What the RIAA really said.

I received this link from another list. It does clarify things. -- Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list! --- PLUG-discuss maili

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 10:49 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote: > I received this link from another list. It does clarify things. > I think we covered that pretty well in our own discussion...s

Re: What the RIAA really said.

Am 01. Jan, 2008 schwätzte Chris Gehlker so: I received this link from another list. It does clarify things. Bah, the site requires allowing cookies to get past the ad :(. "Once Defendant

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Jan 1, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Craig White wrote: > I think we covered that pretty well in our own discussion...simply > put, > all folders are considered shared folders. > > Try installing a program like Google's Picasa on your computer. It > will > scour your entire filesystem for graphic ima

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 12:14 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote: > On Jan 1, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Craig White wrote: > > > I think we covered that pretty well in our own discussion...simply > > put, > > all folders are considered shared folders. > > > > Try installing a program like Google's Picasa on your

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Jan 1, 2008, at 11:37 AM, der.hans wrote: > Am 01. Jan, 2008 schwätzte Chris Gehlker so: > >> I received this link from another list. It does clarify things. >> > >> > > > Bah, the site

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On 1/1/08, der.hans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am 01. Jan, 2008 schwätzte Chris Gehlker so: > > > I received this link from another list. It does clarify things. > > > > Bah, the site require

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Jan 1, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Craig White wrote: > not really...it's obvious that kazaa thinks that all folders are > shared > folders and links in folders like 'My Music' automatically. > > you can easily observe the process for yourself even without Kazaa - > which is why I referrenced both Am

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 15:04 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote: > On Jan 1, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Craig White wrote: > > > not really...it's obvious that kazaa thinks that all folders are > > shared > > folders and links in folders like 'My Music' automatically. > > > > you can easily observe the process f

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 15:04 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote: > On Jan 1, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Craig White wrote: > > > not really...it's obvious that kazaa thinks that all folders are > > shared > > folders and links in folders like 'My Music' automatically. > > > > you can easily observe the process f

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Jan 1, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Craig White wrote: > Without having ever installed kazaa or ever even see the program > operate, I am quite certain that it would automatically assume files > in > a users profile in a folder called 'My Music' (Windows computer) would > automatically be discovered an

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 17:43 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote: > On Jan 1, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Craig White wrote: > > > Without having ever installed kazaa or ever even see the program > > operate, I am quite certain that it would automatically assume files > > in > > a users profile in a folder called '

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Jan 1, 2008, at 5:21 PM, Craig White wrote: > and one more thing that is quoted in the referenced motion for Summary > Judgment (by the plaintiffs) which was actually taken from the jury > instructions of Capitol Records v. Thomas... > > "The act of making copyrighted sound recordings available

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 18:16 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote: > On Jan 1, 2008, at 5:21 PM, Craig White wrote: > > > and one more thing that is quoted in the referenced motion for Summary > > Judgment (by the plaintiffs) which was actually taken from the jury > > instructions of Capitol Records v. Thoma

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Jan 1, 2008 5:16 PM, Craig White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > if you have forgotten how amarok scoured your hard drive looking for > music files, simply quit all instances of the program and > 'mv .kde/share/apps/amarok/ .kde/share/apps/amarok-bak' > and then restart amarok - you will see it fi

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 19:13 -0700, Anthony Boynes wrote: > On Jan 1, 2008 5:16 PM, Craig White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > if you have forgotten how amarok scoured your hard drive looking for > > music files, simply quit all instances of the program and > > 'mv .kde/share/apps/amarok/ .kde/sh

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Jan 1, 2008, at 6:28 PM, Craig White wrote: > It's not straw-man arguments at all...A business exists behind a NAT > router and the RIAA would never differentiate between whether the > files > were shared within behind the NAT router or through the NAT router. It's a straw-man argument becau

Re: What the RIAA really said.

Haven't people been getting sued merely for possesion of downloaded audio files? eric On Jan 1, 2008 8:04 PM, Chris Gehlker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The RIAA has always had one strike against them. Copyright law doesn't > criminalize downloading audio files, it criminalizes uploading them. >

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Jan 1, 2008, at 8:19 PM, eric© wrote: > Haven't people been getting sued merely for possesion of downloaded > audio files? Nope. Just like you can't be sue for mere possession of a Rolex watch rip-off. It's the person who makes the copy who is violating the law. I you could prove that you h

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 20:04 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote: > On Jan 1, 2008, at 6:28 PM, Craig White wrote: > > > It's not straw-man arguments at all...A business exists behind a NAT > > router and the RIAA would never differentiate between whether the > > files > > were shared within behind the NA

Re: What the RIAA really said.

Just wondering Craig, do you have some kind of personal stake in these matters? Are you a lawyer? do you represent some group? Or are you just really into this issue? seems like you're putting a lot of effort into this. btw- any Ron Paul supporters on this list? -jmz On 1/1/08, Cr

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 21:00 -0700, Joshua Zeidner wrote: > Just wondering Craig, do you have some kind of personal stake in > these matters? Are you a lawyer? do you represent some group? Or > are you just really into this issue? > >seems like you're putting a lot of effort into this.

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On 1/1/08, Craig White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 21:00 -0700, Joshua Zeidner wrote: > > Just wondering Craig, do you have some kind of personal stake in > > these matters? Are you a lawyer? do you represent some group? Or > > are you just really into this issue? > > > >

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 21:30 -0700, Joshua Zeidner wrote: > On 1/1/08, Craig White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 21:00 -0700, Joshua Zeidner wrote: > > > Just wondering Craig, do you have some kind of personal stake in > > > these matters? Are you a lawyer? do you represent

Re: What the RIAA really said.

> Lobbying/calling congressmen at this stage is futile because citizen > activism doesn't much count in an environment where corporate interests > are king. > I wouldn't totally rule out the prospect of actually *running* for public office... > Blogs and interactions such as these here are the ne

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Jan 1, 2008, at 8:47 PM, Craig White wrote: > The stipulation regarding Kazaa by the defendant states that the > defendant was interested solely in exchange of pornography. It's clear > that Kazaa had other uses besides illegally sharing music files. I can't find any evidence for this on the

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Jan 1, 2008, at 9:30 PM, Joshua Zeidner wrote: > well I tend to divide 'activism' into distinct stages: > > 1. Spleen Venting > > 2. Interest Group Forming > > 3. Lobbying, calling Congressmen, etc. > > 4. Legal Action > > I think at this point, that you've established that the c

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 22:12 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote: > On Jan 1, 2008, at 8:47 PM, Craig White wrote: > > > The stipulation regarding Kazaa by the defendant states that the > > defendant was interested solely in exchange of pornography. It's clear > > that Kazaa had other uses besides illegally

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 22:12 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote: > On Jan 1, 2008, at 8:47 PM, Craig White wrote: > > > The stipulation regarding Kazaa by the defendant states that the > > defendant was interested solely in exchange of pornography. It's clear > > that Kazaa had other uses besides illegally

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Jan 2, 2008, at 7:38 AM, Craig White wrote: > The RIAA did not have to prove: > > * That Thomas downloaded anything; > * That she had a copy of Kazaa; > * That she was the actual person sharing the files in question. > * That she was aware of alleged sharing of files on her

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Jan 2, 2008, at 7:58 AM, Craig White wrote: > by the way, you referenced an order granting summary judgement that > was > vacated by the same court just a few days later... > > http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071004OrderVacateOrder > > Just sayin... > > Craig > >

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 09:33 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote: > On Jan 2, 2008, at 7:58 AM, Craig White wrote: > > > by the way, you referenced an order granting summary judgement that > > was > > vacated by the same court just a few days later... > > > > http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Jan 2, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Craig White wrote: > where on earth did you get the idea that the files actually were > physically moved? You are assuming facts that are not supported by the > evidence and even worse, you already know that the 'folders' that a > program considers accessible or in th

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 11:10 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote: > On Jan 2, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Craig White wrote: > > > where on earth did you get the idea that the files actually were > > physically moved? You are assuming facts that are not supported by the > > evidence and even worse, you already know

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Jan 1, 2008 9:44 PM, Craig White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 21:30 -0700, Joshua Zeidner wrote: > > On 1/1/08, Craig White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 21:00 -0700, Joshua Zeidner wrote: > > > > Just wondering Craig, do you have some kind of per

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 11:50 -0700, Joshua Zeidner wrote: > > > > Blogs and interactions such as these here are the new 'grass-roots' > > movement and the only one that the public can participate in as even the > > MSM (main stream media) cannot be trusted to find the story. > > I can tell you t

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Jan 2, 2008, at 11:32 AM, Craig White wrote: > except of course that it is disputed... You are absolutely correct. In fact I had read that and simply forgot. Subsequently I read this: "It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordin

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 12:15 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote: > On Jan 2, 2008, at 11:32 AM, Craig White wrote: > > > except of course that it is disputed... > > You are absolutely correct. In fact I had read that and simply forgot. > Subsequently I read this: > > "It is undisputed that Defendant p

Re: What the RIAA really said.

a noteable aspect to all of this is that these terms are sufficiently complex where the average person is going to look for some kind of insurance against liability that is /simple and complete/. History has shown that Open Source cannot really offer that. Certainly a non-profit agent will not

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Jan 2, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Craig White wrote: > I would surmise (I didn't see the consultant's report - was it > Jacobson?) that he has only a listing of the 'virtual' folder I don't know if it was Jacobson but it's probably in the record somewhere. I don't claim to be an expert on Windows

Re: What the RIAA really said.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 These screen shots are not of the individual's PC, they are of the software used to "investigate" the supposed infringement. It similar to someone taking a screen shot of a web page and saying, "this is what they are sharing". Chris Gehlker wrote: > O

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 12:41 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote: > On Jan 2, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Craig White wrote: > > > I would surmise (I didn't see the consultant's report - was it > > Jacobson?) that he has only a listing of the 'virtual' folder > > I don't know if it was Jacobson but it's probably i

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Jan 2, 2008, at 1:08 PM, Patrick Fleming, EA wrote: > These screen shots are not of the individual's PC, they are of the > software used to "investigate" the supposed infringement. It similar > to > someone taking a screen shot of a web page and saying, "this is what > they are sharing". Yo

Re: What the RIAA really said.

On Jan 2, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Craig White wrote: > I wholeheartedly expect that any listing or illustration of the 'kazaa > shared' directory presented by the investigator for the plaintiff was > not a direct representation of the defendant's computer but rather > something that could have only bee

RE: What the RIAA really said.

hlker Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 10:49 AM To: Main PLUG discussion list Subject: What the RIAA really said. I received this link from another list. It does clarify things. <http://www.cio-today.com/news/RIAA-Not-Targeting-CD-Ripping-After-All/s tory.xhtml?story_id=13300C81I5JE > -- Seve

RE: What the RIAA really said.

is Gehlker Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 10:49 AM To: Main PLUG discussion list Subject: What the RIAA really said. I received this link from another list. It does clarify things. <http://www.cio-today.com/news/RIAA-Not-Targeting-CD-Ripping-After-All/s tory.xhtml?story_id=13300C81I5JE >

Re: What the RIAA really said. (Charles Goyette!)

Charles Goyette is talking about this issue at this moment on 1100 AM! Vaughn Chris Gehlker wrote: > On Jan 1, 2008, at 9:30 PM, Joshua Zeidner wrote: > >> well I tend to divide 'activism' into distinct stages: >> >> 1. Spleen Venting >> >> 2. Interest Group Forming >> >> 3. Lobbying, c

Re: What the RIAA really said. (Bring it on!)

Maybe the Internet _has_ changed everything. A concern citizen raised over $10 for the Ron Paul campaign just as a viral "let's do it" meme. This could be a new one. Maybe all of those of us (myself included) who have copied our own LEGALLY PURCHASED recordings for FAIR USE should come out of

Re: What the RIAA really said. (Bring it on!)

Vaughn Treude wrote: > Maybe the Internet _has_ changed everything. A concern citizen raised > over $10 He he, that's $10 million, of course. for the Ron Paul campaign just as a viral "let's do it" meme. > This could be a new one. Maybe all of those of us (myself included) who > have copied our

Re: What the RIAA really said. (Bring it on!)

On Jan 2, 2008 7:07 AM, Vaughn Treude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Vaughn Treude wrote: > > Maybe the Internet _has_ changed everything. A concern citizen raised > > over $10 > He he, that's $10 million, of course. While I will refrain on proselytizing on this list, this particular occurance is