Are You One of 23,000 Defendants in the US' Biggest Illegal Download Lawsuit?

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh


Last, if we do not own the music on the CD we just bought, how is it that we can sell the same CD, sometimes even for a profit?

Because if you sell the CD in it's entirety and keep no other copies for yourself, you are also transferring the license to the purchaser. Much the same way it works with software. You can buy MS Office suite. And you can re-sell MS Office suite with everything that came with it, providing you don't keep it installed or use the same physical copy of it.

So yet again the principle of private property is undermined by copyright corporate fascism.

When I buy a computer I buy everything on it - and can dispose of it / use it as I wish.

Sure the law says otherwise- but the law is an ass.

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes

But they do not own the right to tell me what to do with my own property, which is the CD i bought and the music on it.

Were I the band I would say you're right, just take my intellectual property off of it first.

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
Sure the law says they do have the right to tell me what to do with my own property which is the CD I bought - but the law is an ass and total BS.

Perhaps, but speculating about what should and what should not be law is bogus. Everyone knows that laws can be changed, certainly....but if the majority enact a law, unfortunately the citizen hierarchy tends to dictate what rules you have to follow. (I should say, what rules you should follow, often times it runs counter-intuitive to follow every rule to the letter).

I see we agree on the fundamentals that private property rights should allow us to do what we want with our own property.

The problem is that the corporations control our democracy - and hence big bucks get big support from the politicians.

You are right - things wont change until the corporate fascist system falls and the copyright laws changed to protect the right of private property.

Copyright law protects bands and others enough, without it having to undermine the principal of the right to own private property.

If you buy a CD and upload it - and gain no profit from that - then the band cannot assume they have had a loss of income as someone had downloaded it - as they cannot prove that the person who downloaded it ever intended to buy that CD in the first place.

The law cannot prove loss unless a loss has taken place - therefore to assume a loss is a legal fiction.

I collect limited edition albums by the Manic Street Preachers.

Therefore I buy those albums to collect them.

Most people buy albums to collect, store and add to their collections - not just to listen to the music, especially as the CD's are expensive.

If downloading hurts record companies, how come record company profits remain high and growing despite downloading ?

Thats the problem for the idiot greedy multi-multi-millionaire bands who complain about downloading - they are rich and getting richer every year.

In fact the problem with the music industry is not downloading, it is that the big bands like Metallica make so much money and have so much power and publicity, that smaller bands cannot get a chance to get signed.

So whilst the record companies chase after downloaders and spend money on taking them to court - they are not spending money on new bands, and are just happy to make billions from big bands whose back catalogue albums sales are shifting millions of copies every year.

The downloading threat is a corporate lie to hide the fact they just want to make money of big bands whilst not lookin for new bands to come through or spending money on bands / singers whose careers take years to develop into big record sales.

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes


If you buy a CD and upload it - and gain no profit from that - then the band cannot assume they have had a loss of income as someone had downloaded it - as they cannot prove that the person who downloaded it ever intended to buy that CD in the first place.

The law cannot prove loss unless a loss has taken place - therefore to assume a loss is a legal fiction.

Not necessarily, in business, a loss can also be defined as never having received income in the first place.

In this case, that you describe, if any of the recipients of that upload got the entire CD for free, where, otherwise they would have had an interest and would have made the investment, but because you uploaded it they no longer to make that investment, then certainly there is a loss. A loss of potential income.

What if you owned a restaurant and charged what you thought were fair if not below market prices for your food. Then someone opened up shop right in front of your front door and gave away your same menu and the food contained on it for free? You would suffer a loss of potential customers.

reply to post by alphabetaone


maybe in the conference room.

but not in court. in court you would have to prove all of those people made the different choice due to price.

and you have no way of doing that, without being all of those people. for all you they did it because they had cooler napkins.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by alphabetaone

 

maybe in the conference room.

but not in court.

That's not entirely true.

If in a courtroom, it can be proven that another company or individual intentionally caused you potential profit loss by way of copyright infringement, then certainly it is a loss. It happens all the time.

reply to post by alphabetaone


i was refering to your analogy. food is not copyrighted.

but since you mention it, i would love to hear how the courts prove that someone would have otherwise purchased a CD.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by alphabetaone

 

i was refering to your analogy. food is not copyrighted.

but since you mention it, i would love to hear how the courts prove that someone would have otherwise purchased a CD.

I said if they can prove.

And I made no mention of proving that someone would have otherwise purchased a CD. Proving that someone is intentionally causing a profit loss by way of duplicating their intellectual property and redistributing it illegally, is not even close to what you're suggesting, which is mind-reading.

It doesn't even matter if only 1 person would have EVER purchased the material. The fact would still remain that, if there is an avenue to obtain the product for free that was never agreed upon by the intellectual property holder, then it can easily be proven that there was potential profit loss if the free avenue is the first channel for obtaining it was the one arrived at.

reply to post by alphabetaone



you can make a case for potential profit-loss all day long and its still MEANINGLESS.

ANYTHING can be viewed as potential.

and furthermore, one cannot steal something that potentially exists. which was why i said in my first post that because of this distinction, you must come up with a new word other than "stealing". it can still be illegal and even on par with theft if you like, but theft is an occurrence, not an imaginative theory.

heres an example of why this distinction might matter in the real world. Perhaps a kid gets in legal troubles for downloading a CD that he would have otherwise not ever even dreamed of being able to afford, and is convicted of theft. He then applies for a job in which the potential employer (who is reviewing the application) becomes concerned of the theft conviction. If we use this thread as a representation of popular opinion, odds are in the kids favor that the employer would share the same feelings about the distinction between taking something from somebody, and duplicating your own. put into this context, the employer may not deem a duplicator as a viable threat to the jobs position, where as a thief might cause the store actual inventory losses.

reply to post by RelentlessLurker


Exactly.

To assert you have potentially lost something is nonsense.

To use the example of sex - you are either pregnant or you aint.

You either made a loss or you didnt.

There is nothing 'potential' about it.

You are not 'potentially pregnant' - you either are or you arent.

If a loss is proved fair enough - but taking action and claiming money from people on the basis of a potential loss is fraud and theft.

Unless they can prove that ;

1) The person uploading it made a profit

2) The person downloading it intended to buy that CD and by downloading it did not then buy that CD and they signed an affadvit to confirm that they would have bought that CD but did not do so due to them downloading a copy of that CD instead

Then to assert a loss in the absence of those specific circumstances, to take legal action, to force someone to pay legal fees to fight that case and pay a fine is theft and fraud.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by alphabetaone

 

you can make a case for potential profit-loss all day long and its still MEANINGLESS.

If it were meaningless, there would be no battle right now, and there would be no issue. And everyone would be up/downloading with impunity.

However, this is not the case and for good reason. What are you fighting exactly, the law, or me?

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes


1) The person uploading it made a profit

2) The person downloading it intended to buy that CD and by downloading it did not then buy that CD and they signed an affadvit to confirm that they would have bought that CD but did not do so due to them downloading a copy of that CD instead

Then to assert a loss in the absence of those specific circumstances, to take legal action, to force someone to pay legal fees to fight that case and pay a fine is theft and fraud.

I'm sorry, you're going to have to excuse my attack on your character, but you're not precisely the type of person (from the way that you communicate in the outside world anyway) that I would exactly take any type of legal advice from in any serious way.

1) You do not have to prove a person made a profit to prove they committed a crime.

2) That person downloading also did not have to be intent on making a purchase for anything at ALL, to also commit a crime or have intention of doing so. In your example, you assume that someone who is going to do something LEGALLY would need an affidavit as well as when they commit a crime they also need one.

This is ridiculous. Right now, the law says, you cannot redistribute (ie., for the less language intensive, share) someone elses intellectual property without their acknowledgment or approval. Period. If you do, you've committed a crime. Period. Whether you like it, or not it IS the law. Is there anything else you are unclear about?

" I'm sorry, you're going to have to excuse my attack on your character, but you're not precisely the type of person (from the way that you communicate in the outside world anyway) that I would exactly take any type of legal advice from in any serious way.

1) You do not have to prove a person made a profit to prove they committed a crime.

2) That person downloading also did not have to be intent on making a purchase for anything at ALL, to also commit a crime or have intention of doing so. In your example, you assume that someone who is going to do something LEGALLY would need an affidavit as well as when they commit a crime they also need one.

This is ridiculous. Right now, the law says, you cannot redistribute (ie., for the less language intensive, share) someone elses intellectual property without their acknowledgment or approval. Period. If you do, you've committed a crime. Period. Whether you like it, or not it IS the law. Is there anything else you are unclear about? "


1) You dont know my character, so spare me that crap.

2) You dont know enough to judge me on anything - and just to let you know I have an Honours Degree in Law LLB (Hons) - though I did not study copyright law ( EPIC YAWN ) and speclaised in human rights law instead.

3) Look up the definition of Theft - it requires ' the appropriation of property' and so does Fraud - and therefore to assert property has been stolen / lost one must prove that loss, not just assert something has been downloaded. The fact is that the entire file may not have downloaded, the file may be corrupted, the file may have been deleted before going on the computer, the IP may hve been hijacked etc etc - so having a list of IP'S IS MEANINGLESS - and thats why the ONLY cases to be won have been people admitting they downloaded the file and obtained property and hence caused a loss.

3) You do not have to prove a loss to commit a crime eg attempted fraud or theft - but downloading is not an attempted theft and nor are people prosecuted for attempted theft which is a criminal case not a civil case - these are downloading civil cases based on people admitting they downloaded a file and thereby incurred someone else a loss. More fool them for admitting that they did download, did have a full file on their computer that worked of that music / movie and that they did cause a loss.

4) The ONLY downloads cases that have been won have been based on admmissions.that they downloaded the file, that a full and working file was transffrered to their computers and hence a loss was generated. Intention is directly relevant to liability and proving the offense. Its called Men Rea and unless Mens rea can be proved eg an intent to commit a loss as well as Actus Rea and an actual loss - then no offense is committed.

5) As for the law - unless you admit that you downloaded the file, that you obtained a working copy of the file, that you and not someone else downloaded the file on your computer without your permission, that you made use of the file and in effect you admit the offence and thereby craeted a loss ( Mens Rea and Actus Rea and associated loss ) - then the case is unproven.

Anything lse you want to know ?

.

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes

1) You dont know my character, so spare me that crap.

Agreed, which I said you'd have to excuse me for it.

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
2) You dont know enough to judge me on anything - and just to let you know I have an Honours Degree in Law LLB (Hons) - though I did not study copyright law ( EPIC YAWN ) and speclaised in human rights law instead.

I wasn't judging you, I was professing what I wouldn't do based upon my initial impression.

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
3) Look up the definition of Theft - it requires ' the appropriation of property' and so does Fraud -

I have many times in my life, but perhaps you instead should look up the legal definition of property.

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
3) You do not have to prove a loss to commit a crime eg attempted fraud or theft - but downloading is not an attempted theft

First off, I know you do not have to prove a loss to commit a crime, this was my point. Secondly, I made no mention of downloading being the crime but redistributing intellectual property (you know the word you should look up, property). Lastly, I think it's good you went into law and not mathematics or specifically integer mathematics.

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
4) The ONLY downloads cases that have been won have been based on admmissions.that they downloaded the file, that a full and working file was transffrered to their computers and hence a loss was generated. Intention is directly relevant to liability and proving the offense. Its called Men Rea and unless Mens rea can be proved eg an intent to commit a loss as well as Actus Rea and an actual loss - then no offense is committed.

Again, see the redistribution aspect. I would say I'm somewhat familiar with the rest, however, anyone who is SHARING (ie redistributing) has already committed a crime by way of copyright violation, there is no need to pursue charges for profit loss unless they are seeking remuneration, then prorate the applicable charges to the number of successful downloads.

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes

Anything lse you want to know ?

Yes. Why would a human rights law "professional" fight so vehemently against preserving the code of law with respect to illegal redistribution of copyrighted material? Isn't that an offense against a human right?

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
If you buy a CD and upload it - and gain no profit from that - then the band cannot assume they have had a loss of income as someone had downloaded it - as they cannot prove that the person who downloaded it ever intended to buy that CD in the first place.

The law cannot prove loss unless a loss has taken place - therefore to assume a loss is a legal fiction.

Of course they don't intend to buy it, that's the point of stealing it in the first place.

The band doesn't have to prove anything about the intent of the person stealing from them. You got use out of something that you didn't pay for. Just like the amusement park analogy from earlier... you jump a fence, bypassing the normal way most people pay to get in (downloading) then ride all the rides you want for as long as you want (listening/watching/using the software) and maybe after that you decide it just wasn't fun enough, so you shouldn't have to pay. Or maybe you did have fun, but the fun was over, so why pay? You already got your enjoyment, and you know you can keep doing it at anytime you want. Or, maybe you decide it was so great you should pay at some point in the future.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The person who does the work gets to decide how to operate their business, NOT YOU! If you don't like it, then go do something else, but you do not have the right to pay as you please.

More silly justifications is what this is and It's not working. You can twist it all you want, but it's still stealing, and it's wrong.

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes

But they do not own the right to tell me what to do with my own property, which is the CD i bought and the music on it.

(emphasis mine)

You apparently have no idea of what intellectual property is. You never own the music. Own a song = copyright. When you buy a cd that single copy of an album doesn't get separated into different property from the rest of them. It's ownership will always be at the hands of the copyright holder.

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes

1) You dont know my character, so spare me that crap.

Agreed, which I said you'd have to excuse me for it.


No problem.

Peace.

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
2) You dont know enough to judge me on anything - and just to let you know I have an Honours Degree in Law LLB (Hons) - though I did not study copyright law ( EPIC YAWN ) and speclaised in human rights law instead.

I wasn't judging you, I was professing what I wouldn't do based upon my initial impression.

No problems.

Peace.

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
3) Look up the definition of Theft - it requires ' the appropriation of property' and so does Fraud -

I have many times in my life, but perhaps you instead should look up the legal definition of property.

Thats irrelevant to liability in a downloading case.

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
3) You do not have to prove a loss to commit a crime eg attempted fraud or theft - but downloading is not an attempted theft

First off, I know you do not have to prove a loss to commit a crime, this was my point. Secondly, I made no mention of downloading being the crime but redistributing intellectual property (you know the word you should look up, property). Lastly, I think it's good you went into law and not mathematics or specifically integer mathematics.

Maths - no way, I suffer from a form of math dyslexia.

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
4) The ONLY downloads cases that have been won have been based on admmissions.that they downloaded the file, that a full and working file was transffrered to their computers and hence a loss was generated. Intention is directly relevant to liability and proving the offense. Its called Men Rea and unless Mens rea can be proved eg an intent to commit a loss as well as Actus Rea and an actual loss - then no offense is committed.

Again, see the redistribution aspect. I would say I'm somewhat familiar with the rest, however, anyone who is SHARING (ie redistributing) has already committed a crime by way of copyright violation, there is no need to pursue charges for profit loss unless they are seeking remuneration, then prorate the applicable charges to the number of successful downloads.

But we get back to the issue of proof of a copyright violation - in order to prove a copyright violation there must be proof that a copyrighted item exists. Uploading is different from downloading as you rightly say, as a copyrighted work put online for downloading is in breach of copyright - but to assert a downloaded file has been in breach of copyright requires an admission that the file has been downloaded in totality.

Nor can it be said that peer to peer sharing equates to a copyright breach, as it is not a full piece of work being shared by the online peer network - in order for a copyright breach to occur then a full copy must be uploaded and shared by the uploader. Only the uploader is liable if they can be proved to have uploaded the file - the downloaders are not liable unless they admit downloading the entire file and sharing then entire file.

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes

Anything lse you want to know ?

Yes. Why would a human rights law "professional" fight so vehemently against preserving the code of law with respect to illegal redistribution of copyrighted material? Isn't that an offense against a human right?

Because I fear the growth of the corporate fascist state and its erosion of fundamental principles such as the right to private property.

The fact is the people who produce movies / music have enough protection under existing copyright law without seeking to dominate the internet, turn it into a monitored environment and profit from threatening people with legal action who do not know their rights nor have the money to hire lawyers to fight the cases for them.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes

But they do not own the right to tell me what to do with my own property, which is the CD i bought and the music on it.

(emphasis mine)

You apparently have no idea of what intellectual property is. You never own the music. Own a song = copyright. When you buy a cd that single copy of an album doesn't get separated into different property from the rest of them. It's ownership will always be at the hands of the copyright holder.

I know what it is and what the law says - I just disagree with it.