Just wondering Craig, do you have some kind of personal stake in these matters? Are you a lawyer? do you represent some group? Or are you just really into this issue? seems like you're putting a lot of effort into this. btw- any Ron Paul supporters on this list? -jmz On 1/1/08, Craig White wrote: > On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 20:04 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote: > > On Jan 1, 2008, at 6:28 PM, Craig White wrote: > > > > > It's not straw-man arguments at all...A business exists behind a NAT > > > router and the RIAA would never differentiate between whether the > > > files > > > were shared within behind the NAT router or through the NAT router. > > > > It's a straw-man argument because the guy was using Kazaa. Courts, > > juries and politicians understand the common sense distinction between > > choosing to listen to a CD you paid for on your computer as opposed to > > a stand alone CD player and "stealing" music with Kazaa or one of its > > competitors. This is precisely why the the original story, which > > asserted that the RIAA didn't understand that distinction had legs. > > But the RIAA understands the distinction perfectly well. > > > > The RIAA has always had one strike against them. Copyright law doesn't > > criminalize downloading audio files, it criminalizes uploading them. > > And yet most of us learned on the playground that sharing is good and > > stealing is bad. So the RIAA has had to walk a fine line. They have > > had to convince the courts that the person they are after has done > > something illegal, uploading, while also convincing the courts, the > > politicians and the general public that they are doing something > > wrong, downloading. > > > > The RIAA will never convince anyone that that merely turning on you > > computer is wrong. You know that. That's why you want to convince us > > that that is indeed their position. > > > > You are perfectly correct that if college students download a bunch of > > music files that they didn't pay for, nobody is going to care whether > > the files resided on a server or a genuine p2p network. But you are > > pretending to miss my point which is simply that people distinguish > > between paying for your music and not paying for it. > > > > Let me recap. > > > > Initial reports in the Washington Post and elsewhere indicated that > > the RIAA had made a big mistake by asserting that there was something > > wrong with ripping you own CDs to your own computer. Many people, > > myself included, trumpeted this news widely. > > > > Later reports clarified the issue. The RIAA was accusing Hansen of > > using Kazaa, not of merely ripping his own CDs for his personal > > listening. > > > > Some people made various arguments that the original reports were > > correct and that the RIAA must somehow have meant what they were > > originally alleged to have said. > > > > I think arguments of the form 'The facts are not as I understood them > > but my position remains unchanged' are inherently loosing. I think > > those of us who aren't willing to say 'It's perfectly OK to use Kazaa' > > should pick a better battle. > ---- > The stipulation regarding Kazaa by the defendant states that the > defendant was interested solely in exchange of pornography. It's clear > that Kazaa had other uses besides illegally sharing music files. > > Your predicate assumes that everyone is knowledgeable that the purpose > of Kazaa is to illegally share music but I know that to be not true. My > guess is that if you polled 100 people off the street, what does the > software Kazaa do, that only 10-20% would actually say illegally share > music files. > > Through their attorneys, RIAA claims that the pornography files were > listed amongst the music files but as I hope you will now agree, this > doesn't mean that they were physically stored in the same location but > rather could just as easily (if not more likely) have been in an > entirely separate subdirectory but that distinction wasn't available to > their researcher. > > The other fact is, we install software all the time without really know > what it does. I can assure you that my 10 years of using Linux has > taught me just how little I understand about the software that is > installed on my computer. > > Now, when you talk about 'courts, juries and politicians', I have to > take issue. First, because politicians are often technologically > challenged, witness Sen. Ted Stevens description of the Internet as a > series of tubes. Courts are merely the instruments of the adversarial > system and thus we are left to the juries...and when the jury is > specifically instructed that the rules to be followed are... > > "The act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic > distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the > copyright owners, violates the copyright owners' exclusive right of > distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown." > > you should note that this jury instruction is sufficiently flawed to > provide solid grounds for appeal, so says the EFF > > http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/capitol-v-thomas-key-appeal-issue > > quite simply, juries aren't even remotely to "understand the common > sense distinction' as you suggest and your suggestion is entirely naive. > Juries are hammered on the concepts to consider only the evidence > presented in court and your notion of juries using their common sense is > considered 'jury nullification' > > You're trying to make the issue hinge on the usage of Kazaa. Previous > litigation revolved around Napster. I wouldn't doubt that other > litigation claimed issues with Limewire. Do you really believe that they > are going to ignore SMB/CIFS/NFS/AFP software/protocols? > > and lastly...the original link... > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html > > suggests that she was indeed charged $9,250 per song she 'downloaded' > > you might want to revise your comments in light of the facts > > Craig > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss -- --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss