SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Have-you-ever-read-a-book,-magazine,-or-newspaper?-Which-ones? dept.
Music-industry lawyers plan to ask potential jurors in a piracy case whether they read Ars Technica.
"Have you ever read or visited Ars Technica or TorrentFreak?" is one of 40 voir dire questions that plaintiffs propose to ask prospective jurors in their case against Grande Communications, an Internet service provider accused of aiding its customers' piracy, according to a court filing on Friday.
[...] Record-label attorneys also want to ask potential jurors if they "know what a peer-to-peer network is," have "ever downloaded content from any BitTorrent website" such as The Pirate Bay and KickassTorrents, obtained music or video from "any stream-ripping service," been "accused of infringing a copyright," or "ever been a member, contributor or supporter of the Electronic Frontier Foundation."
The full list of questions by each party were made available by TorrentFreak as pdfs:
Have you now, or ever been, a member of the Pirate Party?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday February 04 2020, @07:04AM (64 children)
LOL, are they going to have anyone on the jury at all? Might only have senior citizens, as that's the only large group left who might not have ever downloaded music.
They were careful to avoid saying "theft" and "steal", but they really threw around "illegal download". Downloading should never be illegal. Might as well claim that receiving a radio or TV station could be illegal downloading.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday February 04 2020, @07:45AM (24 children)
Correct. Uploading is the thing that distributes a copy, the very act that breaches the copyright.
(if I'm copying the book or dvd that I own for whatever purposes except distribution, I'm not in breach of the copyright law)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @08:27AM (22 children)
But by stream ripping (saving permanently something you downloaded legally) you're breaching the EULA you agreed to by displaying the page!
And it's legally binding, we swear!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 04 2020, @08:42AM (10 children)
True (and sorta touche).
But then you don't own the content, it was only licensed to you, under the conditions of your streaming provider contract (and very likely that "ripping" is defined as a no-no).
Downloading it is the very service the streaming provider gives to you. As such, it cannot be defined as "illegal" without putting the streaming provided outside the law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @09:45AM
Hmm, so you say people need to stick to stream ripping and not view the site itself as that would avoid facing the EULA...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @10:02AM (5 children)
Sucker! Possession is nine-tenths of the law. If you let your damn stream cross my property, or router, it is mine, regardless. Streaming! Ha!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 04 2020, @10:28AM (3 children)
What's the legalese word for entering a contract with no intention of respecting it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 5, Funny) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday February 04 2020, @03:11PM
the word you are looking for is "republican"
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday February 04 2020, @04:06PM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Chocolate on Tuesday February 04 2020, @09:25PM
"Rich'"
Bit-choco-coin anyone?
(Score: 3, Funny) by kazzie on Tuesday February 04 2020, @10:50AM
No, don't cross the streams!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 04 2020, @02:42PM (1 child)
There should be some level of commitment required by both parties in a contract.
If I walk down a crowded street with a EULA on a sandwich board, declaring that anyone who reads my sign agrees to tithe to the church of the apocalypse and that breach shall be settled out of court for treble damages... is it any more binding if they shake my hand?
Similarly, when buying a ticket to see a movie, after the ticket price is paid and the customer has been seated in the theater, what if similar contracts appear on the screen, how binding are they?
AT&T pulled this kind of shit with their long distance calling card, about two years after I told them to get stuffed, they can stay stuffed.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @09:28PM
Next time,stuff them with asbestos
It's fireproof but oh so stuffy.
(Score: 2) by Mer on Tuesday February 04 2020, @07:08PM
Youtube's a streaming provider. Not even talking about illegally hosted music on youtube, there's treasure trove of free music on VEVO channels.
It's perfectly legal to download and listen to that music for free, even if you block the ads, both youtube and the rightholders are giving consent (and if they tell you you can't block ads, their words hold no legal weight). Corpos just want to have their cake and eat it too
Shut up!, he explained.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @08:59AM (2 children)
Many years ago when click EULAs were just starting, I wrote my own that said:
"By selling this software/music/film to me and accepting payment you agree that I retain all first sale rights, all rights enshrined in legislation, all common law rights, and that any conditions in any EULA are null and void to the extent permitted by law. If these conditions are not acceptable return all payment plus postage and handling plus a 20% de-stocking fee within 48 hours."
I published it on some website somewhere (don't remember where) and since nobody has ever refunded payments to me, I consider myself not bound by any EULA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @02:40PM (1 child)
I like the "if you break this seal" variety because I just open the other end.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Tuesday February 04 2020, @03:53PM
On a box of
dog foodsoftware:By opening this software, you agree to the EULA which is sealed inside.
On a web site:
You agree to the TOS for this website.
If you wish to read the TOS, click the I AGREE button.
Linus had just come from the desert after coding for 40 days and 40 nights.
Steve Ballmer showed him all the CPUs of the world, in all their splendor, and said:
"All of this I will give to you if you bow down and click I AGREE to my EULA."
The thing about landline phones is that they never get lost. No air tag necessary.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Tuesday February 04 2020, @03:41PM (7 children)
I've always wondered about this. Isn't that the equivalent of VCRing something ("timeshifting" don't they call it?)? Is the act of using a VCR illegal?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday February 04 2020, @05:41PM (4 children)
The Supreme Court of the United States narrowly considered time shifting to be fair use because at the time, video programming was primarily broadcast on a linear schedule. The logic doesn't apply quite so well to subscription video on demand services, be they included with a traditional cable television service or sold separately.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Thursday February 06 2020, @05:43PM (3 children)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday February 07 2020, @12:30AM (2 children)
When you signed up for a subscription video on demand service, you agreed to an express written restriction on playback devices. Courts in SoylentNews PBC's home country have uniformly upheld such restrictions in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc., RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Ass'n, Inc., and DVD Copy Control Ass'n, Inc. v. Kaleidescape, Inc.
By contrast, free-to-air broadcasts are not subject to such a restriction.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Sunday February 09 2020, @01:25AM (1 child)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday February 09 2020, @03:41AM
How often do private antitrust suits actually succeed?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @09:32PM (1 child)
It's legal in Australia and enshrined to the point that PVRs still legally support it on new TVs.
However,they also ruled that region locking is illegal yet DVDs and BR still have it. Go figure.
(Score: 3, Informative) by deimtee on Wednesday February 05 2020, @03:43AM
It wasn't quite that simple. They ruled that it was legal to sell unlocked players and disks. It is also legal to unlock region-locked players. I think they are also required to label anything that is region locked as being so.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @08:51AM
Never, should read, not always.
(For when that copy is something you do not own)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 04 2020, @08:55AM (27 children)
If I'm downloading the copy and consume it as it is, the act that breaches the copyright should be the uploading (which is the distribution of copies without permissions)
If I'm downloading the copy through BitTorrent, I'm simultaneously allowing others to download my copy (that is, uploading to others, that's how BitTorrent works); now, that upload is the distribution of copies without permission.
But then, IANAL so YMMV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @09:03AM (25 children)
technically when you are downloading something you are making a copy of remote content. if the copyright owner doesn't explicitly allow you to do it, you are not allowed to download.
this is why it is widely recommended to hide behind a vpn provider.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday February 04 2020, @09:16AM (24 children)
How can you know whether what I'm downloading is allowed or not? Not like I can read the binary/electronic format before downloading it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0, Troll) by barbara hudson on Tuesday February 04 2020, @03:20PM (11 children)
Wilful ignorance has never been an excuse in court, but good try. You know damn well that torrent of a movie that hasn't even been released is pirated.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by exaeta on Tuesday February 04 2020, @06:30PM (5 children)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 1, Troll) by barbara hudson on Tuesday February 04 2020, @06:59PM (4 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Wednesday February 05 2020, @09:56PM (3 children)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 1, Troll) by barbara hudson on Wednesday February 05 2020, @10:48PM (2 children)
Same as if I leave my bicycle outside unlocked and you take it - you're still a thief. Same as if someone leaves their car unlocked with the keys inside - you take it, you're a thief.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05 2020, @11:13PM
I'm sure he will give the video back if he gets caught.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Thursday February 06 2020, @05:22PM
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 04 2020, @11:18PM (4 children)
So, it is not the downloading per se that constitutes the breach of copyright, it is the knowingly and willful act of doing so, right?
Well, that would be something... how about restoring the bar of required proof from the claimants, on a case (of copyright breach) by case basis. Wouldn't it be fairer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday February 04 2020, @11:57PM (3 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 05 2020, @12:09AM (2 children)
And an alleged "theft" (as in "downloading is stealing") would be a civil law or a criminal one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday February 05 2020, @10:51PM (1 child)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Thursday February 06 2020, @05:46PM
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday February 05 2020, @03:51AM (11 children)
Even more to the point, how can you make a copy of something you don't have? The one making the copy has to be the one who already possesses something to copy.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 05 2020, @04:03AM (10 children)
(probably an unfortunate use of words. Otherwise, 'have access' and 'have possession' and 'have (legal) ownership' are different contexts for 'to have' and their specific meaning do matter).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday February 05 2020, @05:37AM (9 children)
My point was that the one making the copy has to be the uploader. You can't copy what you don't have.
The media companies rave on about "illegal downloads" all the time, but as far as I know they don't bring cases against downloaders.* It is always against the uploader. I assume they really don't want to test the law on this.
*I am excluding here those blackmail companies that sent settlement offers to people pirating porn. The threat there was really "give us money or we'll tell everyone what sort of weird porn you like".
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 05 2020, @06:10AM (3 children)
This time is a bit different from all the "go after the uploader/downloader".
TFS
TFA
So, directly, they may have never tried to go after the downloader (I doubt it, but lets assume it's right; I don't have time to dig after such cases)
However, it looks like they do (now?) have a specific problem with the downloading part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday February 05 2020, @08:41AM (2 children)
Those questions from TFA are to potential jurors not defendants. Of course they are going to want to exclude downloaders and people sympathetic to copyright infringement.
They always have a problem with downloading, but in this case they are once again not going after the downloaders. They are going after the company they say facilitated the downloads.
I'm not claiming it's an absolute, but the majority of cases where people are sued you will find it is for uploading. The ones that don't seem to be are usually for BitTorrent, where they can credibly claim that being in a swarm meant supplying copies to others in the swarm. My suspicion is that they really don't want a legal judgement that explicitly says "downloading is legal, it is the uploader that made the infringing copy".
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 05 2020, @09:04AM (1 child)
If they consider downloads as not-illegal, they have no case against someone that facilitated something not-illegal, do they?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday February 05 2020, @11:24AM
A has a pirate copy of a movie. B does not.
Grande Communications possibly facilitates something.
A and B now both have a copy of the movie.
There is no question that a copyright infringement occurred. The questions are did GC facilitate it and is that illegal? (or civilly liable - they are being sued not charged)
The question they are avoiding is did A or B commit the infringement?
I think they think the answer is A, but as long as that is never declared in court they can keep claiming that downloading is illegal.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday February 05 2020, @10:53PM (4 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday February 06 2020, @12:46AM (3 children)
You could just as easily, and more logically, argue that the server is making a copy and sending it to me.
There was one copy. The server had it. Now there are two copies. The server must have copied it and sent it to me.
Hence the reluctance of the IP trolls to test it in court. If they lose the case then their entire "illegal downloading" shtick gets defenestrated.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday February 06 2020, @01:46AM
If you hadn't initiated the request, then the server wouldn't have sent a temporary copy of the bits to you , which you then converted to a new copy of bytes in more permanent storage. So you still have a copy. Also , the server cannot have intent - it was obeying your request.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday February 07 2020, @12:34AM (1 child)
U.S. copyright law defines a "copy" as a physical object embodying a work of authorship (Title 17, U.S. Code, section 101). The act of "reproducing" means turning a physical object into a copy. When you download a work from the Internet, you are reproducing the work, turning your computer's HDD or SSD into a copy of that work.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday February 07 2020, @02:06AM
That's a better arguement than Barbara's, but it still leaves the question of who created the copy. Did the remote server give you access to copy bits from its drive, or did you give the remote server access to write bits to your drive?
Either way it still seems to be something they don't want to test in court. This is understandable, there are many more downloaders than uploaders. They want to be able to use the law against uploaders while still using the "illegal download" rhetoric against downloaders. Settling the dispute as to who made the copy would eliminate one of them.
I think it's changed now but back in the 90's when pirate DVD's were being sold at flea makets in Australia, the cops had to actually prove the copying to lay any charges. They could sieze the DVD's but if the seller simply claimed they bought a big box of them off some guy in a pub they could walk free. The law only protected the right to make copies, once they were made owning and selling them was not illegal.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday February 05 2020, @05:41AM
Umm, technically I'm not uploading or downloading anything in bit torrent except during the bootstrap phase where I'm downloading tracker urls from a server. After that it is other people connecting from their machine to mine and me to theirs and we're just exchanging groups of data which doesn't even collectively match the content in any single connection unless it is a 1 seeder 1 peer affair.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Tuesday February 04 2020, @09:07AM
Maybe the goal is to only get senior citizens.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @09:41AM (2 children)
Personally, if I got on the jury, when those guys come up with their ridiculous punishment for sharing a song, you better bet I am going to bring up "jury nullification" in deliberation.
We little guys have got to fight this thing, our lawmakers sure don't seem to match the punishment with the crime. Gee, I see politicians and executives do far more damaging stuff and just sweep it under the rug.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Tuesday February 04 2020, @03:38PM
So what do you do if they ask about *that* in voir dire? "No I haven't" then say when you bring it up later that you were curious and looked it up after they asked you?
Not making it onto a jury because you actually understand the legal process. What a country :P
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05 2020, @08:45AM
Bring it up while you are sitting outside waiting. "Hey any of you guys heard of Jury Nullification? This guy was telling me about it, if you don't like the law you can vote to acquit even if you think he did it. He reckons the jury get to decide if the law is fair, as well as what the facts are."
(Score: 3, Funny) by nobu_the_bard on Tuesday February 04 2020, @01:51PM (3 children)
Windows 10 workstations use a peer-to-peer like mechanism to distribute updates to other Windows 10 workstations it can find unless you deliberately turn the feature off. So yes, I have used a peer-to-peer network, all the time, for work, and so have probably millions of people.
Bit of a strange question, like asking me if I've ever ridden one of those "horseless carriages" or worn these new fangled "pants".
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday February 04 2020, @03:58PM
Ransomware also uses peer-to-peer mechanisms to distribute updates to other Windows 10 workstations it can find. And you can't turn the feature off. So yes, any Windows user has used a peer-to-peer network, all the time, for work, home, play, pr0n, and so have probably millions of people.
In the 90's, NetBIOS is the "butt sniffing" protocol that Windows machines use to find each other on the network.
The thing about landline phones is that they never get lost. No air tag necessary.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday February 05 2020, @07:23AM (1 child)
I have torrented Linux distros.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05 2020, @11:16PM
Don't you care about Linus getting paid!?
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Tuesday February 04 2020, @01:51PM
The full question they should be asking is "Have you figured out the the entire business model of the entertainment industry has effectively been an honor system since the dawn of the Internet...despite the fact that somehow we still haven't?".
(Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 04 2020, @02:36PM
Why, no, sir, but... I am a card carrying member of the Communist party, and a third level master mason of the blue line - is that also relevant to these proceedings?
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 04 2020, @07:20PM
If they have a competent defense I'm pretty sure they're going to select all the 'yes' answers.