Ok well explain to me where they proved to the court that it was prejudical to the copyright owners? Because they havn't as far as I can see. You saying she wouldn't have been convicted without it means nothing. If evidence exists It would be on public record. And it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove such things. The old arguement of saying one download is a lost sale is rubbish and a good lawyer would throw it out. It isn't proving beyond reasonable doubt. I said she admitted guilt, I understand that, but it does not disregard the last point. Because how can you possibly prove that it cost them money? It isn't possible. So, if possible could you provide the "proof" if it exists. Because the only thing they could have said is one download is a lost sale, which is obviously incorrect. Saying oh well, the courts MUST have had proof of this is not good enough. It isn't proving it beyond reasonable doubt, and that is something you can't argue with because it isn't.
Explain to me how that point was proven? Because otherwise it should be on public record. Your dishing over my point. My question to you is how can you prove what she was doing was damaging to copyright owners apart from saying one download is a lost sale? I'll leave you with that. There is no mention in any report i can find that proves this, or even vaguely mentions it. So NO, it wasn't proven, it seems like it was forgotten.
How about you explain how she could have been convicted of the offence if the court wasn't provided with satisfactory evidence? She has been convicted, therefore simple logic would dictate that in order for that to happen the court was provided with satisfactory evidence to come to the conclusion that she had in fact contravened section 107(1)(e). If they hadn't been then she wouldn't have been convicted would she? As for the evidence being in the public domain why would that be the case? I'm fairly certain that when prosecuting someone it's not standard practice to release all your evidence into the public domain. The only way to currently know exactly what was presented would be, as far as i'm aware, to have actually been in the court during the case. Why would it be in the reports? They're reporting the fact that she's the first person in Scotland to have been convicted of illegal music file sharing, they're not doing an in-depth analysis of the case. Not to mention what they're reporting appears to be based on the news release from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service which just keeps to the pertinent points that they want to make public.
But thats what I'm asking you, the ONLY thing they can say to "prove" it is that one download is a lost sale, which obviously is not true. I'm not trying to be funny, i'm just genuinely asking you what they could have said. And as regards to evidence I wasn't looking for mass details but it is an important part they need to prove, your just taking it on assumption. I genuinely don't know how they could have come to this conclusion, that why I was asking. Because one download isn't a lost sale. There is nothing else they could use to prove beyond reasonable doubt that her activities were damaging to the copyright holder and you know it!
No, I don't know it because I wasn't involved in the case. I have no idea what information they had available to them and what they presented to the Court and neither do you. All we do now is she was convicted of the offence which means that the Court must have been presented and satisfied with evidence that she was distributing copyrighted works to a degree that prejudicially affected the copyright owner. That you think that they must have used the one download = one lost sale argument and that it's not true is of no consequence. It's not down to you to decide, it's the decision of the Court and if they weren't satisfied that her actions contravened section 107(1)(e) then she wouldn't have been convicted. I'm really not seeing what you're finding so difficult to understand about what is really a very simple concept.
You don't seem to understand it is impossible to prove that last point. There is no possible way to prove it. You won't even hazard a guess, because there is no way they can prove it beyond reasonable doubt. That is a fact. Judges don't understand how these file sharing systems work, and have asked in mid trial what file sharing is! And these are the people who are to decide the fate of the accused. You can't answer the question and you are excusing yourself by basically saying, well it must have been proven. When judges don't understand how file sharing works and have asked what file sharing is mid trial, I don't think it was proven. Because there is no possible way to prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that her actions damaged the copyright holder. You can flitter around this all you want, but you know it is true.
It's almost a wonder that noone mentioned this to Ms Muir at any point along the process if it's as obvious and true as you claim it to be. I mean if it's impossible to prove then surely she could have entered a not guilty plea, argued the case and been acquitted. After all if there's no way to prove that her actions were in contravention of 107(1)(e) so there's no way she could have been convicted right?
This post proves absolutely nothing. You may as well not have bothered mate. The reason why it means nothing is this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/tenenbaum This is how much judges understand about file sharing and proving the "damages". The judge said he needed to pay damaged of 675,000 USD, for sharing 30 songs. I'm sorry but that in every possible way shape and form is unjustifable. Your basically arguing the courts know what they are doing. Explain to me how the judge came up with 675,000. You'll just say the judge must have deemed it necessary. Basically mate, your telling me you don't know. Well I know that a bloke who beats the **** out of someone gets less of a punishment than that. I will say again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that it cost the copyright holders money time or attracted any damages of any kind. Oh and by the way, why not go after google and youtube? The biggest copyright infringers on the planet. Wanna try and add up how much they owe? DDDD
It wasn't really meant to. Perhaps I should have made it clearer that it was pretty much pure sarcasm. Given that you seem to think that your opinions are somehow undisputable facts it's kinda pointless actually trying to have a discussion so I gave up trying.
But your not attempting to dispute what i'm saying other than saying; I TRUST JUDGES! Well most judges know absolute nothing about file sharing. As proven above. And it isn't my opinion that it is impossible to prove or attempt to assess damages when dealing with copyright cases and file sharing. Because looking at the facts, they obviously: 1. Don't know what they are doing(because of the hugely over estimated fines) 2. Don't understand the principles of file sharing. If the judge falls into either category(which he must if he gives stupidly high fines) than you should not be the judge at that trial. It is unfair. Of course it isn't undisputed fact. But you need to prove to the judge(who obviously doesn't understand what he's talking about as regards to file sharing) beyond reasonable doubt that the copyright holder was damaged. The only arguement i've ever heard these industries come up with is one download is a lost sale. And in every case where they do release specifics this is all they have said. So what else can there be? the truth is they picked on a woman was mental health issues who they knew they could bully into admitting her guilt. Why not go after the biggest copyright enfringer of them all? Google, who also own youtube. They infringe more copyrights in a day than you could shake a stick at. They won't go after them because they have money on their side. Of course it's all conjecture. But i'm anaylising the facts, and the fact is i've yet to see an arguement to prove it costs the industry money when someone shares a file, apart from one download is a lost sale. They are in fact all reporting record profits, so if they are after more money it is clear, picking on google isn't the best option.
If sharing music/movies is illegal then why does WMP and iTunes come with software that allows you to listen to other peoples media?
Want to put a lot of people in jail or paying enormous fines? Just go outside and look at the nearest person with an MP3 player and ask how they got the music they are listening... Want to end music piracy? Ban MP3 players that don't have a online activated system that requires you to be online all the time in order for you to play music.
Do innocent people plead guilty? hellblazer.doom, sir, you really are a crackpot. She broke the law, she got caught, she was charged, she had a trial, she admitted guilt and she was sentenced. What part of this do you not get?
The only thing I can never really understand these days is how publishers/media corps are making record profits and yet priacy is this big evil "industry destroyer" and that piracy is clearly something new. For crying out loud my mom used to record casette tapes for her friends if she bought an album, christ I remember doing that on at least four occassions! Or taping films directly from the TV. Infact piracy probably isn't as big a problem now as it used to be, I just think it's alot more socially accepted... I remember when you used to "Chip your Playstation and you'd have to talk quietly in your bedroom incase the walls had ears!" These days it's a case of kids will go "Yeah, just downloaded the album!" publically, on Facebook to make sure everyone knows. None the less, best of luck to media corps stopping pirates... you've had a handful of wins, believe me there are many millions of people world-wide who pirate your shows/music/films/books everyday.
Quite, and I don't understand why some people now are so quick to condem piracy yet 10+ years ago, would happily have recorded a film from the TV or borrowed a CD from the library and made a copy on a cassette. In that case, you are also creating a "lost sale" yet downloading media seems to be more socially unacceptable. They are going about it the wrong way - companies need to change to fit their consumer base, not try to bend their consumer base to the way they want to sell things. They can try, but look where it's landed them.
WMP and iTunes make it possible to play media that you legally own, or legally have been made available to you. The RIAA has established that you may take a CD that you legally own and rip it for your own personal use. That is why WMP and iTunes make it possible to play those files. In the US, the No Electronic Theft Act has amended the provisions in titles 17 and 18 to allow for criminal punishment of copyright violation. I would be interested to see if the UK (or Europe at large) adopted similar legislation. Finally, somebody brought up the hypothetical situation in which I might videotape my daughter's birthday and inadvertently record the music being played on a store's sound system. This has already been addressed in copyright law. The store has paid a licensing fee to play the music in a public setting, the music is considered part of the ambient sound and is not the subject, and you are recording the event for your personal use.
what happens if you make a home video and put some music to it and upload to youtube ? what happens when your friend/family says hey lend me that new Gaga album and listens to it ? they never paid for it the publisher has lost a sale therefore we should prosecute them because they shared music without the owners consent !!!!
