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