<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_09_1835205</id>
	<title>Court Says Fair Use May Hold In Some RIAA Cases</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1260385020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes <i>"In <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Documents.htm&amp;s=SONY\_v\_Tenenbaum">SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum</a>, the Boston RIAA case in which the defendant, represented by Charles Nesson of Harvard Law School, admitted liability at his trial, the Court has <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/12/court-enters-judgment-in-sony-v.html">entered judgment in favor of the RIAA</a> for the monetary award of $625,000 fixed by the jury. However, the Court left open the questions of whether the amount is excessive, and whether attorneys fees and/or sanctions should be awarded, and has scheduled further briefing of those issues. The Court granted the RIAA much, but not all, of the injunctive relief it requested. In an unusual step, the Court issued a <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer\_Copyright\_Internet\_Law/sony\_tenenbaum\_091207DecisionSumJudg.pdf">38-page decision</a> (PDF) explaining in some detail the Court's views of the Fair Use defense in the context of cases like this, and indicating that there are some factual scenarios &mdash; not applicable in this particular case &mdash; in which it might have concluded that the claims were barred by Fair Use. E.g. it declined to rule out the possibility that creation of mp3 files exclusively for space-shifting purposes from audio CDs a defendant had previously purchased might constitute fair use."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes " In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum , the Boston RIAA case in which the defendant , represented by Charles Nesson of Harvard Law School , admitted liability at his trial , the Court has entered judgment in favor of the RIAA for the monetary award of $ 625,000 fixed by the jury .
However , the Court left open the questions of whether the amount is excessive , and whether attorneys fees and/or sanctions should be awarded , and has scheduled further briefing of those issues .
The Court granted the RIAA much , but not all , of the injunctive relief it requested .
In an unusual step , the Court issued a 38-page decision ( PDF ) explaining in some detail the Court 's views of the Fair Use defense in the context of cases like this , and indicating that there are some factual scenarios    not applicable in this particular case    in which it might have concluded that the claims were barred by Fair Use .
E.g. it declined to rule out the possibility that creation of mp3 files exclusively for space-shifting purposes from audio CDs a defendant had previously purchased might constitute fair use .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the Boston RIAA case in which the defendant, represented by Charles Nesson of Harvard Law School, admitted liability at his trial, the Court has entered judgment in favor of the RIAA for the monetary award of $625,000 fixed by the jury.
However, the Court left open the questions of whether the amount is excessive, and whether attorneys fees and/or sanctions should be awarded, and has scheduled further briefing of those issues.
The Court granted the RIAA much, but not all, of the injunctive relief it requested.
In an unusual step, the Court issued a 38-page decision (PDF) explaining in some detail the Court's views of the Fair Use defense in the context of cases like this, and indicating that there are some factual scenarios — not applicable in this particular case — in which it might have concluded that the claims were barred by Fair Use.
E.g. it declined to rule out the possibility that creation of mp3 files exclusively for space-shifting purposes from audio CDs a defendant had previously purchased might constitute fair use.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30384904</id>
	<title>Re:Damages should be limited by law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259601720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd have to agree but I don't particularly like that solution. What's to prevent Joe Schmoe who nets $15k/yr from being used by someone to cause damages of say $20 mil and then only being charged a percentage of that, not to mention abuses that could entail such circumstances by say corporate espionage, etc etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd have to agree but I do n't particularly like that solution .
What 's to prevent Joe Schmoe who nets $ 15k/yr from being used by someone to cause damages of say $ 20 mil and then only being charged a percentage of that , not to mention abuses that could entail such circumstances by say corporate espionage , etc etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd have to agree but I don't particularly like that solution.
What's to prevent Joe Schmoe who nets $15k/yr from being used by someone to cause damages of say $20 mil and then only being charged a percentage of that, not to mention abuses that could entail such circumstances by say corporate espionage, etc etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380074</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't know they could do that</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1259614260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not precedent for at least two reasons. First, district courts are the low courts on the totem pole--there is no one below for them to set precedent for! Second, the court's writings on what might have been are what is called in legal circles "dicta". That's writings by the court that are not part of the actual legal decision or the supporting reasoning. Think of dicta as being the court giving its personal thoughts or opinions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not precedent for at least two reasons .
First , district courts are the low courts on the totem pole--there is no one below for them to set precedent for !
Second , the court 's writings on what might have been are what is called in legal circles " dicta " .
That 's writings by the court that are not part of the actual legal decision or the supporting reasoning .
Think of dicta as being the court giving its personal thoughts or opinions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not precedent for at least two reasons.
First, district courts are the low courts on the totem pole--there is no one below for them to set precedent for!
Second, the court's writings on what might have been are what is called in legal circles "dicta".
That's writings by the court that are not part of the actual legal decision or the supporting reasoning.
Think of dicta as being the court giving its personal thoughts or opinions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379810</id>
	<title>Re:Mostly the court said the defense sucked</title>
	<author>pitchpipe</author>
	<datestamp>1259612640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just call this a [<b>painfully</b> slow] outbreak of common sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just call this a [ painfully slow ] outbreak of common sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just call this a [painfully slow] outbreak of common sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30381228</id>
	<title>Re:Happiness</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1259577000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...which is perfectly consistent with the previous 50 years of being able to get music for free.</p><p>You condition the consumer to the expectation that they can get entertainment for free then they are bound to continue thinking that.</p><p>It's just that now most any form of "broadcast" is also a "download". That's just the evolution of technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...which is perfectly consistent with the previous 50 years of being able to get music for free.You condition the consumer to the expectation that they can get entertainment for free then they are bound to continue thinking that.It 's just that now most any form of " broadcast " is also a " download " .
That 's just the evolution of technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...which is perfectly consistent with the previous 50 years of being able to get music for free.You condition the consumer to the expectation that they can get entertainment for free then they are bound to continue thinking that.It's just that now most any form of "broadcast" is also a "download".
That's just the evolution of technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380054</id>
	<title>Re:Damages should be limited by law</title>
	<author>keithpreston</author>
	<datestamp>1259614140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This doesn't make sense.   Most people just file bankruptcy and don't end up paying $625,000   The monetary damages should correlate with losses, but to another point they should be a deterrent to the crime.    If you were caught letting people download a DVD and only had to pay for the cost of the 1 person (the RIAA) who downloaded and sued you ($20?), everyone would pirate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't make sense .
Most people just file bankruptcy and do n't end up paying $ 625,000 The monetary damages should correlate with losses , but to another point they should be a deterrent to the crime .
If you were caught letting people download a DVD and only had to pay for the cost of the 1 person ( the RIAA ) who downloaded and sued you ( $ 20 ?
) , everyone would pirate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't make sense.
Most people just file bankruptcy and don't end up paying $625,000   The monetary damages should correlate with losses, but to another point they should be a deterrent to the crime.
If you were caught letting people download a DVD and only had to pay for the cost of the 1 person (the RIAA) who downloaded and sued you ($20?
), everyone would pirate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380168</id>
	<title>Re:Damages should be limited by law</title>
	<author>SheepFister</author>
	<datestamp>1259571720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed. Furthermore, how can anyone in their right mind say that $22,500 per song is a fair amount? I had to have seen this before... can someone link me to an article explaining it? The Making Available excuse doesn't seem like it would be enough... and would the fine be different if a user disabled uploading? Would it then just be cut and dry theft, with a fine less astronomical? There's something I'm not seeing in play here...
<br> <br>
I can't see myself paying for music through the labels anymore, they're too quick to bend us over. If more bands I like start pulling a 'Radiohead' and releasing music independently on their websites, I'd gladly pay for it. I'll still go to concerts and buy their t-shirts. But any media that has a kickback to the labels is dead to me, and I'm guessing I'm not the only one who feels this way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Furthermore , how can anyone in their right mind say that $ 22,500 per song is a fair amount ?
I had to have seen this before... can someone link me to an article explaining it ?
The Making Available excuse does n't seem like it would be enough... and would the fine be different if a user disabled uploading ?
Would it then just be cut and dry theft , with a fine less astronomical ?
There 's something I 'm not seeing in play here.. . I ca n't see myself paying for music through the labels anymore , they 're too quick to bend us over .
If more bands I like start pulling a 'Radiohead ' and releasing music independently on their websites , I 'd gladly pay for it .
I 'll still go to concerts and buy their t-shirts .
But any media that has a kickback to the labels is dead to me , and I 'm guessing I 'm not the only one who feels this way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Furthermore, how can anyone in their right mind say that $22,500 per song is a fair amount?
I had to have seen this before... can someone link me to an article explaining it?
The Making Available excuse doesn't seem like it would be enough... and would the fine be different if a user disabled uploading?
Would it then just be cut and dry theft, with a fine less astronomical?
There's something I'm not seeing in play here...
 
I can't see myself paying for music through the labels anymore, they're too quick to bend us over.
If more bands I like start pulling a 'Radiohead' and releasing music independently on their websites, I'd gladly pay for it.
I'll still go to concerts and buy their t-shirts.
But any media that has a kickback to the labels is dead to me, and I'm guessing I'm not the only one who feels this way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379688</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't know they could do that</title>
	<author>glrotate</author>
	<datestamp>1259611800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Courts can bloviate all they wish. You're confusing two legal concepts:  The case and controversy requirement, and dicta.</p><p>A court requires an actual case with actually adverse parties.*  This is the case and controversy requirement.</p><p>That said, courts can bloviate all they wish.  The fancy legal term is dicta. It is not binding on any court, not even the same Court.  Sometimes distinguishing between the real opinon and dicta can be tricky.</p><p>However, if the Court's reasoning is strong, other parties will incorporate it into their arguments and it will be adopted by other courts making their own decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Courts can bloviate all they wish .
You 're confusing two legal concepts : The case and controversy requirement , and dicta.A court requires an actual case with actually adverse parties .
* This is the case and controversy requirement.That said , courts can bloviate all they wish .
The fancy legal term is dicta .
It is not binding on any court , not even the same Court .
Sometimes distinguishing between the real opinon and dicta can be tricky.However , if the Court 's reasoning is strong , other parties will incorporate it into their arguments and it will be adopted by other courts making their own decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Courts can bloviate all they wish.
You're confusing two legal concepts:  The case and controversy requirement, and dicta.A court requires an actual case with actually adverse parties.
*  This is the case and controversy requirement.That said, courts can bloviate all they wish.
The fancy legal term is dicta.
It is not binding on any court, not even the same Court.
Sometimes distinguishing between the real opinon and dicta can be tricky.However, if the Court's reasoning is strong, other parties will incorporate it into their arguments and it will be adopted by other courts making their own decisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379842</id>
	<title>Re:since when is space shifting from CD not fair u</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259612820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question of if you have the CD but rather than ripping it, you download an already ripped mp3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question of if you have the CD but rather than ripping it , you download an already ripped mp3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question of if you have the CD but rather than ripping it, you download an already ripped mp3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380120</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like the Court got it right.</title>
	<author>Taibhsear</author>
	<datestamp>1259614620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Downloading whatever you feel like just to list on your ipod is completely legal in the US. UPLOADING the copywritten files is illegal and infringement of copyrights. This is a very important difference that the RIAA doesn't want you to realize.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Downloading whatever you feel like just to list on your ipod is completely legal in the US .
UPLOADING the copywritten files is illegal and infringement of copyrights .
This is a very important difference that the RIAA does n't want you to realize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Downloading whatever you feel like just to list on your ipod is completely legal in the US.
UPLOADING the copywritten files is illegal and infringement of copyrights.
This is a very important difference that the RIAA doesn't want you to realize.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380590</id>
	<title>Re:since when is space shifting from CD not fair u</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1259574240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that were found to be valid precedent, then that would mean that it was legal to download a copy of a DVD that you currently own from a foreign torrent site? I assume that you wouldn't be violating the DMCA's circumvention clause...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that were found to be valid precedent , then that would mean that it was legal to download a copy of a DVD that you currently own from a foreign torrent site ?
I assume that you would n't be violating the DMCA 's circumvention clause.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that were found to be valid precedent, then that would mean that it was legal to download a copy of a DVD that you currently own from a foreign torrent site?
I assume that you wouldn't be violating the DMCA's circumvention clause...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30384652</id>
	<title>Space shifting not fair use?</title>
	<author>arthurpaliden</author>
	<datestamp>1259598660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"E.g. it declined to rule out the possibility that creation of mp3 files exclusively for space-shifting purposes from audio CDs a defendant had previously purchased might constitute fair use."
</p><p>
You mean in the land of the free you do not have the right to use the media content you bought in any way you like in any device you own.
</p><p>Only in Canada you say. Pitty.</p><p>No wonder the **AA hate us so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" E.g .
it declined to rule out the possibility that creation of mp3 files exclusively for space-shifting purposes from audio CDs a defendant had previously purchased might constitute fair use .
" You mean in the land of the free you do not have the right to use the media content you bought in any way you like in any device you own .
Only in Canada you say .
Pitty.No wonder the * * AA hate us so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"E.g.
it declined to rule out the possibility that creation of mp3 files exclusively for space-shifting purposes from audio CDs a defendant had previously purchased might constitute fair use.
"

You mean in the land of the free you do not have the right to use the media content you bought in any way you like in any device you own.
Only in Canada you say.
Pitty.No wonder the **AA hate us so much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30384984</id>
	<title>Re:Damages should be limited by law</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1259602680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It should be illegal to award damages higher than a certain percentage of the net worth of the losing party.</p></div></blockquote><p>Which allows you to violate copyrights to your heart's content as long as you use a frontman with a net worth of zero.
</p><p>Which isn't terribly hard to do, really.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be illegal to award damages higher than a certain percentage of the net worth of the losing party.Which allows you to violate copyrights to your heart 's content as long as you use a frontman with a net worth of zero .
Which is n't terribly hard to do , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should be illegal to award damages higher than a certain percentage of the net worth of the losing party.Which allows you to violate copyrights to your heart's content as long as you use a frontman with a net worth of zero.
Which isn't terribly hard to do, really.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30385386</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't know they could do that</title>
	<author>MacWiz</author>
	<datestamp>1259608680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Problem now is, how does Tenenbaum get an appeal?</i></p><p>It's hard to expect an appeal for someone who said they DID commit the action in question, did it willingly and makiciously.</p><p>Gertner warned the RIAA at the beginning of the Tenenbaum case that they were ruining peoples lives and "this has got to stop." She was obviously willing to give the kid the benefit of the doubt going into the trial.</p><p>Joel Tenenbaum wasted the time, effort and interest of far too many people by letting a large case take place, garnering national attention only to confess as soon as he hit the witness stand, allowing the RIAA to win without actually proving a damn thing.</p><p>As New York Country Lawyer points out, the case accomplished nothing legally; never dealt with any of the core issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem now is , how does Tenenbaum get an appeal ? It 's hard to expect an appeal for someone who said they DID commit the action in question , did it willingly and makiciously.Gertner warned the RIAA at the beginning of the Tenenbaum case that they were ruining peoples lives and " this has got to stop .
" She was obviously willing to give the kid the benefit of the doubt going into the trial.Joel Tenenbaum wasted the time , effort and interest of far too many people by letting a large case take place , garnering national attention only to confess as soon as he hit the witness stand , allowing the RIAA to win without actually proving a damn thing.As New York Country Lawyer points out , the case accomplished nothing legally ; never dealt with any of the core issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem now is, how does Tenenbaum get an appeal?It's hard to expect an appeal for someone who said they DID commit the action in question, did it willingly and makiciously.Gertner warned the RIAA at the beginning of the Tenenbaum case that they were ruining peoples lives and "this has got to stop.
" She was obviously willing to give the kid the benefit of the doubt going into the trial.Joel Tenenbaum wasted the time, effort and interest of far too many people by letting a large case take place, garnering national attention only to confess as soon as he hit the witness stand, allowing the RIAA to win without actually proving a damn thing.As New York Country Lawyer points out, the case accomplished nothing legally; never dealt with any of the core issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380030</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't know they could do that</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1259613960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wish the court would render an opinion against the retarded trend of inventing hip new names for stuff.  "Space shifting"?  <b>Seriously</b>?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish the court would render an opinion against the retarded trend of inventing hip new names for stuff .
" Space shifting " ?
Seriously ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish the court would render an opinion against the retarded trend of inventing hip new names for stuff.
"Space shifting"?
Seriously?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379726</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't know they could do that</title>
	<author>gabereiser</author>
	<datestamp>1259612040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Odds are a judge will look at this ruling as precedence.  Most judges do as that's how "law" has evolved.  Problem now is, how does Tenenbaum get an appeal?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Odds are a judge will look at this ruling as precedence .
Most judges do as that 's how " law " has evolved .
Problem now is , how does Tenenbaum get an appeal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Odds are a judge will look at this ruling as precedence.
Most judges do as that's how "law" has evolved.
Problem now is, how does Tenenbaum get an appeal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30381848</id>
	<title>shit!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WOOT? would li4e to have somebody just Truth, for all thing for the indecision and of programming join in especially theorists - lead developers</htmltext>
<tokenext>WOOT ?
would li4e to have somebody just Truth , for all thing for the indecision and of programming join in especially theorists - lead developers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WOOT?
would li4e to have somebody just Truth, for all thing for the indecision and of programming join in especially theorists - lead developers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379902</id>
	<title>Damages should be limited by law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259613300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should be illegal to award damages higher than a certain percentage of the net worth of the losing party.</p><p>It's insane that any individual can be expected to pay $625,000 unless they are wealthy.</p><p>The ability for the defendant to pay should be considered when damages are decided. Our legal system is so seriously screwed up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be illegal to award damages higher than a certain percentage of the net worth of the losing party.It 's insane that any individual can be expected to pay $ 625,000 unless they are wealthy.The ability for the defendant to pay should be considered when damages are decided .
Our legal system is so seriously screwed up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should be illegal to award damages higher than a certain percentage of the net worth of the losing party.It's insane that any individual can be expected to pay $625,000 unless they are wealthy.The ability for the defendant to pay should be considered when damages are decided.
Our legal system is so seriously screwed up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30384018</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't know they could do that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259592660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except I didn't need the court to suggest to me it might be legal to rip my music off CDs I purchased to whatever format I choose.  If some law made it illegal then there is something wrong with the law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except I did n't need the court to suggest to me it might be legal to rip my music off CDs I purchased to whatever format I choose .
If some law made it illegal then there is something wrong with the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except I didn't need the court to suggest to me it might be legal to rip my music off CDs I purchased to whatever format I choose.
If some law made it illegal then there is something wrong with the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30384520</id>
	<title>The moral law is straightforward</title>
	<author>rastoboy29</author>
	<datestamp>1259597400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>If I'm not using a copyrighted work to make money, even indirectly, it should be fair use.<br>Absolutely, if I'm using your copyrighted work for profit, I need to have made a deal with you, first, fair cop.&nbsp; But otherwise, fair use needs to be greatly expanded (and will be sooner or later, it's just a question of how much pain we all suffer in the meantime because of these retards.&nbsp; Seriously, it's been over a decade and they still haven't figured it out).</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm not using a copyrighted work to make money , even indirectly , it should be fair use.Absolutely , if I 'm using your copyrighted work for profit , I need to have made a deal with you , first , fair cop.   But otherwise , fair use needs to be greatly expanded ( and will be sooner or later , it 's just a question of how much pain we all suffer in the meantime because of these retards.   Seriously , it 's been over a decade and they still have n't figured it out ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm not using a copyrighted work to make money, even indirectly, it should be fair use.Absolutely, if I'm using your copyrighted work for profit, I need to have made a deal with you, first, fair cop.  But otherwise, fair use needs to be greatly expanded (and will be sooner or later, it's just a question of how much pain we all suffer in the meantime because of these retards.  Seriously, it's been over a decade and they still haven't figured it out).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30382094</id>
	<title>Re:Damages should be limited by law</title>
	<author>kramerd</author>
	<datestamp>1259580960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand. You believe that people with no money should be allowed to steal, and once caught, only be required to pay damages up to a percentgae of their net worth?</p><p>How about someone has a DUI, smashes into my maserati, but is poor. I should have to pay my medical bills and car repairs because its higher than a percentage of their net worth?</p><p>A tort is a tort is a tort, and if your tort causes me damages, there should not be a limit on how much of those damages (that I can prove you caused) you should have to pay.</p><p>Our legal system (I assume you are in the US) is absolutely fine on this regard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand .
You believe that people with no money should be allowed to steal , and once caught , only be required to pay damages up to a percentgae of their net worth ? How about someone has a DUI , smashes into my maserati , but is poor .
I should have to pay my medical bills and car repairs because its higher than a percentage of their net worth ? A tort is a tort is a tort , and if your tort causes me damages , there should not be a limit on how much of those damages ( that I can prove you caused ) you should have to pay.Our legal system ( I assume you are in the US ) is absolutely fine on this regard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand.
You believe that people with no money should be allowed to steal, and once caught, only be required to pay damages up to a percentgae of their net worth?How about someone has a DUI, smashes into my maserati, but is poor.
I should have to pay my medical bills and car repairs because its higher than a percentage of their net worth?A tort is a tort is a tort, and if your tort causes me damages, there should not be a limit on how much of those damages (that I can prove you caused) you should have to pay.Our legal system (I assume you are in the US) is absolutely fine on this regard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30381760</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like the Court got it right.</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1259579280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She admitted liability, case closed.</p><p>One may as well have confessed to murder in Texas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She admitted liability , case closed.One may as well have confessed to murder in Texas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She admitted liability, case closed.One may as well have confessed to murder in Texas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30382594</id>
	<title>Civil issues aren't a crime!</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1259583480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>but to another point they should be a deterrent to the crime</i></p><p>Sure, if someone is convicted of a crime, with proof beyond reasonable doubt, extra measures for deterrence and punishment are fine.</p><p>But in a civil case? No way. Especially when the burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities.</p><p>This reminds me of a story I read today, about <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid\_8403000/8403379.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">UK shops suing suspected shoplifters rather than prosecuting</a> [bbc.co.uk], and going after RIAA-style damages. Much like the RIAA cases, there's the problem that they can request outrageous amounts (e.g., &pound;87.50 for a 60p item, or &pound;1207 for a suspected &pound;7 discrepency in takings against a cashier), and people may be pressured into giving in without a fight (especially with the pressure from heavy handed debt collector thugs).</p><p>Worse, even if they do take it to court, they are now facing a battle not beyond reasonable doubt, but "on the balance of probabilities". Now sure, if what happened was "well we're not sure who's telling the truth, so tell you what, pay 30p / &pound;3.50", then fine. But it's ludicrous that excessive punititive damages are lumped in, when the person has not been convicted of a crime, or otherwise had the case proven beyond reasonable doubt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but to another point they should be a deterrent to the crimeSure , if someone is convicted of a crime , with proof beyond reasonable doubt , extra measures for deterrence and punishment are fine.But in a civil case ?
No way .
Especially when the burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities.This reminds me of a story I read today , about UK shops suing suspected shoplifters rather than prosecuting [ bbc.co.uk ] , and going after RIAA-style damages .
Much like the RIAA cases , there 's the problem that they can request outrageous amounts ( e.g. ,   87.50 for a 60p item , or   1207 for a suspected   7 discrepency in takings against a cashier ) , and people may be pressured into giving in without a fight ( especially with the pressure from heavy handed debt collector thugs ) .Worse , even if they do take it to court , they are now facing a battle not beyond reasonable doubt , but " on the balance of probabilities " .
Now sure , if what happened was " well we 're not sure who 's telling the truth , so tell you what , pay 30p /   3.50 " , then fine .
But it 's ludicrous that excessive punititive damages are lumped in , when the person has not been convicted of a crime , or otherwise had the case proven beyond reasonable doubt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but to another point they should be a deterrent to the crimeSure, if someone is convicted of a crime, with proof beyond reasonable doubt, extra measures for deterrence and punishment are fine.But in a civil case?
No way.
Especially when the burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities.This reminds me of a story I read today, about UK shops suing suspected shoplifters rather than prosecuting [bbc.co.uk], and going after RIAA-style damages.
Much like the RIAA cases, there's the problem that they can request outrageous amounts (e.g., £87.50 for a 60p item, or £1207 for a suspected £7 discrepency in takings against a cashier), and people may be pressured into giving in without a fight (especially with the pressure from heavy handed debt collector thugs).Worse, even if they do take it to court, they are now facing a battle not beyond reasonable doubt, but "on the balance of probabilities".
Now sure, if what happened was "well we're not sure who's telling the truth, so tell you what, pay 30p / £3.50", then fine.
But it's ludicrous that excessive punititive damages are lumped in, when the person has not been convicted of a crime, or otherwise had the case proven beyond reasonable doubt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380128</id>
	<title>Re:Damages should be limited by law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought you couldn't get out of judgements via bankruptcy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought you could n't get out of judgements via bankruptcy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought you couldn't get out of judgements via bankruptcy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379662</id>
	<title>Note to self:</title>
	<author>bobdotorg</author>
	<datestamp>1259611680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't ever take a judge's advice and allow Charles Nesson to be my legal counsel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't ever take a judge 's advice and allow Charles Nesson to be my legal counsel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't ever take a judge's advice and allow Charles Nesson to be my legal counsel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30383788</id>
	<title>What should it be?</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1259590740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would be fair then? A maximum of 20\% net-worth? How about if that individual's entire net worth is because he/she pulled off a massive fraud, ponzi scheme, or whatever?</p><p>What if you made a few million bucks but blew most of it on hookers and drugs? Then you've already swindled more than your current "net worth."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would be fair then ?
A maximum of 20 \ % net-worth ?
How about if that individual 's entire net worth is because he/she pulled off a massive fraud , ponzi scheme , or whatever ? What if you made a few million bucks but blew most of it on hookers and drugs ?
Then you 've already swindled more than your current " net worth .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would be fair then?
A maximum of 20\% net-worth?
How about if that individual's entire net worth is because he/she pulled off a massive fraud, ponzi scheme, or whatever?What if you made a few million bucks but blew most of it on hookers and drugs?
Then you've already swindled more than your current "net worth.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380356</id>
	<title>Re:Mostly the court said the defense sucked</title>
	<author>TLLOTS</author>
	<datestamp>1259573040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Mostly the court said the defense sucked and they WOULD have been receptive to such fair use tactics but the defense didn't help them out there</p></div><p>So they're saying that "what is right and wrong" is not the focus of judgement, rather who had the better lawyer?  </p></div><p>No, the point highlighted in the above article is that instead of making a case for specific types of fair use that might be applicable, the defendants lawyers tried to argue rather broadly that all downloading was fair use, something that the judge couldn't possibly find in favour of. In essence the judge said that they were open to certain arguments being made, but the defendant never tried to make them and instead opted for a bat-shit crazy defense coupled with irresponsible and outright illegal conduct. It's not hard to see why Tenenbaum wound up getting the judgement that he did.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mostly the court said the defense sucked and they WOULD have been receptive to such fair use tactics but the defense did n't help them out thereSo they 're saying that " what is right and wrong " is not the focus of judgement , rather who had the better lawyer ?
No , the point highlighted in the above article is that instead of making a case for specific types of fair use that might be applicable , the defendants lawyers tried to argue rather broadly that all downloading was fair use , something that the judge could n't possibly find in favour of .
In essence the judge said that they were open to certain arguments being made , but the defendant never tried to make them and instead opted for a bat-shit crazy defense coupled with irresponsible and outright illegal conduct .
It 's not hard to see why Tenenbaum wound up getting the judgement that he did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mostly the court said the defense sucked and they WOULD have been receptive to such fair use tactics but the defense didn't help them out thereSo they're saying that "what is right and wrong" is not the focus of judgement, rather who had the better lawyer?
No, the point highlighted in the above article is that instead of making a case for specific types of fair use that might be applicable, the defendants lawyers tried to argue rather broadly that all downloading was fair use, something that the judge couldn't possibly find in favour of.
In essence the judge said that they were open to certain arguments being made, but the defendant never tried to make them and instead opted for a bat-shit crazy defense coupled with irresponsible and outright illegal conduct.
It's not hard to see why Tenenbaum wound up getting the judgement that he did.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380000</id>
	<title>Court decision</title>
	<author>thelonious</author>
	<datestamp>1259613840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>from the court decision:</b> <i>A word on process: The Court, deeply concerned by the rash of file-sharing lawsuits, the
imbalance of resources between the parties, and the upheaval of norms of behavior brought on
by the internet,...</i>
<br> <br>
They're talking about fetish porn, aren't they?</htmltext>
<tokenext>from the court decision : A word on process : The Court , deeply concerned by the rash of file-sharing lawsuits , the imbalance of resources between the parties , and the upheaval of norms of behavior brought on by the internet,.. . They 're talking about fetish porn , are n't they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from the court decision: A word on process: The Court, deeply concerned by the rash of file-sharing lawsuits, the
imbalance of resources between the parties, and the upheaval of norms of behavior brought on
by the internet,...
 
They're talking about fetish porn, aren't they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30388494</id>
	<title>OT: bloviate</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1260462900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Bloviate': such a perfectly cromulent word! How could it be that this is the very first time I have ever seen it?

</p><p>Kudos, glrotate! To bring such a rare and wonderful word out of the obscure depths of ancient dictionaries and set it glittering before all the Intarwebs is a marvelacious deed, indeed!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Bloviate ' : such a perfectly cromulent word !
How could it be that this is the very first time I have ever seen it ?
Kudos , glrotate !
To bring such a rare and wonderful word out of the obscure depths of ancient dictionaries and set it glittering before all the Intarwebs is a marvelacious deed , indeed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Bloviate': such a perfectly cromulent word!
How could it be that this is the very first time I have ever seen it?
Kudos, glrotate!
To bring such a rare and wonderful word out of the obscure depths of ancient dictionaries and set it glittering before all the Intarwebs is a marvelacious deed, indeed!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379746</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't know they could do that</title>
	<author>sexybomber</author>
	<datestamp>1259612220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They typically can't, but it's a question of how it was worded.  If they said, "We decline to comment on whether making<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mp3 copies for space-shifting constitutes fair use; it may or it may not, we're not going to decide this issue today," then that's fine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They typically ca n't , but it 's a question of how it was worded .
If they said , " We decline to comment on whether making .mp3 copies for space-shifting constitutes fair use ; it may or it may not , we 're not going to decide this issue today , " then that 's fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They typically can't, but it's a question of how it was worded.
If they said, "We decline to comment on whether making .mp3 copies for space-shifting constitutes fair use; it may or it may not, we're not going to decide this issue today," then that's fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30381358</id>
	<title>Re:since when is space shifting from CD not fair u</title>
	<author>bhmit1</author>
	<datestamp>1259577600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As other's have mentioned, the first question is it fair use to download an mp3 of a cd/song that you have already purchased?</p><p>But, there's yet a further step, where time-shifting is allowed in the TV/video world for recording on a VCR.  I presume that same shifting is permitted for recording off of the radio.  Therefore, <em>are you allowed to download/posses an mp3 of a song that you heard on the radio?</em></p><p>There's a slippery slope that I don't think we should say anyone can download content that's been played on some radio station at some point, but a lawyer would have a difficult time claiming that you hadn't already heard a collection of top-40 songs.  And this also wouldn't excuse someone that turns around and shares the content with others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As other 's have mentioned , the first question is it fair use to download an mp3 of a cd/song that you have already purchased ? But , there 's yet a further step , where time-shifting is allowed in the TV/video world for recording on a VCR .
I presume that same shifting is permitted for recording off of the radio .
Therefore , are you allowed to download/posses an mp3 of a song that you heard on the radio ? There 's a slippery slope that I do n't think we should say anyone can download content that 's been played on some radio station at some point , but a lawyer would have a difficult time claiming that you had n't already heard a collection of top-40 songs .
And this also would n't excuse someone that turns around and shares the content with others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As other's have mentioned, the first question is it fair use to download an mp3 of a cd/song that you have already purchased?But, there's yet a further step, where time-shifting is allowed in the TV/video world for recording on a VCR.
I presume that same shifting is permitted for recording off of the radio.
Therefore, are you allowed to download/posses an mp3 of a song that you heard on the radio?There's a slippery slope that I don't think we should say anyone can download content that's been played on some radio station at some point, but a lawyer would have a difficult time claiming that you hadn't already heard a collection of top-40 songs.
And this also wouldn't excuse someone that turns around and shares the content with others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379536</id>
	<title>I didn't know they could do that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't think a court could render an opinion if it's not on the case before it.  If a future case involving "space shifting" comes before the court, will they look to this ruling as precedence, or will it be treated more like an amicus curiae brief?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't think a court could render an opinion if it 's not on the case before it .
If a future case involving " space shifting " comes before the court , will they look to this ruling as precedence , or will it be treated more like an amicus curiae brief ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't think a court could render an opinion if it's not on the case before it.
If a future case involving "space shifting" comes before the court, will they look to this ruling as precedence, or will it be treated more like an amicus curiae brief?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380770</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like the Court got it right.</title>
	<author>keithpreston</author>
	<datestamp>1259575080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Both are illegal, however it is pretty hard to find downloaders without doing the uploading yourself (which seems a lot like entrapment, and offering to upload your owned content for free could imply a license to download).   Because of this and the fact that without uploaders there are no downloaders, most copyright owners have chosen to legally pursue uploaders.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both are illegal , however it is pretty hard to find downloaders without doing the uploading yourself ( which seems a lot like entrapment , and offering to upload your owned content for free could imply a license to download ) .
Because of this and the fact that without uploaders there are no downloaders , most copyright owners have chosen to legally pursue uploaders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both are illegal, however it is pretty hard to find downloaders without doing the uploading yourself (which seems a lot like entrapment, and offering to upload your owned content for free could imply a license to download).
Because of this and the fact that without uploaders there are no downloaders, most copyright owners have chosen to legally pursue uploaders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379722</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't know they could do that</title>
	<author>sys.stdout.write</author>
	<datestamp>1259611980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are correct in your statement that Article III Section 2 prevents courts from rendering advisory opinions, i.e. judgements on controversies not before the court.  However, courts are free to offer opinions in <i>dicta</i> which can guide, but are not binding, to future cases.  This is all that this was.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are correct in your statement that Article III Section 2 prevents courts from rendering advisory opinions , i.e .
judgements on controversies not before the court .
However , courts are free to offer opinions in dicta which can guide , but are not binding , to future cases .
This is all that this was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are correct in your statement that Article III Section 2 prevents courts from rendering advisory opinions, i.e.
judgements on controversies not before the court.
However, courts are free to offer opinions in dicta which can guide, but are not binding, to future cases.
This is all that this was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380330</id>
	<title>Re:Damages should be limited by law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259572860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you figure as long as I either avoid owning assets or hide them well, I should be allowed to do whatever I want to your assets without fear of consequence?</p><p>Interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you figure as long as I either avoid owning assets or hide them well , I should be allowed to do whatever I want to your assets without fear of consequence ? Interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you figure as long as I either avoid owning assets or hide them well, I should be allowed to do whatever I want to your assets without fear of consequence?Interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379624</id>
	<title>Mostly the court said the defense sucked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mostly the court said the defense sucked and they WOULD have been receptive to such fair use tactics but the defense didn't help them out there.</p><p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/how-team-tenenbaum-missed-a-chance-to-shape-p2p-fair-use-law.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/how-team-tenenbaum-missed-a-chance-to-shape-p2p-fair-use-law.ars</a> [arstechnica.com]</p><p>This isn't something that applies to all future cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mostly the court said the defense sucked and they WOULD have been receptive to such fair use tactics but the defense did n't help them out there.http : //arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/how-team-tenenbaum-missed-a-chance-to-shape-p2p-fair-use-law.ars [ arstechnica.com ] This is n't something that applies to all future cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mostly the court said the defense sucked and they WOULD have been receptive to such fair use tactics but the defense didn't help them out there.http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/how-team-tenenbaum-missed-a-chance-to-shape-p2p-fair-use-law.ars [arstechnica.com]This isn't something that applies to all future cases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380914</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't know they could do that</title>
	<author>ral8158</author>
	<datestamp>1259575740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, there are always exceptions. For example, Jane Roe had already given birth by the time of the ruling in Roe v. Wade, so her case was moot. The Supreme Court made a decision anyway, because it would be difficult to complete a court case during the period of a woman's pregnancy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , there are always exceptions .
For example , Jane Roe had already given birth by the time of the ruling in Roe v. Wade , so her case was moot .
The Supreme Court made a decision anyway , because it would be difficult to complete a court case during the period of a woman 's pregnancy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, there are always exceptions.
For example, Jane Roe had already given birth by the time of the ruling in Roe v. Wade, so her case was moot.
The Supreme Court made a decision anyway, because it would be difficult to complete a court case during the period of a woman's pregnancy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379600</id>
	<title>Sounds like the Court got it right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without reading the order, it sounds like the Court got it right.<br>I.e. the damages question is a tricky one and excessive damages are to be guarded against, attorney's fees shouldn't be a slam dunk, and Fair Use exists - however downloading whatever you feel like just to list to on your ipod isn't Fair Use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without reading the order , it sounds like the Court got it right.I.e .
the damages question is a tricky one and excessive damages are to be guarded against , attorney 's fees should n't be a slam dunk , and Fair Use exists - however downloading whatever you feel like just to list to on your ipod is n't Fair Use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without reading the order, it sounds like the Court got it right.I.e.
the damages question is a tricky one and excessive damages are to be guarded against, attorney's fees shouldn't be a slam dunk, and Fair Use exists - however downloading whatever you feel like just to list to on your ipod isn't Fair Use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379918</id>
	<title>Re:Mostly the court said the defense sucked</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1259613420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mostly the court said the defense sucked and they WOULD have been receptive to such fair use tactics but the defense didn't help them out there</p></div><p>So they're saying that "what is right and wrong" is not the focus of judgement, rather who had the better lawyer?  Someone want to remind the judge he's not judging a debate tournament, and that innocence transcends protocol?<br> <br>
The focus of any court should be to give the defendant the lightest possible sentence they conscionably can.  If the US shifted its focus back to that, we'd improve the state of healthcare and discipline.  Barratry wouldn't be so ridiculously prevalent, and more people could do the Right Thing without worrying about vexatious litigants.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mostly the court said the defense sucked and they WOULD have been receptive to such fair use tactics but the defense did n't help them out thereSo they 're saying that " what is right and wrong " is not the focus of judgement , rather who had the better lawyer ?
Someone want to remind the judge he 's not judging a debate tournament , and that innocence transcends protocol ?
The focus of any court should be to give the defendant the lightest possible sentence they conscionably can .
If the US shifted its focus back to that , we 'd improve the state of healthcare and discipline .
Barratry would n't be so ridiculously prevalent , and more people could do the Right Thing without worrying about vexatious litigants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mostly the court said the defense sucked and they WOULD have been receptive to such fair use tactics but the defense didn't help them out thereSo they're saying that "what is right and wrong" is not the focus of judgement, rather who had the better lawyer?
Someone want to remind the judge he's not judging a debate tournament, and that innocence transcends protocol?
The focus of any court should be to give the defendant the lightest possible sentence they conscionably can.
If the US shifted its focus back to that, we'd improve the state of healthcare and discipline.
Barratry wouldn't be so ridiculously prevalent, and more people could do the Right Thing without worrying about vexatious litigants.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30383640</id>
	<title>Jury Nullification</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259589840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From Wikipedia: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury\_nullification]Jury Nullification[/url]</p><p>Remember, if you serve on a jury, you also render a verdict on the law itself.</p><p>Tell a friend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From Wikipedia : [ url = http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury \ _nullification ] Jury Nullification [ /url ] Remember , if you serve on a jury , you also render a verdict on the law itself.Tell a friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Wikipedia: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury\_nullification]Jury Nullification[/url]Remember, if you serve on a jury, you also render a verdict on the law itself.Tell a friend.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379754</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't know they could do that</title>
	<author>pdabbadabba</author>
	<datestamp>1259612280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The court's thoughts here are what's called "dicta" (as opposed to the "holding"). While a holding is binding precedent, dicta is merely "persuasive". So, if a space shifting case were to come before another court in the same jurisdiction, they would feel some pressure to comport with this court's way of thinking, but could ultimately decide to ignore it of they disagreed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The court 's thoughts here are what 's called " dicta " ( as opposed to the " holding " ) .
While a holding is binding precedent , dicta is merely " persuasive " .
So , if a space shifting case were to come before another court in the same jurisdiction , they would feel some pressure to comport with this court 's way of thinking , but could ultimately decide to ignore it of they disagreed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The court's thoughts here are what's called "dicta" (as opposed to the "holding").
While a holding is binding precedent, dicta is merely "persuasive".
So, if a space shifting case were to come before another court in the same jurisdiction, they would feel some pressure to comport with this court's way of thinking, but could ultimately decide to ignore it of they disagreed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380036</id>
	<title>Re:since when is space shifting from CD not fair u</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1259614020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you download an already-ripped mp3 when you already own the CD and could have ripped and encoded it yourself, could your action be found fair use, yet the actions of the site who provided you the mp3 be found as infringing? I love the bizarro world of copyright infringement, where for example <a href="http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php" title="sooke.bc.ca">a bit is more than just a 1 or 0</a> [sooke.bc.ca].</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you download an already-ripped mp3 when you already own the CD and could have ripped and encoded it yourself , could your action be found fair use , yet the actions of the site who provided you the mp3 be found as infringing ?
I love the bizarro world of copyright infringement , where for example a bit is more than just a 1 or 0 [ sooke.bc.ca ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you download an already-ripped mp3 when you already own the CD and could have ripped and encoded it yourself, could your action be found fair use, yet the actions of the site who provided you the mp3 be found as infringing?
I love the bizarro world of copyright infringement, where for example a bit is more than just a 1 or 0 [sooke.bc.ca].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30382488</id>
	<title>Re:since when is space shifting from CD not fair u</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1259582880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Related examples include downloading a TV programme that aired on a TV channel you pay for (or otherwise legally access) - surely this kind of timeshifting should be no different to videotaping it?</p><p>Or for those in the UK, what about a TV licence payer downloading material paid for by the BBC?</p><p>Or if you're Lily Allen, what about making a mix tape of copyrighted material without permission, and sharing it on a EMI's website for the purpose of advertising your own commercial work?</p><p>The current situation seems to be that that first two would risk you getting sued (or disconnected when new laws come in in the UK), whilst the third is just fine...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Related examples include downloading a TV programme that aired on a TV channel you pay for ( or otherwise legally access ) - surely this kind of timeshifting should be no different to videotaping it ? Or for those in the UK , what about a TV licence payer downloading material paid for by the BBC ? Or if you 're Lily Allen , what about making a mix tape of copyrighted material without permission , and sharing it on a EMI 's website for the purpose of advertising your own commercial work ? The current situation seems to be that that first two would risk you getting sued ( or disconnected when new laws come in in the UK ) , whilst the third is just fine.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Related examples include downloading a TV programme that aired on a TV channel you pay for (or otherwise legally access) - surely this kind of timeshifting should be no different to videotaping it?Or for those in the UK, what about a TV licence payer downloading material paid for by the BBC?Or if you're Lily Allen, what about making a mix tape of copyrighted material without permission, and sharing it on a EMI's website for the purpose of advertising your own commercial work?The current situation seems to be that that first two would risk you getting sued (or disconnected when new laws come in in the UK), whilst the third is just fine...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379646</id>
	<title>since when is space shifting from CD not fair use?</title>
	<author>bugi</author>
	<datestamp>1259611620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was under the impression that space shifting from CD to "mp3" was already settled as fair use.  What goes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression that space shifting from CD to " mp3 " was already settled as fair use .
What goes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression that space shifting from CD to "mp3" was already settled as fair use.
What goes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379700</id>
	<title>Victory?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Judge: "Fair use might be a justifiable defense, but we find for the platiff to the tune of $625k."
<br> <br>
Defense Council: "YAAAAAY! Wait a flippin second..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Judge : " Fair use might be a justifiable defense , but we find for the platiff to the tune of $ 625k .
" Defense Council : " YAAAAAY !
Wait a flippin second... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judge: "Fair use might be a justifiable defense, but we find for the platiff to the tune of $625k.
"
 
Defense Council: "YAAAAAY!
Wait a flippin second..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380020</id>
	<title>Happiness</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1259613900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think everyone will be happy until a court rules that downloading everything that can be is "fair use", because the quality of MP3's is only "fair" and after they are downloaded you really can't use them for very much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think everyone will be happy until a court rules that downloading everything that can be is " fair use " , because the quality of MP3 's is only " fair " and after they are downloaded you really ca n't use them for very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think everyone will be happy until a court rules that downloading everything that can be is "fair use", because the quality of MP3's is only "fair" and after they are downloaded you really can't use them for very much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379844</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't know they could do that</title>
	<author>IP\_Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1259612880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are confusing a number of concepts.<br> <br>
1. Precedence can only be set by a court higher than the court you are presently in.  Even the same judge can ignore the way he ruled on an identical case.  This judge was essentially outlining all the loop holes that the defense could have used but didn't, essentially outlining every way in which the defense's lawyer failed to make a convincing argument and creating a road map for lawyers who deal with a similar case in the future.<br> <br>
2. Amicus curiae is a brief, submitted to an appellate court, which deals with to a specific issue in a case, tailored to the facts of the present case to persuade the court to rule in favor the the amicus curiae's position.  The case today is not an amicus curiae because it was not written to the facts of a case presently being decided by a court, it is about a case that happened in the past.<br> <br>
This case is a good road map for defendant's attorneys to learn what not to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are confusing a number of concepts .
1. Precedence can only be set by a court higher than the court you are presently in .
Even the same judge can ignore the way he ruled on an identical case .
This judge was essentially outlining all the loop holes that the defense could have used but did n't , essentially outlining every way in which the defense 's lawyer failed to make a convincing argument and creating a road map for lawyers who deal with a similar case in the future .
2. Amicus curiae is a brief , submitted to an appellate court , which deals with to a specific issue in a case , tailored to the facts of the present case to persuade the court to rule in favor the the amicus curiae 's position .
The case today is not an amicus curiae because it was not written to the facts of a case presently being decided by a court , it is about a case that happened in the past .
This case is a good road map for defendant 's attorneys to learn what not to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are confusing a number of concepts.
1. Precedence can only be set by a court higher than the court you are presently in.
Even the same judge can ignore the way he ruled on an identical case.
This judge was essentially outlining all the loop holes that the defense could have used but didn't, essentially outlining every way in which the defense's lawyer failed to make a convincing argument and creating a road map for lawyers who deal with a similar case in the future.
2. Amicus curiae is a brief, submitted to an appellate court, which deals with to a specific issue in a case, tailored to the facts of the present case to persuade the court to rule in favor the the amicus curiae's position.
The case today is not an amicus curiae because it was not written to the facts of a case presently being decided by a court, it is about a case that happened in the past.
This case is a good road map for defendant's attorneys to learn what not to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380226</id>
	<title>A song for the season</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1259572080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh Tenenbaum, oh Tenenbaum,<br>your legal team is awesome.<br>Oh Tenenbaum, oh Tenenbaum,<br>your legal team is awesome.<br>With fair use, you may see<br>a chance for copyright victory.<br>Oh Tenenbaum, oh Tanenbaum,<br>your legal team is awesome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh Tenenbaum , oh Tenenbaum,your legal team is awesome.Oh Tenenbaum , oh Tenenbaum,your legal team is awesome.With fair use , you may seea chance for copyright victory.Oh Tenenbaum , oh Tanenbaum,your legal team is awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh Tenenbaum, oh Tenenbaum,your legal team is awesome.Oh Tenenbaum, oh Tenenbaum,your legal team is awesome.With fair use, you may seea chance for copyright victory.Oh Tenenbaum, oh Tanenbaum,your legal team is awesome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380006</id>
	<title>Format shifting is *probably* already legal......</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259613840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the USA:</p><p>Unless I am greatly mistaken...in prior court cases, it was accepted on precedent that format shifting for personal use was already covered under fair-use.</p><p>Additionally, although their are some issues regarding the definition of "digital audio recording device", making a copy of a digital audio CD for private non-commercial use using a "digital audio recording device" (computers are specifically NOT covered under this) is EXEMPT from prosecution or litigation under the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act. Under the terms of the act, the industry specifically gave up all rights to litigation and or fines imperpetuity for any non-commercial analog copying and/or approved digital audio device.</p><p>Audio CD recorders and DAT recorders are specifically addressed by this and are approved devices. An audio CD recorder or standalone DVD recorder capable of ripping direct to MP3 would almost definitely be covered as well (e.g. I have a DVD DVR with an internal hard drive that has the capability to buffer a CD to it's internal hard drive and then reburn it to a new CD after transcoding it into MP3 format). As long as any audio device complies with the SCMS (Serial Copy Management System) and refuses to make copies of 2nd generation material (i.e. copies of copies) then the device is legal.</p><p>The real question is whether or not making a copy of a CD (an approved device) to an MP3 player (also almost certainly an approved device) by using a PC (a non-approved device) for the ripping/transfer is still covered. Based on past legal cases and statements agreed to by the RIAA during Senate hearings on the matter, this should be legitimate -- but it has never been ruled on directly in court.</p><p>The interesting thing about the 1992 AHRA, is that, while it is still illegal to do so, there is no legal PENALTY for making copies of an copyrighted audio CD using a standalone audio-CD recorder -- even if you are making dozens of copies and giving them to all your friends and family members. If I wanted to make 1000 copies of an audio CD and then hand them out on the street corner for the heck of it, the strongest thing they can do to you legally is ask you to cease and desist. This only applies to non-copyprotected audio CD's -- if they have copy protection on them then the DMCA comes into effect (which is an entirely different mess).</p><p>A very interesting question in the law would be on the following device -- of which one does exist but was never publicly released:</p><p>1) A standalone CD-Audio/DVD Recorder/DVR unit with network capability capable of ripping to MP3. This unit *was* an approved CD-Audio Recorder and was legal for making audio cd copies.<br>2) This unit fully complies with SCMS and flags any recorded MP3's with the copyright flag and will refuse to reburn second generation copies or copies that did not originate on the unit that have the copyright flag set.<br>3) This unit was network capable -- although the released design was originally intended for sharing DVR material to other similar players within the same household.<br>4) As a network capable device with a hard drive, in an unreleased version a Gnutella network client was implemented on the device. This allowed sharing of MP3's ripped onto the device and allowed downloading MP3's off of the internet.<br>5) In compliance with SCMS, the unit would not burn to CD any downloaded MP3 with the Copyright flag set. Any downloaded file without the Copyright flag set could be burned with impugnity (under the 1992 AHRA players are required to copy media without the copyright flag freely -- the burden of having this flag set correctly was specifically forced outside of the player).</p><p>Basically, under current law, this device would probably have been a considered completely un-litigatable network file sharing device. Unfortunately, the base device itself is no longer produced and the "interesting" version was considered too much of a lawsuit magnet to even attempt releasing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the USA : Unless I am greatly mistaken...in prior court cases , it was accepted on precedent that format shifting for personal use was already covered under fair-use.Additionally , although their are some issues regarding the definition of " digital audio recording device " , making a copy of a digital audio CD for private non-commercial use using a " digital audio recording device " ( computers are specifically NOT covered under this ) is EXEMPT from prosecution or litigation under the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act .
Under the terms of the act , the industry specifically gave up all rights to litigation and or fines imperpetuity for any non-commercial analog copying and/or approved digital audio device.Audio CD recorders and DAT recorders are specifically addressed by this and are approved devices .
An audio CD recorder or standalone DVD recorder capable of ripping direct to MP3 would almost definitely be covered as well ( e.g .
I have a DVD DVR with an internal hard drive that has the capability to buffer a CD to it 's internal hard drive and then reburn it to a new CD after transcoding it into MP3 format ) .
As long as any audio device complies with the SCMS ( Serial Copy Management System ) and refuses to make copies of 2nd generation material ( i.e .
copies of copies ) then the device is legal.The real question is whether or not making a copy of a CD ( an approved device ) to an MP3 player ( also almost certainly an approved device ) by using a PC ( a non-approved device ) for the ripping/transfer is still covered .
Based on past legal cases and statements agreed to by the RIAA during Senate hearings on the matter , this should be legitimate -- but it has never been ruled on directly in court.The interesting thing about the 1992 AHRA , is that , while it is still illegal to do so , there is no legal PENALTY for making copies of an copyrighted audio CD using a standalone audio-CD recorder -- even if you are making dozens of copies and giving them to all your friends and family members .
If I wanted to make 1000 copies of an audio CD and then hand them out on the street corner for the heck of it , the strongest thing they can do to you legally is ask you to cease and desist .
This only applies to non-copyprotected audio CD 's -- if they have copy protection on them then the DMCA comes into effect ( which is an entirely different mess ) .A very interesting question in the law would be on the following device -- of which one does exist but was never publicly released : 1 ) A standalone CD-Audio/DVD Recorder/DVR unit with network capability capable of ripping to MP3 .
This unit * was * an approved CD-Audio Recorder and was legal for making audio cd copies.2 ) This unit fully complies with SCMS and flags any recorded MP3 's with the copyright flag and will refuse to reburn second generation copies or copies that did not originate on the unit that have the copyright flag set.3 ) This unit was network capable -- although the released design was originally intended for sharing DVR material to other similar players within the same household.4 ) As a network capable device with a hard drive , in an unreleased version a Gnutella network client was implemented on the device .
This allowed sharing of MP3 's ripped onto the device and allowed downloading MP3 's off of the internet.5 ) In compliance with SCMS , the unit would not burn to CD any downloaded MP3 with the Copyright flag set .
Any downloaded file without the Copyright flag set could be burned with impugnity ( under the 1992 AHRA players are required to copy media without the copyright flag freely -- the burden of having this flag set correctly was specifically forced outside of the player ) .Basically , under current law , this device would probably have been a considered completely un-litigatable network file sharing device .
Unfortunately , the base device itself is no longer produced and the " interesting " version was considered too much of a lawsuit magnet to even attempt releasing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the USA:Unless I am greatly mistaken...in prior court cases, it was accepted on precedent that format shifting for personal use was already covered under fair-use.Additionally, although their are some issues regarding the definition of "digital audio recording device", making a copy of a digital audio CD for private non-commercial use using a "digital audio recording device" (computers are specifically NOT covered under this) is EXEMPT from prosecution or litigation under the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act.
Under the terms of the act, the industry specifically gave up all rights to litigation and or fines imperpetuity for any non-commercial analog copying and/or approved digital audio device.Audio CD recorders and DAT recorders are specifically addressed by this and are approved devices.
An audio CD recorder or standalone DVD recorder capable of ripping direct to MP3 would almost definitely be covered as well (e.g.
I have a DVD DVR with an internal hard drive that has the capability to buffer a CD to it's internal hard drive and then reburn it to a new CD after transcoding it into MP3 format).
As long as any audio device complies with the SCMS (Serial Copy Management System) and refuses to make copies of 2nd generation material (i.e.
copies of copies) then the device is legal.The real question is whether or not making a copy of a CD (an approved device) to an MP3 player (also almost certainly an approved device) by using a PC (a non-approved device) for the ripping/transfer is still covered.
Based on past legal cases and statements agreed to by the RIAA during Senate hearings on the matter, this should be legitimate -- but it has never been ruled on directly in court.The interesting thing about the 1992 AHRA, is that, while it is still illegal to do so, there is no legal PENALTY for making copies of an copyrighted audio CD using a standalone audio-CD recorder -- even if you are making dozens of copies and giving them to all your friends and family members.
If I wanted to make 1000 copies of an audio CD and then hand them out on the street corner for the heck of it, the strongest thing they can do to you legally is ask you to cease and desist.
This only applies to non-copyprotected audio CD's -- if they have copy protection on them then the DMCA comes into effect (which is an entirely different mess).A very interesting question in the law would be on the following device -- of which one does exist but was never publicly released:1) A standalone CD-Audio/DVD Recorder/DVR unit with network capability capable of ripping to MP3.
This unit *was* an approved CD-Audio Recorder and was legal for making audio cd copies.2) This unit fully complies with SCMS and flags any recorded MP3's with the copyright flag and will refuse to reburn second generation copies or copies that did not originate on the unit that have the copyright flag set.3) This unit was network capable -- although the released design was originally intended for sharing DVR material to other similar players within the same household.4) As a network capable device with a hard drive, in an unreleased version a Gnutella network client was implemented on the device.
This allowed sharing of MP3's ripped onto the device and allowed downloading MP3's off of the internet.5) In compliance with SCMS, the unit would not burn to CD any downloaded MP3 with the Copyright flag set.
Any downloaded file without the Copyright flag set could be burned with impugnity (under the 1992 AHRA players are required to copy media without the copyright flag freely -- the burden of having this flag set correctly was specifically forced outside of the player).Basically, under current law, this device would probably have been a considered completely un-litigatable network file sharing device.
Unfortunately, the base device itself is no longer produced and the "interesting" version was considered too much of a lawsuit magnet to even attempt releasing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30381760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30383788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30384984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30384018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30382594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30388494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30382488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30381358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30381228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30382094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30384904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30385386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1835205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1835205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30383788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30382594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30384984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30382094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30384904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1835205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1835205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30381760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1835205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30384018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30385386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30388494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1835205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1835205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1835205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1835205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30379842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30382488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30381358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1835205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30380020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1835205.30381228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
