From CBC article:
Canada: The real land of the free.
Up yours, CRIA!
Canada: The real land of the free.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
it doesn't seem to mean a whole lot. Essentially, it said that having files open to a p2p is legal. what it didn't address, and what rmaa is going after, is that if it is legal to download those copy-righted materials.
I am kind of sympathetic to the argument that merely present on a p2p isn't illegal: for the same reason that a person left a copyrighted book on the sidewalks of Manhattan, availing it to grabs by others, isn't illegal.
but there are some foundamental differences between the two examples so it is hard to argue one way or the other.
I am kind of sympathetic to the argument that merely present on a p2p isn't illegal: for the same reason that a person left a copyrighted book on the sidewalks of Manhattan, availing it to grabs by others, isn't illegal.
but there are some foundamental differences between the two examples so it is hard to argue one way or the other.
Actually, from what I have read so far about the actions of the RIAA, they are not really interested much ingoing after the people who are actually doing the downloading. They are actually interested in the people who put their songs in the "shared folder" and then are connected up to one of the file sharing networks.
Since the file sharing networks tell you-or used to tell you-that the whole purpose of the folder was to allow access of others to the file, I guess the RIAA figured that was an admission of intent, or something. Apparently the Canadian court did not agree.
I have heard very little about going after people just for downloading-only about those who put the song in the folder for others to download.
From The Source- a "news, art, entertainment and opinion weekly":
"To find the “thieves and pirates,” the RIAA uses a number of different methods. One is software that scans hard drives for specific music files such as the Eagles’ “Hotel California” and “Complicated” by Avril Lavigne. Once the software finds someone sharing those files, that person becomes a possible target.
Some files the RIAA looks for even have digital fingerprints secretly encoded into them as a tracking device created when the trade association went after Napster in 2000. The digital fingerprints mean the file was almost certainly downloaded off the Internet.
The RIAA also uses features within *****, ********, and some of the other software programs that allow users to view a list of all the files another user is sharing. Once the RIAA’s sleuths have found a computer sharing music files, the RIAA software records the Internet address associated with the computer."
http://www.tsweekly.com/archive/1_7_39.html
Of course, this decision applies only to Canada, and music sharers in other nations are just as open to lawsuits as they ever were.
Since the file sharing networks tell you-or used to tell you-that the whole purpose of the folder was to allow access of others to the file, I guess the RIAA figured that was an admission of intent, or something. Apparently the Canadian court did not agree.
I have heard very little about going after people just for downloading-only about those who put the song in the folder for others to download.
From The Source- a "news, art, entertainment and opinion weekly":
"To find the “thieves and pirates,” the RIAA uses a number of different methods. One is software that scans hard drives for specific music files such as the Eagles’ “Hotel California” and “Complicated” by Avril Lavigne. Once the software finds someone sharing those files, that person becomes a possible target.
Some files the RIAA looks for even have digital fingerprints secretly encoded into them as a tracking device created when the trade association went after Napster in 2000. The digital fingerprints mean the file was almost certainly downloaded off the Internet.
The RIAA also uses features within *****, ********, and some of the other software programs that allow users to view a list of all the files another user is sharing. Once the RIAA’s sleuths have found a computer sharing music files, the RIAA software records the Internet address associated with the computer."
http://www.tsweekly.com/archive/1_7_39.html
Of course, this decision applies only to Canada, and music sharers in other nations are just as open to lawsuits as they ever were.
Prune said:
Prune:
The thread deals with the courts and file sharing. This is a matter of concern in quite a few countries, as any reader of the news is aware.
My post was in answer to Millwood, who I feel made an error in saying that the RIAA, (which he misspelled RMAA), is going after downloaders. Stopping downloading might be the ultimate goal, but from what I have read, the method they seem to be using is to go after the people who offer the files on file sharing networks for downloading by others.
Millwood had every right to relate the Canadian decision to the USA, because this is an international forum where there are several threads where the policies and court decisions of one nation are commented on by the citizens of other nations. Just as someone from Europe would have every right to enter this thread and post about the decisions of the EU courts on this matter.
Therefore, much as you would try to maintain that comment in this thread is limited to the effect on Canada, it doesn't work that way on this forum.
Moreover, there is a trend where courts of one nation are citing courts of other nations in their decisions. Someone from Australia once pointed out to me a decision in an Australian court that cited a decision by the US Supreme Court, and last year the US Supreme Court, for the first time, cited a decision from other nations' courts in one of it's opinions. Legally, and in so many other ways, it is getting to be a small world out there.
If you had read the last sentence of my original post, you would have realized that I was quite aware that the decision applies only to Canada.
US Justice Dep't Seizes 200 Computers In International Warez Site Sweep
The US Justice Deptartment has confiscated over 200 computers from around the world in an effort to stop online piracy.
The goal is to smash the warez sites, from which file sharing networks draw much of their material:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/22/technology/tech_piracy.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
The US Justice Deptartment has confiscated over 200 computers from around the world in an effort to stop online piracy.
The goal is to smash the warez sites, from which file sharing networks draw much of their material:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/22/technology/tech_piracy.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
Alas, it wasn't meant to last:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...290&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705899037
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...290&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705899037
The monopoly of the liberals have made them liberal in name only. The liberal BC premier Campbell behaves strikingly similar to the way the conservative Mike Harris did during his reign of terror in Ontario. The liberals will still win next election, but there's a chance they won't make a majority government. The only regret I'll have voting conservative (I voted for Cretin (misspelling on purpose) last time) is that Harper is the pary leader instead of MacKay.
Thank goodness for allofmp3.com. Legal, pay but cheap since in Russia, encodes on the fly to any bitrate, and even offers lossless compression.
Thank goodness for allofmp3.com. Legal, pay but cheap since in Russia, encodes on the fly to any bitrate, and even offers lossless compression.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.