4 ms·

I have some trouble understanding this statement: "...willfully infringing on the copyrights of 24 songs by making them available for sharing." How do you infr

by jbail 16y ago

I have some trouble understanding this statement: "...willfully infringing on the copyrights of 24 songs by making them available for sharing." How do you infringe a copyright by sharing something? Is sharing tantamount to distributing?

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
sp332 16y ago
Yeah, but I think the prosecution was trying to make the case that it's an even BIGGER deal than distributing for profit. If I pay money for a bootleg disc, I won't just give it away when I'm done, because it represents some money to me. But if I get a song for free, then I'm more likely to redistribute further. So the really twisted argument is that non-commercial sharing is even more damaging to the music industry than for-profit sharing, and therefore she should be penalized more than commercial pirates.
nkassis 16y ago
forget the sharing part. the available is the big issue. Making them available isn't the same as distributing.
soiz 16y ago
> "making them available for sharing." It's a really big slippery slope: The jury was instructed that merely "making available" sufficed to constitute an infringement of the plaintiffs' distribution right, even without proof of any actual distribution.[1][11][12] The issue of whether copyright infringement required actual distribution was raised by the defense during examination of Sony BMG's head of litigation on the first day of trial, but the court sustained the plaintiffs' objection and did not permit the topic to be revisited until jury instructions were prepared just before the end of the trial.[12] Despite disagreement from the defense, the court proceeded to interpret making available as distribution for purposes of instructing the jury.[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas

4 ms·

I have some trouble understanding this statement: "...willfully infringing on the copyrights of 24 songs by making them available for sharing." How do you infr

by jbail 16y ago

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
sp332 16y ago
Yeah, but I think the prosecution was trying to make the case that it's an even BIGGER deal than distributing for profit. If I pay money for a bootleg disc, I won't just give it away when I'm done, because it represents some money to me. But if I get a song for free, then I'm more likely to redistribute further. So the really twisted argument is that non-commercial sharing is even more damaging to the music industry than for-profit sharing, and therefore she should be penalized more than commercial pirates.
nkassis 16y ago
forget the sharing part. the available is the big issue. Making them available isn't the same as distributing.
soiz 16y ago
> "making them available for sharing." It's a really big slippery slope: The jury was instructed that merely "making available" sufficed to constitute an infringement of the plaintiffs' distribution right, even without proof of any actual distribution.[1][11][12] The issue of whether copyright infringement required actual distribution was raised by the defense during examination of Sony BMG's head of litigation on the first day of trial, but the court sustained the plaintiffs' objection and did not permit the topic to be revisited until jury instructions were prepared just before the end of the trial.[12] Despite disagreement from the defense, the court proceeded to interpret making available as distribution for purposes of instructing the jury.[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas