4 ms·

Apocryphal? You couldn't be bothered to Google? Just one item: http://gothamist.com/2006/07/21/lucky_bag_opera.php http://gothamist.com/2006/07/21/lucky_bag_op

Apocryphal? You couldn't be bothered to Google? Just one item: http://gothamist.com/2006/07/21/lucky_bag_opera.php http://gothamist.com/2006/07/21/lucky_bag_opera.php >>>I argued that passively advertising infringing content on eDonkey isn't entrapment. Oh sure it is! If the file had been properly labeled, the person would not have engaged in the illegal act. Just looking for illegal files is not yet a crime. Most everyone who's used Google or any other search engine would be in jail. People browsing YouTube for clips would be in jail.

tptacek 15y ago
This isn't responsive to either of my comments, and I'm not sure you read the original story either, since the defendant in this case did more than simply search for an infringing file; moreover, I'm not sure you've researched how entrapment works, since you'll find police interventions far more intrusive than "listing a file on eDonkey" have survived entrapment claims.
- mikecane 15y ago
  If you can't see how it's responsive, we need go no further with this.
anigbrowl 15y ago
Apocryphal? You couldn't be bothered to Google? It's good manners for the person who makes a claim to support it. Incidentally, the charges were dropped in that NY case, suggesting a lack of legal understanding among the subway cops: http://www.thevillager.com/villager_178/luckybagstingcharges.html http://www.thevillager.com/villager_178/luckybagstingcharges... As for your argument, that makes no sense. 'Just looking' implies doing a search but not downloading any of the files. Taking the woman's story at face value, how could she have opened the file and discovered it to be porn if she had not downloaded it first? If the file had been properly labeled, the person would not have engaged in the illegal act. On the other hand, if the label had been accurate then the downloader would have just been infringing the copyright of a Ryuichi Sakamoto album rather than a porn movie. The bait-and-switch tactic alleged here looks extremely questionable (it appears to violate something called the 'clean hands' rule, though that may not matter if the plaintiff is only seeking statutory damages). But you've got to admit that 'I was trying to infringe a different work' is a pretty pathetic excuse, not much better than saying you took a wallet which you believed to be full of cash but threw it away in disappointment when it turned out not to contain any. You seem to be arguing from the belief that anything downloadable should be presumed to be in the public domain by default. Let's say the mislabeled file had in fact been a Ryuichi Sakamoto album, which is what the woman says she was looking for, and which is in fact copyrighted. At what point do you think her exploration would have crossed the line into infringement, if ever?
- mikecane 15y ago
  >>>You seem to be arguing from the belief that anything downloadable should be presumed to be in the public domain by default. I don't know where the hell you got that idea from. But let's go on. What do you think it's called entrapment to begin with? Because you put cheese in the trap. The mislabeled file was cheese. Period. There are many legitimate reasons to search for illegal files. How do you think RIAA, MPAA and the rest find out what's been stolen? I search for things to see what's been stolen too. Are you arguing if the RIAA, MPAA or anyone in the course of researching piracy downloads a file to verify that it is indeed pirated they should be prosecuted? EDIT: Here is my legitimate reason for pirating a book: http://ebooktest.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/how-the-axis-of-e-is-killing-publishing/ http://ebooktest.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/how-the-axis-of-e-... Piracy is a huge debate in book publishing with too many claims and too little evidence backing them up.

tptacek 15y ago

This isn't responsive to either of my comments, and I'm not sure you read the original story either, since the defendant in this case did more than simply search for an infringing file; moreover, I'm not sure you've researched how entrapment works, since you'll find police interventions far more intrusive than "listing a file on eDonkey" have survived entrapment claims.

mikecane 15y ago
If you can't see how it's responsive, we need go no further with this.

anigbrowl 15y ago

Apocryphal? You couldn't be bothered to Google? It's good manners for the person who makes a claim to support it. Incidentally, the charges were dropped in that NY case, suggesting a lack of legal understanding among the subway cops: http://www.thevillager.com/villager_178/luckybagstingcharges.html http://www.thevillager.com/villager_178/luckybagstingcharges... As for your argument, that makes no sense. 'Just looking' implies doing a search but not downloading any of the files. Taking the woman's story at face value, how could she have opened the file and discovered it to be porn if she had not downloaded it first? If the file had been properly labeled, the person would not have engaged in the illegal act. On the other hand, if the label had been accurate then the downloader would have just been infringing the copyright of a Ryuichi Sakamoto album rather than a porn movie. The bait-and-switch tactic alleged here looks extremely questionable (it appears to violate something called the 'clean hands' rule, though that may not matter if the plaintiff is only seeking statutory damages). But you've got to admit that 'I was trying to infringe a different work' is a pretty pathetic excuse, not much better than saying you took a wallet which you believed to be full of cash but threw it away in disappointment when it turned out not to contain any. You seem to be arguing from the belief that anything downloadable should be presumed to be in the public domain by default. Let's say the mislabeled file had in fact been a Ryuichi Sakamoto album, which is what the woman says she was looking for, and which is in fact copyrighted. At what point do you think her exploration would have crossed the line into infringement, if ever?

mikecane 15y ago
>>>You seem to be arguing from the belief that anything downloadable should be presumed to be in the public domain by default. I don't know where the hell you got that idea from. But let's go on. What do you think it's called entrapment to begin with? Because you put cheese in the trap. The mislabeled file was cheese. Period. There are many legitimate reasons to search for illegal files. How do you think RIAA, MPAA and the rest find out what's been stolen? I search for things to see what's been stolen too. Are you arguing if the RIAA, MPAA or anyone in the course of researching piracy downloads a file to verify that it is indeed pirated they should be prosecuted? EDIT: Here is my legitimate reason for pirating a book: http://ebooktest.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/how-the-axis-of-e-is-killing-publishing/ http://ebooktest.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/how-the-axis-of-e-... Piracy is a huge debate in book publishing with too many claims and too little evidence backing them up.