Slashdot Mirror
What Does the Audio Home Recording Act Really Allow?
festers asks: "With all the legal action being taken by the MPAA and RIAA, I decided to check out their Web sites for a closer look at what they are saying. While I was on riaa.org I came across this: What You Can't Copy They cite the Audio Home Recording Act. Basically what I came away with was that I am not allowed to make any recordings of copyrighted music onto my computer. I can't make mix CDs, or sound clips, or even MP3s for my own use. Can this really be?? Is this what the Home Recording Act is all about? If this is the case, then MP3.com seems to have no ground to stand on when it comes to the Beam-It software."
I'm selling CDs containing hundreds of tracks from audio CDs in mp3 format. I'm only chargin $5 per CD to cover the cost of the CD and my time. Please email me at mp3@riaa.org to request a list of tracks I currently have available.
It's a copy. A photocopy doesn't have the fidelity of the original page, but under the law, it's a copy. I'm sure the same holds true for MP3.
The statements contained in the RIAA article are essentially correct. Under our copyright laws, there is no such thing as "noninfringing" copies. However, in certain cases the owner of the copyright has no cause of action becuase several "safe harbors" have been created by Congress and the courts. The AHRA grants immunity from infringment suits for all analog music copying and for digital music copying done with AHRA covered devices. The more expansive safe harbor (technically a defense to infringment) is the "fair use" provision of the Copyright Act of '76 (Section 107). This section excuses certain "uses" of copyrighted material. The application of fair use is based upon the application of four factors which must be considered when determining whether a particular use is proper: (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 The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. Fair use is really what protects you when you make a noncommercial copy for personal use. While some commentators have suggested that digital copies on non-AHRA devices are actionable under the AHRA becuase they are NOT mentioned, this is probably moer chicken little than reality. Thus, while the RIAA statement that digital copies made with non-AHRA devices is "copyright infringement, and a violation of federal law" is technically true, it is only half the story. Now, whether RIAA has money to burn and wouldn't mind spending some fees to create a legal hassle for some home users may be another question entirely.
It keeps giving me a file error now, anybody else get this too?
My friends and i put together a cd and go t it into stores and everything. Its not hard. Its like technology... its not hard people are jsut to stupid/scared to try. If you wnat to see a successfull music genre that has NOTHING to do with the riaa then look at punk. specificly http://www.pinkertonthugs.org/sounds.html You can get their entire cd online. they have no rpblems with it. neither does their label. The geek community should really look closer at the punk scene and learn a few things about the side of DIY that takes place in real life. theres a reason why "unix punx" is a redundant statement
The main use of cassette players is to make unsantioned copies of copyrighted material for personal use.
The industry says they don't want you make such "illegal copies". So why don't they just quit putting cassettes in everything? (Especially since people are nearly as likely to by a cassette album as an LP or 8TRack)
Well, if they didn't put cassette drives in these, they could make them smaller and cheaper. By their logic, the profit cut would be less, so keep making them.
The copyright issue is just another angle the industry uses to increase profits.
Record companies make their money almost exclusively from the sale of records -- whether physical records in the form of CDs or virtual records in the form of digitally downloaded music. If records aren't sold, the business of music suffers. Artists and songwriters don't collect royalties, which affects their ability to make a living; record companies don't recoup their investments, and that makes it more difficult for them to invest in new artists and new music. In the end, the losers will be those who love music, because the breadth and depth of the musical talent supported by the music industry cannot exist without financial support.
I love how it says that "... the business of music suffers". As a musician, I am acutely aware of exactly how many musicians there are who don't give a rat's @ss about "the business of music". No, we aren't the musicians that you see on MTV, we're the ones with talent, who normally have "real jobs" during the day to finance our musical interests. MP3s and the Internet have given us a direct route to potential fans, and cut out the corporate middleman. "The business of music" has very little to do with music at all.
The article is correct in one area; "the breadth and depth of the musical talent supported by the music industry cannot exist without financial support." Musical talent both broader and deeper than the talent "supported by the music industry" does exist and in fact can thrive if the middlemen are removed from the picture. I am much happier going to a show and buying a CD, or ordering a CD online because I know that the band makes more money from the sale this way. The RIAA knows this too and has already shown that they will fight to their corporate death to preserve their stranglehold on the music "industry". What more reason do we need to help that death along?
-gatki
Spoonfeeding knowledge in the long run teaches nothing but the shape of the spoon (E.M. Foster)
So, thus, the RIAA is basically wrong in their claim that digital recording to computers and the like is illegal?
not here... I still get 'em...
So according to the RIAA's wackiness, I have techinically broken the law because I created CD-R copies of the cds in the Genesis box set because I didn't want to scratch the originals and have to fork out another $60. Great thinking there guys.
> 1. The act doesn't prohibit you from doing any copying that you were entitled to do before the
> act passed. It only outlaws the manufacture and importation of certain devices.
But this is the main problem. If they can't outlaw fair use, they can outlaw devices that enable one to practice it. (such as the open source DVD player).
These laws aren't designed to go after copyright infringers, they are a way to control the marketplace for legitimate content and equipment.
you have red hat cd? loser.
karaoke is illegal if the music is not properly licensed (aside - this guy's a dumbfuck)
HAHA!!!! We crashed the board!!! Scheaw!!
Proxy Error
The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server.
The proxy server could not handle the request GET http://986board.premier1.net/boards/986/main.pl.
Reason: Document contains no data
Would like to read more about this. Anything available on the net?
And it's quite a relief to know that the government is creating and enforcing kickback schemes!
Sorry to burst your bubble, but actually the artist still retains rights over the piece, even if you purchase it from them. There was a courtcase a few years ago that was brought about by an artist who was upset by what was done to an outdoor sculpture that she had made. She brought a suit against the owners, and easily won the case.
You should go take a look at the Graphic Artist Guild's Guide to Pricing and Ethics. It has a great explanation regarding what is and isn't legal around copyright law.
Unfortunately I don't have my copy here at work right now, to provide the appropriate quotes.
Think it doesn't happen? It just did happen to me. The court scheduled a pre-trial conference on another matter (vindictive ex-girlfriend filed tresspassing charges against me for returning her property to her.) But they never bothered to inform me of the date or time of the conference. Needless to say, I didn't show up for it, so I'm now guilty of "failure to appear" for something it was logically impossible for me to appear for! I really DON'T understand this system...
Yeah, I was surprised to see a turntable in a mass-mailing-type flyer from some mass-consumer electronics place the other day. Of course it wouldn't play my quadraphonic E Power Biggs LP. Or the 78 shellac Carusos. Or old wax cylinders (which I don't have). And where can you get something to play iron wire anymore? And at least *those* technologies are fairly simple to recreate. When the RIAA decides it's time to stop supporting CDs because they have no copy protection, how long the fuck you think it'll be before you can't get a CD player anymore?
I don't have access to a law dictionary or to court decisions... But, has anyone condered the fact that the definition of commerce is the transportation of goods for money?
The fact is, since we do not charge when we transfer an mp3, couldn't it be considered non-commercial?
Isn't piracy, piracy, only when the pirates earn a profit?
Saying that you are down on MP3's because of pirates is like saying that ...you're down on TV's because of "Who Want's To Marry a Millionare."
Sounds like one of the best arguments for not owning a TV I've heard in a long time.
RIAA makes money everytime you buy a blank audio tape, or Music only CD. I've heard them trying to pass this before. Did they succeed? When was it passed and where does it apply? Which media are covered? If this is true, that pretty much gives people the moral (if not legal) right to copy. It's not "pirating" any more since you've already paid them.
You're confusing lossy compression with simple errors.
Sure, if you take something and repeatedly convert it into a lossy format and back, it'll degrade. And maybe MP3 is too lossy a format for an audiophile, I won't say. But: once it's in that format, it can be duplicated without further degradation, a thing impossible with analogue storage (this is, after all, a bit reason computers are digital and not analogue in the first place).
And yes, you may lose the odd bit here and there to error; however, that's far less degrading than analogue generations, is more easily repaired, and you can do a bit-by-bit verify at the time you make a copy to know that what's stored is what should be stored.
Yeah, I guess if all laws were written in programming languages, they would be much easier to understand......unless you wrote em in perl. Then all you would have was a bunch of people who could easily write their own laws but couldn't read or understand one word of anybody else's...
It's a pretty poor analogy from which to work. Music copies in a very different way from a painting or a sculpture... about as closely as you could get this analogy to work is comparing burning the Mona Lisa or smashing the Pieta to burning the manuscript of the Brandenburgs. Although all were/would be tragedies IMO, the Brandenburgs would still exist in a way the Mona Lisa would not.
Also, I don't really know what relevance my point has to IP issues :)
Personally, I don't give a shit. I follow laws not necessarily to the letter, but more to the spirit of the law. The copyright laws exist to prevent piracy and to make sure the artists get paid. Fine. If I rip my CDs to my hard drive and don't share them with anyone, I'm breaking the letter of the law, sure, but I'm still sticking to the spirit of the law... the artists and record companies still get paid. I'm also not allowed to copy software, but I'll keep a copy of MS Office on my laptop and my home machine without feeling guilty about it. I wouldn't rob a bank with a gun, but if I'm a white collar criminal then that's ok because blue collar crime is yucky and gross. I'll also run red lights at 4:00 AM if I don't see any cars, and shoot someone in the head, as long as it's just a fucking nigger, I'll jaywalk on an empty street, and yeah... I'm more than willing to accept a BJ from my girlfriend even though it's illegal where I live, and if she's not in the mood and I have to beat the shit out of her, hell it ain't rape cause I can tell when she wants it.
If you're an ISP that doesn't filter content passing through its servers, you *are* a common carrier (and thus not liable for content passing through your pipes).
If you're actually an ISP, and don't know this, you need to seriously think about your future in the business.
"...MP3 is really not a copy of the origional song..."
.doc files) just doesn't work.
Quite correct. If I were to take somebody's hard drive and rename *.mp? to *.doc, copyright would no longer be violated because the de facto interpretation of "the music" (now a bunch of
So what am I saying? Nobody can press copyright charges until a copy is used (interpreted/decoded) because that's the only condition it can exist at where they can demonstrate copyright infringement. (Otherwise we've got "Oh, look at these 1's and 0's! Don't they sound like this optical reflection over here?")
To that end, a rose by any other name is invisible. Draw your own conclusions from there.
I suggest you start listening to artists with more musical talent.
What makes you think you don't... if you read a little back in the comments you'll see a copy of the actual text of the AHRA which specifically exempts non-commercial use... so all the stuff the RIAA wants you to believe does not apply.
.. AND FUCK HER LIKE THE BITCH SHE IS!
You guys want to hear something really obscene that should be censored? It's the torrent of filthy talk that comes out of Hilary Rosen as I've got my purple-headed warrior buried eight and a half inches up her Hershey Highway! Yeah, yeah, yeah! *slap* SOOOO-EEEEE! *oink oink oink*
not the MPAA, they want your DVDs
Well no, they want you to want their DVDs. Or, they want you to pay for their DVDs. Heck, they just want you to pay them. Same as RIAA. And drug-pushers.
This will probably be missed now but:
I saw a recordable CD article back in 1985. The magazine was sound on sound (a keyboard/recording studio rag). The manufacturer was Tandy and the price was either 300 or 500 dollars.
There are two different kinds of blank CD-Rs, the common computer ones and special audio ones. The audio CD-Rs have slightly difference specs, some difference in the lead-in area I think, so that the two types of discs can be distinguished. The standalone audio CD-R recorders require the audio CD-Rs, and the price of the audio CD-Rs includes a royalty for copying. However, as far as I know, there is no royalty on computer CD-Rs.
I mean i have copies of all kinds of music that I've burned from my CD's and wether they say it is illegal or not I am gonna continue doing it :) If i buy a book i can write in it if i feel like, does this make Karoke Illegal ?? please please please please please please
I was just talking to a friend the other day. He was getting ready to through out boxes of LP's. I mentioned to him he might want to sell them on eBay. I then said to him, "You know, it's a shame. You have purchased the right to listen to that music and just because the medium it was recorded on is worn or the player unavailable, you lose the right. You should be able to trade-up to the new format, CD, DVD whatever. The music companies keep making you buy the same stuff over and over again. Just like from VHS to DVD, audio cassette to CD. Same stuff, better quality. I think that current owners of titles should get a discount or something." We had an interesting conversation about this topic that day. Always ending, unforturnatley, in frustration! Rip on my friends!
--YOU aren't purchasing a perpetual right to the music. You're purchasing the right to listen to the music on the media you purchased it on. If your CD shatters or gets stuck in a microwave or somehting, you're not entitled to a new one. -- From the RIAA's link I am led to believe that I may copy from a Cassette Tape to Mini-Disc. Different media. What they really want to is complete control and titheing to keep them a float. They need to realize that what the consumer should be granted is more along the lines a license. Joe consumer should be granted a license to version 2.1 of the Matrix etc. Upgrade pricing may not be a bad idea either. What about $5 dollars for an upgrade to version 3.0 with deleted scenes. Hell, they would probably increase profits. But this is forward thinking and would require inovation. I don't think that they are capable. I know if I was granted a lifetime private license on content, I would buy many more dvds/cds than I do now.
speaking of copyrights, isn't your sig (c) Steven Wright? ;)
Sony is a major music distributor. I also believe that Sony is a member of the RIAA and that the RIAA claims to represent the interests of Sony. So, it would seem to me that it is in Sony's interest not to produce advertizements that go against the goals of the RIAA. Yet, that is what appears to be going on. I have heard several mini-disk commericals that talking about creating your own mix disks, reschuffling the music, removing tracks or recording them back on. It is implied that the individuals using the mini-disks are not the authors or in any other way the copyright holders of the music contained on the mini-disk. So, is Sony's commericals promoting illegal behavior?
Laws are different than software When it comes down to it, no one that can fully understand a law can also fully understand a piece of software. But the software is designed to hide the confusing details from the publuc while retaining it's usefulness. Unfortunately, laws can't be condensed because then the condenser just rewrote the law. Can anyone imagine the wording of a law that allows a person to give a brief summary of another law. "The party that passed the law, henceforth known as the party of the first part, has been given the authority to reject the summary written by the party that wishes to add a summary, henceforth known as the party of the second part, if .........."
BTW I blame all spellinf errors on this damnable Sun Keybpard...
Do you need to know if you have the right to place a nude sculpture on your front lawn against the will of your neighbors? Do you need to know how many signatures they need on a petition to get you to remove it? Most people don't.
I'm not saying there aren't way too many criminal laws. I'm just saying that there aren't necessarily as many as you think.
My name is Amadou. You have probably heard my story by now. I was shot to death by plainclothes N.Y. police officers for fitting the 'description' of a rapist. That is to say I was a person with dark skin. I was shot because my skin color mistakenly identified me as someone who might possess a gun and attempt to shoot police officers. I had no gun. I had no gun and now I am dead because I was unfortunate enough to have dark skin color matching that of a rapist. The New York police officers believed I would shoot them because of my skin color. The belief of danger means the four police officers were legally entitled to shoot me 41 times. I am dead. I had no gun. I was not a rapist. The police officers who shot me are found NOT GUILTY of any of the charges brought against them arising out of my murder. I was unfortunate enough to have dark skin and to find myself in front of a firing squad of white police officers who mistook me for a rapist with a gun about to shoot them. I still have dark skin but now I am dead. The officers walk free. They can shoot you next. They need only believe you to be a threat. I hope that you do not have dark skin. Mistakes are made. People are killed. In New York shots are fired first, questions are asked later.
No, they are everything but dumb. This whole issue is all about control. You are allowed to copy as long as they control the hard-/soft/whaterver-ware you do the copy with - as long as they control every aspect. This issue is presented in a way (on their web site) to put FUD into the heart of people... fear so they can be controlled, uncertainty so they do not know they their choices are and doubt to shadow the 'true' motives of the companies. "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them"
Very likely not. You've gone and changed the music, thereby making a derivative work because the MP3 encoding is not a 100% pure reformatting due to MP3's lossiness. Just taking a CDDA/WAV and making something else out of it would likely be legal as long as (1) you didn't use both of them simultaneously, and (b) the transformation was lossless. "Item changes fundamentally in transformation" is the key here IMO.
I really, really doubt that the "lossiness" of making an MP3 triggers a "transformation". In copyright law, a "transformation" is more than some mechanical change, it's got to be a "creative" transformation. Copyright only protects original expression, and the diff in original expression between an MP3 and it's source is nil; no diff = no derivative work. Q.E.D.
Two things: 1. That FCC document was a piece of self-congratulating horseshit. 2.Pick and choose your customers? I would think most ISP's take all the customers they can get.
Not again!
/. talks about laws, someone has to come out with some comment on how they are are "horribly persecuted" by Quebec language laws.
...it would probably be re-introduced automatically with the same wording unless there is the will and the time to re-write the whole thing. Not a very good solution.
Every time
This is getting tedious and furthermore it is OFF TOPIC (GRR...).
Get it straight. These laws are fair in respect with the fact that a 80% french majority requires business to AT LEAST give minimum services in french. That's what these language laws are all about and they are there because they work.
I have a hard time with people who are offendend with the Audio Home Recording Act (which is a horrible piece of legislation that protects mainly corporative interests) and slam laws like bill 101 in Quebec (that is a much better piece of legislation that actually helps out a whole culture from being drowned by the pressures of the global market).
Now that that's out of the way, let's get back on topic:
If you do have expiring laws, they have no value if, like it is the case with the Audio Home Recording Act, they claim to "tolerate" the act of copying copyrighted material.
What the word "tolerate" really means is that you need to get approval for it to be considered legal, which is, in a certain way, exactly what the RIAA and the industry wants. NO RIGHTS to customers, ALL RIGHTS to record company. It also means they reserve themselves the right to hit when they want and how they want if they are not satisfied with the way the copying is done. Hence the law is really a blank check.
Ok. Let's say the law expires after X years
I say we should demand for a clear wording of the law: "copying of copyrighted material IS PERMITTED for personnal use".
And if we cannot get the clear wording, I say we should refrain from buying music that is bound by such laws.
Obi Wan Celeri (connected as Anonymous Coward because of his geographic position)
There must be some happy median, somewhere.
There is! Out on I-5, north of Barstow. Happiest damn median you've ever seen.
/.
I've seen CD's that have fine print on the back saying you arent allowed to lend them out.
There's also the arrangement. Also, the performance itself isn't copyrightable, it's the sound recording of the performance that's copyrighted.
What a crock.
> Can anyone even proove if a CD copy was made from a stand alone CD-R vs one hooked up to a computer?
yes, the physical media itself is different, to prevent you from using a data CD-R in a standalone recorder.
> am I lawbreaker just by using their software to play CDs?
The law exempts computers.
The RIAA doesn't like you, because they would like you to pay them every time you listen to a song.
If you believe in the ethical theory of copyrights, then all you should care about is _use_ (listening) to a recording. If you bought a recording you have bought the right to listen to it, but not the right to give a copy to a friend, or to let your whole famility in 5 different states listen to it at the same time.
(by law, your family can listen to it in the same room with you, as long as that room is not a "public" place...)
There is no cabal.
Well by law not quite-- you don't have the right to copy it and give it to other people, and if you resell you must transfer, you can't keep a copy for yourself. You also don't have the right to use the recording for commercial purposes, such as being a DJ. (in practice though, DJs don't get sued because they don't have any money anyway-- but the RIAA has gone after club owners for royalty payments) But the RIAA and others would like you to have even less rights than that.
The RIAA has forgotten that existing copyright laws allow those who purchase a licence (buy a CD, cassette, Album) to make ONE backup copy for archival purposes only. If your archival backup method happens to be on cassette, dat, MP3 or whatever, the RIAA cannot legally stop you from making that backup. I think the RIAA has overstepped thier bounds. I'd like to see what happens to someone ripping thier CD into MP3s and calling it a legal backup. The RIAA will have a TOUGH time prosecuting!
No, No, You are wrong...
Sorry, but do I really have to care about this? Who's going to check all the private PC's for copied music. And if there is this Problem in US what about Europe?
> This part of the bill must have been overturned. Here is a device that, in addition to converting
> digital formats, will set the SCMS bits to whatever you want
(link to Midiman digital audio adapter)
That is classified as a "professional" device, and so is not held to the terms of the law.
SCMS isn't really a bad thing at all, but it loses relevance when digital audio is more and more a computer thing. The problem is the "future" schemes (like SDMI), which are really just plans for government-imposed monopolies on technology standards.
(SCMS is just a simple variable stored in the audio stream that says "copyrighted or not", it's easy to make a program obey it, open source is no problem, and no one will really argue about it. SDMI, on the other hand, will be like DVD, "secure" only in as much as it is secret, probably patented, and will basically amount to a requirement that all manufacturers pay a huge sum to whatever group "owns" it.-- this also will destroy the possibility of open source)
> Since it is very hard to get your hands on original digital copies of the songs you want to
> listen to this means you can't make MP3 copies of songs for any reason.
Um no, if your argument was true then you couldn't make CD copies with the Philips recorder either, since you aren't using a "original digital copy".
> The justification for distribution of MP3 files on the internetwas so new artists could cheaply
> distribute their songs over the internet.
mp3 is just a file format, it's not an ethical question. You can do anything you want with it, including distribute the files over the internet, provided you don't break other laws.
The current problem with mp3 files is copyright infringement, but it doesn't have anything to do with the format itself.
> That's why web pages that distribute "Indie" songs ask you to download it from their site and
> not get it from a friend.
Some do some don't. There are a lot of spoken word recordings that are freely distributable, open source interviews, etc.
More likely they are interested in tracking interest in their songs--- the real solution is to come up with a new format for audio that displays "cover art" including information about the band, whenever the music is played.
Direct link to there.. This link will allow you post to the boxster board through anonymizer.
I am not actually planning on wasting time going to the RIAA's website, but did they really say that copying music "hurts the bands you love"? that is a bunch of BS. I wouldn't have even heard of many of the bands I listen to had it not been for illegal digital copies like mp3s and to a lesser extent real audio. I think there should be a free music(arts) foundation thad be cool if it had half the success of the fsf.
After x years the law should be reviewed and determined if it is still relevant to society, on a state level and a national. IMHO that is what is needed in this country (USA) or any country. That would settle the matter of the "pile up" of laws.
Slashdot wasn't reponding for a while with netscape and so I got a little irritated loaded after almost more than 50 seconds (neat little lynx add on).
Of course the home recording act or whatever it's called will never prevent me from ripping my cd's--they'll stop me from doing that when they pry my PLEXTOR from my cold dead fingers...
Your offer is acceptable
--RIAA
Notice that some media would be OK (mini disc, DAT, stand alone CD-R's), while computer CD-R's and other "digital recorders" are not. Also notice that the supported formats are supported by companies with ties to the recording industry (Sony-mini disc, Phillips-stand alone CD-r's). What I find most amazing about this is that this was supposedly passed in 1992? That shows amazing foresight on the part of the record industry if it is indeed true. Most of us were probably just learning about CD's in 92, let alone MP3's and such.
I think part of this had to do with no royalties being paid for CDR Drives or something. (I think I saw something at RIAA's web about royalties being paid by manufacturers of tape recorders and stuff.
But now that us Canadians are paying an extra 6.2 cents (or something to that effect) for our cd-r's and 60 cents for minidiscs and so on, bitching about no royalties is no longer valid...
(anyone have the time or concern to follow up on this? Thanks, I'm in a rush...)
-goon(ty)
Woohoo! I'm 68% Slashdot Pure!!!
Interesting that the RIAA is based in Washington DC and not in L.A. where most of the labels are.
That's because she's paid to be a corporate steamroller and take back rights from citizens to the powers that be. I gave her a piece of my mind in email, complete with attatchments (pictures are worth a thousand words,) and encourage everyone else show how much she is appreciated as the mouthpiece for organized greed.
TIVO is not an exact digital copy of a broadcast either. Its an MPEG2 stream which looks good but is not an exact copy. OTOH neither is a copy of a cd to a cdr since most cds dont rip tracks exactly - hence the need for jitter correction and/or different ripping modes to try to overlay sectors of the cd to get the best sound. still isnt a perfect copy.
By that analogy, also make sure to note that MP3 is a lossy compression scheme. It's not a perfect copy either, though the sound is of reasonable quality.
Whoever posted about how you stoll the new Porsche and drove it off a bridge.. excellent! Liked how you threw in the cops too. The responses are really funny.. continue the good work, don't be too obvious, they delete messages.
new to slashdot?
What a lot of companies in the music/video/software industry don't seem to realize is that when I buy these products I own them, including rights to copy, resell, modify as I see fit. The products I buy are mine. What I do with them is my business!
In fact you are not allowed to destroy the painting, not even modifiy it.
You can't modifiy the painting because the IP law says you must keep the integrity of the painting.
For the picture of you room, I can't rembember,
but I wouldn't bet you can do whatever you want.
If you really don't want the painting anymore, you must ask the painter for the permission to destroy it or propose to sell it back to him at the only cost of the material.
The only exception is architecture. You do what you want with your building without asking the architect.
The simple fact is that whatever the law SAYS it what the law IS.
Yes, but the rights he mentioned are in the law! It is legal, but the RIAA is bullshitting.
#include "redeemer.h"
#include "aim.h"
#include "booom.h"
Note that when you go through the anonymizer site, the perl scripts on boxster.net will add a "http://www.anonymizer.com" to the subject so you merely have to remove this before submitting your message. If you don't this your message will look blatant. ;-)
The answer to this question can only be found in the land of our ancestors. The place where one and one still equal two people sitting in a boat in the middle of a turbulant ocean, clinging together for safety from the preying eyes of vultures circling widly, gnashing teeth, cruel intentions laid bare for all to see. Still one must consider the neutral parties, their precise non-seletion holding more weight than the haughty upperclass, who believe that money crowns those who bow to it, rather than free will and honest intentions. Glorious steeds, racing along the horizon, chasing the stars. We cannot allow those few who have short-sighted logic to foul the air which all must breathe.
b) Development of verification procedure The Secretary of Commerce shall establish a procedure to verify, upon the petition of an interested party, that a system meets the standards set forth in subsection (a)(2). It seems to me that a great form of protest would be to find laws written like this and overload a particular branch of government with requests. It wouldn't necessarily have to be the Secretary of Commerce. It could even be the court system.
poor record companies are sooo pooor, that if you rip CDs onto your drives, the record company presidents will be kicked out of their homes in monte carlo or whereever and forced to live on the street begging for $$ (we all know thats about all they could do besides being a fat-cat).
:) )
Bull sh*t! The record companies are basically just leeches on society, making money off of musicians and people who (for the most part) are very talented performers, if not talented artists.
I get most of my music from amp3.com, as they seem to have lots of great indie music (lotsa techno
I wish there was a way to kick the RIAA square in the nads, but I guess laws are the only way
"There is no spoon"-Neo, The Matrix
"SPOOOOOOOOON!"-The Tick, The Tick
is fun.
do it more.
-ed
this
As I read this I see:
(score:4 Redundant)
To who ever moderated this:
IT'S A FIRST POST YOU MORON!!! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR IT TO BE REDUNDANT
Good Lord! Get a clue!
There's no way I'm going to delete all of my MP3's anyways, and I doubt it'll convince anyone else to either.
Strange! I see the same banners. Junkbuster is great, even if I could never recommend it to a newbie. I have been thinking of using it for a prank however. You could proxy the victim's browser to a modified junkbuster server that would redirect every 1x1 gif to some nasty pr0n banners. I can hear the alarm bells now:
Even CNN has these filthy ads for Goat Porn. The internet is really going downhill. I better call my congressman.
You are wrong in what you are saying. An MP3 does NOT give you a perfect reproduction of the original. If you compress a CD Audio Track into MP3 format, you loose sound quality. Ask any audiophile, we can usually still tell the difference between a CD audio track and the MP3 file, even at 256kbps. Here is my point. Take a CD audio track. Make an MP3 file of it, and pass it on. Right there, you are loosing quality. This person takes the file and converts it to a CD audio track. Someone takes that, and decides to make an MP3 of this. You loose more quality. In other words, this is no different from copying an analog copy. Second, there IS degrations in digital Copies. I forgot what this is called, but what happens is that as you copy a copy in digital format, weird variences happen, and can cause data to be miscopied. Eventually, these little errors make it to where the file is unreadable. I have seen this happen myself.
I have chimed in on slashdot on this issue before, but it a point that is worth making again and again until people "get it".
MP3's allow for the possibility of cutting the music industry out of the game. Until the advent of the internet the only possible distibution channel for recorded music was so prohibitively costly that it required large and wealthy corporations to be involved. Now for around a couple thousand a year you can contract a provider to host a web site and sufficient storage space to distribute 100s of hours of your music all across the globe. You better believe that the record companies are afraid of this!.
Now, you do make a good point when you state that mom and pop don't listen to tunes on WinAmp, but downloadable digital music is in its infancy. If this technology is allowed to prosper I doubt that the preferred method of distibution will remain downloads from websites. I see more consumer friendly internet music appliances becoming the standard--something like a Tivo which connects through your cable/dsl/??? line and pugged into your stereo/home entertainment center. But this will never come to be if the recording industry manages to hijack this technology and kill it or reimplement it in a fashion which protects their continued centrality.
Of course, this would also require a change in both the thinking of consumers and music producers. Both have been brainwashed by the recording industry into believing only mega-hits and mega-stars are of any significance. I would like to see the MP3 phenomenom usher in a rebirth in live music. Already under the current system only the biggest of bands make money on the sale of recorded music--and only if it is their 2nd or 3rd hit. Most bands are already in essence giving away their music--but to the recording industry not consumers--so convincing recording artists to consider recorded music as a loss leader or promotion for their live performances shouldn't be too hard. As I have said many times before the perfect example of this principle in action was the Grateful Dead. Only one album of theirs ever hit the top 40, but they are one of the highest money making bands of all time primarily because they allowed their music to be freely recorded and distibuted.
On a side note, the last time I posted this opinion I mentioned an article by Steve Albini which I have since located. For those not in the know Steve is a big time music producer (Nirvana & Cheap Trick just to name a couple) who got his start as the frontman for one of the most out there and ahead of it's time punk bands: Big Black. This thing is a must read for anyone who does not know how fucked up the music industry is.
I am a lawyer. This is total nonsense.
1. The act doesn't prohibit you from doing any copying that you were entitled to do before the act passed. It only outlaws the manufacture and importation of certain devices.
2. About the only thing that is correct in this pipe-dream is that multipurpose devices, such as computer CD-RW drives, are wholly outside of its provisions.
3. The act does not affect legitimate fair use time-shifting or space-shifting. In nonlawyerese, this means that you may transfer a copy that you have purchased into another medium for personal use without infringing copyright, and thus without the permission of the copyright holder. The claim that all copying without permission is infringement is total nonsense.
These and other errors in this piece are not the result of stupidity. This is a concerted campaign of disinformation aimed at altering public perception of the scope of copyright with the long term goal of abolishing fair use. Neither this law, nor the DMCA, abolished your right to do as you please with a copy that you have legitimately obtained for purposes of noninfringing fair use. Read the legislative history, and you'll see. But that doesn't stop the Jack Valenti's of the world from claiming they did, and branding everyone who disagrees a pirate.
The only folks actively opposing the 1992 act were the folk in r.m.gdead. They had a legitimate reason to use DAT to propagate band approved concert tapes without frequency loss from here to eternity.
The whole notion that we should pay taxes to Corporations like the RIAA for the legitimate use of our equipment on the presumption of illegal use is repulsive to American law.
Instead the RIAA went for a law that discriminated against the DAT, a format which is different from the computer DDS and created an Internet phenomenon that won't go away until they can supplant the needs of the masses for their needs to access just what they have been marketed by the RIAA and their cronies instead of the products which the RIAA and their cronies push upon consumers now.How nice of the RIAA to digest the law for us and tell us what they think it means. Of course, they didn't bother to provide any links to the actual text of the relevant laws so that people who are truly interested in understanding the law can read it and make up their own mind.
I've dropped a line to the legal department (amorrisso@riaa.com) and media relations (lepelliccia@riaa.com) contacts explaining that providing the legal texts in addition to their interpreatations would be more appropriate. Perhaps a few more voices would be helpful in convincing them to do so.
Analog recordings (audio tapes) are allowed because future generation copies (copies of copies of copies...) are of slightly lower quality than the previous generation. Eventually, you copies are so bad that you can't listen to them.
Digital copies, however, are different. There is no signal degradation in future generations, no matter how far along in the chain you go. Some CD copiers (like the Phillips one we all see on TV so often) do not allow third generation copies to be made... you can't make a copy of a copy. Thus, even if one copy is pirated, the piracy can go no further.
Personally, I don't give a shit. I follow laws not necessarily to the letter, but more to the spirit of the law. The copyright laws exist to prevent piracy and to make sure the artists get paid. Fine. If I rip my CDs to my hard drive and don't share them with anyone, I'm breaking the letter of the law, sure, but I'm still sticking to the spirit of the law... the artists and record companies still get paid. I'm also not allowed to copy software, but I'll keep a copy of MS Office on my laptop and my home machine without feeling guilty about it. I'll also run red lights at 4:00 AM if I don't see any cars, I'll jaywalk on an empty street, and yeah... I'm more than willing to accept a BJ from my girlfriend even though it's illegal where I live. I'm not saying I'm in favor of anarchy here... I'm just saying that some laws are well intentioned, but go to far. If anyone wants to fine me for ripping my CDs for my own personal use, (and they can legally obtain proof,) fine. I take the tickets for running the stop lights at 4:00 AM, I accept the consequences for going 80 in a 65, and I'll deal with it when I get run over by a truck while jaywalking. Screw the RIAA and their silly laws.
This may seem dumb but...
Music is an art form - like painting...
If I buy a painting - I then own the painting and can do whatever I want with it, regardless of the wishes of anyone but myself.
I can destroy the painting by fire or blade. (although this would be a waste of art)
I can sell the painting to whomever I wish, and charge whatever price I want. If I paid $20 for it, but Bobby wants to buy it from me for $40 - so much the better for me.
I can grab a few crayons and draw all over the painting. I could even grab some paint and paint right over the top of it if I was so inclined.
I can hang it on the wall of my living room, and take a picture of the room it's in, then send that picture to my friends and family to show them what a snazzy living room I have.
I can do this on super high grain film if I so desire.
I can scan the picture of my living room into my computer and put it up on the web for all who care to see it. (Admittedly, it's a picture of a living room and not many people are going to want to look at the living room of a poor working web developer - but I *CAN* do it.)
Music is art as well. Shouldn't it be the same?
I don't have time to read the other posts, so sorry if someone covered this already.
The short answer to it is - yes, that's exactly what the act states.. in fact, not only are you NOT allowed to copy it to your computer, but you can't copy it AT ALL.
I spent some time trying to figure it out a few years ago, but there's basically 3 different types of copywrites, and the one that concerns the physical rights states that you're allowed to own the physical copy, but you can't make any physical duplicates. meaning that it's allowed to exist on the CD or tape that you purchase, and no other place without express permission from the owner of the physical rights, I think the physical rights belong to the record company.
Although, at one point (about a year and a half ago) the RIAA released a statement saying that they wouldn't prosecute anyone who wanted to make a personal copy of a song (or CD) that they owned onto a computer in digital format, as long as they weren't distributing the files..
although, just to point out again.. there really is nothing to keep them from prosecuting someone who has copies of their own songs, because the license just plain doesn't give you the right to do it.. The music industry is living in their own little world of licensing rights.. and.. oh what a messed up world it is!
>> For instance, you can make analog cassette tape
>>recordings of music from another analog
>>cassette, or from a CD or from the radio...
and yet you are legally able to copy songs off of the radio...
isn't the internet carried on radio waves for atleast one of it's links? so we are just making "coppies" of data transmitted over the "radio". therefore, mp3's are legal, so long as the data has traveled over a radio link.
all the more reason to get a packet radio ethernet card.
-red
It's corruption masquerading as capitalism and the RIAA, the Home Recording Act, and the DMCA should all be terminated with extreme prejudice.
Can anyone even proove if a CD copy was made from a stand alone CD-R vs one hooked up to a computer?
Technically, yes they can. A digital copy of a digital recording is going to have precisely the same pattern of 0's and 1's that the original did. This is in the same way that taking a tar file and digitally copying/burning it from one cd to another is going to produce an exact copy. An analog copy, on the other hand, will always produce a small amount of noise and other types of interference that could be noticed in a direct comparison.
So can it be tested when it was a digital copy? Yes
Unfortunately, the big companies see a huge opportunity to control distribution of digital content, something they were unable accomplish as effectivey back in the analog days.
--David
What is the big difference between a stand alone CD recorder and one that is hooked up to a computer? (other than the price of CD-Rs I understand)
The difference is that the manufacturer of the former must pay a tax for each such device manufactured, and by doing so and making the device respect anti-copying measures, they're legally entitled to sell it as a device for copying. Users of such a device are specifically legally entitled to copy digital audio to "audio" CD-Rs.
This particular law does *not* say what the rules are for CD-ROMs, VCRs, TiVo, and the like, for that one would have to read other laws regarding copyright and what restrictions are placed on the licensee.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
That's because the CD contained proprietary software (MetroX, maybe something else). You could download the free stuff from their ftp server and redistribute it as much as you liked, but not the official CD itself.
--
Change is inevitable.
Progress is not.
>.>.If I OWN the music
>.Unless you are the copyright holder, you do NOT own the music. You own the media the music is on, and you have a license to play the music. Very similar to a software license.
I didn't sign any contract. I purchased copyrighted material, and my usage rights and usage limitations are covered under federal copyright law.
I understand your point, but as long as we are playing language lawyer (doh- I guess this is playing _real_ lawyer :) ) I figured I'd lay down my clarification.
I feel utterly unable to comment on AHRA, but I feel confident that if the MPAA took me to court concerning my CDs which have been MP3ed on my computer and aren't shared with the world, I would win.
But then, I guess the courts could find me wrong. :) For me, the risk is worth it.
Pax -- Ob
I've been tossing this idea around for quite a while.
When you are engaging in a transaction that entails a hidden contract that reduces your rights provided to you under federal law, you should be fully informed before you make such a decision.
In many of the cases of concern to me, there is asymmetric information where (unsurprisingly) the larger entity (usually seller) has the ability to obtain this information, but the smaller entity does not. This seems to be exascerbated (I'm mangling that spelling) by our legal system which seems to spiral into complexity.
Caveat Emptor. We generally push the burden of obtaining information onto the purchaser, but there are exceptions to this in other places where there are large information asymmetries (lemon laws, etc).
Maybe in the future intellectual property will pick up its share of consumer protection laws- right now, It really feels like consumers are getting screwed. Even if the consumer never planned on archiving their own DVDs, they are being hurt by the DMCA which will effectively stop cheap burners from hitting the market since it effectively limits competition and allows the CCA to create a cartel of solution providers.
Pax -- Ob
Quite frankly, you're correct, but I still take offense to the idea that it's illegal for me to stick a CD that I've purchased in my CD-ROM drive, fire up MusicMatch Jukebox, rip the CD, and send the whole kit-n-kaboodle to my Rio.
Now, AFAIK although IANAL, if one were to use CDPARANOIA, then send the output to Notlame, then send the output to riotools, all using pipes, then this *would* be OK, since the data is never *stored* in my computer, and there was a bargain between Diamond and the RIAA regarding the legality of a device that can store MP3s.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
You can't modifiy the painting because the IP law says you must keep the integrity of the painting.
The moral rights provisions only apply to public exhibition and public performance - and only in a limited set of circumstances. If you want to deface a painting in the privacy of your own home, that's your business.
Nothing in the AHRA takes away the rights you have under the fair use doctrine. Just because the AHRA doesn't apply to a given case doesn't mean you don't have the right to record. The fair use doctrine still lets you make a working copy or a backup copy. Courts have also interpreted it as allowing time-shifting (recording TV shows to watch later) and space-shifting (recording music onto a portable device like the Rio).
The RIAA's web page on this matter is pure propaganda. Compare it to Nintendo's "emulation is illegal" web page which is still online despite the recent contrary precedent set by Sony v. Connectix. They're just trying to deceive and frighten you.
Actually, the disc doesn't even need the little ©, according to the Berne convention (of which the US is a signatory.) Copyright is automatic - it has been the default in the US since April 1, 1989.
Let's state an obvious goal: Musicians want to make money doing the thing they love.
Let's state an obvious fact: Record Companies want to make money.
Breaking copyright is a simple issue: If you are distributing copies of any material that you don't hold copyright to, and you are not compensating the copyright holder at an agreed upon rate, you are breaking the law, and ripping off the copyright holder. Fair use is reasonable, and prevents dilution, i.e. if they had to procescute for every copy made not for compensation, either copyright would fade as a protection, or the courts would be jammed forever.
The fact that the recipient of most of the money are the record companies bears no relation on he question, even morally. The record companies are basicly bound by law to be profit seeking pigs. Failure to do their utmost can get them sued by the shareholders.
The fact that many of them are ripping off the artists also bears no relation. That's between the artist and the company. (Over time, things are changing. More artists are insisting on retaining their copyrights.)
It doesn't matter how much of the money from the record sales goes to whom. If you are distributing perfect copies of copyrighted material, you are ripping off the artist.
It costs an immense amount of money to produce an album. The biggest pop albums cost upwards of $200,000 just to get a master, and then you have the media production, advertising, etc. If CD's can be ripped and easily found on napster, say, The sales will drop, and the artists get less, and they may not get produced at all.
It's just like sanctions against Iraq.
Technology is enabling artists to get exposed more easily, and this is good for the art. But there is a cost to everything, and artists want to eat. Make sure you think about the whole picture. Even with todays amazingly cheap technology, the get an album with the production values of say Santanna's album costs large dollars, way out of hobby range. And being a fantastic musician general doing nothing else, so it must make you a living.
And let's face it, if you can only make $5000 a year producing music, as opposed to $90,000 being a sys admin, which one is going to be the hobby?
And which one will be of lesser quality?
The RIAA might be lying about things, and if they are they are wrong. But as you make your decisions about what you will do, don't forget to pay the artists their due.
All the technology in the world won't hide your lack of vision, talent, or understanding.
You're explicitly allowed to make backups under copyright law - licenses have nothing to do with it. So sayeth the Supreme Court.
;)
So of course - if I don't agree to the EULA and manage to install it anyway (using some sort of extraction program, I'd guess), I'm limited only by copyright law. I don't think that you have to agree to the EULA to use it, unless that was a prerequisite to *buying* it. Once you buy it though, go wild. Sadly, DMCA might fsck this up.
IANAL, so corrections are sullenly accepted
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
So what if it changes? Digital -> Analog conversions change the content as well and have been legal for a long time (and are not even being debated).
I really doubt that it could be considered derivative - it's an inherent limitation to the shifting mechanism.
As for ignoring the issue because you won't get caught, that's a lame argument. The RIAA et al are moving to enforce their brand of controls at very high levels. If they do so, we won't even have the ability to do this - legal or not. Copyrights mustn't be extended to the point where they either eliminate fair use or cut it off at the pass (as in the DVD cases)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Backup copies of computer programs are explicitly permitted by Title 17, United States Code, Section 117 a 1. (meaning that you're allowed to make a backup if you own a copy of some software, if you don't agree to a license that revokes your legal rights - even if it substitutes them)
But I could have sworn that the archiving thing has in fact come up. I need to dig around a little more. Wish that LEXIS didn't have the law so fscking locked up (there's a good Wired article on this some years back. Awful shit, believe you me)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Well, they only make money because it is assumed that music will be pirated from them (which doesn't make much sense if you're an independent musician who wants to copy his own music and has nothing to do with the RIAA)
Well if I'm paying for something, why can't that constitute a transaction giving me free license to copy stuff - it's not my fault that the RIAA tax is set very low.
Obviously I know that that doesn't hold much water, but I'd rather not have the tarriff at all than have a sufficiently large tarriff to repay them (and I somehow doubt that their figures are being independently appraised) and still violate perfectly honest uses of media.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Anyway, you're not entirely right. First posts cannot be redundant in the context of the article, but in the context a larger set of articles, they can be. This one clearly isn't, though.
Also, while it can be satisfying to shout off insults to poeple who seem to so richly deserve them, it can be embarrassing if it turns out that they were uncalled for. For instance, if the moderator in this case simply made a mistake and later posts an apology, undoing his moderation.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
That is incorrect. Software is under copyright law. The "licence" that accompanies the software (really, it's more like a unilateral contract), is valid only insofar that it restates the copyright law. If the licence says something like "if you use this product you must also buy Microsoft Word and get a lobotomy", it is full of shit.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Actually, that's TIHKAL, not PIHKAL. It's the introduction to appendix B (page 592).
Then again..the discordians among us would point out that we are in the age of Beuracracy....
Hail Eris!
Amiga - Back for the future!
"...establish a procedure to verify...that a system meets the standards..."
Doesn't say they have to do it for free, so I expect you'll have to pay a more than nominal fee to obtain verification that the system in question meets those standards, and seeing as how it says "...upon the petition of an interested party..." you'll probably have to pay a lawyer to file the papers as well. You may well overload your wallet before overloading some particular branch of government.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The R.I.A.A. is worried about what they consider to be their rights. They probably aren't particularly worried about yours, or whatever difficulties enforcing their rights would cause you.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
This just isn't true. Any legal system based upon English Law is based upon a system of precedents. Dumb automata don't have precendents.
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Audio CD-R disks (or the stand-alone recorder, can't remember which anymore) are designed to allow only 2 generations of copies to exist.
You can only copy 'master' CDs, you can't duplicate non-masters.
Computer component CD-Rs do not have this restriction.
- Anil
The *REAL* reason they don't want you to make
digital copies of digital source has nothing to do with piracy. They want to ensure that eventually, when a new media format arrives, you are not allowed to take your existing media and copy it to the new format. The music industry has made a TREMENDOUS amount of money from people buying on CD music they already owned on LP/8Track/Cassette.
If there is a new format (and internet distribution counts as a new format), they want to make sure they can sell it as such. Whether they have a leg to stand on or not must be left to the lawyers.
http://slashdot.org/co mments.pl?sid=00/03/05/2327247&cid=264
It sounds like Windows...
--
Oh, great, so we'll have to be the butt of programmer jokes...
--
False. They are the same thing. Both are rules meant to be executed precisely by dumb automaton. In one case, you have computers, and in the others, you have lawyers, judges and policemen.
--
It's the same thing. Except that one has been around for thousands of years more than the other...
--
How about a recording off satellite using the JVC DVHS integrated unit from echostar. The digital signal is recorded before decoding. The playback is identical to the initial delivery from the satellite.
The difference, so far as the recording industry is concerned, is that they've accounted for some piracy already... That price is passed on to consumers in the form of taxes on Audio CD recorders, Tape Recorders, Blank Audio CD-R's, and blank tapes... They make a little money from those sales which theoretically offsets the money they'll lose from some of them being used for illegal purposes. They receive nothing for computer CD-R's, because a lot of people will cry foul if they have to pay a tax to RIAA for something that may not ever touch an audio CD.
That's the difference. And it's signed into law.
You're missing a distinction. A painting is a unique physical piece of work. Once you've bought it, it's your property. You can decide who gets to see it, under what circumstance they can see it, etc. Music is not "unique". You can buy it, but you're not really purchasing the music itself, but the right to listen to it.
You can not duplicate a painting 100% perfectly. You can duplicate software and digital music 100% perfectly.
Just like software. How come it's easy to understand what software license allow, but not to understand what an audio CD is and represents. It's the SAME ExACT ISSUE.
If you don't like the terms is being given to you on, find a new band to listen to that's sigend to a different label that allows you to do what you want. Make your own label, and try to convince bands to sign up... Then wince when your policy to allow MP3's comes back to bite you when you realize that it is actually a bit harder to make money now...
To recant... The artists should be allowed to control their works... They unfortunately signed away some of their control to record companies for things like cash advances, advertising, and pressing... What they gave to the record company for that was the exclusive right to decide how to distribute their music. They never gave that right to you.
It's not the interface. Ever use higher end software and notice that it says that a copyright bit exists or doesn't? Ever wonder what that's there for?
An audio cd burner will read that, and if it is, will write a separate bit to the CD stating that it's a copy and not an original. Thereafter, other audio CD burners will see that the cd they're trying to copy is a copy and not an original and therefore refuse to copy the CD a second time.
Prevents copies of copies.... That's what they're really trying to stop. If everyone that bought a CD could make one copy, they'ed be fine. But if one person that buys a CD can make 500,000 copies of it, they've got some problems.... Not saying that is a regular occurance or anything. But computer users refused to pay an added tax to the recording industry, and therefore aren't afforded some of the "rights" that audiophiles might have... Even if they are physically capable of doing the same exact thing.
No... It also exists to pay the artists for making the music...
We're not socialist over here in the States, which means that there's not much in the way of funds coming from the government to put food on the tables of all the starving artists/musicians that would be created if they saw no revenue from their efforts.
Yeah, TV does suck... Especially that show! Tom Green on the other hand... well, he's a different story.
/. :) that use mp3's more or less legitatmately, but the rest of the world isn't nearly as concerned with copyrights, piracy, etc....
But back on subject.
I think personally that you're buying into the slashdot hype without looking around too much... I'm not in college, but i have a step brother that goes to one in New York and I live in MA, which is chalk full of colleges. My step comes back from college asking if i've heard of MP3's, telling me about how he know a LOT of kids on campus that have literally hundreds of gigs of MP3s, that are so far as he says, not there's to have....
I think that the reality with mp3's is, unfortunately, there are the few people (mostly seem to be around
Are you tryng to just poke holes in a non-perfect example?
It's different if you take a CD you bought and sell that CD than if you buy a CD, make copies of that CD and either sell or give them away.
It really doesn't seem that hard to understand.
As I understand, it was debated in the early days of the formation of the U.S. govt. to have another house of congress devoted to removing laws. Too bad they didn't go through with it.
There are just too many laws today. And then there are those who think you can never have enough laws, that "progress" in government is the piling on of more and more rules for us to follow. This would make Jefferson roll over in his grave. Meanwhile, we create more and more laws, providing fertile ground for more and more lawyers, and we can't get enough smart people to write code or teach our children.
That government is best which governs least.
Slashdot: Liberal News for Nerds. Liberal Stuff that Matters.
Well put. /. should do more reporting, more reports by individuals in the know.
I have asked RIAA in Denmark about what was legal, and what wasn't.
They practically said that copying is illegal on every digital media *because* it is a digital copy and therefore is a bit for bit copy (and will not decrease in quality). Included in this is also minidisc!
Sony and others will gladly sell me a relative expensive minidisc recorder, and at the same time they say that it is illegal to use it to take a copy of the music I bought from them!
It is only analog recordings on tape cassettes etc. which is legal (because the quality is decreasing every you play the tape).
The "problem" is that Minidisc isn't a bit for bit copy - actually minidisc cuts about 70% (or something like that) away.
It the same for MP3 - it cut a lot of details away.
Furthermore, you can make analog copies to both minidisc and onto your harddrive, then it is deffinately not a bit for bit copy.
That I used as arguments in my answer back to RIAA (named KODA in Denmark), but I didn't get an answer, allthough they asked me to reply if I had futher questions...
Yeah, I agree that the music industry is full of crap. Did you ever wonder why there have to be Stars in the music industry? Because if there weren't, Sony/Warner/EMI would never be able to MASS PRODUCE and MASS MARKET prerecorded media. That's the reason there are stars. Not because of talent or public taste. Long live garage bands, folk music, and home-made demo tapes!!
"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. "
Read it as two sentences:
(according to the explicit rules of this language called English)
1. 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.
2. No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium [as stated above] for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
So, everyone that believes the RIAA is right is misinterpreting this passage, by a very simple error. The act (as seen in reconstruction #2) explicitly exempts consumers from ANY action of the act provided they used it for noncommercial uses. This does NOT mean that the copies are fair use, but it does mean that no laws are broken with regard to copyright protection.
I use MP3's so I can keep all my CD's in my car and not have to walk them back and forth from the house just to listen to my music. How is this hurting the RIAA? I have personally spent more on music annually since I began using MP3's than I ever did before.
True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
Actually, it seems like the difference is that
1) Audio-only equiptment manufacturers have to pay some sort or fee to the record companies to "compensate them" for the "lost revenue" due to distributing copies.
2) Audio-only devices have some system built in that determines whether the source disc is an original or a copy. This is to avoid serial copying. Using the system, it is possible to duplicate the original, but not the duplicate.
I never bothered to set up junkbuster. I just added all the ad servers I've run into to my /etc/hosts pointing to 127.0.0.1. I then set up a web server that sends out a 1x1 transparent image no matter what the request. Slashdot's ad servers are anoying in that I have to use aliasing on my loopback device since they specify the IP numbers in the URL instead of a hostname.
There are a few sites left that have their ads on the same server as their content, but they are rare.
Not being an expert (IANAL) I couldn't tell if the law dose or dosn't say what is clammed.
:)
However rember who is making the clame.. chances are good the source is full of it..
If this WAS the correct translation of the law then I submit the music industry is using an obsolte busness modle and needs such laws to stay alive.
We should not be passing laws just to keep an industry healthy. The music industry of all things makes bulkloads of money they can afford some losses.
I'm not saying it should be legal to distribute mp3 files of music but that it shouldn't be illegal to make mp3s to start with or illegal to produce digital quality recording hardware for the avrage user.
This is sickning.. I could build a portable digital quality recorder and do all kinds of things with it out of parts from radio shack but Sony who could build a robot dog can not build the same device I could.
Fine arrest the bad guys but quit trying to make the tools illegal...
I submit this isn't what the law says and they can not buy someone to make a law to do that. So they have to make it up. Fear of the law is good enough.
If you can not keep your industry afloat with out making it illegal for me make a trival effort (such as build a simple tool) then I submit your industry should die...
I don't think the music industry would die. I think it would suffer as it enters a transformation stage. But music is mostly the preformence not the reproduction.
Eah? Ok that last comment was a bit confusing...
Basicly musicians are paid preformers.. actors of music if you like... and they have a fandom
With computer software it's cold logic. What dose it matter if I get an offical CD of GameGob or a copy. Besides the GameGob people losing money.. nothing. But a copy of Jethro Tull just isn't Tull.. It never will be Tull unless you have the offical original. Otherwise it's just a copy. Fans are FANatics.
"Jethro Tull" BTW is a band I like a lot
In a similer vain...
Why buy RedHat for $40 when you can buy the CD for $5. CheapBytes sells Linux CDs for around $5 when the original distros sell for around $40. Yet people are not climbing over each other to buy the (perficly legal) $5 CDs of RedHat.
Why? People want to have that RedHat CD. If there was an offical Linus distrobution I suspect people would fork it over for a CD.
The prize of having the offical CD is importent. Fans are willing to pay the price.
The music industry is worryed that it will have the same problems the computer idustry had. Yet high quality recording hardware producing near master reproduction has not effected the music industry much. I doupt digital recording hardware will distory them. If it could then they are dead allready. Such tolls are trivial to produce.
In the end I think it is a matter of paranoia running the gambet. They see the money they are losing.. The problem is they don't see the damage they are doing. They see napster and see a toll for piracy, they see an attempt to play DVDs on Linux and see piracy, they see digital recorders and they see piracy. Someone becomes telepathic and they see piracy...
You get the idea?
No more laws protecting obsolete busness modles. Stagnation is death... let those who will not adpt.. DIE!!!
I don't actually exist.
Check out the actual ACT. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.text.ht ml
Actually I noticed earlier that There we broken images and the occasional host not responding. I think they may be working on the ad servers right now. I'm sure they'll come back soon.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
>I have a Redhat CD here. Does this mean I OWN
>Linux and can do whatever I want with it,
>licenses be damned?
Nope! that would have to be a Free/Net/OpenBSD cd on your desk if you wanted to do that.
Viva BSD!
The most recently passed law would win. It would be assumed to amend/alter/revoke the earlier law even if it didn't explicitly say so.
Of course, there's no telling what any given judge would rule in any particular case.
-- Alastair
But if you had a program that you used to quickly reference items in a book that you purchaed, and to use this program (say you wrote the program) you had to scan in the useful pages, would having those pages (from a book you purchased) on your hard disk violate the copywrite?
(good grief what a long sentence)
I just love how the RIAA is saying you can't do something - based on a law that does not cover that thing.
And then what is really funny - if computers were covered by the AHRA - then RIAA would be enjoined from alleging infringement of the ARHA based on noncomercial use. (see http://www.hrrc.org/ahrasum.html for more details)
-Nick
-Nick
My name is Obi-Wan Kenobi. You killed my master. Prepare to die.
Of course, most people only copy music onto their computer in a lossey fashon. I could get very very high quality audio tape (recording studio quality) and make essentially an exact duplicate of a CD, one that would be less lossey than a 128kbps MP3. I'm sure they wouldn't mind me copying into 16kbps RealAudio, after all the quality there is way worse than audio tape. What about 33.6kbps mp3? 56kbps? 128? 256?
All of those are lossey formats (granted the upper end is quite good). The industry really hasn't figured out that information is independent of media in this electronic age.
--Ben
So, here's what you do. You write a CD ripper that extracts WAV files (or whatever lossless format you like) and twiddle the LSB of every millionth byte to make the legally acceptable "degraded" copy.
The argument that is happening here is going in circles:
1: I should be able to do what I want with CD's for my own personal use.
2: That's ridiculous. You can't Xerox(TM) a book and pass out copies on a street corner.
1: That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about making copies for my use only.
2: You criminal.
Personally, I've always understood that making any copies of copyrighted material is probably illegal, but I just don't care. I'm ripping my CD's for my use only (I don't give them away) and if someone really wants to bust me for that I guess they can go ahead and do it.
I'll take it one step further, I will be happy to make illegal copies of something long enough to evaluate it. There is so much garbage software and crappy music that I am willing to break the law temporarily to make sure I don't waste my money. OTOH, if I really do want to use something I will pay for it. My pirating friends think I'm an idiot, but my attitude is that I don't want unfairly deprive someone of money, especially MYSELF.
As long as governments continue to try to apply 19th century law (or new laws with 19th century thinking) to 21st century technology we will have these problems, and it's only going to get worse.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Sec. 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.
Seems that riaa is trying to spread a little FUD of it's own. According to the text of the AHRA above, This bill doesn't cover non-commercial, home use.
Just my $2x10^-2
After all, His Excellency The Governor says that you live in a new world order, controlled from Frankfurt, Germany.
- Logitech??What in the world to they have to do with DIVX?
The reference is to the old line 'Are we men, or are we mice?' or something to that effect. Logitech manufactures mice, so there...- I still use my 10-year old Logitech MouseMan bus mouse--3 buttons all the time without having to mess with the configuration! They always were better than M$ anyway (well, at least until the IntelliMouse {which was a dumb name, if you ask me}).
I use a Logitech Marble Mouse (the cheapest ones with two buttons- Of course the home recording act or whatever it's called will never prevent me from ripping my cd's--they'll stop me from doing that when they pry my PLEXTOR from my cold dead fingers...
No, but the RIAA can make it hell for you. There are many CDROMs that do not support transfer of CDDA over the data cable. I finally found a program that rips from my USDrives 24x CDROM, but it takes forever to rip (if you know about/use it, it's Exact Audio Copy). However, the quality of the MP3's that I get using BladeEnc at 256kbps is superb (especially for lossy compression). I'll be damned if the RIAA tells me I can not rip CD's that I legally purchased through a record store or a CD club to my own hard drive for use only on my PC. I keep my CD's in the car (unfortunately) so I can listen to them, while the MP3's are at the house on my PC. Of course, I know I could always copy a CD analog (through the audio cable from CDROM<->soundcard), but believe it or not I can tell a difference (I have sensitive ears and eyes, mostly from working 2.5 years in the TV industry).The RIAA scares me. I believe I'm going to start a website sometime in the next couple of months to debunk this crap (there's probably a few already out there but I certainly can't hurt the cause
.
.
.
.
Anybody willing to host?
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
Commodore 64 Democoder
FC Closer
However, [mandatory IANAL statement goes here], If you have purchased a copy of the music and, you are making a single copy / mix for your own - non-commercial - personal use and, you are not passing the source disks around or making them available online... you're probably OK under current application of U.S. Title 17.
Granted, all of those MP3s floating around the internet are a separate issue and very well may be a violation of Title 17.
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
Not everyone has to use all the programs.
Everyone has to follow all the laws.
That's a big difference, and why I hate seeing so much "fear" legislation ("Bad thing X happened, we need tougher laws!!") I think we should dedicate an entire legislative session to *removing* useless law. Drop the cruft and start anew. Is that possible given our current situation? Is cruft removal build into the Constituion?
--
+&x
Read: In the end the losers will be us, the RIAA, as we will no longer be able to skim the 40% off the top that we're used to.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
How, then, do they presume to say that making an MP3 off a legally-purchased CD for use, say, at work, is different?
<p>It's different because they say it's different.</p>
<p>Their logic goes something like this:</p>
<p>Someone can make a cassette dub of a CD, and give it to a friend, this person then makes a dub (of his copy) for another friend... etc. Each time the tape gets copied, the quality degrades. (Of course, they completely ignore the point that the original copier could just make 100 copies, each with the same quality.)</p>
<p>With MP3, you make a copy, which degrades a little, and give it to a friend, this person then gives it to someone else, etc, and each time it's copied (after the initial conversion) the signal doesn't degrade.</p>
<p>This is the basis for their argument, but it misses some important points... such as it doesn't differentiate between intent and action (your intent can be compatible with fair use, but the action is still illegal - which assumes you're guilty of a crime before you've been tried).. not to mention if you follow this argument to it's logical conclusion, then making analogue duplicate copies shouldn't be illegal, no matter what you intend to do with them, because the quality degrades.</p>
Okay, so I can't copy music onto my computer because the RIAA didn't get a kickback... er, I mean modest royalty... on my computer's CD-R. But if I play the music on my computer, there's a good chance that it'll be cached at some point somewhere on my hard drive. Oops, that's a copy (at least according to the software industry). So I can only listen to music if I have disk caching turned off. But wait! Even then, it will most likely be cached into RAM, either in whole or in part! And a copy is a copy, whether it's the whole thing or just part of it! So now I can't even play music on my computer, because at some point a so-called copy is made somewhere inside my computer! Yippee! RIAA wins!
Ouch. I think my head just exploded.
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum." MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp
Doesn't this sound familiar to anyone? Remember the page on Nintendo's web site talking about how the only thing emulators are good for is "pirating" games, and how they have a purely negative effect on their industry? What do you think they'd say about a perfectly legal (until DMCA) device to make backups of your carts? Nothing new here, just standard good ol' corporate FUD if you ask me. Just wait for all the DMCA-based stuff though.. just think! All you have to do to really legally restrict fair copying of CDs and such is to put flimsy copy controls on them. =D
Cryptic Allusion - New Mac and Dreamcast Games!
Meta Moderation will just display the post and the moderation done to it without any of the surrounding context. It's difficult to judge the accuracy of a "redundant" mod during meta-moderation.
I remember seeing a story about some software that would do a 'reasonableness' check on a given text, and produce a rating based on how long you would need to go to school to be able to understand it. An example was one of Winston Churchill's speeches, where it came back with something equivalent to undergraduate university level. When they fed a fairly standard piece of legal text into it, it said you would need to have gone to school for about 100 years to be able to understand it.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
They seem to be back... unfortunately...
-- iCEBaLM
damn.... No banners is so much better :P
-- iCEBaLM
Thats legal - its called first purchase rights.
you can sell your original copy of it for a profit, or for a loss for that matter, it doesnt matter. Copyright law has traditionaly been clear that you may not reproduce and sell work, but sell the original is fine.
Of course, the riaa/mpaa/software industry would LOVE to get rid of this little bit, so they can sell more originals...
They arent too happy with it because they dont get any more money after the original purchase. I still dont understand how Congress can pass these laws and feel good about themselcves...
... hi bingo
On the issue of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, RMS wrote an article that had an interesting spin on the tax it imposes on digital recording systems. He advocated distributing the money to artists (not the record companies) based on a result of a survey and removing any restrictions on copying. This solution makes sense to me, as under the current law, legal users are made to pay for copying they don't do. If we're going to pay for copying, we might as well have the right to do it.
To whom it may be concerned:
My name is Thomas Edwards, and I live at 5237 Jermockel Lane Dallas, TX. I have two kids and a golden retriever named Holiday. As a family computer we have an IBM Aptiva, and a licensed copy of WinZip. However, I confess that on our d:\temp directory resides a copy of my favorite CD that I recently burned a copy of. The copy is in my briefcase, next to the coffee table, combination 283. I am evil. Please take me away, I have breached the your sacred trust in the consumer. After visiting your 'what you can copy' site I realized how far astray I had gone, and now I beg you to punish me. I don't want my actions to have any negative impact on the future of artistic innovation in America.
Sincerely
Thomas Edwards
Terrific point. Moderate up.
Here's a link to the text of the Audio Home Recording Act. I found "computer" twice in the text.
If this is the case we will all have to get out our albums and 8 tracks in protest. If I purchase a CD, shouldn't I be able to do what I want with it?
Jimiz
OK...you produce your own record/CD/mp3. Then what? Get it on MTV. Get it played ad nauseum by radio stations. Get a nice write-up in Rolling Stone. Get on some nice concert bills. Get lotsa copies in the local music store's bin. I'm no fan of the industry and $16+ CDs, but I do understand that they add *some* value not only in production but also in marketing, logistics, and promotion.
MP3 is fine, but mom and dad don't use WinAmp (yet). This market is skyrocketing for sure but still tiny in the big picture. Unless you're the independent band that probably wouldn't go through regular industry channels anyway, you need much better distribution and promotion than "hey...come download from my website!" The CD will remain the leading method of (legal) music distribution for years.
Which is why you're allowed to copy Analog out the wazoo
*hides his MD player*
Well. They'll never find it because its so small. Really. All I do is enjoy my music and do it smaller, and that's better for me. RIAA has enough money, they should bust the bastards doing it. They're loosing so little money its not funny.
Swap space... They're so annoying they'd probably hit you for that
I've never seen a CD with a license agreement. I havent seen a song that says "Copyright, some lamer, some year" at the song. So, in court, i could claim it was stamped on on the cd art instert, therefore i only copied the CD, which was not marked so.
One of the great things (it is also occasionally a poor thing) about English common law is that the judges can choose to enforce whichever laws/acts that they want when they are contradictory, based on how they see the case. After the fact, an appeal may overturn a judges ruling. In fact what the judges rule create precedents for other judges to use as they see fit.
Bottom line is that the justice system will sort it out eventually, but not at the same speed that the technologies are changing.
I agree entirely with your "insight". It touches on perhaps my biggest concern with our over legislated culture: the fact that the more law becomes a game based on absurdly complex, contradictory, confusing and unjust rules (as opposed to ethical notions of justice) the more cynical we all become. A little cynicism is not a bad thing but too much of it will kill our culture. Let's keep it simple. Let's keep it sane. Home taping is killing the music industry ... and it's fun.
"Energy fools the Magician."
Unfortunately, it does appear to do what the RIAA says. :\
>
Taking that statement for granted would be dangerously idiotic.. It's been an established precedent even before the digital age that going out to the audio store and purchasing a 45 does NOT give you unlimited carte' blanche to do what you will with it. One example comes to mind, you can't just take said 45 (or said CD now) to the restaurant, tavern, etc...) and just plop into your jukebox. without living under the specture of legal hounds beating down your door. (this scenario is a lot more likely if you're running a club at a hot spot like, Manhattan, but it still leagally applies everywhere in the USA)
Has to how the AHRA impacts on domestic MP3 use, it'll probably not be settled without a court challenge. I could definitely see where Beam-IT could be used to circumvent the fees that jukebox users normally pay and this is probably one of the things that RIAA has in mind.
Lucas writes:
"If you don't like the terms is being given to you on, find a new band to listen to that's sigend to a different label that allows you to do what you want. Make your own label, and try to convince bands to sign up... Then wince when your policy to allow MP3's comes back to bite you when you realize that it is actually a bit harder to make money now... "
Interestingly enough, in a Quicktime interview on the CD included with the March MacAddict,rapper Ice-T goes into this subject at some length. He's doing exactly that, forming his own label, Coroner Records, moving heavily into MP3 and even allowing his customers the option of using Mixman to remix his work. Whatever happens, the results should be educational.
Slak on 03:01 PM March 7th, 2000 writes: "Furthermore, what happens when I'm playing my _William Shattner Sings_ on my computer and it copies portions of the CD to memory which could be swap space on my hard-drive?"
If you did it in Manhattan, Rudy Giuliani just might prosecute it as a "Quality of Life" crime.
Logitech kicks ass!
every mouse I've had on my system, not counting the one that came with my first computer, has been a logitech...
none of them ever died, i just moved to something new...
And I have to say that they do a really nice job on drivers in windows.
=1000101
"...This law makes
reproduction or distribution of copyrighted works,
such as software programs and musical recordings,
illegal, even if there was no financial gain involved."
There is a link about it.
http://bmi.com/legislation/news99/aug2099.asp
The article refers to someone making large quanities avalible for d/l but I think the law
technicly apples even if there are only one copy.
But I am not a lawyer....
AdFuel
I'm sure the RIAA's view on this is that making an MP3 is synonymous with illegally distributing MP3's. Whether they really don't realize people own multiple audio playback devices or they just don't want to make such admissions for the sake of making more ca$h, I doubt they recognize wanting to have a copy of something you own in a separate format as a reason for making copies of stuff.
Excuse me but you don't need a lawyer to see that what the industry wants in copy restrictions is grossly unreasonable. It basically does say that I cannot do anything with any commercially avaialable music or video except watch it and single copy it on devices that the music industry approves. These are basically devices that go out of their way to limit your ability to interact with the material in line with industry wishes. This utterly hamstrings the digital revolution and should be opposed quite sharply. Yes, there is a problem of how artists get protected and compensated. But that problem is not resolved by draconian law and legal threats.
What good would getting a lawyer do anyway? You can get as many opinions generally as you have money to pay for different lawyers. Especially in the area of digital copyright and intellectual property.
The problem with your analogy is that computers are used, at least outside of the office, by choice. Inside the office, they are still used by choice, just not necessarily by your choice. Compliance with the law, on the other hand, is compelled by the use of armed force.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
I'd be curious to learn more.
-Michael
MTV plays music videos? When?
anyone else notice that there are no more banner ads on /.?
Since when?
As of right now there is a banner at the top of my screen
Your web page claims:
"As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted. It is copyright infringement, and a violation of federal law. "
That's a fascinating interpretation of the law. I agree that computer-based CD recorders are not "digital audio recording devices" as defined under the AHRA. In fact, you tried to claim they were in RIAA v. Diamond, but the court ruled against you.
So, on what basis do you claim that any copying not explicitly permitted by AHRA is a violation of copyright act? In fact, in RIAA v. Diamond, the Court held that "the purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use" and that "the Act seems designed to allow files to be "laundered" by passage through a computer".
Let me put the RIAA on notice right now: I have made and continue to make home audio compilations on CD-R, via computer, of music that I own on CD. If you believe this is illegal, go ahead and sue. I will interpret lack of a lawsuit as implicit encouragement of my activities.
Jay Levitt
[address deleted]
jay@aol.com
What that means, in English, is that individuals cannot be sued (or prosecuted) under the AHRA for making recordings, analog or digital, for non-commercial use.
Doesn't that only apply if the digital recording was made by a digital audio recording device as defined by the AHRA? Seems to me that if the courts established in RIAA v. Diamond (?) that computer-based CD-Rs are not digital audio recording devices, then the AHRA simply doesn't apply at all, and we fall under the rest of Title 17. No?
Ignoring the fact that the RIAA assumes that copying music "hurts the bands I love" more than the viciously-weighted contracts major labels give some of those self-same bands, I'm puzzled by an element of this. The courts have found that we have the right to tape television shows off the air, right? "Time-shifting"?
How, then, do they presume to say that making an MP3 off a legally-purchased CD for use, say, at work, is different? Has this law ever been tested in Federal court? It can't be so simple as an analog-vs-digital distinction, can it?
(And I just love this little gem: "record companies don't recoup their investments, and that makes it more difficult for them to invest in new artists and new music." God bless the fabulous innovation brought to us by the likes of Universal.)
I didn't know what a meme was, so I asked five friends. They didn't know what a meme was, so they asked five friends.
Some interesting definitions from the act:
(5)(A) A "digital musical recording" is a material object--
(i) in which are fixed, in a digital recording format, only sounds, and material, statements, or instructions
incidental to those fixed sounds, if any, and
(ii) from which the sounds and material can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated,
either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
This means that whatever is on your hard drive is automatically not protected by the act because a hard drive has things on it other than music.
(6) "Distribute" means to sell, lease, or assign a product to consumers in the United States, or to sell,
lease, or assign a product in the United States for ultimate transfer to consumers in the United States.
If the person you are assigning the data to is not in the U.S. then are you violating the law?
No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any digital audio recording device or digital audio
interface device that does not conform to--
(1) the Serial Copy Management System;
This is very evil! It would seem that it makes cd-roms illegal, and dvd-roms possibly because the copyright protection can be easily circumvented.
the amount of the royalty payment for each digital audio recording device shall not be less than $1 nor more than the royalty maximum. The royalty
maximum shall be $8 per device, except that in the case of a physically integrated unit containing more than 1 digital audio recording device, the royalty maximum for such unit shall be
$12.
This what you have to pay to be allowed to manufacture, import, or sell a device which allows an ordinary person to use their music.
Nascantur in Admiratione. (Let them be born in Wonder)
I'm gettin a little sick and tired of paying 12-15 bucks for CDs that have exactly one good song anyway.....
Section 1008 says that a company who makes/sells/distributes recording devices/mediums cannot be sued because their device could be used for copyright infringement.
It protects Plextor if I use their CD burner to make a bunch of copies of the new Backstreet Boys CD. I don't see where it protects the users.
yeah, the article was just the mpaa's take on the copy of the audio home recording act of 1992. here is the full text of the act. make your own decision as to how accurate their reading of it is. -p
Yes, but it has been widely recognized for years that copying software for your personal use is perfectly legitimate. I can burn 1000 copies of Win200 and use them to wallpaper my house if I choose. I can make backups to my hearts content. The same thing for music. I buy CDs once, rip them to my computer, and then put the CD away never to be used again. I ONLY listen to music on my computer. The record company hasn't lost a dime, and I am a happy consumer. This is why I see nothing wrong with Beam-It. I already own the CD. I have a perfect right to listen to the music contained on that CD whenever and wherever I want. The distribution medium is irrelevant. As long as the recordning company got my money in exchange for a copy of the music, how I choose to listen to it is my business.
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
All our lives the music and motion picture
industries have force fed us crap and taught us
to tolerate it.Pretty faces and a willingness to
cooperate have always took precidence over talent.
(Anyone who survived disco in the 70s,feel free to back me up on this)"Top 10,40,100" songs were arbitrarily decided not by how many copies sold,but by how many copies at a particular franchise(can you say wallmart?)sold.
Basically everytime new media became available to the public( 8-track,cassette,DAT,CD)
they pitch a legal temper tantrum and merely wind up slowing progress a bit while they change business strategies.Big deal!
Personally I think it would suit our best interests to KICK THE CRAP OUT OF THEM WHILE THEYRE DOWN!They'll never stop what people are
doing,probably wont even slow it up much.
Entertainment,music or movies will always be
with us.But if the RIAA and MPAA couldnt accomidate the public,someone else will.The public
doesnt want crap forced down their throats anymore.
There are other ways to market entertainment
just as there are other ways to market software.
Unfair?Sure it is.It was unfair when buggywhip
manufacturers had to close down and lay off for the advent of the auto.Nature has but one law: EVOLVE OR DIE!(and in a timely fashion)
So get out your rippers,encoders,napsters and
newsreaders and lets help these fossils to the museum.
Seriously,I'm Just trying to start some ideas
and dialog(heh heh how about open source music?)
Gawd,im feeling a bit verklempt,talk amongst
yourselves,I'll give you a subject:the music industry is neither music nor industry...discuss
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
So - how am I supposed to find out about all the cool new X10 products?
- passion
>and yet you are legally able to copy songs off of the radio...
.mp3 off the radio...
Only because to play a song on the radio, the radio station has already paid significant royalties to the music companies. Although, perhaps if you recorded an
>therefore, mp3's are legal, so long as the data has traveled over a radio link.
The fact that it's transmitted by radio is not, unfortunately, the distinction. It's the royalties paid by the stations.
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." --Voltaire
An argument I once read that I bought into went something like this:
The reason laws are written in legal terms is so they _can_ be understood, not so they can't. You need your laws written in precise language so they can be applied. Any case involving a law written in layman's terms would end up as a big argument in semantics (e.g. "that's not how I define 'sexual relations'").
IMHO the real problem is that there are too many laws, not that they're written using precise legal terms.
-beme
-beme
1971
Of course its not worth it for the RIAA to come after us in general because they posted record profits just recently ;) Its only worth them going after those who mass copy copyrighted material. Usually the people doing that aren't following the laws anyway and of course the one hurt is the normal consumer.
My blog: http://jkratz.dyndns.org/~jason/blog/
TIVO is not an exact digital copy of a broadcast either. Its an MPEG2 stream which looks good but is not an exact copy. OTOH neither is a copy of a cd to a cdr since most cds dont rip tracks exactly - hence the need for jitter correction and/or different ripping modes to try to overlay sectors of the cd to get the best sound. still isnt a perfect copy.
My blog: http://jkratz.dyndns.org/~jason/blog/
So I can use a stereo that is capable of recording CDs to copy a CD, but I can't use a computer with a CD-R in it to copy CDs, even though they contain the (basicaly) the same hardware. The only real difference is the interface you have with the hardware. Riiiiiight. Uh...no. The difference isnt the interface with the hardware. The difference is that stand-alone cd recorders like the one Phillips makes needs special media. You can't use regular cdr media in those. Just like cassette tapes you've paid a fee in buying that media in order to be able to mak a copy. They have no way to make money from computer cdrs/cdr media so they come up with this. It's total BS.
My blog: http://jkratz.dyndns.org/~jason/blog/
...by Jack Valenti of the MPAA and Hilary Rosen of the RIAA to implement an invasion by aliens of our planet. How else can you explain the unearthly logic those two employ to achieve their goals?
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Some days ago we've heard about player with 4 gig hard drive. Very soon these drives will land into PDAs. If IBM was able to put hard drive into audio player, why Palm Inc can't put it into their next product? Bingo! PDA as palmtop PLUS audio player will storm the market, and there is no way to prohibit mp3/ra/whatever player programs for PDA...
What makes you think you have these rights? The simple fact is that whatever the law SAYS it what the law IS. If we don't like the law (or parts of it), we should work to get it changed.
Holy crap, you're right. =) I think it probably does have to do with the fact that I couldn't get Netscape to bring up the page because the adservers weren't responding. Thanks for pointing that out though!
Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
Popular Electronics did a write up on the Philips Dual-CD Dubbing Deck in their Nov. 1999 issue, the source for my information.
"... Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), which places restrictions and royalties on its use. Since PCs at the time weren't deemed to be 'audio recording devices',..."
This is why it has only become an issue with PC's lately and why CD-R's and MP3's were such a big deal.
"... The other aspect of the law controls how those copies may be made. It specifies that only a single digital copy can be made form a digital original..."
This has been legally interpreted as meaning that an individual may make as many copies of a media as long it is not a digital copy of a digital copy. Since it is very hard to get your hands on original digital copies of the songs you want to listen to this means you can't make MP3 copies of songs for any reason.
The justification for distribution of MP3 files on the internetwas so new artists could cheaply distribute their songs over the internet. They could produce their own digital original (not to hard with an SBLive Platinum and a CODEC), then make as many copies of their digital original as they wanted to. That's why web pages that distribute "Indie" songs ask you to download it from their site and not get it from a friend.
The act defines the terms "digital audio recording device" and "digital audio interface device" to only include devices "designed or marketed for the primary purpose of" or "designed specifically" for digital audio recording or interfacing.
First, it was just a joke meant to accentuate the ludicrous aspects of any act that singles out specific instances of anything as being ``legal'' and the rest as being ``illegal'' in a sweeping fashion.
Second, this is the part I misread from the act:
(3) A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use, except for--
(A) professional model products, and
(B) dictation machines, answering machines, and other audio recording equipment that is designed and marketed primarily for the creation of sound recordings resulting from the fixation of nonmusical sounds.
What does this actually mean? That this act can easily be worked around by using devices that are intended for broad use in a narrow ``CD ripping'' fashion? So I guess this doesn't cover software at all, or what exactly is ``equipment'' or a ``device?''
My bad.
-ac
Actually, you're wrong. Art is protected under the intellectual property act. meaning, if create a drawing, or a picture, it is copyrighted to me for a finite amount of time from creation by DEFAULT. So, you can buy a copy of the picture, you can color all over it, but you may not claim that artwork as your own. Just a clarification. Don't even go into photographic laws, those are whacked beyond reason. -Janus
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I am Jack's throbbing caffiene-withdrawal headache...
But I really don't get the case here, if the site offers music from less-known bands for free download, don't they have some contract with those bands that this is legal.
Like me, all copyrights of software I produce for my employer go to my employer... software and music, isn't that just 'content'?
I'm very confused with American law here...
Bizar technology?
It is not illegal to make non-comercial copies of digital media period. http://www.hrrc.org/audio.html
I don't think the issue is about handing out books, CD's, or any other medium.
But, let's say the book's print is too small for me to read -- would I become a criminal if
I enlarged every page for my OWN use?
Or, what if I want to read one chapter a day of a huge hard-cover book while riding the train
to work. Twenty sheets of paper are much easier to deal with than 800 pages of bound material.
Compare and contrast that to the most common reasons for creating MP3 versions of songs.
Dex--You have just explained (so everyone can understand it) the most fundamental precept of "Natural Law," which is the Eighteenth Century legal/ethical/philosophical system upon which the United States Constitution, English common law, and the Brits' unwritten constitution is based, and out of which arise such concepts as Due Process arise. A good example of an "unnatural" law, would be one not promulgated to the public, i.e., a secret law. Now whether or not highly complex law counts as "secret" is the question. Are we living up to our ideals?
DAILY ROTATION
this is nothing new. the music industry has a long history of grossly exaggerating and misrepresenting the legality and effects of any copying. they are spreading FUD in a desperate attempt to keep their monopolies. ~20 years ago they took out advertisements about "the home taping bite" claiming that people recording casette tapes were bilking them out of billions per year. Go look at Billboard magazines from the early 1980s if you want to see examples. those claims were lies, and the music industry's current claims about mp3 are also lies. let's stamp out the riaa in our lifetime. (along with dvd cca, mpaa, ascap, bmi, etc.)
Coming from England, but having spent a year in Montreal, I can see both sides. And I liked it there, despite my own problems with understanding Quebecois.
;-)
Law 101 was very needed, and has done a lot to improve what I understand to have been a bad situation twenty years ago. Not so much any more, as almost all Anglophones are bilingual, and shame on those that are not.
However, to me it is not the law that is wrong or persecuting people but the way it is enforced by the language police who do seem to revel in persecution. I mean, c'mon, having a discussion about banning the 'McDonalds' sign because it is English? The point is..? In France it is still called McDonalds, even if government agencies here have to use new words for E-mail and download...
And I think this is relevant to the Audio Home Recording Act, because as you say what the RIAA really wants is to strip the customer of their rights and hand them to those companies the customers are paying! They don't want a 'tolerance' of any kind, and the language police in Quebec seem to operate the same way.
Otherwise why is it Eaton's had to have signs in Montreal saying Eatons (which would obviously annoy the grammar police here in Slashdot)and why do the residents of Point Clare out on the West Island get so much trouble about having a sign in English first and THEN French?
But what really annoys me about the record/electronic companies is their half-hearted attempts to stop piracy. Take SCMS used by the Minidisc or DAT format. It stops an optical copy of a copy of a minidisc or DAT. Good for the record companies. Stops someone making a copy of a copy of something they are trying to sell. Fair enough. But when it comes to me making a copy of a copy of some music I MADE I can't do it, because the SCMS is not intelligent enough to know that it didn't come from a pre-recorded disc or source.
Anyway... Not like you can't get round it. Later, Mash
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
However, if you're using something like Easy CD-DA Extractor, which is a ripping/encoding app with a player built in, then the audio is being read into RAM and/or your swap file.
Anyway, we'll see what happens, but right now mp3s influence on helping local/indie artists grow their audience has been minimal.
Anyway, I just really don't think uploading music to pirate FTP sites is going to change jack squat. "mp3 radio" already happens in the form of shoutcast, and this makes little difference either - with virtually unlimited choices, no one bothers. mp3 has been around for awhile, but no one is making their music career off self-distributing mp3s. The music industry is far bigger than just distribution, and right now (and for a long time), there's not much mp3/the internet is going to do to change that.
In order to grow a national audience, a band must
1) Have a quality recording. I don't mean the music, but the recording itself. It is not cheap to record/master a pro-sounding album rather than what sounds like a local band demo (it doesn't matter how digitially perfect it is if it sounds like crap to start with). Labels make this possible for new bands via a loan of sorts. If you're trying to self-distribute, you're going to have a hard time pulling this off unless you've already got a large stash of money on your hands.
2) Get played on the radio, nationally. Armies of label folks call, and call, and call major radio stations across the country trying to push songs. You have no army by self-distributing other than word of mouth. Major radio stations are virtually controlled by the major lables. I have NEVER heard of an mp3 some DJ or radio station exec just randomly found and loved so much they began running it in heavy rotation. It does not happen.
3) Tour and get booked. If joe the promo guy for Sony Music in Chicago calls super-popular bar X about booking one of their bands, bar X listens. If you call claiming to be a self-distributed sensation, you're going to have to be generating some enormous word of mouth buzz to get in.
4) Every type of miscellany promo conceivable. A band can't do it on their own once they've reached a certain level.
Anyway, easy self-distribution is not the answer to crushing the music industry as we know it, particularly if self-distribution = giving your music away for free. Merchandising t-shirts and hats is great, but consider for a moment how many CDs and mp3s you have, and how many band t-shirts and hats you have. Consider how many people you know that trade mp3s that actually go out to buy CDs of the bands they already have mp3'ed songs of (Among my friends, I can say exactly 0 have done this).
Anyway, mp3 does provide a new distribution method, but how it's going to re-write the rules in the music industry is awfully shaky.
mp3 pirating is rampant. So rampant it's not even funny. The amount of 'legitamite' mp3 use (regarding copyrighted works - IE archival, or just them on the computer for the heck of it) is extremely minimal in comparison. Denying this is serious ignorance of reality.
Let's face it - if you already have a CD, having an mp3 copy of it is virtually worthless unless 1) You have a diamond rio or 2) You want to share/trade it with someone else. #2 is why mp3 has exploded, and why there are currently 10 gazillion ftp sites and napster clients running serving up all sorts of copyrighted work.
I'm not saying the RIAA and the music industry in general isn't sickening, but I find myself growing weary of these legitimate use arguments when it's damn well obvious most mp3 use is not legitimate. Atom bombs don't kill people, people kill people, right? If I had 5 bucks for every slashdot poster whining about fair use who was sitting with X gigs of pirated mp3s on his HD, I'd be rich.
Ewige Blumenkraft! Heute Die Welt, Morgens Das Sonnensystem!
The above comment is CopyWrong (K) Erisian Entertainment. All Rights Reversed. Ewige Blumenkraft!
Although it is hard to tell from the wording of most software licenses, the license is granting you rights you wouldn't otherwise be allowed. Without a license to make additional copies, you are stuck with the basic rights that the copyright acts force the owner of the work to permit to you.
Without the extra rights permitted by the license, you would not be able to make the archive copy of the Win98 CD
Maybe there are people find MP3 versions of music hilarious parodies of the original from the CD.
OK, so Congress says that it is OK to archive computer software (and since the Constitution says that Congress has the right to make copyright laws, then the Supreme Court would probably declare any law of the sort constitutional.)
This doesn't say anything about music though. And it doesn't address the MP3 or Rio "space-shifting" arguments where it is the copy that is actually being used (rather the copy being an hopefully never used archive, saved until the original is unusable.)
According to this cornell web page (and links off ot the page) shows few decisions on copyright over the past 10 years. And none of them seem to be arguing over archiving. The closest is Sony v. Universal was being argued mostly over time shifting, not archiving. Also, it was deciding whether the company that made the machine capable of infringing were liable, it did not absolve the people doing the actually copying.
I would love for someone to produce for me a supreme court decision that says that copyright law permits ordinary people (not libraries) to make complete copies of easily replacable works.
Fair use does not cover archival copies. And archive rights are only explicitly given to libraries for works that can't be easily replaced.
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
Amadou, next time you are approached by several police officers at your apartment...don't reach into your pocket and pull something out that they can't see. In fact, don't do much of anything. Answer their questions don't make any quick gestures or reach for stuff without them first telling you to. Cops are paranoid, and don't need much provocation to defend themselves against perceived "threats."
My friend was held at gunpoint by the police a few years ago, and had a piece of paper in his jacket saying that it was ok for him to be where he was. Did he quickly reach into his pocket to grab this paper? No, he loudly asked for permission to get out the paper and waited until the cops told him it was ok. He then slowly produced the document saying that he was legit. That's why he is still here today.
When I was in U.S. History in high school I read of a glorious moment when America stood up against England and dumped quite a lot of tea into a certain harbor. It was said that this was done in protest of taxation without representation. Do we feel represented by our government today, or do we feel that we are being taxed and controlled by the christian supremecist elitists and of course the gangsters and tycoons. Are the corporations also not just as much to blame for abusing the government for their own gain in exchange for limiting our personal freedom? Also, it seems that there is little done to REMOVE laws, only to prevent a number of them from being passed in the first place. I think that we should all protest by giving kids something else to think that is cool instead of Music TeleVision. Maybe after kids start begging for books instead of those fresh new CD's by the back street boys it will start hurting the controlling unknown in the pocketbook. By the way, in case this message is being read by Satan and or Bill Gates. I just want you to know ahead of time... People all over the world are getting on board the SOUL train. Look out, cause its heading down the tracks!
Here is a copy of the Audio Home Recording Act. Read it and see that the RIAA is dabbling in misinformation.
They are trying to put a stop to it by saying that as long as you are limited in your ability to copy (basically, only a limited number of generations) then they will not be so severely and easily 'damaged'. Analog copies limited by the deterioration of quality, and licensed CD copiers that prevents you from making copies from copies are the only things they allow.
So this is nothing new. It just means that yeah, they'll allow you to copy for personal use (the law allows that anyway). But it won't allow you to make unlimited copies and share with your millions of friends on the Internet.
Why should this be surprising? This undermines their revenue source, which is to sell as many originals as they can. Since they are the ones who invested money into advancing money to the artists, promote the artists, pay the artists, and distribute the artists' material on different media, they want to recoup the cost of all of that. It's investment. To allow unauthorized copies means they get less on their investment. If you had investment like this, wouldn't you fight to get more return for your money?
On the other hand, if taken to extremes, it is just greed. People in the position to abuse the power will exploit it to no end.
There must be some happy median, somewhere.
"Ok, if it's legal to copy a TV broadcast onto a VHS tape, then is it not legal to copy a music video off MTV, even for my own personal use?"
I wouldn't assume that a cable channel signal falls under the same category as a broadcast network nor would I be surprised to find out that it didn't.
My understanding is that broadcast networks, and for that matter radio, can have their signals recorded. A trade off for the limited number of licensable frequencies in a given broadcast market. Wouldn't be shocked at all to find the same rules don't apply to a closed system like cable.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Here is the opinion. See section III for a refutation of RIAA's claims. For example,
There are simply no grounds in either the plain language of the definition or in the legislative history for interpreting the term "digital musical recording" to include songs fixed on computer hard drives.
Also, works of art carry with them so-called "moral rights" and "rights of attribution". The complexities of this area are, as Janus said, manifold, but suffice it to say that you can't necessarily alter a work that you "own" and you certainly can't photograph it and put it on the web. The copyright does not travel with the work unless the work is a work for hire.
And so on, and so on.... all disclaimers.
"The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government." - George Washington
Logitech?? What in the world to they have to do with DIVX? I still use my 10-year old Logitech MouseMan bus mouse--3 buttons all the time without having to mess with the configuration! They always were better than M$ anyway (well, at least until the IntelliMouse {which was a dumb name, if you ask me}).
</Slightly OT>
<On-topic> Of course the home recording act or whatever it's called will never prevent me from ripping my cd's--they'll stop me from doing that when they pry my PLEXTOR from my cold dead fingers...
</On-topic>
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
jesus, its gibberish! why why why why why do they write legislation that no one can understand??? Not even me, and i can read just about anything english! Yaaaarrrrgh!
Okay, this seems dumb. The RIAA is saying that I can copy my CDs or other stuff only if I use means that don't involve a computer. So I can make copies with a standalone music copier, onto cassette and the rest, but I cannot rip the wav and then write in onto another CD. Do they not realize that the only difference is in whether the transfer is done by software or hardware. In my opinion, it's easier for people to use analog means that by using software, and should be easier to create multiple copies. It seems like there is a lot of prejudice towards computers when it comes to music. Or just stupidity. There is no difference if I copy a CD on the computer, or on the device to copy CDs, they're still copies. I think they're all mad at us for the mp3 thing, and figure that computers are evil devices bent on squashing the good of the artists. Either way, it's dumb.
What ist the situation regarding copying music in other countries? How strict are the laws?
Hrm--"secrecy [security] through obfuscation"?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
prohibit this, prohibit that, tell everyone "no, you can't" .. blah .. it never stopped anyone, really, and it never really will .. they can litigate and legislate 'til they're blue in the face .. the fact is, there are billions of us and only a handful of them .. they can't arrest everyone .. information Is free .. you can't really control it, in the long run .. it just moves and propogates of its own accord .. all you can do is slow it down a bit .. so this undermines a profit center .. too bad .. thats what you get when you want a profit good or bad? .. who knows .. but mp3s aren't going anywhere soon, piracy isn't going anywhere soon, and sure as hell Music isn't going anywhere soon, either .. if it isn't napster, it'll be something else .. if it isn't the internet, wait awhile, another transmission medium will creep in .. sure, its currently the most widespread and accessible method of distribution currently available, but it won't always be that way .. nothing stays the same can't we all just get along????????!? heh
I don't see banner ads. I use the Internet Junkbuster Proxy. (It's GPL.)
As stated previously, you (as a computer user) are not compelled to subject yourself to a computer following specific software instructions. You are able to directly select/create the instructions for your computer. You have much less influence in selection/creation of instructions for the judicial system to which you are subjected. This is where the analogy breaks down.
Lets face it the real purpose of lawyers is as interpreter. They interpret law and argue that their interpretation is the most reasonable. (Even if reason has nothing to do with the argument - see frivolous lawsuit of your choice.)
Also, I doubt this would ever hold up in a court of law, but an MP3 is really not a copy of the origional song (due to compression and what have you) so if I were to copy an MP3 I am not really copying the original copyrighted song! Just a thought.
Failing all of that, I guess I'll just have to get myself an anolog computer, seeing as how copying to an analog device is fine.
Copyright is automatic, but surely you have to claim it, or make the user aware, otherwise how do they know that copyright applies - should anything that does NOT have copyright state 'Copyright not applicable' to let users know they CAN copy it? I would have thought that unless you express copyright, although you may own it, you aren't enforcing it (a different issue - I may write a program, own the copyright, but choose not to enforce it).
So if I buy a tape recorder, I have to pay a surcharge to the record industry because somebody else is allegedly breaking the law.
Why do we still need a record industry anyway? It only exists because producing records and CD's costs money. MP3 means that artists can produce an unlimited quantity of copies of their music at virtually no cost.
You've hit the nail on the head there, dude. Ignorance of the law has never been considered an excuse. You, in fact, have a legal responsibility to keep up to date with each and every new law that comes along. That's where the legal system becomes a scam. You need to be a member of the legal fraternity to even have a chance of keeping up - or be paying a member of the legal fraternity.
Ever seen someone told to leave the court and go and get themselves a lawyer by the judge?
Get the Hell off my planet, you slimy mobster Bush!
and who gets the royalties on a Mozart CD?
AFIK, the artist responsible for the spcific performance captured on that CD.
There are (potentially) three seperate copyrights on any particular piece of music: the musical score, the lyrics, and the performance. If artist A writes the score, artist B writes the lyrics, and artist C performs it, each is entitled to a share of the royalties. This allows an artist to "cover" another artist's music while protecting the rights of the original artist -- the orginal artist(s) gets royalties for the score & lyrics, but the covering artist gets the performance royalties.
In the case where the music and/or the lyrics are public domain (folk songs, classical music, etc) the only portion which is copyrightable is the performance itself. This is why it's illegal to make a bootleg recording of a concert, even if all that is performed is public domain music.
"The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
The article then goes on to say:
Computers and general-purpose computer peripheral devices are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act
It does not anywhere that, I can see, say that Computers and peripheral devices are explicitly forbidden by the AHRA to be used to copy audio.
Or does the AHRA have a clause that says something to the effect of "Recording audio under any future digital technology will be illegal."
But then again I haven't read the actual AHRA, though.
Thanks, I wasn't too sure about how it worked in America. Here in Canada we pay a dollar on ever CDR, there's no distinction between them. Actually I've never actual seen a Audio CDR
You know, they can go ahead an say what they want about MP3s and recording and what exactly constitutes fair use. after all, you're only breaking the law if you get caught...and if they think they can nail every MP3 user they have another thing coming. we may lose napster, just means we have to go back to FTP...big deal? napster keeps timing out on me anyway... -grumbles- besides, if i like the band, i buy thier CD. If i don't like em, i don't. no wonder i havent bought nay new CDs...all that new stuff is crap out there...
when all is said and done, all a man has left are his blades and his honor.
I've been told that in ancient Iceland they used to have a meeting once a year, where the chief (or Master Lawkeeper or some such) would recite aloud all current laws from memory. If he made a mistake or forgot something others could remind him, but if nobody did, whatever was omitted was no longer law. Today, even setting up legislation votes so that congresspeople or whoever would have to write the law they are voting on from memory and it'd only pass if the majority agree word to word wouldn't get too many laws passed...
I see no difference between an audio casette and a .mp3 file on my computer. You could record from the CD to your computer, or from your CD to a casette. If this was made plain to a judge, I really don't see how it could be dismissed as not true. That's just more RIAA propaganda.
Just look at how the mpaa reacted to DeCSS, and it becomes very clear that these industry giants are NOT worried about the consumer. They are worried about fattening their bottom line. I understand this motivation, but I don't know if the general public sees these associations in the same light as say Microsoft, Nabisco, and other huge corporations...
Jaeger
http://334.se2600.org
http://jump.to/jaeger
>It's taken for granted thet you can't go buy a
>book, Xerox it's contents and hand it out on the
>street corner, why should music be different?
Ah, but that's not what we're talking about here. That would be ripping your CDs to MP3, then taking the additional step of allowing anonymous ftp access to them. It's that additional step that's prohibited under copyright law; I can, in fact, xerox the contents of that book. I just can't distribute the copies.
No one here is arguing with the fact that that DISTRIBUTING copies is illegal, the argument is that MAKING copies is legal.
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
Computers and general-purpose computer peripheral devices are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means they do not pay royalties and they do not incorporate technology to prevent serial copying.
In refrence to the 'serial copying' thing, I'm assuming the RIAA is refering to these clauses from the actual document: No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any digital audio recording device or digital audio interface device that does not conform to-- (1) the Serial Copy Management System; and No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any device, or offer or perform any service, the primary purpose or effect of which is to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or otherwise circumvent any program or circuit which implements, in whole or in part, a system described in subsection
Ok, so what the act says here is that you can't build ro import a device that doesn't conform to SCMS and you can't build a device that is made to remove SCMS. WEll guess what? This part of the bill must have been overturned. Here is a device that, in addition to converting digital formats, will set the SCMS bits to whatever you want. And here is a soundcard that will let you manually control your SCMS settings. I can list a whole bunch more devices that fall in the same category, but I think the point is made: Perhaps when the act was first passed, devices had to comply with SCMS, now they don't.
Fight Spammers!
How ridiculous does that sound?
It sounds extremely ridiculous that you are comparing the law to software.
If you use software wrong, whether it be accidentally or intentionally, the worst thing that happens is you end up running Windows.
If you disobey the law, whether it be accidentally or intentionally, you could be fined, sent to prison, or if you live in Texas or Florida, you will probably get the chair. Hardly just an inconvenience.
Jesus may love you, but I think you're garbage wrapped in skin.
A choice of masters is not freedom
The answer is that the courts will first attempt to construe the language of the two acts so that there is no conflict. If there is no way to do that (e.g., one act says "you can't fly to the moon" and the other says "you can fly to the moon")then the court will most likely look to the most recent enactment to determine what the law actually is. Most likely, though, you have a court construing the latter as an exception to the former, or vice versa.
Now where is the rest of your $17 going? A bit to the artist, a bit for studio costs (mixing, recording time, etc.), a bit for marketing... and the rest is profit and corporate lawyer money.
A bit for marketing? Do you have any ideas how expensive videos are? Then there's all the other costs. I once read that Michael Jackson breaks even at two million units sold or something like that. Record companies have a lot of overhead. Granted, it's stupid overhead, but still. Out of the 17 bucks a cd costs, probably only only $1 or so goes to the record company.
Furthermore, out of those USD17, 5 go to the store. Then deduct the profit that needs to be made by the distributor.
Sounds to me like record companies aren't profit huggers, they're just really bad at operating a business. That's why they're fighting MP3's - they're so stupid they don't recognize free promotion opportunities. They'd rather shoot a one million dollar video. Idiots.
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
So, If I am lucky enough to have a wonderful singing voice and just so happen to sound very much like the original artist, am I in trouble for not using an "appropriate analogue recorder". I, my friends, am analogue and don't want copy protection circuits implanted in my head.
"Assume the worst about people, and you'll generally be correct"
It's pretty funny. Analysts and typical american business men think they have the future of the Internet all figured out. They see it changing in the future to their advantage. Two words for ya, reverse engineering. No matter what little trick they come up with, someone else will crack it. If you can put it together I can take it apart. By using different words that their children don't understand they figure that they have everyone under their hooves. Just because it involves business doesn't mean that you understand it Mr. Business man. It's pretencious bullshit, they don't fool me. Lastly, Forrester Research? Aren't these the same clowns that predicted that Linux will never survive as significant OS competitor to Microsoft? Analyst aren't magical people. Their guess is as good as yours and mine. Comparing the future to the past is bad planning. People change things, that's what it's all about. Change, not numbers on paper.
Forrester ===> Oven
RIAA ========> Oven
I'm the great, cynic, I'm the indifferent gaze
I'm the great, cynic, I'm the indifferent gaze
Mendacity, betrayal, this is not a phase.
Can anyone even proove if a CD copy was made from a stand alone CD-R vs one hooked up to a computer?
Also, Real Jukebox copies my CDs to my hard drive by default (as Real or mp3) - am I lawbreaker just by using their software to play CDs?
Besides, most new music that is coming out isn't worth listening to in any format! (and certainly isn't worth paying for)
and who gets the royalties on a Mozart CD?
Talk is cheap. Supply exceeds demand.
*Legal* statements like these are bogus as many an intelligent person here has noted.
The legal system is extremely out-dated.
Everyone is suffering due to the lawmakers inability to concieve and execute a better method.
The current system of checks and balances on the crap that gets passed for law now is more like a gaping pipe. The filter has long since rusted out.
Perhaps automatically giving laws expiration dates, like you would a cookie, and somehow hamstringing a lobbyists ability to influence a lawmakers vote, or even minimizing the amount of people who are allowed to submit or pass them.
Ideas?
=================== Getafix the Druid
I have a Redhat CD here. Does this mean I OWN Linux and can do whatever I want with it, licenses be damned?
As an interesting sidenote: A few years ago when RedHat were in town giving a presentation, I walked up to one of the RH Reps (Melissa something, I think I remember) and asked her if it was legal for me to duplicate my RedHat 5.0 CDROMs and give them to a friend. I was answered with a very uncomfortable look and a response that it was NOT permitted.
woof. I think TIVO will have their turn to get sued. Not because what they are doing is morally wrong, or even technically illegal. It hinders the artist's ability to make money (paraphrase). In all of the RIAA's site, it's the artist's ability to make money that is it stake. How much does the artist make on royalties now? 13 cents on each cd sold at 15.99? Yeah, it's all for the artist...
"Before the wreck, I never knew how to type with my face."
It states in the license that hardware manufacturers must buy permission and install safeguards (which work really well on my dual cassette deck). No computer hardware manufaturer has bought them off. Wouldn't it be easier to put some check on the product rather thatn the hardware?
In this article they state Record companies make their money almost exclusively from the sale of records -- whether physical records in the form of CDs or virtual records in the form of digitally downloaded music. But they also say that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted. How can anyone buy mp3's on the internet with this? Do you have to download them directly to something other than a computer? I need to use a computer to get to the web page to buy them! Color me confused. Also, if they found a way around this, would they say you couldn't copy an mp3 you bought from one computer to another?
I agree completely with this. I am of the opinion that an amendment to the constitution should be written to require all legislation to have an expiration date, maximum of five years. All current legislation would have expiration date five years from the ratification of the amendment. (Of course this applies only to the US...)
This would force the idi--*ahem* I mean, legislating body to concentrate on laws that still matter and apply to the people of the day. Of course, if something is REALLY important and requires perpetuity, (such as the expiration itself) then it should be considered for constitutional amendment.
Tophu
I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. -- Voltaire (paraphrased)
Here's a very real case where, a creative interpretation of an obscure law can suddenly have the FBI kicking down my office door, pointing guns at me, siezing all my computer hardware, and even if I "win" my trial, I get no equipment back or lost $$$$ because I had no business for x weeks/months.
USENET. Any news admin will tell you it's easily a few GB of articles PER DAY going in and out of the news server at any major internet node. It is IM-POSS-I-BLE to check all that data for illegal content in real time. Now suppose someone posts kiddie pr0n to comp.os.linix.misc and someone tips off feds to this and say it's here at my ISP. Well, yeah, lo and behold there's the pr0n on my hardware. I didn't put it there. Yes, I forwarded it. I forward everything coming in.
Now if I fully understand the law, I take it to mean that only common carriers are exempt from watching the content they carry and making sure it's legal. An ISP is not a common carrier. Are all ISPs therefore supposed to shutdown usenet? This is obviously not the intent of the law. But it is the letter. What lawyer will tell me what is the right thing for me to do?
After Federal laws with such impressive titles as the Sonny Bono Term Extension Act get passed and signed into law, the good folk in our benign and wondrous government reconcile and merge the new law with the body of the existing old law, which is divided up into . The civil law related to copyright is all of a section called Title 17. (The criminal bits of copyright law are off in a seperate section, over in the criminal code). When a new law gets reconciled and merged with the old, it can be much like the application of a diff patch, lots of little changes all over to hell and gone. However, in the case of the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), it resulted in a new chapter 10 of Title 17 (PDF), so you can read it for yourself (or try).
In a nutshell, the AHRA:
- defines a bunch of terms, primarily a class of "digital audio recording devices" (section 1001)
- mandates that any device in that class incorporate a Serial Copy Management System (SCMS) or similar copy management technology and prohibits "inaccurately" setting the bits of any SCMS-managed recording (section 1002),
- that anyone manufacturing such a device or media for such a device pay a royalty (section 1003),
- the mechanism for the big copyright owners to divide up their new revenue stream (sections 1004-1007),
- most important!! "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." (entire text of section 1008)
- and finally, what people can sue for, what the damage limits are, and how certain disputes can be arbitrated (sections 1009 and 1010).
The law does not put computers with digital recording capabilities in the defined class of digital audio recording devices (this interpretation was confirmed when the RIAA lost RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia , see section III B 2 ), and the law does not require that digital sound recordings be made with an SCMS device nor that digital sound recordings incorporate SCMS controls (see footnote 7 of RIAA vs. Diamond).In examining the AHRA in RIAA vs. Diamond, the court states:
The AHRA does have that section 1008 language (quoted above) that makes it explicit that using a digital device in the defined class, or any analog device, for non-commercial consumer is not a copyright violation, but the AHRA is silent about other digital devices or non-SCMS digital recordings. To know whether those are permitted or not, we have to look to the rest of copyright law, in the other chapters of Title 17. The RIAA, in their rant , seem to be arguing that whatever is not expressly permitted by the AHRA is prohibited, but that's simply not the case; they're just blowing smoke.There's a lot of stuff in the rest of copyright law, but basically the law gives the copyright owner exclusive control of the copyrighted work with several exceptions. The AHRA in chapter 10 above defines one exception, the other exceptions significant for our puposes are:
- Chapter 1 (PDF): section 107: Fair Use
- Chapter 1: section 108: reproduction by libraries and archives
The full text of the "Fair use" section is: Courts have found in SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS that it is a "fair use" to record any broadcast for later viewing - "time shifting" - and the RIAA vs. Diamond established that it "fair use" to "space shift" - to transfer digital music from your CDs to your Rio. Until a court decides a "fair use" issue there's always some uncertainty about where the boundaries are, but the trend seems clear to me that "format shifting" (migrating vinyl and CDs to MP3) and backup/archiving would be likely to be declared "fair use" if it ever gets to court. It probably won't because the big publishers have been losing pretty steadily over the years and seem to be trying to get what they want through FUD and propaganda - people tend to self-limit more than they have to in uncertain conditions, to "be safe", then publishers get to argue that anyone approaching the line has really gone past it because it's "not normal". Feh!The other significant exception to the copyright owner's exclusive use is section 108. It's a bit convoluted, but the meat is that public libraries and archives can make backup and replacement copies of stuff for themselves under certain circumstances, can make copies of small sections of works in print for patrons, and can make whole copies of out-of-print works for patrons to take home and keep, under the condition that "the library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that a copy or phonorecord of the copyrighted work cannot be obtained at a fair price". And while someone claiming to be a Real Lawyer® in Usenet has said otherwise, I have always thought that if it's legal for a library to do it for you, it's just got to be "fair use" for you to do it for yourself. (But then again, IANAL.)
In summation, when the RIAA writes:
they're full of self-serving crap, and have already been contradicted by an appeals court.Then the RIAA tried arguing that because hard disks are exempt from SCMS, it is illegal to copy music onto them.
The court also ruled against the RIAA here. The court said that just because the AHRA applied to one class of devices, that did not mean that Fair Use was null and void with regards to others.
Note that the AHRA, according to the RIAA, does not grant you any recording rights! It merely grants you protection from their lawsuits (like that stopped the Rio lawsuit) if you use analog recorders or crippled/taxed "consumer" equipment.
Your actual recording rights come from the Fair Use clause (which isn't "subject" to copyright law -- it's PART of copyright law and it limits exclusive rights, not the other way around) and the First Sale doctrine. You had these rights before the AHRA passed, even if they were never written down in the form of an exact set of rules as to what was OK and what was not.
Considering that the Betamax decision threw out the theory that you could outlaw new technology with significant legitimate uses on the basis of contributory infringement, the AHRA didn't really give honest consumers much of anything valuable. It just burdened them with extra copy protection and with recorder/media tax.
And we all know about the torrent of pre-recorded DAT tapes that become available once the record industry got its way with the AHRA. :-)
I think a lot of the paranoia comes from people who do things that, while technically legal, catch the attention of the local politicions/law officials/men in black. Maybe it is an unpopular political viewpoint, maybe some sort of religious issue, if they can't put you in jail for the rest of your life simply because it is unconstitutional, then they just need to catch you doing something that you didn't even know was a crime. Maybe you spit on the sidewalk or walk backwards or something and they pull up some law from 1722 that calls for 20 years in jail that nobody has enforced in years. Of course this example doesn't really do justice to the situitation, since most juries would acquit you faster than you could say unfair enforcement.
I read the internet for the articles.
You don't have to. All it takes is the little © on the disc to put copying, redistribution, and "fair use" under the jurisdiction of (US) federal law. You bought the disc, but not the right to copy it. It's taken for granted thet you can't go buy a book, Xerox it's contents and hand it out on the street corner, why should music be different?
I agree absolutely.
I am all for companies rigorously defending their rights granted under copyright law (I even respect said rights). What I don't like is erosion of fair-use doctrine (in terms of my interpretation of digital eqivilents to analog rights), and interpretation of that doctrine in such a way as that it restricts my use.
The current burr in my saddle is the trend that I am seeing for "licenses" to explicitely (or implicitely in the case of DVDR) forbid me from excercising freedoms which I was guarenteed under previous law.
Pax -- Ob
Technically, this is correct. However, any claim that a recording company has to their "ownership" of their ability to enforce how I can use the music is entirely mythical. It may well be that we consent to go along with this myth, but for all intents and purposes, the "licensing agreement" in unenforceable, and the value of the "distribution service" that the media companies provide by distributing the media has become essentially worthless.
So you're right that we only have a license to play a CD on a CD player and not to copy the digital data into another format, but the technical realities of the situation reduce such a license to a quaint joke. If you simply choose to "disbelieve" the license in this case, it ceases to exist. So my advice is to decide not to going along with the "myth" of the company's ownership and copy the contents of the CD onto your hard drive.
-Dean
As a consumer, I have a problem with cd's: they are not very portable when I go jogging and my vehicles do not have cd players, but do have line input jack. I have a mp3 player which makes up for all three. If the RIAA had its way, they insist that I do something about my technology or listen to no music at all or the crappy radio stations here. I've ripped a great many for my use. So if its not allowed, why don't they come on over and sue me?
The fuzzy part as I understand it, which works to promote your argument is that without explicit agreement to the terms, you cannot be bound to laws more restrictive than copyright laws.
The GPL is powerful because without the GPL, the software distributor is bound to copyright law. Meaning that he can make personal copies, but he cannot distribute the copies at all without the author's permission. In the case of Linux, all thousands of authors.
The authors have permitted the software to be redistributed under the terms of the GPL.
On the other hand, Windows requires you to adhere to regulations more stringent than copyright laws, (IIRC use on a single system, cannot resell the product used, etc). Thus you have to "agree" to the terms by breaking the seal on the product and not returning the software in 30 days.
Music has neither method, so I would assume, just as you do, that it is guided by copyright law. Copy it for personal use, keep it, sell it used (destroying all copies), and all the other fun things you can do with books, videos and the like.
If the music industry were to lock us into some kind of license agreement restricting copies for personal use, or resale, I would hope that they would provide replacement media should theirs get damaged. After all, you're buying a personal use license and not a CD anymore.
Anything less is hypocrasy.
In detail, it says:
However, the act says earlier:
The RIAA page in question seems to be asserting that a computer isn't a "digital audio recording device". One could, perhaps, argue that the computer isn't the "digital audio recording device", the program that's reading the CD and writing to a file is, and that it "is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use".
But I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know whether
...but doing so might bring such programs under Subchapter B, Copying Controls:
You know, with all the legal sidestepping that everyone does these days (thanks to the US legal system), it seems like we need some sort of "reasonable person" clause. Something to the effect that any language used by a company in an official legal manner is only acceptable if a reasonable person would be able to read it, and be able to comprehend it.
This would certainly do away with the twenty pages of text that scroll by at the end of any commercial for a contest, if a reasonable person couldn't read it...
This would also help the average joe in understanding just how he is being screwed by a number of companies. If the company has to print out in clear language just exactly how they are going to stick it to you...
Casca
When I buy a CD I instantly transfer it to my hard drive and MP3 it. I never listen to the audio CD ever. I've got several dozen CDs I've never heard from the plastic. So would this be legal, the CD considered to be the backup or something like that?
Disclaimer: IANAL
Yes, it would be legal. Basically, under the current copyright and home recording laws, you have the right to make a backup (namely the mp3s) for your own personal use (this is considered a "fair use" under copyright law).
You may further transfer those onto a Rio for road listening (there was a case, RIAA vs Diamond Multimedia, in the 9th Circuit ruling on the Rio issue that says that's legal. This in turn was built on a case back in the days of Betamax that established the right to record TV shows for later viewing, which became known as a "time shifting". The 9th Circuit in the Rio case held that there is a similar right of "spatial shifting" that applies to consumers using Rios and the like).
Naturally, you may not then give or sell the CD to someone else without destroying your mp3s.
If you want more detail, there's some good information from the Home Recording Rights Coalition summarizing the laws. In particular,Summary of the Audio Home Recording Act.
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act does complicate things some, but as I understand it there is still a provision for fair use.
-Stradivarius
>I have a Windows 98 CD here. Does this mean I OWN >Windows and can do
> whatever I want with it? I bet the law would
>disagree if I started burning
> copies and handing 'em out on the street corner
When did "handing [th]em out on the street corner"
come into the discussion?
If I copy my windows CD and lock it up in the file cabinet, it's not anyone's business but mine. If I have a copy in my laptop bag and another copy in the CD case, that's a good and necessary, and legal, thing.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The interesting questin here is what happens when Congress passes two obviously contradictory pieces of legislation. The DMCA has specific exemptions that permit copying to and from computer hard drives. What happens when two laws of equal priority (ie, neither is a constitutional amendment or whatever) are in obvious conflict? If you sue me under AHRA, can I defend myself using the provisions from DMCA?
Not that I'm saying DMCA and AHRA are necessarily contradictory; I don't know a thing about what AHRA says.
-Graham
I, for one, would have absolutely NO objections to an arbitrary form of languange construct that defines a law, as long as the definition made sense and was itself rigidly defined.
Hell, yes. Then, when people needed a lawyer, they'd have to hire a programmer instead. (Ka-chinggg!!)
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Congress, with the help of record company lobbyists, has determined that lossless digital copying is not the same as lossy, hiss inducing, analog copying. It has therefore placed restrictions (the SCMS and the above-mentioned royalty) on digital copying.
Actually, the restrictions are placed on the manufacturers and importers of equipment that is designed and marketed for the primary purpose of making digital audio recordings. Section 1008, as you pointed out, explicitly specifies that this law does not place restrictions on digital copying. This is a crucial difference.
The general copyright laws place restrictions on copying of digital information, and provide fair use exceptions, but not this law. This law creates a kickback scheme where money is paid by equipment and media manufacturers directly to the recording industry, for the "privilege" of not being sued. It does not provide rights to, or place restrictions on the non-commercial end use of such equipment by consumers.
- John
By no means do I endorse these rediculous restrictions, but to stop the commercialization of pirated software, they have to do something.
Something, yes. "Something, anything!" no.
If the intention of the law is to criminalize commercial piracy (turning a profit from someone else's work or intellectual property), then the law should be worded to do just that.
If the intention of the law is to criminalize consumers sharing a product they have purchased with their friends and family (as current copyright law in the US and elsewhere does), then it should be targeted to do just that, and we should not try to pretend it is doing anything different.
The DMCA, and the RIAA's efforts to get similar draconian legislation pushed through (which kills nearly all of the "fair use" rights we as consumers enjoy under current copyright law) to gut consumer rights for their products, should be recognized for what they are: legislation enacted to protect existing corporate oligarchies (primarilly but not exclusively The American Hegemony) at the expense of the consumer and the individual. We should not be forgiving of this behavior simply because such draconian, shot-gun-blast legislation happens to take down a few unscrupulous poeple along with the millinos of innocents.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
> The RIAA page in question seems to be asserting that a computer isn't a "digital audio recording device"
In that case, Audio Home Recording Act simply doesn't apply *at all*. The Act doesn't say anything about devices that it doesn't define, so anything that is not a "digital audio recording device" falls under the older Title 17 regulations, which have always allowed for personal copies.
The whole point of defining devices based on their primary market was to only require *those* devices to implement SCMS and make royalty payments and to leave other devices alone.
Before the settlement of the RIO case, the judge had stated that the RIO was not a "digital audio recording device" and, therefore, not subject the AHRA and did not have to make royalty payments or implement SCMS.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
The FCC has explicitly refrained from classifying ISPs as common carriers. See OPP Working Paper No. 31, The FCC and the Unregulation of the Internet.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
If the Campus Crusade for Hitler wants telephone service, and can pay for it, the telephone company must provide them service.
An ISP can refuse to sell them Internet access and can terminate any existing business relationship without giving cause.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
If that reading is correct, the opposite of what the RIAA claims is true: in fact, within the bounds of existing copyright law and fair use, you can do whatever you want to with digital recordings. You are only restricted if you use one of the formats or devices that are actually covered by the act.
So, you're down on MP3's because some people are pirates? I have a better idea, why don't you "turn against" the people who are pirating the music? Although you may have a hard time believing it, many people make very good legitimate use of MP3s. Saying that you are down on MP3's because of pirates is like saying that you are down on computers because of script-kiddies, or that you're down on TV's because of "Who Want's To Marry a Millionare". It just doesn't make any sense. Well, maybe being down on TV does. But you get my point ;-)>
What's happened is that you have bought the RIAA propaganda that is trying to equate MP3's with piracy, when in fact there is no such equality. Don't blame the tool for the use that some people make of it.
I basically concur, but with one major complaint: English is a piss poor language for any rigid, structured rules system. It is very good for conveying human concepts, emotions, and constructs (hey, go read Steven Pinker's new book, Words and Rules, it is simply OUTSTANDING).
If lawyers were serious about making law accessible, precise, and intelligible, they should take a hint from computer science...
I, for one, would have absolutely NO objections to an arbitrary form of languange construct that defines a law, as long as the definition made sense and was itself rigidly defined.
I've always been of the opinion that laws should have an expiration date. This, over time, would cull out the "nuisance" laws, and laws that really mattered to a society would be kept. It might also force the government to think carefully before inflicting a new law on the populace in order to please a special interest group.
This is from US CODE - Title 17: Copyrights, Sec. 1008. You will note that it specifically *bars* suing under this title in the case of "the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium [i.e. "a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium"] for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings". This law does not further specify any attributes of "a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium". Nothing here makes an exception for computers. Therefore, making a non-commercial copy (i.e. not intended for resale) of either digital or analog recordings utilizing your computer appears to be PERFECTLY ALL RIGHT.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
Very likely not. You've gone and changed the music, thereby making a derivative work because the MP3 encoding is not a 100% pure reformatting due to MP3's lossiness. Just taking a CDDA/WAV and making something else out of it would likely be legal as long as (1) you didn't use both of them simultaneously, and (b) the transformation was lossless. "Item changes fundamentally in transformation" is the key here IMO.
OTOH, if you didn't put it on the net, The Man is never going to know, so who cares. If they can't catch you it's irrelevant as to whether it's illegal or not.
"...The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (2) of section 106 is limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality...."
which means that the RIAA is correct.
HOWEVER...
I think it's safe to say that an mp3 falls under "otherwise altered in ... quality", due to the lossy compression. Therefore, I think it's legal to have digital duplicates as long as they are mp3s or some other format involving lossy compression (this would also apply to digital copies that were played and re-digitized, like if you were to play a CD in your CDROM drive and record it back to a WAV).
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I might be wrong :)
It seems to me that the fair use provision here would, in following with the tradition of copyright law, permit personal archival copying as "fair use."
Incidentally, the german computer magazine c't has a long and very interesting article on precisely this matter in their current edition. Check out the online version here if you speak german (I dare not imagine what garbage babelfish would spit out ;)
There also is an interview with the author of the article (a lawyer) and a representative of the IFPI ("Internationale Föderation der Phonographischen Industrie") on the same page.
Here's a brief interpretation of the linked article (as usual, IANAL etc.): there is no unanimous position on that matter, but traditionnaly, it has been considered legal to create any kind of copy of copyrighted work for oneself. It even seems that you are allowed to give those copies to people you have a personal relationship with (no more than 7, according to the lawyer... don't know where this comes from).
Altough they refer to german law, it corresponds well whith the situation in Switzerland (where I live), as a law student explained to me.
Now, I have no idea what it is like in the US, but judging from the previous posts it seems that either you have stricter laws on copying, or the record companies are trying to convince people that it's forbidden to do ANY kind of copying.
I suspect that what we are seeing here is an attempt to seriously limit the concept of fair use. This is very disturbing...
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
In both the MP3 case and the MPEG2 video encoding commented on, it's not the fact that it's a lossy compression that matters. You can effectively set the quality that you desire (and with MPEG2 you can use a bandwidth substantially higher than the amount used to broadcast TV and cable [ 40 Mbps vs. 6 Mhz ]). Then you can make successive identical copies of your copy with zero loss if you so desire. If each time you wanted to copy an MP3 you had to reencode it, you'd probably not run afoul of any legal entanglements because in three of four generations the signal is going to be more noise than music. It just wouldn't be worth it for the RIAA to come after you.
But it still sucks that they think they can dictate what kinds and ways we can use materials for which we have paid the asking price.
Dunno about everywhere, but in all the places I've lived you have two choices for televsion: air broadcast with about four network channels or one cable company. The single cable company was given a government monopoly to develop a particular area because they are using a limited resource (the ability to haul cable all over town and dig up the roads for maintainence and such.) Part of that agreement is that they maintain certain community standards and keep control of the costs to the consumer.
(Oh yeah, in recent years satellite has become an afforable option.)
I mean, I think you all could afford it.
/.?
Especially now that they seem to have enough money to remove the banner ads, anyone else notice that there are no more banner ads on
-- iCEBaLM
Though I'm a student, I work as a free-lance graphic designer. Right now I'm doing a bit of work on spec, meaning I get paid only if the client accepts the work, mainly to pad my portfolio and generally spread good karma because the client is a good guy.
Conveniently, he happens to be an independent musician in Austin Texas. (Guy by the name of Phil Pritchett. Check his web site out. It's cool -- and there are MP3s.) The company that is actually pressing the packaging and making and pressing the CD itself is DiscMakers a national company which does a lot of work for indie artists.
Just so happens that I've got a copy of their catalog sitting across my lap, open to page 5... and hey! There's a price listing here!
For CDs in Jewel boxes, the pricing is as follows:
(All prices US$. Subtract $200 if submitting your own, press ready art.)
The above includes:
Now for 10k pieces, the price-per-piece is US$1.04. Labels run more than that and own their presses and mastering equipment, meaning that they pay cost-only (film, plates, paper, ink) for their runs. So you can safely drop that per piece cost down to less than $.25/piece.
Now where is the rest of your $17 going? A bit to the artist, a bit for studio costs (mixing, recording time, etc.), a bit for marketing... and the rest is profit and corporate lawyer money.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
I would have to agree with you. What the RIAA declares the law to mean is irrelevent. Court rulings will determine what the law means.
Perhaps this document should be taken as an indication for actions that the RIAA will attempt to bring before the courts.
I really have to wonder about the "copy of a copy" issue. What happens when my primary copy is destroyed (by those UN Black Helicopters). Now, I'm not able to create another backup? What if they (UNBH) come back? I won't be able to listen to my New Kids on the Block, oh no!
Furthermore, what happens when I'm playing my _William Shattner Sings_ on my computer and it copies portions of the CD to memory which could be swap space on my hard-drive?
Finally, to bunk (or is it debunk?) the final paragraph: I believe it has been documented (though on Slashdot, by Slashdotters) that Artists don't make much money from recordings (rather through concerts and merchandise such as t-shirts).
Cheers,
Slak
Record companies are going to have to learn that days for milking licences is over. The days of throwing a cd that probably costs 75 cents at us and charging $15 is over. I have a feeling that some industry people think that this whole liquid audio charging over the internet for audio files that expire thing is the next big cash cow but they are wrong because hacking the format is trival.. Others are attempting to increase their stranglehold on the recording artists by incorperating patented 'encryption' into audio dvd which will mean that any artist that wants to release dvd audio will either have to sell their soul to a record company or pay a (probably) what will be a huge licencing fee to release material independantly. All the while it's clear that record companies are seemingly unconcerned about pirating on a practical level.. The easily found liquifier pro demo which uses the AAC encoding and can create transparent copies at 128kb.. (Using the Fraunhofer codec.. the only one that works properly dispite efforts to release a free one based on the ISO code which was sabatoged on purpose, but thats a whole other story).. Even if the (again trivally cracked) time limit is applied to the compressed files it's still seems to be engineered to violate this copyright law. In fact the program even encludes a cd ripper... Why isn't the whoever association sueing the pants off these guys? Because they don't care. They say they care but they don't. I think the reason for this is that there are certain technological hurdles that one must go over before you can really pirate to the extent that it makes any difference to the industry. 90% of people still use regular cd player to play cds and would know how or could be bothered to pirate the music. Second of all, X number of pirated copies does not equal X times the cost of cd in money lost because you can't assume that every time that a person makes a copy that that person would have otherwise gone out and bought the cd.
When audio dvds make their appearence the pirating will not slow down regardless of the encryption because if you're hearing it through your speakers then you can rip it. That's just a simple fact. I would assume that they have realized this and that they don't care and that's not the purpose to encryption. The purpose of encryption is the same as with movie dvds: control of the format. We have to realize that the whole pirating fiasco is just a smoke screen to leave the control of distribution of _any_ media in the hands of a few rich corperations.
Ah, you've discovered the inner truth of what lawyers spend most of their time doing. They present an interpretation of the law, which favors their position, as if it were fact. It may be, it may not.
If there were a trial, each set of lawyers would present their arguments, attempt to poke holes in the other side's presentation, and a judge would rule based upon which presentation most closely matched the law. Some judges will interpret the same presentation in a different way - there are many conflicting preceding rulings and many conflicting laws.
The Recording Act is not fully tested by the Supreme Court, it has had certain portions tested in District Courts and the Court of Appeals.
So take what the RIIA says with a grain of salt.
Will in Seattle
As I see it, there are two main problems with their methods for pursuing their anti-piracy goal. First, they don't care if consumers' fair use rights become collateral damage in the battle against piracy, and, second, they are not above FUD-mongering to get their way. Again, I don't think their motives are necessarily bad, but clearly they don't care who besides pirates gets hurt by their stand.
Voting with our feet is one option, and a good one for the time being, as long as alternatives are available, but I worry about whether it will be effective if and when alternatives are outlawed. Can a person live a normal life without using any copyrighted material, ever? In the end we have to rely upon our legislators to do the right thing (with suitable encouragement thorough letters and phone calls, of course) by not just failing to kill fair use rights in any new legislation, but also by guaranteeing that distributors cannot circumvent those rights using nonnegotiable click-through or shrink-wrap licenses.
-rpl
But we can stop this, if we put our minds to it. Remember DiVX? That evil little play-for-play disk that Circuit City and (Sony? refresh my memory....) tried to foist on us? Did we not squash it like a bug? can we not do it again? Are we men, or are we Logitech?
I had a funny idea about this. People could print up SDMI Warning stickers and go put them on SDMI compliant players in the stores. I guess it would say soemthing like "Warning: This product uses SDMI which means it limit your ability to play music you obtain from the internet or purchas independantly on CDs. SDMI products have been known to force you to waist disk space, prevent you from letting friends lissen to your music, degrade the sound quality of music obtained on the internet, and you may loose all the music that you store on your computer if you loose the player. We recommend that you consider buying a true MP3 player without SDMI support."
The whole thing is fscked up anyway; bands spend 2-300 days a year on the road promoting their latest blood, sweat and tears giving concerts at $50 a pop, and who gets rich? Some fat cat in an ivory tower who can't carry a tune in a bucket. Two things are trying to solve that. One is the fact that pressing CD's is so cheap any two-bit outfit can hit the club circuit and hawk their own, and the other is the pay-for-download MP3 sites, where small-time artists can get the dough for good jam with no media costs involved. Neither involves signing your life away to some fat cat.
You know what? RIAA HATES that. We should love it. We should support it. See that it thrives. Make the old adage true: Money talks, bullshit walks.
Amen! They make you sign your life away because they control the promotion channels.. but MP3s will change this. I keep waiting to see some guy who collects pirate site upload URLs and charges artists to upload their promotional material to all these sites. I would be a kick ass way to get yourself in the ears of a lot of people with very little effort.
I mean lets face it you won't see any money or promotion from mp3.com so you may as well try and go directly to the consumer.. maybe the consumer will like it.
Also, lets not forget that there are better ways to make a buck off of the music you produce then just charging for every song. You can give away a lot of songs just to get people to come buy CDs, shirts, hats, some other songs on MP3, etc.
Actually, if you are a really good musician who produces a lot of jam sessions and practices which are of reasonable quality then you can provide your fans with this stuff too. I would suggest putting up a song of the week for free and running a pay for access fan club where members can download past songs odf the week. Also, tell them how to set up their mp3 player to play random songs from the members only area. Once fans get addicted to lissening to diffrent versions of the same song every time there will be no going back to bland old CDs which are the same song every time you play it.. and the fans will happily fork over $20-30 a year for access to this archive.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Anyway, mp3 does provide a new distribution method, but how it's going to re-write the rules in the music industry is awfully shaky.
Unfortunatly, I must partially agree with your points, but I would like to point out that there are a lot of things we can do to help them. The first thing is to turn the pirate sites into an actuall promotion system instead of just a distribution system. This is what I mean by having people submit upload URLs for sites to some promotional outfit (or to the band directly) and the bands would upload their promotional material to thse sites.
This would bve a more valuble form of promotion if we added support for HTML in mp3 comments to the major mp3 players, i.e. click a button on the player to open a web page in a browser which included art, lyrics, advertisments, links to go buy CDs, etc. This is somehting programmers would do that could really help the independant artists and would make it much more effective to distribute free music. I'd say artists need to actually verbally give their web address in a promotional song now since the players do not support this.
Consider how many people you know that trade mp3s that actually go out to buy CDs of the bands they already have mp3'ed songs of (Among my friends, I can say exactly 0 have done this).
I do not personally buy CDs of bands which are booked by major record labels (protest), but I do have a LOT of friends whose buying habbits are significantly influenced bit by mp3s. Techno bands especially can do really well by distributing free music since there are a lot of techno bands and it can be hard to find ones you like without first having the mp3s.. and many people want records and not just CDs. Once a DJ friend of mine pointed at a box of records and said "That box probable cost me $10,000, not because the record in it are expencive, but because I had to buy those 20 boxes worth of records to get these good ones."
Actually, I would not be surprised to see mp3 promotion surpass radio promotion really soon for things like Techno, but remember puttingyour shit on mp3.com dose not count as promotion. You need to really have an agressing campaign of uploading and pushing it on people in IRC.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
How are techno bands any different than any other sort of band?
I do not know how much you are into Techno, but I have experenced a LOT of going to the record store and buying Techno CDs just in the hopes that they are good.
I said that people very rarely buy CDs which they already have (pirated) mp3 versions of. Friends of mine may buy OTHER cds of the same band because they liked the one they pirated, but they don't buy the ones they've already pirated.
I know people who actually pirate the songs first, then buy the same album. I have goten the impression this is not uncommon. It's partially wanting to play the songs in a car and wanting the CD it's self.
Now, I would not recommend for the bands to depend on these people. I'd suggest that they upload diffrent mixes to the pirate sites. Plus, this makes it hard for pirates to get exactly the same stuff as on the album.
I guess I'm not understanding you, because I don't see how this changes much. If you upload your music to a pirate FTP, you're simply opening up another distribution door.
Yes and no. I definitly have used pirate sites as a form of radio when I had time to browse them and I know lots of other people (with fast dorm internet access) who do the same thing. Plus, you should remember that many bandz have essentially no chance of getting airplay, so mass uploadings are much better then nothing.
If every band in the world begins trying to "aggresively" upload their song(s) to every FTP site in the universe, the situation is no different than looking at mp3.com - tons of songs and bands you've never heard of, and won't download and listen to by random chance.
True, but the bands that get there first will still get some valuble publicity. By the time that all the bands figure out that it is better to be agressive then just post it on mp3.com then we will probable have real mp3 based radio which will manage the mess.
I do not expect the pirate scene to realy live that long once the bands figure out how to take advnatage of it, but I do expect it to be an importent stepping stone towards a better system.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
You're also missing a distinction, and the above is not quite accurate. Although you *physically* own the painting, the creator of the work still owns the rights to it (at least this is true in many jurisdictions). So while you control who sees it if it is for instance in your home or place of business, the moment that it is part of a formal exhibition (as in a museum) where the creator would normally reasonably be expected to collect a fee, you are into the copyright-protected realm. You also can't take a picture of the work and then sell postcard with the picture on it, regardless of whether you own the painting or not.
Some galleries and museums have taken to asking for a nearly unconditional signover of rights when they purchase a work for their collection. Some visual artists are follish enough to agree to it.
The act defines the terms "digital audio recording device" and "digital audio interface device" to only include devices "designed or marketed for the primary purpose of" or "designed specifically" for digital audio recording or interfacing.
General-purpose computers fall under neither category, and are therefore exempt from the SCMS requirement.
Those guys need to get a new marketting department though, because their ads are really boring.
The cake is a pie
Bad bad bad..
Selective enforcement of a law is a bad problem, because it keeps the public from being outraged at the law, while still letting them use it as tool to silence whatever critics they want. If the public really understood DMCA, if it was actually applied fairly to everyone. There would be outrage in the streets. The law would be repealed immediately. But because of the 'selective enforcement', this isn't happening.
``But sir, 80% of our constituents are in violation of your proposed law.''
``Don't worry, we'll only prosecute those who do it excessively.''
Unfortunately, not all cases can be tried or investigated. We would have to spend several times as much on law enforcement as we do now.
The FBI, for example, doesn't necessarily investigate every case brought to it's attention. It mostly does the ones that will have the most affect or get the most publicity (don't think they shy away from many kidnapping cases). Sort of law enforcement triage. They have too many cases and too much paperwork to really investigate a majority of them properly.
And, selective enforcement is what brought down al capone (tax evasion).
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
Make the law so Joe Citizen can understand it... otherwise, your law is poorly written and needs to be rewritten until it is understandable to the layman.
I think this misses the reason laws are written the way they are. Laws are written so that logically they cannot be overbroad, or misleading in their intentions. This specificity of laws do make them hard to read, but making them easy to understand by a layman would almost definitely leave them open to interpretation (something far worse than a few people not understanding every intricate detail of the law).
Part of the reason so many laws are broken is that they are confusing, contradictory, or just plain unknown to the citizen.
Not to belittle your point, and I understand what you're trying to say, but I think it's painfully obvious that most people convicted of crimes in a court of law are not convicted because they didn't understand the law fully. Perhaps they serve a little more or a little less jail time unjustly (and that is wrong, I aggree with you). But I don't think there is any example you can give where someone not understanding the law suddenly put him unjustly at the will of the government. Or at least theres no example I can give.
One law I don't understand is how it is illegal to tape a conversation with someone, unless you didn't know at the time it was illegal. What's with that one?
To "own" something is not to possess something. When I say, "I own this", I do not mean that I have physical possession of it. What I mean is that I have certain rights pertaining to it. Because a bunch of these rights are often bundled together, we have a shorthand term for them, "to own".
I own a Bic ballpoint pen. Several, in fact. What I mean when I say, "I own a bic ballpoint pen" is that there's this thing, which I'm calling "a bic ballpoint pen", and I have certain rights with respect to this thing. Like, I have the right to have it in my physical possession, if I so choose. I have the right to destroy it if I so choose. I have the right to take it apart, or to give it to someone else. I have the right to write with it, or clean my fingernails with the pocket clip.
This is the collection of rights I get when I purchase a ball point pen. I do not bother to enquire about what exact set of rights I am buying when I go to the store and buy a pen. Long experience has taught me that the rights will be exactly what I expect them to be. Now Bic comes along and said, we have changed the bundle of rights which we sell with our pens. You are now required to return them to us when they are empty. I, of course, tell Bic to get lost, because based on common practice, and based on their failure to indicate that the sale did not include everything you normally expect, they sold me *all* the rights normally associated with purchase.
The analogy for music is that there is a long history (however old the cassette is) of duplicating music purchased in one format in order to use it in another. Now, when I go in to Rasputin's, and buy some music, I'm implicitely agreeing to a contract, which says, "I'll give you the price indicated on this, in return for the standard rights that come with buying music." That is, when I "own" an album, I have all those rights normally associated with the album. This is to differentiate with other cases, like a DJ who may have been given demos on the condition that he can't sell them.
Now, when the RIAA comes along and says, "now you can't copy it", they are trying to take away rights after the sale. I already bought the music. I bought the right to listen to it, the right to destroy the media, and by standard practice, the right to make copies for personal use. If the artists don't want to sell the right to make copies for personal use, this has to be indicated BEFORE the sale is made.
That's my position. A lawyer would say it's rambling gibberish, so don't try to use it in court. But, that's what I think the law should say.
--Kevin
I realize that the majority of people interested in this issue are rampant, unashamed music thieves who use scenarios like I'm about to propose to protect their ability to steal, but I assure you it is genuine.
When I buy a CD I instantly transfer it to my hard drive and MP3 it. I never listen to the audio CD ever. I've got several dozen CDs I've never heard from the plastic. So would this be legal, the CD considered to be the backup or something like that? I also copy the MP3s to a Rio and listen to it on the road which has been deemed legal, so I'm not really seeing where the line begins and end about music transference...
Esperandi
I've seen and read several articles on this at this point. In each case where some case the RIAA has pursued actually entered a courtroom, it was not the act of copying that they had a problem with, it is distribution.
... the better, imho. Is this a problem technically with the current laws? Yes. Is it something they'd ever prosecute me for? No. Is it a problem when I connect to napster and suddenly am offering up over 1200 songs to the general public? Oh yeah, you bet.
I think they realize quite clearly at this point that the currently existing laws, acts and framework for legal positions are outdated; however, they are still trying to get at the piece that really hurts them (or at least, they would like us to believe it does).
Obviously, their recently released numbers about last year's sales don't seem to support that argument, but I digress.
From a personal perspective though, do I want to use CDs as my primary media anymore? No. Every CD I purchase now I immediately rip down to mp3. Why? Hell, that's easy. I love the idea of setting up 76 hours of shuffle play music for my home audio. The sooner I can rip the some 600 CDs I own to disk (damn, I need to go buy more drives *grin*)
In summary, I think that we will definitely see changes in the way media is even defined in the near future. More and more artists are going to be moving their media to digital formats first, circumventing the traditional distribution methods for more modern methods (where they don't get screwed and still own their own music). The laws are going to need to change to support whatever the artists push for. They finally have leverage!! I'll support the artists in this one. They've been screwed for too long.</rant>
- Geo.
: "I abort and kill -9 him in my caffeine dream" - fridge code
Second, for those too lazy to read it, the act deals with distribution, not personal recordings. If you legally own the media you are recording from and do not give or sell your copies, you are covered, according to this Act.
-------------------------
-------------------------
As easy as herding cats!
Though those might be the actual terms of the law, I relate it to this situation: You are in California, sitting around a table with your buddies playing poker for money...now, is it illegal? Technically it is, but I doubt there is one case on the books where it has actually been inforced. By no means do I endorse these rediculous restrictions, but to stop the commercialization of pirated software, they have to do something. Much like the gambling laws are to restrict large scale casino action or underground poker halls, these audio reproduction laws are to try and lower the distribution of pirated software... Just a thought... Dan
It's totally disigenuous of the RIAA to say that since the Audio Home Recording Act doesn't cover computers, then all copying of music with computers is illegal. To the contrary: since the Audio Home Recording Act doesn't cover computers, copying of music with computers is much less restricted by law than copying it in other ways.
The way I read it, it does cover computers, but to a much more ridiculous extent. The act says
No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any digital audio recording device or digital audio interface device that does not conform to--
(1) the Serial Copy Management System;
(2) a system that has the same functional characteristics as the Serial Copy Management System and requires that copyright and generation status information be accurately sent, received, and acted upon between devices using the system's method of serial copying regulation and devices using the Serial Copy Management System; or
(3) any other system certified by the Secretary of Commerce as prohibiting unauthorized serial copying.
Seems to me like no one can even sell computers anymore.
As a note...in one of the appendixes of pihkal
(the latter sections are available online at
the www.lycaeum.org) Shulgin recounted something
that he had been told...
He was asked if he could read "War and Peace"
in a week. A question that he answered yes to
after the apropriate amount of wincing at the
thought (for those who have never seen it on the
shelf, it is a LONG book)
At this point it was stated that a person would
need to read at that same pace (fast enough to
read war and peace in a week) for 25,000 years
to read ALL of the laws that are in effect today
in the US.
Now, when I was in high school, I looked high up
on the shelves, and I saw a valume labeled
"Massachuessets General Laws" (yes I live in MA)
It was a very thick book. Them I looked to the
right and noticed that there was a Volume 2...then
I noticed that there were enough volumes to it
to FILL the ENTIRE shelf....and this was a fairly
dusty volume quite a few years old.
How can a person be reasonably expected to comply
with this many laws?
Then again..the discordians among us would point
out that we are in the age of Beuracracy....
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Well since the paper shortage has not come and
end the age of beuracracy...that would mean that
we are still in the age of beauracracy.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
> Actually, that's TIHKAL, not PIHKAL. It's the
> introduction to appendix B (page 592).
Actually...I thought it was in both,....
in any case I don't keep a copy of either
of them at work (though I did once bring my copy
of pihkal....and 2 of my co-workers recognized the
book)
> Hail Eris!
:)
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I've been reading through the (admittedly dense) text of the law itself (Public Law 102-563. Read it yourself at the Library of Congress). I can't find anywhere where it says that individuals are not allowed to make copies for their own use, despite what the RIAA says. The law seems to deal only with making manufacturers, importers, and distributors pay royalties. The only section that gives me pause is subchapter D, Sec. 1008, mainly because it's a huge run-on sentence. I don't understand what it says. Since IANAL, could someone a little more knowledgeable take a look?
--Ford Prefect
There should be no cause for the computer to second guess my intent; If there is an exception to the general rule, I should have stated that clearly in my code.
A good law should be written so that a judge, using nothing but the constitution and applicable law, can give intended ruling for every possible situation.
There should be no need for a judge (or jury) to second guess the "intent" or "spirit" of the law; If there is an exception, it should be clearly stated in the law.
Of course one must remember that laws deal with human beings instead of bits, but the likeness in criteria still stands.
And I hear that bad data gets sent to dev/null in Texas...
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Is everyone here just going to take the RIAA at their word. That would be a little like asking someone from microsoft about linux. I saw the same legal statement on the site the first time I went there too. The RIAA take one interpretation of the home recording act that is not supported by judicial precedence and everyone takes up arm.
If you own music you have the right to listen to it in any way that you like. That includes copying you cd's to mp3 to listen to on your computer or on you mp3 player. IANAL, but all the large web news sites have lawers and every single one of them say that it is totally legal to copy your own music to a new format. You have that right under fair use. That's why mp3.com is ok in doing their new beam it program. They may be on somewhat new ground because, they, not the people who own the cd's ripped them but only people that bought rights to listen to the cd's can use the new program.
What would you expect the RIAA to say. Sure, go ahead a copy your stuff to mp3 just be sure not to let anyone else have it. The RIAA is taking an incorrect interpretation of a law and is trying to get gullible people to beleive that it is correct. What they are doing is legal because it is a valid interpretation of the law. The courts have decided that it is not the correct on though and that's what counts.
Let them blow smoke up your ass if you want but don't act stupid.
Now can we get on to more productive matters.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
It's getting deep! The part where RIAA says
Computers and general-purpose computer peripheral devices are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means they do not pay royalties and they do not incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted.
looks like a bunch of FUD to me. I read the Audio Home Recording Act at Cornell's online law library and it specifically says that it has NOTHING to do with anything
that is primarily marketed and most commonly used by consumers either for the purpose of making copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works or for the purpose of making copies of nonmusical literary works, including computer programs or data bases.
It doesn't say anything about disallowing fair-use copies for personal use using computer equipment instead of a minidisc recorder. It just says that manufacturers of multi-purpose recording equipment don't have to pay royalties. The only activity labeled as illegal by the act is the manufacture or import of a "music recording device" (which by definition contained in the act _excludes_ computer equipment) without making royalty payments. I say that they're full of it. If any of you get a different reading out of the actual text of the act, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I say RIAA can just stuff it.
To whom it may concern:
I was recently made aware of the text of your website at the address:
http://www.riaa.com/tech/tech_ht.htm
In it, you make some statements and recommendations to consumers about the legality of copying analog and digital music, telling us what we can and can't copy, in reference to the Audio Home Recording Act:
Computers and general-purpose computer peripheral devices are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means they do not pay royalties and they do not incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted. It is copyright infringement, and a violation of federal law. This is true whether the source being copied is analog or digital; whether you are copying an entire album or just one song or even part of a song; or whether you are making a compilation of songs from albums you already own. The same holds true for copying music off the Internet. While MP3s may be popular, if the artist and record company have not specifically authorized the music to be freely traded on the Net, then posting MP3s to an Internet site or downloading them to your computer hard drive is copyright infringement.
The bottom line: the only digital copying of music that is allowed is with digital recorders that are covered by and comply with the Audio Home Recording Act.
This information is misleading at best, and seems to me to be blatantly fallacious and intentional untruthful. Text from the actual act indicates that any personal or non-commercial use of digital or analog recording technologies are explicitly exempted from the act:
Sec. 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.
Also, the general interpretation of US law indicates that only those things specifically placed under the jurisdiction of law are subject to its consequences, and those not (for example, computers/hard drives/MP3s in the Audio Home Recording Act) are not affected. The old "implied powers" argument has been defeated for centuries in court, and your attempt to resurrect it in an "informational" web page for the public seems to me an intentionally underhanded method to deter the proliferation of digital copies of music that individuals own without paying royalties to record companies. US courts have echoed the consumer's right to make digital copies in recent court cases, including the one the RIAA brought against Diamond Multimedia. The resulting decision stated that consumers have a right to space-shift and time-shift their content--consumers can make copiesof music thy own to hard drives/MP3s/etc all they like.
Pleaseeither remove the fallacious information from this website or clarify that it reflects the wishes of the RIAA, and not US law. Also, I would appreciate a response indicating the plan of action regarding the website.
Bryan Klingner, MCSE, MCP+I
After reading the "rules" I went and took a look at the real Audio Home Recording Act. This is what I found:
"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."
For those of you interested in seeing for yourselves, here is the web site: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ 17/1008.html
Why is it that people always hear what I say, and not what I mean?
The RIAA is quick to point out that computer compaines do not pay them any royalties. They neglect however to mention that under the Audio Home Recording Act there is a royalty payment for the medium used to make digital copies, which in my understanding includes CDR's. This means that you can make digital recordings of your music using your computer onto a CDR as you have already paid the royalty. And did anyone else notice that the RIAA never directly referred to the Act in question, or gave anyone directions on where they can find a copy of it? What do they have to be afraid of?
Regardless of what the Recording industry says, the songs on CD are in a DIGITAL format, and as such, (if memory serves me correctly), we are purchasing the DIGITAL CONTENT, not a physical product. If I purchase software, I am legally allowed to make a working copy, regardless of whether it is in CD format or floppy disk. Why is music any different? If I purchase a CD, I am going to make a working copy of that CD, in a format that is convenient for me (in my case, MP3).
Lawyers be damned.....
Jailbrekr.
Feed The Need[goatse.cx]
Being a publisher of my own music and being in a band for 10 years, I just have to say that the last parafraph in the RIAA statement is bullshit, artist don't get shit from their CD sales. The record companies do. On a normal contract, if the band is lucky, on a $17 CD at Camelot Music the artist will get about $1.00 of that CD. If a band sells more than 100,000 CD's that is $100,000 for the band. Then you have to pay for the production of the CD ( last time i looked Sony's studio was $130,000 a day ), then pay your manager ( they take 30% ), and all the other expenses ( equipement mostly ). After all the bills are paid the average musician makes about $20,000 from the sales of CD's. I'm pretty sure the snail mail man makes more. That is why you pay $35.00 for a t-shirt at a concert. All the money is made from touring, record companies pay for some of the initial amount to start the tour, but it all get's paid back to the company. By the looks of the article the RIAA makes it sound like MP3's and shit like that is hurting the artists but it's not the companies are taking a very small hit.
AK
Did you see that the RIAA has an MP3 for free.... Here
AK
As I understand, it was debated in the early days of the formation of the U.S. govt. to have another house of congress devoted to removing laws. Too bad they didn't go through with it.
That's why we have three branches of government. The legislative branch can pass all the laws they want to pass, but A) the President can always veto them or B) the Supreme Court can always declare them unconstitutional. We were talking about this exact thing recently in my poli-sci class, and it was brought up that Congress considers an average of over fourteen thousand bills (proposed laws) every session, only a very small portion of which get passed.
=================================
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
If I cannot port music into other forms for my own personal enjoyment, then the RIAA is in effect selling me less product for more money. This personally makes me more inclined to listen to the radio and less likely to buy a CD. If the large recording studios won't service my needs who will ? I envision a scenario where people buy "uncontrolled" digital media for a fee on the web directly from its creators, eliminating the recording industry all together. Perhaps this would even increase value for the consumer and profit for the artist as an expensive layer would not be chewing the profits. Just imagine a sign at your favorite venue: "Did you enjoy tonight's performance ? Download it for $3.99 when you get home at http:...." Maybe it would even be an included option when you buy tickets for large shows.
Lurking in the desert
I didn't sign any contract.
You don't have to. All it takes is the little © on the disc to put copying, redistribution, and "fair use" under the jurisdiction of (US) federal law. You bought the disc, but not the right to copy it. It's taken for granted thet you can't go buy a book, Xerox it's contents and hand it out on the street corner, why should music be different?
feel confident that if the MPAA took me to court concerning my CDs which have been MP3ed
It would probably be the RIAA, not the MPAA, they want your DVDs. However, you are probably right, as a previous poster quoted, non-commercial recordings are specifically exempted from this act.
0 1 - just my two bits
They are spreading misinformation because they want you to be ignorant of your rights.
Once you purchase a copy of an album, it is perfectly legal for you to transfer it to your computer.
They wish it was illegal.
There's nothing to prevent them from putting up a web site with misinformation in order to attempt to mislead the public, which is exactly what they have done.
For what it's worth, artists generally make $1-3 bucks/CD... The artists may be getting screwed by the recording industry, but it doesn't make it any better when you (not personally) turn around and screw them a little more. Besides that, artists did unfortunately sign into a contract with a record company, saying they AGREE to receive as little as they get. They have not signed a contract with anyone else saying that they can redistribute their music for free...
I think i'm turning against MP3's... IT's cool that bands exist on mp3.com and otherwise that say it's okay to download their music as an MP3, but too many people are abusing the fact that they're easily downloadable and amassing huge collections of mp3 which they don't own, don't plan on owning, and aren't deleting. They are, you know, thieves. Let it be up to the musician to decide what happens to their recordings, not the poor college studnent that can't afford their cds.
On comparing the complexity of software with the complexity of the law:
joker05> How ridiculous does that sound?
Except that software and law are fundamentally different. Software does not
claim an comprehensive, involuntary jurisdiction. One is free to ignore badly
designed software. However, one would ignore a badly designed law at one's
peril. If something is to be imposed on a set of individuals without their
explicit consent justice demands that those individuals be capable of
understanding it and be informed of its requirements. A body of law that
exceeds the understanding of those held competent under it is morally without
foundation. Whether the body of law currently in use throughout these United
States meets this simple requirement is left as an exercise for the reader.
If you were to look at Nintendo's IP page, you would find that Emulation is illigal. Yet, this is completly false. Big companies seem to have 'interesting' ideas about what is and is not legal.
Computers and general-purpose computer peripheral devices are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means they do not pay royalties and they do not incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted.
There not coverd by the law, but that dosn't mean that they you arn't allowed to record onto them. All it means is that the RIAA dosn't make money for every hard disk. The law dosn't say what you can and can't do with your own equipment, all it says is that for every peice of recording media (analog or digital) that some of the money from the sale goes to the RIAA, beacuse it's posible to use it to pirate music. What the RIAA put on there web page is just a fanticy.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
That the RIAA makes money everytime you buy a blank audio tape, or Music only CD. But they don't make money of hard drives.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Do you really think so? Then please consider the following scenarios:
1. The government defines the LPL (Law Programming Language). They describe it in a way normal laws are described nowadays. The definitions of the language become unwieldy, thus the language itself becomes unwieldy. Net result: lawyers won't touch it, because it deals with matters programmers are supposed to understand. Programmers won't touch it for it's written in legalese, and there's lawyers to deal with that. IMHO, anything the government gives out, with supposedly good intentions, is overly complex and/or not thought about well enough.
2. Third parties define LPL's (Law Programming Languages). Imagine that. A clever bureau comes with LPL1.0. Then MS comes with MS-LPL (buys LPL1.0). Borland-LPL is issued. All with their own little design flaws, so v1.1, v1.2 , v2.0 and v2.51 are soon issued. Laws are issued under every brand and version of these LPL's. Imagine that in court. You need a lawyer who understands all these LPL's on top of the already complex laws. You need every judge to understand them. This, to me, doesn't seen feasible.
Plus, in both cases, normal citizens will hardly be able to understand the law. No matter how clearly and rigid you define your language.
----------------------------------------------
the pun is mightier than the sword
They might as well just say "If there's possibility of the music getting onto a computer, then you can't do it," because that's what they're trying to do. Instead of saying that, they're blocking every means they can think of to achieve it in an ass-backwards kind of way.
Ok, if it's legal to copy a TV broadcast onto a VHS tape, then is it not legal to copy a music video off MTV, even for my own personal use? And then what if I had a digital recorder such as TIVO? Would this be different still? Is TIVO legal?
Obviously, the RIAA is mostly concerned about scaring people at this point. If they can make people think that they will actually get in trouble for making MP3's of any type, it will scare people away from the technology. Isn't that essentially FUD?
Discl. Abbrs.: IANL, IMHO
The annoying thing about the AHRA is that the RIAA likes to claim it gives consumers rights they would not otherwise have. But, because of the case law from the betamax case, it's pretty firmly established that a) manufacturers can't be charged with contributory infringement by producing a device that has one or more legitimate uses, and b) copying of content for "time-shifting" purposes is a fair use. And, as demonstrated in the eventually settled diamond rio case, courts seem inclined to feel similarly about "location-shifting". However, SCMS still prevents users from recording when it would not infringe, and the AHRA prevents manufacturers from producing devices which would otherwise be legal. This annoys me almost to death... =) As a non-US-citizen, I find it a little annoying that wierd US laws effectively enforce feature taboos on the world.
[It's just life, they say. =)]
To those who care about such things: Can the AHRA be considered a prior restraint on speech? e.g. Would banning or requiring licenses for all printing presses violate the first amendment to the US constitution?
>If I OWN the music
This is incorrect.
Unless you are the copyright holder, you do NOT own the music. You own the media the music is on, and you have a license to play the music. Very similar to a software license.
I have a Windows 98 CD here. Does this mean I OWN Windows and can do whatever I want with it? I bet the law would disagree if I started burning copies and handing 'em out on the street corner.
I have a Redhat CD here. Does this mean I OWN Linux and can do whatever I want with it, licenses be damned?
-LjM
... but that wouldn't allow everyone to build up the proper righteous indignation. Geez, don't try to bring facts into the debate. This is slashdot!
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Make the law so Joe Citizen can understand it... otherwise, your law is poorly written and needs to be rewritten until it is understandable to the layman. Part of the reason so many laws are broken is that they are confusing,
contradictory, or just plain unknown to the citizen. Even the cops who will arrest you don't know the law until they're told by others to arrest you for whatever. Go to a police station and ask then to appraise you of all new laws
passed this year so you can stay up to date. They'll laugh you out of the office.
These are good points but you fail to realize that even though they are hard to understand you still have to understand them because ignorance of the law is no excuse for a violation of the law. Today I have probably done some small infraction of the law that no one would even know about unless someone were to actually get me for violating.
When the laws are all secret and no one will tell you what they are, how can one be expected to follow them?
You literally live in constant fear unless you want to accept a small risk. Like I have said you most likely violate a whole slew of laws every day and don't realize it. If you did know all the laws you would have a mighty long list and not a whole lot of sanity left.
Even more to the point. There are so many laws today with so many new ones coming on the books constantly, that I do not believe it is humanly possible for a single person to know them all. If so, how *can* one
ever hope to comply?
Well I don't know how exactly lawyers do it but I would imagine that since laws are divided into classes and such. Laws for murder, rape, speeding, etc. You just look at the laws covering the class of something that you do. When you get your driver's liscence you are looking at a class of laws that are made for driving. Now I don't know exactly how close I can park to a railroad track anymore (never had to do it) but I can pretty much look at the big ones and follow them.
Gee... if I take this little gun and shot him I can be tried for murder and potentially spend the rest of my life in jail. Usually you go from the most obvious to the specific. Look at the facts and then act on those facts.
Unfortunately this makes law one of those professions that is usually concerned with after the fact matters.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
So what are people buying instead of standalone audio CD recorders and DAT decks? Super cheap computer-based 8x CDR recorders and dirt cheap CDRs by the 50 pack. Of course, it never occurred to the RIAA that by suppressing the market for standalone digital audio recording devices, they were pushing the development of home digital recording technology towards the ONLY device in the house with a direct connection to the internet. Now they are totally screwed. Stupid strategy, stupid tactics.
This is one of Life's little engineering principles:
When you build a better mousetrap, you breed a smarter mouse.
A new kind of meat designed to appeal to vegetarians.
"There is no basis in any law, statute, regulation, or court decision that says you cannot copy your own music discs on a computer recorder," maintained CD-Page (www.cdpage.com), a Web site devoted to CD news. I queried a number of lawyers specializing in copyright law, and they backed CD-Page's position.
AHRA regulates the makers of electronic equipment but contains no provisions for prosecuting individual consumers, according to Denise Mroz, an associate attorney for Woodcock, Washburn, Kurtz, Mackiewicz & Norris, a Philadelphia law firm. What this means is that the law itself doesn't prohibit home recording. Copyright issues may come into play, but Mroz said re-recording albums or making compilations for personal use may fall under the "fair use" exemption to copyright law.
However, Mroz said, recording CDs for commercial gain is undoubtedly illegal. This is the real problem for the recording industry.
First, for your personal use, you can make analog copies of music. For instance, you can make analog cassette tape recordings of music from another analog cassette, or from a CD or from the radio, or basically from any source. Essentially, all copying onto analog media is generally allowed.
Ask them if you can copy tapes 10 years ago and they'll chew your ear off. They're only allowing this because analog recording decreases quality.
As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted.
This is an EXACT QUOTE. They're saying that you cannot copy music onto your hard-drive, ever, for any reason. This, ladies and gents, is bullshit. If I OWN the music, I should be able to put it onto my hard drive as a means of backing up, right? What if the CD gets broken? Or a million other reasons?
Artists and songwriters don't collect royalties, which affects their ability to make a living; record companies don't recoup their investments, and that makes it more difficult for them to invest in new artists and new music.
Wait, didn't the recording industry make more money this year than before? Isn't MP3 helping more artists because it allows for increased exposure?
This document tries to say "you're hurting the artists" when all it really says is "we want more of your money".
------------
"Okay, who taught the cat how to type ctrl alt delete?"
Hilary Rosen's bio notes that she is a "veteran lobbyist on Capitol Hill." Interesting that the RIAA is based in Washington DC and not in L.A. where most of the labels are.
Of course, the RIAA will probably send its goons to seize your hard drive if you send them email. But, hey, nobody misses democracy, right?
bun-fhuinneog agam!
To answer a few things at once here:
1. The poster who clarified that the AHRA applies to manufacturers, distributers, importers and the like and not to consumers is absolutely right, except that I believe there is a private right of action against individuals who deliberately circumvent the SCMS required by the Act.
2. To the poster who asked about the decision in RIAA v. Diamond, please note that the Court didn't address CD-R's, it limited its holding to the specific case of the RIO which can only download information from an attached computer, it cannot itself convert WAVs to MP3s or rip WAVs or MP3s from CDs. Because the primary pupose of a computer is not to record music, and because the Rio itself can only copy from the computer, the Court held that the RIO is not a digital recording device under the act. (This is an oversimplification, but it's close enough for government work.) In short, RIAA v. Diamond says nothing about the applicability of the AHRA to other kinds of digital devices, Napster clients, or anything else -- it should be interpreted as strictly limited to its facts. You can bet the RIAA sees it that way.
3. To the poster who wrote: "So, thus, the RIAA is basically wrong in their claim that digital recording to computers and the like is illegal?" No! The original poster said that RIAA was claiming that the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 prevents certain kinds of copying. If they are claiming this, they are wrong. But, and I cannot stress this enough, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the plain old Federal Copyright Law (as of at least 1976) certainly do bar certain kinds of copying. The exceptions for fair use (established by statute) and "time shifting" (established by the Supreme Court in the Betamax case) should apply to digital recording in most contexts, so ripping your own CDs should be fine, but that does not mean you can copy other people's CDs with abandon.
WARNING -- OBSCURE AND BORING LEGAL POINT COMING
An intersting (?) aside here: The Ninth Circuit in RIAA v. Diamond ruled that the primary purpose of the Rio is "space shifting" -- that is, copying music that you own for listening to in other places or on the go. The Court held that such "space shifting" was analagous to "time shifting" which the Supreme Court had found, in Betamax was not a violation of the Copyright law. Thus, the Court held that copying to the Rio is a fair use.
This decision is probably a little bit wrong. The Court probably meant to say that copying to the Rio does not violate the copyright law, not that it is a fair use. The distinction is a subtle one that only a copyright practitioner would think of, but the copyright bar has made much of it. Essentially, if a certain use is a "fair use" then there is no restriction on that use, regardless of the source of the original material. For example, parody is the classic fair use. I can copy Mickey Mouse and make a parody of him all I want, regardless of whether or not I own any rights whatsoever in the original image. Thus, if "space shifting" really is a "fair use" it should be legal to copy any material -- regardless of whether I own the original or not. This is almost certainly not what the Court meant, but a lot copyright lawyers who are much smarter than me have argued that that may be the result of the decision as a technical matter. Of course, if that is the case, the Supremes will probably close that loophole eventually.
In this case, of course, even more disclaimers apply. Do not take anything in this posting as legal advice. It is, at best, theory and at worst it could be a dangerous misstatement of the law, depending on who you believe. But if you get sued by the RIAA give me a call.
"The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government." - George Washington
When the laws are all secret and no one will tell you what they are, how can one be expected to follow them?
Even more to the point. There are so many laws today with so many new ones coming on the books constantly, that I do not believe it is humanly possible for a single person to know them all. If so, how *can* one ever hope to comply?
So the short of it is yes, you're allowed to make tape copies, CD-R burns, MP3 uploads into private lockers, copies from your CD to your hard drive, etc. -- just make sure that it doesn't get passed around too much. (Too much being defined as more than ~$1000 worth of goods in a year as per the Net Copy Act.)
Most relevantly, the RIAA has made public statements that they are not going to after individual consumers who copy their own music for personal use. So regardless of what you think about its actual legality, you will not get in trouble for it.
IANAL, but I have been in this industry for 3 years.
David E. Weekly
David E. Weekly
Code / Think / Teach / Learn
h4x0r for
All this talk of the audio home recording act is just an attempt to make a big loss from the RIAA's perspective sound like a win. The audio home recording act places big restrictions on the kind of copying you can do with certain kinds of components -- stereo system CD recorders, etc. -- These are required to pay royalties on blank media and incorporate "serial copy managment."
The act has NOTHING to say about what you can copy with computers; it specifically EXEMPTS them from the restrictions of the act. What's left covering computers is the traditional copyright act with traditional fair exemptions, which have been interpreted by the courts (e.g. in the RIAA vs. Diamond Rio case) as allowing quite extensive copying of music you own.
It's totally disigenuous of the RIAA to say that since the Audio Home Recording Act doesn't cover computers, then all copying of music with computers is illegal. To the contrary: since the Audio Home Recording Act doesn't cover computers, copying of music with computers is much less restricted by law than copying it in other ways.
The RIAA is lying in order to try to misinform you of your rights. From their web page:
... it's already firmly on our side.
The bottom line: the only digital copying of music that is allowed is with digital recorders that are covered by and comply with the Audio Home Recording Act.
The law they are referring to is the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. They are lying. It's written right into the law that the law does NOT apply to end users.
Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions [meaning things they can't sue you over, because they aren't illegal]
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.
In other words, the law specifically says that the law does NOT apply to end users making non-commercial recordings.
In fact, the law only applies to persons who manufacture or import digital recording devices and media. Since you are not doing either, the law does not apply to you.
What does apply to you is the general law regarding copyright, which incorporate fair use. Under fair use, you are not infringing on copyright if you make personal copies of copyrighted materials, without distributing them, for your own use. This was decided by the courts, and is the reason why VCRs are legal to buy, sell, and use.
We don't need to get THIS law changed
Once again, the RIAA does not want you to know your rights. They want you to be misinformed and believe that you are breaking the law when you engage in legal fair use practices. That is the purpose of the false, deliberately misleading statements on this web page.
- John
The relevant part seems to be section 1008, which says "...No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on... the noncommercial use by a consumer..."
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Instead of just throwing this out here for a bunch of people who really don't have a clue about what they are talking about to argue about? All I can see is this article generating more heat than light.
I mean, I think you all could afford it.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
the act is right here! go ahead and read!
"Make the law so Joe Citizen can understand it... otherwise, your law is poorly written and needs to be rewritten until it is understandable to the layman. Part of the reason so many laws are broken is that they are confusing, contradictory, or just plain unknown to the citizen. Even the cops who will arrest you don't know the law until they're told by others to arrest you for whatever. Go to a police station and ask then to appraise you of all new laws passed this year so you can stay up to date. They'll laugh you out of the office."
/. the other day that developers don't much care for the end user, because developers basically design for other developers. This seemed to be a prevalent view, and no one saw a problem with it.
;)
Or, only slightly offtopic, but something interesting to consider...Joker's corollary of computer programming to the legal profession:
Make computers and their systems work so Joe Citizen can understand them...otherwise your programs are poorly written, and need to be rewritten until they are understandable/usable to the layman. Even the admins who are there to help you don't know how the software works until they're told by tech support. Go to your local computer store and ask them to appraise you of all new upgrades released this year so you can stay up to date. They'll laugh you out of the office.
How ridiculous does that sound?
The closer we get to software, the harder it is to place it in the context of everyday users. I saw someone say on
Law works a lot the same way, if you think about it. The closer you get to the atomic detail involved, the more complicated it gets, and the harder it gets to explain. Remember, the only true answer to any legal question is, "it depends." Legal questions, or need for expertise, keep lawyers in business, on any side of any issue. Why make laws easier to understand, and risk your own business? By making your laws for lawyers, you leave the citizen out of the experience -- so when they have trouble, they need you to bail them out.
Technical issues, or expertise, keep developers in business, on any side. Why make computers and programs easier to understand, and risk your own business? By making your code for developers, you leave the everyday user out of the experience -- thus you'll never rule the desktop, or the world.
Think about it. Just an idea.....
Spoken by a law-school dropout geek.
A human being is the best computer available...the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor. - Wernher v
Having said that, let's start with the law. Section 1008 of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 says:
What that means, in English, is that individuals cannot be sued (or prosecuted) under the AHRA for making recordings, analog or digital, for non-commercial use.
The act is not designed to prevent people from making recordings (or MP3s or anything else) of their records. What the act does require is that the manufacturers of devices capable of making digital recordings (and also manufacturers of digital recording media) pay the record companies certain royalties for each such device (or unit of media) they sell and, more importantly, that they implement a system called the Serial Copy Management System (SCMS) on every such device. SCMS is designed to prevent people from making multiple generation digital copies from a single original - something that the record companies figure only pirates would want to do. SCMS has been around for 8 years now on every DAT and similar device sold to the public and its not going anywhere.
To answer the "how come I can freely tape my records or TV onto analog media" question, the answer is simple: Congress, with the help of record company lobbyists, has determined that lossless digital copying is not the same as lossy, hiss inducing, analog copying. It has therefore placed restrictions (the SCMS and the above-mentioned royalty) on digital copying. It's not a matter of teaching the "Courts" anything - it's a matter of telling Congress you disagree (if you do).
In fact, for a change, pretty much get it. When the RIAA sued Diamond, they claimed that the Rio MP3 player was a "digital recording device" subject to the terms of the AHRA and attempted to keep it off the market as it did not implement (back then) SCMS or any similar copy-protection scheme. The Court rejected that theory, finding that the Rio was not a digital recording device for the purposes of the Act. An in depth discussion of that case is beyond the scope of this already long-winded post, but if people want it I'll be happy to put it in a separate post.
Summary: The AHRA doesn't prevent you from recording anything. Go ahead. Go nuts. The DMCA is another matter, but that'll wait.
"The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government." - George Washington