Quote:

---

Originally posted by duke8888:

---

You know nothing about the federal system I have been through it studied it and learned from it, it is a done deal and all this is a formality you will see judgement by jury a no brainer! The begining of the end for P2P downloaders and music downloaders.

---

I know what your saying it's a simple case of the law and how you take it.

You simply need to be sending something copyright and your breaking the law, simply listening to copyrighted stuff is also breaking the law even if you do buy it.

anyway, the problem with P2P cases is that 9 times out of 10 there's no evidence to back up the RIAAs case, you can't keep suing people and keep winning if you don't have any evidence.

In your case I take you had pictures posted them up but I'd also hazard to say you still had the files on your HD deleting doesn't delete a file, it simply changes the first hex code to 00 meaning it doesn't exist to the OS but the rest of the file sits there until it's writen over.

which if the files were found on your HD then yeah you could be busted for posting the pics seeing as you have them on your HD.

In these cases, the expert couldn't provide any evidence plus has nothing to basicly show if there is or isn't any evidence at all and so his expertness will be questioned in a court of law.

Cases have been dumped because of that alone.

The other problem is that there's no P2P software there's no copyright files and there's no logs etc of this person even sending these copyrighted files out to someone else.

So again you do need evidence to prove as the RIAA need evidence to prove they did send the files.

and the sued people need evidence to prove they didn't send them and in this case it's seem the sued people are able to proive they didn't send them out.

it's a big differance.

---

Thank you xtago for your post.That was what I was trying to say to these other people who believe the playboy case was just like this p2p case.

The playboy case had EVIDENCE against them on their computer, this person being sued does not and the RIAA "expert" witness has already been called into question and had his head handed to him in another case. Makes a world of difference when the RIAA has to explain their tactics to a judge.

Originally posted by duke8888:

---

You will see when a decsion is made............. This case basis is COPYRIGHT Infringement of downloading sharing copyrighted material. Wheter or not it is transmitted or posted it has the same ending COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!

---

And again, YOU WILL SEE it has NO MEANING!

The person in that other playboy case was guilty because they actually FOUND INFRINGING EVIDENCE!

There IS NO EVIDENCE in this case and so far the experts they have testifying for the RIAA have ALREADY been called into question about their methods.

I don't know why that is so hard for you to grasp!

Originally posted by AtLaw51:

---

Duke you are correct the issue is copyright laws and how they need to be inforced. To do so a case has to be on the books for a foundation. This case is about copyright infringement, I have read your case and yes they teach this case to all law students in all of the colleges. I am a Corporate attorney who works for major companies and knows how this is going to affect the future protection of rights for owners of the property in question. As for the remark the other fellow made that they didn't want to go to trial is totall bogus as he really doesn't understand copyright infridgement protection and enforcement! This case will have a major impact on file sharing as we know it.

---

I'm a little concerned with the concept of a "corporate attorney" misspelling "enforced", "total" and "infringement", as well as capitalizing the word "corporate" for no apparent reason.

Interesting.

*edit: Sorry, Webe123 - was scrolling down and missed your observation of said indiscretions.

I wish Thomas all the luck in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AtLaw51:

---

Duke you are correct the issue is copyright laws and how they need to be inforced. To do so a case has to be on the books for a foundation. This case is about copyright infringement, I have read your case and yes they teach this case to all law students in all of the colleges. I am a Corporate attorney who works for major

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AtLaw51:

---

Duke you are correct the issue is copyright laws and how they need to be inforced. To do so a case has to be on the books for a foundation. This case is about copyright infringement, I have read your case and yes they teach this case to all law students in all of the colleges. I am a Corporate attorney who works for major companies and knows how this is going to affect the future protection of rights for owners of the property in question. As for the remark the other fellow made that they didn't want to go to trial is totall bogus as he really doesn't understand copyright infridgement protection and enforcement! This case will have a major impact on file sharing as we know it.

---

I'm a little concerned with the concept of a "corporate attorney" misspelling "enforced", "total" and "infringement", as well as capitalizing the word "corporate" for no apparent reason.

Interesting.

*edit: Sorry, Webe123 - was scrolling down and missed your observation of said indiscretions.

---

It is so sad that morons have to make a big issue over such a small typo error, if you really need to know I use a voice to PC software package to do my typing for me and the spell check doesn't interface with this site. I have a need for it since I lost my arm while on duty in Iraq so if you need to dwell on such a small issue you are truly a big edited by ddp!

Originally posted by AtLaw51:

---

It is so sad that morons have to make a big issue over such a small typo error, if you really need to know I use a voice to PC software package to do my typing for me and the spell check doesn't interface with this site. I have a need for it since I lost my arm while on duty in Iraq so if you need to dwell on such a small issue you are truly a big edited by ddp!

---

Listen up edited by ddp! I have HAD IT WITH YOU!

It is sad about your arm if that is what happened, but that does NOT change the fact that you don't know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to this case!

And my statement stands about you not ONE TIME quoting any cases where the RIAA has won on the grounds of evidence as in this case. I see you failed to do that again.

You know why you can't? BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A CASE LIKE THIS!

So stop pretending you know the outcome of this case when you don't know edited by ddp!

Webe its so sad that an idiot like you exists today. You are the edited by ddp idiot because you are so worked up about an issue that doesn't effect you unless you are one of those types of people who wants things in life without having to pay for them. You might be a bootlegger who likes downloading videos, music, games and not having to pay for them in other words a common cyberspace crook! Hold onto your shorts before you blow out what is left of your puny brain! MOVE ON!

For my major (digital media arts) we are required to take digital media law and ethics (aka a summary of all things copyright) and one of the largest parts of the problem for copyright in this digital era is the fact that the copyright laws were ment for hard printed documents. Eventually it was expanded to cover different forms of media such as film and audio, but until the mid 90s there was a huge grey area where the internet falls into play invloving copyright. The playboy case was one of the first cases invloving the internet and copyright infringment, but in that case it was because someone had uploaded pics from playboy and was profiting from them. However there may be some correlation between the hosting of files for p2p and fileshareing. Lawyers will try to connect any even remotely related cases just to have more grounds for a case. What it comes down to is whether the judge sees a link between the 2 cases.

What was once a civil debate has been lost :(

webe123 & AtLaw51, lightning struck!!! posts edited. ANYBODY else wants to be banned?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by duke8888:

---

You know nothing about the federal system I have been through it studied it and learned from it, it is a done deal and all this is a formality you will see judgement by jury a no brainer! The begining of the end for P2P downloaders and music downloaders.

---

I know what your saying it's a simple case of the law and how you take it.

You simply need to be sending something copyright and your breaking the law, simply listening to copyrighted stuff is also breaking the law even if you do buy it.

anyway, the problem with P2P cases is that 9 times out of 10 there's no evidence to back up the RIAAs case, you can't keep suing people and keep winning if you don't have any evidence.

In your case I take you had pictures posted them up but I'd also hazard to say you still had the files on your HD deleting doesn't delete a file, it simply changes the first hex code to 00 meaning it doesn't exist to the OS but the rest of the file sits there until it's writen over.

which if the files were found on your HD then yeah you could be busted for posting the pics seeing as you have them on your HD.

In these cases, the expert couldn't provide any evidence plus has nothing to basicly show if there is or isn't any evidence at all and so his expertness will be questioned in a court of law.

Cases have been dumped because of that alone.

The other problem is that there's no P2P software there's no copyright files and there's no logs etc of this person even sending these copyrighted files out to someone else.

So again you do need evidence to prove as the RIAA need evidence to prove they did send the files.

and the sued people need evidence to prove they didn't send them and in this case it's seem the sued people are able to proive they didn't send them out.

it's a big differance.

---

Thank you xtago for your post.That was what I was trying to say to these other people who believe the playboy case was just like this p2p case.

The playboy case had EVIDENCE against them on their computer, this person being sued does not and the RIAA "expert" witness has already been called into question and had his head handed to him in another case. Makes a world of difference when the RIAA has to explain their tactics to a judge.

---

Hey mister know it all read and weep!


GAME OVER MAN!

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,138115/article.html#

Here is the link to a court judgement for sharing music files open the flood gates and you all better watch yourself they are coming for us..

Like I said you don't know jack shit!

Originally posted by pcanisius:

---

For my major (digital media arts) we are required to take digital media law and ethics (aka a summary of all things copyright) and one of the largest parts of the problem for copyright in this digital era is the fact that the copyright laws were ment for hard printed documents. Eventually it was expanded to cover different forms of media such as film and audio, but until the mid 90s there was a huge grey area where the internet falls into play invloving copyright. The playboy case was one of the first cases invloving the internet and copyright infringment, but in that case it was because someone had uploaded pics from playboy and was profiting from them. However there may be some correlation between the hosting of files for p2p and fileshareing. Lawyers will try to connect any even remotely related cases just to have more grounds for a case. What it comes down to is whether the judge sees a link between the 2 cases.

---

Hey PC like I said the writing was on the wall.

This was the arguement that Thomas had the same as I did with no luck:

Here is the link of the decision handed down.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,138115/article.html#



"Copyright infringement is a strict liability offense, and Plaintiffs need not demonstrate Defendant's intent to infringe, or even knowledge of infringement, in order to prove copyright infringement," the companies said in their complaint.

I really hate these people who think they know it all when they never went through the court process like I did. I spent almost 3 years on my case and learn a lot.

Quote:

---

Hey mister know it all read and weep!


GAME OVER MAN!

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,138115/article.html#

Here is the link to a court judgement for sharing music files open the flood gates and you all better watch yourself they are coming for us..

Like I said you don't know jack shit!

---

interesting, only because of this.

"Copyright infringement is a strict liability offense, and Plaintiffs need not demonstrate Defendant's intent to infringe, or even knowledge of infringement, in order to prove copyright infringement," the companies said in their complaint.

This would mean they get paid out regaurdless, pointless even going to court.

I would have thought this law would go against parts of the core US laws.

I don't bother buying music myself, due to them sueing their own customers.

hmm well it seems the riaa used a case that got overturned to convince the jury, but the riaa failed to mention the fact that "making available" was not the open close argument it portrayed to the courtroom!

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/06/228202&from=rss

Originally posted by slashdot link:

---

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "When a Judge agreed with the RIAA's claim that 'making available' was actionable under the Copyright Act, in Atlantic v. Howell, the RIAA was quick to bring this 'authority' to the attention of the judges in Elektra v. Barker and Warner v. Cassin. Those judges were considering the same issue. When the that decision was overturned successfully, however, they were not so quick to inform those same judges of this new development. When the defendants' lawyers found out — a week after the RIAA's lawyers learned of it — they had to notify the judges themselves . At this moment we can only speculate as to what legal authorities they cited to the judge in Duluth, Minnesota, to get him to instruct the jurors that just 'making available' was good enough."

---