-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- Since that $750 per family is money we don't have, that would be $750 per family plus interest on the debt in perpetuity. Or it could be monetized, in which case it regressively taxes everyone...
- For the record, the supporters of "Google violates its 'Don't be Evil' motto swept the floor with the Google apologists, even with Googleboy Larry Lessig in the audience. See the...
- Slippery slopes are everywhere, so I wouldn't worry about them. These issues about probable cause only apply to the government, as I understand them, but IANAL. Assuming there were something to...
- Apparently I can reply to your comment via e-mail. We'll see if this works. (later) Indeed it does, with a few formatting weirdnesses is all.
- Same here. My response to you hasn't shown up.I guess Disqus doesn't want to get anyone upset.
The Technology Liberation Front
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
Eric Bangeman of Ars Technica and Debbie Rose of ACT discuss the recent guilty verdict in a first-in-the-nation file-sharing trial.
... Continue reading »
1 year ago
However, part of the case also involved hypothetical or potential uploading (making available) which would be analogous (only very roughly analogous) in the world of physical goods to stealing stuff and giving it away -- i.e. being Robin Hood. Whatever law under which one might be convicted, what would be the penalty for such an offense? Also, there remains the possibility that the defendant was unaware of what was going on -- that at worst she may have been an unintentional Robin Hood. Which is a very strange concept.
1 year ago
All over the blogosphere, music blogs are offering mp3s, singly or bunched in downloadable podcasts, of RIAA owned music, every day of the week. This is blantant, open, deliberate. But the way the RIAA handles this is with DMCA takedown notices. Not lawsuits.
It seems inconsistent to track down and sue this woman in Minnesota for perhaps distributing songs (perhaps not, since no proof that anyone downloaded them was offered) and at the same time to generally leave the music bloggers alone, except for the occasional request to remove a tune from a website.
Is there a different legal theory involved? Although the logistics are slightly different, downloading from a music blog or a gal from Duluth on KaZaa is the same, unless there is some subtlety I am missing.