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."

Comments

Trading copyrighted material is wrong.

[mosch]

Despite what everybody here wants to say, or how people want to spin it, the common way that software such as morpheus is used is ethically, and legally wrong. 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.

That being said, the software is not at fault. The RIAA may argue that it's an enabling the behaviour, but this bad behaviour can, and does occur through other means. There are entire mailing lists devoted to the trading of copyrighted materials via the USPS. This does not mean that the USPS should be outlawed.

Everybody should write your governmental representatives now, preferably with checks enclosed, to make sure that morpheus and the alike are not wrongly persecuted and prosecuted for behaviour that's beyond the author's control.

Re:Trading copyrighted material is wrong.

[Prior Restraint]

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.

Re:Trading copyrighted material is wrong.

[Lysander Luddite]

"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."

I'm ambivalent. Why wouldn't I want to make my recordings as near perfect as possible? That is after all the marketing spin fed to us to justify the move to CD in the past, and now DVD.

OTOH, yes, sharing it with the world is wrong IMHO. But wehre do we draw the line? Is it a specific number like 2, 50, 100? Is it only a non-profit use, for example trading or a give away? The fact that I can make a perfect duplicate in a small amount of time doesn't change the fact that I DO and should have the right to make copies for non-profit use such as gifts to a friend or backups. But it is a slippery slope.

I fear that the government (who is supposed to decide these matters) will side with the industry on this one either by makin a law prohibiting copies or washing their hangds of the matter by saying "let the market decide". Of course, either option means the distributors (not the creators or consumers) win.

Re:Trading copyrighted material is wrong.

[GreenCrackBaby]

So at what quality does it go from "it's ok for me to give this copy to you" to "you are a bad person" ???

Re:Trading copyrighted material is wrong.

[Lysander Luddite]

I agree and for the record, have never "shared" any music with somebody I never personally knew. That is my moral choice. But the issue isn't an all or nothing argument as the distribution industry wants to paint it. The court must decide the line where fair use ends and illegal activity begins.

Piracy is the word bandied by the distributors, but piracy connotes financial gain and I doubt that many users of P2P services ever saw financial gain. That is an issue that needs to be addressed in any court case.

Re:Trading copyrighted material is wrong.

[Xibby]

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.

Re:Trading copyrighted material is wrong.

[Erasmus Darwin]

"Piracy is the word bandied by the distributors, but piracy connotes financial gain and I doubt that many users of P2P services ever saw financial gain."

If there's a sale and I receive 50% off on the purchase of a $200 trenchcoat that I was going to buy anyway, then that's a net financial gain of $100. Everything regarding my possessions is the same as if the sale hadn't existed, except that I've got an extra $100 in my pocket. The gain comes at the willing sacrifice of money on the part of the seller. Of course the seller benefits, hopefully, by selling merchandise to people who wouldn't have bought otherwise, but in the case of someone who was going to make the purchase regardless, it's a win only for the purchaser.

Similarly, if I was going to buy a CD but instead grab the mp3s off of a P2P service, I receive a net financial gain equivilant to the purchase price of the CD minus the cost of not having the physical CD (which can be close to zero for people who almost exclusively use their legally purchased CDs in mp3 form and/or have a CD burner). Furthermore, this gain comes from the unwilling sacrifice of sales by the copyright holder.

Re:Trading copyrighted material is wrong.

[krlynch]

Everyone knows it's legally wrong, but most people do not believe it is ethically wrong (as proven by the sheer usage volume of services like Napster and MusicCity). Record companies commit original sins by denying musicians fair compensation, price gouging, and denying consumers fair use rights. In committing these wrongs they are forfeiting their ethical rights.

I don't think it is clear that "most people" think it is ethically acceptable; most people, even in the United States, have never even been to sites like Napster and MusicCity.

Further, justifying what "most people" may or may not believe to be ethically bankrupt or justified by claiming that record companies are unethical is just silly. Record companies are not "denying musicians fair compensation"; the musicians voluntarily agreed to the compensation they are getting when they signed a contract. If they didn't like the terms of the contract, they weren't required to sign it. Ergo, no denial of compensation. Record companies are also not "price gouging"; you aren't obligated to pay for any album in the first place, so you can't claim that you were obligated to pay too much. If you think an album is too expensive, don't buy it. Ergo, not price gouging. And no record company is denying you your "fair use rights"; since those are protected by law to the extent that they exist, you can sue them if they are denying you those rights. Ergo, no "denial of rights". That they may be trying to have the definition of fair use modified is not relevant to the point you made; you have the same rights to try and convince your legislator to advocate changes in the laws relating to fair use that they do. And you can vote, while the corporation can only lobby; that gives you the real power, not them.

Look, I don't like the direction that fair use rights and DRM are going any more than you do, but don't try to turn it into a "righteous individual vs. evil corporation" argument; you'll loose, and we'll all look like idiots in the process. Fair use can best be protected by making logical arguments that accept the reality of the situation (i.e. most people use/used Napster to avoid paying for music they liked, that is, to break the law), and pointing out that the huge societal benefits that come from fair use greatly outweigh the few negatives, and that those negatives can in fact be addressed in ways that don't need to reduce the strength of fair use provisions.

Re:Trading copyrighted material is wrong.

[mosch]

Bruce Springsteen does not allow taping, yet DAT-heads contains numerous requests for his copyrighted material .

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.

Surprising. :)

[Meefan]

I'm not sure how much of a difference this is going to make. The EFF is great and all, but, frankly, they don't have much of a presence in Washington. Not compared to the MPAA, RIAA, and friends.

Still, Napster had one legal target; Peer to peer services have many. How are they going to stop these services? Especially open source ones? Seems to me that even if they "ban" or limit a given service, the legal ramifications are unlikely to extend to forks anyway. Change some comments and, violla! A new port!

The fact that there is no clear person responsible for the content of the services except the users themselves makes it difficult, as I said. They can't prosecute eighty thousand or more individuals. It's impossible.

Re:Surprising. :)

[frank_adrian314159]

How are they going to stop these services? The fact that there is no clear person responsible for the content of the services except the users themselves makes it difficult...

Easy. They'll use a three pronged approach:

They'll start at the highest tier, making large ISP's kick out any user who shares P2P under threat of suit.

They'll sue any major directory provider as an enabler (see the Music City suit).

Finally, if there's anyone still sharing files to any noticable extent, they'll go after them individually.

Remember that the RIAA doesn't need to completely stop sharing to win. They only need to make it dificult enough that most people don't go to the bother of doing it. They don't plan to win via eradication, but by attrition...

"freedom of technologists to innovate"

[Alrocket]

"This case is about the freedom of technologists to innovate and the public's right to communicate," said Fred von Lohmann, senior intellectual property attorney for the EFF.

This sounds chillingly like what Bill Gates said a few days ago... :)

Al.

finally...

[Prion86]

as a muscian, the only thing i worry about is not getting credit for my music. if people want to share it, go right ahead. if i happen to make some money as an after effect....right on. im just happy that there is someone with some clout speaking out about the fact that it really is control over technology. this sort of thing has to be nipped in the ass now before more legal precedents (ie dmca) are established.

MusicCity or FastTrack?

[CaseyB]

MusicCity produces only the "shell" software. The guts of the system (which is common to Morpheus, Kazaa, and Grokster) is called FastTrack.

I'm not sure why the "shell" company is the target of the suit. Wouldn't it be more productive to attack FastTrack directly? After all, they're the company selling the real technology. I suppose the American company is easier go after.

From a legal standpoint, if a piece of software is composed of many different components from different vendors, who do you hold accountable if they collectively create an "illegal" whole? Would Netscape or MS be held responsible if someone wrote a FastTrack plugin for their browser?

Re:MusicCity or FastTrack?

[CrazyBrett]

They might be picking random targets because they don't know any better. Things are getting so desperate that they'll attack anything that has the word "Music" in the title.

I vote we write a piece of software called MusicShareNet which does something trivial and unrelated, like editing text. Then we advertise it all over the place, and see if we can get the RIAA to panic and sue the authors :)

Not a very nice description of EFF

[Erris]

The article's sound bite: The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which has represented hackers, cryptographers and computer scientists in its push for digital rights..

Is considerably at variance with the EFF's description of themselves. I'd say the EFF is closer to the truth. They represent all of us not just a minority that can be Reasonably And inconsequentially Discriminated against.

The problem is

[GreenCrackBaby]

The RIAA and Motion Picture Association of America argue that this case differs little from those against Napster, Scour and Aimster, other file-swapping services that have been sued or shut down. All three companies are profiting from the trades of copyrighted works, or "building a business on the back of piracy" as the trade group executives are fond of saying.

That's the problem with this....RIAA is actually correct. MusicCity, by serving up ads, is profiting from the piracy of content.

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.

It would be better

[PineHall]

if MusicCity had a different name like FileShareCountry. Their name says that they are in the business of sharing music and thus making illegal file sharing a likely part of their software business. It would be better if they were about the general business of sharing files.

The Constitutional Bottom Line

[melquiades]

It's worth remembering in all of this that the US constitution grants congress a limited power to enact copyright law. Any such law must be design for the promotion of "science and the useful arts". The constitution does not grant congress any power of any kind to use copyright law to defend the profitability of corporations, or guarantee them that their business models will remain unchanged by technology.

So, ask yourselves, does file sharing -- the exchange of information on a scale far exceeding anything we have seen in human history -- promote the progress of science and the useful arts?

Does de facto control by coporations of the technology which makes this exchange possible promote the progress of science and the useful arts?

Re:The Constitutional Bottom Line

[Danse]

They don't, but we'd better hope that the court does.

Re:The Constitutional Bottom Line

[namespan]

The constitution does not grant congress any power of any kind to use copyright law to defend the profitability of corporations

The problem here is that the prevailing wisdom is that the arts/sciences are most advanced when profit from them is assured. And profit (again the prevailing wisdom goes) is only assured when people tightly control the rights to use their discovery. It's hard to completely argue that viewpoint away. Profit is a powerful motive that works in a lot of cases.

So if you want to argue the case in the current political climate, you have to be able make an economic case, or make a truly compelling case to the average individual that some legitimate rights are being taken away.

Re:The Constitutional Bottom Line

[krlynch]

It's worth remembering in all of this that the US constitution grants congress a limited power to enact copyright law.

From the great document itself:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: [The Congress shall have Power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

As has been pointed out in the past on Slashdot, note very carefully that "limited" applies only to the time duration of the copy and patent rights; the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to grant rights of any scope as long as those rights are limited in duration, and as long as those rights do not infringe on any constitutionally protected rights.

The constitution does not grant congress any power of any kind to use copyright law to defend the profitability of corporations, or guarantee them that their business models will remain unchanged by technology.

I don't see that restriction anywhere in the Constitution; if Congress believes that such a provision would "promote ... science and the useful arts", it certainly could use its copyright power for such purposes. However, I challenge you to locate any section of the U.S. Code that actually authorizes the government to do that. What you will find are provisions in the Code that "secure for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries", and that among those Rights is: the Right to transfer of copyright (from artist ot music company); the Right to restrict the forms and methods by which those writings and discoveries are initially distributed (they aren't required to sell scribed wax cylinders or vinyl records); the Right to encrypt those writings and discoveries and to solely distribute the rights to decrypt them under terms decided by the holder of the copyright (DMCA); and many others rights.

Whether these Rights that have been granted by copyright law satisfy the Constitutional requirements is not clear, as they haven't been tested in court, nor is it clear that they are good public policy; you and I may not like them, and you and I may think that some of them go too far, but it is not at all clear that they are unconstitutional (I would guess that most of them ARE constitutional, but bad public policy). And even if the law satisfies I.8.8, it is not clear that it doesn't violate some OTHER portion of the Constitution (some claim First Amendment rights are violated, others claim Fair Use and First Sale are constitutionally protected rights, just like the right of privacy), or if the law is in conflict with other legislation in certain circumstances (DMCA appears to many of us to conflict with the fair use provisions of the rest of the Copyright Act). I certainly think that some of the provisions of the DMCA are not Constitutional, but not because they violate the Copyright Clause.

All that aside, claiming that the law has been written to "defend the profitability of corporations", or to "guarantee ... business models" is, frankly, silly. If that were the case, then the protections in the law would not apply to you and the things you create or discover (since you aren't a corporation); and the protections most certainly DO apply to you. That you don't like the way some corporations are utilizing their granted copyrights has no bearing on the question of whether the granted rights are Constitutional; certainly, I don't like the way government contractors are required to bid on a project as if they were a union shop even when they aren't, but that doesn't mean the laws requiring such things are unconstitutional.

So, ask yourselves, does file sharing ... promote the progress of science and the useful arts?

Certainly this is irrelevant to the copyright argument! Sharing files may or may not promote progress; sharing of copyrighted sound files without the express permission of the copyright holder, even without the DMCA, is certainly illegal, and making it so was certainly within the purview of the Congress -- that you are using FreeNet instead of SneakerNet, or that you are using mp3 instead of analog-casette, simple changes of technology, doesn't make it any less illegal. The technology in this case is irrelevant to the legality of exchange; the Napster case (and all other similar cases) was not about technology, but whether by being an enabler of copyright infringement to the near exclusion of all other business, Napster was an infringer itself. The question of whether copyright infringement itself occurred was never questioned by anyone associated with the case, because it was crystal clear that infringement had occurred. Trying to hide from this fact and claim that Congress doesn't have the power to make that type of infringing illegal is only going to get you ignored by the public, the legislators, and the courts.

But you don't need a plugin..

[PopeAlien]

'Illegal' files can be got via HTTP or FTP.. You can find lists of them on webpages, most likely created with MS front page and viewed on Internet Explorer.. I think its time we really got tough on piracy and threw the whole Redmond lot in jail!

Gnutella

[CaptainSuperBoy]

Gnutella, although it's horribly inefficient, is just what you mentioned: Morpheus-like software that uses no central indexing server that can be shut down. The protocol is freely available and many open source clients exist.

The RIAA's approach to Gnutella thus far has been actively discovering copyright offenders and sending DMCA complaints to their ISP. The problem with Gnutella is that by design, everyone knows your IP.

What we really need, is a distributed storage network such as FreeNet. If I share my songs, the don't come from my computer - various parts of them are propagated to Bill's computer in Texas, Alice's computer in Canada, and Charlie's computer in Norway.. The RIAA is already having nightmares about this technology maturing. If software like this can become as efficient as Morpheus currently is, the RIAA's only hope would be SSSCA-type legislation that bans software such as FreeNet.

They'll have to do this forever...

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

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.

P-2-P for Linux Distributions...

[A Commentor]

Why hasn't Morpheus been used to distribute new Linux distributions. The last time that Mandrake and Red Hat were release, I looked on Morpheus and could not find the current release... I had to fight along with everyone else to get to a ftp server that would let me download.

Once I downloaded the ISOs, I put it in my files directory for Morpheus, but didn't notice anyone downloading it...

It could speed up the downloads (and require less bandwidth from their servers) if Redhat/Mandrake would put the files out on Morpheus to get shared.

RIAA is going to buy out FastTrack...

[mmacdona86]

and then Kazaa, Morpheus and MusicCity instantly become irrelevant. FastTrack is a small company in it for the money. The record companies could make them happy probably for less money then they would spend in legal fees suing the other companies.

FastTrack will probably announce its new, "rights-protecting" software at about the same time that the record company-sponsored download sites become available, so its large customer base will be in the lurch and vulnerable to being picked up by the record companies.

EFF should save its resources for defending file-sharing based on Open Source software.

Home Recording Act

[richieb]

Actually it is. Read the Home Recording Act. Distribution is illegal, if done commercially - i.e. you sell the copies.

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

WRONG

[Mr. Fred Smoothie]

US Code Title 17 Chapter 10 Subchapter D Section 1008 (from Copyright Act as amended by the Audio Home Recording Act):

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.

So it all depends on the definintion of "noncommercial use." If it means "you get no money in return", then obviously it's OK. If it means "you get nothing of value in return", then it could be argued that trading is illegal since you are receiving something of value (other recordings), thus the use is commercial. The sticky part would be if it means "you don't neccessarily get anything of value in return". That seems intuitively to me to be the correct interpretation, and would also seem to make file sharing in this context legal since I have no assurance that the people who consume the files I publish will in turn publish something I might want.

I guarantee you that the RIAA and MPAA would like to have noncommercial defined as "you receive nothing of value."

Unfortunately, though Chapter 10 defines many of its terms, it doesn't define "noncommercial." If anyone knows of somewhere else withing the Copyright Act or any other portion of the USC, let me know.

IANAL, but I can read.

Money is the nerve for war

[tcc]

Does EFF has a Paypal donation address or something similar without having to go thru all the problems of writing a check putting it in an envelope and actually GO OUTSIDE to mail it? It would be really useful and I encourage people that support the EFF to do the same.

Timelapse recording is legal in my book. Swapping movies over the net wouldn't be happening THAT much if the crap they shove at us would be worth seeing in a theatre... I go see movies about every week or 2, so I am a customer, and that gives me the right to complain as well, there will always be pirates, you will never get rid of them, but Movie swapping over the net wouldn't be happening that much if the DVDs would be set at a reasonable price and the movies themselves WORTH SEEING ON A BIGGER SCREEN. I won't repeat What I said in a previous similar post again but for god's sake, put up some better content to protect in the first place!

RIAA, I won't even talk about them, I don't wanna reduce de lifespan of my $9.75 keyboard for that subject :).

Music IP law should be dead by now!

[Computer!]

Before I get started, here's two of my favorite quotes from the article:

At a speech in Washington, D.C., she told software developers that it was only the specific illegal use of the software that the group is trying to stop, asking them to help develop applications that respected artists' rights to be paid.


Thanks for asking, but when was the last time the music industry spoke out against software piracy?! I just thought their cries for help were funny. Also:

The question is...whether they'll respect what artists create just like we in the recording business respect what the business sponsors and software developers in this audience create.

Great idea! I think what the RIAA needs is a good 'ol fashioned audit. Let's track down the license for every Pro Tools plugin and MIDI utility, make sure every copy of Word is official. I bet they've got Morpheus on their boxes!

Now, here's why the whole thing is an issue. Back in the day (pre 20th century), musicians made their money on performance. When people showed up to watch, they got paid. In order for this to work, there had to be lots of moderately-paid musicians, and only a few starving, or well-paid ones. If you were good actually performing, you became successful. Enter the age of 78s and radio. All of the sudden, musicians could make money without even showing up! Once a master recording was made, it could be duplicated with little effort (relative to cloning the musician and his band), and played over and over, for fans around the globe. In effect, record companies were granted a license to mint currency! This wasn't a big deal at first, since live performances, and the music audience in general, were small. Now with the mega-tour, and packaged crap being pumped into our ears by sleazy record execs, it is time to make a change. If you can't make money by touring, you need to hang it all up. It's time to bring the performance back into music. It's obvious that IP law won't stop 10 million people from listening to your music for free. As an artist, you now have the opportunity to dump the whole distribution channel and still make a decent living actually playing music for a live audience! Think of how much more integrity the business would have. No more gold records, only an artist and his axe (or tuba, or whatever). When that artist dies, we all have the right to enjoy his art forever, without interference. Think about that right there.

Join online at EFF.org!

[mmacdona86]

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.

Not necessarily..

[Danse]

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.

Re:control IS money

[istartedi]

Why do they want control? So they can get money. Why do they want money? So they can get control. :)

In the long run, the people with control will get money. In the long run, the people with money will get control. However, as a famous economist once said "in the long run, we are all dead".

He who is controlled is a slave, and he who controls is a slavemaster. Those who seek to loose controls say they are fighting slavery. But what is slavery? If a man is hired, and receives nothing for his work, isn't that slavery? Those who seek to "loose controls" would have musicians receive no payment in exchange for recorded music. Isn't that the essence of slavery?

Currently, copyright is a part of the government. What if it weren't? Well then, people would enter into contracts that are very much like what we have now with copyright. People would have to agree to a license that would be printed on a CD, much as things are with software now.

It would be laissez-faire with IP law, much as it was with labor law in the 19th century. Now, labor laws were enacted when conditions were shown to be oppressive. The key law is minimum wage. Without minimum wage, it would be possible to create defacto slavery via debt as was often the case in "company towns".

Now, there are certain people who hate copyright and would like to see IP law abolished, but ask yourselves, what would we get? We would get a totally unregulated market, which might be good or bad. Notice, making music licenses illegal is not the same as abolishing IP law--that would be just another form of government regulation.

Let's say that we had the totally unregulated market. What would happen to the price of really popular music? What would the license stipulate? Would fair use be part of the contract? Most importantly, would the laissez-faire IP system become as oppressive as a 19th century coal mine? If so, what would be the remedy?

The obvious remedy is some form of government regulation, which we already have in the form of IP law because the founding fathers forsaw that *creators* would be enslaved without it. So yes, there is a battle for control here, but it's more about who will get the power to regulate. Will the Fashionable Left with its current distaste for IP get the power, or will the Right In A Panic Over New Technology get the power? Will The People even have a clue? Will the careful balance crafted over the years fall to pieces?

What do I do? I object to proposals from both the Left (mandates for Free Software in government as an example) and the Right (DMCA, SSSCA) and seek to return the system to a fair balance. I guess you could say that I am pasionately moderate when it comes to IP law.... which is a really strange position. It's hard to get people excited about balance but in the end, it's what makes good politics. We have all seen examples of what happens when people go too far to an extreme (Nazis, Communists, and most recently the Taliban). Given that, not only should it not be difficult to get excited about moderation, it should be a patriotic duty for citizens of every country--not just the USA.

Re:RIP - Sam the Record Man

[irix]

Do you live in Canada? I do, and I haven't bought any CDs there in a long time. Why? Too damn expensive. They were selling CDs at a buck or two more than FutureShop, WalMart, CDWarehouse, etc.

CD sales are up over the last 5 years. Even if you consider that they are down somewhat this year you have to consider the overall economic climate.

Sams went under becuase of poor business decisions, not becuase of Napster. Quoting some clown who brings his laptop to parties doesn't change that.