Jul -- Computers and Technology: PRO-IP Act now law in US...

Sponty
Part boy, part car; Boycar, Protector and King of Chilladelphia
Level: 184

Posts: 1368/11098
EXP: 85643731
For next: 475679

Since: 08-24-07

Pronouns: he/him
From: Canada

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 5 days

Posted on 10-15-08 03:17:28 PM (last edited by Spontaneous Madness at 10-15-08 12:17 PM)

Link | Quote


If there was one event to drive his approval rating to 0, this is it. ____________________ Your spirit and my voice, in one combined. The Phantom of the Opera is there, inside your mind... My website!

GuyPerfect
Catgirl
Level: 68

Posts: 533/1096
EXP: 2665809
For next: 62991

Since: 07-23-07

Since last post: 1.7 years
Last activity: 220 days

Posted on 10-15-08 04:14:25 PM

Link | Quote

Why is this a problem? "Oh no, it's not legal to have illegal stuff! This law sucks!" They'd do the same if you were harboring aliens or growing pot in your basement. If you're breaking the law, there will be consenquences if you get caught.

Moral: Don't break the law.

Hiryuu

Level: 207

Posts: 5034/14435
EXP: 127628567
For next: 2155587

Since: 07-06-07

Since last post: 11.8 years
Last activity: 11.7 years

Posted on 10-15-08 06:44:01 PM

Link | Quote

The thing is, it doesn't matter if you've pirated or not. This allows the RIAA and MPAA to be far more intrusive than they've ever been and make claims that can or can't hold up in court against any given individual regardless of whether they've pirated or not.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM - invasion of privacy will now spike.

____________________

Xkeeper

Level: 263

Posts: 7740/25353
EXP: 297156213
For next: 1804240

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: they/them/????????

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 13 hours

Posted on 10-15-08 06:51:27 PM

Link | Quote

Originally posted by GuyPerfect
Why is this a problem? "Oh no, it's not legal to have illegal stuff! This law sucks!" They'd do the same if you were harboring aliens or growing pot in your basement. If you're breaking the law, there will be consenquences if you get caught.

Moral: Don't break the law.

You say this as if we live in some perfect world.

For all they know, the MP3s I have on my system from Scorpions - Best of Rockers & Ballads is pirated. (It isn't.) What proof do either of us have? I lost the CD a while ago (hence why I ripped them). Convinient excuse, ain't it?

Also, consider that the MPAA/RIAA is already suing people with little to no evidence, backing away whenever somebody actually fights back.

How the hell did this ever pass?

____________________

Homepage (project updates, etc)

Darkdata
Ruins!? ♥
Level: 103

Posts: 698/2892
EXP: 11446638
For next: 24768

Since: 07-04-07

Since last post: 203 days
Last activity: 11 days

Posted on 10-15-08 06:58:44 PM

Link | Quote

Originally posted by Xkeeper
How the hell did this ever pass?

Here, have some "gifts". Now vote for this law you have little understanding of.

____________________

Hiryuu

Level: 207

Posts: 5035/14435
EXP: 127628567
For next: 2155587

Since: 07-06-07

Since last post: 11.8 years
Last activity: 11.7 years

Posted on 10-15-08 07:43:02 PM

Link | Quote

It passed because of pressure and Bush's approval rating.

____________________

GuyPerfect
Catgirl
Level: 68

Posts: 534/1096
EXP: 2665809
For next: 62991

Since: 07-23-07

Since last post: 1.7 years
Last activity: 220 days

Posted on 10-15-08 07:47:09 PM

Link | Quote

Originally posted by Fate Testarossa
THAT'S THE PROBLEM - invasion of privacy will now spike.

Any judge in his right mind won't issue a search warrant without reasonable cause (presentable evidence, in most cases) that an individual is in fact breaking the law. How the FUAA will use this law is an issue of concern, but it'd be pretty easy for them to step over the line and get shot at.

Originally posted by Xkeeper

Hey, there it is! I was wondering what was taking so long. I've had this avatar ready for quite some time! Is this the admins' way of saying they're intimidated by a post?

Hiryuu

Level: 207

Posts: 5036/14435
EXP: 127628567
For next: 2155587

Since: 07-06-07

Since last post: 11.8 years
Last activity: 11.7 years

Posted on 10-15-08 07:49:10 PM

Link | Quote

Originally posted by GuyPerfect
Originally posted by Fate Testarossa
THAT'S THE PROBLEM - invasion of privacy will now spike.

Any judge in his right mind won't issue a search warrant without reasonable cause (presentable evidence, in most cases) that an individual is in fact breaking the law. How the FUAA will use this law is an issue of concern, but it'd be pretty easy for them to step over the line and get shot at...

What the hell do you know? It's been done several times in the past - hence RIAA/MPAA's bad rap.

____________________

Xkeeper

Level: 263

Posts: 7742/25353
EXP: 297156213
For next: 1804240

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: they/them/????????

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 13 hours

Posted on 10-15-08 07:50:02 PM

Link | Quote

Originally posted by GuyPerfect
Originally posted by Fate Testarossa
THAT'S THE PROBLEM - invasion of privacy will now spike.

Any judge in his right mind won't issue a search warrant without reasonable cause (presentable evidence, in most cases) that an individual is in fact breaking the law. How the FUAA will use this law is an issue of concern, but it'd be pretty easy for them to step over the line and get shot at.

And consider what I just said. The definitions of "breaking the law" are so incredibly warped for these people that 99% of the time the evidence is either completely fictional bullshit, entirely inapplicable, or otherwise invalid. In short, needing evidence to actually do something means nothing to people; they'll just make it up and claim the existance of any MP3 at all as "infringment", regardless of other circumstances.

Originally posted by somebody else

Hey, there it is! I was wondering what was taking so long. I've had this avatar ready for quite some time! Is this the admins' way of saying they're intimidated by a post?

That wasn't me, and no, it means that we as a collective entity feel that your post is stuck-up, elitest, stupid, incomprehensible, or otherwise irrelevant.

Hint.

____________________

Homepage (project updates, etc)

GuyPerfect
Catgirl
Level: 68

Posts: 535/1096
EXP: 2665809
For next: 62991

Since: 07-23-07

Since last post: 1.7 years
Last activity: 220 days

Posted on 10-15-08 08:05:06 PM

Link | Quote

I do not believe that the legal system is corrupted beyond redemtion or that suggestions to the contrary are unjustifiable. While my knowledge of cases involving the RIAA and MPAA is by no means comprehensive, the only ones I can think of did involve people who were illegally pirating media. I do find those entities to be obnoxiously ambitious, but I don't see this new law as being inherently problematic. It's just an extension of the "if you break the law, then..." scenario.

They're still not exempt from proving beyond a resonable doubt that the accused is in violation of the law. While I'm sure some judges have let it slide, I wouldn't consider that normal. Maybe the only ones you hear about in the news, but not normal.

Xkeeper

Level: 263

Posts: 7748/25353
EXP: 297156213
For next: 1804240

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: they/them/????????

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 13 hours

Posted on 10-15-08 09:42:31 PM

Link | Quote

Originally posted by GuyPerfect
While my knowledge of cases involving the RIAA and MPAA is by no means comprehensive, the only ones I can think of did involve people who were illegally pirating media. [...]

They're still not exempt from proving beyond a resonable doubt that the accused is in violation of the law. [...]

Okay, that's enough. I'm making this an official requirement:

This is required reading starting right fucking now. Get yourself up to speed on things before you start sounding like some "the law is always right because they'd never let them do things without proof" idiot.

____________________

Homepage (project updates, etc)

Hiryuu

Level: 207

Posts: 5042/14435
EXP: 127628567
For next: 2155587

Since: 07-06-07

Since last post: 11.8 years
Last activity: 11.7 years

Posted on 10-15-08 09:58:24 PM

Link | Quote

Hell, with all the talk about confiscating anything related to MP3 usage from computers to cell phones I would wonder how close it is to violating the Eighth Amendment for 'cruel and unusual'...

____________________

GuyPerfect
Catgirl
Level: 68

Posts: 536/1096
EXP: 2665809
For next: 62991

Since: 07-23-07

Since last post: 1.7 years
Last activity: 220 days

Posted on 10-15-08 10:35:53 PM

Link | Quote

I'll stop posting in this thread as per your considerations, Xkeeper, but the article you linked shows to reinforce what I've been saying:

As they have for the entirety of the litigation campaign, the RIAA investigators targeted "uploaders"—individuals who were allowing others to copy music files from their "shared" folders.

That is to say, the RIAA are playing it safe and only going after people who can be shown to be breaking the law.

Then the legal landscape changed. On December 19, 2003, a federal appeals court agreed with Verizon that the DMCA subpoena provision did not authorize the RIAA’s "driftnet fishing" tactics.33 The court overturned the lower court ruling and found that the DMCA subpoenas were available only where the allegedly infringing material was stored on the ISPs’ own computers, not for situations involving P2P file-sharing where the material was stored on a subscriber’s individual computer.

The decision brought the RIAA’s mass-subpoena campaign to a halt. If the RIAA wanted to use the federal subpoena power to identify Internet users, it would have to file a lawsuit and conduct its efforts under the supervision of a judge. In other words, the RIAA would have to play by the same rules as every other litigant in federal court.

The DMCA can no longer be used to subpoena your identity and thusly violate your privacy. As with other cases, it now needs to be brought to the attention of a judge.

Even RIAA "victories" are sometimes short lived. In October 2007, in the first case to reach a jury trial, a Minnesota jury found that Jammie Thomas had infringed copyright by sharing 24 songs and awarded the record company plaintiffs $222,000 in damages. In September 2008, however, the judge threw out the verdict, citing an erroneous jury instruction that stated that Ms. Thomas could be liable for distribution based on the presence of music files in a shared folder, whether or not anyone ever downloaded any of the 24 songs from her computer.63 The ruling joins two others that have rejected the RIAA’s "making available" theory.

There's even precedence that simply having a song on your computer--so much as to make it available to the public--is not good enough evidence that you've broken the law.

Aerakin
Ye Olde Layout
Level: 98

Posts: 1161/2550
EXP: 9476380
For next: 177973

Since: 07-06-07

From: From the future

Since last post: 8.0 years
Last activity: 1.2 years

Posted on 10-16-08 12:52:14 AM

Link | Quote


	Great, both the RIAA and the MPAA were already doing as they please. (i.e: a few years back they went against people doing tablature of songs, asking for royalties) ____________________

CarCat

Level: 51

Posts: 108/572
EXP: 997066
For next: 16872

Since: 10-17-07

From: LA

Since last post: 13.0 years
Last activity: 11.9 years

Posted on 10-16-08 09:58:30 PM (last edited by carcat at 10-16-08 06:59 PM)

Link | Quote

If the idea that anything could be a violation of copyright laws if it were on you computer, just because it was copied it should be challenged, becomes accepted, I expect this to fail. Mainly because there would be such a large number of cases, each trying to define what is legally copied and what is not.

In my opinion, thses laws add to the hysteria.

____________________
~CaR-CaT

Register - Login
Views: 99827060	Main - Memberlist - Active users - Calendar - Wiki - IRC Chat - Online users Ranks - Rules/FAQ - Stats - Latest Posts - Color Chart - Smilies	05-03-22 08:20:25 PM

Query execution time:	0.093889 seconds
Script execution time:	0.037466 seconds
Total render time:	0.131355 seconds