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