Frankly, your attempt to put words in my mouth, impugn my credibility, and suggest some ulterior motive (to the point of demanding to know who my employer is) is insulting, rude, and unprofessional. But I'm sure you didn't actually intend any of that and will apologize momentarily.
Mr. Theaetetus
1. Don't hold your breath.
2. I've come to the conclusion that you are a troll and/or shill, and will ignore you accordingly.
Nope. A swarm is nothing like a conference call, because you aren't interacting with every member of the swarm, but just a few members at a time - restricted by how many connections your bandwidth can actually handle at a given time. Regardless, the reported "offenses" are so separate in *TIME* that there is no guarantee that the Doe's in this case were actually online and part of the swarm at the same time as each other. Even if they were the chance that they actually shared parts of the movie between each other is so low as to be nil.
You really should read the documents linked to - they might be in legalese, but it is close enough to english for just about anyone to follow. And it does explain things simply enough for anyone to be able to understand them. Yes, there is an explanation for how a BitTorrent swarm works in the actual motion and it was written in such a way as to be understandable by any of the legal professionals - including the judge in the case.
And regardless of whether or not "participating in the same swarm" is a legal theory that holds water and fulfills the requirements of the rules, well... There is the fact that these "joinders" benefit only the plaintiffs in the case and create hardships for the joined defendents that break the required "fairness" of the legal system. (Yes, the legal system is supposed to be fair - surprising, no ?) So the joinder should be undone anyway
Why, thank you.
The main problem with the music industry is not the artists, they don't make any money off album sales; not because of pirating, but because the distributors suck every last penny from the sales. The RIAA is not made up of artists, they are made up of distributors. The distributors are no longer needed in digital distribution, so they are losing money, the artists are not losing money, as they always made their money from the live performances.
When you try to defend the music industry, really think about who you are defending because it isn't the artists.
Very well said.
I think the time will come that musicians will be making some real money from the recordings, which has never been the case before, because they get to keep a much, much higher percentage.
It was a sad day for the big labels when indie artist Amanda Palmer brought in over a million dollars ($1,192,793, to be exact), independently of the labels, to mix, distribute, and promote her new album. On her Kickstarter page there's a video where she explains the whole thing, and points out that if she'd financed the album by letting a record label do it, she herself would wind up receiving zilch from the album sales.
All she needed was a twitter account, a facebook account, a Kickstarter account, and 25,000 friends.
That is exactly the part I was referring to. Thanks
I knew exactly which part you were referring to.
Let me tell you... a lawyer who tells a judge to look at things 'holistically' is
[1]-an idiot, and
[2]-in trouble.
So this guy fits in well with the RIAA.
There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.
