[Eisenhower]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/wo...pe/18copy.html

The Pirate Bay owners have been sentenced jail time.

I was wondering what some of you think about the whole music piracy thing.


I'm a college kid, so I feel quite alone in supporting the RIAA (which I do) in these matters. I think anyone who appreciates and respects the art and science of recorded music should chide those who make excuses for this guiltless form of theft.

I can't say I'm innocent in this matter. It's just way to easy to download music. Like, absurdly easy, as most of you are aware of. I can download any artist's entire discography in minutes. It's insane, and they need to do something about it.

 

[chesebert]

court in Sweden..who cares....

The more important question is if majority of the citizens break the rule and such rule is not fundamental to the stability of a society (e.g. thou shall not kill), should the government nevertheless enforce this rule? If this rule is ignored by most, does that also mean our societal value has changed and that such rule is out of place, out of time?

 

[Snake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif court in Sweden..who cares....

YOU SHOULD. Precedence has a LOOOOONG coattail.

What do I think? I think piracy has to be stopped.

HOWEVER, the Pirate Bay did not actually "pirate" anything IFAIK. The only thing they provided was a database. If this is true that sets a dangerous precedence - it is saying that a reference is enough to get someone jailed. So a library can be shut down when someone decided to ban a book, Google should be shut down for the reference links to copyrighted news material...it essence, it makes cross-reference part of the copyright laws.

There is the legal question of "empowerment" - did Pirate Bay become an accessory to the crime by simply providing a reference database? But what about torrents that are NOT copyrighted material, or links to materials that meet fair use agreements? This is the problem with this court's interpretation; it allows any copyright holder to control all levels of database references simply by having a single reference to material that a single copyrighter does not like. It potentially allows the courts to shut down all reference systems due to the fact that almost every system will contain a reference to copyrighted material that, probably, can be used in an illegal manner.

 

[chesebert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake /img/forum/go_quote.gif YOU SHOULD. Precedence has a LOOOOONG coattail.

uh...a Swedish trial court decision has 0 precedential value to the US jurisprudence;

I will take that a bit further, a Swedish supreme court decision has 0 precedential value to the US jurisprudence;

or even better, an ICJ (international court of justice) final judgment against the US has 0 precedential value to the US jurisprudence.

According to Scalia US courts should completely ignore jurisprudence outside the US; Kennedy would beg to differ, however on whether the US should 'completely ignore' decisions outside the US

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif court in Sweden..who cares....

Patrick82?

And IBTL, just in case.

I think both sides are wrong. Downloading is unethical and the RIAA is pond scum. Big Music has a dead business model and needs to get itself out of the Mesozoic and deal with a completely new distribution and cost system. I also think it is irresponsible to expect music for free. Further, Big Music needs to cope with the reality that bands are marketing online and selling directly to fans now.

Until change happens, I'll keep buying used LPs and used CDs. I will also buy CDs directly from bands and legally download at www.archive.org.

No money to Big Music and no illegal downloading for me.

I have a few nits to pick over the Loudness War and lack of support for hi-rez digital, too.

 

[Snake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif The more important question is if majority of the citizens break the rule and such rule is not fundamental to the stability of a society (e.g. thou shall not kill), should the government nevertheless enforce this rule?

Yes. One word answer - Yes. Actually, hell yes.

Without the copyright system the creator of art - music, books, literature - will have little incentive to create as their incomes cannot be protected. No income from work...why do the work?

It is about time people recognize this. Just because you FEEL you deserve to pirate something because you feel self-justified does not mean that your actions will have long-term consequences. In this case, in the long term you'll lose the very thing you want to pirate. Permanently.

Pirate enough music...the musician simply will look for another job because they can't make ends meet. Enough musicians do that and you'll lose the very system you are trying to pirate against. It is self defeating, but then again I do not believe pirates are that smart to think beyond their own (selfish) desires.

Quote:

If this rule is ignored by most, does that also mean our societal value has changed and that such rule is out of place, out of time?

Maybe. Maybe not. I realized yesterday that what the 'tea parties' happening around the country are, is about anarchy - these people call themselves one thing but, in actuality, are anarchists, pure and simple. First complain about Federal laws, have them removed. Then the states will have to get into the act of controlling things...but they are the same people who will complain once the states do what the Federal government is doing anyway. So they will complain about the states. Then they will complain about opposing area factions, opposing faith viewpoints - they just...complain. About anything that isn't for their benefit. That's piracy in a nutshell - complain about anything that isn't self-serving. But piracy is the least self-serving thing around, it ends up damaging yourself in the long run as the system you pirate collapses.

 

[cash68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eisenhower /img/forum/go_quote.gif http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/wo...pe/18copy.html The Pirate Bay owners have been sentenced jail time. I was wondering what some of you think about the whole music piracy thing. I'm a college kid, so I feel quite alone in supporting the RIAA (which I do) in these matters. I think anyone who appreciates and respects the art and science of recorded music should chide those who make excuses for this guiltless form of theft. I can't say I'm innocent in this matter. It's just way to easy to download music. Like, absurdly easy, as most of you are aware of. I can download any artist's entire discography in minutes. It's insane, and they need to do something about it.

90% of the purchase price of a CD goes to the RIAA. So who's ripping off who? I download everything, or stream it, and I go to concerts of musicians I like. If you still feel guilty, mail them a few bucks. It'd be much more than they'd see if you bought all their CDs.

 

[Snake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif uh...a Swedish trial court decision has 0 precedential value to the US jurisprudence;

Where did you get that idea? It is not "hard" precedence but both judges and lawyers look to ideas all over the world to find guidance during decisions.

Legal Affairs

Microsoft alleged antitrust violations / The European Union's decision

Only a fool does not see that a wise man looks to others for judgement guidance in order to learn previous mistakes and wisedom. The U.S. Courts are no different.

 

[chesebert]

Notwithstanding the many counter examples I can come up regarding socially detrimental rules that have been kept on the book and can be cherry-picked to achieve certain goals, let me offer you some policy considerations wrt copyright protections:

On the one hand, the purpose of intellectual property protection is to structuring a set of legal rights to promote socially productive investment, and to ensure people who have made those investment to reap the rewards (if public finds idea useful).

On the other hand intellectual property protection should be viewed as narrowly crafted exception to the general rule of free competition, and free access of information creations by others

So if the value of free access to information is considered by majority of the US citizen to be more important than the return on investment for the RIAA member companies, why should the law protect the RIAA member companies when the policy of free access is clearly stacked against them?

 

[chesebert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake /img/forum/go_quote.gif Where did you get that idea? It is not "hard" precedence but both judges and lawyers look to ideas all over the world to find guidance during decisions. Legal Affairs Microsoft alleged antitrust violations / The European Union's decision Only a fool does not see that a wise man looks to others for judgement guidance in order to learn previous mistakes and wisedom. The U.S. Courts are no different.

Judicial activism must be stopped....liberal law professor spewing crap again?...

I love how some activist judges think the are in the 'right' when they decided based on their own set of 'guiding principles' ..only to have their ass handed to them by the voters.....cough...California...cough..supreme..co ugh..court.

European union decision is irreverent

What the heck is 'legal affairs'??

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake /img/forum/go_quote.gif Where did you get that idea? It is not "hard" precedence but both judges and lawyers look to ideas all over the world to find guidance during decisions. Legal Affairs Microsoft alleged antitrust violations / The European Union's decision Only a fool does not see that a wise man looks to others for judgement guidance in order to learn previous mistakes and wisedom. The U.S. Courts are no different.

No, international decisions are not binding in the United States, subject to a few exceptions. Laws made as part of a treaty signed by the US are brought in under the Constitution. English caselaw prior to 1776 can still be law, too, provided it hasn't been overturned or modified since. There are still a few examples around. That's because we adopted their common law system.

Without getting into a technical discussion of jurisdiction, foreign court decisions have no binding effect on United States courts. You cannot bring a Swedish decision into the Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC) and ask them to apply that law to a case. You can't do that.

However, I can take a decision from the California Supreme Court and apply it in the LASC. I can take a Ninth Circuit decision and apply it in the LASC. I can take a Supreme Court decision and apply it in the LASC.

I cannot take an Oregon Supreme Court decision and apply it in the LASC. Oregon is a different jurisdiction. But because Oregon is in the Ninth Circuit, a Ninth Circuit decision is just as applicable in Oregon as it is in California. And the Supreme Court's decisions apply everywhere.

You probably have a lot of questions about the finer points of this, but it takes a couple semesters of law school to get through all of them.

It is complex and there are some very complex doctrines about how/when/what to apply state law if you remove a case to federal court. Amd much else.

But there's no way to get a Swedish decision recognized by an American Court. You can discuss in in your briefs, of course, but the judge/court cannot base a decision upon that.

As for the necessity of patents and intellectual property, there are a couple of interesting arguments to be made. One you can find here where you'll see how intellectual property held back development of the steam engine. Another interesting take is that the fashion industry has no copyright protection for its designs. You can trademark labels, logos, etc., but you cannot copyright the cut of a dress.

So, how come the fashion industry survives without any copyright protection whatsoever? How come it hasn't been destroyed by pirates, leaving aboslutely no way to make a profit? Funny, it seems that the local mall's tenants are about 90% fashion stores, yet the pirates haven't put them out of business. Why is that?

 

[HiGHFLYiN9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eisenhower /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Pirate Bay owners have been sentenced jail time.

Not only jail time but a pretty hefty fine as well (30 million SEK, appx. $3,620,000 USD). I suppose you could stretch and say that Google and Pirate Bay are similar, but I feel that the main difference here is the intention. Google is pretty even-handed with the search results and content, while Pirate Bay I assume would be intending their users to download / stream copyrighted material, and receives advertising revenue based on providing these links.

While I personally like to stay on the up and up and purchase CDs, I worry when there are large-scale lawsuits won against infringers as it could give corporations traction to encumber digital content with stringent DRMs that would degrade consumer rights to fair use.

 

[blackcoffee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake /img/forum/go_quote.gif YOU SHOULD. Precedence has a LOOOOONG coattail.

Not only a swedish court, but the lowest level of swedish courts. This case would have been appealed regardless of the outcome and moved from the "amateur" court to the next level where only professional judges are making the decisions. There are a number of questionable wordings in the sencence which will be discussed in great lenght before the next step.

(The court "Tingsrätt" which have made this sentence is actually made up of one judge and three or four layman "jurors". Although these jurors are not appointed case by case, instead they are appointed by the political leaders of the regional goverment and have their positions for years. They are still laymen from a legal sense. It is very common to have the decisions changes once appealed to the next level, "Hovrätt").

 

[Eisenhower]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif court in Sweden..who cares.... The more important question is if majority of the citizens break the rule and such rule is not fundamental to the stability of a society (e.g. thou shall not kill), should the government nevertheless enforce this rule? If this rule is ignored by most, does that also mean our societal value has changed and that such rule is out of place, out of time?

Legally it might not matter,
But the site is widely used around the world, and it also is brings the issue into the limelight.

I would have to say laws against theft are very fundamental. As for it being enforceable, this case is an example of exactly that, wouldn't you say?

 

[Snake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, international decisions are not binding in the United States, subject to a few exceptions. Laws made as part of a treaty signed by the US are brought in under the Constitution. English caselaw prior to 1776 can still be law, too, provided it hasn't been overturned or modified since. There are still a few examples around. That's because we adopted their common law system. Without getting into a technical discussion of jurisdiction, foreign court decisions have no binding effect on United States courts. You cannot bring a Swedish decision into the Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC) and ask them to apply that law to a case. You can't do that.

True, but please re-read my post and the opinion therein. The American courts can look to international courts for opinions to use during the process; that is, look to others simply to examine what others are thinking and that action can bias the final decision. No legal precedence, but "emotional" and "intellectual" precedence none the less and that is the gist of my post.

Quote:

So, how come the fashion industry survives without any copyright protection whatsoever? How come it hasn't been destroyed by pirates, leaving aboslutely no way to make a profit? Funny, it seems that the local mall's tenants are about 90% fashion stores, yet the pirates haven't put them out of business. Why is that?

Are people coming out with slanted opinions only to support their own beliefs in this matter?

Come on, you are both smart and legally trained. You WELL know that the fashion industry is fighting HARD, tooth and nail, against piracy and counterfeiting using the U.S. Border Patrol and Customs agents. Exactly how many Customs seizures and raids go on in the fashion pirate market, every single day? Fake Gucci seizures? Shops shut down in inner cities by police?

The fight is kept ‘quiet’ relative to RIAA as the action has been taken to the warehouses and loading docks; the fashion industry has the “advantage” of seeking to eliminate counterfeit hard goods while the RIAA and MPAA are trying to control virtual digital files – much harder on a global interweb scale.

Please do not try to use that statement as a leverage point, for under scrutiny you well know as you are incredible educated and intelligent that it will fail a legal test. The fashion industry is currently at war with pirates and counterfeiters, one only need looks at the news and it is there almost every day if one pays attention

fashion counterfeits - Google News