# Music Industry to sue file swappers **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 26, 2003, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435 "2003-06-26T02:38:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435/41 "2003-06-27T17:50:25Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Who](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Doctor\_Who](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Who)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435/42 "2003-06-27T18:28:08Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Jayrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Jayrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jayrot)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435/43 "2003-06-27T18:51:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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._ ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435/44 "2003-06-27T19:37:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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](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](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. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435/45 "2003-06-27T21:53:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![lite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b5ac83/32.png) [@lite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lite)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435/46 "2003-06-27T23:19:48Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435/47 "2003-06-27T23:54:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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](http://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. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![dietrologia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@dietrologia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dietrologia)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435/48 "2003-06-28T00:13:36Z")
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! ---
**Author:** ![bernse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@bernse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bernse)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435/49 "2003-06-28T00:37:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435/50 "2003-06-28T01:28:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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? ---
**Author:** ![gypsymoth3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@gypsymoth3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gypsymoth3)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435/51 "2003-06-28T03:01:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. \*\* haha. i’m selfish. i don’t let people download from me. ---
**Author:** ![lite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b5ac83/32.png) [@lite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lite)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435/52 "2003-06-28T06:27:28Z")
Excellent synopsis Whack-a-Mole. This is just getting me going now. Who do they sue?!? (I really hope they hit me, I’ll be on the covers of Rolling Stone, Newsweek, Time, etc) How bout this: I go to a garage sale and buy a used CD. The royalty was already paid to the artist (or “artist”) on the intitial sale, but none on the subsequent sale. A step further, what about record stores buying and selling used CDs? Does the store have to verify that you didn’t already copy it? Sounds like a mighty big ring the local dealers are running. As most of you already know I’m Conservative/Libertarian, but Orrin hatch is really pissing me off! He wants to melt HD’s of people using p2p files/software. Can I sue the government for destroying all the other software i bought? And what about the songs I uploaded to HD that I already bought? There’s more but have to calm down a bit ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435/53 "2003-06-28T08:01:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lite \* > **A step further, what about record stores buying and selling used CDs? Does the store have to verify that you didn’t already copy it?** Actually, the record labels went after used CD selling in a big way, around 1991-92 or so. **Garth Brooks** was their puppet, and he publicly delared that he would not allow any used CD seller to stock his albums or use any promotional material for his music. Basically, he was in the same position as **Metallica** is now, regarding mp3-sharing. \*\* > [@](#): > > As most of you already know I’m Conservative/Libertarian, but Orrin hatch is really pissing me off! He wants to melt HD’s of people using p2p files/software.\*\* Oh, Utah’s favorite (and most corrupt) Senator is no stranger to strangling free speech. Here are just a few of the previous free-lance activities by Orral Snatch: 1. In 1996, Hatch sponsors [The Child Pornography Prevention Act](http://www.theregus.com/content/6/24670.html), better known as the law that made “virtual kiddy porn” illegal. Yeah, everyone hates kiddy porn, right? Sounds like a no-brainer. Except…this law was so badly worded, so overbroad in scope, that it would have made ANY image of a naked child-like human being, whether in a painting or an animated film or _even if they’re over 18_, the equivalent of owning hard-core child pornography. It would have included works of fine art by such masters as Carravagio, and movies like “Endless Love”, “Fast Times At Ridgemont High”, and “Traffic” would have become illegal. (Oddly, Hatch himself appeared in “Traffic” as a cameo!) Thankfully, the Supreme Court struck down that law in 2002 (or most of it, at least), as it was clearly STUPID and the pre-existing kiddy porn laws work just fine. 2. In the wake of the 1999 Columbine massacre, Orrin Hatch [leads the crusade against violent music and video games](http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/05/06/p2s1.htm), and even provides quite a photo op with the game “Doom II” in his hands. 😃 Interesting, how 15 million people have played DOOM, and how many of those 15 million went crazy and killed all their classmates? Umm…TWO! And there’s still no proof that the game MADE them do it. None at all. 3. And in 2003, of course, this whole “blowing up your computer” thing. I seem to recall there being a fourth one, but I can’t remember it right now…I really should keep track of this stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435/54 "2003-06-28T08:15:41Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by 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. I don’t think that is up to snuff. An ISP only provides a means for users to get on the Net, they are not legally bound to monitor the acitivities of these subscribers. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Cheesesteak_ > 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. It is very difficult to show that a person intentionally left files on his own computer for others to copy, even more so for servers. Defendent, “Your honour, I have completely no knowledge of these files on my computer. It seems that somebody broke into my computer and placed them there.” ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435/55 "2003-06-28T10:19:40Z")
Whack a Mole, I would change your description of the scenario to “Person B sends a signal to Person A’s computer requesting the file. Person A’s computer, following the instructions left by A (via Kazaa), makes an electronic copy of the MP3 file, and sends it over its modem to Person B’s computer.” Person A is basically programming his computer to make and send a copy of a copyrighted work on request. Urban Ranger, if I were on a jury, you’d have to argue that VERY well to get me to believe it. I agree that ISPs won’t be asked to monitor usage, but will they refuse to provide names if the RIAA can show the ‘crime’ was committed? ---
**Author:** ![lite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b5ac83/32.png) [@lite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lite)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435/56 "2003-06-28T10:51:46Z")
One more, there was a movie titled Baby Girl (or Baby Doll) that was shown on Showtime (Skintime). It featured Brook Shields bare ass naked, as well as topless (she has her 12 y/o breasts right there for all to see) If I buy the DVD or video (please kill those distributing it) what can I expect? First it’s kiddie porn (she’s 12 for Christ’s sake)! If I have it on my HD can I be found guilty of kiddie porn? And if I can be found guilty of kiddie porn, wouldn’t Showtime be the main defendant? NOTE TO ALL: Kiddie porn is abhorrant, even to left-wing extremists ---
**Author:** ![Road\_Rash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a8b319/32.png) [@Road\_Rash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Road_Rash)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435/57 "2003-06-28T12:27:14Z")
Lite, that was not Brooke Shields, but a double. Brooke Shields is a super hot babe, but if you notice, her breasts are not that big, now or at age 12. They used an adult double. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435/58 "2003-06-28T18:20:07Z")
I thought I’d explain exactly what the RIAA is doing to pursue this (you can read the non- summarised version on their website). Essentially, they are scanning the user files of P2P networks looking for copyrighted material. When they find a user with whatever specific material they are looking for available for download, they download a copy and record the time and date of the download. Then they subpoena the user’s ISP (publicly available through the networks) to provide the user’s name and address under the DMCA, and pursue a conviction from there. Note… the RIAA says it is only going after people who are sharing “substantial” amounts of material… god knows what “substantial” means, but I’m guessing if you have a couple of songs available you’re probably okay. Since they are only investigating those who make this information available, not, apparently, those who are downloading it, I suggest simply not allowing other users to download from your files if you use Kazaa. I use WinMX and I couldn’t figure out how to do so directly, so instead I just turned off all the file types in the “what to share” menu. ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435/59 "2003-06-28T23:50:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lite \* > \*\*One more, there was a movie titled Baby Girl (or Baby Doll) that was shown on Showtime (Skintime). It featured Brook Shields bare ass naked, as well as topless (she has her 12 y/o breasts right there for all to see) > > If I buy the DVD or video (please kill those distributing it) what can I expect?\*\* The movie you’re thinking of is [_Pretty Baby_](http://us.imdb.com/Title?0078111), and I think Brooke did indeed appear nude at 12 yrs. of age. HOWEVER…mere nudity is NOT pornography! Even the Supreme Court agrees with that. And you should be ashamed of yourself for wishing death on “those distributing it.” It is a shocking and disturbing film, but not even remotely pornographic (at least, from what I’ve read about…never seen it myself, because Blockbuster won’t carry it, for obvious reasons…) > [@](#): > > \*\*Kiddie porn is abhorrant, even to left-wing extremists \*\* Yes it is, even to non-winged pseudo-Libertarian “pro-Death Party” independents like myself. 😉 BUT…you must make sure it’s REAL kiddy porn, first. (Would you willingly turn yourself in to the police if you took a photo of your baby in the bathtub?) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435/60 "2003-06-29T00:16:42Z")
The RIAA website says their software finds users sharing “significant amounts” of copyright material, then downloads a copy and logs the date and time. There is no action currently pending against users who are downloading, just those sharing. So if you want to protect yourself simply turn off file-sharing in Kazaa. I use winMX and couldn’t figure out how to do this so I simply unchecked mp3s in the “file types to share” menu. Simple as that, folks… although of course if everyone stops sharing the argument is pretty much over… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/music-industry-to-sue-file-swappers/184435.md?page=4)