You’re kidding, right? You don’t have to be “law savvy” to understand the very basic difference between these two things.
If you leave your CDs somewhere to be taken, then all you’ve done is transfer ownership of your CDs. You haven’t made any copies of the music; you’ve just let someone else have your CDs. It’s no different, really, from what second-hand music stores do.
If you offer the songs for download, then you are not merely transferring the song from your ownership to someone else. Every single person who downloads the song from you makes a copy of the song on their own hard drive. So if 100 people download it, there are now 100 more copies of the song than there were before.
In the first case, no matter who has physical possession of the CD, there is still only a single copy in circulation. In the second case, there are many copies, one for each person who downloads it. Can you understand why copyright law might treat these two cases differently?
Well, but that still doesn’t really address his point. He’s asserting that letting someone make a copy isn’t really violating the copyright, since the person who made the copy is doing the, well, you know, copying.
But Congress decided that it made sense to stop people from offering others the ability to make illegal copies, so it passed a law that said, among other things, that offering stuff for download by others in violation of copyright law would itself be a violation of the law, subjecting that person to potential liability. This makes sense because the person doing the downloading couldn’t do that if you didn’t put it up there for download in the first place.
I’m not defending the law, just saying that’s what the situation is.
Perhaps, but i was responding to his “Wouldn’t it be analogous…” question. And the answer to that is, “No, it would be as unanalogous as anything completely different can be.” Leaving your CDs for someone is not analogous to keeping your CDs and offering other people digital copies of the songs.
Two things. One, ‘if download itself is analogous to theft’. Two, the point of the analogy was that what I’d consider to be the actual criminal act is committed by somebody else ('sides, it’s not like the people who stole my CDs can’t copy 'em themselves – probably not much point relying on their honour not to do so).
Isn’t that a line that’s terribly hard to draw? I don’t think, for instance, I’m not allowed to store digital copies of my music on my personal computer. What if I loaded it up to a server, or set my own PC up as one – let’s say one I only have the password to? What if I give that password to somebody else, perhaps because they need access to some completely unrelated data, let’s say some work stuff or something, and never even look into the music folder (most of my friends have no taste, anyway)? What if I gave it to a couple of people, or didn’t bother with a password at all? Perhaps somebody eventually does download some tracks, and clearly, that’s an illegal action right there, one that I have made possible through my providing the means for them to do so. So, when did my actions become illegal?
Clearly, that’s a horribly contrived scenario, and won’t likely ever be a realistic case. But I think there’s some merit in testing the current accepted rules by subjecting them to such hypotheticals, even if they’re a bit out there.
One: the “theft” in each case is of an entirely different nature.
If someone nicks your CDs, they are stealing physical property from YOU. But if many people download music, they are stealing intellectual property from the copyright owner. Not only is the nature of the “theft” different, but the victims are different people in each case.
Two: the difference is that in the first case, you are an actual victim, because someone has taken your CDs and you no longer have them. In the second, you are the person facilitating the theft, because: you lose nothing; you are copying the material; you are placing it in a publicly-accessible place; and you are saying to the world, “Here, make copies of this stuff.”
If the people who steal your CDs also copy and distribute the files, then they add copyright infringement to the original act of theft. All very simple, really.
No, the RIAA is a trade group and does not have any distribution rights or intellectual property interests in any music. They represent the distributors that are members. They do take part in some administration aspects of licenses and royalties, but they do not own any of it.
They represent several hundred labels (somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 IIRC). They probably whittled the list down to songs that belong to the Big Four (EMI, Sony, Universal, and Warner) because it would be easiest. It may be helpful to think of the RIAA more like a union in the way they represent their members. The RIAA represents the labels response for upwards of 90% of music distribution. They act on behalf of their members but not necessarily any single one. Any single one of the Big Four could probably have filed a copyright suit independently, but it was better for everyone at large for the RIAA to represent them all collectively (sort of like a class action suit).
This is what her lawyer attempted to do in the first trial, and the more interesting issue. Ultimately, the judgement against her falls under the “distribution” of copyrighted material rather than “copying”. If you read the “WARNING” at the start of a DVD, you may see a list of the other things you aren’t technically supposed to do.
how about this analogy? i have a house (website) which i do no not lock (no passwords). it is open to anyone who wishes to enter and i have an extensive CD collection. visitors with their own equipment come and make copies of my music. i have no idea who does this unless they sign the guest book.
since you can’t really buy music anymore, they should charge rental prices for all the good that you can do with it. i have at least half a dozen equipment that can play mp3s. making it illegal to listen to what i supposedly bought on them is just plain ridiculous.
Right, but she will be stuck with that forever. IIRC, she can’t bankrupt that amount, and while they probably wouldn’t be able to take her house or primary car and leave her eating out of garbage cans, good luck to her for ever building up any kind of nest egg; college funds for her kids, etc. She would probably get a portion of her wages garnished forever.
If she wins $500 in the lottery that will go straight to the RIAA. It would suck to live life that way.
It is interesting to note that the plaintiffs in this case did not ask for any particular amount of damages. They left it completely up to the jury to choose an amount and they picked $80,000 per infringed work.
Why not? I’m not being argumentative, just curious – I thought a person who is bankrupt, is bankrupt, whether he/she owes $10K or $10M – not that the amount “is bankrupted”. If you owe above a certain amount, are you not allowed to declare bankruptcy? That’s kind of a disturbing thought.
[not moderating]
Can’t we all just get along?
[still not moderating]
To answer your question, it depends on the country. And it’s important to note that they aren’t fines–this is a civil damage award. With respect to Canada, the answer is probably yes, the judgment could be enforced there. http://www.ellynlaw.com/PDFs/Enforcement_of_Foreign_Judgments_2004.pdf
As I said earlier, it ain’t over yet. She gets to file post-verdict motions. If those aren’t resolved to her satisfaction (she might get the damages reduced, but let’s remember she tried to get the original $200,000 verdict reduced, so she’s probably not going to be satisfied) she can still appeal. She’d probably have to post a bond to avoid collection efforts while the appeal is pending, but hey, she’s judgment proof, or so some say. If that’s the case, she’s got little to lose.