2)
Given that Jefferson and Washington exchanged letters on cultivation techniq
Re:I'm sorry, I cannot resist (Score:2, Funny)
You may want to read up on logic as this is what is refered to as an ad-hominem attack. If I said "the street corner where they buy crack" vs "crack store" it doesn't make a difference.
I must have been asleep in civics class when the covered how Ice Cream fits into the Bill of Rights. Which amendment was that? The "right to bear double scoops" one, right?
I would suppose that the right to
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:4, Insightful)
And please don't use analogies involving drugs. If you can't see the moral difference between crack and mp3s then you are in poor shape morally. And the kids won't believe a word you say.
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:2)
What exactly is the difference between drugs and mp3s again? :) Both are artifically scarce, too expensive (cds that is), and a holy war has been launched against each of them so that ceartin entities may remain in denial about the realities of the world in which they live. And lastly, both are issues on which "the peop
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:2)
No one has ever died from an overdose of poorly manufactured home made mp3's. It's pretty simple really
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:3, Insightful)
They say knowledge is power, but knowledge isn't grounds for a lawsuit.
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:2)
-
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:2)
If you had a list of places that directed others as to where they could get drugs, while you may be helping people _acquire_ drugs, you are NOT participating through action in order to help the success of _selling_ drugs.
Thus you might be able to convict the person with the list as being an accomplice to the purchase of drugs, but he isn't an accomplice to the dealer, assuming that the list was his only connection.
The case on point that springs to mind here -- involving drugs, in
Him? He's harmless. (Score:2)
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:2, Funny)
Not legal if I hear it too (Score:2)
You have in effect violated the 'unauthorized public performance' part of your agreement when you purchased the CD/Right to listen, or some such garbage.
( and of course insulted my ears. but that is a different issue )..
Re:Not legal if I hear it too (Score:2)
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:2)
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:2)
Re:Pull the other one - it has bells on it (Score:2)
Most MP3's come from CD's with no copyright mechanism so there is NO CRIME being committed.
Yes you can be sued by the copyright holder, but that's a different kettle of fish.
Wait a minute.... (Score:2)
Re:2600 (Score:3, Insightful)
"please remove a link from your site because it links to a site we beleive is in violation of the DMCA" (as unreasonable as even that sounds)
and kicking down their door in a dawn raid and dragging their computers away because they are incorrectly suspected of infringement.
I imagine they will be able to sue whoever took out the Anton Pillar order for quite a lot.
A more promising target would be any LAN day across australia, now there is a field of file
In the UK however (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they don't run, they don't hide and they pay up.
Expect this trend to spread.
Great time and money are spent trapping motorists who speed by as little as 10% such that around speed cameras motorists now take their eyes off the road in order to check their speed to the meter.
Someone will be harrassed by local youths and when provoked to right back, get arrested - why - because they didn't r
Re:Hey they RIAA website is up again.... (Score:2)
If you really want to bring the riaa's site down just use your l33t hax0ring sk1llz and ddos with a bunch of zombies.