The Geek Forum

  • May 09, 2024, 09:07:32 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Due to the prolific nature of these forums, poster aggression is advised.

*

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Forum Stats

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 129618
  • Total Topics: 7184
  • Online Today: 140
  • Online Ever: 1013
  • (January 12, 2023, 01:18:11 AM)

Author Topic: Judge Tosses Out RIAA's First File-Sharing Conviction  (Read 1664 times)

12AX7

  • Guest
Judge Tosses Out RIAA's First File-Sharing Conviction
« on: October 06, 2008, 04:26:10 AM »

 http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9774/Judge+Tosses+Out+RIAA%27s+First+File-Sharing+Conviction%2C+Thomas+Granted+New+Trial!

  ""Merely because the defendant has 'completed all the steps necessary for distribution' does not necessarily mean that a distribution has actually occurred," wrote Judge Nancy Gertner in London-Sire v. Doe. "It is a 'distribution" that the statute plainly requires."

Attorneys for the industry argued in a hearing last month that they showed proof that the songs were downloaded - by recording industry investigators. Thomas' attorney countered that downloads by investigators authorized by the industry to receive them do not constitute copyright infringement.
...
Simply put, you can't authorize somebody to download copyrighted material and then charge the person who gave it to them with unauthorized distribution since the copyright holder in fact authorized it (Logic 101)."

 

Logged

BizB

  • Forum Moderator
  • Hacker
  • *
  • Coolio Points: +439/-15
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 4324
  • Keep making circles
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Tosses Out RIAA's First File-Sharing Conviction
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2008, 07:41:51 AM »
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH  :lol: :mrgreen: :slap
Logged
Without me, it's just 'aweso'.

Chris

  • Administrator
  • Hacker
  • *
  • Coolio Points: +286/-8
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3892
  • IT'S A TARP
    • View Profile
    • The Geekery
Re: Judge Tosses Out RIAA's First File-Sharing Conviction
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2008, 09:50:34 PM »
Quote from: 12AX7 on October 06, 2008, 04:26:10 AM
  ""Merely because the defendant has 'completed all the steps necessary for distribution' does not necessarily mean that a distribution has actually occurred," wrote Judge Nancy Gertner in London-Sire v. Doe. "It is a 'distribution" that the statute plainly requires."

Using the same process of thinking, is it the possible to argue that if Timothy McVeigh had simply parked the truck outside of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 1995 and not detonated it, he would not have faced any criminal action? This, of course, is assuming that the truck was discovered intact and loaded with the explosives necessary to destroy the building.

Certainly, the intent was still there.

Just for the record, I'm against the RIAA in their battle to make money in anyway that they can.
Logged

12AX7

  • Guest
Re: Judge Tosses Out RIAA's First File-Sharing Conviction
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2008, 04:24:39 AM »
No. There are laws prohibiting posession of explosives by other than licensed operators. Intent has nothing to do with possession. You're using the logic that the only thing illegal he did was detonate it.
 First, even merely planning to cause harm to others is illegal. (Conspiracy)
 Second, he abandoned property owned by Ryder Rentals. (Theft)
 Third, he was in possesion of explosive ordinance with no legal permission. (Possesion of Explosives/Explosive Devices)
 There's probably a lot more to add; but my point is that the two are in NO WAY comparable.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2008, 06:32:11 AM by 12AX7 »
Logged

12AX7

  • Guest
Re: Judge Tosses Out RIAA's First File-Sharing Conviction
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2008, 06:36:13 AM »
This was the best part:

 "...compensatory damages greater than 9 to 1 violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that "compensatory damages are intended to redress a plaintiff’s concrete loss" which in this case is a mere 35 cents - 70 cents minus 35 saved for not having to distribute it - per each illegally downloaded song. At most 10:1 makes its a grand total of $3.50 for each song and not $9250."

Logged