Recent discussions here questioned whether downloading was a "felony"
and deserved a jail term. Well, at the moment it's only a bill in the
House of Representatives, but it's been proposed (by someone other
than me).

Under the proposed bill, anyone who knowingly makes 1,000 or more
copyrighted works available on a file-sharing network would be guilty
of a criminal copyright infringement.

Read the story at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar31.html

Canada, however, today said that it was not a copyright infringement.
So if you want to give away someone else's music, do it in Canada, at
least virtually. (now that'll have the lawyers in a knot for a while)

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080842126k@trad...

Recent discussions here questioned whether downloading was a "felony"
and deserved a jail term. Well, at the moment it's only a bill in the
House of Representatives, but it's been proposed (by someone other
than me).


Why is the government (and by extension, we the taxpayers) footing the bill
for educating the public and prosecuting the offenders? Shouldn't that be
the plaintiff's job?

In Canada we pay an outragous levy of 21 cents per CD so it's no wonder why
it's not a crime to file share here.The record companies can't have their
cake and eat it too.I have to pay 21 cents per CD to record my own
music.....this is not right.

There is a levy on all storage media here in Canada.You can't have the
record companies double dipping.....after all they aren't the government ;-)

I am not in favour of file sharing but the record industry have done this to
themselves here in Canada.This just means that independent labels are
probably going to do better than the high overhead big guys in the long
run.....and that may not be a bad thing.




Mike Rivers wrote in message
news:znr1080842126k@trad...

Recent discussions here questioned whether downloading was a "felony"
and deserved a jail term. Well, at the moment it's only a bill in the
House of Representatives, but it's been proposed (by someone other
than me).

Under the proposed bill, anyone who knowingly makes 1,000 or more
copyrighted works available on a file-sharing network would be guilty
of a criminal copyright infringement.

Read the story at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar31.html

Canada, however, today said that it was not a copyright infringement.
So if you want to give away someone else's music, do it in Canada, at
least virtually. (now that'll have the lawyers in a knot for a while)

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080842126k@trad...

Under the proposed bill, anyone who knowingly makes 1,000 or more
copyrighted works available on a file-sharing network would be guilty
of a criminal copyright infringement.

That would be *uploading* 1000 songs, not downloading them.

Ridiculous. What's next, a 3 year sentence for jaywalking?

ryanm

No, that would have to be 500 jaywalking's for each year..... 1500 total
would be required.
Max

"ryanm" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080842126k@trad...

Under the proposed bill, anyone who knowingly makes 1,000 or more
copyrighted works available on a file-sharing network would be guilty
of a criminal copyright infringement.

That would be *uploading* 1000 songs, not downloading them.

Ridiculous. What's next, a 3 year sentence for jaywalking?

ryanm

ryanm wrote:

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080842126k@trad...

Under the proposed bill, anyone who knowingly makes 1,000 or more
copyrighted works available on a file-sharing network would be guilty
of a criminal copyright infringement.


That would be *uploading* 1000 songs, not downloading them.

Ridiculous. What's next, a 3 year sentence for jaywalking?


It'll certainly put paid your silly argument that it isn't
stealing under the law. The law just hadn't caught up yet.

About damn time.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

In article writes:

That would be *uploading* 1000 songs, not downloading them.

Well, you're the expert. It's my understanding that with a P2P
network, you don't need to "upload" anything. You only need to have
the files in a suitably designated shared directory on your computer's
disk drive. You wouldn't be so selfish as to download 1000 songs and
not put them in a place where others could share your good fortune,
would you?

Ridiculous. What's next, a 3 year sentence for jaywalking?

That works for me. It might cut down on some pedestrian-caused
gridlock that we see on busy streets in town, particularly during rush
hour.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Bob Cain writes:
That would be *uploading* 1000 songs, not downloading them.
Ridiculous. What's next, a 3 year sentence for jaywalking?

It'll certainly put paid your silly argument that it isn't stealing
under the law. The law just hadn't caught up yet.

That's nonsense. The sentence for murder is even worse, but murder
isn't stealing either.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080912806k@trad...

Well, you're the expert. It's my understanding that with a P2P
network, you don't need to "upload" anything. You only need to have
the files in a suitably designated shared directory on your computer's
disk drive. You wouldn't be so selfish as to download 1000 songs and
not put them in a place where others could share your good fortune,
would you?

Hell no, and use up my bandwidth? No, if I were to download songs, I
certainly would not make them available for others to download, I would be a
double-leech. ; )

Incidentally, this has made me start to wonder about the specific
language of that bill. I'm wondering if it has to be 1000 different titles,
or if 1000 people downloading a single song from you counts? Because if the
latter is the case, someone could download a single song, allow it to be
shared, and if it's a popular enough song, 1000 people could connect and try
to download it in under 24 hours, putting you over the limit for downloading
a single song. I'm starting to get the feeling that this is yet another
piece of legislation that wasn't very well thought out. Do you know the name
of the bill or some of the words used in the title so that I can look it up?

That works for me. It might cut down on some pedestrian-caused
gridlock that we see on busy streets in town, particularly during rush
hour.

So you're good with a 3 year sentence for jaywalking? That was a joke. I
hope I never live in your country.

ryanm

In article writes:

Incidentally, this has made me start to wonder about the specific
language of that bill. I'm wondering if it has to be 1000 different titles,

I suspect that's it, rather than having 1000 downloads of a single
song. Having a lot of titles on your machine would pin you as a "major
participant" and therefor more worth making an example of than someone
with just one song. It's not really a greater crime, but it somehow
seems more significant to the masses.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"S O'Neill" wrote in message
...
If I use O2, am I a user? I was planning to use it.

You won't use all of it, though, and it's air I could be breathing. Now
I have to take you to court for stealing my oxygen...

ryanm

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080938685k@trad...

I suspect that's it, rather than having 1000 downloads of a single
song. Having a lot of titles on your machine would pin you as a "major
participant" and therefor more worth making an example of than someone
with just one song. It's not really a greater crime, but it somehow
seems more significant to the masses.

This is what bothers me. We're not supposed to be passing laws to change
perception, we're supposed to be passing laws for valid, legal reasons.
Making exceptions to that rule make a point is worse than the initial
offense.

ryanm

In article writes:

This is what bothers me.

Everything about this affair bothers you. Move to China where they
don't give a damn about intellectual property rights. Then you won't
live in "my" country.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080957330k@trad...

Everything about this affair bothers you. Move to China where they
don't give a damn about intellectual property rights. Then you won't
live in "my" country.

You're right, everything about this affair does bother me. The
government is overstepping it's mandate, corporate interests are
overstepping their rights, and the people are getting the short end of the
deal. That always bothers me, whether we're talking about fundamental rights
or just the public interest in maintaining a public domain.

ryanm

"ryanm" wrote in message ...
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080957330k@trad...

Everything about this affair bothers you. Move to China where they
don't give a damn about intellectual property rights. Then you won't
live in "my" country.

You're right, everything about this affair does bother me. The
government is overstepping it's mandate,

Just like your buddies, the illegal downloaders

corporate interests are
overstepping their rights,

Just like your buddies, the illegal downloaders

and the people

musicians

are getting the short end of the
deal.

That always bothers me,

except for when it interferes with your 'right' to illegally download

whether we're talking about fundamental rights

like the right of artists to control distribution of their work?

I'm just trying to help you see which side you're on.

Mikey
Nova Music Productions

"ryanm" wrote in message ...
You're right, everything about this affair does bother me. The
government is overstepping it's mandate, corporate interests are
overstepping their rights, and the people are getting the short end of the
deal. That always bothers me, whether we're talking about fundamental rights
or just the public interest in maintaining a public domain.

ryanm

On the bright side, turning something that is tried in a civil court
to something tried in a criminal court, makes the burden of proof
essential to win.

In the city of Los Angeles, last fall a couple of guys in a small
airplane flew over the city with a device that detected tens of
thousands of unsecured wi-fi
connections in use, anyone, anywhere in the city of Los Angeles or
anywhere else, with an wi-fi enabled portable laptop could easily use
someone elses ip address as an access point to download from a P2P
without it going through the victims computer, and without the victim
having access to infringing files or the P2P software, and without the
victim ever knowing.

At least in a criminal case this kind of victim has a better chance of
having justice remedied by an educated jury, than having thier savings
wiped out in a quickie settlement. Just an IP address, and file names,
is not enough proof to get through any trial, civil or not. The burden
of proof is much higher.
Andrea

"Andrea" wrote in message
om...

educated jury

When is the last time we saw one of those?

ryanm

"Mikey" wrote in message
om...

Just like your buddies, the illegal downloaders

They have no constitutional mandate, other than to be free.

I'm just trying to help you see which side you're on.

You're just parroting, showing your ignorance. Try reading, it helps.

A good place to start:
http://cyberlaw-temp.stanford.edu/freeculture.pdf

ryanm

"ryanm" wrote in message ...
"Mikey" wrote in message
om...

Just like your buddies, the illegal downloaders

They have no constitutional mandate, other than to be free.

You are implying that they are above the law. Freedom, of course, is
the right to self-determination. Where is the self-determination when
someone distributes someone else's art without permission and against
the artisits's will? Once again, you show you just don't care about
the rights of the artist. That is why you are on the wrong side - with
your '**** the artist' attitude, I'm sure you'll get a call soon from
a major label to work for them. Have a cigar, boy, you're gonna go
far.

I'm just trying to help you see which side you're on.

You're just parroting, showing your ignorance. Try reading, it helps.

A good place to start:
http://cyberlaw-temp.stanford.edu/freeculture.pdf

ryanm

I previously mentioned that you should read Robert Heinlein. (So who
is parroting whom?) Especially read the part where he says "There is
no such thing as a free lunch."

Mikey
Nova Music Productions

(Mikey) writes:
I previously mentioned that you should read Robert Heinlein. (So who
is parroting whom?) Especially read the part where he says "There is
no such thing as a free lunch."

Why are you saying CD companies deserve a free lunch then? Most of
us, if we want to get paid this week, have to do some work this week,
not keep collecting on work that we did years ago. Or work that
grandpa did before we were even born. Talk about a free lunch.

"Mikey" wrote in message
om...

You are implying that they are above the law.

Who is they? I'm talking about labels, not downloaders. It has already
been established that downloading has not hurt the industry one iota, let
alone any "poor, starving artists". My argument is *for* the artists, not
against them. I don't pretend that illegal downloading is right or
acceptable. I have different reasons, which you might understand if you
could be bothered to educate yourself.

I previously mentioned that you should read Robert Heinlein. (So who
is parroting whom?) Especially read the part where he says "There is
no such thing as a free lunch."

I like the part where I said you should try reading something on the
subject and you, rather than actually reading it, just turn around and play
silly games. Educate yourself or don't get offended when people call you
ignorant.

ryanm

"ryanm" wrote in message ...
"Andrea" wrote in message
om...

educated jury

When is the last time we saw one of those?

ryanm

It would be more than easy for anyone on a jury to have enough
reasonable doubt to be unable to convict someone. One is all it takes.
Andrea

Paul Rubin wrote:

Why are you saying CD companies deserve a free lunch then? Most of
us, if we want to get paid this week, have to do some work this week,
not keep collecting on work that we did years ago. Or work that
grandpa did before we were even born.

Have you confused IPR with manufacturing? Do you disavow any right to
inheritance? Nobody's offspring should earn from their forebearer's
work?

--
ha

In article ,
hank alrich wrote:

Nobody's offspring should earn from their forebearer's
work?

To a large extent, we purposely limit that. Otherwise we run the risk
of becoming an aristocracy.

(Andrea) wrote in message . com...
"ryanm" wrote in message ...
"Andrea" wrote in message
om...

educated jury

When is the last time we saw one of those?

ryanm

It would be more than easy for anyone on a jury to have enough
reasonable doubt to be unable to convict someone. One is all it takes.
Andrea



Also look up the right of "jury nullification"

The jury has the right to acquit if it feels the LAW itself is unjust.

Mark

In article ,
Mark wrote:

Also look up the right of "jury nullification"

The jury has the right to acquit if it feels the LAW itself is unjust.

Not nearly as absolute as people make it out to be.

Saying you're into this idea to a judge, is a good way to get excused
from jury duty (probably just not get picked for voir dire, but you
won't get to go home.)

The best way to do jury nullification is just to render the arbitrary
verdict. If you make it clear that it's a protest, you're just creating
grounds for a mistrial or a basis for an appeal.

In other words, it's far better to *use* the power than to talk about
how much power you have.

(james) wrote in message news:6ODcc.3$Y77.1@fed1read02...
In article ,
Mark wrote:

Also look up the right of "jury nullification"

The jury has the right to acquit if it feels the LAW itself is unjust.

Not nearly as absolute as people make it out to be.

Saying you're into this idea to a judge, is a good way to get excused
from jury duty (probably just not get picked for voir dire, but you
won't get to go home.)

The best way to do jury nullification is just to render the arbitrary
verdict. If you make it clear that it's a protest, you're just creating
grounds for a mistrial or a basis for an appeal.

In other words, it's far better to *use* the power than to talk about
how much power you have.

There is no case study, not even one civil suit that has gone to
trial.

None of the hundreds of people who are now being sued have ever been
to court, no-one has either won or lost in court, a few scant highly
publisised "settlements", there appears IMO to be a game being played
of having some people settle for the publicity, to deter any from
actually going to trial where there is a good chance that the people
who are doing the suing in a civil court will lose anyways, and they
know it. The more this game drags on, the more people they add to
thier suits increases the chances that some of them will call thier
bluff and refuse to settle, game over.
A weak hand being played by weak players. Pull up an armchair and pop
some popcorn, if there isn't a real court case, then I guess there is
nothing of substance to speculate.
Andrea