doc409,

there is indeed no such thing as illegal downloading. the code is meaningless in the situation I don't know why you are citing it when it has nothing to do with the issue at hand or downloading.

a more pertenant question would be why has no one ever once been convicted of "illegal downlaoding" under what you think is a relevent title 18,2319 cite?

please consult findlaw or lexis. please post an actual prosecution for non distribution http, pop3, FTP, nntp activity under title 18,2319.

you are falling for the MPAA RIAA line. there is no such thing. any given day of the week workers and members OF MPAA and RIAA would be committing illegal downloading just by websurfing or openign spam through which thousands of copyright material, text, images etc are distrubted without permission daily.

SK2
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002319----000-.html

you have a point to a ..point,the law still has phonorecrods in it and thus badly needs to be updated but even with that said there are key words
"
with fraudulent intent, possesses, sells, offers for sale, furnishes, offers to furnish, gives away, offers to give away, transports, offers to transport, imports, or offers to import any such seal or facsimile thereof, knowing the same to have been so falsely made, forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered,"

and

distribution

Not only can you be fined with just owening it you can be fined with distributing it,it dosent matter if you copied it or not,unless fair use adds on to this law.
I wonder if the alw has cought up to make gameMODs turley leagle in the stren and vuge eyes of this law 0_o altho I think the point of the law is the modifaction and distro not just the modifcation...mmm

S2K...If the reason I cited Title 18 escapes you, there is little I can do about that. The law says copyrighted works belong to the author or their assignee. The law says they have an ownership right to these works, and the law protects that ownership interest in order to encourage more works. That's the system, like it or not.

If someone knowingly downloads a copyrighted work without permission of the author, then this is defined as theft. Theft falls under the criminal code. The law views downloading things like copyrighted music the same as someone going into a store and stealing a CD that has the same music. This is because downloading without paying deprives the owner of income they would have received otherwise.
This is a fairly simple concept.

Penalties are greater for distribution than use, and this is why, as you point out, people are sued "for making available" copyrighted works. The fact that no one has yet been sued or charged with illegal downloading isn't because it doesn't exist...as you claim...it is because the illegal downloader is the smaller fish compared to the distributor. The same with drugs. Law enforcement desires to go after the pusher more so than the user.

And yes, the RIAA and the MPAA do download copyrighted content. I'm sure they claim they do so with the permission of the copyright holders.

doc409,

why you cited it does indeed escape me as it does anyone familiar with the internet and copyright. there is no case law applied despite literaly thouands of opportunities, because prosecuters have all decided the code in this case doesn't apply. you personally think it does, but this is meaningless.

You are relying on the assertion that a person has to knowingly download copyright material wihtout permission.

You misss the point of my example of members of the RIAA adn MPAA DAILY downlaoding copyright material WITHOUT permission. Anyone who surfs the net or gets email (spam regularly contains copyright material used without permission) does.

Portions of the text I am placing here could be held in copyright. Certainly tens of thousand sof web pages contain material used without full rights or if used wiht rights confiring no rights to cache the material by surfers!Would you be in violation of the code if your browser were caching right now?

I hate to have to explain it but this is all elementary and why you cannot find a title 18,2319 prosecution for downlaoding ANYWHERE on findlaw or lexis.

Look I can tell from your confusion between suits and prosecutions where the problem is in your understanding. You cannot be sued under a criminal statute yet you imply you can be.

Downlaoding a copyrighted work does not IN ANY WAY consitute theft -- there are no prosecutions -- NOT ONE.

Your claim that they want the big fish is absurd. they could and would easily go after one of the tens of thousands of people who have downloaded to chill use. The problem is there is no such thing as "illegal downloads." that is why they have ONLY gone after distributors (uploaders/sharers).

Again I would guess that between half to 100% of computers of the RIAA and MPAA members contain UNAUTHORIZED caches of copyright text or images.

The assertion of title 18,2319 to internet downloads is just silly. I could text you an SMS to your phone of copyright material. would you be prosecuted? If a file of a film that does not contain a copyright notice how am I to know f I download it? What if the filename is not precise? What if an image on afterdawn is not used with permission, are viewers such as you and I liable as your strangly broad reading of 18,2319 implies?

The simple fact is there have been NO prosecutions or suits for downloading, because there is no path toward satisfying the probative burden of intent.

you can keep adding to the confusion as is apparently your intent by broad interepretations NO COURT, PROSECUTER OR SEROUS SCHOLAR has held. Fine. But you CANNOT get around the simple fact that -- despite intentional fudging of use of the term downloading by the RIAA and MPAA and the use of the term by newsoutlets that have not seen the filings -- all filing and prosecutions are about DISTRIBUTING and the ONLY time the word download is even used in the legal filings is "make available for download."

S2K
focus on this and tell me hwere I am off
Distribution=Uploading its this not downaoding that gets people in trouble yes?

S2k...per your request... In the matter of the RIAA v. Foster, Case CIV-04-1569-W, Plaintiff RIAA claimed copyright infringement. In paragraph 15 the RIAA specifically claimed downloading:

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant, without the permission or consent of Plaintiffs, has used, and continues to use, an online media distribution system to download the Copyrighted Recordings, to distribute the Copyrighted Recordings to the public, and/or to make the Copyrighted Recordings available for distribution to others. In doing so, Defendant has violated Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution. Defendant’s actions constitute infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright.

The case has a nice twist. Ms. Foster retained an attorney and the RIAA withdrew the complaint. After a long battle, she was also awarded costs. The entire case history is posted at the "Recording Industry vs The People"...an internet blog established to fight the RIAA.

S2k...I think that if you were to read through some of the material there you would get a better grasp of what is, and is not, copyright infringement.

Doc

not to step in and its a reaity for my IQ to go abve 60 but jsut fr the hell of it have you read thru a few of these brifes to see if downloading is constantly metioned or if prehaps

"distribute the Copyrighted Recordings to the public, and/or to make the Copyrighted Recordings available for distribution to others."

is more constent.

a thought it is not a very good one.

Four days ago...Aug 4th...the RIAA filed suit against LimeWire. The complaint can be seen online at http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename=arista_limewire...

The basis of the complaint is that the LimeWire network facilitates copyright infringement by offering the means used to download and share copyrighted works.

Zippy...all comments and ideas are welcome.

I have read through numerous copyright Complaints. The Complaint is the document that begins a lawsuit in the USA. It has to state what the person did wrong, and why the suing party is entitled to money damages.

The Complaints claim "copyright infringement." Then they explain the method of copyright infringement. Downloading copyrighted material is often claimed first, followed by the sharing and distribution of this material. In agreement with S2k, I have never seen an RIAA or MPAA lawsuit just for downloading.

The thing to remember is that these groups have gone after thousands of people now by accusing them of copyright infringement, and then offering to settle out of court. The only way we ever find out just what kind of copyright infringement a person is accused of is if someone decides to challenge them in court. In the RIAA v. Foster case above, Foster was accused of a wide range of infringement, none of which the RIAA had any chance of proving. Thus the RIAA withdrew the complaint.

Anyway, most of the Complaints will state how many songs, etc., were found on a person's computer. A screenshot of the list along with the screen name might be attached as evidence. This is a typical complaint filed by the RIAA where they have attached screenshots: http://codewarriorz.clawz.com/atlantic_huggins_complaint.pdf

Given this, a person that downloads MP3's without a screen name, and doesn't keep the MP3's in a file that can be seen by others, most likely will never be sued for downloading.

I hope this answered your question.

DOc

thats pretty much it.

---

This may be of interest in this ongoing discussion. The following link is a Motion to Dismiss an RIAA lawsuit: http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename=arista_greubel_...

The Motion has yet to be decided. Defendant Greubel makes some very good points. Too many to mention here. Some are very technical in terms of the law. Here are some interesting ones:

He makes a good case that just because there are MP3's on his computer doesn't prove he downloaded them. In addition, there is a 3 year statute of limitations, which means the RIAA must also proved when they were downloaded. Good points. There is also no proof that the MP3 file is what it is labeled to be (they could all be bogus files). Another good point. Also, the fact that others can access his computer's "shared" folder does not prove he distributed anything. He made a lot of other points, and provided good legal cites to support them. If the Motion to Dismiss succeeds, it could serve to end a lot of the abusive practices the RIAA and MPAA are engaged in.

While S2k and I have been having some healthy dialog, I believe this Motion to Dismiss explains the side of things that S2k has been discussing.

In the end, it is not what is legal or illegal...but what can be proven...and what one should do to avoid legal trouble if they can.

I have been wondering for the past few days, why does it cost a 100000$ in legal fees potentially, when the settlement usually requested by the MPAA is around the 4-5000$ range?

What would be interesting to see is how much of these people that paid the settlement were actually not guilty, but gave up and paid the settlement to avoid further costs...I am thinking probably the majority of them.

Also, how many of them had unsecured routers? The MPAA should be investigated, that I know as much.

Yes, Hot Ice.. It would seem that people are just rolling over in the face of a corporate giant. If the FBI showed up at your house with a bunch of papers and warrants for your arrest for the illegal download of files what would you do?

I'm thinking first response..LAY DOWN!! lol

Secondly, I wouldn't doubt it if unsecured routers are the cause of this problem (squatting on wifi signals).

I guess that until people take the proper precautionary methods to secure their networks and their data... and until they stand up for themselves... this problem will continue.

No one will hear your voice if you never shout!!!!!

hot ice...big city attorneys charge as much as $400 per hour. With this they pay for support help, their rent, and themselves. The legal process is lengthy, and takes many hours of work, and it quickly adds up to $100,000 or more.

If someone doesn't pay the RIAA (actually it's a collection agency they hired), they will be forced to pay an attorney at the rate of $400 an hour as the case progresses. Who has that kind of money?

Doc409

Perhaps a class-action suit is needed?

Sorry :S my last post hardly answered the relevant question.

A class action is a good idea. I am thinking that might be coming sometime soon. Also...

Another thing that seems to be happening of late is that people are challenging the RIAA, and going to court. In most cases the RIAA is unable to meet the initial burden of proof required by the copyright statutes. The RIAA then withdraws their complaint/lawsuit. It now looks like the RIAA is going to be paying for the attorney's fees of the party they sued...which could be substantial. Awarding costs is often at the court's discression. If judges find the RIAA is just trying to intimidate people, they will begin to slam them with the costs.

Along these lines, if the RIAA lawsuits are being launched without proper evidence, which can fall into the frivolous category, they could be subject to punitive damages in some states. If this happens, we might find attorneys willing to take a RIAA lawsuit on a contingency basis...so that someone doesn't have to fork over $400 an hour.

Doc409
dose'nt the Mafiaa use frims and teams of attorneys?
the more you use the more papperyou can burrie unsuspecting victems 0-o

---

Here's a tought, let say somebody like myself is on social security, more often than not you are probably eligable for a court appointed attorney, and of course all people say they suck, probably rightfully so, but I would be willing to bet they would put there top guy on a case like that cause if they would win one there name would be highlighted, even probably get a better job in a big firm, do you guys see where I'm getting at. And as your defense it would be free. If I was a court appointed attorney I would try and jump on a case like that.

FredBun
we had one,when the sewer backed up into our house,that was built with HUD money,lets jsut say we lost the house.

---

FredBun...I don't know that much about social security, but in a civil case I don't think you can get assigned an attorney? Someone might take the case Pro Bono, which means for free, though. If it was a criminal charge, that would be another matter. You would be eligible for a state appointed attorney.

Well wait a minute, ok if these guys are coming after you aren't they coming after you cause they say you broke the law, which doesnt make it a civil case, aren't all these cases they are bringing against people called criminal acts, I don't think these guys are taking people to court to just sue them are they or maybe both I don't know.
Also I din't neccesarally mean just social security, I mean anybody making money thats pretty much under the povery level can get a court appointed attorney, even if you are working but make a really minumum wage you still could be elegible, I've seen people do it, not trying to get into the welfare discussion, very touchy subject, like talking politics, the most hurtfull and the most truthfull is the extreme poor get all the benifits like healthcare etc free, the rich can afford there own, and the blue collar people get it up the gege.
But here's my case senerio, ok lets say I'm one in the extreme poverty level, ok I downlaod all kinds of things, get cought, ok, so what are you gonna take from them, thier welfare check, there social security check, nope they cant do it, but, I might be eligible to get all the backup I need, meaning free attorneys, and let me tell you this, if this was the case no public defender would want to turn down something like this, they would go after this with a vengence, and these RIAA & MPAA or whatever the hell they call themselves if they would find out you are in the poverty level they probably want nothing to do with you.
Case in point, would'nt it be grand if some welfare mother got nailed and got all the backup she needed as was able to defeat these moguls, wow, what a story, would definatly make my day.

Here's an interesting article brought by @ireland in another forum. As it is, about 19,000 people settling out of court at about $3,000 a piece... We're talking roughly $57 million of blood money going into these greedy bastards. Call it blackmail, extortion, whatever. This has to come back at them big time. (I'm talking about karma here)

read here: http://p2pnet.net/story/9537

---

FredBun...if the FBI or police go after someone, they do this under the criminal laws. If the RIAA or MPAA go after someone, it is under civil law. The difference is that under criminal law you can go to jail, and under civil law you just pay money...called a judgement.

In the USA, the government will not pay for a civil attorney. So, no attorney for an RIAA lawsuit. If someone is charged with a crime and cannot afford an attorney, they will appoint one.

There are poor people that the RIAA is going after, and they cannot afford an attorney. If they can't pay, there is nothing the RIAA can do about it. The judgement will stay on their credit record for 7 or 10 years, and the judgement can be renewed.

fredbun

court appointed attorneys are NOT FREE. I am sad to admit i had to get one when i was younger due to legal problems. I had to pay a reduced rate to the attorney. To the best of my knowledge court appointed attorneys are exactly that, court appointed, effectively they are forced to take the case, whether you pay for it or not.

As far as the copyrighted material issue is concerned, I am confused to all hell. Some of you are saying that uploading/distribution content is illegal, and others are saying downloading content is illegal. I know that distribution of copyrighted material is defiantly illegal. as far as the downloading part goes, I can kind of see how it would be illegal, but just because you have it on your computer does not mean that you put it there. Like the spy ware/viruses that people get when surfing, they don't ask for it, but it still gets on their computers. there is no difference as far as i am concerned. now that i said that, watch all the hackers go out and copyright their viruses.

I've been wondering about this issue, are there significant cases similar to MPAA suits in Canada?

I recently read about a recent RIAA Canadian case, but haven't found it yet. I remember it because, unlike USA laws that only allow for criminal search warrants, Canada has a civil equivalent. It seems the RIAA got one of these "civil search warrants" and broke into a guy's home and seized his computers with MP3 files on it.