Absolute must-read in the copyright wars

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

(You do realise the Statute of Anne only applies to the UK...

It dosn't apply anywhere, anymore. The thing is, it's clearly the first "modern" copyright law, and I was responding directly to the point about "the original point of Intellectual Property Rights" - as I said, it's very clearly enumerated in the Statute of Anne that it's to encourage learning!

Please do explain how this applies to creative media...

(I'm not referring to anything except the "original intent" claim, and I'm just going to ignore side arguments, sorry)

[Barcey]

Resurrecting an old thread for an update. Not surprisingly they settled for $45 million and didn't admit any wrongdoing. A little under the potential $6 billion.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/a.../10/c9214.html

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5563/125/

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Barcey

Resurrecting an old thread for an update. Not surprisingly they settled for $45 million and didn't admit any wrongdoing. A little under the potential $6 billion.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/a.../10/c9214.html

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/blogsection/0/125/

So systematic, deliberate, unauthorised commercial release results in a settlement of $150/song from the record companies to the singers and songwriters, but for accidentally making songs available over a peer-to-peer network, a judge ordered a payment of $2,250 per song, the same companies wanted a minimum of $1000/song (so long as the judge's award was voided, so as not to set a precedent), and a jury awarded $62,500 per song....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas

Something is very wrong here.

[Readerlover2011]

Yes, I agree with you. There should be some law to restrict

[screwballl]

Of course... they need to make back what they are losing by having to actually pay the artists for their work, so now they are illegally coming after the citizens with help from the government...

[taming]

Isn't comparing a Canadian court decision to one in the US sorta apples to oranges?

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by taming

Isn't comparing a Canadian court decision to one in the US sorta apples to oranges?

It was a settlement and not a court decision and considering the players involved (EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner) are all Canadian arms of the same companies that were seeking the damages in the USA, yes I think it's a fair to make the comparison.

I think the lesson is that if you violate copyright you should write it down in a "pending list". Then if anyone takes you to court you can claim that you intended to pay eventually and there was no wrong doing. If it was for non commercial purposes it should be a fraction of this penalty. Heck if you live in Canada you already paid the settlement when you purchased blank CDs.

It frustrates me because what was claimed here is real piracy that matters. (Copyright violation for the intent of profit without compensating the rights holders). I suspect they agreed to settle so it can quietly go away and they can jointly complain about illegal downloads.

[taming]

My understanding is that it was a settlement reached after a class action lawsuit was filed in Canada, where the laws are different and the expectations even more different than in the US.

[rwizard]

Originally Posted by Barcey

It frustrates me because what was claimed here is real piracy that matters. (Copyright violation for the intent of profit without compensating the rights holders). I suspect they agreed to settle so it can quietly go away and they can jointly complain about illegal downloads.

Although comparing a settlement in Canada to a judgement in the US is comparing apples to oranges, you are completely correct. The truth is that the people the music industry has sued in most if not all cases made no money from their infringement but the infringement by the music industry was for profit. Regardless of where you stand on getting content from the "dark net", I would think that this would be considered an order of magnitude worse. Especially since this is a case where you can definitively say that each copy went to someone that was willing to pay for it given the option. I am somewhat surprised that this did not come up sooner in this thread.

[SleepyBob]

When people keep mentioning darknet here, do they mean torrents or something else? I never heard that phrase before this forum.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

When people keep mentioning darknet here, do they mean torrents or something else? I never heard that phrase before this forum.

It's a not-very-well defined term. Yes, it can mean torrents.

[screwballl]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

When people keep mentioning darknet here, do they mean torrents or something else? I never heard that phrase before this forum.

darknet = illegal file sharing or download of illegal material by almost any method.

Comes from "dark side of the internet"

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by screwballl

darknet = illegal file sharing or download of illegal material by almost any method.

Comes from "dark side of the internet"

Darknet doesn't mean "illegal file sharing;" it means the not-public side of the internet, which includes illegal activity, but also includes paid private activity, and restricted-access activity.

It originally referred to web content that was invisible to search engines, or "out of the spotlight."

It's come to be widely used to refer to filesharing and hacking sites, and by extension, things like "sneakernet"--transfer of files by carrying a data-storage device from one computer to another. (These days, broadband is faster, but not long ago, it was often quicker to drive 20 miles with a zip drive to give someone a Linux boot CD than it was for them to download it.)

[Penforhire]

Whether historically correct or not, I prefer screwballl's definition since the most prolific sources of pirated e-books are in completely public networks.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Whether historically correct or not, I prefer screwballl's definition since the most prolific sources of pirated e-books are in completely public networks.

You think so? I think you haven't had access to the private areas.