- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
URGENT! You, your relatives, and friends are in grave danger!
|
|
Comments (93)
73 earlier comments in the full thread.
> Judge's don't make instructions out of whole cloth.
Well, most don't, though I've heard of some instructions that definitely sound like they were. That still doesn't make any individual instruction correct.
And I would (and just did) argue that his instruction is not correct. I would also argue that if it is correct under current law, then current law is wrong and needs to be modified.
Perhaps more importantly, if I were a juror, I would refuse to convict on that basis. Of course, that would undoubtedly come out in jury selection questioning, and I'd never get on the jury. Not that it would have mattered in this case, as downloading is not the crime she was convicted for. As with all RIAA cases that I know of to date, she was convicted for sharing files, not downloading them.
Well, most don't, though I've heard of some instructions that definitely sound like they were. That still doesn't make any individual instruction correct.
And I would (and just did) argue that his instruction is not correct. I would also argue that if it is correct under current law, then current law is wrong and needs to be modified.
Perhaps more importantly, if I were a juror, I would refuse to convict on that basis. Of course, that would undoubtedly come out in jury selection questioning, and I'd never get on the jury. Not that it would have mattered in this case, as downloading is not the crime she was convicted for. As with all RIAA cases that I know of to date, she was convicted for sharing files, not downloading them.
>And I would (and just did) argue that his instruction is not correct.
It is absolutely correct.
>I would also argue that if it is correct under current law, then current law is wrong and needs to be modified.
Not merely under current law, but under any law in effect since the founding of the United States.
Like it or not, downloading a file requires that you make a copy of it. It's one thing to stake a position, it's another to ignore reality. If facts don't matter to your argument, then your argument doesn't matter either.
It is absolutely correct.
>I would also argue that if it is correct under current law, then current law is wrong and needs to be modified.
Not merely under current law, but under any law in effect since the founding of the United States.
Like it or not, downloading a file requires that you make a copy of it. It's one thing to stake a position, it's another to ignore reality. If facts don't matter to your argument, then your argument doesn't matter either.
> It is absolutely correct.
We'll just have to disagree.
> Like it or not, downloading a file requires that you make a copy of it.
Yes, it does. But that is not illegal. If it was, you couldn't download a file from using ITunes either. When you use ITunes, you're still making a copy.
Downloading a file is only illegal if the person you download the file from doesn't have the rights to give the copy to you. And in that case, you're not the one who broke the law, they are. What you did was receive stolen property, which (if you did so knowingly) may be a crime, but it's not copyright infringement.
And, I repeat, if the RIAA agreed with your position, they'd be suing a lot more people than they are.
I would also add that if you already have the rights to said file, it's legal to download it even if they don't have the rights to give it to you.
We'll just have to disagree.
> Like it or not, downloading a file requires that you make a copy of it.
Yes, it does. But that is not illegal. If it was, you couldn't download a file from using ITunes either. When you use ITunes, you're still making a copy.
Downloading a file is only illegal if the person you download the file from doesn't have the rights to give the copy to you. And in that case, you're not the one who broke the law, they are. What you did was receive stolen property, which (if you did so knowingly) may be a crime, but it's not copyright infringement.
And, I repeat, if the RIAA agreed with your position, they'd be suing a lot more people than they are.
I would also add that if you already have the rights to said file, it's legal to download it even if they don't have the rights to give it to you.
>Downloading a file is only illegal if the person you download the file from doesn't have the rights to give the copy to you.
That is, more or less, what the Court's instructions say. Why you have a problem with it is beyond me.
> And in that case, you're not the one who broke the law, they are.
Ummm...No. You both are. Making an illegal copy from an illegal copy is still, ummm, illegal.
Ever hear of Napster?
>Yes, it does. But that is not illegal. If it was, you couldn't download a file from using ITunes either. When you use ITunes, you're still making a copy.
And your point is what, exactly? Nobody argues that copying unprotected work is illegal. This issue is all about copying copyrighted work without the copyright holder's permission.
>We'll just have to disagree.
At this point, I'm curious about just what it is we disagree on. Your explanations agree with mine. The only difference is whether or not you break the law by breaking the law, ie, copying somebody's copyrighted work without their permission.
I say that you do break the law by breaking the law. You say that you don't break the law by breaking the law.
Frankly, I think my position has more going for it.
That is, more or less, what the Court's instructions say. Why you have a problem with it is beyond me.
> And in that case, you're not the one who broke the law, they are.
Ummm...No. You both are. Making an illegal copy from an illegal copy is still, ummm, illegal.
Ever hear of Napster?
>Yes, it does. But that is not illegal. If it was, you couldn't download a file from using ITunes either. When you use ITunes, you're still making a copy.
And your point is what, exactly? Nobody argues that copying unprotected work is illegal. This issue is all about copying copyrighted work without the copyright holder's permission.
>We'll just have to disagree.
At this point, I'm curious about just what it is we disagree on. Your explanations agree with mine. The only difference is whether or not you break the law by breaking the law, ie, copying somebody's copyrighted work without their permission.
I say that you do break the law by breaking the law. You say that you don't break the law by breaking the law.
Frankly, I think my position has more going for it.
> Ever hear of Napster?
Napster never copied files. They were an indexing service. That's a completely different matter.
> I say that you do break the law by breaking the law.
You say you're committing copyright infringement. I say you're not. That's where we disagree. We disagree about what law is being broken, and by which person.
If someone else makes an illegal copy of a book, I can have it in my possession without having committed copyright infringement. The same is true of an mp3 file on my hard drive.
Napster never copied files. They were an indexing service. That's a completely different matter.
> I say that you do break the law by breaking the law.
You say you're committing copyright infringement. I say you're not. That's where we disagree. We disagree about what law is being broken, and by which person.
If someone else makes an illegal copy of a book, I can have it in my possession without having committed copyright infringement. The same is true of an mp3 file on my hard drive.
>The same is true of an mp3 file on my hard drive.
Umm...you might have a case if somebody else put that mp3 file on your hard drive. Chance are, however, you downloaded the file yourself or caused it to be downloaded.
Besides, you are getting a little too literal here. Copying without permission is merely one way to infringe a work. It carries increased weight in the computer software realm because you must make a copy in order to use software.
Umm...you might have a case if somebody else put that mp3 file on your hard drive. Chance are, however, you downloaded the file yourself or caused it to be downloaded.
Besides, you are getting a little too literal here. Copying without permission is merely one way to infringe a work. It carries increased weight in the computer software realm because you must make a copy in order to use software.
> Chance are, however, you downloaded the file yourself or caused it to be downloaded.
Chances are that "I" have (or had, some of my albums have gotten lost in moves over the years) a legal copy of the file on album or CD, giving me the theoretical right to have the file on my hard drive. That has little to do with the matter under discussion. :)
It is entirely possible, even likely, that you are correct in your interpretation. That doesn't mean I think it's right, that I have to agree with the law, or that I have to agree to enforce the it as a juror. I don't think the matter is at all settled however, and there will be lots more legal water under the bridge before it is. Even without reinterpretations of existing law, when a majority of the population doesn't see anything wrong with an activity, the law has a habit of changing.
> Copying without permission is merely one way to infringe a work.
But it's the manner under discussion here. Unless I missed something in the discussion.
Chances are that "I" have (or had, some of my albums have gotten lost in moves over the years) a legal copy of the file on album or CD, giving me the theoretical right to have the file on my hard drive. That has little to do with the matter under discussion. :)
It is entirely possible, even likely, that you are correct in your interpretation. That doesn't mean I think it's right, that I have to agree with the law, or that I have to agree to enforce the it as a juror. I don't think the matter is at all settled however, and there will be lots more legal water under the bridge before it is. Even without reinterpretations of existing law, when a majority of the population doesn't see anything wrong with an activity, the law has a habit of changing.
> Copying without permission is merely one way to infringe a work.
But it's the manner under discussion here. Unless I missed something in the discussion.
>Unless I missed something in the discussion.
You added a little to the mix:
> I can have it in my possession without having committed copyright infringement.
You added a little to the mix:
> I can have it in my possession without having committed copyright infringement.
> You added a little to the mix:
I don't see how. It's still an unauthorized copy we're talking about. How does that change the discussion? An unauthorized book or an unauthorized mp3 should be treated the same under the law.
I don't see how. It's still an unauthorized copy we're talking about. How does that change the discussion? An unauthorized book or an unauthorized mp3 should be treated the same under the law.
Sigh.
> Sigh.
Agreed. We're obviously talking right past each other. Let's drop the matter. I think we have the basics of each other's positions down.
Agreed. We're obviously talking right past each other. Let's drop the matter. I think we have the basics of each other's positions down.
Communication break down.
Fundamental disagreement as to what constitutes a crime.
Happens to me all the time.
Happens to me all the time.
Quoting:Fundamental disagreement as to what constitutes a crime.Hopefully, not with the authorities involved. ;)
Happens to me all the time.
> Communication break down.
Always the same. :)
Always the same. :)
> Hopefully, not with the authorities involved. ;)
I only recognize arbitrary authorities if they have guns. Otherwise, I ignore them.
I only recognize arbitrary authorities if they have guns. Otherwise, I ignore them.
> I only recognize arbitrary authorities if they have guns.
Don't they always?
Don't they always?
> Don't they always [have guns]?
Yep. Otherwise, everyone would ignore them.
Which reminds me, Pennsylvania went through a period when the arbitrary authority didn't have a bigger gun, and sure enough it was simply ignored.
http://www.mises.org/story/1865
http://www.mises.org/story/2014
Yep. Otherwise, everyone would ignore them.
Which reminds me, Pennsylvania went through a period when the arbitrary authority didn't have a bigger gun, and sure enough it was simply ignored.
http://www.mises.org/story/1865
http://www.mises.org/story/2014
If you look at my newest post which should be out tomorrow It gives instructions to avoid all these zomby problems all together. They should work.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
a. The judge's jury instruction was absolutely correct b. Judge's don't make instructions out of whole cloth. When it comes to the elements of an offense, they rely on what are called pattern jury instructions. The practice makes sure that the elements are described properly and helps to protect the judge from appeal. c. Attorneys on either side are free to object to the instructions. In fact, in a case like this, they are likely to have conferred with the judge in chambers prior to the instructions being read.