Re: [News] Big Media Comes Under Scrutiny, Hardball Games - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: [News] Big Media Comes Under Scrutiny, Hardball Games - Linux ; "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message news:eotg95-ht5.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net... > > If one acknowledges the right to forbid spreading of a > copyrighted work, then sharing is clearly outright theft > unless otherwise specified by the copyright holder. > It ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Re: [News] Big Media Comes Under Scrutiny, Hardball Games

  1. Re: [News] Big Media Comes Under Scrutiny, Hardball Games


    "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
    news:eotg95-ht5.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
    >
    > If one acknowledges the right to forbid spreading of a
    > copyrighted work, then sharing is clearly outright theft
    > unless otherwise specified by the copyright holder.
    >

    It doesn't matter what one acknowledges, it is not theft, it is, rather, an
    unauthorized conversion of the property. The owner still has full
    possession. That is a whole different set of laws and jurisdictions.



  2. Re: [News] Big Media Comes Under Scrutiny, Hardball Games

    In article <47c5f787$0$2883$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
    "amicus_curious" wrote:
    > You could have purchased the tunes legally from iTunes or similar for less
    > than 20 bucks, though. So where is the equity in the $15,000 award vs. the
    > $20 in retail value? The RIAA is working the copyright laws in a way that


    You got the wrong end. What they are getting nailed for is
    *distributing* the songs. $20 would be what it would cost to buy copies
    for one person. Distribution could have been to thousands of people,
    and it is hard or even impossible to figure out how many people ACTUALLY
    received copies from the person sharing.

    That's exactly one of the situations statutory damages were designed for.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  3. Re: [News] Big Media Comes Under Scrutiny, Hardball Games

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Smith

    wrote
    on Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:13:46 -0800
    :
    > In article <47c5f787$0$2883$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
    > "amicus_curious" wrote:
    >> You could have purchased the tunes legally from iTunes or
    >> similar for less than 20 bucks, though. So where is the
    >> equity in the $15,000 award vs. the $20 in retail value?
    >> The RIAA is working the copyright laws in a way that

    >
    > You got the wrong end. What they are getting nailed for is
    > *distributing* the songs. $20 would be what it would cost to buy copies
    > for one person.


    To purchase *ONE* copy, it would cost $20 (retail).
    Multiple copies can be purchased, presumably on a sliding
    scale if the retailer allows; if not, one must multiply.

    I don't know if the stores buy the copies at a reduced price
    or are licensed agents/redistributors of the RIAA. Probably
    the former.

    > Distribution could have been to thousands of people,
    > and it is hard or even impossible to figure out how many people ACTUALLY
    > received copies from the person sharing.
    >
    > That's exactly one of the situations statutory damages were designed for.
    >


    Precisely.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #110309238:
    item * f(item *p) { if(p = NULL) return new item; else return p; }

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  4. Re: [News] Big Media Comes Under Scrutiny, Hardball Games


    "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
    news:u48k95-e1p.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
    >
    > This may not be theft as one might define it in local or state
    > statutes, but it *is* a loss.
    >

    More exactly, it is a "tort".

    >
    > It is possible. Of course that's a bad analogy anyway;
    > the stadium manager isn't selling tickets to view
    > through knotholes, but the song acquirer is bypassing a
    > well-known purchasing process, and the song, unlike the
    > view through the knothole, is a perfect duplicate (within
    > the restrictions of the original digitization).
    >

    So consider the situation where some golden oldie FM station plays a Perry
    Como hit like "Glow Worm" and you, with a very high tech receiver manage to
    make an off-air recording of it. Now what? The Sony vs Universal decision
    in 1984 effectively made off-air recording for personal, non-commercial use
    legal. Then there is the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA) that made
    it legal to directly copy onto this media. No one uses that media anymore,
    but the sense of the Congress in regard to such things is still applicable.
    It is time to re-vist the situation.

    >>
    >> As to the RIAA member, the damages are the loss of the profit, not the
    >> retail value anyway. That may only be a few cents per tune, so the
    >> actual
    >> damages for some individual's actions may only be a few dollars, but they
    >> are being sued for large amounts. That is not balanced the way the law
    >> is
    >> supposed to work.

    >
    > The law is the law. If it's bad law, change it. Until
    > then, enforce it as written. The RIAA is enforcing the
    > law as they see it. The judges of course who take the
    > cases might have a different view of the matter (I'm not
    > a jurist, obviously), but the RIAA is perfectly within
    > its rights to bring them to court.
    >
    > It is, after all, their duty to do so.
    >
    >>>
    >>>> The RIAA is working the copyright laws in a way that
    >>>> was not intended by the lawmakers, or so a lot of people think.
    >>>
    >>> Not entirely clear to me at this point.
    >>>
    >>>> There are
    >>>> also some elements of abuse of process and even barratry
    >>>> involved in many of the existing cases.
    >>>
    >>> Fraud? Excessive lawsuits? Purchase of offices of state?
    >>> You'll have to be more specific; I'm curious here.
    >>>

    >> In a nutshell, it is an abuse of process to threaten someone with a
    >> substantial economic loss by leveraging the legal process costs rather
    >> than
    >> the recovery of actual damages. Say you copy 20 tunes. You are
    >> threatened
    >> with a lawsuit that will want $15,000 in compensation. You are offered a
    >> settlement of $3000 instead of going to court. To go to court would cost
    >> on
    >> the order of $20,000 to $30,000 in addition to whatever statutor
    >> judgement
    >> might be levied. Now the value of the goods you converted use of is
    >> around
    >> $20 (Download 20 tunes from Walmart @89 cents each or from iTunes @ 99
    >> cents each).

    >
    > Depends on the tunes. I could see them costing $400 if
    > they're $20 each (retail).
    >
    >>
    >> The RIAA is claiming huge amounts of damages due to downloading

    >
    > Part of it may be punitive; part of it is simply the
    > fact that once downloaded a tune can be redownloaded in
    > a tree distribution pattern (I'm old enough to remember
    > DECUS tapes; a more modern method might be BitTorrent).
    > 1 pirate download = ??? lost revenue. There's no way
    > to track them down unless the manufacturing process is
    > changed sufficiently to allow each and every sold copy of
    > a song, album, or video, to be identified (via an embedded
    > signature, presumably); pirated copies, at least in theory,
    > would either lack that signature or would be a perfect
    > duplicate including signature, allowing the authorities
    > to find the legal owner who let the work get away from
    > him or her.
    >
    > As the authorities might put it, he would be a "person
    > of interest", and depending on circumstances, he might
    > be chargeable as well, depending on whether he knowingly
    > duplicated the work, he simply lost track of it for awhile,
    > or someone actually did steal the physical copy from his
    > demesnes.
    >

    You are confusing criminal and civil law practices. They are quite
    different and that is very important to the discussion. In civil law there
    is no general concept of "punishment", only "equity". If I cause you some
    loss, you are entitled to collect compensation, but you usually have to show
    that you were damaged and the issue is how much damage that was caused by
    your acts. If someone else also damages the plaintiff or even if millions
    of others also damage the plaintiff, the law only demands that you
    compensate for your share. There are exemplary damages allowed in some
    cases, but they have to be defined prior to the act. The damage you cause
    by copying can only be the loss of profit to the copyright owner.

    >> and they may
    >> or may not be right about that, but there is no concept of "joint
    >> liability"
    >> in copyright cases and the copyright holder is only entitled to damages
    >> based on actual experience of loss due to the individual's actions, save
    >> for
    >> the statutory element which was never intended to cover single copy
    >> situations. To collect the multiple millions of bucks they think they
    >> might
    >> have lost, they would have to sue a few million copiers, as they are
    >> doing
    >> to the hundreds so far. The few who are "caught" are being abused while
    >> most all skate free. The law isn't supposed to work that way.

    >
    > I frankly don't know at this point. Of course legal
    > enforcement is selective anyway; there's no way it
    > can't be. The cops are a busy bunch but aren't omniscient.
    >
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> When that happens, the Supreme Court is supposed to step in
    >>>> and put things right if the District Courts fail to do so.
    >>>
    >>> Only if someone appeals who is directly affected by the judgements,
    >>> and only after all other venues have been exhausted. The logical
    >>> first step would be some sort of a countersuit against the RIAA.
    >>> I'd have to look.
    >>>

    >> You'd apparently have to do a lot more than that.

    >
    > I can't do a thing; I'm not directly affected. I'd have to find the
    > Supreme Court case that restricts me, admittedly, but it made the news
    > some years back.
    >
    >>
    >>>> I think that people need to
    >>>> bitch a lot louder about this and maybe the government will take some
    >>>> notice.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> And why should the government get involved here?
    >>> Which arm of the government? What should they do?
    >>>

    >> The United States Congress of course. Pass definitive amendments to the
    >> US
    >> Code regarding personal copying and statutory treatments. Similarly to
    >> the
    >> work done a couple of decades ago regarding Digital Audio Tape where the
    >> law
    >> specifically allows individuals to copy.

    >
    > Only non-copyrighted works. The copyrighted works are
    > readily identifiable to all data reader units by using
    > an inaudible subcarrier; the existence of this subcarrier
    > causes the copier logic to malfunction, leading to a poor
    > copy.
    >
    >>
    >>> Be specific. Include currently written law as applicable,
    >>> since that is the standard which is presumably going to be
    >>> changed by any Legislative action -- if any be warranted.
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
    > --
    > #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    > Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
    > try our new color changing variant?
    >
    > --
    > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    >



  5. Re: [News] Big Media Comes Under Scrutiny, Hardball Games

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, amicus_curious

    wrote
    on Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:37:19 -0500
    <47c826b8$0$31114$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>:
    >
    > "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
    > news:u48k95-e1p.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
    >>
    >> This may not be theft as one might define it in local or state
    >> statutes, but it *is* a loss.
    >>

    > More exactly, it is a "tort".


    That it is. It's still a loss.

    >
    >>
    >> It is possible. Of course that's a bad analogy anyway;
    >> the stadium manager isn't selling tickets to view
    >> through knotholes, but the song acquirer is bypassing a
    >> well-known purchasing process, and the song, unlike the
    >> view through the knothole, is a perfect duplicate (within
    >> the restrictions of the original digitization).
    >>

    > So consider the situation where some golden oldie FM station plays a Perry
    > Como hit like "Glow Worm" and you, with a very high tech receiver manage to
    > make an off-air recording of it. Now what? The Sony vs Universal decision
    > in 1984 effectively made off-air recording for personal, non-commercial use
    > legal. Then there is the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA) that made
    > it legal to directly copy onto this media. No one uses that media anymore,
    > but the sense of the Congress in regard to such things is still applicable.


    Both have been wiped by the DMCA in 1998, AFAIK. In any event, the
    media in this case was a variant of analog cassette; digital media
    are probably not covered.

    > It is time to re-vist the situation.


    Maybe. I don't see a need yet.

    >
    >>>
    >>> As to the RIAA member, the damages are the loss of the profit, not the
    >>> retail value anyway. That may only be a few cents per tune, so the
    >>> actual
    >>> damages for some individual's actions may only be a few dollars, but they
    >>> are being sued for large amounts. That is not balanced the way the law
    >>> is
    >>> supposed to work.

    >>
    >> The law is the law. If it's bad law, change it. Until
    >> then, enforce it as written. The RIAA is enforcing the
    >> law as they see it. The judges of course who take the
    >> cases might have a different view of the matter (I'm not
    >> a jurist, obviously), but the RIAA is perfectly within
    >> its rights to bring them to court.
    >>
    >> It is, after all, their duty to do so.
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>>> The RIAA is working the copyright laws in a way that
    >>>>> was not intended by the lawmakers, or so a lot of people think.
    >>>>
    >>>> Not entirely clear to me at this point.
    >>>>
    >>>>> There are
    >>>>> also some elements of abuse of process and even barratry
    >>>>> involved in many of the existing cases.
    >>>>
    >>>> Fraud? Excessive lawsuits? Purchase of offices of state?
    >>>> You'll have to be more specific; I'm curious here.
    >>>>
    >>> In a nutshell, it is an abuse of process to threaten someone with a
    >>> substantial economic loss by leveraging the legal process costs rather
    >>> than
    >>> the recovery of actual damages. Say you copy 20 tunes. You are
    >>> threatened
    >>> with a lawsuit that will want $15,000 in compensation. You are offered a
    >>> settlement of $3000 instead of going to court. To go to court would cost
    >>> on
    >>> the order of $20,000 to $30,000 in addition to whatever statutor
    >>> judgement
    >>> might be levied. Now the value of the goods you converted use of is
    >>> around
    >>> $20 (Download 20 tunes from Walmart @89 cents each or from iTunes @ 99
    >>> cents each).

    >>
    >> Depends on the tunes. I could see them costing $400 if
    >> they're $20 each (retail).
    >>
    >>>
    >>> The RIAA is claiming huge amounts of damages due to downloading

    >>
    >> Part of it may be punitive; part of it is simply the
    >> fact that once downloaded a tune can be redownloaded in
    >> a tree distribution pattern (I'm old enough to remember
    >> DECUS tapes; a more modern method might be BitTorrent).
    >> 1 pirate download = ??? lost revenue. There's no way
    >> to track them down unless the manufacturing process is
    >> changed sufficiently to allow each and every sold copy of
    >> a song, album, or video, to be identified (via an embedded
    >> signature, presumably); pirated copies, at least in theory,
    >> would either lack that signature or would be a perfect
    >> duplicate including signature, allowing the authorities
    >> to find the legal owner who let the work get away from
    >> him or her.
    >>
    >> As the authorities might put it, he would be a "person
    >> of interest", and depending on circumstances, he might
    >> be chargeable as well, depending on whether he knowingly
    >> duplicated the work, he simply lost track of it for awhile,
    >> or someone actually did steal the physical copy from his
    >> demesnes.
    >>

    > You are confusing criminal and civil law practices. They are quite
    > different and that is very important to the discussion. In civil law there
    > is no general concept of "punishment", only "equity".


    The two are intermingled in copyright law, if the amount of damages
    equals or exceeds $1000, as I recall.

    I'd have to look.

    > If I cause you some
    > loss, you are entitled to collect compensation, but you usually have to show
    > that you were damaged and the issue is how much damage that was caused by
    > your acts. If someone else also damages the plaintiff or even if millions
    > of others also damage the plaintiff, the law only demands that you
    > compensate for your share. There are exemplary damages allowed in some
    > cases, but they have to be defined prior to the act. The damage you cause
    > by copying can only be the loss of profit to the copyright owner.
    >
    >>> and they may
    >>> or may not be right about that, but there is no concept of "joint
    >>> liability"
    >>> in copyright cases and the copyright holder is only entitled to damages
    >>> based on actual experience of loss due to the individual's actions, save
    >>> for
    >>> the statutory element which was never intended to cover single copy
    >>> situations. To collect the multiple millions of bucks they think they
    >>> might
    >>> have lost, they would have to sue a few million copiers, as they are
    >>> doing
    >>> to the hundreds so far. The few who are "caught" are being abused while
    >>> most all skate free. The law isn't supposed to work that way.

    >>
    >> I frankly don't know at this point. Of course legal
    >> enforcement is selective anyway; there's no way it
    >> can't be. The cops are a busy bunch but aren't omniscient.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> When that happens, the Supreme Court is supposed to step in
    >>>>> and put things right if the District Courts fail to do so.
    >>>>
    >>>> Only if someone appeals who is directly affected by the judgements,
    >>>> and only after all other venues have been exhausted. The logical
    >>>> first step would be some sort of a countersuit against the RIAA.
    >>>> I'd have to look.
    >>>>
    >>> You'd apparently have to do a lot more than that.

    >>
    >> I can't do a thing; I'm not directly affected. I'd have to find the
    >> Supreme Court case that restricts me, admittedly, but it made the news
    >> some years back.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>>> I think that people need to
    >>>>> bitch a lot louder about this and maybe the government will take some
    >>>>> notice.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> And why should the government get involved here?
    >>>> Which arm of the government? What should they do?
    >>>>
    >>> The United States Congress of course. Pass definitive amendments to the
    >>> US
    >>> Code regarding personal copying and statutory treatments. Similarly to
    >>> the
    >>> work done a couple of decades ago regarding Digital Audio Tape where the
    >>> law
    >>> specifically allows individuals to copy.

    >>
    >> Only non-copyrighted works. The copyrighted works are
    >> readily identifiable to all data reader units by using
    >> an inaudible subcarrier; the existence of this subcarrier
    >> causes the copier logic to malfunction, leading to a poor
    >> copy.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> Be specific. Include currently written law as applicable,
    >>>> since that is the standard which is presumably going to be
    >>>> changed by any Legislative action -- if any be warranted.
    >>>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    >> Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
    >> try our new color changing variant?
    >>
    >> --
    >> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    >>

    >



    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. Because vaporware only goes so far.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


+ Reply to Thread