On Jan 4, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Craig White wrote: > What I would argue with is that you have re-phrased, recharacterized > the > authors statement which I have quoted to you twice and it's obvious > that > continually re-quoting his statement will not get it through your head > but specifically...NO WHERE DID THE ARTICLE EVER STATE (these are your > words from above) "in the teeth of the evidence, that the RIAA was > suing > Howell for merely ripping files regardless of whether he shared them > or > not." > > I suppose it's necessary for you to twist the authors words in order > to > prove what he didn't ever say. I think I'll simply reference this: > > > Now, what I will say...on page 8 of same supplemental motion for > summary > judgment, the plaintiffs have now added..."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." > > Now, what I will say...on page 15 of same supplemental motion for > summary judgment, the plaintiffs have now added..."Once Defendant > converted Plaintiffs’ recording into the compressed .mp3 format and > they > are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies > distributed by Plaintiffs." > > Now, what I will say...on page 18 of same supplemental motion for > summary judgment, the plaintiffs have now added..."Defendant’s bald > assertion that he did not realize these sound recordings were being > distributed from his KaZaA shared folder to other KaZaA users is both > belied by the facts and irrelevant under the law." > > Simply put, RIAA, through its attorneys is making clear that simply > because these mp3 files, put by defendant on his hard drive by ripping > them from his own copies of CD's constitute the basis of his criminal > action because they were being shared, regardless of any > circumstances. So we agree. > > > Simply put, it seems clear to me that it's that most people who have > ripped music files have them in a folder that is shared some way, some > how dependent upon OS and network configuration and whether downloaded > or not, constitutes a legal infringement/liability. I simply think you are wrong as a matter of fact unless by "shared in some way" you mean shared within their household. If that's what you mean, then your assertion is irrelevant. > > ---- >> You, I , the plaintiff and the defendant all >> agree that whether the music files were the KaZaA shared folder is a >> significant issue. > ---- > No, clearly if you read the above, understood plaintiff's position, > you > would see that plaintiff is suggesting that whether the music files > are > in a KaZaA shared folder is no longer the issue at all. It was > however, > significant in their original motion for summary judgment but the > amendments claim that this is no longer their burden. > ---- >> You, I and the defendant but not the plaintiff all >> agree that if the files were in the shared folder it is a >> significant >> if they came to be there with the knowledge and consent of the >> defendant. > ---- > Not at all, and so says RIAA, likewise see above. At best, RIAA (and > by > extension the court) might consider it a factor to mitigate what will > obviously be an award for the plaintiff Did you notice the phrase "but not the plaintiff"? > > ---- >> The RIAA says at one point that this is not a significant >> issue but I think we can agree that they are being dishonest. > ---- > You are on a roll for suppositions what people think but once again, > you > want to ignore what people say and presuppose what you want to > believe. > I think you fail to recognize that is now their position. So you think the RIAA is honest? I have to wonder why you continually take their side. ;-) > [snip a lot of stuff that seems to minor to bother with] > You haven't formed an opinion on this? This is only the reason for the > entire story in the first place. > Not at all. > You were so focused on the issue of whether Howell had KaZaA and music > files in some shared KaZaA folder that you have missed the story > completely...the RIAA simply doesn't care and doesn't consider it > necessary to prove intent, the existence of KaZaA (or any file sharing > mechanism), only that these files are on your hard disk and that they > are shared. I have made it abundantly clear that I know this is the RIAAs stated position but I simply think they are lying. >> > ---- > of course they are hypotheticals are always ridiculous until they > actually happen Not at all. Reasonable testing requires reasonable hypotheticals. > > Lastly, go for the honesty test...if you have a ripped CD and > accidentally drop the original 'authorized' copy and break it, do you > delete the mp3/m4a/ogg version from your hard drive? If you have a > copy > of your entire CD collection on your laptop and it gets stolen, must > you > throw away your CD's? Since it is very explicit in copyright law that if I actually break the original I am allowed to use the back-up, or course I don't. It is also very clear that if someone steals my laptop, it is the thief who is violating copyright. But yes, if I give away a CD I actually do delete all the ripped copies. I simply do not distribute unauthorized copies. -- A young idea is a beautiful and a fragile thing. Attack people, not ideas. --------------------------------------------------- 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