[rsaavedra]

Judge to RIAA: You can't sue over songs 'made available' via P2P | The Iconoclast - politics, law, and technology - CNET News.com

 

[Brian_the_King]

That's cool, go judge. Not that I 'make available' that much music to myself anyway [always buy the CD if I like what I hear, or just delete it].

 

[goldenratiophi]

Didn't they rule the opposite not too long ago?

 

[zotjen]

IMHO if you're making something available, it's the same as distributing it. The intent of making it available is so that someone can download it, regardless of whether or not anyone actually does.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zotjen /img/forum/go_quote.gif IMHO if you're making something available, it's the same as distributing it. The intent of making it available is so that someone can download it, regardless of whether or not anyone actually does.

Intent isn't always a crime. In Texas, I can booby trap my home intending to kill a robber, but will not have committed a crime until it injures/kills someone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldenratiophi Didn't they rule the opposite not to long ago?

Different courts can rule differently. Judges can choose to ignore precedent, and some of the cases that the Supreme Court takes are to reconcile conflicting rulings between Circuit Courts.

 

[FallenAngel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zotjen /img/forum/go_quote.gif IMHO if you're making something available, it's the same as distributing it. The intent of making it available is so that someone can download it, regardless of whether or not anyone actually does.

What about the P2P applications that force the "making available" of all downloaded content.

The one thing I can't possibly understand is how those 2 CDs got the person fined over $200,000! It's not like she sold them, but they were made available to be copied. I'd say if the person was copying and selling them, then a fine of that caliber could make sense, but for making available for free, charge her for the cost of those 2 CDs.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FallenAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif What about the P2P applications that force the "making available" of all downloaded content. The one thing I can't possibly understand is how those 2 CDs got the person fined over $200,000! It's not like she sold them, but they were made available to be copied. I'd say if the person was copying and selling them, then a fine of that caliber could make sense, but for making available for free, charge her for the cost of those 2 CDs.

It's the crime them charging. They're not charging theft like they would if the CD was stolen out of out of the store. They're charging intellectual property infringement, the same charge they use against commercial scale pirates. It carries much higher penalties and has a tendency of causing the dependent to weigh their odds and take whatever settlement the RIAA lawyers offer.

 

[krmathis]

/me hate RIAA.
So this is great news.

 

[onyu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif /me hate RIAA. So this is great news.

x2

 

[regal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zotjen /img/forum/go_quote.gif IMHO if you're making something available, it's the same as distributing it. The intent of making it available is so that someone can download it, regardless of whether or not anyone actually does.

Its made available w/ intent to listen to it, no different than Satellite radio.
I think Musicians need to earn their money in concert like the old days.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal /img/forum/go_quote.gif Its made available w/ intent to listen to it, no different than Satellite radio.

It's completely different from a legal standpoint.

Satellite radio providers have to obtain permission from the studio and pay royalties for the right to air every song they play.

A person sharing on P2P networks does not have permission from the copyright holder to distribute the media and certainly doesn't pay royalties.

 

[bhd812]

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think Musicians need to earn their money in concert like the old days.

this is not about the musicians and never was! they at first were only used by the RIAA to start the ball rolling in court on this subject. fact is when almost every big company in a market is in cahoots with each other the companies themselves have no one to go after, price war, fight with besides the consumer. break up the RIAA and get these label heads fighting with each other and then you will start to see what is happening now with mp3 download sites like amazon Vs itunes...you will see competition from the labels to the other labels, not what we see now with labels Vs consumer.
this is a perfect example of why monopolies are bad for everyone, but fear not cause the labels and records companies are tied into the bigger media outlets and they are then tied into the banks which in the end are tied into the people "we" elect to defend and represent us the people..

only way to stop the RIAA is to go to your local congressmen and Bitch up a storm! until then the RIAA will grab inch by inch with more ways to find YOU in the wrong. hell these days they don't even need the hard drive or proof you were even at the freaking computer doing the sharing...

 

[spraggih]

This is not a April's Fool joke?

 

[spraggih]

edit - I read the bottom of the posting. OK, so it is not a joke.

BUT the R..A can only enforce judgments in the US right? How would this ruling apply to an ex-US person posting on a ex-US P2P site?