Slashdot Mirror
EFF To Defend Music Swapping Service MusicCity
MattW writes "Yahoo is carrying the CNET story that EFF has come to the defense of MusicCity, which produces peer-to-peer software, but does not run central servers as Napster did. EFF has a whitepaper on the Sony Betamax case, and it discusses the implications of various court decisions during the Napster case and their effect on it as a precedent. A MusicCity lawyer, who was responsible for the successful defense of the Rio, is quoted, astutely observing: 'This case shows more clearly (than Napster) that what the plaintiffs are most concerned about is control of technology. This is all about whether they can leverage copyrights into control over software development.' And that's truly what the RIAA's interest in Napster was about: not money, but control."
It's not fair use to give near-perfect recordings of copyrighted material to everyone on the planet. This is not the same as making a tape for your friend.
Actually, it's exactly the same thing. The only difference is scale, and there is no legislative or judicial pronouncement which says that fair use may not scale.
You mean kinda like gift?
Pax, Ardax
Let's see, first it was ftp server hiden in machines at work or college, they conviced companies and colleges to shut them down. then came napster, they sued and won. napster is no more.
Now the target is Music City. The may eventually win this too, and they can even win some kind of legal stuff to force ISP to filter Gnutella trafic...
But there's more thing in the oven. Cult Of Dead Cow, the same group tha gave us BackOrifice, is developing what they call "project X" that will be ablle to do peer-to-peer file sharing despite censorwares installed in the midle...
And if RIAA wins over "project X" too ??? smart hackers (in the good sense) will come with aven another tool to share files.
RIAA is just trying to atract free publicity to the copyright issue, because technically speaking, it's a lost war for them, and I think they know this.
What ? Me, worry ?
The reason dubbing tapes is is legal is the loss of quality the sound suffers after repeated copyings. That was the deciding factor in the court battles back in the 80's. With that loss of quality gone, the main argument to the defense of copying music is out the window.
No, it's different, sorta...here's how.
You can burn a perfect copy of a CD for your friend. Your friend can burn a perfect copy for his/her friend. And so on and so forth.
In this case, there will be some quality loss over time, but it's minimal.
Or,
You can make a near perfect digital copy of the file and e-mail it to your friend. Your friend can e-mail and exact copy of that file to a friend, etc etc...
In this case, quality loss happens once. Every copy of the copy is the same.
With a tape and consumer level equipment, quality degrades a bit faster, but it's mainly a media issue. And it takes longer to copy a tape.
As tapes and CD's are physical, there're harder to distribute and easier to control compared to mp3s...
The differences aren't huge, but they are there and worth nothing. It's the ease and scale of the digital media that has them concerned. My brother and girlfriend could do it without reading documentation. My dad could do it if he sat down and read a manual.
Blah...I really lost focus with this post so I'm calling it quits.
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
Is it fair use if you lend your friend the CD? Is it fair use if people come to your house and listen to the recording?
...richie - It is a good day to code.
What we need is someone to drum up some Morpheus-like software, and to release it as open source sans-ads. Then RIAA cannot argue their "they're making money off our copyrighted works" and will have little hope of winning on those grounds.
You mean like opennap?
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
It's clear this list is not the respectful, law-abiding group you make it out to be. The only reason it's still around is it's illegal activities have managed to fly under the radar, for now.
Last I heard, it does have a central server; although not in the same sense that Napster did.
m l
Check here:http://gift.sourceforge.net/press_9_29_01.ht
EFF.org does accept donations online, and they send you a nifty bumper sticker when you join up! Everyone who reads YRO on Slashdot should be a member.
Actually, it could very well be considered fair use, or at least that's the way the law seems to read. Fair use matters are extremely tricky to work out and courts constantly differ on how to deal with them. Here's a good excerpt from Terry Carroll's copyright FAQ:
3.7) Can I legally make a cassette copy of a musical CD for my own use, so I can play it in my car?
This issue has been argued back and forth for many years, with consumers groups arguing that this was a fair use (see sections 2.8 and 2.9), and the recording industry arguing that it was not. The issue was finally settled by Congress when the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) (P.L. 102-563, 106 Stat. 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. 1001 - 1010) was passed in October 1992. This Act added ten sections to Title 17, one of which provided an alternative to the fair use analysis for musical recordings.
The new section states:
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. 17 U.S.C. 1008.
As the legislative history to this statute noted, "In short, the reported legislation would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use." H.R. Rep. 102-780(I).
Does this mean you can make copies for your family and friends, as long as it's not "commercial?"
A strict reading of the words in the statute
would seem to say that you may. This is not as outrageous as it sounds. Part of the impetus behind the AHRA was the perception that blank tapes were being used mostly to copy commercial musical sound recordings. As a result, the AHRA provided that a royalty payment (referred to as a "DAT tax" by its detractors) be paid for each sale of digital audio tape to compensate authors of musical works and sound recordings for the profits lost due to these copies. See 17 U.S.C. 1003, 1004. Arguably, the AHRA anticipates and allows exactly this type of copying, and a literal reading of section 1008 would tend to support this position. But the AHRA is still sufficiently new this hasn't been tested in court yet.
Note, also, that this section applies only to musical recordings; it clearly does not include spoken word recordings. Of course, it is still
possible that such a use of a spoken word recording might still be considered a section 107 fair use (see sections 2.8 and 2.9), even though
section 1008 does not apply to provide a clear exemption.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer