Comments on: Case Update

By: Frank John Miller

Frank John Miller — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:50:35 +0000

Fuck this copyright shit and these RIAA fucktards. If I want to download a song, I’ll do it! They can’t stop me!

By: Trial FAIL

Trial FAIL — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:04:06 +0000

This trial is biased. Guilty until proven innocent. The RIAA used illegal evidence since they invaded privacy and failed to present proof of damages. The only reason Sony won the Betamax decision was because they were as rich as Universal. Sony used to be cool.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:18:22 +0000

Committed to the destruction of capitalism? Really?

By: ForWhatIt'sWorth

ForWhatIt'sWorth — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 02:46:12 +0000

“Copying is not theft.”

True enough. It’s still an abuse of reasonable privacy expectation to sneak and take something for free that you know is actually for sale. Split hairs all you like and tell it to the judge.

The greatest justice in this entire smarmy farce is watching a legal visionary committed to the destruction of capitalism using a real tool….. as the real tool he truly is.

By: BeerIsReal

BeerIsReal — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 16:16:48 +0000

“The beer might have been illegal back then but at least they were paying for what they were drinking.”

Except that when you drink beer, you reduce the amount of beer that is available for other people. When you copy a song, you do not reduce the amount of music in the world; in fact, you increase the number of copies of that music, and protect it from being lost when other copies are destroyed.

Copying is not theft.

By: ForWhatIt'sWorth

ForWhatIt'sWorth — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 13:14:43 +0000

“It’s prohibition all over again.”

Not quite. The beer might have been illegal back then but at least they were paying for what they were drinking.

By: Kethinov

Kethinov — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 22:52:45 +0000

I think she should just toss the verdict and declare Joel not liable on the grounds that copyright was never meant to disallow noncommercial copying. Copyright was drafted only to prevent copying with a for profit motive.

That would be a radical judgment indeed, and probably easily appealed by plaintiffs. But it’s the correct legal interpretation, even if it’s not a popular one.

I feel bad for Joel. I doubt there will be a solution to this issue in the judiciary or Congress until there’s been prolonged and widespread civil disobedience. It’s prohibition all over again.