|
|
Posted by Technobarbarian on 10/23/05 23:21
LOL, you keep watching this stuff like there's going to be some sort
of magic bullet. If someone does find a real loophole the RIAA will buy a
fix very quickly.
"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
news:3s05j6Fl9q9oU1@individual.net...
> The aargument used in defense is that the files on the defendant's coputer
> could have been from their own CD collection, rather than downloads,
Someone has already tried this arguement. It didn't work because the
RIAA was able to show that the files were downloads and not personal rips.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2003-08-27-riaa-technique_x.htm
and that the RIAA's lackeys did not observe any of the files
> being transferred to anyone else.
This arguement isn't likely to work either. If you make up a bunch of
hard copies and offer them for sale they don't have to show that anyone
bought them to prove infringement. To prove the publication element of their
case all they have to do is show that you were "offering" to distribute the
work.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#pub
> pdf file here:
> http://www.p2pnet.net/stuff/loudreplymemo.pdf
What we have here is an attempt to protect the identity of a Jane Doe
defendent in a civil case. There is not, as someone here seems to think, a
prosecutor. The burden of proof is lower in a civil case than in a criminal
case. Annnnnd, when you get right down to it Jane Doe has already lost. Even
if she manages to beat this she's out the cost of a lawyer and time spent
dealing with it. The arguements are so thin that it looks like some lawyer
is going through the motions to get a fat fee. A small number of cases have
been defeated on procedural grounds, but the beat goes on.
TB
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|