YAR(IAA)T

[alkemyst]

I see actions like these slowly removing our freedom of speech and press.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Journer
if everyone would just get together, boycott anyone involved with RIAA/MPAA and let them see how much they are hurting themselves, then none of this would be a problem. now...how to get everyone to join together? hmmmmm

it won't happen that way
the artists have to do it. they have to stop doing business that way

 

[NicColt]

1 - "According to the suit, the North Dakota company is actually hosting copyrighted content, [Usenet.com] stores the copyrighted sound recordings on its own high-quality commercial servers," the complaint reads."

Problem with the argument is that if you burn a CD and mail it or currier it, then the US Mail service, FedEx, UPS and every other currier company is hosting and abetting in the propagation of copyright material. Then they also have to be shut down.

Conclusion, Safe Harbours comes into play. Argument rejected.

2 - "They're accusing Usenet.com of direct copyright infringement, alleging that the service distributes and reproduces content without authorization"

Problem with this argument is that if usenet.com does this so does every major internet backbones in the U.S. such as - UUNET, WorldCom/MCI, Sprint Nextel, AT&T, Level 3, Qwest, PSINet, Verio, TeleGlobe, Verizone and others.

Conclusion, usenet.com is a type of backbone, all of these technologies are simply a means of delivering bits of data. They don't knowingly distribute copyright content in order to profit from it. This is the equivalent of accusing walmart of murder because they sold a knife or holding the USPS liable for delivering anthrax. Argument rejected.

3 - "It claims that Usenet.com is actively urging users to swap copyrighted songs."

Proof is one thing, claims are another, if they would have had proof the statement would have read, "It has proof that Usenet.com is actively profiting and swapping copyrighted songs."

Conclusion, the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff to show that defendant is actively and knowingly profiting and swapping copyright songs. If there is no proof, argument rejected.

However,

In the end.... RIAA made a good choice by going after usenet.com just like they did going after Thomas because I don't think they have what it takes to properly defend themselves, all that RIAA have is this "signing up for an account gives you access to millions of MP3 files". If they find a judge/jury dumb enough and computer illiterate enough then they will most likely win. This won't be about technology or facts or proof it will be about perceptions.

In todays world if you are perceived at infringing on copyright then there is a judge and jury dumb enough out there to convict you.

If they do win, then they will go after other smaller ones, they won't touch the big ones right away such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.

The whole case will depend on a judge and jury intelligent enough to understand that the DMCA protects services that are hosting material on behalf of users or linking to material - and if this applies to Usenet.com then they could win.

 

[archcommus]

So they can't shut down servers due to the fact that many are Internet backbones, but can they not force them to monitor uploads? I know it would be a pain-staking process for any ISP, but if they can make a torrent site look out for torrents of copyrighted material, why can't they make an ISP look for binary uploads of copyrighted material?