Slashdot Mirror
Cyber Sleuths vs. Secret Networks
amnfinch writes "I saw this article on BBC news and frankly, I was blown away. Just another example of the relentless campaign to treat file swappers as criminals when their 'crime' is murky at best." Sir Haxalot provides an article on the flip-side: "CNN has a story on 'exclusive' Peer to Peer networks, that require 'knowing the right people and having a wealth of content on your hard disk to get into the clique.'"
What about newsgroups? I hear about people trading very large amounts of data via newsgroups all the time, including entire CD's. It seems to be more reliable than peer-to-peer, and it's private. And what about the IRC? I've heard of people getting software shipped to them before it's even released to the general public because of good contacts on IRC channels!
Please have your wife post about such matters in the future. It is not considered "fair use" to distribute entire songs, albums, movies, and other forms of copyrighted material publicly and in their entirety without the copyright holder's consent.
It is against the law to distribute copyrighted material without the copyright holder's consent.
For more information, click here.
uhhh... Bzzzzztt!! WRONG!
You didn't listen carefully to your wife, because there's no way a cyber-law class in ANY school would define fair use in the terms you just described.
By your definition of fair use, all those CD bootleggers on the streets in New York City are legitimate, since they are copies of a purchased album. And that is obviously not the case.
The law governing fair use is actually fairly easy to understand: (link)
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(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.
It doesn't take an economist or a lawyer to understand point 4 - sharing copyrighted content that you do not have rights to millions of people would have DEFINITELY have a substantial impact upon the value of the copyrighted work.
Just helping you out in case you spout off that "big media companies" argument in front of a judge.
Pinkerton was also famous for being called in to stop labor strikes at Carnegie Steel and then shooting the workers that were on strike...
====
Crudely Drawn Games
> but it is considered fair use to lend a friend a cd??
Nope. It's considered lending. You don't have your copy, your friend does. If you and your friend both want to use that CD at the same time, someone's got to buy another one.
Same with all your other examples. There is one copy, and as many people as you want can listen to it (in a private, noncommercial setting - you're not charging for the music). If everyone there wants a copy of a CD, they have to buy their own copy, they can't make a copy of yours - you don't own the copy rights to allow that.
If this is an accurate rendering of (or materially similar to) the contract that Jody Whitesides signed back in the late 90's, then the sublicensing would seem to be legal (keeping in mind that IANAL).
You know, I don't care if its on P2P, but someone *selling* songs off my record is not fucking cool. I sure not getting any $$$ Orchard is NOT a label! It is/was? only for distribution. They have NO rights to this. This was paid out of our pockets. All of it.
Hmm - this may make it to my journal...I've got some calls to make tonight. BTW - We have some CDs left (the band is no more), if you like the samples, email me and I'll get you a CD... might as well make lemonade... grrr. ;P
Your idea sounds very similar to Freenet.
The "there'll be no music" arguement is complete BS. Before modern copyright law, people made music. Creative people will draw, sculpt, and make music independent of copyright law. Creating art is something people do. The only thing that copyright law produced was 1)RIAA/MPAA, and 2) pop stars. Maybe you think that there are not enough N'syncs, but I for one think one is too many.
If you look at the contracts that most musicians sign, you will see that they are exceptionally one-sided. So, while the musicians ARE getting screwed by p2p, the real losers from p2p are the record labels. And frankly, I don't have much compassion for record labels.
I also want to mention the Lifetime + 70 years copyright length. I think that the RIAA/MPAA are trying to keep the public domain as empty as possible, in the hopes that the public domain withers away. Yet the corporations will take as much from the public domain as possible (e.g. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen)
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
i was pleased to see the bbc related links included this balancing (if unfortunately titled) article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3022996.s tm
Also, here's some discussion on the issue.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Easy.
FM broadcast usage... it's called mandatory broadcast licensing.
Analog tape recording and swapping, legally defined as "fair usage".
Why is the digital equivalent (128K MP3 via P2P) of taping and tape trading illegal?
Campaign contributions aka legal bribery to elected Federal officians. If you want to construct some great moral principle out of this, be my guest. But don't expect to be treated with respect for expressing your viewpoint.
Even if you are being paid to spread RIAA propaganda here via some anonymous PR firm, you really can't expect respect for that even from the people who sign your paycheck.
If you're saying this because you actually believe *AA propaganda about "protecting starving artists", you're too dumb to deserve respect.
Tech Public Policy stuff
You would have to share more than that one file.
/.ers don't believe that file sharing causes damages
Incorrect;
Sec. 506. - Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement. -
Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private *financial gain*, *or*
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of *1 or more* copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000
Since they redefinded "financial gain" to include downloading files from P2P you are in criminal violation by of (1) by sending a single copy of a single file. The punishment for this crime is specified in Sec. 2319. A single copy of a single file with a "total retail value" of one cent shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year.
If you send a single file multiple times a five year prision term may apply, and 10 years on a second offence.
The penalty for file sharing (and the threshhold for criminal charges) is based on damages.
Nope,. There is a threshhold for the number of copies and supposed retail value, but actual damages can be zero. If I send 10 copies of a program to PC users who then discover the program only runs on Mac and they all delete it then there is a prison sentence with actual damage of zero dollars.
Many
Setting aside what other people think, I think I mentioned my view elsewhere to you. Copyright law was intended to secure any profits of the exploitation of a work for the creator. Copyright law does not exist to force any particular market to generate a profit.
I'm all in favor of "traditional" copyright law. Copyright law has drifted FAR away from its original intent, and in the last few years it has been altered in severly abusive ways.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.