[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "My dad is a pirate."

From: El Tux
Subject: Re: "My dad is a pirate."
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 03:35:40 -0000
User-agent: Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black)

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:41:53 -0500, rjack wrote:

> El Tux wrote:
>> In contrast, copying for your own personal use is a legal gray area in
>> the US. None of the cases you cited involves such use.
> Unauthorized copying is unauthorized copying -- even in your subjective
> fantasy world of "personal use". You're hallucinating and suffering
> semantic delusions after watching too many re-runs of "The Matrix".

Egads, I'd rather watch the entire Planet of the Apes series than The
Matrix. And I DESPISE Planet of the Apes. It's really sad thinking
that kids today will grow up thinking this kind of junk is what
science-fiction is all about.

As to your RIAA-supplied talking point:

> "Authorized previews share the feature of evanescence: if a listener
> decides not to buy (or stops paying the rental fee), no copy remains
> behind. With all of these means available to consumers who want to
> choose where to spend their money, downloading full copies of
> copyrighted material without compensation to authors cannot be deemed
> “fair use.” Copyright law lets authors make their own decisions about
> how best to promote their works; copiers such as Gonzalez cannot ask
> courts (and juries) to second-guess the market and call wholesale
> copying “fair use” if they think that authors err in understanding their
> own economic interests or that Congress erred in granting authors the
> rights in the copyright statute."; BMG Music et al. v. Cecilia Gonzalez,
> United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (2005).

Well of *course* she got steamrollered. The music industry
deliberately avoids going after people who can afford proper legal
representation. It was this poor woman and her free attorney against
the best attorneys the multi-billion dollar music industry could
afford. The RIAA is continuing that fine tradition today - they file
against everyone they can and then immediately drop their suits
against those few who obtain real legal representation. The remainder
have a choice: Pay the shakedown money or go broke trying to take on
the RIAA's high-powered, well-funded legal team.

And BTW, this wasn't just a downloading case. The RIAA found Gonzalez
in the first place because she was using p2p software with sharing
enabled. Also, a number of people have pointed out some very obvious
errors in the judge's ruling. For example, the first sentence you

> "Authorized previews share the feature of evanescence: if a listener
> decides not to buy (or stops paying the rental fee), no copy remains
> behind.

Just about everyone "previews" using the radio or TV and it is
*explicitly* 100% legal to record that material for our own personal
use and enjoy it for the rest of our lives. So a copy does indeed
remain behind. I don't remember them all any more but the judge's
ruling is packed with such errors - all favoring the RIAA.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]