Lawyer "John" says:

One problem with Cary's statement is that "uploading" is an old term
developed back in the pre-P2P day when people dialed up a bulletin board
server. With no direct connection to the original source, you could
only reproduce a copy (download) if someone else had first reproduced a
copy (upload) to the server. Today, one can download from any connected
PC without the owner of the copy on the PC having made any infringing
reproduction -- no uploads involved.

To say that people from whom you download are "distributing" is somewhat
of a legal fiction, given that the exclusive right of distribution
applies only to the distribution of "material objects." It may be good
enough for a couple of grand in settlement, and a distinction without a
difference if the so-called "uploader" could also be guilty of
contributory infringement of the reproduction made by the downloader (or
primary infringement if the copy on their hard drive is an infringing
reproduction), but a lawsuit claiming infringing distribution by a
"passive" non-geek who unwittingly leaves their hard drive open to a P2P
network from which others make infringing reproductions from a
non-infringing copy . . . Well, let's just say I would be happy to take
that case.

The real reason for going after so-called uploaders and not downloaders
may have more to do with Section 1008 of the Copyright Act, which
immunizes certain types of downloads from prosecution. (Maybe it would
be cleaner just to repeal the AHRA and go back to basics without the
semantics?)

John

Hmmmmm....Do tell....

The reason is because they can only find the people that are sharing. They can't see the people who are just downloading. That is the reason.

Okay, Code, what gives? You are way too reticent tonight. I never saw you so quiet.

It was forty years ago today...I saw the Beatles in concert in KC!

Just had to share that.

Kind of makes you wonder what would have happened if John was still alive. He was always so outrageous, and a free spirit to boot. (Put on some Beatles music, it's never passe.)

"The reason is because they can only find the people that are sharing. They can't see the people who are just downloading. That is the reason."

But I thought I recalled a woman from Hawaii getting served papers last month for unauthorized 'downloading' a certain number of music files?

"Well, let's just say I would be happy to take that case. Unfortunately, I'm too busy surfing the internet."

Uh huh.

Aren't we all, mroop, aren't we all.......

Saw the Beatles Aug. of 65 in Shea Stadium. Time does fly by.

I would like to know. What law says, that leaving your hard drive open to the public is against the law.

It's all a matter of interpretation, hawk7771; it may be illegal to leave anything open to the public anymore.

OHMYGOD -- you're right! It was 40 years ago I saw the Beatles in Cleveland. September 15, 1964.
Do you remember Jackie DeShannon's red outfit and headband?

I have my ticket stub -- $6.50 for Orchestra!
Check out http://www.rarebeatles.com/photopg7/photopg7.htm#1964

ShadowMom...you are the most perceptive on the board tonight.

My relative silence in the posts speaks volumes.

"But I thought I recalled a woman from Hawaii getting served papers last month for unauthorized 'downloading' a certain number of music files?"

in order to do that, they would require an "e-tap" if you get what i mean.

Simply placing out a pot of music to download wouldnt work because by doing so they "authorize" others to download it.

But i guess, even though it's not ok to whore around and then claim rape, its just fine to give away music and then claim theft.

My own opinion is that something does need to be done, but not in the area of tech.
We've all been seeing a LOT of paper recently, talking about dissemination(sp), distribution, copying and the like. I'm of the mind that there are way too many ways to define these terms, and unfortunately, they are all slanted towards the 'owners' or 'big business' or whatever term is being slung around this week.
I feel sometimes like I'm being spoken down to and manipulated by this. I feel (and I hope that others share this point of view, if not *shrug* okay) that I am being told what to believe, what to accept as 'lawful' and made to conform to some standard that is on its face both extortionist and immoral. They are saying "Heres what the new law says kiddo, and hey, don't worry about the big words, that's for the big people (orrin, cary) to figure out"
The news and media are tossing out words left and right, and even quoting passages from acts such as INDUCE and PIRATE, and yet they make no (honest or otherwise) effort to make the language CLEAR. This imho is NOT in the best interests of the consumer. It is played like that, but any intelligent, open minded person can see the slants, rants and open handed attempts to make these and other simple concepts too grandiose for the 'average' consumer to understand.
A lot of people don't know the difference between dissemination (sp) and distribution. Some don't even know the difference between UPloading and DOWNloading. Yet, we have laws being argued right now that make all four actions punishable by law. The stupid thing is, now that the concept of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" has been backed up in court, there is no defense. You can't say that you just had your hard drive open to the public, for whatever reason, and didn't know anyonw would or could download from it. Uh huh. Not with the new laws coming up. Do most people know this? Probably not. They can't use the excuse "I didn't know that law applied to what I was doing" either. Why? Because the definitions of many terms covered are assumed, overplayed making them trite, and just plain over used in bad context that people get used to seeing them and never wonder if it's the correct usage/definition.
Okay, I don't normally admit this, but this rant got confusing even for me. I'll post it anyhow, because I think there IS some good information here.
For a closer, suffice it to say that I believe we as a country, and as an industry, need to go back to the roots, the definitions and quantification of what is what, and work backwards again to make sure that what is said is what is upheld.
ttmmm

"I would like to know. What law says, that leaving your hard drive open to the public is against the law."

When using P2P software you are not just leaving your door open you are actively broadcasting (advertising) what is there. Opening the door, guiding people to the files and recieving comensation in the form of not being a freeloader.

"But I thought I recalled a woman from Hawaii getting served papers last month for unauthorized 'downloading' a certain number of music files?"

All of the lawsuits allege unlawful downloading. However, the RIAA only seee names of files available for downloading and they download 8 to 10 files as exemplars.

The allege unlawful downloading because they presume that downloading has occured. They may also be able to tell by the meta-tags that some of the files the RIAA downloads have been around since Napster.

I, too, have my ticket stub, Carla...mine was $8.50, but I was in the 13th row. I sure do remember Jackie De Shannon, also Clarence Frogman Henry. My most vivid memory, however, is looking up and seeing a rainbow of jellybeans moving overhead...well, that and the boys...I also just had my 40th class reunion. Yikes how time flies.

I was reading about the KC show on that website. Apparently it was a last minute add-on and they offered them a LOT of money to do it. Hence, your higher ticket price

I was in the 17th row. On Paul's side. I remember him singing Long Tall Sally. I don't remember much else because I screamed through their whole set. Before the Beatles came on, I was taking notes in a diary of who was performing, and I remember Jackie and the Bill Black Combo. I don't remember Clarence.
However, when the Beatles came on, I just became hysterical.
I wonder where my notebook is.

Just fyi, I've discovered this band called Snow Patrol, and not since the Beatles have I been so enamoured of a band. I'm going to see them Monday. I wonder if I'll be screaming along with the 13 year-olds.

"in order to do that, they would require an "e-tap" if you get what i mean."

Catching somebody downloading (I'm not supposed to use this term anymore) from you is not really difficult. Most Gnutella clients will give you a list of who is getting what from you! The real legal question is, quite simple, who is making the copy (and who is making it available). The RIAA could easily argue that the recieving person is making the copy, since the downloader is issuing the request for the file, and the uploader usually isn't aware of the request. The reason they are going after uploaders is to try and swipe out the roots of the network. They know that there are many more leaches on the network than not, so by getting people who are sharing, they hope to decrease the availability of files on the network, while simultaneously saving on legal fees (suing every leacher would cost considerably more money).

Of course, suing people isn't really working. Maybe it's time for the RIAA to admit that in fact, file sharing hasn't hurt them at all. Maybe it's time for the truth. A whole lot of maybes...

"he reason they are going after uploaders is to try and swipe out the roots of the network"

The reason, and the only reason, is that the uploaders are the only people that you can see. The could set up their own computers and see who is donloading from them but in doing that they would be authorizing the downloads as the rights holder.

If one puts out a search they get back a list of people who offer the song not the ones downloading the song.

However, this principle does not apply to feature length movies. because they still take so long to download they can see the traffic.

The RIAA cant see what people are download or uploading the can only see what your sharing, Unless they want to spend a rediculas amount of money that they would never be able to recover by somehow snooping to what your doing.
Another thing is there isnt much they can do to someone just downloading music because it's nowhere near as serious as uploading.
For example a kid gets caught stealing a cd from a record store will get a slap on the wrist compared to the guy illegally producing and selling thousands of cd's. I dont think p2p is a problem but from the RIAA point of view they would want the cases they have a better chance of winning and getting more money out of.

They shoud just do what I suggested a long time ago charge $5/ month for people to download all of the singles and radio played songs they want. These are the songs that are advertising the albums anyways and make up about 80% of the music downloaded. They could make so much money by doing that, and require a yearly subscription so people dont pay for a month's service download a bunch of songs then cancel.

This alone I guarentee would end to so called sales slump

the RIAA and the Big Four haven't been known for their collective think tank yet...

If the truth were known, it would show (the money issue aside) that they care just as much about being able to wield power and control over people and technology, but they won't ever come out and publicly admit it.

I'll believe that people really give a damn about copyright infringement when Kinckos goes out of business, libraries lock up the Xerox machines, and Sony quits selling writable DVDs and CDs.