fileshareing/mp3 news
I don't know if you all have seen this or not but a Federal Judge ruled that software companies who provide file sharing apps are not responsible for illegally trading of copyright material. This is a huge blow to the music industry.
I don't know if you all have seen this or not but a Federal Judge ruled that software companies who provide file sharing apps are not responsible for illegally trading of copyright material.
This is a huge blow to the music industry.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st...mp;sid=95573501
This is a huge blow to the music industry.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st...mp;sid=95573501
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Well considering that they can still go after you through your ISP this isn't as big a victory as may appear. It is for the developers but not for the users.
S
S
Quote:Well considering that they can still go after you through your ISP this isn't as big a victory as may appear. It is for the developers but not for the users.
S
It does mean thatt he software that is out there can stay though.
S
It does mean thatt he software that is out there can stay though.
Quote:It does mean thatt he software that is out there can stay though.
The only thing you may not be aware of is that ruling was made by 1 Federal District Court Judge. It hasn't even been appealed (at least not yet) to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Fransisco (I beleive). If it upheld there then the ruling would still not be very effective to the rest of the country, It would only be binding in the Western States that comprise the 9th Circuit. The other Circuit Courts do not have to abide by the ruling for their districts. That is why the case, or one like it, would have to reach the Supreme Court and for them to rule on it, or not, for a definitive answer to the file-sharing fiasco we have nowadys.
The only thing you may not be aware of is that ruling was made by 1 Federal District Court Judge. It hasn't even been appealed (at least not yet) to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Fransisco (I beleive). If it upheld there then the ruling would still not be very effective to the rest of the country, It would only be binding in the Western States that comprise the 9th Circuit. The other Circuit Courts do not have to abide by the ruling for their districts. That is why the case, or one like it, would have to reach the Supreme Court and for them to rule on it, or not, for a definitive answer to the file-sharing fiasco we have nowadys.
Quote:Quote:It does mean thatt he software that is out there can stay though.
The only thing you may not be aware of is that ruling was made by 1 Federal District Court Judge. It hasn't even been appealed (at least not yet) to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Fransisco (I beleive). If it upheld there then the ruling would still not be very effective to the rest of the country, It would only be binding in the Western States that comprise the 9th Circuit. The other Circuit Courts do not have to abide by the ruling for their districts. That is why the case, or one like it, would have to reach the Supreme Court and for them to rule on it, or not, for a definitive answer to the file-sharing fiasco we have nowadys.
However, it is a precendent now. This is something that can be used as a baseline for other cases, and can possibly be used as a defense in the future. Nobody can successfully go after a gunmaker for shootings or an automaker for for what a moron does with a car. Myself, I like using the filesharing apps for things like TV shows that haven't made it to DVD (like "Buffy", "Angel", and some episodes of "The Lexx"). You can also find DJ mixes of tracks that are pretty cool, and would never make it to CD through any overpriced recording label.
The only thing you may not be aware of is that ruling was made by 1 Federal District Court Judge. It hasn't even been appealed (at least not yet) to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Fransisco (I beleive). If it upheld there then the ruling would still not be very effective to the rest of the country, It would only be binding in the Western States that comprise the 9th Circuit. The other Circuit Courts do not have to abide by the ruling for their districts. That is why the case, or one like it, would have to reach the Supreme Court and for them to rule on it, or not, for a definitive answer to the file-sharing fiasco we have nowadys.
However, it is a precendent now. This is something that can be used as a baseline for other cases, and can possibly be used as a defense in the future. Nobody can successfully go after a gunmaker for shootings or an automaker for for what a moron does with a car. Myself, I like using the filesharing apps for things like TV shows that haven't made it to DVD (like "Buffy", "Angel", and some episodes of "The Lexx"). You can also find DJ mixes of tracks that are pretty cool, and would never make it to CD through any overpriced recording label.
Doesn't the FBI have to get a court order to watch your ISP traffic, and the only method is to use Carnavore.
Quote:Doesn't the FBI have to get a court order to watch your ISP traffic, and the only method is to use Carnavore.
As far as I know. At least they have to do that for it to be admissible in court. Who knows what kind of internal spying they do though.
As far as I know. At least they have to do that for it to be admissible in court. Who knows what kind of internal spying they do though.
when it comes to the net though, they'd have to be spying first to get the evedance needed to get a warrent to spy.
it's not like there are a *lot* of people out there just telling on other people.
"fbi dude, I know this guy, he's leeching muzac man!"
and they can make all the laws they want in the US, but many people in other country's don't have to take notice, as their laws don't match.
especially poor countries, where a music cd is a months wages or more.
and these copy protected cd's are annoying here in Australia, where we have a law stating you are allowed one personal backup of content.
if I pay $$ for a cd, I am nt going to be tossing it around in my car to get ruined, i'll make a copy and use that.
sure piracy is wrong, but so is profiteering(?) which the music industry and hollywood have been into for decades.
it's not like there are a *lot* of people out there just telling on other people.
"fbi dude, I know this guy, he's leeching muzac man!"
and they can make all the laws they want in the US, but many people in other country's don't have to take notice, as their laws don't match.
especially poor countries, where a music cd is a months wages or more.
and these copy protected cd's are annoying here in Australia, where we have a law stating you are allowed one personal backup of content.
if I pay $$ for a cd, I am nt going to be tossing it around in my car to get ruined, i'll make a copy and use that.
sure piracy is wrong, but so is profiteering(?) which the music industry and hollywood have been into for decades.
