The same federal judge who oversaw the Joel Tenenbaum file-sharing trial earlier this year passed out default judgments this week against other file-swappers who never bothered to show up—and they now owe far less than Tenenbaum.<BR><BR><a href='http://meincmagazine.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/ignoring-riaa-lawsuits-cheaper-than-going-to-trial.ars'>Read the whole story</a>
Ignoring RIAA lawsuits cheaper than going to trial
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ruddy:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR>If 'society recognizes that a culture of piracy is a serious threat to all copyright and commerce in intellectual properties, and thus a serious threat to the promotion of progress' then surely society would consider making piracy, you know, a crime? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Seems to me that society has been doing just that. The DMCA, and recent laws criminalizing infringement that we've discussed elsewhere are examples, are they not? In any case how is anyone going to recover damages to their economic rights by pursuing a criminal trial where they have no standing as Plaintiff. I mean Duh!<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>WRT the criminal aspect of these cases, since society thinks this is such a big deal, why is society unwilling to devote the law enforcement resources to finding and prosecuting those who infringe on copyright?<BR><BR>It seems even less likely to me that 'society' has in any meaningful way 'decided' that this is a serious issue given our previous discussion where we agreed (well, I thought we agreed on this) that the vast majority of people had no idea what US copyright laws actually were, never mind cared about them one way or another.<BR><BR>The <B>really</B> interesting thing here, when it comes to ruddy's replies, is that you keep on switching from a moral basis (Locke's theory of property, etc.) for why this is a good thing, to a historical basis (we pursue copyright infringement via civil court instead of criminal court because of tradition), to a bandwagon basis (society thinks it's a big deal) without any clear basis for those different justifications.<BR><BR>It's even better when you dismiss various historical features of US copyright law (the registration requirement, the original term limits, the requirement to petition congress for a copyright) as unjust and rightfully changed. Since some of the historical features are 'just' according to you, and some 'unjust', we might expect you to explain why some are just and some aren't. To the best of my knowledge no comprehensive explanation has ever been given. But ruddy just switches from moral to historical arguments as convenient, without explanation or justification.<BR><BR><BR>If we are really worried about justice, the intent of the founders, and Lockean theory, we should ask ourselves: does handling these cases via the civil courts effectively privilege the rights of copyright holders over the rights of those they accuse of infringing on their rights?<BR><BR>You obscure this issue by switching the basis for complain yet again, in the above post: you switch from talk about crime to talk about recovery of economic damages. I am aware of no other type of property crime that allows someone to file a civil suit to recover economic damages without having to show some evidence that economic damage has occurred.<BR><BR>Ruddy will probably choose this moment to point out to me that different types of property have different characteristics and are therefore governed by different rules (a claim which I've accepted repeatedly). That doesn't explain why it is that 'intellectual property' deserves this statutory damages protection, but other sorts don't. I hope that if Ruddy (or anyone else) chooses this line of explanation, they will at least attempt to explain what characteristics of 'intellectual property' justify those statutory damages.<BR><BR>Ruddy has posted this: 'Maybe because antipiracy is so difficult to enforce that it requires serious deterrents?'<BR>in response to one of my earlier questions. Could this be the characteristic that justifies the statutory civil damages? Perhaps, but then we should again ask: if the results of the civil trial are so much less severe than the results of a criminal trial (ruddy has claimed this in this thread; this justifies the lower standards of evidence, etc., in civil trials), how can it be that this is a 'serious deterrent'? Again, why not use criminal 'deterrents', if you're going for deterrent effect in the first place?<BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ruddy:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hpsgrad:<BR>There are other slightly more complicated, but equally self-consistent answers you might provide. What you wrote doesn't seem to address the question asked, however. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That always seems to be the case with you, that what's relevant isn't convenient for your notion of what's relevant. But then your notions about IP aren't anything like societies', so I can hardly be surprised anymore that you refuse to see any relevance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It's not my fault you cannot distinguish between understanding and agreement. I explained why what you wrote did not address the question I asked. Instead of replying to that, you resort to vague insults. That's all sorts of classy, and helpful in explaining your position.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I just don't think the whole thing passes the smell test. If such a serious crime has been committed then why not a criminal trail. I am sure the justice system has better things to do than locking up people who swap music via p2p, but that is not the only reason. The RIAA's tactics (even if used by a DA) would not have a snowballs chance in hell in a criminal court when the burden of proof is 100% rather than "more than likely". The IP = people issue would have holes blown in it before you could blink. Now I know the burden of proof in civil trails is different, what I don't understand is why. The financial penalties that are being tossed out are in most cases worse than a crime of equal severity in terms of how damaging it is to your life.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The RIAA's tactics (even if used by a DA) would not have a snowballs chance in hell in a criminal court when the burden of proof is 100% rather than "more than likely". </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The standard of proof in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt, not 100%.<BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Now I know the burden of proof in civil trails is different, what I don't understand is why. The financial penalties that are being tossed out are in most cases worse than a crime of equal severity in terms of how damaging it is to your life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Just because you don't value your liberty, doesn't mean that the legal system agrees with you. Going to jail or prison is considered more harsh then having to pay a bill.<BR><BR>Of course the main difference in the two types of trials is that in criminal trials it's the state vrs somebody, in a civil trial is between two parties.<BR><BR>Changing the civil standard of proof would hurt far more people then just the RIAA.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reflex-croft:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ruddy:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR><BR>Why civil penalties then?<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Because different rights, burdens, and standards apply. In the US infringement traditionally hasn't been classified as a "crime," in which trials the government is always the plaintiff. Civil law is for disputes between private parties. Private parties aren't awarded damages in criminal trials and except in rare (malicious) cases, no one ever goes to jail in a civil trial.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Yes, I'm asking why those different rights, burdens, and standards apply. If 'society recognizes that a culture of piracy is a serious threat to all copyright and commerce in intellectual properties, and thus a serious threat to the promotion of progress' then surely society would consider making piracy, you know, a crime?<BR><BR>It would be easy, and self-consistent of you to write 'yes it should be a crime, but it isn't; the system isn't perfect'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Why do you think it is not a crime? It is a crime, and in fact there are laws against it and you CAN be prosecuted for infringement by the federal government. That they do not often pursue such cases is due to prioritization, not because there is a lack of law on the books. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I addressed this briefly last night. I've got a bit more time today, so I'll flesh out my reasons for asking this question (and explain more clearly what the question was attempting to get at; it was unclear as presented).<BR><BR>'Intellectual property' is the only sort of 'property' that I'm aware of which we protect primarily via civil actions rather than criminal ones. It's the only sort of 'property' where no actual evidence of harm is required in order to obtain a judgment against someone for infringing. Whatever the priorities of society, these features make 'intellectual property' unique as property.<BR><BR>On the one hand, this might make one ask 'is this stuff really property?' but I've not asked that question. I stopped doing this because we seem to have explored that territory pretty completely. Instead, for this thread I accepted the claim that works are property as true (even though I deny it) and asked some questions that follow from it.<BR><BR>For example, if this stuff is property, and copyright infringement is an infringement on property rights, why is theft the best classification of that infringement? Trespass seems a closer analogy in many respects. Nobody seems interested in considering this possibility though; maybe it's just 'obvious' that what we're dealing with is theft? <BR><BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">reflex-croft<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hpsgrad:<BR>There are other slightly more complicated, but equally self-consistent answers you might provide. What you wrote doesn't seem to address the question asked, however. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Question: Why do you keep repeating this line of questions when they have all been answered, at length, in other threads where you posed them before? I'm starting to notice a pattern where you ask a lot of seemingly deep questions, but when they are answered you move on, but then repeat them in the next thread on the same topic. Why is this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>So, why do I repeat lines of questioning? The short and simple answer is that I repeat questions when I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer to them. Even a lengthy answer might not be satisfactory to me, even if you look at it and think 'yeah, that's got it covered'. If you want to discuss particular questions, or point out where a question has been answered, I'll do my best to explain why the answer given wasn't satisfactory, or apologize for asking a question already answered.<BR><BR>A more complete answer is that the assertions by various people are depressingly similar in these threads. There's always someone playing the role of Ironman2008, and repeating 'they're guilty and deserve whatever they get' despite that not being a relevant reply to a question. There's always someone claiming 'it's property so that law is good'. There's always someone claiming 'information wants to be free'. etc. I try to ask questions that make people think beyond their own prejudices, and consider the matter in a more sophisticated way than they usually do. If I focus on 'works are property' supporters more than 'information wants to be free' supporters, it's some combination of:<BR>1. 'information wants to be free' isn't a serious position on copyright law. It's juvenile, it's been discussed, and it's not especially interesting. <BR>2. Those pushing the 'information wants to be free' position get hammered by 'works are property' folks faster than I can get to them, most of the time.<BR>3. 'works are property' supporters have the current law (sort-of) on their side. As such, it seems worth spending some time exploring the consistency of those laws, their justification, and the implications of the moral and other claims given in their defense.<BR><BR>Finally, let me point out that my own attitudes towards copyright have changed over time. In addition, I've not only demonstrated that I understand the 'works are property' position (by summarizing it repeatedly, among other things), but I've even apologized to those whose positions I've mischaracterized. I've admitted over and over again that my personal opinions on copyright don't match up with current copyright law in the US, and that there is virtually no chance of copyright law ever changing to match my preferences. These are strange behaviors for someone who is trolling (or whatever you might think I'm doing). They make more sense if you think I'm asking these questions out of honest interest in the answers, however.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR>WRT the criminal aspect of these cases, since society thinks this is such a big deal, why is society unwilling to devote the law enforcement resources to finding and prosecuting those who infringe on copyright? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Why should they when the civil courts have effectively dealt with IP disputes. Where they haven't, society has been taking steps to criminalize the problem.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It seems even less likely to me that 'society' has in any meaningful way 'decided' that this is a serious issue given our previous discussion where we agreed (well, I thought we agreed on this) that the vast majority of people had no idea what US copyright laws actually were, never mind cared about them one way or another. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Jurors do not need to know the intricacies of copyright to know the difference between right and wrong. Unlike you, they recognize copyright as economic property rights that belong to someone else and aren't free for the taking. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The <B>really</B> interesting thing here, when it comes to ruddy's replies, is that you keep on switching from a moral basis (Locke's theory of property, etc.) for why this is a good thing, to a historical basis (we pursue copyright infringement via civil court instead of criminal court because of tradition), to a bandwagon basis (society thinks it's a big deal) without any clear basis for those different justifications.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The RIAA's tactics (even if used by a DA) would not have a snowballs chance in hell in a criminal court when the burden of proof is 100% rather than "more than likely". </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The standard of proof in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt, not 100%. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You are correct here, for one reason or another the words reasonable doubt escaped me during this post. But my point is that the standard of proof in a criminal trail is a great deal of greater than the standard in civil court. And while I do value my liberty, the amount of time I would spend in jail for stealing less than 50 bucks worth of stuff would be preferable to a several hundred thousand to several million dollar settlement. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Changing the civil standard of proof would hurt far more people then just the RIAA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It would also help quite a few people.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It would also help quite a few people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>In general I believe that it would hurt more people then it would harm, even more so in how it would make it almost impossible for the "little guy" to sue big corporations.<BR><BR>That said the chance of the law changing at this point is so small when it comes to burden of proof we might as well argue about what effect the sun exploading would have on legal theory.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the amount of time I would spend in jail for stealing less than 50 bucks worth of stuff would be preferable to a several hundred thousand to several million dollar settlement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Who's had to settle for that in these cases? The settlement amounts have been in the low thousands.. with 10 thousand being the largest I've heard of.<BR><BR>Add on: In the state I'm from Felony theft is theft of over $1,000. If you are settling for hundreds of thousands or millions in plea bargin as being the amount you stole from somebody you are getting a felony conviction. This means no voting, limited job rights, several other limits on your rights, and no gun ownership. I'd far rather pay a fine and declare bankruptcy then lose my right to vote and the other penalties.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR>'Intellectual property' is the only sort of 'property' that I'm aware of which we protect primarily via civil actions rather than criminal ones. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You make this statement as if it were true. There are civil actions involving property (such as money) taking place every day.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's the only sort of 'property' where no actual evidence of harm is required in order to obtain a judgment against someone for infringing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You also make this statement as if it were true, and it's just as absurd as the one above, for the same reason. The juries in recent p2p trials found actual evidence of harm based on preponderance of the evidence and the witnesses presented in court. Your opinion that they should meet some other standard of proof has no bearing on their guilty verdicts. <BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Whatever the priorities of society, these features make 'intellectual property' unique as property. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>A false conclusion based on false assumptions.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On the one hand, this might make one ask 'is this stuff really property?' but I've not asked that question. I stopped doing this because we seem to have explored that territory pretty completely. Instead, for this thread I accepted the claim that works are property as true (even though I deny it) and asked some questions that follow from it.<BR><BR>For example, if this stuff is property, and copyright infringement is an infringement on property rights, why is theft the best classification of that infringement? Trespass seems a closer analogy in many respects. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe that's because the offense of trespass doesn't involve unlawful TAKING. Did you ever think of that? Huh? Try looking up "taking," then maybe tell us what in the world it has to do with trespass.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
reflex-croft
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Demondeluxe:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The RIAA's tactics (even if used by a DA) would not have a snowballs chance in hell in a criminal court when the burden of proof is 100% rather than "more than likely". </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The standard of proof in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt, not 100%. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You are correct here, for one reason or another the words reasonable doubt escaped me during this post. But my point is that the standard of proof in a criminal trail is a great deal of greater than the standard in civil court. And while I do value my liberty, the amount of time I would spend in jail for stealing less than 50 bucks worth of stuff would be preferable to a several hundred thousand to several million dollar settlement. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Changing the civil standard of proof would hurt far more people then just the RIAA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It would also help quite a few people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Good luck ever winning a case against a major corporation. Tobacco companies? Toxic dumping? On the job injuries? Anything really? If that were the standard, corporate behaviour would be amazingly bad.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reflex-croft:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Demondeluxe:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The RIAA's tactics (even if used by a DA) would not have a snowballs chance in hell in a criminal court when the burden of proof is 100% rather than "more than likely". </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The standard of proof in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt, not 100%. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You are correct here, for one reason or another the words reasonable doubt escaped me during this post. But my point is that the standard of proof in a criminal trail is a great deal of greater than the standard in civil court. And while I do value my liberty, the amount of time I would spend in jail for stealing less than 50 bucks worth of stuff would be preferable to a several hundred thousand to several million dollar settlement. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Changing the civil standard of proof would hurt far more people then just the RIAA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It would also help quite a few people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Good luck ever winning a case against a major corporation. Tobacco companies? Toxic dumping? On the job injuries? Anything really? If that were the standard, corporate behaviour would be amazingly bad. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You may have a point, but as a side note, tobacco companies are a horrid example. If you smoke yourself to death, or illness you should NOT be allowed to sue the tobacco companies. I mean is there any mystery that it is bad for you at this point.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You may have a point, but as a side note, tobacco companies are a horrid example. If you smoke yourself to death, or illness you should NOT be allowed to sue the tobacco companies. I mean is there any mystery that it is bad for you at this point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Except when many people got hooked on cigs the tobacco industry was telling people that smoking was perfectly healthy. That's really what screwed them over, they refused to admit their product was dangerous... found out that it was dangerous, then attempted to hide the evidence that it was dangerous.<BR><BR>They deserved to be spanked and spanked hard for that. <BR><BR>Now? Not so much. Back then, yeah...
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
reflex-croft
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You may have a point, but as a side note, tobacco companies are a horrid example. If you smoke yourself to death, or illness you should NOT be allowed to sue the tobacco companies. I mean is there any mystery that it is bad for you at this point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Except when many people got hooked on cigs the tobacco industry was telling people that smoking was perfectly healthy. That's really what screwed them over, they refused to admit their product was dangerous... found out that it was dangerous, then attempted to hide the evidence that it was dangerous.<BR><BR>They deserved to be spanked and spanked hard for that. <BR><BR>Now? Not so much. Back then, yeah... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Distributing cigarettes to soldiers for free for decades and claiming it was healthy? Claiming they helped fight infection? Spending decades releasing false research to counter all studies demonstrating the links between smoking and a variety of diseases?<BR><BR>Sure if someone starts smoking today I don't see how they have any right to make a claim. But for those born in previous generations, I definatly think they had a right after being lied to their whole lives. I even wonder about my generation, having grown up in smokey homes and dealing with asthma my whole life because when I was a child second-hand smoke was not understood to be generally dangerous.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeebee:<BR><BR>That's not the jury's job; they don't interpret the law. The only decide guilt/innocence/liability based on the law and the instructions presented to them.<BR><BR>If a jury could hear any defence and accept or reject it themselves, they'd, effectively be writing on the law.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>This is untrue. A juror has "veto power:" the right to decide how to vote regardless of the law. A juror is under no obligation to uphold the law. A juror that feels the law is unjust is well within their rights to vote not guilty even if they do, in fact, believe that the defendant is guilty of the crime which they are accused.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sure if someone starts smoking today I don't see how they have any right to make a claim. But for those born in previous generations, I definatly think they had a right after being lied to their whole lives. I even wonder about my generation, having grown up in smokey homes and dealing with asthma my whole life because when I was a child second-hand smoke was not understood to be generally dangerous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>I have no problem with the cig companies being taken to the cleaners for their past sins. However, at some point you have to say they have paid enough and that anybody starting after X date should have known. This point must be no earlier then the date that the cig companies finally admitted that smoking caused harm.. it can be much later as people who were already hooked on it need to be able to sue.<BR><BR>However somebody who starts smoking now? I feel the same for them as somebody who chooses to eat a supersized big mac meal for breakfast lunch and dinner and then wants to sue McDonald's for making them fat.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is untrue. A juror has "veto power:" the right to decide how to vote regardless of the law. A juror is under no obligation to uphold the law. A juror that feels the law is unjust is well within their rights to vote not guilty even if they do, in fact, believe that the defendant is guilty of the crime which they are accused. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>You are talking about Jury Nullifcation. A couple of points.<BR><BR>1. It's never been used in a civil case before.<BR><BR>2. It doesn't prevent a judge from ruling that a certain defense is legally not a defense for what the person is accused of in the case ie "wrong" and as such will not be heard by the jury.<BR><BR>3. Judges are well within their rights to prevent the lawyers from even talking about it.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ruddy:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<br>WRT the criminal aspect of these cases, since society thinks this is such a big deal, why is society unwilling to devote the law enforcement resources to finding and prosecuting those who infringe on copyright? </div>
</blockquote>Why should they when the civil courts have effectively dealt with IP disputes. Where they haven't, society has been taking steps to criminalize the problem. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>I'm sorry, it's not at all clear to me that civil actions have been 'effective' at doing anything for copyright holders. Criminal actions have done even less in the 27 years we've had federal (and felony) criminal penalties for copyright infringement. I guess that's an argument for more criminal penalties then! It's not an argument for removing those civil penalties, though. Those are just fine, perfectly reasonable, and surprisingly lenient compared to the vast swathes of economic terror and social harm those filesharing people have inflicted on us.<br><br>Yeah, that's it. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif -- <br><br>[edit: the above writings are sarcastic and hyperbolic, and not meant to be taken as a serious representation of hpsgrad's position on anything beyond ruddy's writing style]<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ruddy:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hpsgrad:<br>The <b>really</b> interesting thing here, when it comes to ruddy's replies, is that you keep on switching from a moral basis (Locke's theory of property, etc.) for why this is a good thing, to a historical basis (we pursue copyright infringement via civil court instead of criminal court because of tradition), to a bandwagon basis (society thinks it's a big deal) without any clear basis for those different justifications. </div>
</blockquote>Of course you see no coherency. You are in denial that our society grants copyright holders with exclusive (though time-limited) property rights. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Gotcha. Your position is perfectly clear, and perfectly consistent. The questions I've been asking are rooted in a deep-seated denial of reality. That various legal scholars have some similar arguments and questions indicates only that they too are denying reality.<br><br>Again: -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif -- <br>[edit: the above writings are sarcastic and hyperbolic, and not meant to be taken as a serious representation of hpsgrad's position on anything beyond ruddy's writing style. The writings below are more serious, however]<br><br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ruddy:<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hpsgrad:<br>]Since some of the historical features are 'just' according to you, and some 'unjust', we might expect you to explain why some are just and some aren't. To the best of my knowledge no comprehensive explanation has ever been given. But ruddy just switches from moral to historical arguments as convenient, without explanation or justification. </div>
</blockquote>You just don't want to admit that the historical evolution of copyright had moral arguments that were debated and decided with every change made to the laws. It is inconvenient to your ideology. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Yes, I realize that you believe that every change in copyright law is a result of social recognition that they unjustly burdened property owners. I'm claiming that your story is a post-hoc rationalization of a far more complex history, and that you cherry-pick your evidence, and switch from historical, to moral, to bandwagon arguments for your position depending on what's easier.<br><br>You seem to think this claim too obviously false to take seriously. That's your right.<br><br>And, to be blunt, I don't think you understand my 'ideology' at all. Certainly you've never accurately represented it or summarized it. Instead, you made up a category of people you call 'anti-copyright' and dumped me in it along with all the people who want to abolish copyright protections entirely. It's hard to take your criticisms of my 'ideology' seriously when you consistently misrepresent it, judge it by your standards (which are not compatible with my ideology), and generally sneer at it because it doesn't protect property rights strongly enough.<br><br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ruddy:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hpsgrad:<br>If we are really worried about justice, the intent of the founders, and Lockean theory, we should ask ourselves: does handling these cases via the civil courts effectively privilege the rights of copyright holders over the rights of those they accuse of infringing on their rights? </div>
</blockquote>That's a good question, one that applies to any civil suit where there is an imbalance of resources for the respective parties. <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Thanks. Care to address the question?<br><br>Better yet, would you admit that this is different from the general case of problems arising from an imbalance of resources, because the imbalance is codified into the law? After all, I'm not aware of any other sort of property that allows people to file civil suits to recover economic damages <b>which they do not have to present evidence of</b>. I realize you think that law perfectly just; that's not my point. My point is that the law makes civil suits far, far more appealing to copyright holders for addressing infringements of their rights than for owners of other sorts of property to address their rights.<br><br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ruddy:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hpsgrad:<br>It's not my fault you cannot distinguish between understanding and agreement. </div>
</blockquote>I understand quite well that you're disagreement prevents you from understanding. <blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I explained why what you wrote did not address the question I asked. Instead of replying to that, you resort to vague insults. That's all sorts of classy, and helpful in explaining your position. </div>
</blockquote>No, I just don't like repeating myself when you merely dismissed the arguments the first time, or second, or third. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Well, I don't like repeating myself when you mischaracterize what I've written, ignore relevant evidence, change your basis for argument half-way through a discussion, and call me names either. Again, it's not my fault you appear unable to understand the difference between someone who disagrees with your position, and someone who doesn't understand it. It's not my fault you confuse repeating yourself for answering questions or explaining those answers. In short, it's not my fault that our conversations always seem to go in circles. At most, it's your fault and mine together, but if you've unable or unwilling to admit your role in the problem, you're just going to continue to repeat yourself and call me names, and pretend that you're having an intelligent debate on the subject instead of asserting a philosophical position and failing to adequately justify it.<br><br>[edited to add explicit markers for sarcasm and hyperbole.]
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ruddy:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<br>WRT the criminal aspect of these cases, since society thinks this is such a big deal, why is society unwilling to devote the law enforcement resources to finding and prosecuting those who infringe on copyright? </div>
</blockquote>Why should they when the civil courts have effectively dealt with IP disputes. Where they haven't, society has been taking steps to criminalize the problem. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>I'm sorry, it's not at all clear to me that civil actions have been 'effective' at doing anything for copyright holders. Criminal actions have done even less in the 27 years we've had federal (and felony) criminal penalties for copyright infringement. I guess that's an argument for more criminal penalties then! It's not an argument for removing those civil penalties, though. Those are just fine, perfectly reasonable, and surprisingly lenient compared to the vast swathes of economic terror and social harm those filesharing people have inflicted on us.<br><br>Yeah, that's it. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif -- <br><br>[edit: the above writings are sarcastic and hyperbolic, and not meant to be taken as a serious representation of hpsgrad's position on anything beyond ruddy's writing style]<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ruddy:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hpsgrad:<br>The <b>really</b> interesting thing here, when it comes to ruddy's replies, is that you keep on switching from a moral basis (Locke's theory of property, etc.) for why this is a good thing, to a historical basis (we pursue copyright infringement via civil court instead of criminal court because of tradition), to a bandwagon basis (society thinks it's a big deal) without any clear basis for those different justifications. </div>
</blockquote>Of course you see no coherency. You are in denial that our society grants copyright holders with exclusive (though time-limited) property rights. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Gotcha. Your position is perfectly clear, and perfectly consistent. The questions I've been asking are rooted in a deep-seated denial of reality. That various legal scholars have some similar arguments and questions indicates only that they too are denying reality.<br><br>Again: -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif -- <br>[edit: the above writings are sarcastic and hyperbolic, and not meant to be taken as a serious representation of hpsgrad's position on anything beyond ruddy's writing style. The writings below are more serious, however]<br><br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ruddy:<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hpsgrad:<br>]Since some of the historical features are 'just' according to you, and some 'unjust', we might expect you to explain why some are just and some aren't. To the best of my knowledge no comprehensive explanation has ever been given. But ruddy just switches from moral to historical arguments as convenient, without explanation or justification. </div>
</blockquote>You just don't want to admit that the historical evolution of copyright had moral arguments that were debated and decided with every change made to the laws. It is inconvenient to your ideology. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Yes, I realize that you believe that every change in copyright law is a result of social recognition that they unjustly burdened property owners. I'm claiming that your story is a post-hoc rationalization of a far more complex history, and that you cherry-pick your evidence, and switch from historical, to moral, to bandwagon arguments for your position depending on what's easier.<br><br>You seem to think this claim too obviously false to take seriously. That's your right.<br><br>And, to be blunt, I don't think you understand my 'ideology' at all. Certainly you've never accurately represented it or summarized it. Instead, you made up a category of people you call 'anti-copyright' and dumped me in it along with all the people who want to abolish copyright protections entirely. It's hard to take your criticisms of my 'ideology' seriously when you consistently misrepresent it, judge it by your standards (which are not compatible with my ideology), and generally sneer at it because it doesn't protect property rights strongly enough.<br><br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ruddy:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hpsgrad:<br>If we are really worried about justice, the intent of the founders, and Lockean theory, we should ask ourselves: does handling these cases via the civil courts effectively privilege the rights of copyright holders over the rights of those they accuse of infringing on their rights? </div>
</blockquote>That's a good question, one that applies to any civil suit where there is an imbalance of resources for the respective parties. <br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Thanks. Care to address the question?<br><br>Better yet, would you admit that this is different from the general case of problems arising from an imbalance of resources, because the imbalance is codified into the law? After all, I'm not aware of any other sort of property that allows people to file civil suits to recover economic damages <b>which they do not have to present evidence of</b>. I realize you think that law perfectly just; that's not my point. My point is that the law makes civil suits far, far more appealing to copyright holders for addressing infringements of their rights than for owners of other sorts of property to address their rights.<br><br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ruddy:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hpsgrad:<br>It's not my fault you cannot distinguish between understanding and agreement. </div>
</blockquote>I understand quite well that you're disagreement prevents you from understanding. <blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I explained why what you wrote did not address the question I asked. Instead of replying to that, you resort to vague insults. That's all sorts of classy, and helpful in explaining your position. </div>
</blockquote>No, I just don't like repeating myself when you merely dismissed the arguments the first time, or second, or third. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Well, I don't like repeating myself when you mischaracterize what I've written, ignore relevant evidence, change your basis for argument half-way through a discussion, and call me names either. Again, it's not my fault you appear unable to understand the difference between someone who disagrees with your position, and someone who doesn't understand it. It's not my fault you confuse repeating yourself for answering questions or explaining those answers. In short, it's not my fault that our conversations always seem to go in circles. At most, it's your fault and mine together, but if you've unable or unwilling to admit your role in the problem, you're just going to continue to repeat yourself and call me names, and pretend that you're having an intelligent debate on the subject instead of asserting a philosophical position and failing to adequately justify it.<br><br>[edited to add explicit markers for sarcasm and hyperbole.]
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ruddy:<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hpsgrad:<BR>On the one hand, this might make one ask 'is this stuff really property?' but I've not asked that question. I stopped doing this because we seem to have explored that territory pretty completely. Instead, for this thread I accepted the claim that works are property as true (even though I deny it) and asked some questions that follow from it.<BR><BR>For example, if this stuff is property, and copyright infringement is an infringement on property rights, why is theft the best classification of that infringement? Trespass seems a closer analogy in many respects. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe that's because the offense of trespass doesn't involve unlawful TAKING. Did you ever think of that? Huh? Try looking up "taking," then maybe tell us what in the world it has to do with trespass. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Nothing gets taken from a copyright holder when their work is copied, except the possibility of a sale. Their distribution right has clearly been infringed however. What do you think gets taken from a copyright holder when they start with a work and end with a work, and never lose the ability to use that work however they like between those two times?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3. Judges are well within their rights to prevent the lawyers from even talking about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I have to admit this does feel wrong. If it's such a bonehead defense that the judge feels it's not worth arguing, why shouldn't the accused be allowed to see if the jury agrees, the same as with any other asinine "defense"? After all, it's not the first time we've seen some of the most preposterous tripe gobbled up by juries, right?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
reflex-croft
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm sorry, it's not at all clear to me that civil actions have been 'effective' at doing anything for copyright holders. Criminal actions have done even less in the 27 years we've had federal (and felony) criminal penalties for copyright infringement. I guess that's an argument for more criminal penalties then! It's not an argument for removing those civil penalties, though. Those are just fine, perfectly reasonable, and surprisingly lenient compared to the vast swathes of economic terror and social harm those filesharing people have inflicted on us. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is what I mean when I say that questions that were answered in previous threads keep being regurgitated in later threads as though they were unanswered in the past already.<BR><BR>Criminal penalties on copyright infringement were indeed prevelent in the past. They were often prosecuted under other names, however, such as counterfeiting. The establishment of an explicit 'copyright infringement' charge merely codified and refined crimes that already were being prosecuted, and in fact had been prosecuted for two hundred years in this nation.<BR><BR>But you know this. It was pointed out previously, and detailed at great length in a previous thread, and at the time you dropped the claim. But now, a month or two later, you bring the claim back in the apparant hope that no one will remember the past discussions. It seems to me that rather than clarifying the subject or elevating the conversation, you instead seek to muddle and confuse participants in these discussions by raising what appear to those new to the topic insightful questions, but in reality are questions that were answered long ago by other more qualified individuals. Every time the discussion starts to clarify, you attempt to muddy the waters.<BR><BR>Bring up something new. Something that is legitimate that has not been answered explicitly. Acknowledge that your questions are being answered clearly by others. Its one thing to agree to disagree, its quite another to be disingenuous about your position and the 'facts' you like to rely on.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR>I'm sorry, it's not at all clear to me that civil actions have been 'effective' at doing anything for copyright holders. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well then you are in denial of all the copyright case law of the past 300 years. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Your position is perfectly clear, and perfectly consistent. The questions I've been asking are rooted in a deep-seated denial of reality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>At the very least you are in denial that the Constitution empowers Congress to grant exclusive rights of property to creative works for a limited time, which Congress has done.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> That various legal scholars have some similar arguments and questions indicates only that they too are denying reality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If that's the case then why don't you make their arguments, otherwise you're blowing smoke.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm claiming that your story is a post-hoc rationalization of a far more complex history, and that you cherry-pick your evidence, and switch from historical, to moral, to bandwagon arguments for your position depending on what's easier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>As I said, you keep pretending that the Constitution and society haven't granted holders exclusive property rights to their works for a limited time. You've shown yourself repeatedly ignorant of over 300 years of copyright debate and its results and repeatedly make up your own information to suit foregone conclusions, like Trespass only being a criminal action which is bullshit, or IP being the only property in which civil courts are involved. Stop inventing bullshit and your arguments might get taken more seriously. <BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Certainly you've never accurately represented it or summarized it. Instead, you made up a category of people you call 'anti-copyright' and dumped me in it along with all the people who want to abolish copyright protections entirely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It's hardly a definition that I made up but one that is in common use. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Anti-copyright refers to the complete or partial opposition to prevalent copyright laws. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You deny that copyright grants property rights for creative works. I'd call your opposition to copyright "fundamental." <BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's hard to take your criticisms of my 'ideology' seriously when you consistently misrepresent it, judge it by your standards (which are not compatible with my ideology), and generally sneer at it because it doesn't protect property rights strongly enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I sneer at your denial of reality. I sneer at your attempt to remove morality from the issue. I sneer at your making up information and trying to pass it off as fact. I sneer at your repeated dismissal of arguments that don't suit your foregone conclusions and then repeatedly asking the same questions all over again. Arguing with you is like "Groundhog Day."<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thanks. Care to address the question? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Better yet, would you admit that this is different from the general case of problems arising from an imbalance of resources, because the imbalance is codified into the law? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope. Statutory damages are codified into law on a wide range of actions, and in all of them there may be some injustice from an imbalance of resources. I don't see there was any injustice in either of the JTR or JT trials. The trial someone else brought up where there was an injustice has been corrected, unfortunate for that individual meanwhile but nobody's saying our or any system of justice is perfect.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">After all, I'm not aware of any other sort of property that allows people to file civil suits to recover economic damages <B>which they do not have to present evidence of</B>. I realize you think that law perfectly just; that's not my point. My point is that the law makes civil suits far, far more appealing to copyright holders for addressing infringements of their rights than for owners of other sorts of property to address their rights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Rightsholders use the civil courts because they want to recover damages, something they cant do in criminal courts, and simply because until recently there have been no criminal laws to pursue, which even now are reserved for the most malicious offenders. It's got nothing to do with "appealing," they simply don;t have any choice but to use civil courts. You seem to be in denial of this as well. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Nothing gets taken from a copyright holder when their work is copied, except the possibility of a sale. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Then you are also in denial of that copy sitting on the pirate's hard drive. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> What do you think gets taken from a copyright holder when they start with a work and end with a work, and never lose the ability to use that work however they like between those two times? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The exclusive property rights to control copying and distribution that are protected by the Constitution.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rodbac:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3. Judges are well within their rights to prevent the lawyers from even talking about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I have to admit this does feel wrong. If it's such a bonehead defense that the judge feels it's not worth arguing, why shouldn't the accused be allowed to see if the jury agrees, the same as with any other asinine "defense"? After all, it's not the first time we've seen some of the most preposterous tripe gobbled up by juries, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Lawyers are not allowed to tell a jury that X is a legal defense for the charge of Y when it's not.<BR><BR><BR>Example: <BR><BR>A Lawyer can't stand up before a jury and say that according to the law, their client is not guilty of murder because the law says that if you kill a man who is walking away with your property it's legal to do so. <BR><BR>Now that sounds like it could be a legal defense and in fact in some states it is indeed a legal defense. You can shoot people who are taking your property even if they don't pose a danger to you. However, for the purpose of this example let's say that you live in a state where that is NOT a legal defense.<BR><BR>Now what is the other lawyer going to say? No that's wrong, that's not the law in this state.<BR><BR>Now you have screwed up the legal system because the jury has no way of telling what is the truth and what isn't. Sure they can later go and ask the judge, but it makes MORE sense to not allow a lawyer to lie to the jury in the first place.<BR><BR>Who gets to decide? The Judge.. that's what they are there for. They make sure that both lawyers are playing by the "rules". If your think the judge is wrong, you can appeal. A jury is not there to create law, it's there to determine how the facts of the case fit into existing law.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reflex-croft:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm sorry, it's not at all clear to me that civil actions have been 'effective' at doing anything for copyright holders. Criminal actions have done even less in the 27 years we've had federal (and felony) criminal penalties for copyright infringement. I guess that's an argument for more criminal penalties then! It's not an argument for removing those civil penalties, though. Those are just fine, perfectly reasonable, and surprisingly lenient compared to the vast swathes of economic terror and social harm those filesharing people have inflicted on us. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is what I mean when I say that questions that were answered in previous threads keep being regurgitated in later threads as though they were unanswered in the past already.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I apologize. That was hyperbole, and I though it self-evidently so. I will add sarcasm tags to the original post.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
reflex-croft
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reflex-croft:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm sorry, it's not at all clear to me that civil actions have been 'effective' at doing anything for copyright holders. Criminal actions have done even less in the 27 years we've had federal (and felony) criminal penalties for copyright infringement. I guess that's an argument for more criminal penalties then! It's not an argument for removing those civil penalties, though. Those are just fine, perfectly reasonable, and surprisingly lenient compared to the vast swathes of economic terror and social harm those filesharing people have inflicted on us. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is what I mean when I say that questions that were answered in previous threads keep being regurgitated in later threads as though they were unanswered in the past already.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I apologize. That was hyperbole, and I though it self-evidently so. I will add sarcasm tags to the original post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I am not reffering to or taking issue with the hyperbole. My issue is that you asked a question that you already had answered definitively in previous threads on this topic. Why do you bring up questions that have already been answered to your own satisfaction and present them as though there is no answer or some form of confusion on the topic?<BR><BR>Copyright has had criminal penalties since the beginning. That was established long ago in these discussions with you. That you keep bringing this up, and doing so in a manner that implies it is a fact is disingenuous. And you know it is. Which is why I question your intent in these threads....
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now what is the other lawyer going to say? No that's wrong, that's not the law in this state. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I guess I don't see why the other lawyer shouldn't be required to do that.<BR><BR>Lawyer A (questioning accused): "So you shot the perp because he was walking away with your property, which is [insert legal mumbo jumbo conflating legality in another state with legality in the state in question]?"<BR><BR>Lawyer B calls legal expert of some kind to stand...<BR><BR>Lawyer B (to expert): "Is it legal to shoot someone taking your property in this state?"<BR><BR>Expert: "No."<BR><BR>Lawyer B (to jury): "So it is INDEED illegal to shoot someone simply for taking your property."<BR><BR>^^Seems like that should be the process rather than one man, with whatever fallibility he brings to the table, deciding what is and isn't valid. IOW, having a poor defense doesn't sound (to the layman) like it's against the rules (I accept a lawyer's explanation, though).
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">^^Seems like that should be the process rather than one man, with whatever fallibility he brings to the table, deciding what is and isn't valid. IOW, having a poor defense doesn't sound (to the layman) like it's against the rules (I accept a lawyer's explanation, though). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>There is a difference in having a poor defense, and having an illegal defense.<BR><BR>The Knicks have a poor defense in basketball, punching the other team's point guard in the face every time they came down the court would not be a poor defense, it would be an illegal defense.<BR><BR>The entire purpose of the judge is to determine what is and isn't legal. The good news is that if you think the judge got it wrong you can appeal their ruling. I can't imagine the wierdness that would result if you suddenly took a judges ability to say "no that's not the law, stop pretending it is".<BR><BR>Add on: No what would happen in your case is that you would have a parade of witnesses on each side, each claiming the law said completely different things.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I guess I don't see why the other lawyer shouldn't be required to do that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Because it's not the jury's job to figure out what the law is, it's the jury's job to figure out how the facts of the case fit into the law.<BR><BR>I guess that's the easiest way to answer your question/wondering.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reflex-croft:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reflex-croft:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm sorry, it's not at all clear to me that civil actions have been 'effective' at doing anything for copyright holders. Criminal actions have done even less in the 27 years we've had federal (and felony) criminal penalties for copyright infringement. I guess that's an argument for more criminal penalties then! It's not an argument for removing those civil penalties, though. Those are just fine, perfectly reasonable, and surprisingly lenient compared to the vast swathes of economic terror and social harm those filesharing people have inflicted on us. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is what I mean when I say that questions that were answered in previous threads keep being regurgitated in later threads as though they were unanswered in the past already.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I apologize. That was hyperbole, and I though it self-evidently so. I will add sarcasm tags to the original post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I am not reffering to or taking issue with the hyperbole. My issue is that you asked a question that you already had answered definitively in previous threads on this topic. Why do you bring up questions that have already been answered to your own satisfaction and present them as though there is no answer or some form of confusion on the topic?<BR><BR>Copyright has had criminal penalties since the beginning. That was established long ago in these discussions with you. That you keep bringing this up, and doing so in a manner that implies it is a fact is disingenuous. And you know it is. Which is why I question your intent in these threads.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I didn't question whether or not copyright infringements have had criminal penalties in this thread. <BR><BR>I questioned whether or not those criminal penalties have had any effect on file sharing. To my knowledge, the existence of (AFAIK, largely unused) criminal penalties hasn't done anything at all to reduce the number of people sharing files they don't have rights to, nor to reduce the volume of files shared.<BR><BR>Heck, if we look at the discussion started by the ars article about the recent criminal file-sharing proceedings in the US, most people here pounced on it saying 'why did these guys get lower fines than those civil cases?' The question ignores important facts (such as the possibility of jail time), but I think it reveals that people don't see it as a significant deterrent. If anything, the immense value of the fines in the civil cases has caused a larger impact in public culture. Joel Tenenbaum got TV interviews. The guys who were prosecuted for criminal infringement got...barely a mention?<BR><BR>In summary, I think you misunderstood the point of that post, and line of argument; hopefully my explanation clears up what I'm trying to get at.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I questioned whether or not those criminal penalties have had any effect on file sharing. To my knowledge, the existence of (AFAIK, largely unused) criminal penalties hasn't done anything at all to reduce the number of people sharing files they don't have rights to, nor to reduce the volume of files shared. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>One could make the same arguement about murder and pretty much any other crime. I mean if making it a crime hasn't stopped people from killing each other, why bother making it illegal?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
reflex-croft
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reflex-croft:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reflex-croft:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm sorry, it's not at all clear to me that civil actions have been 'effective' at doing anything for copyright holders. Criminal actions have done even less in the 27 years we've had federal (and felony) criminal penalties for copyright infringement. I guess that's an argument for more criminal penalties then! It's not an argument for removing those civil penalties, though. Those are just fine, perfectly reasonable, and surprisingly lenient compared to the vast swathes of economic terror and social harm those filesharing people have inflicted on us. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is what I mean when I say that questions that were answered in previous threads keep being regurgitated in later threads as though they were unanswered in the past already.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I apologize. That was hyperbole, and I though it self-evidently so. I will add sarcasm tags to the original post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I am not reffering to or taking issue with the hyperbole. My issue is that you asked a question that you already had answered definitively in previous threads on this topic. Why do you bring up questions that have already been answered to your own satisfaction and present them as though there is no answer or some form of confusion on the topic?<BR><BR>Copyright has had criminal penalties since the beginning. That was established long ago in these discussions with you. That you keep bringing this up, and doing so in a manner that implies it is a fact is disingenuous. And you know it is. Which is why I question your intent in these threads.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I didn't question whether or not copyright infringements have had criminal penalties in this thread. <BR><BR>I questioned whether or not those criminal penalties have had any effect on file sharing. To my knowledge, the existence of (AFAIK, largely unused) criminal penalties hasn't done anything at all to reduce the number of people sharing files they don't have rights to, nor to reduce the volume of files shared.<BR><BR>Heck, if we look at the discussion started by the ars article about the recent criminal file-sharing proceedings in the US, most people here pounced on it saying 'why did these guys get lower fines than those civil cases?' The question ignores important facts (such as the possibility of jail time), but I think it reveals that people don't see it as a significant deterrent. If anything, the immense value of the fines in the civil cases has caused a larger impact in public culture. Joel Tenenbaum got TV interviews. The guys who were prosecuted for criminal infringement got...barely a mention?<BR><BR>In summary, I think you misunderstood the point of that post, and line of argument; hopefully my explanation clears up what I'm trying to get at. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is what I am responding to:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Criminal actions have done even less in the 27 years we've had federal (and felony) criminal penalties for copyright infringement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This assertion is incorrect. Retract please. It has been criminal to infringe copyright for 200 years in this country, and longer elsewhere. It has had a variety of names, and a variety of methods of prosecuting, but it has existed nearly as long as this nation. It is not a new concept that it is a criminal act and capable of criminal and civil prosecution.<BR><BR>If you understand this, then please stop asserting it. It only serves to confuse those reading this thread who may think it is accurate. The first time I read it I did a double take and had to research the issue. If you do not understand this, then please clarify what you do not understand about the fact that copyright infringement(under any name) has been illegal since at least 1809 in this country that has not been answered in this and previous threads so that it can be clarified for you.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ruddy:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hpsgrad: Nothing gets taken from a copyright holder when their work is copied, except the possibility of a sale. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Then you are also in denial of that copy sitting on the pirate's hard drive. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> What do you think gets taken from a copyright holder when they start with a work and end with a work, and never lose the ability to use that work however they like between those two times? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The exclusive property rights to control copying and distribution that are protected by the Constitution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>From Wikipedia (it's hardly a legal reference, but I can't be bothered to get real precise when arguing with ruddy):<BR>In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.<BR><BR>Okay. We've all agreed for the purpose of this thread that the work is property. Someone who copies a work without permission hasn't taken the work from the owner. They still have it.<BR><BR>We also all agree that the copyright is a property. Someone who copies a work without permission has not taken the copyright from the owner. They still have it.<BR><BR>A copy of the work (that is, a fixation) is also property. No fixed copy already in existence has been taken from the copyright holder. Furthermore, not all of those fixed copies are the property of the copyright holder. That's why we can have first sale doctrine in the US: fixed copies, once sold, are not the property of the copyright holder.<BR><BR>So, what's been taken from the copyright holder? All of the property that they had before the infringement is still in their posession after the infringement. A new copy has been made, which is clearly infringing on their copyright (yes, it's a violation of the copyright holder's rights), but it's not at all clear to me that this new fixed copy was ever the property of the copyright holder.<BR><BR>So, I'm skeptical that any real taking has occurred here. No doubt I'm just in denial of the obvious, however.<BR><BR><B>But, let's just assume that a taking has occurred:</B><BR><BR>Then surely the expiration of the copyright term represents a far, far more significant taking from the copyright holder. That taking is also completely uncompensated (in contrast to, e.g. eminent domain takings by the government of real property). While that 'taking' is legitimate (it's mandated by the constitution, after all), if you're going to hold that the first taking is an act of injustice, immoral according to Locke's theory of property, I'd ask you to explain why the second taking is not also an act of injustice and immoral. Yes, the constitution mandates that second taking, but that doesn't make it right. Also remember that ruddy holds that works under copyright are more valuable, and also more usable than works in the public domain (because they're more likely to be published, and therefore more likely to be findable). Ruddy has repeatedly asked what economic harm could result from a work remaining in copyright (apparently there isn't any; at least none of the examples I provided seemed to meet his standards), and has repeatedly said that there's no legitimate creative acts that are hampered by a work's being in copyright.<BR><BR>So, given that works are property, and that there are no economic benefits to works being in the public domain, and that moving a work out of copyright and into the public domain represents a clear taking of that property (and also reducing it's economic value significantly), it seems that the term limit mandated by the US constitution is clearly immoral.<BR><BR>In precisely the same way as my application of Locke's theory of property in the hypothetical case of 'plantingright' which I outlined some weeks ago, my application of Locke's theory of property in this case leads to a very strange result: US law is not consistent with the moral basis ruddy claims it should follow.<BR><BR>Now then, if a taking hasn't occurred, copyright infringement seems more like trespassing than theft, to me at least. If a taking has occurred, ruddy's moral position (claimed to be that of the founding fathers, except perhaps that slave-owner Jefferson) seems inconsistent with the US constitution. No doubt I've gotten it all wrong here though.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now then, if a taking hasn't occurred, copyright infringement seems more like trespassing than theft, to me at least. If a taking has occurred, ruddy's moral position (claimed to be that of the founding fathers, except perhaps that slave-owner Jefferson) seems inconsistent with the US constitution. No doubt I've gotten it all wrong here though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Unless you feel that the claiming of copyright is a sort of contract with the government. IE: They will support your claim for X number of years but there is a price, at the end of the contract the work goes to everybody.<BR><BR>Clearly you can opt out of said contract by never claiming copyright ((and if you do your work becomes free to everybody)) or you can opt in, in which case in exchange for the protection you agree to the price.<BR><BR>Many services the government performs have a direct cost to those who take advantage of that service.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reflex-croft:<BR>This is what I am responding to:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hpsgrad:Criminal actions have done even less in the 27 years we've had federal (and felony) criminal penalties for copyright infringement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This assertion is incorrect. Retract please. It has been criminal to infringe copyright for 200 years in this country, and longer elsewhere. It has had a variety of names, and a variety of methods of prosecuting, but it has existed nearly as long as this nation. It is not a new concept that it is a criminal act and capable of criminal and civil prosecution.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR> ruddy supplied this citation which states that federal <B>misdemeanor</B> charges were first enacted in 1897.<BR><BR>I am unaware of federal criminal penalties before this date. Similarly, I'm unaware of <B>federal, felony</B> penalties before 1982. That's why I specified 'federal (and felony)' when I wrote what I wrote.<BR><BR>I'd be happy to retract if you provide a citation for the 1809 date of federal, felony, penalties.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
reflex-croft
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reflex-croft:<BR>This is what I am responding to:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hpsgrad:Criminal actions have done even less in the 27 years we've had federal (and felony) criminal penalties for copyright infringement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This assertion is incorrect. Retract please. It has been criminal to infringe copyright for 200 years in this country, and longer elsewhere. It has had a variety of names, and a variety of methods of prosecuting, but it has existed nearly as long as this nation. It is not a new concept that it is a criminal act and capable of criminal and civil prosecution.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR> ruddy supplied this citation which states that federal <B>misdemeanor</B> charges were first enacted in 1897.<BR><BR>I am unaware of federal criminal penalties before this date. Similarly, I'm unaware of <B>federal, felony</B> penalties before 1982. That's why I specified 'federal (and felony)' when I wrote what I wrote.<BR><BR>I'd be happy to retract if you provide a citation for the 1809 date of federal, felony, penalties. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>As pointed out before, there were(and still are) multiple methods of charging someone with copyright violations. I supply 'counterfeiting' as one of them. Which certainly has existed for centuries as a crime. I believe in past threads we have come up with others as well.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now then, if a taking hasn't occurred, copyright infringement seems more like trespassing than theft, to me at least. If a taking has occurred, ruddy's moral position (claimed to be that of the founding fathers, except perhaps that slave-owner Jefferson) seems inconsistent with the US constitution. No doubt I've gotten it all wrong here though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Unless you feel that the claiming of copyright is a sort of contract with the government. IE: They will support your claim for X number of years but there is a price, at the end of the contract the work goes to everybody.<BR><BR>Clearly you can opt out of said contract by never claiming copyright ((and if you do your work becomes free to everybody)) or you can opt in, in which case in exchange for the protection you agree to the price.<BR><BR>Many services the government performs have a direct cost to those who take advantage of that service. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>By US Law, as amended in 1976, all works are copyrighted when first fixed, automatically. I am aware of no non-revokable procedure for releasing a work from copyright protection (that is, a copyright holder may declare a work to be in the public domain, but it's not at all clear what legal status such a declaration might have, since there is no legislation on the matter, nor have any cases come to trial on the matter, so far as I'm aware).<BR><BR>Anyway, ruddy's position is that copyright is a property right which derives from the labor exerted to create the work. The government's recognition of those rights, or lack thereof (were that somehow to be the case) would not change the moral position. <BR><BR>There are lots of ways of interpreting copyright so as to avoid the dilemma I posed. I'm not able to think of one off the top of my head available to someone who has made the claims that ruddy has made.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reflex-croft:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reflex-croft:<BR>This is what I am responding to:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hpsgrad:Criminal actions have done even less in the 27 years we've had federal (and felony) criminal penalties for copyright infringement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This assertion is incorrect. Retract please. It has been criminal to infringe copyright for 200 years in this country, and longer elsewhere. It has had a variety of names, and a variety of methods of prosecuting, but it has existed nearly as long as this nation. It is not a new concept that it is a criminal act and capable of criminal and civil prosecution.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR> ruddy supplied this citation which states that federal <B>misdemeanor</B> charges were first enacted in 1897.<BR><BR>I am unaware of federal criminal penalties before this date. Similarly, I'm unaware of <B>federal, felony</B> penalties before 1982. That's why I specified 'federal (and felony)' when I wrote what I wrote.<BR><BR>I'd be happy to retract if you provide a citation for the 1809 date of federal, felony, penalties. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>As pointed out before, there were(and still are) multiple methods of charging someone with copyright violations. I supply 'counterfeiting' as one of them. Which certainly has existed for centuries as a crime. I believe in past threads we have come up with others as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Counterfeiting is covered under US trademark law, not copyright law, unless something has changed radically in the last three months. My statement is accurate to the best of my knowledge, as stated, and appropriately focused for the point being made.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By US Law, as amended in 1976, all works are copyrighted when first fixed, automatically. I am aware of no non-revokable procedure for releasing a work from copyright protection (that is, a copyright holder may declare a work to be in the public domain, but it's not at all clear what legal status such a declaration might have, since there is no legislation on the matter, nor have any cases come to trial on the matter, so far as I'm aware). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Then change the opt out part and the point remains the same. The government often charges for services. Part of the charge for protecting your copyrighted work is the fact that eventually it will become public domain.<BR><BR>The point doesn't change.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is a difference in having a poor defense, and having an illegal defense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Erroneously claiming a law is applicable is illegal?? I had no idea.<BR><BR>[edit]<BR><BR>Also, in this case, it wasn't a cut-and-dry distinction, was it? They wanted to portray his actions, at least some of them(?), as fair use, but the judge decided it wasn't fair use. Doesn't that sound like something a jury should decide? What made it so cut-and-dry that it shouldn't even be allowed to be argued? Maybe I missed that (sorry if so).<BR><BR>[edit2]<BR><BR>It seems that "fair use" is such a nebulous term, the precise definition of which everyone seems to be fighting over, and if I'm doing something that *I* think falls under fair use, then the *AAs disagree and come after me, and I'm going to fight them in front of a jury, I sure as h3ll don't want a judge usurping my right to have a jury hear my argument based on his assessment unless his ruling is black and white (which, to be fair, this case may have been, but I don't remember it being that).
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rodbac:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is a difference in having a poor defense, and having an illegal defense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Erroneously claiming a law is applicable is illegal?? I had no idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>That's why the judge didn't allow it. By the "rules" of court it most certainly is.<BR><BR>Add on: In the case involving Joel it wsn't erroneously claiming a law was applicable it was planning on telling the jury that the law said something it clearly did not because it would really help his client if the law was completely different.<BR><BR>More because of your edit...<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, in this case, it wasn't a cut-and-dry distinction, was it? They wanted to portray his actions, at least some of them(?), as fair use, but the judge decided it wasn't fair use. Doesn't that sound like something a jury should decide? What made it so cut-and-dry that it shouldn't even be allowed to be argued? Maybe I missed that (sorry if so). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Fair use and how it applies is actually written into the law. Joel's team wanted to tell the jury that the legal definition of fair use included things that were not written in the law, ie making up things that they wished the law had said because it would really be good for their client if it was written totally differently.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ruddy:<BR>The immorality of unlawfully taking something (i.e., the right to copy and the right to distribute) that does not belong to you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I don't see any justification for allowing commercial organizations to retain those specific rights. Before the public at large (not just your two-bit crook) had access to technology that lets them easily copy and distribute, sure, it made sense to have that restriction. Any such mass copying and distribution would be on an industrial level, and therefore easy to police. Now? Good luck catching every sharer. In fact, I wager that nearly everyone has committed noncommercial copyright infringement at some point or another. Ever sent a song to a friend over IM? That's infringement. The point is that it's natural for people to share things, and now that it's gotten this easy, there's no stopping it. I think that we as a society could save ourselves a lot of trouble by just legalizing it and, if the RIAA whines, telling them to get with it or shut the hell up.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You live in a civilized society. You can either play by the rules or risk being sued and having your life fucked over. If you want to make an effective moral statement about copyright or capitalism, then stop consuming the goods. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Already did, but nobody's going to say "Ohnoes, 4nd isn't listening to the RIAA's music anymore! Quick, we must do something about this!"<BR><BR>Also, saying "my way or the highway" is not an effective or compelling argument. Just because something is legal, or commonly accepted, does not make it right. This applies specificially to modern copyright. Modern technology has utterly revolutionized how people think of and handle media. This is called "change" and it is the utter bane of the Established Right(tm). Change is what this is all about- it's why the labels and industries (but not necessarily the artists that form their backbones) are fighting it so hard. Why they've put out so much propaganda against it, in order to get regular people to see things their way by default without even asking themselves <I>why</I> it's wrong. (I used to be like this.) They can't change, they can't adapt, because they want to retain their old business model. And sooner or later- perhaps after many lawsuits, after many more million+ dollar fines and many more copyright enhancements- the inevitable will catch up to them, and progress will triumph, as it is always destined to.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Thanks for indulging me, RDV.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fair use and how it applies is actually written into the law. Joel's team wanted to tell the jury that the legal definition of fair use included things that were not written in the law, ie making up things that they wished the law had said because it would really be good for their client if it was written totally differently. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Why would the entire discussion be thrown out, then, instead of merely telling them they dmn well better not lie about what the law says (which, it seems to me, could be displayed in black and white for any English-readers to see for themselves).<BR><BR>IOW, if the language is so easy to interpret that the judge can say "Nope, doesn't apply in any way whatsoever so you're banned from so much as mentioning it", why does he even need to do so? Why wouldn't the jury be able to see that it's not applicable in any way whatsoever?<BR><BR>And if it's not so easy to interpret, isn't that what the jury is for- to look at the law, listen to the arguments, then decide who's full of sht and who's not?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
- Status