[news] College students nailed for illegal music downloads

[Piratecat]

So it's okay to have a thread making fun of the U.S. Army, but a person is "wise" to avoid talking about copyright??

Man, I'd love to see the moderator's handbook one of these days. :\

If you disagree with moderation, please feel free to email a moderator. Do not, however, discuss it on the forums.

Threads that stray (or dive) into political territory can be fascinating, and I thoroughly believe that people should be well-educated on politics. This isn't the place to discuss it, though. There are lots of other sites, including our sister site www.circvsmaximvs.com, where such conversations are appropriate.

This thread isn't a problem right now. I certainly see how it could be, though. That's what we'd like to avoid.

Thanks. Email me with any questions.

 

[Jesus_marley]

Something interesting about Canadian Copyright law....

If I make a song available for download by someone else, I am in violation of copyright.
If I download a song from someone else, I am not.

If I buy a CD and burn a copy and give it to you, I am in violation.
If I buy a CD lend it to you, give you a blank CD and you copy it yourself... no violation.

wierd huh?

 

[Goddess FallenAngel]

Something interesting about Canadian Copyright law....

If I make a song available for download by someone else, I am in violation of copyright.
If I download a song from someone else, I am not.

If I buy a CD and burn a copy and give it to you, I am in violation.
If I buy a CD lend it to you, give you a blank CD and you copy it yourself... no violation.

wierd huh?

Heh... there's laws like that in the States, too, on some things. I seem to recall there being a law about possessing something (don't remember what it was in reference to) being legal, but actually distributing or using it being illegal. My brother got in trouble over something (I was younger, don't recall what), and he got off because he wasn't distributing or actively using it. (Some sort of drug, maybe....)

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Heh... there's laws like that in the States, too, on some things. I seem to recall there being a law about possessing something (don't remember what it was in reference to) being legal, but actually distributing or using it being illegal. My brother got in trouble over something (I was younger, don't recall what), and he got off because he wasn't distributing or actively using it. (Some sort of drug, maybe....)

That used to be the case in New York State regarding alcohol and minors. My understanding was that the law specifically stated that the sale of alcohol to and purchase by minors was illegal. The result was that if you gave it away for free, it was legal. My first couple of years of college took advantage of that rule. They couldn't charge minors for beer at frat parties, but nothing stopped them from charging for a t-shirt to get into the party and then giving the beer to them.

They closed the loophole during my time at college. Not that it made much of a difference on campus.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Perhaps the *ethics* involved aren't black and white, but the *law* certainly is.

It's actually not. If it was, then RIAA wouldn't be getting countered sued and found liable of illegal litigation practices.

The law is pretty clear, but even the clearest law can be twisted by prosecutorial misconduct or the misconduct of others.

I'll only say this: they are bullying kids who really can't afford such things.

The law basically doesn't care whether a criminal is poor or affluent.

Generally speaking, I don't care if the guy who steals my car is poor or not, just whether he took something that belonged to me.

If he can prove that he had a legitimate reason for doing so- say...he really, really needed to get to the hospital very quickly and was unlikely to ever do something like that again- I'd be inclined to ask that the prosecutor go light on him, depending on the totality of circumstances.

If a person steals my food because he's (literally) starving, or my jacket because he's freezing to death, I'd be even more inclined not to press charges at all.

But when someone asks for sympathy for people violating someone's copyright or other IP rights, I have no sympathy.

I like music more than most people- I play it, I compose it, and I own more than 4K CDs (and stuff in other formats as well- but it is not a staple of human existence.

Music is a luxury item. There is no justification for taking it.

And if you do, you get to take your chances with the Roulette Wheel of Justice, and whatever consequences come your way.

 

[Mycanid]

The law is pretty clear, but even the clearest law can be twisted by prosecutorial misconduct or the misconduct of others.

Very true ... and this has always been the case, AFAICT and have read in "jurisprudence" history books.

The law basically doesn't care whether a criminal is poor or affluent.

Nowadays in America in a "RAW" sense, yes.... Again, though, this is only AFAIU.

Generally speaking, I don't care if the guy who steals my car is poor or not, just whether he took something that belonged to me.

One aspect of things reaction wise.

If he can prove that he had a legitimate reason for doing so- say...he really, really needed to get to the hospital very quickly and was unlikely to ever do something like that again- I'd be inclined to ask that the prosecutor go light on him, depending on the totality of circumstances.

If a person steals my food because he's (literally) starving, or my jacket because he's freezing to death, I'd be even more inclined not to press charges at all.

And then a second aspect of things reaction wise.

I wonder how many would agree with this tack on things (I do personally). I also sometimes wonder how consistent many people's application of the law as they would apply it to others would be equally valid to how they apply it to themselves ... i.e. are they willing to put themselves in other people's shoes? And I am thinking here primarily of those who get "nailed" for music piracy.

But when someone asks for sympathy for people violating someone's copyright or other IP rights, I have no sympathy.

I like music more than most people - I play it, I compose it, and I own more than 4K CDs (and stuff in other formats as well) - but it is not a staple of human existence.

Of course I agree with this personally. And by this you mean something necessary to "just stay alive", I assume, as opposed to a means for acquiring "staples for existence", as, perhaps, musicians might say?

Music is a luxury item. There is no justification for taking it.

And if you do, you get to take your chances with the Roulette Wheel of Justice, and whatever consequences come your way.

Good summary of the general attitude of U.S. laws Danny ... also interesting articulation for you personally in certain matters if you had been "on the receiving end", so to say.

 

[Mycanid]

Guess I should qualify the above post as being more of a "thinking out loud" kinda post. It is not "directed/aimed" at (in a criticizing way, at least) anyone else in the thread in particular, so please do not take it that way!