- This topic has 35 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 22 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The Govt doesn’t have jurisdiction over the entire web, which is one big enforcement problem that makes Justice look very carefully at the situation before getting involved. In some cases US can get jurisdiction based on treaties between us and other countries, where we each help each other police the web, or based on the fact that an entity of the US is doing business in some foreign country. but it’s not an easy task and therefore is usually limited to situations where there’s a big harm being done (e.g. hacker is committing espionage or is ripping off Bank of American for a billion dollars and putting the money in a swiss bank acct). furthermore the US Govt/DOJ etc. really doesn’t WANT to control the web—policing it would be a losing battle and it would hamper economic growth too much.
If you are talking about whether the courts can get jurisdiction in a lawsuit between two private parties, e.g. RIAA sues Kazaa, that’s a whole different kettle of fish jurisdictionally speaking. But that is a different question than whether the US govt has or wants to get involved. and that is basically the difference between civil and criminal legal actions. the US Govt has to be very selective as to what it chooses to criminally prosecute, because it has lots of crimes and limited resources. but private parties can sue each other on any non-frivolous grounds as long as they have the time and money to hire lawyers and go to it.
as for your question about whether Morpheus and Kazaa are "different", I think what you are referring to is a network that’s peer-to-peer with nothing passing through a central server. If nothing is passing through a central server, or there is no central server, it’s legally hard to go after the entity Morpheus or Kazaa (grounds are lacking under the current law, although this could be argued back and forth). and therefore RIAA would have to sue or penalize end users which is a pain in the butt since there are lots of small users and it would be costly to go after each one in a private lawsuit and probably impossible to catch everybody. as it would also be impossible for the govt to go after each small user and fine or prosecute them.
</font><blockquote><font>quote:</font><hr><font>Originally posted by Malcomtent:
<strong> And nobody’s called anything "gay" for months. <img> </strong></font><hr></blockquote><font>What a GAY POST!!!!! HAHA J/K <img> <img> <img> Temptation won out. I have no will power.. <img> <img></font><blockquote><font>quote:</font><hr><font> What confuses me most is: How can the US Government have jurisdiction over the WORLD WIDE web?? This is really weird when you think about it. I mean look at this website alone. We’ve got Americans, Netherlanders, Belgians, Norwigian, and Limeys all talking to one another. And this is, all things told, a rather small website. How can the government have any power over a site as big as Kazaa or Yahoo?
</font><hr></blockquote><font>US Goverment has control over the copyright laws. They state that, I think, that copying to distribute is illegal. That is what we are doing when we are on KaZaa or Morpheus, according to the RIAA. I do not know where the Kazaa or Morpheus servers are, but if they are in the U.S., they are under the juristiction of the US. I know, people have been copying Tapes to tape, CD’s to Tape, and CD to CD for years, but it is not visible, like Napster, AG, etc. all are..KaZaa and Morpheus are server based, you are connecting somewhere. It is not a true P2P..
Carl.
</font><blockquote><font>quote:</font><hr><font>Originally posted by squeapler:
<strong>… GREAT POST. ….</strong></font><hr></blockquote><font>SQUEAPLER Rocks!!!Carl.
squeapler–I have to respectfully disagree. Just look at them handing the last election to Bush. How could the posibly be MORE involved in politics? And I don’t get my political knowlege from TV, I have a degree in political science.
Gotta love this, wonder what kind of spin the riaa will put on this… cool info
hope they pay attention to this
Wish I was able to get the whole article, hopefully it will show up in the next little while.
Allison
They could spin it like this:
Well how many other records does the digital music downloader have on his/her PC? And how does it relate to the number of CD’s they have purchased. Does the user only buy 10 CD’s a year, while downloading 50? That is not answered in the study. What is the ratio of CD’s burned to CD’s purchased?
"We, the RIAA, support paid downloads, we are only trying to stop those services that allow users to share music for free. Thereby robbing the record companies and the bands the money they deserve. Just please ignore the fact that we, the Holy RIAA, only represent 5 MAJOR labels (oh, wait, that was my add <img> <img> )"
I am sure there are a million ways to Sunday that the RIAA could spin this. Also, they just need to lobby congress. Pay, I mean pick, <img> 7 or 8 members from each party to run around like chickens with their heads cut off.. Give soft money (legal until Nov. 5) to each party, give hard money to the candidate.. That way, studies like this are rendered moot.
The RIAA can also sponsor a study to determine that a majority digital downloaders do not buy CD’s of those they download. It is , after all, only statistics. You can make them say whatever you want.
Thanks for the link, Allison
Carl.
Hey Carl.,
Thats exactly how I expect them to react, while I agree stats are just stats I think in the long run they will have to adapt or die…no matter who they pay <img>
The above links are only part of the report, I would love to see the remainder of the analysis of the responses, seems to be coming from an unbiased source…the consumer. But frequent dl’ers purchase 36% of all cd’s is a pretty amazing stat, kinda is in line with my view of things. Might be even more if the industry supported less manufactured sounds and more of what we all download cause we can’t find it anywhere else <img>
Allison
I would buy many more records if the CD prices weren’t that ridiculously high <img>
So I only buy what I already know and don’t make any experiments.
Who gets the difference between the rawling price and the price you pay in the shop? The artist? Will it all be spent on the development of new artists? surely not. Distribution and marketing costs are no satisfying explanations for me, too.</font><blockquote><font>quote:</font><hr><font>Originally posted by Malcomtent:
<strong>Then ther is THIS article</strong></font><hr></blockquote><font>That article is hilarious.. <img> <img>Shows you just how ridiculous the RIAA is..
Carl.
Hey Rust Belt, back yer arg up then. How in your opinion did they "hand the last election to Bush"? There were dozens of political science majors at my law school and they all have a different take as do many of the lawyers so I’d love to hear yours. I mean that, not being sarcastic. election law is not my main thing, I do intellectual property law and internet law, so it’s always good to hear others’ perspectives on it.
the one caveat I’d make is that people tend to interpret the courts (supreme and otherwise) by the framework they are used to using: in other words if you’re a poli sci major or someone who’s worked for legislatures you’ll see it all as politics. if you’re an econ head you’ll see it as economics. if you come out of a big family of lawyers you’ll see it all as stare decisis. and so on. so explain your take if you would. I tend toward economic analysis because that’s what I was raised up with. I also think that big, major, high-profile court decisions like election, impeachment, etc. for the S Ct and the OJ case for the regular courts are not good bases on which to evaluate the working of a particular court or the judicial system—they’re anomalies. If you’ve studied a few terms of the Court and looked at all kinds of decisions, big small and boring, you get a better sense of it than just citing one case. so do you have other cases to cite as well in support of your view?
apologies for being longwinded, this is a topic of particular interest to me
OK–I see it in political terms yes. I’m not going to do homework for it, but it doesn’t seem that justices get appointed unless they have a history of agreeing with a president on the latest important judicial issues. AND the Congresses controled by both houses have argued for complicantcy in Judicial appointments. The argument being that a president had the right to appoint whomever he chooses. Right now we have 2 parties that haven’t changed much during the tenure of the justices, so I feel that the court is highly political. I even disagree with the American definitions of "conservative" and "liberal," but that’s a whole different story…
I have kept quiet for a few days and frankly am suprised at the feedback. See, porn must be good for you!
Let me tell you why I tied that into this issue since no one has either mentioned it or figured it out:
Squeapler and RBB probably know this but in 1996 Congress passed the Communication Decency Act, prohibiting transmission of "obsence" materials etc. Many civil rights groups felt encumbered and got the ACLU to file a suit that reached the S/C called Reno vs. ACLU. Here, the CDA was overturned. The most obnoxious use of privacy was upheld. If you all want to look at this as a matter of partisanship, feel free. But this is issue oriented before party hacking.
You also probably know that the RIAA almost had riders attached to the Patriot anti-terrorism bill, before opposing lobbysits, such as the EFF, got the kabosh on that travesty and heinous use of misfortune for political influence.
My last point on why I think this whole swapping thing will come full circle in the House of Columns is that all interstate commerce is federally controlled. This is no big news, but any appeals will rocket this thing right up the line with all the potential ties to either established cases or to aspects of these cases that have not been explored for the sake of the needed precedent.
Tom
P.S. Allison and Malc I will check out your links soon.
P.P.S. If you take a peek through Open Topics from about a year ago until now, you will find several threads that tie neatly into this one. I will post them if I find time to look.
<small>[ 08-15-2002, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: Half-Man ]</small>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.