Comments on: I’m Sharing This!

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:14:35 +0000

It’s not like they’d be too bothered at this point. Even the content producers complain that the **AA’s are walking away with most of the profit.

By: Justin

Justin — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:11:57 +0000

When I remember back to my law classes intent was a huge part of *most* laws of this nature. However, based on their definitions and unclear followthrough, it seems they are ignoring the intent of the user. You have a remotely hosted “share” of your important stuff as do most tech-savvy people these days. The intent here is clearly not to defraud or hurt. I think adding a line about intent would clear up the law.

The problem with this, however, is that with the current vague approach RIAA/MPAA is making money hand over fist. They send out 100 lawsuit threats and 99 of them get settled. If they had to prove intent, the number of lawsuits would be drastically reduced and thus so would their revenue stream.

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:58:30 +0000

Well, there’s nothing to prove that a properly protected share is still going to get you in trouble, so I assume you might still be safe. But the problem is that there is no distinction made, either as far as what a “share folder” is (there are so many different ways this phrase is applied to make it any easier to enforce), or whether simply having something accessible remotely and only by yourself is going to get you in trouble.

It’s the vague definitions that are giving the **AAs the edge and privilege to sue everyone and their uncle; if the courts were to give a concise but effective definition of exactly what constitutes a share with the intent to distribute, or (even better) request that the **AAs prove in each of these lawsuits that shared content was indeed distributed to a third-party, and then you can start using this as a legitimate proof.

By: Justin

Justin — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 03:26:26 +0000

So, by that definition, I guess Apple’s “Back to My Mac” feature is setting up all .Mac/MobileMe users for failure considering their home computer is remotely accessible by another Mac, thus sharing the entire contents of the computer. I’d like to see a lawsuit on that basis. It’d clear the language up real quick.