Music Industry to sue file swappers

[kgriffey79]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hptop_tb

So, they plan on suing file sharers? Well, I have a question about that. How can they prove that the downloaders have not purchased those CDs? I mean, I had a huge album collection stolen from my car, and subsequently have downloaded the songs I lost onto my computer. And how can they prove that people weren't just backing up their CDs? It is a lot easier to download a song off of Kazaa than ripping it from your CD and putting it into an MP3 format to put on your MP3 player.
Would they demand receipts as proof, because I who really keeps a receipt for every CD they have purchased.
Now I will admit that most of the people downloading have not purchased the CDs that they are getting, but how can they REALLY prove it beyond a resonable doubt. Or I guess they don't since it isn't a criminal case.

Anyway, any answers to my many questions?
Thanks!

[Doc Nickel]

How can they prove that the downloaders have not purchased those CDs?

They're not suing the downloaders, they're suing those that post music files to be downloaded.

If that music is not yours to post, then it is illegal to post it for public download.

[Billdo]

First, what Doc Nickel said is correct. They're going after the people who have made great gobs of music available to be downloaded.

Second, despite the prevailing myth, there is no legal right to download copies of music that you already own in another form. Copying recorded music prohibited by copyright law, unless an exception applies. To the extent that someone downloading a copy of already owned music is relying on the fair use exception to the copyright laws (which is a very grey area at this time), they are responsible for demonstrating that what they are doing is actually fair use.

[Azael]

I think they are going after the people who actively share copyrighted material on p2p networks. It doesn't matter how you got the mp3, it's the fact that you are distributing that file in violation of copyright.

[kgriffey79]

Originally posted by Doc Nickel
They're not suing the downloaders, they're suing those that post music files to be downloaded.

If that music is not yours to post, then it is illegal to post it for public download.

Hmm, let's say I run a website, and I have an image on there that I have asked permission for. Somebody goes on my site, right clicks and downloads that image. They then use that image somehow and call it their own. Am I to blame?

I know this argument wouldn't work so well for P2P situations. But just because I have something up in a system that CAN be downloaded, doesn't mean I want anybody to download it. I want people who lost their CDs to download it. (And yes I know these are weak arguments, I am just throwing out possibilities.)

[drachillix]

Originally posted by Doc Nickel
If that music is not yours to post, then it is illegal to post it for public download.

I have been wondering how a legal defense might be handled for this and how it might to relate non-cyberspace crimes.

For example its not illegal to leave my door unlocked its illegal to come in and take things without my permission. If I am on a file sharing system to aquire files that would fall under fair use (which I believe is the VAST MINORITY) and someone downloads something from me while I am on searching for files (if I do not realize I can turn uploads off) how did I commit a crime?

A civil suit would of course require fewer jurors to win (assuming a jury was involved) but I have a hard time believing that they could consistently win cases over the long haul especially once a few folks who can afford good defense attourneys get into the fray.

[Azael]

For example its not illegal to leave my door unlocked its illegal to come in and take things without my permission. If I am on a file sharing system to aquire files that would fall under fair use (which I believe is the VAST MINORITY) and someone downloads something from me while I am on searching for files (if I do not realize I can turn uploads off) how did I commit a crime?

I am not a laywer but I think ignorance is not necessarily a good excuse in court.

A civil suit would of course require fewer jurors to win (assuming a jury was involved) but I have a hard time believing that they could consistently win cases over the long haul especially once a few folks who can afford good defense attourneys get into the fray.

They don't really have to keep winning so long as they can scare away enough people from sharing that nobody can find anything they want on the networks anymore. ISPs are now giving away our personal information to some very well-equipped corporate interests. I find that more than a little intimidating.

[Coriolanus]

'Hulk' bootlegger admits posting Vivendi film on Web

It's a short article..but check this:

Gonzalez pleaded guilty to criminal copyright infringement charges. The Hamilton, New Jersey, man faces three years in jail when he's sentenced.

After the proceeding, Gonzalez, dressed in an olive green suit, told reporters, "Honestly, I haven't even watched it."

I heard about this on NPR where they said Gonzalez "chuckled" when asked about the color of his suit.

[RealityChuck]

Originally posted by kgriffey79
Hmm, let's say I run a website, and I have an image on there that I have asked permission for. Somebody goes on my site, right clicks and downloads that image. They then use that image somehow and call it their own. Am I to blame?

No. All you need is to keep documentation of the permission. As long as you have it, you're not responsible (unless there is a clause prohibiting you from having the files available; then you'll need to make an effort to prevent downloading, like a javascript that turns off the right click).

If I am on a file sharing system to aquire files that would fall under fair use (which I believe is the VAST MINORITY) and someone downloads something from me while I am on searching for files (if I do not realize I can turn uploads off) how did I commit a crime?

By making copies of illegal files. If all your files are legal (and don't mention fair use; that's not the issue), then you're in no trouble. However, if you have copyrighted material, and make it available for file swapping, you're liable.

A civil suit would of course require fewer jurors to win (assuming a jury was involved) but I have a hard time believing that they could consistently win cases over the long haul especially once a few folks who can afford good defense attourneys get into the fray.

Plaintiff's attorney: "Were these files on your computer?"
You: "Yes."
Plaintiff's attorney: "Did you have permission to copy these files?"
You: "No, but -- "
Plaintiff's attorney: "Answer 'yes or no.' Did you have permission to copy these files?"
You: "No."
Plaintiff's attorney: "No further questions."

Plaintiff's attorney (later, to jury): "The law says only the copyright holder can make copies of a file. The judge has ruled that this is not fair use.* The defendant admitted he made copies in violation of the law. Regardless of how you feel about the practice, the law is clear. You must vote to convict."

Judge (to jury): "The law states that copying is illegal. You must determine whether the defendant made these copies. If he has, you must find him guilty."

You see, if you can afford a really good lawyer, he's going to tell you to settle. You do not have a leg to stand on. Your best hope with a jury trial would be to hope that the jury will convict and fine you a minimal amount. This will help, but once convicted you are liable for all legal costs -- your own, and the plaintiff's.

So, they plan on suing file sharers? Well, I have a question about that. How can they prove that the downloaders have not purchased those CDs? I mean, I had a huge album collection stolen from my car, and subsequently have downloaded the songs I lost onto my computer. And how can they prove that people weren't just backing up their CDs? It is a lot easier to download a song off of Kazaa than ripping it from your CD and putting it into an MP3 format to put on your MP3 player.

As Billdo pointed out, it doesn't matter if you bought the CD. If the files are on your computer, they are illegal (unless the copyright holder expressly allowed MP3s to be shared).

Look at it this way: before MP3s, if you had your CD collection stolen from your car, would you be able to get free replacements? Could you go into a record store and ask for it? So how does the availability of MP3s change this? Certainly no law has been passed authorizing it.

*They'd get that ruling early on in the trial.

[bernse]

I wonder how RIAA can identify specific people by name without the help of their ISP?

[Cheesesteak]

I have a feeling that the ISPs will be forced to provide that information. The people ARE violating copyright, which is illegal, I doubt that the ISP can hide their identity without becoming a co-conspirator.

Actually, even though I hate the RIAA, I think this is the exact right way to go about preventing file sharing. This is slightly different than the unlocked door scenario, in that your computer has to actively read your hard drive and send the information over your internet connection to the downloader. Your computer, which you set up with software to do this.

Basically, it's like leaving a copyrighted picture in a copier on a streetcorner for anyone who walks by to press the button. If it is your original copy, and your copier, I think you would be liable for the copyright violation.

They don't have to break into anyone's computer, they don't go after people who have MP3's for personal use, they only go after people who voluntarily put files out there for anyone to copy.

[Dogface]

Originally posted by drachillix
I have been wondering how a legal defense might be handled for this and how it might to relate non-cyberspace crimes.

For example its not illegal to leave my door unlocked its illegal to come in and take things without my permission.

Very different. So different that no reasonable person could see any similarity, whatsoever. One must intentionally install P2P software. It is not a mandatory part of your OS (as doors are to a house).

A far more apt simile would be if one were to rent all ones furniture and then put out signs on the lawn saying "free furniture", allowing anybody who wanted it to take it.

[Dogface]

Originally posted by RealityChuck

As Billdo pointed out, it doesn't matter if you bought the CD. If the files are on your computer, they are illegal (unless the copyright holder expressly allowed MP3s to be shared).

It is not illegal to make a copy from the original medium or to have that copy that one has made from the original medium, no matter if they are on a computer or in a closet. What would be illegal would be the "sharing" part.

[chukhung]

Originally posted by Cheesesteak
I have a feeling that the ISPs will be forced to provide that information.

At least one ISP already has. From this article, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...pcworld/111336

In April, the group [RIAA] won a court case forcing Verizon Internet Services to turn over the names of customers who downloaded hundreds of songs over a P-to-P network. The company later turned over the names of four alleged music downloaders.

[Links in the original]

[Mayfield St. Cloud]

Originally posted by bernse
I wonder how RIAA can identify specific people by name without the help of their ISP?

Cheesesteak pretty much hit the nail on the head. According to the report I just heard on NPR, the RIAA intends to go to court if necessary to force the ISP to reveal the name of the violator.

[madkins007]

This is such lunacy. This is the same issue companies have been fighting for years.

Book publishers want to put some sort of rules on libraries and used book stores, even though they have no good evidence that those places hurt their sales. The software industry tried to prevent piracy so much that it included protections schemes so intricate that it often messed up the game itself. The music industry has yelled for years about the problems it faced with people taping music or recording off the radio.

We as a people are generally willing to tolerate this... to a degree. If the industry figures up a way to let us have what we want at a fair price, we are willing to let them have what they want (a bit of the action on each transaction).

The threat of big suits against a few people... might warn off some, for a while. I can easily see, however, someone in another country offering to host these collections and offering anonymous service, which would just make the industries problems that much worse- AND- I think that the noise and threats will actually hurt sales overall- the bottom line.

Put me down as another person who thinks that RIAA is screwed up and attacking this is a totally bass-ackwards way.

[Cheesesteak]

madkins, the only reason P2P works in the first place is ease of use. It is easy to put your personal collection up on P2P, you don't need a special ISP, or pay an extra penny, you just download the free software. Once you set it up so that the host has to pay or be inconvienced to put his files up, the whole system falls apart.

Would you pay even a single dollar to make your hard drive accessable to others? Would you pay to host thousands of songs (and the corresponding bandwidth) when the downloaders don't pay a penny to get them?

What the RIAA is doing is choking off the supply rather than going after the demand. Put the real threat of lawsuit over peoples heads, not for downloading what is available, but for making their own MP3's available.

What they're implicitly saying, for the moment at least, is "Download, own, rip as many MP3's as you want, but if you put them up for the world to take, we'll sue you." I think there's a certain elegance to this solution, and I think it could actually have an effect.

[Revtim]

Originally posted by Dogface
One must intentionally install P2P software. It is not a mandatory part of your OS (as doors are to a house).

Not only that, but one must intentionally configure the P2P program to tell it which directories and files to share.

Or so I hear....... Not that I've ever used the filthy things...

[bernse]

Originally posted by Mayfield St. Cloud
Cheesesteak pretty much hit the nail on the head. According to the report I just heard on NPR, the RIAA intends to go to court if necessary to force the ISP to reveal the name of the violator.

Fair enough, but what about foriegn countries?

[Chronos]

Quoth Dogface:

It is not illegal to make a copy from the original medium or to have that copy that one has made from the original medium, no matter if they are on a computer or in a closet. What would be illegal would be the "sharing" part.

IANAL, but from what I've read, this is incorrect. It is legal for a library to make one copy of a work, for archival purposes. This does not imply that it's legal for an individual to make copies for purposes other than archival.

And let's not get into the argument over whether this is actually in the best interests of the music industry. Maybe it's not, but there's no law prohibiting them from shooting themselves in the foot. It's their decision.

[enipla]

Excuse me for posting this twice (also in GD). But it seems pertinent. So much so, that the way I read it, RIAA may be SOL.

I'm a bit on the fence about this, but if I read this right, the Digital at Home Recording Act will make me jump right off.

http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm

It seems that a 2% tax has been place on all digital recording devices. This money is to be distributed to recording artists.

From the AHRA

(1) Amount of payment.
The royalty payment due under section 1003 for each digital audio recording device imported into and
distributed in the United States, or manufactured and distributed in the United States, shall be 2 percent
of the transfer price. Only the first person to manufacture and distribute or import and distribute such
device shall be required to pay the royalty with respect to such device.

And this is interesting -

Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

It seems like they already have a tax in place that is supposed to take care of this.

IMNAL and just skimmed the document. Anyone have any insight into this?

[micco]

enipla, are you sure that really applies to ripped MP3s? IIRC, a lot of media companies wanted to basically outlaw digital recording devices like DAT tape recorders because they could be used to make digital copies (this was before writable CDs, etc.). The media companies' position was that there was no legitmate use for these devices except violating copyrights. Of course this wasn't true, but the tax on these items to reimburse copyright holders was a compromise. This certainly doesn't mean that because this tax is in place that copyright no longer exists and you are free to rip and share copyrighted music.

That last section you cite is taking about copyright infringement by companies that make devices and media. It's saying that an artist can't sue a company for infringement because they made a DAT recorder or manufacture blank writable CDs. It does not say anything about infringment based on the distribution of copyrighted material. The last bit says they can't sue you for using such a device or media to make recordings, but they can still sue you for distributing those recordings.

IANAL, but I'd interpret this to mean that you are free to rip your own CDs to MP3 and burn them to CDR for your convenience. This does not address, and you are still prohibited from, distributing copies of things you don't hold the copyright for.

[micco]

Just a clarification, and I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong. The law enipla cites was basically an example of Congress mediating a dispute between two industries. The media companies (by which I mean large copyright holders) wanted to outlaw digital recording devices that electronics companies wanted to sell. By crafting this law, the electronics companies agreed that there was a potential that their devices would be misused and agreed to a tax to reimburse the media companies for these hypothetical losses. In turn, the law insulated the electronics companies from being sued for facilitating infringment, and it said consumers can use these devices without an assumption that they're infringing. This was done to preserve the possibility of fair use (i.e., if there is no mechanism by which to exercise fair use, the right to it doesn't really exist). However, it doesn't change the definition of copyright or fair use to allow someone to distribute copies of a work they don't have rights to.

[dgower82]

but didnt the music industry try to stop VCRs years ago and failed

[Mayfield St. Cloud]

Originally posted by bernse
Fair enough, but what about foriegn countries?

Damn good point. I've got no answer on that one. I'll be watching to see if someone else does. madkins007 touches on it.
Originally posted by madkins007

I can easily see, however, someone in another country offering to host these collections and offering anonymous service

Of course, as a citizen of the USA, I'd be mostly concerned about my own butt (not that I really care, I've never used any of these services and I don't even own an MP3 player). Opinions of experienced International Law experts are encouraged. What's the Straight Dope here? If I move to, say, Chile, can I set up a file sharing service and thumb my nose at the RIAA?

[Lorenzo]

Originally posted by madkins007

Welcome to the SDMB.

We as a people are generally willing to tolerate this... to a degree. If the industry figures up a way to let us have what we want at a fair price, we are willing to let them have what they want (a bit of the action on each transaction).

And it would follow logically then, that if the individual believes the price is unfair, that he has a right to make an illegal copy of what he wants? Please elaborate.

I think that the noise and threats will actually hurt sales overall- the bottom line.

Overall Sales and the Bottom Line are two distinct concepts. Selling CD's for a reduced price might increase unit sales and perhaps even increase total sales dollars but would not necessarily improve the bottom line.

[SnoopyFan]

Most of the stuff I have downloaded from Kazaa is old stuff that's hard to find: I'm talkin the Andrews Sisters here. Sure, I have some of the latest hits, but the "boring" stuff far outweighs it.

I don't buy CDs because, in my experience, there are one or two good songs on it and the rest are garbage, and I'm not gonna pay $16 or so for 2 crummy songs.

Anyhow, here's what I'm wondering:

Will music lovers get ticked off in response to these lawsuits and simply NOT buy music anymore? Could a mass boycott get the music industry's attention? Would they even care if millions of people quit patronizing music stores?

[enipla]

Originally posted by dgower82
but didnt the music industry try to stop VCRs years ago and failed

I don't have a dog in this fight . But, it is very interesting. I just happend to run across the law I cited (on fark.com) and thought it should be brought up.

The VCR angle is interesting. Recordable VCRs didn't kill the movie industry. I have taped lots of them (from the TV). And loaned them to friends. Now I buy DVDs.

This did not kill the movie industry.

I think that it would have been better for RIAA to be a bit more pro-active than just start sueing folks.

We need a middle ground here.

[Whack-a-Mole]

First off making a copy of copyrighted materials is legal for archival purposes. I don't think how that copy is made matters. It is clearly illegal to give, sell or otherwise share that copy. Basically you have to keep it for yourself only.

Originally posted by micco
By crafting this law, the electronics companies agreed that there was a potential that their devices would be misused and agreed to a tax to reimburse the media companies for these hypothetical losses.

We are talking about civil cases the RIAA is pursuing here and not criminal cases correct? IANAL but in a civil case the point is to prove you were damaged in some fashion by the defendant's behavior and seek monetary recompense to cover those losses.

It seems to me the question here, given the above, is how the RIAA can claim damages? First off...does the RIAA have standing to sue civilly for copying of the materials in question? Isn't it the copyright holder who is damaged and not the RIAA?

Secondly, doesn't the law mentioned in my quote above mitigate the damages the plaintiff in this case can claim? Certainly sharing copyrighted files is illegal and the tax paid to media companies in no way absolves anyone of copyright infringement. My question here though is does it moderate the amount of damages a copyright holder can claim?

Finally, I am reasonably certain that you cannot recover the costs of suing someone in the US except in very specific instances. I do not think the RIAA can add the cost of their attornies to the money they would claim in damages. As such I expect these lawsuits will be a money loser for the RIAA even if they win unless they selectively choose wealthy individuals who can be proved to have shared tens of thousands of files. I would expect the court would figure a cost for each file shared and multiply that against the number of files given out. Say an average of 10 songs per CD at $15 per CD you get $1.50 per song. If you shared 10,000 files (which I doubt is the case for most people) that'd be $15,000...triple damages for the sake of argument and you're at $45,000. Even at that number it hardly looks like it'd money out for the RIAA. I suspect these suits will be more to send a 'message' (harassment suits) in the hopes of squashing copying. However, I doubt one or two high-profile cases will seriously dent file sharing but the cost of suing hundreds of people would be prohibitive.

Ok...one more 'last thing'. What if the file sharers are minors? Can they be sued (not that they'd be worth suing if you expect to collect anything) or are mommy and daddy financially responsible in this case?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole
Secondly, doesn't the law mentioned in my quote above mitigate the damages the plaintiff in this case can claim?[/b]

Oops...that bolded part should have read, "...the quote from micco...".

[Azael]

Isn't it the copyright holder who is damaged and not the RIAA?

The RIAA represents the copyright holders, which are usually the corporations that the artists are signed to. I would expect that they will be looking for the songs that they have the right to sue over.

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by Cheesesteak
Would you pay even a single dollar to make your hard drive accessable to others? Would you pay to host thousands of songs (and the corresponding bandwidth) when the downloaders don't pay a penny to get them?

Sure, if that same dollar gave me access to the hard drives of everyone else who paid.

Originally posted by micco
However, [the AHRA] doesn't change the definition of copyright or fair use to allow someone to distribute copies of a work they don't have rights to.

It doesn't change the definition of fair use, but it does protect consumers from infringement lawsuits based on the use of the devices and media covered by the AHRA. If you have a stereo component CD burner and "music CD-R" media, you can't be prosecuted for copying CDs with it.

Note that it does not apply to MP3s, only to certain devices and media. One requirement for those devices is that they prohibit serial copying, so you can copy an original CD, but you can't make a copy of a copy.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally posted by Azael
The RIAA represents the copyright holders, which are usually the corporations that the artists are signed to. I would expect that they will be looking for the songs that they have the right to sue over.

They can do that? They can essentially act like a suing clearinghouse? If so then I've got a great idea for a new business: Sue Everyone, Inc.

The company would represent its members by suing people on their behalf. You'd get an economy of scale by having thousands of attornies on staff. They'd find people who it would be cost prohibitive to sue for any one transgression but they'll jump on those with multiple items that together add-up to a financially worthwhile reason to sue. Of course, my company gets a percentage of the take and divvies up the rest to participating companies. Free money!

Seriously, I thought entities like the RIAA could provide legal counsel, financial help and so on to support a lawsuit but I still thought it was up to individual entities to sue on their own behalf and not leave it to others to do it for them.

[micco]

Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole
Secondly, doesn't the law mentioned in my quote above mitigate the damages the plaintiff in this case can claim? Certainly sharing copyrighted files is illegal and the tax paid to media companies in no way absolves anyone of copyright infringement. My question here though is does it moderate the amount of damages a copyright holder can claim?

I don't believe that the law cited by enipla has any relevance here. Technically, that law stands alone and doesn't represent any sort of agreement between industries, but given the political fight that led to it, I think it's useful to view it as a contract. One party, the media companies, agree not to accuse the electronics companies of aiding and abetting copyright theft in return for a tax on the products made by the electronics companies. Remember how Napster was sued because it created a system with little or no non-infringing use? The media companies viewed DAT recorders and other digital recording devices/media in the same way. This law also includes coverage for the consumer which Mr2001 explained better than I did, but it's still basically saying that it's going to pre-compensate the media companies for the damages owed due to the existence of these devices, not the actual infringements which use the devices.

The way I interpret this, the law has no bearing on the actual exchange of copyrighted material. It's bears solely on the existence of tools which might facilitate that exchange. An analogy might be made to the gun industry if a law was made which taxed guns to pay victims of gun violence in exchange for those victims not filing civil suits against the gun manufacturers. Such a law would not make it okay to shoot someone. It would simply mean that gun violence victims are agreeing (in advance of their injury) to hold gun makers blameless in exchange for some fixed compensation (the tax). It might also include a section nodding to the 2nd Amendment and saying that it's okay for a consumer to buy a gun and shoot as long as they don't actually do anything illegal with it.

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by micco
An analogy might be made to the gun industry if a law was made which taxed guns to pay victims of gun violence in exchange for those victims not filing civil suits against the gun manufacturers. Such a law would not make it okay to shoot someone. It would simply mean that gun violence victims are agreeing (in advance of their injury) to hold gun makers blameless in exchange for some fixed compensation (the tax).

Not quite. It would also protect gun owners from liability for injuries caused by their guns, as the AHRA protects consumers from copyright infringement lawsuits. That seems like de facto "making it okay to shoot someone" to me.

[lite]

This is such horeseshit I can't beleive it's lived this long here.

Copryright laws say you can make a backup of the original. The only backup I can make is to my hard drive. Forget the legal argument that burning the CD is what they mean since *technically* (a phrase favored by lawyers) would mean that I had 3 copies at once. The CD, copy on HD and the burned CD.

What if I have a p2p copy and someone hacks my HD?

here's a RL case

I bought Metallica's "Load". Trust me, it really was a load. Later I bought "Re-Load" and was very satisfied.

Now to present; I bought "St. Anger". Very satisfied till I tried to enter the code for the web site (purchasers know what I'm talking about)

Completely unlegible. As part of the package I expect my money's worth. I took the card to the place of purchase and NOBODY can figure out the code.

Being cheated of the code (THAT I PAID FOR) ALL songs are available for download.

Please sue me RIAA, show me the damage I caused you after lying to me.

Fucking frauds all of 'em

[dnooman]

Start a "ripping club", BTW I'm officially coining that term here. Onne person from your club actually buys the CD, then the rest of your club rips it. I know that this is only effective until encryption is perfected, but it's a start. RIAA needs to realize that they need to find a new way to make money. Musicians should be able to make money, and so should their labels, but remember that at one point there was no such thing as a commercial, and today television is almost impossible without them. Commerce depends deeply on supply and demand, for price structure as well as product availabilty. Redundant, yes, but it illustrates that current marketing techniques need to be redesigned. The internet was created to enable a free exchange of info, albeit for the military, RIAA is pissed, I think they need to change with the times just as recording media has.

[Cheesesteak]

Originally posted by Mr2001
Sure, if that same dollar gave me access to the hard drives of everyone else who paid.

But, and I say this as a non user of P2P, you don't HAVE to spend the dollar to access the hard drives of everyone else. With P2P, you do not have to supply copyrighted songs for download in order to have access to the songs that other people supply.

It's a classic cartel problem from economics. There is no direct benefit to the individual to go along with the group, they benefit from the group effort even if they don't contribute. Of course, if the individuals that make up the group don't contribute, everyone suffers. Unless there is a strong central entity governing, the cartel falls apart.

[micco]

Originally posted by Mr2001
Not quite. It would also protect gun owners from liability for injuries caused by their guns, as the AHRA protects consumers from copyright infringement lawsuits. That seems like de facto "making it okay to shoot someone" to me.

The AHRA doesn't protect consumers from copyright infringment lawsuits if they actually distribute copies does it? I interpreted it to mean that consumers can use these devices to make copies for personal use. That is, that owning one of these devices is not in itself evidence of any wrongdoing. However, if I use one of these devices to make copies that I then sell, I'm still liable for copyright infringement. My gun analogy may be very flawed, but I was trying to compare owning a gun and using it for legal activity (shooting targets) with owning a DAT and using it to record archive copies of LPs. It's still illegal to shoot people, and it's still illegal to distribute copyrighted material you don't have the rights to. If AHRA were extended to cover MP3s, it would mean that I could maintain copies of my own CD collection on MP3, but it would not allow me to share those files. If it did, it's essentially invalidating copyright law.

I'm not arguing with you, just asking for clarification. This is my interpretation of that law based mostly on my memories of the negotiations that led to it. You obviously have a better handle on it, so feel free to correct me. I was just jumping in because I thought this law was basically irrelevant to the current RIAA case and citing it was just muddying the waters.

[kayT]

Someone up there said they don't by CD's (or CDs if you want to punctuate that way) because "in my experience they have one or two good songs on it (sic) and the rest are garbage". So, by this logic, I am going to steal lunch because the hamburger is delicious but the fries are garbage. Hmm.

[Chronos]

First off making a copy of copyrighted materials is legal for archival purposes.

Copryright laws say you can make a backup of the original.

Only if you're a library. The law doesn't say anything about private individuals mmaking archival copies.

[Doctor Who]

Sorry kayT --- I have to call you on the hamburger analogy. That's because lunch can be sold separately - you can buy a hamburger by itself. Or you can buy fries by themselves.

You cannot buy one song by itself (since singles are basically dead), instead you are forced to buy the entire album.

Hmm.

--- Peter Wiggen

[Jayrot]

Originally posted by Chronos
Only if you're a library. The law doesn't say anything about private individuals mmaking archival copies.

Chronos, so what's the Straight Dope here? CAN I or CAN I NOT make copies of my own music for personal use?

*Keep in mind that there are commercials on TV for a Phillips/Magnovox CD Recorder that show a guy making a mix disc from his own CDs.*

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally posted by Chronos
Only if you're a library. The law doesn't say anything about private individuals mmaking archival copies.

I guess I was confusing computer programs and other copyrighted works as computer programs can be legally copied for archival purposes (NOTE: You cannot defeat copy protection or encryption schemes legally even if it is to make your 'allowed' archival copy...I believe the Digital Millenium Copyright Act speaks to that):

§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs53

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

SOURCE: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

I have a question about the law regarding other copyrighted works (besides computer programs). Note the part I bolded below:

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

SOURCE: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

Assume I make a copy of a musci album and stick it in a drawer and NEVER use it. It is only there to replace my legal copy if it gets damaged or lost. Sticking my copy in a drawer will have zero impact on the value of the copyrighted work. In this case making a copy may be a technical violation of the code but since there is no damage incurred by the copyright holder and the law stipulates the market effect of the use as a consideration I can't see the point of bringing a case in these circumstances.

Is this reasonable to assume or not?

Regardless of the answer to the above I know you cannot make a copy (legally) so you can have one at work, one in the car, one at home and one for the gym.

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by micco
The AHRA doesn't protect consumers from copyright infringment lawsuits if they actually distribute copies does it? I interpreted it to mean that consumers can use these devices to make copies for personal use. That is, that owning one of these devices is not in itself evidence of any wrongdoing. However, if I use one of these devices to make copies that I then sell, I'm still liable for copyright infringement.

From the AHRA (emphasis added):

Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

As far as I can tell, "this title" refers to Title 17, which contains the other copyright laws, since the AHRA is an amendment to that title. So you can make copies, but you can't sell them.

[lite]

Two more points in this. I've bought the "Back in Black" album 4 times. Twice on vinyl, twice on CD. 2 were stolen, one worn out and the last is in my collection. I bought the same songs 4 times, what's the problem with making a backup or two if they're for me?

Second, using p2p isn't distributing. I don't send it to ANYONE. If someone using the same program as I chooses to use it to get a file from my HD, that's on them.

Granted, a technicality, but thank the lawyers for that. Just playing by their rules

[KGS]

Originally posted by PeterWiggen
Sorry kayT --- I have to call you on the hamburger analogy. That's because lunch can be sold separately - you can buy a hamburger by itself. Or you can buy fries by themselves.

You cannot buy one song by itself (since singles are basically dead), instead you are forced to buy the entire album.

Excellent point, Peter (even though you misspelled your last name, heh.) When Napster came about, I always maintained that it was the ONLY alternative to spending $18.99 for a CD that has only one song you like. Back in '90, the Personics Music System offered a similar thing to Steve Jobs' eMusic -- namely, making a cassette (no CDR's back then) with a personally selected track list, at 50 cents to $1.25 per song. I spent over $500 on that system. So there's definitely a market for it.

Unfortunately, the paradigm has now changed. If the RIAA had been wise enough to jump on the mp3 bandwagon before Napster/Kazaa/etc. took off, people would have embraced it: "Hey look, I can spend $1.00 per song instead of $18 for a whole CD!" But now, five years later, people are so accustomed to free downloads, that they will now think: "What??? Why should I spend $1.00 for a song I can get from Kazaa for free?"

I would have supported eMusic.com if it came out five years ago, but right now, I say fuck 'em. I'm too pissed off.

Oh, and to lite (and everyone else who bitched about buying the same album more than once) -- I feel your pain. I'd guess that my CD collection includes about 200-300 titles that I've purchased at least twice (crappy vinyl -> CD) and in many cases, three times. Black Sabbath's debut album, I know I have bought four times -- once on crappy vinyl, twice on "regular" CD (one import, one domestic...they had different songs on them), and finally on "remastered" CD which included all songs from both older CDs. I think that's a record...so to speak.

[dietrologia]

I've read thru T.17 USC and Nimmer on Copyright several times and still can't grasp some stuff:

1) If standalone audio CD recorders and the special audio CDRs they use include royalties to reimburse artists for losses, what losses are these exactly? You're still not allowed to give those CDRs away to friends, and they will be for your own personal use, so what exactly are the artists being reimbursed for with these royalties?

2) If I own a computer, a CDRW drive and some regular data CDRs (all of which don't include the royalty payments in their purchase price), am I violating copyright law if I make the same personal copies of my own CDs using these devices?

3) Am I violating copyright law if I retain MP3s on my computer's hard drive after selling/giving away the original CD they were ripped from?

4) Is an album of MP3s considered a "duplicate" of the audio CD they were ripped from? MP3s are a lossy format.

5) How is it that the RIAA has the right/power/ability/juridiction to obtain warrants from federal court clerks? Do all citizens working for aggrieved corporations have this right?

6) How is it that federal court clerks are able to grant warrants? Aren't there legal issues to weigh and evidence to consider? Why isn't this a matter for a judge to handle?

Thank you for any help!

[bernse]

Originally posted by bernse
Fair enough, but what about foriegn countries?

Just to quote myself....

Just heard on CBC that RIAA reportedly said it is not targeting foreigners with this "crackdown" or whatever you want to call it. Only going after 'mericans.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally posted by lite
Second, using p2p isn't distributing. I don't send it to ANYONE. If someone using the same program as I chooses to use it to get a file from my HD, that's on them.

I would like an answer to this if anyone knows.

Who is legally liable when sharing music via a P2P system? Person A copies the music and drops it on their PC where others may find it. It would seem the copying is a violation in its own right but I'm not sure we've even settled that.

Person B reaches out and takes the music which they (should) know amounts to theft of copyrighted material.

How do the legal distinctions play out here between these two people? Also, any sense of which end of the game the RIAA is targeting?