RIAA Sues More Music Lovers

DominoTree writes "The RIAA, a trade group representing the U.S. music industry has filed a new round of lawsuits against 744 people it alleges used online file-sharing networks to illegally trade in copyrighted songs, it said on Wednesday."

Comments

This is why...

[MalaclypseTheYounger]

You all need to get your butts over to MEDIACHEST.COM http://www.mediachest.com/ and start trading your music, DVDs, CDs, and Books there.

(This is not a plug, I don't work for them or get paid by them)

Basically, you catalog your collection of stuff using their amazon-like lookup functions, and then other people can search your collections (they find you by Groups, by Zip Code, etc) and then you trade with them any way you want (in person, by mail, etc).

This service is excellent because the RIAA and MPAA and FBI and whomever else cannot I repeat CANNOT get you on law breaking. As the 'swapping' happens offline, they have no way to find out about it.

Please give it a shot, if this website takes off the world be a happier place.

Re:This is why...

[JWW]

Reselling/giving away your stuff is not stealing. Back a few years the RIAA DID try to stop CD stores from selling used CDs and failed miserably.

There is a rather old case about reselling books that setup this precedent. Basically the onwer of the book can resell it for any price they want. Of course, this is why computer software is LICENSED and you don't actually own it.

Re:Has there ever been an actual court case

[TedCheshireAcad]

First check to see if you are among the accused.

The EFF is helpful :)

Re:Circumvent the RIAA

[xhorder]

Or one could only buy from non-RIAA labels. See RIAA Radar http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ for a cool service to search for independent music. Also... Support metal! \m/

Re:Canada

[Ubergrendle]

I'd like to point out that it has not been proven whether we have the right to legally share copyrighted music. The point proven in a court of law was that the standard of evidence presented for copyright infringement by the CRIA was insufficient to proceed with copyright infringement charges against individuals (basically the John Doe approach was rejected by Canadian courts).

The argument that 'sharing music online was like a photocopier' was in favour of treating the technology as a neutral medium, and that it was the activities of the users that needed to be questioned. ~Another~ A+ for common sense...

However...

I'm glad that our courts are more prudent and careful with judgements, but I'm less confident that our government will pass laws that are more open than the US. Just take a look at the joke called CRTC...

Screw the RIAA. Support Artists Directly

[wackysootroom]

A good way to tell if an album is released by an RIAA member is to use the RIAA Radar website.

It's a good way to boycott the RIAA while still being able to buy CDs.

Re:Boycott?

[pjt33]

I believe that in the UK at least they are required to render part of the song useless - start a few seconds in, finish a few seconds early, or talk over part of it. Of course, with patience it's theoretically possible to record a song a few times and either get one with the start trashed and the end okay and one the other way round for splicing or use correlation to filter out the voice.

RIAA alternatives - iRATE radio

[Anonymous Coward]

"iRATE radio is a collaborative filtering system for music. You rate the tracks it downloads and the server uses your ratings and other people's to guess what you'll like. The tracks are downloaded from websites which allow free and legal downloads of their music."

Free, open source iRate radio

Re:Canada

[Kombat]

Note that Parliament will be stengthening Canada's copyright laws as soon as the MP's return from summer break. So enjoy it while you can, because it will be made explicitly illegal in Canada shortly.

Re:Burden of proof

[Anonymous Coward]

If you say you own the music, they sue you anyway.

They're suing people for sharing songs, not downloading them.

Re:A chilling effect on sales?

[MeanSolutions]

Well, with a car dealership, you at least have the option of taking the car you are thinking about buying out for a spin...

Re:A chilling effect on sales?

[cpt kangarooski]

Has it actually been decided what the legal definition of reproduction is?

Yes. 17 USC 106 sets forth the exclusive right to reproduce like so:

Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

17 USC 101 provides us with numerous definitions:

''Copies'' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ''copies'' includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.

A ''device'', ''machine'', or ''process'' is one now known or later developed.

A work is ''fixed'' in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is ''fixed'' for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.

''Phonorecords'' are material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ''phonorecords'' includes the material object in which the sounds are first fixed.

Furthermore MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993), and the cases that are based on it, such as Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999), hold very plainly that due to the fact that most computers necessarily infringe even when displaying information because their architecture is such that the copyrighted work is unauthorizedly and illegally reproduced in RAM, which constitutes a new copy of the work, being a tangible object in which a work may be perceived.

Reproducing bits WITHIN the NIC, as well as to the hard drive, RAM, cache, procesor, etc. are all reproductions capable of infringment. It's a bizarre result, but that's what the law is right now. Please read through those cases and you'll see this.

And, incidentally, provided your DVD player has no memory onboard -- which it almost certainly does, being more complicated than an ancient record player -- while it is not illegal to buy such a DVD, it is illegal to make incidental reproductions in the act of watching it.