Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › [DSLREPORTS]RIAA Joins MPAA In Thinking Proof Isn't Necessary
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[DSLREPORTS]RIAA Joins MPAA In Thinking Proof Isn't Necessary - Page 3

post #21 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daegameth View Post
Uh...no?

They browse p2p services and scan for common songs, download them, then sue. What they should be LEGALLY doing is, obtain permission from all artists under their tyranny...oops, I ment 'umbrella', to make their songs available on p2p services then nab IPs as they are download FROM the RIAA. There's your evidence.
I understand your logic in this respect, but wouldn't they, at the same time, be doing the exact same thing they are trying to prevent?? The distribution of the copyright information they are trying to counter? Sounds, at least to me, like using a thief to catch a thief, and isn't that illegal for evedence in court (Civil, or Criminal)??

And on top of that, I would see that action as being entrapment, to say the least. That's really no different than a police officer being out of sight, and tagging you. (AT least in PA they have to be visible at the time of the speed detection, or it's entrapment.)
My System VII
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II 555 BE Asus M4N72-E BFG GeForce 8600 GTS OC 2 Gig Corsair Dominator 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD Blue Caviar 320Gb SATA Lite-On DVD Writer (DVD/DL-DVD/CD Burner) Windows 7 Ultimate Acer 191W 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
MS Natural Pro 4000 BFG 800 Watt Thermaltake Sunami Dream Microsoft Sidewinder 
  hide details  
Reply
My System VII
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II 555 BE Asus M4N72-E BFG GeForce 8600 GTS OC 2 Gig Corsair Dominator 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD Blue Caviar 320Gb SATA Lite-On DVD Writer (DVD/DL-DVD/CD Burner) Windows 7 Ultimate Acer 191W 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
MS Natural Pro 4000 BFG 800 Watt Thermaltake Sunami Dream Microsoft Sidewinder 
  hide details  
Reply
post #22 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by XFreeRollerX View Post


Or a printer!!!
It's funny how it too me a few seconds to get that joke. Man, I really need to get more sleep.
 
Server
(3 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i7-3540M Intel HD Graphics 4000 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 1600 Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD 
OSMonitorMouseAudio
Windows 10 Pro x64 14" at 1600x900 Logitech Anywhere Mouse MX FiiO E17 USB DAC amp 
CPUOSCase
i3-540 Debian 8 (Jessie) Cooler Master Elite 341 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Server
(3 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i7-3540M Intel HD Graphics 4000 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 1600 Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD 
OSMonitorMouseAudio
Windows 10 Pro x64 14" at 1600x900 Logitech Anywhere Mouse MX FiiO E17 USB DAC amp 
CPUOSCase
i3-540 Debian 8 (Jessie) Cooler Master Elite 341 
  hide details  
Reply
post #23 of 31
Well good luck with that.
Edit System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
830x4 ASUS blah blah blah PRO/USB3 FiveEightFiveZer0 2x4 AMD entertainment edition memory lolwut 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Seagate Barracuda >:] WD Scorpio >:] idk lol 212 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
xx64en_client_en-us_Retail_Ultimate-_EN_DVD LED 23'' 1080P 5MS no dead pixels :D Goodwill 500w PCP+C 80+<3 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec 300 Was a G500 :*( Steel Series 
  hide details  
Reply
Edit System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
830x4 ASUS blah blah blah PRO/USB3 FiveEightFiveZer0 2x4 AMD entertainment edition memory lolwut 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Seagate Barracuda >:] WD Scorpio >:] idk lol 212 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
xx64en_client_en-us_Retail_Ultimate-_EN_DVD LED 23'' 1080P 5MS no dead pixels :D Goodwill 500w PCP+C 80+<3 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec 300 Was a G500 :*( Steel Series 
  hide details  
Reply
post #24 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Col. Newman View Post
On what grounds do you base this?
Recent pro-business/management rulings by the current Supreme Court.
post #25 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tator Tot View Post
I wonder, exactly what is the evidence they would have to show.

I mean wouldn't it take illegal means of access to most peoples computers for that information in the first place...?
My understanding, from other articles posted to this site, is that the RIAA and MPAA would like to be able to submit evidence of "shared file" folders, or other indications that a person is consenting to share files p2p. This would probably include (e.g.) checking the "Sure I'll share files!" box in Bearshare. They're basically trying to get evidence of intent (or consent) to share to be grounds for an infringement claim. According to my vague recollection of intellectual property law, it's generally enforced through civil (not criminal) actions, which require a showing of infringing conduct, not just intent. Criminal law, not civil law, punishes intent. If someone could help me out re: crimes of intent in civil intellectual property law, please feel free.

I'm not sure how they would get evidence of that sort of thing. As someone else noted, they usually offer their own downloads from sites and users at issue, as evidence of infringement. You generally need a search warrant to look at the contents of someone's computer, which requires a criminal complaint (as far as I know) and probable cause. Again, I don't see how these folks can get what they want under civil law. But their lawyers are certainly earning their retainers...
post #26 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daegameth View Post
Uh...no?

They browse p2p services and scan for common songs, download them, then sue. What they should be LEGALLY doing is, obtain permission from all artists under their tyranny...oops, I ment 'umbrella', to make their songs available on p2p services then nab IPs as they are download FROM the RIAA. There's your evidence.
Having the songs in your shared folder is not illegal, as has already been ruled. And, since the RIAA owns all the rights to the songs, no copyrights are being infringed if they do the actual downloading. Therefore, their current method has crumbled, hence why they are seeking to be able to sue with no proof!
Fermi
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 Asus Rampage II Gene BFG GTX280 OCX 12GB DDR3 1600 
OSPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Corsair VX550 
  hide details  
Reply
Fermi
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 Asus Rampage II Gene BFG GTX280 OCX 12GB DDR3 1600 
OSPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Corsair VX550 
  hide details  
Reply
post #27 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by 003 View Post
And, since the RIAA owns all the rights to the songs, no copyrights are being infringed if they do the actual downloading.
I'm pretty sure that they can still win in court with their own downloads, of their own intellectual property. The downloads (along with info about their source) constitute evidence of infringing conduct by the party who facilitated the improper acquisition of copyrighted material. It's irrelevant whether the material belongs to the downloading parties; the issue is whether the other party facilitated distribution (with or without personal profit) of intellectual property that it didn't own, or have the right to distribute (the owner of a copyright can sell the right to distribute and still mantain some ownership rights).

Facilitating infringement (e.g. through technology like a VCR, or software like Napster) is actionable under copyright law. I believe it's called "vicarious infringement". In fact, Sony was sued, by the movie studios, for introducing VCRs with recording capabilities, back in the 80s. It went to the Supreme Court, I think. Obviously, they won. Napster, not so much (that one only got to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals). Why the different outcomes? Discuss.
post #28 of 31
This is what lawyers and the justice system is for, so people like this can't take over the world. They really do forget they aren't the government and even the government couldn't pull a stunt like this.
Lee XT
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-6300 Asus M5A97 SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 7850 AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ 
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ OCZ Vertex 4 256GB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H80 Windows 8.1 Pro MCE Dell P2414H WHXV7  Microsoft Generic 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Ultra 600W Limited Edition NZXT Black Steel Razer Deathadder Razer Goliath 
Audio
Realtek HD Audio 
  hide details  
Reply
Lee XT
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-6300 Asus M5A97 SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 7850 AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ 
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ OCZ Vertex 4 256GB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H80 Windows 8.1 Pro MCE Dell P2414H WHXV7  Microsoft Generic 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Ultra 600W Limited Edition NZXT Black Steel Razer Deathadder Razer Goliath 
Audio
Realtek HD Audio 
  hide details  
Reply
post #29 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by seward View Post
I'm pretty sure that they can still win in court with their own downloads, of their own intellectual property. The downloads (along with info about their source) constitute evidence of infringing conduct by the party who facilitated the improper acquisition of copyrighted material. It's irrelevant whether the material belongs to the downloading parties; the issue is whether the other party facilitated distribution (with or without personal profit) of intellectual property that it didn't own, or have the right to distribute (the owner of a copyright can sell the right to distribute and still mantain some ownership rights).

Facilitating infringement (e.g. through technology like a VCR, or software like Napster) is actionable under copyright law. I believe it's called "vicarious infringement". In fact, Sony was sued, by the movie studios, for introducing VCRs with recording capabilities, back in the 80s. It went to the Supreme Court, I think. Obviously, they won. Napster, not so much (that one only got to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals). Why the different outcomes? Discuss.
I forgot which case it was, but it was recently ruled that simply having the copyrighted files in your shared folder is not illegal. The RIAA holds the copyrights to all the content they sue over; therefore, no infringement takes place when they themselves do the downloading.

They also can't get anybody else to download it for them and point to that. There is a word for that, but I forgot what it is. This argument actually should hold considerable weight against the RIAA in court, and these are the types of arguments that cause the RIAA to be forced into settlements when counter sued by entities larger than themself.
Fermi
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 Asus Rampage II Gene BFG GTX280 OCX 12GB DDR3 1600 
OSPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Corsair VX550 
  hide details  
Reply
Fermi
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 Asus Rampage II Gene BFG GTX280 OCX 12GB DDR3 1600 
OSPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Corsair VX550 
  hide details  
Reply
post #30 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Col. Newman View Post
Not necessarily, they monitor a lot of peoples ports and try to pick up anything that comes out of them. They have server rooms completely devoted to this task. I however think it should definitely be VERY illegal.
enemy of the state anyone?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Software News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › [DSLREPORTS]RIAA Joins MPAA In Thinking Proof Isn't Necessary