Slashdot Mirror
Making Files Available Breaking the Law?
lordhathor2001 writes "The RIAA has argued in one of their cases that simply "making files available for distribution" violates copyright laws. This means that regardless of the legality of a file somebody has on their computer, just putting it in a shared files folder that can be accessed by other people is illegal. Although it's asinine, it really shouldn't come as any surprise given the RIAA's legal campaign that's more about what it believes than what the law actually says."
Well, if the file is not vilating copyright law, then it is not illegal. The RIAA should take its ill informed post and shove it...
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Putting files in a shared folder may be found to be illegal in a court of law. The mere act does not a crime make.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
oh, guess i better take the music I'VE made (which is free and legally distributable) out of there too, because i guess I (the owner of said music) have broken the law, too.
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
...the sky is blue, dogs still bark, cats meow, and down is still down.
I mean, really. What did you expect them to argue? "Oh, yes, we can't prove that they ever actually distributed a copy, so let's let all the nasty pirates go and we'll stop our campaign of lawsuits. Cherrio!"
Let's be serious here.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Freedom of speech surrendurs
So now owning Windows is illegal due to the default shares enabled! I hope the slashdotters are happy about this one!
Somedays I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
Simply author a file that you are the copy holder and then sue them for restraint of trade or insterstate commerce problems. Who are they to restrain trade?
Doesn't the first amendment give us the right to free speech? Couldn't that be applied here to give us the right to put files up for sharing on our computers if the material isn't copyrighted? It might just be me... but I think this is breaching our rights.
Could Slashdot at least wait until there's actually some proof before posting this crap?
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
If the person putting the file up doesn't have copyright permission to do so, then yes it is a violation.
Just like it is a violation for me to photocopy a book and attempt to distribute the photocopy.
gah.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The case in question is Elektra v. Barker, and here's some of the legal docs and stuff.
Complaint
Exhibit A
Exhibit B, Part 1
Exhibit B, Part 2
...after all, your /var/httpd/docs directory is technically a "shared folder".
You can probably guess what the answer is.
The file at http://www.riaa.com/images/pics/pic2.jpg, which is served by their web site?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
anyone got a link with any damn context? the links above seem to be just someone stating something out of context.
I hahe a feeling that in context it means files that are violating copyrights.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Dear RIAA,
Let me make this simple for you: I learned on Sesame Street that sharing is GOOD. It's going to be more difficult than you think to reprogram the inner-workings of my psyche that were molded by watching educational television as a child in the 80s.
Sincerely,
Me
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
as someone might see my cd collection and then steal it when I'm not home. Then I'd be guilty of piracy as I didn't do enough to protect the music I bought from being shared legally or illegaly.
So now here's one for you. Say I beak into someones car/house and I get busted with their cd collection. Can the record companies now sue me for stealing music? I didnt pay for it.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
The problem is the words "sue them". That implies that you say, have 10 million dollars or so to see the lawsuit throught. I mean, even if they are clearly at fault (which they would be, IMHO but IANAL), and even if they strangle a litter of adorable puppies on live coast-to-coast TV, they still have armies of lawyers to throw up every motion imaginable and 50 counter suits that while baseless, would force you to hire a whole law firm. So unless you had major, major backing, you'd run out of money first.
The internet is illegal? You know, having hypertext files available for download on millions of servers around the world...
Doesn't putting a file on a web server constitute sharing the said file?
Grundes!
The post seems to imply that putting anything on the web or in a shared folder is under attack. Not so. And clearly many responders also didn't bother to RTFA.
Putting _copyrighted_ files (for which you don't have a license to distribute) on the web or in a shared folder is under attack. The only "news" here is that they're arguing that you may have committed a crime before the first download of your pirated mp3 occurred.
You may all hate the RIAA, but you have to admit that putting Kelly Clarkson's new single in your shared folder is different than putting your own jpg's on the web.
Of course they're going to argue any point concerning distribution, no matter how silly. The RIAA doesn't make anything. They distribute (at least, that's what they used to do anyways). And since that's their bread and butter, they're going to defend it. No matter how bizarre their argument. No matter how silly their logic. They're used to getting huge ungodly piles of money for doing nothing. And anything that could possibly be used to set a precedent would be a lot like the very first tiny hole poked in a huge dam. As soon as there is one legal way to bypass them, everyone will eventually do it.
Although it's deplorable, at least you can see why they make these arguments. Without the current distro model in the music industry, they'd have to get real jobs for fair pay. And when you've been a thug for that long, it's pretty much unthinkable.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
... I own all of the computers on the network, and the CD, is it still illegal then? or if it's someone else's CD and I'm just using my computer as a CD player? Where is the legal line?
We are all just people.
here are some free files. help yourself
http://web1.nugs.net/stash.asp?cmd=dl&artist=-1
I am sure this is all illegal if some asshole at consortium_x says so
because SURELY those that CREATE the files have no rights to them
What's with the teenage responses?
Yes, putting copyright or bootleg content in a shared directory is intent to break the law.
- Would you argue that B&E isn't a crime until you pick something up and leave the property?
- Is pointing a gun at somebody not a crime if you don't shoot them (or say you had no intention to)?
- How about having kiddie porn on your PC, is that ok as long as you don't have any kids tied up in your basement being filmed? What about if you are a "journalist doing research on child abuse"?
What's wrong with society when ANYONE who is caught doing anything is suddenly a victim?
And what argument is there to support distributing content that is not yours to distribute? Is it hard to discern the difference between putting bootleg stuff in a shared folder, and having a shared folder? Or serving up stuff that is not bootleg? Jesus what idiocy!
What we really need is clearly codified user 'bill of rights' that spell out (and defend) exactly what fair use rights are. Until then, childish arguments that suggest that illegal bootlegging and mass distribution of copyright material is somehow a "free speech" or "privacy" issue is just hurting the cause of people who want FAIR use, not piracy disguised under a layer of self righteous ignorance.
What's next, getting a speeding ticket for having a car that's capable of violating the speed limit? Being sued for copyright infringement when renting a DVD for simply owning a DVD burner? I mean you could make a copy of said DVD. We'd better proactively defend ourselves against this threat....
http://www.lifeofalawyer.com/riaa/atlantic_does1-2 5_rogersaffidavit.pdf
a wyer.com/riaa/atlantic_does1-25_rogersaffidavit.pd f+%22making+files+available+for+distribution%22
Teh Google CacheL http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:www.lifeofal
They've said this type of thing before, in public and obviously have said it in court filings.
In Public: They aren't trying to make a nuanced argument. They just want to get the point across that sharing files = teh badness
In Court: Fucking n00bs. That's what they get for not trying to get across a nuanced idea to the public. The lawyers end up making the same argument they see over and over in the press releases.
I skimmed that affidavit and I wonder how that trial came out. It seems like the plaintiff (an RIAA company) filed a seriously defective lawsuit.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Below is some material quoted from it, by one of the attorneys for Ms. Barker.
Opposition Papers in Elektra v. Barker in Manhattan Argue for Expansion of Law
[Legal]
In opposition papers served yesterday in Elektra v. Barker in Manhattan federal court, the RIAA has argued that merely making files "available for distribution" is in and of itself a copyright violation.
Were the courts to accept this misguided view of copyright law, it could mean that anyone who has had a shared files folder, even for a moment, that contained copyrighted files in it, would be guilty of copyright infringement, even though the copies in the folder were legally obtained, and even though no illegal copies had ever been made of them.
Currently hooked on AMP
Can't believe the RIAA would stretch so far as to make something commonplace illegal in order to profit. Just don't buy it sir
In that same frame of thought one could say that having a file on a computer would be a violation. If I have a machine that can be compromized and I have files on that machine then do I violate the law? Does the violation occure before or after software making it possible to access a file remotely is installed. This could go on ad nausium. "The only secure machine is the one that is unplugged". The issue is ownership of the machine. The relationship between the machine and the files has already proven too difficult to restrict regardless of where they are placed.
Welcome my son,
Welcome to the machine,
Where have you been?
Thats alright we know where you've been.
-- Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
You don't need 10 million dollars to sue someone in small claims court. You don't even need ten. If you're that poor, the judge will waive court filings fees etc.
And every knows that you don't strangle a litter of adorable puppies. You put them in a sack and drown them.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
And I'm going to blab on because the /. "Lamness filter" won't let me post. So, let me take this time to say, that all of your evil corporate people are in charge of /. . That's right. /. is an EVIL corporate enitity. Comder Taco, et al. fucking stepped in it. They're Millionaires on OUR backs. Us, who provide thoughtful comments, free of charge.
They just sit back an collect their millions ---doing nothing.
spelling is code from the suftwyer.
One little-heard story in the West is concerned with how many Polish workers fought back against communism during the last 1970s and early 1980s. I think it may hold relevent in America these days, since the oppressor is quite the same (even if it's called called an "industry association", rather than a "government").
Since many Polish workers were limited in what they could write, they couldn't necessarily make signs or posters. So what they did was launch mass verbal assaults. Not a protest, per se, since they were still working or going about their everyday lives. As they were building ships, or working in a factory, or while heading to work, they would sing chants.
The songs/chants were quite varied. One particular song basically translated to: "We are the people. United we stand." Over and over they would repeat those verses. Other times they were just overtly obscene. Chants which translate to "Penis, anus, defecation!" were commonplace.
Would such protests work in American record stores, for instance?
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
If they would just for a minute put effort into coming up with ideas and services that the people actually want, like fair use and a fair price, and stop trying to double or triple dit into the revenue streams and keep their noses out of peoples lives, we might actually want to buy their product.
But as long as the invasion into our homes, via the back door, into the living room, around the couch and over the coffee table and smack bang into our wallets to suck more money out of us for stuff we have already paid for; then I guess people will keep resisting and illegal activities will continue in protest.
It's probably illegal. The question really should be is it ethical ?
My take on this is that it is ethical. Just because the RIAA has a business model that involves taking the risk that people will circumvent their protections and violate the laws they have lobbied to put in place, doesn't make it unethical, especially because there are other business models for releasing digital media without this risk.
Ethics don't change just because laws are passed one day.
Ethics do change when conditions change around your business model. There are many examples. It's caused by progress.
It's time for laws to change, and they will, it's unavoidable.
D.R.
...between the recording industry and God, is that God does not think that he is the recording industry.
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here 'till Thursday.
--Nick
The real problem here is that making the act of placing copyrighted material in a shared folder a crime is just another way to ensnare more technically naive people. Most computer users really don't understand the difference between a shared folder and one that is not, to say nothing of all the different ways that said sharing can be configured. This gets even more complicated when one considers all of the compromised PCs out there doing things their owners have no clue about. Making the lack of understanding of how your machine is set up a crime, will only bring more grandma's, kids, and average Joes into court. And, as usual, the professional pirates will continue to make money.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Great, so any file = any contained data unit can't be distributed, then last time I checked, the webpage that announce this information and the word processor RIAA used to type up their reports are files, and hence, illegal to be posted, much less shared, anywhere.
OMG WTF TEH RIAA SAYS SHARING ANY FILE IS ILLEGAL!!!1!
The entire "article" (blog posting) that started this ruckus says
"In opposition papers served yesterday in Elektra v. Barker in Manhattan federal court, the RIAA has argued that merely making files "available for distribution" is in and of itself a copyright violation.
Were the courts to accept this misguided view of copyright law, it could mean that anyone who has had a shared files folder, even for a moment, that contained copyrighted files in it, would be guilty of copyright infringement, even though the copies in the folder were legally obtained, and even though no illegal copies had ever been made of them.
I am one of the attorneys for Ms. Barker." (emphasis mine)
The RIAA is not claiming that sharing, for example, a file placed in the public domain is illegal, the RIAA is claiming that if you make a copyrighted file available, you are violating the law. (Even if the file is never actually downloaded.) Ordinarily, you have to prove that infringement (ie, downloading by an unauthorized party) has actually occurred. The RIAA is claiming that creating the opportunity for infringement is sufficient.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
if I leave one of my legal ripped copies of music on my car at work, I can be sued because someone could take advantage of it?
Next thing you know, the MPAA will make it illegal to watch movies in your living room, because someone might watch the movie from the window.
I am a lawyer. I have actually read parts of the Grokster and Gonzalez opinions. Although I did not read the opinions with the same care I would have if for professional purposes, Gonzalez certainly seemed to quote Grokster as supporting the proposition that merely having files in a shared folder was sufficiently part of a scheme to distribute to be the equivalent of actual distribution. In other words, it would not be a defense in a suit by the **AA that no one downloaded a complete copy of the file from you, or indeed, that the total bytes of the file uploaded were less than the total bytes in one copy of the file. Five shared songs may equal five times $750. (min.) in damages even if no one downloaded a byte. I'm quite concerned this will be how Grokster is interpreted in the future.
I do think we need legislative relief for the tens of thousands of little guys victimized by the double-A's.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Most of the posters here so far have been flying off the handle over nothing.
One of the links in the story post tells us that the cases is Elektra v. Barker. While we don't yet seem to have the argument referenced there in front of us, we do have the original complaint from about mid-2005, here, thanks to one of the few people that's posted here whilst keeping there wits about them.
Basically RIAA is merely saying that Barker ran Kazaa, and was sharing some music with it. They're suing her for having done so.
Copyright does include an exclusive right of distribution (17 USC 106(3)) which has frequently been held to cover serving files. And just to preempt some people who will surely latch on to that, note that there are many different rights within copyright, and this is but one of them. Making copies of files, which necessarily happens when you download, is also covered under copyright, and can be infringing as well.
Obviously the RIAA is not saying -- as many people here assume -- that putting any file on a server is illegal. That's beyond even them. What they are saying is that where the files are copyrighted, and the copyright holder hasn't authorized it, and there's no applicable exception in copyright that would permit it, then it's illegal. Certainly as a civil offense, and possibly also as a criminal offense. (Compare 17 USC 501 with 506 and 18 USC 2319)
So if Alice writes a book and puts it on the Internet for anyone to download, that's fine. If she puts a public domain book on the Internet for people to download, that's fine too. But when she puts up Bob's book, without permission, she's got some trouble.
So far this seems to be an amazingly boring case. And, if the facts are as RIAA says, it's probably open-and-shut in their favor. Like it or lump it, copyright suits are generally pretty simple.
So what could be interesting about this? Well, and I'm just guessing here, since I have not seen anything recent about this from the plaintiff, I suspect that the plaintiff said that making the files available to be shared via Kazaa was unlawful distribution, even if no one ever downloaded the files.
This runs contrary to another case, where the court held that an offer to distribute (which is what placing a file in a share is) is not actual distribution, and that only the latter is unlawful. So RIAA or another plaintiff has to catch a defendant actually serving the file to someone. I would not expect that it matters who it is served to. If the copyright holder were to download it themselves, in order to gather evidence, that would probably suffice. (And before someone claims entrapment, let me remind you that that only applies where one is coerced into doing something that one would not have otherwise done. If you were going to share the file with anyone who requested to download it, then the fact that you did so with the wrong person is bad luck for you, but won't get you off the hook)
If the plaintiff never d/l'ed the file, then this also raises the question of whether the files were actually copies of the music in question, or if they were just labeled that way. Given that the plaintiff appears to have the file listings in hand, they'll probably win this. In a civil suit, which this is, the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. It is not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard reserved for criminal suits. In this case, reasonable doubts as to the facts will not save the defendant; instead whatever is felt to be most likely, even if only by a hair's breadth, is considered the truth. In my experience, when someone (other than RIAA et al) puts up a file claiming to be an mp3 of a song, it usually is.
All told, it seems like a humdrum case that is not worth getting worked up about (unless you think P2P of this sort should be legal, in which case lots of cases are worth getting worked up about). There
-- 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.
'Sharing' has a very broad connotation.
To me, there is a *BIG* difference between sharing my *PURCHASED* music on a private fileserver on my LAN and sharing my music on a publicly accessible server. If it is on my private LAN, the only one enjoying the music is me (the purchaser). However, placing it on a server accessible by *ANYONE* is analogous to photocopying a copyrighted book and placing stacks of it on your front porch.
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
...make books available for distribution, don't they?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
So you're saying that if I rip my CDs onto my computer and put them in the Shared Music folder in Shared Documents so that the wife and kids, who also use this computer, can access them that I'm breaking the law?
You're not too bright are you?
Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
Just like its a violation to leave that book sitting on top of the photocopier - who knows who will come along and maliciously copy it.
I guess I cant let anyone in my house either, in case they decide to rip all the files on my computer.
To view the actual Opposition that is being discussed on the blogs:6 /01/riaa-argues-merely-making-available.html
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/200
Keep in mind this is an Opposition to a motion to dismmiss the complaint that was filed by Barker.
This is all preliminary paperwork - they haven't even made it to court yet.
My mom is 100% in support of this absurd argument the RIAA has made. This means that it's likely that a majority of Americans are as well (remember, less then half of Americans have broadband). They're probably going to lose this case, and we're probably going to lose this fight. They're going to try to make encryption illegal at some point, because it makes it easier to hide the fact that your sharing illegal stuff. If encryption is illegal, then that means that stuff like the freenet will be illegal as well. It's possible we could lose not only this battle, but the whole damn war.
~= scwizard =~
From the comlaint...
16. The conduct of Defendant is causing and, unless enjoined and restrained by this Court, will continue to cause Plaintiffs great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
Huh? All we freaking hear about is the "money" and the "laws" at their disposal from the RIAA gestapo. How can they claim immeasurable monetary loss yet put a price tag on settlement of suit?
Hypocritical assholes!
That is it, I'm done. I refuse to purchase a single CD, DVD, or plastic "round-thing" containing Data that the %%AA's bring out. Problem is that we as consumers have lost the knowledge that we are in control. We have the money, they have stuff to sell, nothing says we have to buy it! Screw 'em, let them feel what REAL money loss is!
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.
They tried this argument in court in Canada. The judge ruled that the simple act of putting a file in a shared folder is neither in and of itself intent, nor illegal. And the ruling has stood.
I fully agree with this argument
however, due to this argument, that would mean downloading isn't illegal.
because the person who makes files available is breaking the law. Not the person downloading files.
when you download, you're doing so from de facto public domain. unless there are security features in place. in which case, should they be bypassed, then that's a whole other law to interpret.
They're using their grammar skills there.
After less than four minutes of deliberation we decided that the RIAA had no right to put those files where the CD packaging company could find them and burn ten billion copies to a CD and send them to ten billion potential copyright infringers! Thank goodness that nobody is stupid enough to buy those things anymore!
Don't leave your newspaper on the subway to share with others. The copyright nazis will beat the crap out of you in the middle of the street if you do.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
I think you are misreading the article. By "regardless of the legality of the file", what they mean is that you're not permitted to share a file you have a legal right to a personal copy of but no legal right to share.
If you author a file and the content within it, you can do anything you like with it.
If you make a fair use copy of a song, then put the song in a shared location, they are arguing it's the same as burning a whole stack of "fair use" copies of a CD to CD-R and then leaving them on your doorstep for anyone to take. Yes, you have a right to fair use copies - you don't have a right to "oops, how careless of me" allow others to take copies.
RIAA, yes you!
You can kiss my nice shiny metal ass!
When will you get that people don't care about you anymore. You already proved with all your tactics that you are going no where.
We are in the information age, not the CD age! Want to evolve? Look at iTunes, ask Steve Jobs but damn, stop trying to mess about how people think, use and like the Internet because in the end, they will win anyways.
It's the beginning of a new world, a free world without the RIAA!
So they left a CD with copyrighted cover art in the store where a xerox machine is avaiable in the back office. Another store is trying to sell a book on photography, well, in a camera store, but someone might take a picture of this book. You just walked into the library with a cell phone that contains a camera, because it is a pita to find a good phone without one anymore. When is this country going to get off the kick of making it illegal to be able break the law. You make a law, if someone breaks it, you punish them. Why do we have to make it illegal to do something or own something that MIGHT allow you to do something illegal. I guess innocent until proven guilty is just another "freedom" we lost in the war on "drugs, terror, poverty, ..."
Did the INDUCE ACT pass and I missed it?
and you can't touch me unless you can prove someone actually downloaded them. Or you can side with the RIAA.
Vote for Pedro
This is a list of labels under the RIAA. Those labels cover pretty much every major band in the US and beyond.
My point? Well, ever been to a bands website where they let you stream their songs? That is a form of sharing, which the RIAA says is illegal. That means that well over half of the companies the RIAA represents are breaking their own rules, sharing copyrighted music to millions, unlike your average P2P'er who might share the file with a grand total of between ten and a few hundred people.
And, as many people here have pointed out, the internet itself is a giant sharing of information. So, according to the RIAA, we better hurry up and abolish the internet...
Don't you wish sometimes you could just shoot the RIAA's in their big, dumb, ass?
The RIAA is all about entertainment. More, please!
I hate the "reason an amendment" was created line-of-logic. It's always used by the people who want to restrict said freedoms.
To the government: Stop trying to second guess the "intentions" of the founders (with your biases interpreting things in your favor) and just read what the Constitution says. If the intentions behind it were super-important, well guess what, it should have been included in the amendment.
There is such a thing in a court of law you know. If I work at a bank and leave the front door unlocked for a friend to rob later that nite, by your standards, I'm not culpable. Right?
It's amazing how such a simple concept is left on those p2p thieves so intent on circumventing law...
If I have a burned CD of Eminem's latest album and I leave it sitting on a public bench, is that illegal? No.
So why would it be illegal for you to have something available online until you have atleast actually shared it?
Whatever anyone here may think of them, the RIAA do have a legal right to protect their copyright. So, in our perfectly rational legal world, how should they go about this?
The last Slashdot discussion I saw on this subject was full of people ranting about how unfair it was for the RIAA to seek the identity of someone, in court, when that person's system was known to be actively advertising that it was sharing copyright material that would be illegal to download.
Moreover, even if RIAA staff download such a file themselves, many here will pop up and tell us that since they own the copyright, that's not illegal and doesn't prove anything.
However, we all know (and let's face it, I'm not just saying that and we really do all know) that copyright infringement via P2P is widespread. If the offer to download, including an advertisement that the material really is the copyright material that can't legally be downloaded, deliberately being made available on a file-sharing system, and demonstrated by the RIAA to be downloadable because they made a copy, isn't sufficient to bring a case before a judge and expect some legal recourse, then what is?
Congratulations: you just made a pretty solid case that in order to preserve the clear legal rights of the RIAA, it's necessary for law enforcement agencies to monitor and log all Internet traffic routinely, for governments to ban any anonymous access to the Internet and require ISPs to make a serious effort to confirm the identity of anyone they allow to use their systems, and for draconian penalties to be available when someone is successfully prosecuted for making an illegal copy via the Internet.
Personally, I'd rather the RIAA could sue the pants of someone who is blatantly breaking the law, and that person couldn't weasel their way out of their deserved punishment using legal chicanery, and the rest of us didn't have to put up with the sort of crap I mentioned above.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way. And that's how you get Capone.
This has never been about theft of music. This is about stopping the independants. More and more of the new music is showing up on the net and labels are not needed. If RIAA can not control all the downloads, then it is only a matter of time before they are out of business.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It only applies to files that you never had permission from the copyright holder to copy for uses not covered by fair use or personal use.
If you have permission to copy the file for such purposes, then you're in the clear.
Of course, if they tried to argue that you're not, well then you have a point. But I don't think the RIAA is *THAT* dense.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
gee, its starting to look like something out of George Orwell's "1984" around here. Pretty soon, its going to be "any data you produce is no longer your property, especially if it was produced on a proprietary (read that "closed source") third party application.
what does this say about our postings here?
disturbing thought, isn't it?
Understanding is much like a 3-edged-sword. in this: there are always 2 sides and the truth.
A lot of posters here are misreading the article.
"legality" of your copy refers to whether you paid for your copy. Paying for your copy does not give you the copyright. RIAA is NOT claiming that you can't share stuff you wrote yourself. The argument is merely about the RIAA's burden of proof - whether, assuming the file is under RIAA member copyright, they have to show evidence of actual downloads, or whether downloads can be presumed from the fact of "mere publication".
If you share files (regardless of whether you paid for your copy) in which somebody else holds the copyright, then (certainly if somebody downloads it) you've committed "contributory" copyright infringement. (The "direct" infringement was done by the person who downloaded from you, but you can be held liable if you (loosely speaking) had the intention of allowing a copyright infringement. (A very recent Supreme Court case - Grokster - asked whether you could be liable for merely making a tool that you could expect would be widely used for copyright infringement. The answer, in brief, was yes. Actually publishing files you control in your own shared directory is a much clearer case.)
The only question is whether RIAA has to show that some copying actually occurred. It's not a huge stretch to suggest that if somebody is doing everything they need to do to publish copyrighted stuff to the world, the copyright holder shouldn't have to bear the burden to name someone who actually read it. It's an interesting legal argument though - for example, how would you calculate statutory damages? My guess, without having reviewed the statute or case law lately, is that Congress intended that plaintiffs DO have to find some case of actual copying.
Personally, I think this particular statement of the RIAA would do well as a rule of thumb. It is nice having rules of thumbs by which we can judge our actions.
As a rule of thumb it seems fair to state that putting things in a shared directory is a form of publishing that data. It seems like common sense to me that you don't want to put things in a shared folder that you don't intend to share or that you don't have the rights to share. I may be completely off base here, but it kind of seems to me that I should not store files that I don't want other people to access in a place where other people have access.
The RIAA statement makes good sense as a rule of thumb. Now then, whether of not a person should be prosecuted for putting copyrighted material in a shared folder is a different question. Such questions would involve the scope of the sharing. Putting something in a folder shared through a P2P program that indexes and broadcasts the availability of the file seems to be of a somewhat broader scope than having a shared folder on a Microsoft network behind a firewall.
Back to the RIAA statement. I wonder if the RIAA would respect the converse. If my music collection is in a private directory, would they take that as a sign that I respect the copyright of the copyright holders?
BTW, when something is illegal, it is pretty much by definition a crime. It does not me that the action was wrong. Nor does it really mean a person should be prosecuted for the action. For example, there may be a process that uploads data to a share directory then pushes it to private directory. Clearly the act of transferring data through a shared area is not a form of republishing the data.
After all, the internet is nothing but a whole bunch of shared files. Those files are shared over a number of protocols, like http, ftp, smtp, ntp, smb and bittorrent, and some require authentication to gain access, but the internet is nothing but a whole bunch of files being offered up by various types of servers.
I really want to see America's aggregated stock value the day they pull the plug on every HTTP server in the country.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
By analogy, if I leave my CDs and DVDs out where visitors to my house can grab them, they are not stealing. Instead, I am sharing them and therefore a lawsuit target for the RIAA.
I'd better stop having people over, or start locking the CDs and DVDs in cabinets.
If someone is using Windows and his/her files are in a shared folder (including licensed eBooks), to swap between different personal computers over home network, and his/her PC got compromized/hacked.
Would the person who got hacked be held responsible?
Samba shares are easy to find and crack, would this make Samba a forbidden protocol? Or will "I" be obliged to shut down any sharing protocol before going online?
Shouldn't Microsoft (or the OS maintainer) be held responsible for this?
Mod points are a dangerous tool. Abuse them wisely.
Hope you actually go through with it. I stopped buying music a long time ago and I don't remember the last time I bought a major DVD release. But of course, I never promised to boycott anyone either, even though I guess I am.
$fortune
Tomorrow has been canceled due to lack of interest.
1. Denial
...and has a lot to do with futility as well as grief, while we're at it
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance
question: which stage of grief is the music cartel in over the death of their business model?
hint: starts with "D" and rhymes with "futile"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I totally didn't just make a copy of the new Oliver Twist DVD for use in my English class!
Yeah.. I'm totally raking in the money now. Anyways, I'm all for fair use, and I don't think it's the best thing from a moral standpoint to put a bunch of copyrighted materials in a public place where people are obviously going to steal it. As for the "I just have it there so I can access it from a friends house", I see no problem with that.
What I do find troubling is that instead of cracking down on the people who are making say.. hundreds of copies of DVDs and selling them in dark allies and what not, is that they start making up junk like this.
I think it seems more like a power struggle than a realistic legal issue. Like the dress code at my high school.
The RIAA has been in control of the distribution of a lot of the United States' media for a long time now, and they have a right to keep obvious/stupid piracy to a minimum, but my grama isn't going to lose anyone hundreds of dollars because she puts her music on her personal FTP server [ yeah.. my grama is really cool ], so I think they should really find bigger fish to fry.
If con is the opposite of pro. Then isn't congress the opposite of progress?
Well, without being able to share an html or other file, how the heck would the web work? Why do I picture the people at the RIAA as similar to the two guys in the Guinness commercial coming up with stupid ideas and yelling, "BRILLIANT!!" Morons.
today is spelling optional day.
break into their server, copy a file, and sue them with their own law, for making files available. Next they will be saying that digital files anywhere are in violation. Guess we will just have to get rid of all media.
I encrypt all my files with Double XOR Encryption!
I think this story qualifies as a strawman..
The story makes it sound like if you put *any* files into a shared folder, you're breaking the law. This is not the case.
What the RIAA is really arguing is that if you place files into a shared folder that, if distributed, would constitute illegal distribution.. the act of making these files (which would be illegal if distributed) available for distribution by placing them in a shared folder is illegal.
Now, I don't see how they'd be able to actually prove the files were, in fact, files that would be illegal for the person to distribute unless the RIAA downloaded them (meaning the files were distributed).
Just remember kiddies,
if you distort something to make it more absurd than it really is..
OF COURSE it's going to sound absurd!
I am the maverick of Slashdot
that the RIAA downloads music, what if the artist is dead?? they dont get the money, so i should be able to download the songs!!
The RIAA is like Rudy...This anoying little kid scratching at your leg trying to make something of himself....I wouldnt be to worried.
How is making the files available to others in an openly accessible directory any different from putting them on the hard drive of a PC or an MP3 player you're selling? If the originals don't go along with the copies, then you are illegally distributing copies. The argument "well, it's up to everyone else to not use the files if they don't have the right" doesn't work with eBay auctions, so why should it work in this case?
To the government: Stop trying to second guess the "intentions" of the founders (with your biases interpreting things in your favor) and just read what the Constitution says.
Err, didn't the GP post just point out the exact reasons that was a dumb idea? (e.g. it would allow calling a cop motherfucker to his face, free hate / death rally speech etc.).
Suckers! I put my shared files into a directory!
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
The RIAA is not a law enforcement agency. As pointed out in this other comment, the "evidence" is simply screenshots of Kazaa showing the user's shares. Two screenshots is enough evidence to file a suit against somebody? A fucking screenshot is evidence in a trial??
If I were the defendant I'd file a counter-suit that the RIAA headquarters is sharing some of my copyright music, then fabricate hundreds of screenshots allegedly "demonstrating" these copyright violations. Hell, I might as well make it kiddie porn! Then I could get the RIAA executives sent to jail for breaking criminal law instead of tort law.
As a wise person once said, a witty screenshot proves nothing. Well, something like that. What is America coming to?
From the bottom of their website:
Copyright ©2003 Recording Industry Association of America.
All Rights Reserved. Contact Webmaster. Site Map. En Español
If you make an http request to 68.163.75.13(riaa.com), their servers make it available for distribution.
They are making copyrighted material available for distribution. Hrm...
OMG TEH HYPOCRACY!!!
That is almost as good as the MPAA illegaly distributing movies.
the exact reasons that was a dumb idea? (e.g. it would allow calling a cop motherfucker to his face, free hate / death rally speech etc.)
No government has any right to restrict speech, per the Constitution.
Hate speech, death rallies, they're all speech. The fact that government does censor us (and you're ok with it) proves to me that I'm fights the good fight in repudiating copyright and any laws restricting voluntary trades.
You kids today prove you're indoctrinated by public education.
...and when our department file server exploded about ten minutes ago and users were screaming at me so angrily that their spittle was actually being ejected from my telephone handset, my first thought was "OH SHIT!" But then, as I was hiding in my office with the door barricaded lights off trying browsing Slashdot to figure out how to cover my butt, I suddenly realized that the noxious smoking puddle of plastic dripping from the server rack had saved me! (BTW, this also means I can delete that "Ask Slashdot" piece I was working on.) If it hadn't melted down, the RIAA could have sued our company for (conservatively) 30 billion dollars, based on an estimate of at least 200,000 files shared * $150,000 per shared file. So now, instead of worrying, I'm typing up a Word document to send to the HR director and CFO asking for a raise since I cleverly rescued the company from a $30 billion liability. I think I'll start in on a PowerPoint presentation for the bigwigs as soon as I'm done posting this comment.
Oh! So now the RIAA is trying to ban the whole fucking internet. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!! Crooked coporations make hilarious ridiculous statements in their senility of their twilight years just like real old people!!!
No. They aren't outlawing filesharing, as the good-ole
The RIAA are trying to make it illegal to make copyrighted files available for sharing, even if NOBODY has downloaded them from you yet. Obviously, right now, it's not copyright infringement until you can prove someone has actually COPIED them.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
The early AR15 sold as semi-auto to the public could be turned into a full blown machine gun by merely replacing the sear (small metal part in the action). It's virtually a drop-in part. So the law goes: possession of an auto sear is the same as possessing an illegal machine gun. They also define the legal definition of the gun as the receiver. If you have the receiver, you have the gun. If you have all the parts less the receiver, you have nothing. These and the RIAA law are pre-emptive. Go to jail before crime is committed. They are both actually "profiling" however, no one wants to use the Politically Incorrect "profiling" on legal actions the government actually wants.
In that case, forget the First Amendment in this case. The first amendment says nothing about file sharing, nor could it because it was written over 200 years ago. If we Just read what the constitution says and Stop trying to second guess the "intentions of the founders Then the First Amendment does not protect file sharing, bloging, TV, or even radio. These things were not invented at the time of the Bill of Rights, thus cannot be protected by the first amendment.
... How about, it's a copyright violation to leave CDs on the seat of your car, because people might steal them and rip them. Or how about: having your ipod stolen is a felony.
The fact that government does censor us (and you're ok with it) proves to me that I'm fights the good fight in repudiating copyright and any laws restricting voluntary trades.
Nothing wrong with repudiating copyright, I'm pretty much against any restrictions on information, so best not to assume like that.
You kids today prove you're indoctrinated by public education.
I simply pointed out the error in the parent post, which was to assume that the constitutional right to free speech should be as simple as that. Unfortunately there are things such as 'violent' speech (examples include yelling fire in theature or calling for death of a civilian). I offered no opinion, let alone an opinion that I was allegedly was too dumb to form myself, but thanks anyway.
they are wrong
I was sent stuff by RIAA cause I had a file called Saw2.avi and it was just a text file... but they were scanning and they sent me a threat. No it wasn't the movie it was just text, but I still got threatened for a law suit. I sent a nasty email back and they appologized, but that is just proof that they don't know what they are doing and they are overstepping the law.
~nostrum
1984 shows you a society where the state irrationally tortures its citizens and does x.
Step 1) Look for an x that is present in our society and in 1984.
Step 2) Conclude our society is as bad as the society in 1984.
Step 3) If there's no obvious x, describe elements found in any society (such as "work is hard" or "some people fight with each other" or "not enough people care about fashion.") Proceed to step 2.
Step 4) Post to slashdot.
Well, I know you say "the law is not a machine that can be gamed" and therefore any attempt to "win by technicality" is impossible (for us, presumably, since it seems the little guy's "technicality" is the big guy's "precedent-setting example.")
But, the other day, I was reading a defense filing in support of a motion to quash some of the RIAA subpoenas (in Atlantic Records v. Does). One of the arguments made is that the subpoenas should be quashed because the underlying complaint "fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Namely, that the plaintiffs hadn't set out sufficient proof that infringing acts took place. While, the plaintiffs offered lists of files that defendants had allegedly made available, it argues that such lists alone -- even if true -- do not prove that any actual infringing distribution took place. As a footnote, the defense addresses whether distribution to the plaintiffs themselves would "count":
So, at least some lawyers think it is insufficient for the copyright holder to show only that he was able to download copies.
"No government has any right to restrict speech, per the Constitution."
There's this really funny joke about the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights actually was only intended to apply to the U.S. Congress, except where it specified differently. It wasn't intended to apply to the individual states (Barron v. Baltimore) in the union, and it certainly didn't apply its restrictions to any and all governments. It isn't until the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment and subsequent judicial interpretation (Gitlow v. New York) that we jump over the 10th amendment and begin applying it willy-nilly.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
(This is ignoring the practical revision over two centuries of judicial interpretation provided for by the Constitution, which you apparently reject out of hand anyway. It amuses me that for you to have your very modern interpretation of the First Amendment you must accept the same judicial interpretation that also permits "censorship.")
"The fact that government does censor us (and you're ok with it) proves to me that I'm fights the good fight in repudiating copyright and any laws restricting voluntary trades.
You kids today prove you're indoctrinated by public education."
Your poor reasoning skills, lack of knowledge, and mediocre language skills are certainly impressing me. Please let everyone know all of the schools that you attended, and precisely what degree(s) if any that you have obtained.
such as OpenOffice or Firefox (feel free to browse sourceforge and come up with more) in a shared folder or pay for a host and put it on that server, does that mean its illegal??? its already free AND its copyrighted... (I know everybody else tried at these sort of "is it really illegal" except that my examples are actually legal to freely dist.)...
There was a thing which Mrs Thatcher (former British PM) said once about "the oxygen of publicity". Now that was in regard of terrorists, but these *AA idiots are basically in the same mold, smashing the lives of ordinary folks with wildly disproportionate force in an attempt to sow terror and implement their politics.
In my opinion, when their output amounts to no more than obvious FUD without even backing from the biased law, they ought to be shut out of public discourse. The only purpose of spreading stories like these is to scare and manipulate the gullible. People who know better ought not to allow themselves to be used as a conduit.
Let's try a reasoning.
- Web content is made by files.
- The web is a technology to share, distribute and access contents.
- Thus the web should be illegal.
Very good!
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
What they seem to be saying is that if I make legal backups of my CDs, then leave those backups lying about the house where my friends can take them with or without permission, I have broken the law. I doesn't seem like this is the law currently, but IANAL.
What I want to know is "What if the originals are stolen?" Do I have a right to use/ sell the backups?
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Given the oxymoron of "intellectual property", it is only a matter of time until ANY form of non-paid-for possession of ANYTHING not made of a physical material (and probably a lot that is, such as CDs and ANY form of paper) is illegal.
This is human nature. Nobody gets nothing for free from you because that would mean they're right and you're wrong and if you're wrong, you're dead and that can't be allowed - so you're right and that means nobody gets nothing from you for any reason except being bled through the nose.
Which is why you monkeys are heading for the dustbin of evolutionary history. Another twenty - fifty years (if not sooner by your own hand) and you're out of here and good fucking riddance.
As Bill Burroughs said once, "Can't wait to see weeds growing through empty streets. May not have to wait long..."
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Let's go the whole way, and simply make posession of any music produced by an RIAA member illegal. I don't think many people miss it.
I wonder how they define, where the entity of me ends and where it begins. The world is integral, and all the parts of the world are more or less connected. THat's stupid.
Technically a webpage is a file being made available for sharing so therefore all websites are breaking the law in the eyes of the RIAA (ironically including them)!
Wow what a bunch of idiots!
Jaj
If I take the CDs in my collection I don't like and put them outside my apartment so anyone on the street can pick them up, I'm breaking the law?
I left a book next to the copier yesterday.
paintball
Surely all files are automatically copyright, unless the copyright owner has explicitly declared them to be in the public domain?
And what constitutes making files "available for distribution"? Does an open share qualify, if the computer is not on a network? How about a home network with two computers, but no Internet connection? And so on...
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Files don't kill people. People kill people.
Burn the books
this allways make me feel like downloading all the metalica albums and
sharing them on all the p2p networks at the same time + Uploading to some free ftp and web/blog spaces to share the url with busy forum users and such.
If only metalica didn't suck so much it could be worth downloading.
Retep.
If you read an article claiming that the sky is blue, you should look out the window to check.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
"They are saying that putting *copyrighted* materials in a shared folder is illegal"
Suppose my friend creates and records a song (and he's the copyright holder) and asks me to put it on my web site to get it downloaded to build his reputation?
---
We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience
Bert molested Ernie.
Sincerely,
RIAA
If this is true, that you cannot publish any files, will the RIAA take down their own website?
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
I've got a whole bunch of .html files in a folder that's readable by anyone with a browser. If I understand the RIAA correctly, I'm a criminal now, despite the fact that I'm the copyright holder of these files?
Does the RIAA have a website? This sounds like their most stupid proposal ever.
Will be RIAA deciding that anyone thinking about sharing files is guilty of copyright violation. Because thinking about it is the first step to the actual crime.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
If they win, a crime it does become.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Thats like owning a knife or a gun (a perfectly legal one)!
It dont mean you're off to stab or cap some person.
(well that sounds kinda homocidal.... oh wells)
So the entire internet, including the RIAA's own website, are in violation of this, since every site has folders that we can all access, and contains files (webpages) that are copyrighted. Good job, RIAA. Now shut off your own website, or else be sued by yourselves!
stuff |
It seems to me that a parallel argument could be made by insurance companies fighting reimbursement of stolen property. For example, if I leave my camera on my car seat in view and it is stolen, did I break the law by enabling the thief? Does it matter if the door was locked or not? I can certainly secure my network but I'm sure many are not, does that mean the owner is at fault for someone breaking in a taking their MP3 files?
You miss my point. Perhaps you would argue that the use in question falls within your restrictions; I wasn't sure. In any case, other uses clearly wouldn't. To give a topical example around here, the GPL would be dramatically less effective: anyone could rip the code and use it in their own non-commercial product, without distributing the source.
The point is that copyright infringement isn't just about whether the copier is profiting, it's also (and probably more importantly) about whether the copyright holder is losing some benefit as a result of someone else making the copy. If not making a profit implied fair use, then the first person buying any CD could put it on P2P, everyone in the world could legally copy it from that seed within minutes, and any profit potential for the copyright holder would be dramatically reduced. I'm sure some of our members would support that view, but I'm betting not many of them know much about economics, nor rely entirely solely on art they produce to pay the rent.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
TVC Alert Research News
The Virtual Chase
http://www.virtualchase.com/
26 January 2006
TVC Alert Research News, a free weekday news bulletin, reports on industry events and Web-based resources for library and legal professionals.
Google Cache Does Not Infringe on Copyright
http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesVie w/sid/12594
(26 Jan) The federal district court in Nevada ruled that Google does not violate copyright law when it caches (creates a copy of) Web pages. An attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) opined that the ruling should help Google in its dispute with publishers over the book scanning project.
SEE: Ruling in Blake v. Googlea _order.pdf
EFF (copy of court filing), 19 January 2006
http://www.eff.org/IP/blake_v_google/google_nevad
If I write a letter, say to a Judge disputing a ticket. I mail that letter Registered Mail to the judge. Under curent US law that letter is COPYRIGHTED the date it is POST MARKED (bet you didn't know that). Now, if I take that letter, digitize it and make it available in a SHARED folder I am breaking the law. Even tho I AM THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER.
No damn wonder, I almost never right letters! LOL!
These folks used to make an important contribution to the process.
Distribution & Marketing.
They're no longer necessary--this is something we can now do for ourselves at an individual creator or user level.
If competition in this arena (making [files, movies, music, etc] available for sharing) becomes illegal, then *AA gets direct legal protection for their business model.
If you want to distribute, you have to pay them. Just like in the good old days.
Shifting the burden of proof starts with the argument "With the law as it stands, it's impossible for us to prove a violation. Therefore, the standard for guilt should be lowered. Making the nature of the file an element of the defense rather than an element of the crime preserves the presumption of innocence. We've simply changed the definition of guilt."
"Guilty", BTW, is the other half of "shifting the burden". Moving it from civil to criminal court. Then, *AA doesn't have to pay for the lawyers; they just have to keep up those rental fees for the senators.
It's a good plan if they can get it to stick.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
"they are arguing it's the same as burning a whole stack of "fair use" copies of a CD to CD-R and then leaving them on your doorstep for anyone to take."
You can already be sued for having large numbers of unauthorised physical media copies. They don't have to prove you distributed them to anyone: merely having them is considered proof of the intent to do so. This is I think what the **AAs would consider to be a logical extension of such situations to the Internet, where one does not need multiple physical copies of something to distribute it to thousands of others.
I also agree with your analysis of the "regardless of the legality of the file" part. What they mean by this is that while you may be entitled to copy files from a CD or whatever onto your computer for personal listening purposes under "fair use" provisions, this does not mean that you can then make those files available to others who would not be covered by said fair use provisions. In essence, the situation is similar to that of radio stations: they can copy from physical media to tape or whatever for the purposes of constructing programmes etc. under fair use provisions, but broadcasting the results requires specific licenses without which the station is operating illegally (hence the term "pirate radio").
All the rest of the stuff about them trying to stop people from distributing their own original content is yet another case of Slashdot tin-foil hat syndrome. Suing for breech of copyright is something that the copyright holder has to do, and if that copyright holder is not a member of the **AA, then the **AA cannot sue anyone. This situation still exists in countries where copyright violations are criminal offenses: there has to be a complaint to proceed with a prosecution, and any recording industry representatives would be making said complaint _on behalf_ of the copyright holder. If the copyright belongs to you, the simple expedient of saying "I don't wish to press charges against myself" will both result in them being dropped, and any future recording industry complaints being treated less seriously by the authorities.
Copyright laws are, when push comes to shove, a lot like trespass laws. The owner of a property has the right to refuse entry to anyone they choose with the exception of those with statutory exemptions, and can invoke trespass laws if the prohibited person persists in entering. However, they do not have the right to refuse entry to someone else's property unless the owner of that property allows them to (e.g. asking your neighbour to watch over your house while you are on vacation). They may be able to get somebody arrested for entering property that they do not own, but any charges will be dropped if the actual owner wishes it.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
Isn't putting copyrighted files in a publicly shared folder like leaving your front door unlocked? It's stupid because people may steal things
But it's the thief that breaks the law, & the law shouldn't prevent us leaving our doors unlocked or putting stuff in public folders
Holy Crap, I left my car door open and a legally purchased CD on the seat... I think I just made it readily accessible for distribution!!! Sue me!! Sue me!!! Can RIAA get any more idiotic... I guess only time will tell
With that kind of logic having any copyrighted material available anywhere would be breaking the law.
If the RIAA had its way, it would deem that even owning a computer is violating their copyrights.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
That's exactly the conclusion the RIAA wants you to draw. P2P is dirty, they tell you, because so many people use it to steal bread from the mouths of artists children. Because all material is copyright and there's no easy way to tell the publisher's intentions, ALL SHARING MUST INVOLVE SAID "PIRACY". So give up, only the pigopolists can legally distribute music and keep all the bread from ever reaching an artist.
Share music? Why would I want to do that? Next thing you know, I'll be playing it to my friends and singing it without permission. Dirty me.
That old story is so over:
Go to concerts, buy music and share it. As you have noticed, not everyone is a pig and there's more than enough to go around without choke points in Holywood. I don't have to give my money to a pig when I could give it to an artist.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If I own something (e.g. a Film) then surely I have the right to have that film in any format I choose. Eg. DVD, DivX, VCD?
I believe I own the "CONTENT" not just the "CD/DVD" whatever.
If that's the case, then I can surely SHARE out my data so that I can stream it to work???? I own it...it's only me watching it. If I put it in an FTP folder and download it at work to listen to with headphones on...that's surely okay?
I'm not sharing it with ANYBODY else? Therefore it should be completely acceptable. Doesn't this knock out their complete argument about no sharing? As long as I password protect my server I am surely breaking no rules.
If it's illegal to make it potentially sharable then isn't put it on an iPod (a portable hard drive) illegal?
Who knows.
Anyway, If i'm paying for the CD and not the content, then it should be legal for me to download things from the internet on the account that it's price is £0.00?
Maybe, maybe not, but regardless, I should be able to access my media via a variety of paths - not simply by *keeping it on my hard drive*.
What If I duel boot? Anyway now were getting Anal.
Philluminati
Let's suppose I have legally obtianed mp3, that I don't want anymore. I somehow *move* the file to a shared directory. The file is deleted from own machine.
I can sell, or give away, a book or cdrom that I no longer want. I just can not keep a copy of it for myself.
In fact, I can give away an old book to the the library, where I can still access it.
This is no surprise at all. They (along with MPAA and sister organizations worldwide, in my humble opinion) would just like to shut down the whole Internet: if capable to, they probably would have killed it already. This is simply medieval (or fascist, or sovietic; or just choose the tyranny you prefer); but this is not the bad thing. They work for their own interest, and nothing else. They sometimes push it too far; but this can happen anywhere, 'net or not.
:-)
The truly bad thing is that house representatives (and their equivalents worldwide; i.e. those who write the law) sometimes even listen to such ideas, believe them to be Good, and eventually take action without the knowledge of what they're really doing. If freedom is not just a word, this seems much worse than having no law at all ruling the Internet. Ignorants just suck; and that's their own business. Ignorants with power can even kill freedom, while acting in their best intentions; and this is everybody's business. This won't stop, probably, until a new generation, one which has grown up in the full usage AND understanding of digital technology, will get the power. So, the doubt is: will we ever have one such?
The current situation, in fact, seems suggesting that "easy" computing and 'netting, and their so well developed and so well advertised flavors, may have a dark side which is darker than most people expect. At least hackers and crackers DO know what they're doing. If you can't tell the difference among the two, then you need help to understand it; go ask the nearest hacker as a beginning (or just read Levy).
CLICK HERE TO destroy the world
(CLICK!)
"Whoa! Wrong button! Whoa! Whoa! Whoaaa!!! Abort!! Abort!!! ABOOORT!!!"
(KABOOM...)
What about a physical computer shared by multiple people?
What if I recorded my own tracks with the same titles as of some copyrighted tracks and make it available for download?
Somebody should try this!!
Leaving your garage door open will lend you 7 years in jail.
It is not "obviously illegal."
17 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically 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.
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be:
any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.
In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders. These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.50 each (as of 1/10/06).
A reasonable interpretation of the above is that distributing copyrighted musical recordings for noncommercial use on these audio CD-R discs is perfectly legal. Copying such recordings is an ordinary part of the process of "using" these discs. The law makes no mention of the media path used to make these copies - and there's little to distinguish between IDE (CD to CD-R drive), SPDIF (CD to audio CD recorder), or TCP/IP (CD on server to CD-R drive).
IANAL, and all that...
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
...if you didn't actually download it? As we all know, it's quite easy to take a file and call it copyrightedwork.mp3 and throw it out there, but that doesn't make it so now, does it.
So basically, if I borrow a CD from a friend and leave it laying on the table at lunch at Popeyes, I'm breaking the law in the eyes of the RIAA? What if I put it in a read-only shared folder? Is that the same as playing my stereo too loud so that my neighbors hear?
knock-knock
"Yeah, sorry. I'll turn it down..."
"No sir, this is the Gestapo... er... I mean the RIAA. Open up so we can take you to jail."
Soon it's gonna be illegal for me to leave my iPod plugged into the family computer. Now my entire family can go onto the computer and play the music off my iPod. What's next. Next thing I know I'm not gonna be able to play my music when any guests are in the room since it's my copy and I don't have the rights to share playback. The RIAA needs to get a life...but I guess most people know that.
What's the matter, James? No glib remark? No pithy comeback?
I have a copy of Linux. It is free to distribute but I don't own it. If this claim were upheld it could be used (M$, SCO) to kill the Open-Source movement.
What about Shareware. Freeware, Abandonware?
When I ripped my old vinyl to mp3's and then shared them out on my home network I violated copyright. But its just me accessing them. Nobody else.
Copyright law in this country needs a major overhaul to keep up with the digital age. The problem is that the overhaul will be done by clueless beauracrats that are in hock to big business.
All files are copyrighted, except those that have been intentionally and deliberately placed in the public domain. Even GPL files are copyrighted, but they are licensed for sharing. Look it up.
you're not getting my milk money any more. and if you persist in trying, well, i'm gonna go get chuck norris...
Serenity now, insanity later.
...it means the RIAA's web page is a massive copyright violation.
"oink ! oink !" said the fat piggy in front of his trough, sauce dribbling
from his double chin.
"this is mine, all mine, and for EVER !" he said.
The rows upon rows of thin men said nothing, and just kept on staring, sharpening their long knives.
What about a television show? They broadcast it publically, but anyone *could* copy it. Would this fall under the same pretense?
What happened to treating the crime as a crime, not the capability of performing a crime as a crime. Shouldn't it involve action or intent and not capability?
Then Microsoft is the new Napster for including SMB in Windows. UNIX and every OS that allows sharing, linking, exporting, etc. are guilty as well. These guys are stupid. I don't mean they're ignorant, they don't get it, they're technically challenged, I mean they're stupid. As in, their gene pool should be stopped! This is what you get, people, when you start covering electrical outlets with plastic covers. Nature has no way to weed out the idiots!
The RIAA is saying that if I record my own song with my own equipment and host it on my own computer, I'm breaking the law? Yay for vague language. Might want to add "copyrighted" in there somewhere next time. For those of you who simply don't comprehend why record labels are trying to protect copyrights and prevent sharing/piracy of music, I'll break it down for you. They pay talent scouts and agents to find artists they think you'll want to listen to. They buy/build/lease a building to use as a recording studio, build top-quality sets, buy high-end equipment, hire professionals to operate and maintain the equipment and buildings, often pay the artists up front, pay for the utilities used during production, pay other professionals to edit/remaster the tracks, pay artists to design the cover and disc art, and pay for the manufacture of the discs, cases, and covers. Then they pay salesmen to go out and find distributors for the albums. On top of that, you've got all the staff that support all those people, plus the overpaid executives that manage the whole shebang. In other words, they want to stop piracy because they have a lot of money wrapped up in the production of music, and like anyone with half a brain they are seeking to protect their investment. I don't blame them...if I was investing millions of dollars into a project, I wouldn't want people making unauthorized copies of it for their friends either. That doesn't mean I like the RIAA. I think the labels are trying to maintain a decades-old business model which simply doesn't work any more. Rather than embrace the digital age and make music easy to buy online, they spent years and millions of taxpayer dollars (ab)using the courts and Congress in an attempt to prop up a system which gives them a higher bottom line. It comes down to control, really. In the late 90s, the record labels had it. They controlled the vast majority of the radio stations indirectly by telling them what to play. It was a coordinated effort: the stations play a song five or six times a day while the labels push the albums at music magazines and buy sign space at major record store chains across the nation. It essentially guaranteed that the majority of listeners bought whatever was put in front of them. Then came Napster. People had access to tens of thousands of songs at the click of a button. Average people started chatting with others who shared their tastes. Indie bands suddenly found an outlet called the internet. One could literally have a song distributed to millions of people and never make a CD. The labels saw their bottom line shrinking and panicked. They *could* have developed a more modern distribution system. Instead they foolishly thought they could fight world-wide piracy and spent precious years suing everyone under the sun. Then, when they finally started to accept that consumers want digital music, they forced inflexible DRM schemes in an attempt to prevent people who legally buy music online from sharing it. They still don't get it, but at least the market is better off than it was six years ago.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
I guess all the web servers on the planet are then breaking the law since they all are sharing files with the world. text, images, media, video.... The RIAA... what a joke!
My dad was sort of part of that. He worked in a big factory in the early 80's, and the stories he told were quite interesting (some involving the military going in to squash a strike, another with him being threatened with 20 years in jail because he was sending letters to his brothers in Norway & Russia).
Which reminds me, I should ask my grandfather about some stories he's had before he passes on to the next life (he's 83).
The moment that you create a literary/artistic work, such as your post or my reply, it is Copyrighted. I choose to allow Slashdot to liberally publish the work in question (as I hope do you...), but it is still Copyrighted per how the laws are written- this doesn't mean it's a Registered Copyright, which is a different beast.
However, I can't see how their legal theory (which is all this really is- the law doesn't SAY what they're claiming...) is going to fly in a court with a competent Litigator on the defendent's side. While I'm not a lawyer, I'm very cognizent of how the law's supposed to work, being an author, professional software engineer, and Patented Inventor- to be sure, there's nuances, but...
The non-digital world analogy of what I see that they're trying to litigate the tort for would be a Library- which is very legal. Unless there's an act of unlawful downloading from the share, it's NOT infringement and therefore isn't something that the laws talk to. Worse, you don't go after the library unless they're printing copies themselves willfully, which would be the analogy of someone putting up stuff on a P2P program that's publicly accessable, they typically go after the infringers unless the Library's encouraging the act of copying with the photocopiers, tape recorders, etc. It remains to be seen whether or not the defendant actually was guilty of encouragement, but if they're not, RIAA largely doesn't have a case- and if there was no infringements accomplished, it's still not illegal no matter what the RIAA says. To be sure, again, I'm NOT a Lawyer- but my understandings of how the law works doesn't map to what they're trying to run up the flagpole here.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
1) Send letter to RIAA complaining nicely.
2) Wait for letter to circulate internally as memo.
3) Sue RIAA for copyright violation.
4) Profit.
Or just prove how stupid all this copyright and filesharing crap is.
I can understand someone wanting to protect his/her IP, but come on they make it sound as if by sharing out anything I'm breaking the law. BTW, I didn't RTFA as I'm sick of the RIAA and MPAA, and DMCA making headlines, so I no longer waste my time reading about them.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Actually I think you are wrong. I know in Canada this interpretation of the law has been around a long time. Back in the days before the internet for me, when it was only available in Universities etc... I used to go on BBS's (Bulletin Board Systems) all the time and I noticed the first few legal cases surrounding that medium.
I would agree with the idea that you could host 10 million mp3's on a ftp site and so long as no one downloads them you are ok. However as soon as someone does you could potentially get into trouble.
What it comes down to is "INTENT". Did you host 10 million mp3's with the INTENT of distrabution or not. If you are hosting an FTP site with 10 million mp3's it would be very hard to argue in any court of law that you intent was not to freely distribute that material. The difference here is say having a bunch of songs on your computer and someone hacks in and steals your mp3's, then your INTENT was not to distribute, and thus would not get into trouble.
So your analogy of someone who has CD's in their house, and someone breaks in, doesn't quite stand up. That would be like my last example. Hosting an FTP site with mp3's is like leaving your door open and then advertising in the paper that you have free CD's for the taking inside your house and everyone is welcome to them. If you put a disclaimer you MIGHT get away with it (haveing an FTP with mp3's and a note saying don't download these please), but I doubt it.
I know back in the day when they were (in Canada anyway) first trying to figure out copyright(i am pretty sure of this anyway), and electronic files on BBS's there USED to be the provision that if your didn't make a profit from it then it technically wasn't pricary or stealing. So if I hosted a BBS and had a copy of Windowns 3.0 or something for download, so long as I didn't make any money any way off the download of that, then it wasn't considered illegal. This I know changed pretty quickly (probably due to the proliferation of hobby BBS hosting tons of free software for anyone to download).
In closing, if the prosocutor can prove that your INTENT was to distribute copyrighted material, your sunk. The key would be to defend saying it was a mistake, that the ftp was not supposed to be left open. Be aware that upon doing something like that, the onus shifts to you to put adaquite protection (passwords, typical security) to secure your files. If someone were to break your security however, well thats another matter, it wouldn't be your fault, or your intent, so not guilty.
Anyway I looked into this a lot when I was younger as I was into that sort of thing for awhile.
Cheers,
DarthVain
Sharing copyrighted work is fully legal in many contexts, but most importantly if the copyright holder grants permission. That's why you have the CreativeCommons, the GPL, and other licenses.
(Please use paragraphs)
You said that the RIAA:
"They pay talent scouts and agents to find artists they think you'll want to listen to. They buy/build/lease a building to use as a recording studio, build top-quality sets, buy high-end equipment, hire professionals to operate and maintain the equipment and buildings, often pay the artists up front, pay for the utilities used during production, pay other professionals to edit/remaster the tracks, pay artists to design the cover and disc art, and pay for the manufacture of the discs, cases, and covers. Then they pay salesmen to go out and find distributors for the albums."
The RIAA started by standardizing the equalization of records (too much bass, the needle jumps out of the groove... etc.). They now act as agents for labels and artists (copyright holders).
The RIAA doesn't engage in or pay for any of the activities you listed. Sorry to "burst your bubble".
The Artist pays for these activities. Either the Artist or the Label engages in the activities.
One point needs clarification: "often pay the artists up front". Yes, Labels do often front money to the Artist. However, that money is subtracted from the gross; as are all other production expenses.
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
I take that it's amazing and unbelievable that they'd be allowed to run this one even up the flagpole in the first place. But then, it's not gone to prelim hearings- it may be shot down in flames by the Judge presiding over the case. However, it's QUITE illegal to promulgate a nonexistent case, even on a tenuous legal theory- the term for such an act is "Barritry". Lawyers used to worry about something like that because if someone made it stick, it'd be disbarrment amongst other things. Nowadays, it seems that anything goes, even IF it's flatly illegal for the Lawyers to do it. I mean, this case and the SCO v. IBM case is prime examples of this.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Crimes beginning with "attempted" are pretty common. If I spend weeks plotting a bank heist or a murder, but get caught beforehand, do you really think, "But no one was hurt yet!" is a good defense? One of my favorite charges was always, "Possession of [drug] with intent to distribute," which seems to apply to anyone in possession of more than a trace amount of drugs.
Yes, I hate the RIAA and wish they'd go away, but I don't really think they're taking too preposterous of a position here. If you make your files available for download, even if they can't prove anyone downloaded them, you're still making them available.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
Somewhere in this country, at this very moment, a lawyer is arguing that ... that ketchup is a vegetable...
Which is totally insane, because a tomato is a fruit!Yay for pedantery
I can honestly say that I've never lived in fear of any of the above, even a little bit. I don't favor the overbearing attitude of the government towards entities such as Google, but I certainly don't worry that my 'searches will be misinterpreted.' Tax forms are a royal pain I would gladly alter in many ways, but I've never felt like the authorities were just waiting for me to slip up so they could incarcerate me. I've been involved in protests, some of which have been out of harmony with the Republican agenda, and done so with impunity -- The one guy linked to by the parent is a statistical outlier, as, I suspect, are those who feel they were denied opportunities due to the nature of their past financial contributions (according to 'sources', the Time article preview in question kindly enlightens us).
Yeah, the airport measures are an unecessary and expensive pain, and the associated terrorrist threat is much over-milked. The RIAA/MPAA are definitely freaking out in a bad way, and we can only hope they don't further mire us in a sea of onerous regulations in their death throes.
To be honest, the only time I personally feel any sense of fear towards a government entity is when I'm driving and I see a police car. I think this is somewhat telling -- I like to believe it's telling that our traffic laws and methods of enforcement are overly-restrictive and arbitrary, but it may be telling that I just need to slow down, depending on your perspective. When I see policefolk anywhere else, I actually feel good and get a sense of protection -- it's only in a vehicle that I get that sick feeling on seeing one of the State's finest, wondering if 6 mph over the speed limit is considered speeding today, or not. (Yes, I know if I just went the exact speed limit or slower, I wouldn't have to worry much -- but that's so slow... Plus, even if I don't think I did anything, just seeing a police car coming up behind is quite worrisome)
I think this is... Oh SHOOT! [Runs off to lock the car that has some copyrighted CDs]
Aren't most websites copyrighted, too? Could we not copy a website to our computer and then zip it up and send it around to everyone? Is the website at fault for making their COPYRIGHTED site available to the public? Isn't putting a COPYRIGHTED TV show on TV a crime, then, too? I mean, it makes it available for us to make copies of it. I'm confused... I guess radio stations are guilty as sin (well, more guilty than they were after the payola thing), too.
On a windows box, all drives are shared by default, under c$, d$ e$ etc. They can be accessed using the admin u/p and are there for backup purposes.
If simply putting files in a shareable folder means you are sharing the material. A website is simply a bunch files. Do we get to copy their website since they are obviously sharing it :)
Sounds like nobody told the folks over at RIAA about the C$ share on Windows.. that's the one that allows access to all those copyrighted Windows files to anyone on their network with administrator access.
I think they might want to stop sharing all those cool copyrighted windows files before they get sued.
Wonder how long it'll take the RIAA folks to switch to Linux :-)
The RIAA has made this argument in all of its suits against individual file sharers. It doesn't have a case unless making copyrighted files available for distribution is a crime all by itself. The RIAA has never anyone in the act of distributing a file.
A genuine 4 digit UID wouldn't have any idea what the sky looked like.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I know this discussion arouses some passion, and I know my position is controversial, and...
...I think we both feel that we're talking completely past each other.
"Again, you completely miss the point of my post and the book itself."
But I think this discussion is valuable, so I'd like to try to walk through my position with care one last time.
I take issue with this statement and its permutations, nothing more, nothing less:
"All practices of Big Brother are necessarily bad for society."
It seems this is the most common way the book is invoked.
"CCTVs! Those were in 1984! 1984 was bad, therefore CCTVs are bad!"
It's an appeal to infamy, and it's a textbook fallacy. It's just like saying, "Hitler rode a bicycle, therefore bicycles are bad."
Perhaps the erosion of liberty under CCTV or similar intrusions bring more costs to society than benefits. Or perhaps, while the short term benefits outweigh the costs, certain sacrifices set us on a slippery slope that will inevitably tip those scales.
But I'd like to occasionally be told how and why, have some sort of accounting of the costs and benefits and what will necessarily follow, and how we know that one thing must lead to another, as opposed to always just be referred to a book I find sensationalist and poorly written. I'd like to know whether people have actually thought about these issues themselves, or are just reading from Orwell's pamphlet.
Sorry for our perennial difficulties here. If it's any consolation, I really enjoyed Animal Farm.
I guess the focus for you here was:
"Am I saying that there are X similarities, therefore we are like 1984?
No, and it would ridiculous to suggest it.
Am I saying that we should be wary of letting our liberties being taken from us...[yes]"
This seems very reasonable, and I'm sorry for any previous misinterpretations. But the misinterpretation wasn't entirely my fault. If you weren't invoking any similarities, it seems like bringing up 1984 only confuses your point. Why not just talk about the importance of the liberties directly?
It's probably time I confessed that Orwell killed my ancient Japanese master, that's probably why I overreacted.
I hate the "reason an amendment" was created line-of-logic. It's always used by the people who want to restrict said freedoms.
You're the one who seems to be wanting to restrict.
You say:
To the government: Stop trying to second guess the "intentions" of the founders (with your biases interpreting things in your favor) and just read what the Constitution says. If the intentions behind it were super-important, well guess what, it should have been included in the amendment.
The First Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
What you're saying is the president or judicial branch should be allowed to restrict speech as much as they want.