tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post8266263716157855218..comments2024-03-22T03:28:24.897-04:00Comments on Recording Industry vs The People: Have any of the actual issues been dealt with in SONY v. Tenenbaum?raybeckermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-74751584882346348482009-08-04T03:57:07.320-04:002009-08-04T03:57:07.320-04:00Sebastien, you're confusing P2P with bittorren...Sebastien, you're confusing P2P with bittorrent.<br /><br />XYZZYAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-85655783878245811842009-08-03T13:06:38.274-04:002009-08-03T13:06:38.274-04:00It's true.
Also, I'm wondering how the way...It's true.<br />Also, I'm wondering how the way that Peer to Peer software works falls into the issue.<br /><br />This is probably why they go mostly after Kazaa and Limewire users.<br /><br />One of the advantages of peer to peer is this. If I'm trying to download Rb Soul.mp3 what it does is it goes out to all the machines that advertise they have Rb Soul.mp3 and starts a download. It then uses some internal optimizations to put all the disparate downloads together so that if you're getting bits of the file from computer1 and different bits from computer 2, and so on, your finished download could be created out of bits downloaded from 15 different computers.<br /><br />This is where the tough question comes in. Clearly I downloaded copyrighted matertial. But, did the people running the 15 computers I contacted to download my various pieces? Or does transfering only a few pieces of the copyrighted material make you no liable.<br />If I took a copyrighted song, and stripped out the vocals into a seperate file, and stripped out the base in a 2nd file, and the rest of the instrumentals in yet a 3rd file. Is the base copyrighted? Are the Vocals by themselves?<br /><br /><br />I think I'm rambling now. But there's so much unanswered. <br /><br />What if the copyright act included language that said that punative damages were not to exceed the illicit profit made on the copyright by the infringer?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07305750125920590971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-20263435523222365292009-08-03T04:35:41.802-04:002009-08-03T04:35:41.802-04:00Sebastien, in my opinion, it is still an open ques...Sebastien, in my opinion, it is still an open question as to whether Joel violated the distribution right. Obviously the judge thinks he did, but perhaps the appeals court will disagree.<br /><br />If Joel could get that issue in his favor on appeal, he might get the damages reduced to a much lower level. Whether he'll try to do so, I don't know.<br /><br />XYZZYAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-16803674696375925502009-07-31T14:10:20.392-04:002009-07-31T14:10:20.392-04:00Did the words Daubert even once come out of the Pr...Did the words Daubert even once come out of the Professor's lips, or from his pen?<br /><br />This trial seems to have been more about grand standing, than actually trying to get Joel not to get screwed to the wall. <br /><br />It's all nice and good to say that their business model isn't working. But, by law that business model is currently protected. The defense mounted looked disjointed and out of focus. I'm sure he's a very fine professor, and I had deeply saddened that his reputation is taking a hit because of this case. But be that as it may, none of the important triable issues that could have made the fact that Joel did in fact download and share music moot was completely ignored. <br /><br />"Everybody does it" is not a legal defense.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07305750125920590971noreply@blogger.com