That’s what’s at stake, partly in the Barker case, and also in the Sony v. DeMaria case. An interesting legal concept made available to us laymen would the “doctine of unclean hands (linked to the definition on the front page),” which fits the RIAA at least in the sense of their being unethical, by not adhering to the same Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as any other lawsuit would. Read up to find out about this and how the defense plans to attack RIAA claims.
This seems to fly in the face of usual juris prudence where the person has to have knowledge of the event and in some cases guilty knowledge being required for a conviction. Also known as Mens rea.
I thought of including some kind of common example, like if a grocery store puts items on the shelf, does that automatically mean the grocery store advocates shoplifting? However, I didn’t think that example would cover this ‘idea’ of ‘making available’ means ‘automatic distribution’ or encouraging someone to steal. I always thought that if someone was to be convicted of a crime, then it has to be proven the item in question was stolen, either by showing the person shoplifting on video tape, or verifying that the item was taken and that it was only that person responsible for taking it. I think that’s really a long example of the legal term you stated, but right now I need food to think a little more clearly.
i don’t think you’re example really works, since food you can buy and do what you want with it. music you can buy but there are still copyright laws that should be honored.
i’ve always heard that the riaa went more after people who shared a large library of music as well as downloads, then people who don’t have a shared folder. i can understand their thinking because if people aren’t sharing, then no one can download anything…so in essence they’re trying to shut down the ‘servers’ of the system
that’s why I didn’t think my example was good enough to use in that news posting.
Easy targets are people with large music libraries that share them. That’s how people on Napster started getting taken down. The problem is that a person could have a shared folder with freeware, and if it became ‘wrong’ to just have a shared folder (regardless of what you had in it), then you’re a ‘pirate’ just for having a shared folder. Certainly it would be a great oversimplification. If I were a betting man, I’d bet what little money I have on the fact the RIAA’s case against Limewire isn’t going so well, since that’s part of the thing behind Limewire (use of a shared folder). It’s kind of an “RIAA end run,” where they’re trying to get some kind of precedent established so they could point to that and say “see! they’re automatically pirates!!” It’s no secret Limewire pulled out as many big guns as it has, and from what I read of it’s itemized defense, it did a really great job of shooting the RIAA’s accusations down. I could be wrong on both counts, but of course, we’ll see how much legal commentary comes out about it from the experts (if it does, of course) and see what happens.
The way I look at it is this: If radio waves, t.v. waves, or any kind of intrusion comes into and through my home, my personal living space…not to mention through my physical body…then I have the right to record it, photograph it, or to do with it as I please. I do not ask for RIAA’s sounds to enter my personal space. For all I know, all the thousands of vaious radio waves, micro-waves, etc. may be a health hazard to me. But, I for sure believe that I can copy the radio waves if I have the capability to do so. Perhaps it would become a RIAA legal issue if I should start selling ‘their’ music for profit. But, they are not going to control what I do in my own home, including copying unwelcomed sounds, or even unwelcomed music. I did not ask them to send the stuff through my property; but, since they do this anyway, I will feel free to make copies of it if I want to. This is not like going to a store and shoplifting. They are bringing the stuff to me. It is the same as recording a radio program. It is the same argument they used to use when VCR’s were new. It is all about their greed. I sometimes wish they would try to take me to court. If they did, I would show up with over ten thousand LP’s and tapes and cd’s that I have bought. I might counter sue them for selling faulty products…because I have yet to own an LP that didn’t start to sound scratchy soon after it was bought. That is a faulty poduct. It would make interesting news to watch on the evening news: one little person being bullied by those rich, fat, greedy meanies from the RIAA…Shame on them.