Relating to the Verizon file sharing supoena...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why do you think they ban video recorders from movie theaters?

That is the policy of the theaters usually, but it still isn't "stealing" anything.

File-sharing folks tend not to do illegal things with the music they download (i.e. burning and selling CDs of the music, Albert Speer not withstanding). Downloading a file is no more "stealing" something than making a cassette tape of a radio station playing music is "stealing" something.

[Asher]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

yeah right , ......

have a nice day

Just how do you think the servers know where to send data if IP address were not publically visible?

Are you refering to proxies?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Agathon: Since I don't know if anyone has answered your precedent question yet, does Napster fit what you are asking for?

That was against the company rather than individual sharers. I remember Metallica sued some kids for sharing their stuff, but it seems odd that people should be punished for sharing rather than downloading shared files.

In New Zealand it is pretty clear since we don't have any legal "fair use" rights. Having said that, no one has ever been prosecuted for making a tape for their car.

I'd also like to know whether we buy the rights to listen to the music when we buy it. For example, I have a load of cassettes I bought back in the eighties. Is it illegal for me to download these songs if I have already in essence paid for them? I could of course copy them into Mp3 from the cassettes but that would be unecessarily difficult. and it isn't as if the quality of Mp3s is much better than that of a good cassette.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


That is the policy of the theaters usually, but it still isn't "stealing" anything.

File-sharing folks tend not to do illegal things with the music they download (i.e. burning and selling CDs of the music, Albert Speer not withstanding). Downloading a file is no more "stealing" something than making a cassette tape of a radio station playing music is "stealing" something.

If you go across the hallway and borrow a CD from a buddy in your dorm and burn a tape of it, that is stealing. It violates copyright law. I was at the Naval Academy when this became an issue. They got legal clarification and they also kicked some people out for honor violations. It is not fair use. If you've purchased something, than fair use is defined that you can make a copy for your own use.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GP


If you go across the hallway and borrow a CD from a buddy in your dorm and burn a tape of it, that is stealing. It violates copyright law. I was at the Naval Academy when this became an issue. They got legal clarification and they also kicked some people out for honor violations. It is not fair use. If you've purchased something, than fair use is defined that you can make a copy for your own use.

Again, that's not "stealing." It may not be "fair use," but it is not theft, as nothing is stolen. I want to know how it is considered theft.

And would you advocated prosecuting people for taping songs of the radio for personal listening use? It's absurd, and I don't see a bit of difference between this and that.

The standards the Naval Academy uses for discipline doesn't matter here, as I hardly think military academy standards should be adopted for the general public.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Agathon


That was against the company rather than individual sharers. I remember Metallica sued some kids for sharing their stuff, but it seems odd that people should be punished for sharing rather than downloading shared files.

In New Zealand it is pretty clear since we don't have any legal "fair use" rights. Having said that, no one has ever been prosecuted for making a tape for their car.

I'd also like to know whether we buy the rights to listen to the music when we buy it. For example, I have a load of cassettes I bought back in the eighties. Is it illegal for me to download these songs if I have already in essence paid for them? I could of course copy them into Mp3 from the cassettes but that would be unecessarily difficult. and it isn't as if the quality of Mp3s is much better than that of a good cassette.

At least in the US, you are allowed to make a tape copy of your own CD. But not to make a copy of someone else's CD or have them make one for you. The allowance to make a tape backup is just a specific legal allowance. I think it would actually be more consistent if you weren't allowed to make copies for yourself, either.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Again, that's not "stealing." It may not be "fair use," but it is not theft, as nothing is stolen. I want to know how it is considered theft.

And would you advocated prosecuting people for taping songs of the radio for personal listening use? It's absurd, and I don't see a bit of difference between this and that.

The standards the Naval Academy uses for discipline doesn't matter here, as I hardly think military academy standards should be adopted for the general public.

When I use the term stealing for copyright violations, it is cute usage. The point remains that you are taking somthing that doesn't belong to you. The ability to copy that material is "righted".

I don't think that the USNA honor code applies tio civilians. (For instance equivocation is considered lying under the code, whereas (apparently) it is ok for grand jury witnesses. My point was that when this whole thing became an issue at USNA, they had to decide how to handle it under the code. in the process of researching the issue and deciding how they would handle it, they checked the laws on fair usage. They found that it is legal to make a tape for yourself of your own music. But it is illegal to make copies of other people's CD's. (or have them burn them for you.)

[Panag]

Originally posted by Asher

Just how do you think the servers know where to send data if IP address were not publically visible?

Are you refering to proxies?

hi ,

thats one way , ....

"identity spoofing" , .....

is another , ..... there is also dynamic IP , .....

have a nice day

and no , i am not going to describe all the ways in a public forum , ....

[Ned]

Verizon decision

No expectations of privacy: From the judge's decision on a second subpoena, this one raising two constitutional issues.

"
In the end, Verizon's customers should have little expectation of privacy (or anonymity) in infringing copyrights. Subscribers to Verizon's Internet services are put on clear notice that they
cannot use Verizon's service or network to infringe copyrights. See Verizon Online Terms of Service, http://www.verizon.net/policies/popu...taa_popup.asp. In fact, as part of its corporate policy, Verizon alerts its subscribers at the outset that it will "disclose individual customer
information to an outside entity . . . when Verizon is served with valid legal process for customer information." See Verizon Privacy Principles, http://www22.verizon.com/About/Privacy/genpriv.
And if an individual subscriber opens his computer to permit others, through peer-to-peer filesharing, to download materials from that computer, it is hard to understand just what privacy
expectation he or she has after essentially opening the computer to the world. See United States v. Kennedy, 81 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1110 (D. Kan. 2000) (no expectation of privacy where user has
opened files up on home computer to anyone who wants to receive them)."

[Ned]

P2P software does not infringe

P2P distributors Grokster and Streamcast do not infringe, even though their users may.

See the attached file.