how-to block ads
|
91439306
15,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16
New Milford, CT
| reply to Omega
Re: Yeah right
It sounds to me like the case of the drug dealer: he had the scales, the raw marijuana, and $500 cash laying around, therefore he must be intending to sell.
She has Kazaa, the MP3s and was sharing... nobody uses Kazaa just to listen to their own collection... a likely story, she has...not.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: »www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
Business sites at:
'»www.dv-clips.com
'»www.mwcomms.com
'»www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
| |
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| said by 91439306  :
It sounds to me like the case of the drug dealer: he had the scales, the raw marijuana, and $500 cash laying around, therefore he must be intending to sell.
Hypothetical:
There's a dead body in my driveway, a bullet went right through him and is unrecoverable, so ballistic tests are not possible. I own a handgun. A round is missing from the clip. They spread some fluid on my hand and prove that I've used a firearm in the last 12 hours, and nobody's fingerprints are on the weapon but mine.
That still won't wash. The prosecution still needs to do their homework and actually bother to PROVE something, unless they want to look real stupid when the owner of the firing range where I practice, as well as the grounds keeper who remembers my jokes and the bar waitress who flirts with me, all testify that I was target-practicing on their premises at the time my neighbor heard the gunshot, proving me guilty of perforating cardboard.
This is America, fella, we recognize the concept of reasonable doubt. 
--
That's no longer true; with enough money, you can fool all the people all the time. | |
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
| Very true, I like your analogy. And I am tired the way big businesses decide that its alright to screw the customers. The RIAA also seems to forget about the fair use laws, they should also have to prove that all these people have never owned any of the music they have, in any type of media. For instance, I own GTA Vice City. The game has some good 80's music on it, and anytime I want to listen to that, I just have to pop the game in and hop in a car and let the music play. Well, thats kind of a pain in the ass, so I just went and downloaded a few of the songs from the game. If I already own the "right" to listen to the music by owning the game, cant I also trnasfer said music to an mp3 and listen to it on my pc? Also, many years ago, when I was about 13 or 14, I bought STP's first album, about 4 years later, my cousins stereo decided it wasnt gonna let me have the cd back, so it got scratched when I had to take it out. So the other day I went and downloaded all the songs I liked off of that album. According to them, that is my "right" since I paid for the damn cd. Just because I dont still have the ruined disk or a receipt doesnt mean that I didnt own the stupid thing. Thats what the RIAA should have to prove in court.
--
what doesn't this button do? | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·Comcast
| reply to ravital
said by ravital :
said by 91439306 :
It sounds to me like the case of the drug dealer: he had the scales, the raw marijuana, and $500 cash laying around, therefore he must be intending to sell.
Hypothetical:
There's a dead body in my driveway, a bullet went right through him and is unrecoverable, so ballistic tests are not possible. I own a handgun. A round is missing from the clip. They spread some fluid on my hand and prove that I've used a firearm in the last 12 hours, and nobody's fingerprints are on the weapon but mine.
That still won't wash. The prosecution still needs to do their homework and actually bother to PROVE something, unless they want to look real stupid when the owner of the firing range where I practice, as well as the grounds keeper who remembers my jokes and the bar waitress who flirts with me, all testify that I was target-practicing on their premises at the time my neighbor heard the gunshot, proving me guilty of perforating cardboard.
This is America, fella, we recognize the concept of reasonable doubt.
Theres one problem with that and that is the people who the RIAA are going after ARE sharing files. Sure, if you are using Kazaa, you may or may not be sharing anything. The key is they are going after people who are sharing and they have proof of it.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| reply to ravital
said by ravital :
said by 91439306 :
It sounds to me like the case of the drug dealer: he had the scales, the raw marijuana, and $500 cash laying around, therefore he must be intending to sell.
Hypothetical:
There's a dead body in my driveway, a bullet went right through him and is unrecoverable, so ballistic tests are not possible. I own a handgun. A round is missing from the clip. They spread some fluid on my hand and prove that I've used a firearm in the last 12 hours, and nobody's fingerprints are on the weapon but mine.
That still won't wash. The prosecution still needs to do their homework and actually bother to PROVE something, unless they want to look real stupid when the owner of the firing range where I practice, as well as the grounds keeper who remembers my jokes and the bar waitress who flirts with me, all testify that I was target-practicing on their premises at the time my neighbor heard the gunshot, proving me guilty of perforating cardboard.
This is America, fella, we recognize the concept of reasonable doubt.
Murder can be proven on circumstantial evidence. If the prosecutor had enough in your handgun case, he could get a conviction, even without the weapon. Now obviously, if you had an alibi that would come out early, and the prosecution would not waste its time. While the actual bullet would be nice, with modern forensics (assuming you actually fired it) I suspect the prosecutor could build a decent case.
Regardless, you're mixing up apples and oranges. Reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence in criminal, not civil cases. The RIAA has a much lower standard of evidence then if she was criminally charged.
As an example, that is why there was not enough evidence to toss O.J. in jail, but there was enough for him to loss the wrongful death civil suit. | |
IndyMike
@12.55.x.x | reply to ravital
But we're talking CIVIL law here, not criminal. Perponderence of evidence is all it takes.
But the jump from "she could have" to "she did" is what they better prove ...... otherwise ...... no case. | |
wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| reply to ravital
said by ravital :
This is America, fella, we recognize the concept of reasonable doubt.
I would so love to agree with you. This is the RIAA though -- if they say it is so, who are we to disagree? <sigh>
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| reply to joebear29
said by joebear29 :
Regardless, you're mixing up apples and oranges. Reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence in criminal, not civil cases. The RIAA has a much lower standard of evidence then if she was criminally charged.
Good point, I stand corrected. And to be honest, I was responding to someone's analogy of a drug dealer caught with scales and other paraphernalia... Equally a criminal case and not a civil one.
Now to expand on your earlier point, sure, many innocent folks are serving time for crimes they didn't commit. I know the score, it's not evidence or truth or justice, it's the ability of an attorney (on either side) to persuade a jury. [I keep thinking of the policewoman from Milwaukee who was convicted on evidence that she owned a red sweatsuit when she claimed to own a green one. The smashing piece of evidence presented by the prosecutor: He held up a black and white photo of her jogging and told the jury that was a red sweatsuit, and they all nodded.]
So as long as it's just a matter of the attorney's, er, gonads, that's all she needs to worry about, a better attorney. Wouldn't surprise me if she finds it difficult to afford one. And given the assault on civil rights that the DMCA represents (this being the law that is the basis for all those subpoenas), it wouldn't surprise me either if a good one offered his/her services pro bono. Maybe not on this case, but on the next one.
In addition, since everyone so cleverly points out that this is civil and not criminal - not complaining, you understand, glad to see my error pointed out to me, but why do I keep hearing that filesharing is a CRIME CRIME CRIME all the time? Why do the DMCA and the NET Act carry criminal penalties? As long as we're on that subject, anyone care to explain this?
--
That's no longer true; with enough money, you can fool all the people all the time.
[text was edited by author 2003-08-23 18:04:24] | |
JE
Can I Taste It? Mmmm
Premium
join:2000-12-15
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to ravital
said by ravital :
said by 91439306 :
It sounds to me like the case of the drug dealer: he had the scales, the raw marijuana, and $500 cash laying around, therefore he must be intending to sell.
Hypothetical:
There's a dead body in my driveway, a bullet went right through him and is unrecoverable, so ballistic tests are not possible. I own a handgun. A round is missing from the clip. They spread some fluid on my hand and prove that I've used a firearm in the last 12 hours, and nobody's fingerprints are on the weapon but mine.
That still won't wash. The prosecution still needs to do their homework and actually bother to PROVE something, unless they want to look real stupid when the owner of the firing range where I practice, as well as the grounds keeper who remembers my jokes and the bar waitress who flirts with me, all testify that I was target-practicing on their premises at the time my neighbor heard the gunshot, proving me guilty of perforating cardboard.
This is America, fella, we recognize the concept of reasonable doubt.
But if you're BLACK and this happened, you're GUILTY - no questions asked!
This is America, fella, we recognize the concept of racial injustice, lol
Thank you
JE
--
Like R&B and Hip Hop? Well, check out my station... It's called: Urban Hitz Radio! »www.urbanhitzradio.us | |
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | if she can afford Johnny Cochrain, then the RIAA is screwed.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
L0GiX
When all else fails, theres always L0GiX
Premium
join:2000-06-30
South Bay,CA
clubs:
| reply to wtansill
said by wtansill :
I would so love to agree with you. This is the RIAA though -- if they say it is so, who are we to disagree? <sigh>
I so hope you said that with sarcasm. What a corporation says and tries to sue on is one thing. What's legal and truthful is another. If with the recent Enron, WorldComm, and other such corporate swindling hasn't opened your eyes to the corporate world then I don't know what will until your brought to court for miniscule items.
Granted they have the government in their pocket along with as much cash to keep you in court until eternity, but I really hate to see someone make a statement like that. You may be saying in jest (as I hope you are) but there are tons of brain washed sheep out there that need to wake up and see that they are being lead to the slaughter house and they are happily going.
So Sad.
There are too many other things in this world and country to focus on and fix then waste precious resources over some industries realization that their business model is dead and is fighting viciously trying to scrap as much money as possible before the world just moves on to another way of doing things. Hence SCO.
So at the end of this statement I really hope your joking in that statement of what RIAA states is truth rather then see them for what they really are. Sad sad organization trying to keep a industry alive when they could use the money to change it into something better for them and for us.
--Write your representatives in Congress and let them know what your views on this whole thing. If they don't see the larger portion of their constituents are against it they will go with who will put more money in their pocket and the P2P Industry is just starting their special interests group---
--
Two most common elements in the universe: Hydrogen & Stupidity. | |
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| reply to JE
said by JE :
This is America, fella, we recognize the concept of racial injustice, lol
Proving once again, and on the anniversary of the March on Washington no less, that a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
--
He who laughs last made a backup | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs: 
| reply to ravital
I would only ask one question:
What makes folks here think that what the RIAA is doing is pursuing civil cases?
The one anonymous poster would be correct-in a civil case, PROPONDERANCE of the evidence is all that is required to prove one's case...however, it has been defined that copyright infringement is a CRIMINAL act. As such, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.
If anyone disagrees, I would ask them to observe something the next time they put a DVD in their player to watch...at the beginning, you will notice the disclaimer, notated in very distinct red and white typeface, describing copyright infringement as a criminal action, not a civil one.
What the RIAA is doing is saving face in lieu of being able to satisfy a legal prerequisite for being able to prove criminal actions.
Also, bear in mind that in a civil case, even if one gets a judgement they think they deserve, there are really no processes in place for forcing a responsible party to ante up.
It's the principle of the thing for the RIAA.
I will not comment on this person's guilt. Maybe she's guilty, maybe not. But if she is guilty of something, it is up to the RIAA to prove it as such, and it is up to our legal system to adhere to the accepted standards of culpability of guilt as prescribed by due process of law.
In short, the RIAA is on the losing end, in my mind.
Just because some huge conglomerate's watchdog group believes this person is guilty does not make it so, and the legal system cannot or should not be influenced by the whinings of big business.
--
"It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I'm wearin' milk bone underwear." | |
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| said by BrianDamage :
What the RIAA is doing is saving face in lieu of being able to satisfy a legal prerequisite for being able to prove criminal actions.
Right on the money IMHO. Not to mention, starting with a civil case where the rules of evidence are more relaxed, and obtaining a conviction based on such evidence, makes it easier to later prosecute a criminal case and use the verdict of the preceding criminal case as argument.
--
He who laughs last made a backup
[text was edited by author 2003-08-25 08:25:23] | |
joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| reply to BrianDamage
said by BrianDamage :
I would only ask one question:
What makes folks here think that what the RIAA is doing is pursuing civil cases?
The one anonymous poster would be correct-in a civil case, PROPONDERANCE of the evidence is all that is required to prove one's case...however, it has been defined that copyright infringement is a CRIMINAL act. As such, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.
Copyright infringement is both a criminal (no electronic theft) and civil (DMCA) offense. The RIAA can choose which it wants to pursue, and it chooses civil. That is its legal right, and I find criticism of it avoiding criminal charges at this time to be a tad disingenious, since I suspect the same people complaining of the RIAA avoiding the higher evidence standards of criminal cases would be the first to complain the RIAA was trying to throw people in jail instead of seeking monetary compensation if they were pursuing criminal charges.
Regardless, the RIAA is pursuing civil cases and they have a very friendly law on their side. If I was a betting man, and one of these went to trial, I would take the RIAA in a heartbeat. | |
xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
clubs: | reply to 91439306
I don't know, but as someone else in this thread said, it does make a nice file browser for my media. | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| reply to joebear29
quote:
said by joebear29
Copyright infringement is both a criminal (no electronic theft) and civil (DMCA) offense. The RIAA can choose which it wants to pursue, and it chooses civil. That is its legal right, and I find criticism of it avoiding criminal charges at this time to be a tad disingenious, since I suspect the same people complaining of the RIAA avoiding the higher evidence standards of criminal cases would be the first to complain the RIAA was trying to throw people in jail instead of seeking monetary compensation if they were pursuing criminal charges.
Regardless, the RIAA is pursuing civil cases and they have a very friendly law on their side. If I was a betting man, and one of these went to trial, I would take the RIAA in a heartbeat.
One needs to know when to fold their hand, and I would not be betting if I were you.
Copyright infringement can be prosecuted both ways, but if you were to ask our Department of Justice (DOJ) or Interpol, both of which are charged with enforcing copyright laws (domestically and internationally, as respected), they would both indicate that copyright infringement is a criminal act.
That's why the disclaimer that I mentioned exists on the products, as I indicated. They also specifically point to criminal activity, not civil, specifically.
As to your comment, the RIAA is not pursuing criminal proceedings BECAUSE of the relaxed degree of culpability required to prosecute the cases, and for no other reason.
Additionally, they stand a better chance of getting civil judgements in these situations because THEY can decide what the punishment can be (because the damages in a civil case are monetary), and this relates solely to the fact that the culpability required to solidify a conviction that would imprison someone would be much harder to attain.
Also, think about another fact regarding the criminal convictions-
How could the RIAA reasonably expect to obtain a criminal conviction against a Kazaa user, to the extent of five years in prison AND a $250,000 fine, who works at McDonald's and makes $6.50 an hour?
I know that this scenario is entirely hypothetical, however, the RIAA recognizes that they are NOT likely to be able to EVER see any convictions such as these, even against the "supernode" operators.
This is the reason why they choose the civil route.
Not because that they could freely choose between the two, but because their chance of establishing a precedent exists in much greater magnitudes than in choosing the criminal route.
In closing, I will provide you an example of such power-playing, and think about it for a moment:
OJ killed two people. Criminally, he got away with it. Not because he didn't do it, but because of many other factors, not the least of which was the LA prosecutor's inability to make a solid case.
Whatever the reason, OJ walked away.
Later, the Browns and Goldmans sued OJ Simpson in a civil suit, where the burden of proof is much less.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt versus "proponderance of the evidence."
In the civil case, OJ was found to have "contributed" to the deaths of Nicole Brown nd Ron Goldman, because the evidence was stronger that he HAD something to do with it, versus the argument that he didn't. That's what "proponderance of the evidence" means- it means simply that the evidence would show that someone was likely to have contributed to something rather than not.
That's why the Goldmans and the Browns got the civil judgement.
The final kicker is that to this day, OJ still has not paid up to the order of the civil judgment.
The RIAA is pursuing the same legal route because of the ease in obtaining judgments.
Your argument needs to be rethought based on the available legal interpretations and legal precedents, and not just because you feel a certain way.
--
"It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I'm wearin' milk bone underwear." | |
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
 ·VOIPo
| reply to joebear29
said by joebear29 :
If I was a betting man, and one of these went to trial, I would take the RIAA in a heartbeat.
Not if it's a jury trial and I'm sitting on the jury. I'm one of those people who couldn't care less how much evidence the RIAA presents against the defendant. No matter what I would side with the defendant. It doesn't matter if the person was running a supernode-- I refuse to help the RIAA, even if they are in the right.
Why? Why would I support "criminals"? Simple. Right now it's the only way the RIAA gets what it deserves. The RIAA deserves nothing, so that's what would get. (Actually, that's wrong, as IMHO some of the RIAA and MPAA execs deserve something-- it's just not a very pleasant something and involves violence, brutality, and a cellmate named "Bubba".  )
--
Cox cable: the hallmark questionable business practices and lousy cable service! | |
joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| said by NOVA_Guy :
Not if it's a jury trial and I'm sitting on the jury. I'm one of those people who couldn't care less how much evidence the RIAA presents against the defendant. No matter what I would side with the defendant. It doesn't matter if the person was running a supernode-- I refuse to help the RIAA, even if they are in the right.
Why? Why would I support "criminals"? Simple. Right now it's the only way the RIAA gets what it deserves. The RIAA deserves nothing, so that's what would get. (Actually, that's wrong, as IMHO some of the RIAA and MPAA execs deserve something-- it's just not a very pleasant something and involves violence, brutality, and a cellmate named "Bubba". )
Civil trials do not require unanimous verdicts. And while your views may be in the vast majority on this board (and I dislike the RIAA and its tactics myself) I have the feeling the number of "pathologically hate the RIAA" percentage of potential jurors is not enough for that to become a factor. There are many more who simply dislikethe RIAA, but actually listen to the evidence and make a decision based on the law. | |
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX
| reply to NOVA_Guy
said by NOVA_Guy :
said by joebear29 :
If I was a betting man, and one of these went to trial, I would take the RIAA in a heartbeat.
Not if it's a jury trial and I'm sitting on the jury. I'm one of those people who couldn't care less how much evidence the RIAA presents against the defendant. No matter what I would side with the defendant. It doesn't matter if the person was running a supernode-- I refuse to help the RIAA, even if they are in the right.
Why? Why would I support "criminals"? Simple. Right now it's the only way the RIAA gets what it deserves. The RIAA deserves nothing, so that's what would get.
You would be eliminated during jury selection. The RIAA lawyers wouldn't even have to use one of their strikes on you. Deciding the case before the evidence has been submitted is an automatic boot.
--
Hate spam? Join the insanity. A new thread was just started. | |
|
