The Black Rain Falls video was the full doco of the Exxon gig. 
Not sure if this was made available via the group in dig format ?
Anyone able to shed light on that availability ?

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: "gforg@freemail.hu" <gforg@freemail.hu>

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:57:12 
To:OilMailLIst <powderworks@yahoogroups.com.au>
Cc:gforg@freemail.hu
Subject: Re: [powderworks] US Judge Rejects RIAA 'Making Available' Theory


Hi!

Acting as a lawyer in Europe, I can assure you, that the analogy with the  
library is not proper here, but the judge has right, according to the law  
in Europe.

Why?

The person, who buys any material protected by copyright, has usually the  
right to use that for personal purposes. So, this person buys a for  
example a book for 10 guinnes, but the library pays for the same book 130  
guinnes, because it has then the right to publish it - partly, for  
example, not allowing more than 20, or so pages copied in one occasion.  
The right to publish costs money.

So, the case is simple - if the one who shares has the right to do so,  
there can be no infringement, no matter you have to pay for it, or not,  
you operate the copier from home, or this is done by a good lookin' and  
cheerin' librarian.

It is the same as radio stations. I paid for Redneck Wonderland album 5200  
guinnes years ago, but any radio station should pay for ex. 50000 (I don't  
know exactly) guinnes for only one song to publish.

Thats why the library-thing is not a proper example, and why anybody who  
shares, and it is proven that there was data transfer (of course),  
violates copyright. Only sharing, without transfer is like owning a car  
without a driving licence. There is nothing wrong, only if you drive it.

Therefore tend the companies say, we can not prove the transfer, so lets  
say, the "making available" is also an infringement. But that is stupid.

I personally like the "max. quality" theory. One can share, but only if  
the quality is hearable decreased, or technically set to a maximum level  
(for ex. mono channel, max kbps, filtering freq. ranges, or anything exact  
and later provable method). It is like an advertisement of a music, or  
video material.

And then maybe you could say, if one makes available anything violating  
these settings, it is an infringement, no matter there was data transfer  
or not - in my very personal opinion.

Sorry fot the "off topic"

Anyway, does anybody know, if there are any more videos available for the  
Midnight Oil Exxon gig, than seen on 20000 watt R.S.L.?

Thank you, Gabriel



On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:20:09 +0100, RM <m2k7@liveonthe.net> wrote:

I'm not implying that there's any change in PW policy on providing
downloads just yet, but for anyone who has followed the legal saga of
music copyright enforcement, this is an interesting new development. The
comments by various Slashdotters make interesting follow-on reading too.

http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/241134937/article.pl

NewYorkCountryLawyer <http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/>
writes /"A federal judge in Connecticut has rejected the RIAA's 'making
available' theory
<http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/02/default-judgment-denied-in-atlantic-v.html>,
which is the basis of all of the RIAA's peer to peer file sharing cases.
In Atlantic v. Brennan, in a 9-page opinion
<http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_brennan_080213OrderDenyDefaultJudgment>
[PDF], Judge Janet Bond Arterton held that the RIAA needs to prove
'actual distribution of copies', and cannot rely --- as it was permitted
to do in Capitol v. Thomas
<http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/01/index-of-litigation-documents.html#Virgin_v_Thomas>
--- upon the mere fact that there are song files on the defendant's
computer and that they were 'available'. This is the same issue that has
been the subject of extensive briefing in two contested cases in New
York, Elektra v. Barker
<http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/27/1917218&tid=123> and
Warner v. Cassin
<http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/17/2039209&tid=123>. Judge
Arterton also held that the defendant had other possible defenses, such
as the unconstitutionality of the RIAA's damages theory
<http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/10/1319224&tid=141> and
possible copyright misuse <http://p2pnet.net/story/12313> flowing from
the record companies' anticompetitive behavior."


/I found the following comment especially interesting.  I don't know if
it's valid and why / why not.

"""
I've always liked the library analagy. Its a public building, open to
the public, and full of books. Photocopiers are placed conveniently
often even marked with signs --> photocopiers this way. The books are
carefully organized to make them easy to find. And there are computers
scattered around so you can look them up that way too.

They've set everything up they possibly could to let you make copies.
Yet if you do so, YOU are liable for infringement, not them.

By analagy, if I set up a computer, put it in a public place (like the
internet), with songs available on it, and also set it up with tools
that will make copies of those songs for you if you send it the right
commands.

Now if you send my computer a command to transmit you a copy of the
song... shouldn't YOU be liable for infringement? My computer isn't
making copies and sending them out... YOU asked my computer to do it.
All I did was set it up to listen to requests.

How is that fundamentally different from a library? If I could somehow
operate the library photocopier by remote from my computer, would that
suddenly shift the blame for making copies to them? I should think not.
Its still YOU who have (remotely) operated the copier to make an
infringing copy.

Finally, as a side note... if YOU own the CD in question, and feel its
easier to download a copy using my publicly available computer to send
you one, rather than ripping your own CD. Shouldn't that be legal. I as
the computer owner have done nothing illegal by making it available. You
have done nothing illegal because you have the right to make personal
use copies of that song by virtue of the fact that you own a copy.

Why or Why not does this 'theory' work?

Finally if I charge you for access to my system that allows you to make
copies am I a pirate then? Good question... interestingly, I still think
not. If a library charges you
.10c page to use their photocopier and makes you use some sort of
'printer card' that you prepay to fill... would that make them infringe?
I doubt it...most libraries -do- charge for photocopies.

So its only infringement if they start making the actual copies
themselves. Setting up the equipment and letting you operate it, even if
they charge you for access, doesn't make them liable for infringement.

Although at some point you might argue that their is a conspiracy to
commit infringement...
"""



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




---
avast! Antivirus: Bejovo uzenet biztonsagos.
Virus adatbazis (VPS): 080225-0, 2008.02.25
Kereses: 2008.02.26. 9:09:17
avast! Szerzoi jogok (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

 
Yahoo!7 Groups Links