[QUOTE=mangeorge]
I know little of any law. But I seem to have gleaned from somewhere (Judge Judy?) that you can expect to get something for your money. Remember, this is a surcharge, not a fine. Nor is it part of the cost of the tape. As described, it is a fee for copying intellectual property. A profit.
[/QUOTE]
Quoting Judge Judy will not help you in court. It is up to the Canadian parliament and courts to determine what that surcharge gets you. It’s not up to you to assume.
[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
Not a pitting, but a correction: libraries, and loaning out of physical books are generally seen to be covered by the fair use portion of most copyright law.
[/QUOTE]
No need for fair use. Fair use is for actions that would be infringing without it. Libraries have the first sale doctrine for loaning books.
Gfactor, as you know, IANAL, but it seems to me that first sale doctrine is already something of a lost cause. It’s completely gone WRT to electronic media, and there have been pushes to regulate/eliminate second-hand CD/DVD sales.
Furthermore, isn’t a doctrine simply an established interpretation of the law? Fair use is actually protected by the wording of most copyright laws I’ve heard about. ISTM that First Sale is something that could be changed without any new laws being passed.
[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
Furthermore, isn’t a doctrine simply an established interpretation of the law? Fair use is actually protected by the wording of most copyright laws I’ve heard about. ISTM that First Sale is something that could be changed without any new laws being passed.
[/QUOTE]
No.
Bah, another cherished “understanding” shot to Hell.
Thanks! 
[QUOTE=DrCube]
I don’t agree with copyright laws. Downloading music isn’t stealing; listening to your buddy’s CDs isn’t stealing; watching videos on youtube isn’t stealing; reading books in the library isn’t stealing;
[/quote]
I’m with you so far…
Bullshit. This is less of an issue with music because the artists get paid virtually dick for the hard copies that are sold, but using what someone else has created – created to make a living by having people buy it – without paying that person for it is stealing, plain and simple.
Think of it this way: if you supported yourself by, say, writing computer games and selling them, would you be fine with someone downloading them for free online?
[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
Bah, another cherished “understanding” shot to Hell.
Thanks! 
[/QUOTE]
No biggie. Right church; wrong pew, as it were.
What a horrid word…contrived and lifeless.
As a record collector, my skin crawls when I see it, with all its connotations of tiresome legal wonks and the clammy hand of the middleman on your shoulder, saying “Music does not belong to the ages. It belongs to us.”
This stuff makes me frustrated as hell. I don’t even understand the way it works, I don’t get what makes Action X legal and Action Y illegal, and I sure as fuck don’t grasp how someone gets fined $220,000 for 24 measly songs. How do they find these people? Do they draw random names from a lottery or something?
I don’t file-share. I hate doing illegal things. But this thread makes me wonder if I’ve done illegal things without even realizing it. It seems like every seemingly good alternative I find also turns out to be illegal. I fucking hate this shit. It’s impossible to win.
[QUOTE=olivesmarch4th]
I don’t file-share. I hate doing illegal things. But this thread makes me wonder if I’ve done illegal things without even realizing it. It seems like every seemingly good alternative I find also turns out to be illegal. I fucking hate this shit. It’s impossible to win.
[/QUOTE]
I think a lot of the problem with this sort of thing is that technology has spread in advance of the law. It used to be pretty easy not to do illegal things because we generally knew what was illegal and what wasn’t, and it actually took deliberate effort in the direction of “illegal” to cross the line (i.e., in order to pirate movies and music, you actually had to have a dedicated recording setup (and yes, I’m sure a lot of the teenagers who used to make mix tapes to share around knew they weren’t supposed to share them around, even then)). Now, with the internet and computers and digital music players and p2p filesharing and telephones that do all of these things, we’re not sure just what we’re allowed to do and what we’re not, and most of us aren’t even aware of things we’re actually doing that ARE illegal already.
[QUOTE=Beware of Doug]
What a horrid word…contrived and lifeless.
As a record collector, my skin crawls when I see it, with all its connotations of tiresome legal wonks and the clammy hand of the middleman on your shoulder, saying “Music does not belong to the ages. It belongs to us.”
[/QUOTE]
That’s a pretty weird reaction to something that is merely a technical term. How is it any different from words like “phonograph” or “stereophonic”?
And in the law, it’s pretty necessary, because it helps distinguish between concepts like “composition,” “performance,” and “phonorecord.” In no way is “phonorecord” intended to replace “music,” which means something in the law, but not “phonorecord.”
[QUOTE=neutron star]
And it also says:
…which is really fucking insulting and completely wrong, but we’re pretty much used to that by now, so it doesn’t matter, right? What’s up with the people who watch these goddamn assholes chip away at our rights to do anything at all with the music we buy, and react to it by simply smiling and asking for more lube?
[/quote]
No, you aren’t paying attention. They aren’t prosecuting anyone simply for transferring their own cd’s to their own ipods. This guy was using an internet file-sharing service, and that’s why they went after him. They didn’t storm into his home for no reason and demand to see what was on his computer. Yes, the argument was made in court that, “I suppose we can say he stole a song”, and you can say this is a bullshit argument, and I think you might have a good point. But people are going insane here and claiming that the RIAA is going to prosecute people just for making one copy of their own cd’s, even though their own website says they aren’t planning to do that.
Is that your argument? Nice job. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=olivesmarch4th]
This stuff makes me frustrated as hell. I don’t even understand the way it works, I don’t get what makes Action X legal and Action Y illegal, and I sure as fuck don’t grasp how someone gets fined $220,000 for 24 measly songs. How do they find these people? Do they draw random names from a lottery or something?
I don’t file-share. I hate doing illegal things. But this thread makes me wonder if I’ve done illegal things without even realizing it. It seems like every seemingly good alternative I find also turns out to be illegal. I fucking hate this shit. It’s impossible to win.
[/QUOTE]
If you don’t file-share and you don’t sell bootleg copies of things, they aren’t going to come after you. And the reason you hear these sensationalist stories about huge fines is because some people refuse to settle, fight as far as they can in court, and then lose.
[QUOTE=lowbrass]
If you don’t file-share and you don’t sell bootleg copies of things, they aren’t going to come after you. And the reason you hear these sensationalist stories about huge fines is because some people refuse to settle, fight as far as they can in court, and then lose.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but if RIAA’s position is that it is illegal to copy music from CDs you legally acquired to your computer (or whatever), even for your own use, what’s to stop them from trying to go after me next (or my husband really) to set an example?
I don’t share music, we buy our CDs (which we hate because, really, we don’t need all this plastic around), but their position is untenable and insane. I am all for paying whoever owns the intellectual property, but they can’t tell me what to do with it, other than not copying and distributing.
[QUOTE=lowbrass]
No, you aren’t paying attention. They aren’t prosecuting anyone simply for transferring their own cd’s to their own ipods.
[/QUOTE]
Then, what does this part of the article mean?
You mean they could have paid less money up front to avoid getting sued? Do you know what the disparity is (between the settlement offer and the judgment?) Because to do something you know is illegal, and then take someone to court instead of just accepting the consequences of your actions strikes me as remarkably stupid. The only reason I can see someone doing that is if they couldn’t afford the settlement.
I’ve started going through some of the pleadings in the case. On my initial, cursory review, the plaintiffs don’t seem to be arguing that Howell is liable for copyright infringement merely because he made copies for his personal use, but because the copies were found in the “shared” file of his computer and distributed using Kazaa. One of Howell’s arguments is that the files were shared inadvertently or without his knowledge (he makes it a point to say that several people, including children, had access to his computer) and the plaintiffs say that intent is irrelevant so long as distribution actually happened.
As I said, that’s just on my initial, cursory review. When I get a chance to read more thoroughly, I’ll report back.
Again, it seems to me that they are saying that the copies became unauthorized only after they were made available for sharing on the Kazaa network.
[QUOTE=acsenray]
If “fuck 'em” is how you feel, then more power to you. You have an absolute right as a consumer not to purchase products that you don’t want. However, if “fuck 'em” means “I’m going to go ahead and acquire their products for free,” then the R.I.A.A. is absolutely justified in labeling you a thief and you should expect to get nailed like the woman in Minnesota.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think it means that, I think it means, “I’m going to make mix cd’s, genre cd’s and artist compliations of my own any time I damn well please. I will put the things I paid for where I choose to put them, and what’s more, give them to who ever the fuck I want” Just a guess though.
[QUOTE=ascenray]
I believe that all blank audio and videocassette tapes sold in Canada already come with such a surcharge that is distributed to copyright holders because it is expected that blank tapes will be used to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. Why not extend that policy to flash drives and MP3 players?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ascenray]
It’s illegal. It always has been. You can make a copy for your personal use, but as soon as you give it to someone else, that’s copyright infringement. Historically, record companies have not bothered to go after this kind of thing, because it was so small scale, but with digital technology, “mix tapes” made by “professional DJs” have become a major profit industry and the hammer has come down on some of them.
[/QUOTE]
No, the ‘hammer’ has and will come down on innocent people who buy, use and enjoy music. The scoundrels are, and always should be, in danger of being caught, but if I, as a regular consumer of the stuff, have to worry that some jackbooted fuckstool from the RIAA is going to goose-step his way up my front walk and serve me with papers, I’d be disinclined to ever purchase another thing that the RIAA has it’s filthy old mitts in, on or otherwise associated with, and would find a way to steal everything I could get my hands on. I’m not a crook, I don’t steal music, nor am I motivated to steal (I can afford all the music I want) but I would be delighted to do so out of sheer protest. The artists have to take charge of their own destiny, or this ship will sink into the digital sea, empty as the day it got here.
Of course, the key motivator in this whole thing is profit, if I make a CD of an artist and give it to my wife AND put it on my Zune, according to them, I’m stealing. However, we would NEVER buy the same CD twice (how stupid would THAT be, despite the fact it would be the ‘right’ way to do things) therefore, the artist would never profit more than once from me and/or her. So to the RIAA, the music industry at large, and the artists too stupid or lazy to stand up and meet the new digital revolution face first, I say FUCK YOU. YOU DESERVE WHAT YOU GET.
First off, I have to say, ascenray, more power to you for slogging through the detailed stuff.
The quote that you’ve just offered, though, doesn’t really change my view of the merit of this lawsuit. If the copies are illegal, because the owner of the CDs put them where other people using his computer could listen to them - I don’t see how that’s any better than saying he can’t make copies for his mp3 player.
If the legitimacy of the files depends on where you store them in a privately owned computer, why can’t that then apply to making “use” copies of CDs? Something which I’ve done. That’s what’s in the CD player in the car I drive from time to time. I’m 99.9% sure that I’m the only person to listen to those CDs, and I’ve certainly not given anyone permission to do any more than listen to them.
It still sounds, looking at your quote, and the other quotes here, that the RIAA claims it has the right to sue me for copyright infringement for that behavior. ETA: Which I believe meets the standards of “fair use.”