[QUOTE=acsenray]
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”?
[/quote]
It’s pure legalese. You’ll never hear it outside a courtroom or read it outside a transcript.
I acknowledge the need for ever-more-finely shaded degrees of meaning in legal discourse, and for terms to reflect same.
But this one, I dunno. It just seems like The Man talking. Like calling your car a vehicle, or your wife a white female approximately x years of age.
Once language like that comes into your life, a process is underway that you know won’t end happily. All you can hope for is that it ends.
[QUOTE=buttonjockey308]
No, the ‘hammer’ has and will come down on innocent people who buy, use and enjoy music.
[/quote]
Has it, actually? So far in the cases I’ve seen, it’s mostly come down on people who are engaging in unauthorized distribution.
I’m pretty sure that the R.I.A.A. has said that “personal use” applies to a household and that moving a CD from my room to my sister’s room doesn’t constitute actionable behaviour.
[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
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
[/quote]
It’s saying that he put them in a place that allowed them to be shared over the Kazaa network. That’s not just the people using his computer.
It seems to me that the plaintiff is not saying this at all. The copies “became unauthorized” when they were made available on the Kazaa network. That implies that before they were shared on the Kazaa network, they were authorized.
Because millions of Internet users (or even one Internet user) can’t access that copy and make an unauthorized copy.
[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
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.
[/QUOTE]
By putting them in the shared folder he is distributing a copyrighted work without authorization. I can’t see how anyone could begin to believe that should be legal.
[QUOTE=acsenray]
I’m pretty sure that the R.I.A.A. has said that “personal use” applies to a household and that moving a CD from my room to my sister’s room doesn’t constitute actionable behaviour.
[/QUOTE]
As I’ve said before in this thread: IANAL.
It seems to me that what they say they won’t enforce is one thing, and what they could enforce is another. The way that law gets molded by precedent seems to me to leave it open for having them say one thing, today, about what they’ll won’t consider actionable. And then they could change their mind if they build up a case law body of precedent that does define the legitimacy of a file based on its location, not its use.
If it weren’t for those terms being used in arguments I’d really have no problem with this suit. But they are being used. And my trust for the RIAA’s willingness to credit the “fair use” clause is nil. As shown, IMNSHO, by the DRM software that members of the RIAA are trying to mandate all over the place. And most DRM software I’ve seen has usually one of these flaws: a complete denial of fair use copying by the user; often a denial of the doctrine of First Purchase; and at least once was used as a toehold to get spyware into the [del]victim’s[/del] customer’s computers.
ETA: I have no experience with Kazaa, so I don’t know how the program works. I took the term “shared folder” to mean the various shared applications folders that Windows uses for computers with multiple users. My parents have their computers set up with individual accounts, and so have some things saved in the various user-specific folders, and others saved in all users or shared folders. That’s how I was interpreting the term. If some of the stuff that other posters have been slogging through makes it clear that the shared folder under discussion is Kazaa specific, I’ll have to reluctantly withdrawn my objections. But I will insist on that proof before I do withdraw it.
To explain a little about Kazaa, OtakuLoki… it is a file-sharing program. You register an account with Kazaa, and you download their program onto your computer. The program allows you to search a database of other users for specific media content that they are willing to share. When you download the file, you are downloading it from some other Kazaa users’ hard drive. Conversely, once you’ve downloaded the file, if you place it in your Kazaa Share folder (which is default IIRC), other people can now search the database which includes your account, and that downloaded file.
There are monitors on the screen that make it clear exactly what is being uploaded from your computer and to whom, and exactly what you are downloading and from whom you are downloading it. At any given time you might see 10 uploads of the same file from your computer.
This is a blatantly, IMHO, and flagrantly different thing than having a file in a Shared Folder for other people in your household to use.
It seems to me that the only new aspect of the plaintiffs’ brief is that they seem to be saying that in this case they have proof that files were actually distributed from Howell’s computer through the Kazaa network, but even if they didn’t have that evidence, they should be able to presume that such distribution took place because the files were made available for distribution through the Kazaa network.
No problem. This has turned out to be a fascinating thread indeed.
The other sort of file-sharing are the bit-torrent programs, which as far as I understand, work in a similar way, only they ‘‘grab’’ bits and pieces of the same file from different users and put them together like a puzzle. In this way you can’t target one specific user for sharing the file. I always assumed this was to avoid prosecution for file-sharing, but I could be wrong.
Either way, I don’t condone it. I don’t think the RIAA is being particularly fair either with its heavy fines, and according to this wiki (which is flagged for bias), they have demanded settlements from people who have never used a computer in their life, and currently in the process of suing a 10-year-old child who allegedly shared files when she was 7. It doesn’t seem to me like that is very fair or even rational, but to be honest I really don’t understand how they’re singling these people out in the first place.
The RIAA has every right to litigate for copyright infringement, but it seems like the way they are going about doing it, and the level of compensation they are demanding, is batshit insane.
[QUOTE=Euthanasiast]
Then steal the music by downloading it online, then mail the money directly to the artist, because truthfully speaking, that’s really the only way the artist will see any of it. You don’t even want to know what the cut is for album sales to the artist.<snip>
[/QUOTE]
I do actually know (I’ve seen pie charts, anyway - it’s shockingly low). That’s part of where my pro-artist, con-music industry stance is coming from.
acsenray, it looks like you have taken my quote out of context and made it look like I’m saying “fuck 'em” to the artists; I have been extremely clear here that I am absolutely in favour of recording artists getting fair money for their labour and talents. I am opposed to the recording industry continuing to buttrape both their artists and the consuming public so they can put another swimming pool in their LA mansion, and creating insane laws to further perpetuate that buttrape.
Complete hijack: Has anyone else noticed the Google ads? I’ve got four small ones showing. The one I wish to draw your attention to is on the right in my display, advertising for “iPood Music Download; Download iPood Ready Music…”
[QUOTE=featherlou]
That’s part of what pisses me off so much in discussions like this; I have heard (I’ll have to research it later, since I’m off to work now) that the music industry has NOT had declining sales since the introduction of mp3s, iPods, iTunes, etc.
[/QUOTE] I believe you heard wrong (or you were misled)
But these numbers will never be fair because in 1999 (the first year of the digital music craze), the record companies posted worldwide sales totals of $40 billion. A number that is just completely light years ahead of any year before or since.
And look at the 10 best selling CDs of the year (all numbers from Wikipedia)…
Backstreet Boys - Millennium (12 million)
Britney Spears - …Baby One More Time (14 million)
Ricky Martin - Ricky Martin (7 million)
Shania Twain - Come on Over (20 million)
Limp Bizkit - Significant Other (7 million)
Santana - Supernatural (15 million)
TLC - FanMail (6 million)
Kid Rock - Devil Without a Cause (11 million)
NSYNC - NSYNC (11 million)
Christina Aguilera - Christina Aguilera (8 million)
Say what you will about their quality, but that is a group of CDs that will never be matched in terms of sales. The record companies are chasing a ghost and complaining they can never catch it.
[QUOTE=Barbarian]
That’s about as sensible as proposing flash drives and MP3 players be subject to a special levy just in case the owner is illegally copying songs. Which is what the industry is proposing in Canada…
[/quote]
Last I checked, blank audio cassette tapes DO have such a special levy exactly for that purpose (in the US). I remember when a friend of mine, then the president of the Recording Musicians Association (RMA), testified in congress, urging them to pass the bill imposing the tax on all blank media sold at the time.
I pointed out to him that much of my recording was not of royalty artists (where the tax is supposed to go), but he pointed out that I could file an exemption every year the way the studios did and get some money back. Yeah, sure…keep track of all the cassettes I buy and file a form every December 31, under oath, to get a $5.92 refund. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
So, how close an SO does the person have to be before this becomes a non issue, or is it always an issue? Can my wife rip a song onto a compilation CD for her own listening pleasure if I owned the CD prior to our marriage, or only if I bought it after? How about if she bought it after we were married, but I’m the only person who works, so it’s “my” money that she’s using? How about if it’s been previously ripped to her hard drive, but someone got drunk at our Xmas party and put the original CD in the microwave and wrecked it, can we still listen to the song? Suppose she grabs a CD that I had made from albums that I purchased and listens to it? Doesn’t this all seem pretty stupid to you? Wouldn’t adapting to new technologies benefit both the artist AND the record company, while also allowing the end user the freedom to utilize new technology? Of course it would, but doing so would mean giving up total control of the product, and the RIAA just can’t conceive of that, so they are vigorously alienating every person on the planet as they desperately flail about attempting to forestall their inevitable extinction.
[/QUOTE]
I’m guessing the answers to your questions depends upon whether you live in a state that has community property or whether you entered into a community property agreement when you got married.
[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
But these numbers will never be fair because in 1999 (the first year of the digital music craze), the record companies posted worldwide sales totals of $40 billion. A number that is just completely light years ahead of any year before or since.
[/QUOTE]
Fine, you can wave away the decline between 1999 and 2000. I have no opinion on how fugnutz sales were in 1999, or how revenue-licous the CDs were that you posted.
However, CD sales since 2000 have declined every year since then, which pretty much waxes your theory.
[QUOTE=squeegee]
Fine, you can wave away the decline between 1999 and 2000. I have no opinion on how fugnutz sales were in 1999, or how revenue-licous the CDs were that you posted.
However, CD sales since 2000 have declined every year since then, which pretty much waxes your theory.
[/QUOTE]
I have always attributed the decline in sales over the last decade to ebay’s growing popularity. I have bought tons of cd’s on ebay, and gotten many for just a few dollars. I’m surprised its still legal to sell a cd that you own, since the RIAA gets no money from the deal.
Next we will probably hear about them going after ebay and all the used record stores. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=squeegee]
Fine, you can wave away the decline between 1999 and 2000. I have no opinion on how fugnutz sales were in 1999, or how revenue-licous the CDs were that you posted.
However, CD sales since 2000 have declined every year since then, which pretty much waxes your theory.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Rysto]
By putting them in the shared folder he is distributing a copyrighted work without authorization. I can’t see how anyone could begin to believe that should be legal.
[/QUOTE]
This has turned out to be a fascinating thread indeed.
