How much money does the RIAA have to pay to congressmen to get something like that considered?? I could commit a murder, get it reduced to manslaughter, and be out of prison sooner than a college student who trades one Britney Spears song, and the college student would be in debt for years to pay the fine! (Uh, who gets the proceeds of the fine????)up to five years in prison, pay a $250,000 fine for trading a *single* copyrighted song if the Author, Consumer and Computer Owner Protection and Security Act (ACCOPS, HR 2752) is passed by Congress.
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
crazyd1-
What r u ? A criminal mastermind ?
Originally posted by: baclips6
riaa website down?
Originally posted by: xospec1alk
RIAA
29.95 service charge for kazaa?? did they get ripped off or somethjing?
Originally posted by: jumpr
The keyword is REASONABLE doubt. If the jury has a strong enough conviction to believe that YOU downloaded and shared that music, then you're guilty.Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: jumpr
If you downloaded the music and then said you didn't...or you said, "PROVE that I downloaded them, because I'm saying I didn't," then you're lying. Stop skirting the issue.Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Well, you can go to court and lie under oath and maybe get away with it..
or you could end up in a lot more serious trouble.
Well...you wouldn't necessarily have to lie. You're innocent until proven guilty. So, as a plausible scenario you say something like since you don't know who in the house downloaded the files, you can check all the computers, and they wont' have any evidence, then you can't prove I downloaded the music. Plausible scenarios are someone drove by our houes since I have a wireless router and downloaded music. While I was at it I'd replace my network card so the mac address wouldn't match.
Pleading not guilty when you're guilty as charged is lying under oath.
Right, this is plenty reasonable doubt. Who are people going to believe the huge RIAA that oppresses them and all they have is an IP address or you with your computer, your new network card, your wireless router with a plausible other explanation. The RIAA can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did download music. You show how someone could have downloaded music with your IP and you're off.
Well you don't lie under oath by pleading not guilty. You're lying, but who cares? OJ simpson got away with murder didn't he? I'm sure a 12 year old girl could get away with downloading music if she actually thought about it instead of acting scared and paying a fine. They can't prove you lied unless you're guilty and at which point you have nothing to lose anyways. You plead not guilty, you refuse to take the stand, act as your own lawyer, and as a lawyer you say well these are possible other scenarios why the RIAA could have thought she downloaded the music. Since you haven't see the files on her computer, all you have is an IP address to go by. You've effectively thrown out reasonable doubt hence not guilty in this country. You don't say that you DIDN'T download them, you just say you can't prove who did...a whole different story.
Originally posted by: Tabb
Its great to see everyone defend the theifs...
"The CD's cost too much" - So thats gives you a right to steal them?
"The music sucks" - If it sucks why is it downloaded?
"The RIAA are assholes for suing a 12 year old" - She stole from them, if she didnt know the rules too bad. If some dumb guy from a forgien contrey kills someone and says "I didnt know that was illegal." You think they are going to let them walk?
Originally posted by: Magdalene
some 12 year old shoplift too. big deal.
I'm not quoting this post becuase I have something relevant or interesting to add. I'm quoting it because it's worth reading and it brings up several well-thought-out viewpoints.Originally posted by: NWRMidnight
Are languages copyrighted such as english, spanish, french, etc.? Music is a way of communication, and it has already been protected under the constitution under free speech. If it can be protected under the constitution as free speech, how can it be copyrighted? IF this is the case then every sentence, word, etc. is copyrighted. The music, the notes played, movies, etc, are copyrighted material, but the words, sentences, language is not, so how can the RIAA, or MPAA stop you, or me, from listening to what no one owns? Do you know who owns the copyright to music, to language, etc.? I do, the copyright holder is god himself and I believe he gave it to all people to listen to, and to sing.
Besides the evidence they have is all digital evidence and a good lawyer should get it thrown out of court. The reason I say this is where I live, Digital pictures are not usuable in court because they can be altered, just as ALL the so called evidence the RIAA has can be altered. Who's to say their evidence is not manipulated. They already manipulate the sales figures and the losses and why they are down. So what's to stop them from altering such evidence.
Daniel
Originally posted by: NWRMidnight
Are languages copyrighted such as english, spanish, french, etc.? Music is a way of communication, and it has already been protected under the constitution under free speech. If it can be protected under the constitution as free speech, how can it be copyrighted? IF this is the case then every sentence, word, etc. is copyrighted. The music, the notes played, movies, etc, are copyrighted material, but the words, sentences, language is not, so how can the RIAA, or MPAA stop you, or me, from listening to what no one owns? Do you know who owns the copyright to music, to language, etc.? I do, the copyright holder is god himself and I believe he gave it to all people to listen to, and to sing.
Besides the evidence they have is all digital evidence and a good lawyer should get it thrown out of court. The reason I say this is where I live, Digital pictures are not usuable in court because they can be altered, just as ALL the so called evidence the RIAA has can be altered. Who's to say their evidence is not manipulated. They already manipulate the sales figures and the losses and why they are down. So what's to stop them from altering such evidence.
Daniel
Originally posted by: jumpr
I'm not quoting this post becuase I have something relevant or interesting to add. I'm quoting it because it's worth reading and it brings up several well-thought-out viewpoints.Originally posted by: NWRMidnight
Are languages copyrighted such as english, spanish, french, etc.? Music is a way of communication, and it has already been protected under the constitution under free speech. If it can be protected under the constitution as free speech, how can it be copyrighted? IF this is the case then every sentence, word, etc. is copyrighted. The music, the notes played, movies, etc, are copyrighted material, but the words, sentences, language is not, so how can the RIAA, or MPAA stop you, or me, from listening to what no one owns? Do you know who owns the copyright to music, to language, etc.? I do, the copyright holder is god himself and I believe he gave it to all people to listen to, and to sing.
Besides the evidence they have is all digital evidence and a good lawyer should get it thrown out of court. The reason I say this is where I live, Digital pictures are not usuable in court because they can be altered, just as ALL the so called evidence the RIAA has can be altered. Who's to say their evidence is not manipulated. They already manipulate the sales figures and the losses and why they are down. So what's to stop them from altering such evidence.
Daniel
The music, the notes played, movies, etc, are copyrighted material, but the words, sentences, language is not, so how can the RIAA, or MPAA stop you, or me, from listening to what no one owns?
I was focusing on the second paragraph, mostly.Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: jumpr
I'm not quoting this post becuase I have something relevant or interesting to add. I'm quoting it because it's worth reading and it brings up several well-thought-out viewpoints.Originally posted by: NWRMidnight
Are languages copyrighted such as english, spanish, french, etc.? Music is a way of communication, and it has already been protected under the constitution under free speech. If it can be protected under the constitution as free speech, how can it be copyrighted? IF this is the case then every sentence, word, etc. is copyrighted. The music, the notes played, movies, etc, are copyrighted material, but the words, sentences, language is not, so how can the RIAA, or MPAA stop you, or me, from listening to what no one owns? Do you know who owns the copyright to music, to language, etc.? I do, the copyright holder is god himself and I believe he gave it to all people to listen to, and to sing.
Besides the evidence they have is all digital evidence and a good lawyer should get it thrown out of court. The reason I say this is where I live, Digital pictures are not usuable in court because they can be altered, just as ALL the so called evidence the RIAA has can be altered. Who's to say their evidence is not manipulated. They already manipulate the sales figures and the losses and why they are down. So what's to stop them from altering such evidence.
Daniel
How so?
The music, the notes played, movies, etc, are copyrighted material, but the words, sentences, language is not, so how can the RIAA, or MPAA stop you, or me, from listening to what no one owns?
Music is music + lyrics, if music and musical notes can be copyrighted thus listening to a song that you pirated is illegal because its not just lyrics, its music and lyrics.
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Here's the question: if a multi-person household shares an internet connection, how can the RIAA prove which person actually commited the terrorist activity of file-sharing? suppose there are 4 ppl in a house, then each has 1/4th of a chance of being guilty, and 3/4ths of being innocent, which is well beyond a reasonable doubt.
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Here's the question: if a multi-person household shares an internet connection, how can the RIAA prove which person actually commited the terrorist activity of file-sharing? suppose there are 4 ppl in a house, then each has 1/4th of a chance of being guilty, and 3/4ths of being innocent, which is well beyond a reasonable doubt.
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Here's the question: if a multi-person household shares an internet connection, how can the RIAA prove which person actually commited the terrorist activity of file-sharing? suppose there are 4 ppl in a house, then each has 1/4th of a chance of being guilty, and 3/4ths of being innocent, which is well beyond a reasonable doubt.
The owner of the computer is liable in that case. This isnt criminal court, civil court doesnt require to be quilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Here's the question: if a multi-person household shares an internet connection, how can the RIAA prove which person actually commited the terrorist activity of file-sharing? suppose there are 4 ppl in a house, then each has 1/4th of a chance of being guilty, and 3/4ths of being innocent, which is well beyond a reasonable doubt.
They can't...in this case they'd prosecute the person with the ISP account...which again, could completely be innocent. This is like photo radar...I've gotten 3 or 4 photo radar ticekts but since my car is not registered under my name, they alwys get thrown out.
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Here's the question: if a multi-person household shares an internet connection, how can the RIAA prove which person actually commited the terrorist activity of file-sharing? suppose there are 4 ppl in a house, then each has 1/4th of a chance of being guilty, and 3/4ths of being innocent, which is well beyond a reasonable doubt.
The owner of the computer is liable in that case. This isnt criminal court, civil court doesnt require to be quilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Here's the question: if a multi-person household shares an internet connection, how can the RIAA prove which person actually commited the terrorist activity of file-sharing? suppose there are 4 ppl in a house, then each has 1/4th of a chance of being guilty, and 3/4ths of being innocent, which is well beyond a reasonable doubt.
The owner of the computer is liable in that case. This isnt criminal court, civil court doesnt require to be quilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Who in their right mind is going to convict someone they aren't sure is guilty? No judge I know would...you're not required to give up the person in your household sharing the music...
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Here's the question: if a multi-person household shares an internet connection, how can the RIAA prove which person actually commited the terrorist activity of file-sharing? suppose there are 4 ppl in a house, then each has 1/4th of a chance of being guilty, and 3/4ths of being innocent, which is well beyond a reasonable doubt.
They can't...in this case they'd prosecute the person with the ISP account...which again, could completely be innocent. This is like photo radar...I've gotten 3 or 4 photo radar ticekts but since my car is not registered under my name, they alwys get thrown out.
This is slightly different. This is a civil case, its not ticket court, or criminal court. All they have to prove is the person is liable, which would be fairly simple to do. Now if we are talking about the proposed law in congress, that doesnt have the support to pass. The Senate is investigating the RIAA at the current time.