On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:22:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:00:10 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> People will bitch up a storm when the RIAA shuts down a Linux torrent
>>> server because the RIAA didn't bother to check whether it was actually
>>> distributing something copyrighted.
>> 
>> Do you mean a torrent server distributing Linux distributions?  Cause
>> that's copyrighted and legal.
> 
> Obviously I meant to imply copyrighted by the RIAA, silly man.

I don't think the RIAA actually holds copyrights, though, do they?  I 
thought the record labels and artists held the copyrights.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I don't think the RIAA actually holds copyrights, though, do they?  I 
> thought the record labels and artists held the copyrights.

Now that you mention it, that's probably true. It's hard to understand what 
RIAA's legal involvement in the whole mess is, given the RIAA as such 
wouldn't seem to have any standing.

Of course, it's a different country with apparently much different copyright 
laws, so I have no idea how their legal system treats such things.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I'm not sure it's all as clear-cut as the media might imply:
> http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates/

It's unfortunate that this article on such a poignant topic is so poorly argued.
 If this were true, it would certainly warrant a closer look.  I'm unable to
find one, but does anyone know of a credible source on this, or is it just
allegations?

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> First, kudos to the Swedish court for following
> the spirit, and not the letter of the law:

Unfortunately, there is plenty of the opposite going on, though you could argue
this follows neither:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19sun1.html

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:51:57 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I don't think the RIAA actually holds copyrights, though, do they?  I
>> thought the record labels and artists held the copyrights.
> 
> Now that you mention it, that's probably true. It's hard to understand
> what RIAA's legal involvement in the whole mess is, given the RIAA as
> such wouldn't seem to have any standing.

They represent a consortium of copyright holders, that much I know - but 
yeah, I don't think there's anything out there (other than their website) 
that they would hold a copyright on.

> Of course, it's a different country with apparently much different
> copyright laws, so I have no idea how their legal system treats such
> things.

Well, I don't know that RIAA was involved directly - IFPI was, though.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I'm not sure it's all as clear-cut as the media might imply:
>> http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates/
> 
> It's unfortunate that this article on such a poignant topic is so poorly argued.
>  If this were true, it would certainly warrant a closer look.  I'm unable to
> find one, but does anyone know of a credible source on this, or is it just
> allegations?

	In 2005, there were (at least) two articles in the BBC about this.
Here's the latter one, which corrects a claim made in the first, but
still states that the UN maintains that toxic dumping had occurred. It
does contradict a small bit of what Hari said (i.e. tsunami did not wash
such barrels ashore), but he's likely correct on the bigger issue of
dumping waste there. I don't have any source other than what he says
regarding the sickness...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4321044.stm

	I don't have anything for the illegal fishing.

	Good to be skeptical. Better to be consistently skeptical. ;-)

-- 
"Now we all know map companies hire guys who specialize in making map
folding a physical impossibility" - Adult Kevin Arnold in "Wonder Years"


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4321044.stm

Even that lends a little more credibility to it.  This (*) sounds like the sort
of thing that's easy to exaggerate and dramatize, even if there is an
underlying truth to it.  That's rather upsetting.  Thanks for the source.

>  I don't have anything for the illegal fishing.

This might be a little less shocking, although hopefully they keep their
distance from (*).  I guess 3,025 km is plenty of coastline to work with.
Maybe too much.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

> I don't buy slippery slope arguments like this. Which legitimate search
> engine is being shut down by RIAA? It's a non-issue until it happens.

Google is already in deep with the RIAA over music videos (and music 
soundtracks) on YouTube.

Imagine if Google started crawling torrent files too and these showed up in 
search results, the RIAA would be round there quicker than a coffee-burnt 
American.

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> (i.e. tsunami did not wash such barrels ashore)

  Sidetracking on the actual issue, but I can't resist...

  I would have hard time believing that a tsunami would wash *anything*
on the bottom of the sea ashore, especially heavy objects far away from
the shore. That's not how a tsunami works at all. If it did, then a
tsunami would destroy everything at the bottom of the sea over an enormous
area.

  When the famous recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean happened, there were
people *diving* in the middle of the sea, and nothing happened to them.
They barely even felt anything.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message news:49ed700c@news.povray.org...

> Imagine if Google started crawling torrent files too and these showed up
in
> search results, the RIAA would be round there quicker than a coffee-burnt
> American.

Yes, so? As near as I can see, there's little to no legitimate use of
torrents. I don't buy the "it's just the technology" argument. It's the same
argument that gun lobbyist use "guns don't kill people, people do". Well, if
you facilitate a crime, you are partaking in it. *If* Google facilitates
piracy, they would be on the wrong. Conversely, there's nothing wrong to
demand from Google or other technology providers to minimize the potential
of their services being used to promote piracy, while fulfilling legitimate
needs. It can be done, and certainly by Google.

Post a reply to this message