Comments on: Joel Tenebaum File-Sharing Case Heard at Court of Appeal

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 22:47:00 +0000

Someone else making a a copy or sharing something does not mean that you automatically get the right to do the same.

By: Ah-ha-ha-ha

Ah-ha-ha-ha — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 00:27:00 +0000

that price depends upon which country you download them from tho, as prices seem to vary nation to nation.

By: Ophelia Millais

Ophelia Millais — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:29:00 +0000

Once again, lazy reporting has distorted the actual events. It’s a civil trial, so no one can be found “guilty” of a crime. Rather, Tenenbaum was found “liable” for damages. And in this case, the jury had nothing to do with it. The defense was already floundering, but on the 4th day of the trial, Tenenbaum was on the stand and foolishly answered “yes” when the plaintiffs’ lawyer asked, “Mr. Tenenbaum, on the stand now are you now admitting liability for downloading and distributing all 30 sound recordings that are at issue and listed on Exhibits 55 and 56 of the exhibits?” Once he did that, the judge instructed the jury that liability was not at issue anymore; they only needed to determine an appropriate amount of damages, and that was it.

By: UNF

UNF — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 17:55:00 +0000

No, you blame the wrong party here. Particularly in U$A, the legislators, Judges and prosecutors collaborate to carefully manipulate juries into delivering the verdicts they desire ~ it is even illegal for the defense lawyers to inform the Jury about their right to nullify bad law, contrary to ‘free speech’ rights.

see fija.org for more info to understand how the bent system works. It is not the fault of jurors that they are also played in a highly rigged game.

By: UNF

UNF — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 17:18:00 +0000

@ Getridov Disqus,

you have outed this self-confessed Anon ‘aged hippie’ as another tamed subject bowed to the will of his masters in the Bankrupt Banana Empire of U$A ~ cognitive dissonance drives him to ‘lessen’ his own personal defeat by spreading the pro-enslavement enemy propaganda amongst those who are still free ~ a tragic but illustrative warning example, thank you for bringing it to our attention.

By: Getridov Disqus

Getridov Disqus — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 13:27:00 +0000

I shall overlook your condescending tone and insults, and instead rejoice in the fact that you are speaking your mind and offering an opinion different to that of myself. Here in cyberspace you have that freedom at the moment…

Now,

Exactly what laws would you like applied to the internet Anon? Would you like the collective consciousness to be tempered by the laws of the US? How about the laws of China? Indian law perhaps? What about Cambodian? Brazilian?

Laws around the world differ greatly, in some countries it is illegal to reproduce and sell a compound that has been patented. In other countries there is no such restriction, and compounds invented (usually) in the west are legitimately copied (pirated even) and distributed amongst the people who need it at a fraction of the cost of what the western pharmaceutical companies charge.

In some countries it is perfectly legitimate to make a copy of a movie or song. In other countries, people are dragged through the court system and given fines that would be impossible to pay back in their lifetime for sharing a handful of songs.

Which laws exactly would you have apply to the internet? Does China give us a model that you would like to see expanded to cyberspace as a whole? Or would you like to see a fragmented internet confined to each country following the relevant laws in each, in a kind of divide and conquer approach?

By: Joel Tenebaum File-Sharing Case Heard at Court of Appeal

Joel Tenebaum File-Sharing Case Heard at Court of Appeal — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 10:12:17 +0000

[...] Joel Tenebaum File-Sharing Case Heard during Court of Appeal [...]

By: twisted mind

twisted mind — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 07:42:00 +0000

Well I would agree to MPAA that “file-sharing in the aggregate caused enormous economic losses to the labels because it essentially put the music ‘in the public domain”
Then prove that every movie I shared is already shared on the internet, thus in public domain.
No harm done, nothing to get off me. It’s not illegal to share public domain works.

By: Anon

Anon — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 04:47:00 +0000

Talk about solipsism! And hilarious, erroneous presumption. You sir, sound like an adolescent. I grew up on Brands “Whole Earth” and was an early adopter of the Well on a dialup so slow you’d likely not believe me if I explained it all to you. I sensed earlier you’d benefit from a history book. In such ignorance you are doomed to repeat it.

Your histrionic chest beating here (and assuming an old hippie like me is captive to a few) is cute and endearing but it’s also elitist in its smug certainty and more than a little foolish. Had those in the 1950‘s military— creating this concept of the internet and then sorting the protocols to successful operation— been subject to the general lack of respect for the organization of society as you claim to be, we’d have no means to communicate this way at all. Anarchy is historically sloppy and destructive. That’s why maturing cultures leave it behind.

Beat your chest to the TeeEffers then, angry young man, and honestly believe there is no difference between copying and distributing your stuff (or CC stuff) and copying/distributing the for-sale products belonging to someone else. Even bleat to those who will listen that property is crime. Kids like you are either talking shit or wind up in jail, thinking they’re a martyr. Suit yourself. :-)

By: Aussie

Aussie — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 03:30:00 +0000

@Fellow Aussie – this is what I mean about the scope of what really is defined as goods. It doesnt have to be a physical product, but mere information. Copying an online article is a copyright breach if you dont follow stringent guidelines for example. When you do follow them safe harbor rules kick in and its fair use, but if you straight out plagarise someones work and put your name to it, its breaching copyright laws. You’re not denying the original author anything – their work is still on the site they posted it – but rulings have shown that people copying the article need to follow specific rules.

From the courts perspective with sharing, the legality is the argument that you’re denying rights and services, not necessarily physical products – in this case, its about the digital data on the CD/DVD versus the digital data in a mp3/avi. Either way, its still digital data you’re downloading/sharing.

By the act of working around traditional supply lines, you’re intention is also to deny them in a permanent way. This is how the courts work. They get caught up in the fine detail, and dont look at the intent of the law too often – right now these sorts of decisions are using laws designed to work against corporate style copyright breaches, and applying them to individuals.

What I’m trying to get across is that theft or larceny (take your pick) can be about more than just a physical product. And in other areas of law, this is very clearly defined. You’re a fellow aussie (no pun intended), do some research around some GST cases and section 9-10 of the GST act. Its a definition that is mirrored in most countries.

Please dont get me wrong here, I’m not in favor of these decisions and think the copyright laws need some serious revision sooner rather than later. But I’m practical enough to see that the courts define things in a different way to the rest of us, and can see how easy a stretch it is for them to justify sharing as theft.

Personally, the most practical solution to stop this is to work on disassociating the bulk processes into individual claims, and to work on getting the penalty for each breach as small as possible. The Tenenbaum case is about setting the precedent for that second desire.