File-sharing case prompts push for copyright reform

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by ejereader

Is this then the first shot at Napsterizing books?

First shot?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by ejereader

Speaking of file sharing, I just ran across a site called [removed by moderation] that purports to be "The Biggest eLibrary for your favorite e-Reader." ...

Is this then the first shot at Napsterizing books?

$50 membership fee, with terms and contents not available before purchase.
"all in one site for any kinds of eReaders" - no mention of what they've got. They mention epub, mobi and "more," and genres, but absolutely no hint of a catalog to browse before joining.

"You should check with your country laws whether you can download and use the content from [redacted]. We only provide you with thousands of compatible files, and provide good support on installing, running, reading etc. We care no responsibility for the files available through our web-site."

hmm....

Could be a pirate ebook site. Could be a site that gives access to Feedbooks & google's free ebooks.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by sabredog

No, not really. A jury should never be considered to have the opinions of the vast majority of people. How can it? A mere selection of 12-15 (whatever number) selected jurists could never represent a true cross section of the community.

Three juries *in a row* imposed huge fines on Jammie Thomas. That's at least some evidence that "regular" people don't have any sympathy for file sharing.

Locally, AFACT tried to get the court system to agree with their assertion that a major ISP was "encouraging and facilitating" piracy. They have lost both the initial court case and the first appeal. They want others to do the police work for them with little evidence provided. A classic case of guilty until proven innocent.

That's not quite the same thing, though.

Oh I comprehended that quite well thanks. This is why I would like to know how many prisons are going to be built to house the huge number of people convicted of such a "heinious" crime. Just like jailing kids for shoplifting, it will never stop the issue.

Why are you asking me? I think jailing them would be a horrible idea.
[quote]

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Three juries *in a row* imposed huge fines on Jammie Thomas. That's at least some evidence that "regular" people don't have any sympathy for file sharing.

No, that's evidence that copyright law has ridiculous penalties and complexities and "regular" people will go along with what lawyers tell them, because unlike situations of theft or assault, we don't grow up knowing how much use of someone else's material is fair use.

If they'd wanted $400,000 for "unlicensed broadcasting" because Jammie Thomas was playing a boombox in her yard and you could hear it from the freeway, the jury would know that's ridiculous. But they're less sure about digital files; the whole technology may have to be explained to them--with lawyers getting to slant the explanations in accordance with the understanding of the judges.

[sabredog]

Further proof publishing companies have not learned any lessons from the entertainment and music industry. Perhaps though, the later never really learned the lesson in the first place?

Publishers cannot pay higher royalties because the money has to go to fighting piracy/

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Three juries *in a row* imposed huge fines on Jammie Thomas. That's at least some evidence that "regular" people don't have any sympathy for file sharing.

Do your juries get to decide on punishment? Ours only get to decide whether they are guilty or not. Punishment is up to the discretion of a judge or magistrate, and that is when their own views and prejudices come into play.

Still, it's probably just as well your juries get to decide punishment if this is true:
http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-lobbyis...-cases-110408/

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by bullet

A single file will not be spread across 2 or more servers. You do count it as 3.

That would be a really crappy cloud based service if your file was only one 1 server.
Your files would (should) be mirrored across at least two sites for DR purposes, and probably more for network performance reasons.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

"You should check with your country laws whether you can download and use the content ....

Could be a pirate ebook site. Could be a site that gives access to Feedbooks & google's free ebooks.

That makes it sound like public domain content to me.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Not when you can snag it off the darknet for free....it's just a lost sale.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Three juries *in a row* imposed huge fines on Jammie Thomas. That's at least some evidence that "regular" people don't have any sympathy for file sharing.

It's a sure sign that, whatever they did or did not understand, the juries treated filesharing as essentially equal to theft. The matter was probably broken down to its simplest context, and treated as such.

A lot of the existing copyright rules, and a lot of the pro- and anti-copyright discussion, manage to cloud the essential issue, namely, the right of a creator to protect their creation to a reasonable extent, and the penalty against violating that right. That's all it's about... and the laws simply need to be upgraded to take digital files into account, and give the courts clear direction in examining evidence and bringing verdicts.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

That makes it sound like public domain content to me.

It is an old trick that pirates use. They often make a claim about "delete within 24 hours if you do not own" or something like that too.

It muddies the issue, making it seem ok to some people.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

It is an old trick that pirates use. They often make a claim about "delete within 24 hours if you do not own" or something like that too.

It muddies the issue, making it seem ok to some people.

I was going to look up how long that site has been registered but its address has been censored and I couldn't remember what it was. I don't think any of the big vanity publishers would let it last long if it was really what it looks like. I think it was just designed to look like a pirate site to sucker people in. It's not as if they would be able to complain about it when they found out.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I was going to look up how long that site has been registered but its address has been censored and I couldn't remember what it was. I don't think any of the big vanity publishers would let it last long if it was really what it looks like. I think it was just designed to look like a pirate site to sucker people in. It's not as if they would be able to complain about it when they found out.

Creation date: 04 Oct 2010 00:30:00
Expiration date: 03 Oct 2011 19:30:00
in the whois record. ...

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Still, it's probably just as well your juries get to decide punishment if this is true:
http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-lobbyis...-cases-110408/

Down right worrying trend, but not unexpected. Industry frontpieces as rabid and backward thinking as the RIAA and MPAA will always cosy up to such individuals in order to get things to go their way.