Slashdot Mirror
What is Proof of Music Ownership?
scottsk asks: "What is proof of music ownership? I can't find a good answer anywhere. Let's assume some random person is hauled into court allegedly for having music that he has not legitimately bought. What must that person produce to prove the music was purchased legitimately? Is producing an original commercially sold CD with the music acceptable, or is some further proof of purchase needed (cash register receipt, cancelled check, etc.)? What if a person has digitized a commercial cassette, like digitizing a photo? Must the person carry the cassette around forever, or is just the cassette insert sufficient? (What about an LP record that has been digitized?)" Now, what happens if you've lost all of your property in a fire, but still had an off-site digital backup of your legally purchased music somewhere? Does the loss of the original property invalidate the legality of the backups?
> What is proof of music ownership?
Copyright registration in your name.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
This is why the RIAA isn't invading people's homes and going through their CDs and hard drives. Yet. They'd *like* to say that you are only entitled to one copy of each work you purchase, and if it's destroyed you'd need to buy another copy. But they're already raising tons of consumer discontent and if they push it much farther they risk a huge backlash.
The question is flawed. The music companies aren't suing anyone for possession. They are suing them for providing copies to others.
Close enough. I presume the questioner is really talking about digital music files on some sort of "consumer" controlled media, like a home computer or an iPod.
The reason he can't find a good answer is because you don't own them. You possess them. You own a car, or a CD. If if the music is your original work you own the rights legally associated. These all have a legally definable title.
A digital file does not, so you cannot prove you have one.
I do wonder, however, why he thinks anyone actually would be hauled into court, or, having been so, feel he would be compelled to demonstrate legal possession. The accuser must present evidence that you do not legally possess them, and you only need argue to refute the evidence. Proof of legal possession is certainly an affirmative defense, but hardly the only one, especially if the claim is weak to nonexistant.
If found liable the damages would be on the order of a buck a CDs worth. The huge claims for damages by the RIAA in their p2p cases are for distribution, per copy per song, which could be many thousands of instances per song, not just one, plus whatever criminal fines apply to exceeding certain limits of ditribution value.
A hundred songs would run you less than ten bucks in actual damages. Who do you figure is taking you to small claims court over that?
KFG
It's legal in the US to record music from the radio, to rip it from your CDs, to record it on a cassette tape from another cassette tape or CD or LP, to download it from the Internet (but not to upload it, and of course P2P filesharing technology makes everyone a redistributor), to stick a microphone out your window and record it from your neighbours stereo...
So, given that, the burden of proof is on the RIAA. And they know it, why do you think they go to such efforts to catch people actually using P2P software to get their music fix?
First Response:
Criminal court? He doesn't have to prove shit, innocent until proven guilty, right?
Civil court? The accuser still needs a preponderance of evidence. Just about anything from physical media, to a receipt, to testimony by a friend that he saw the guy make the purchase ought to be enough reduce the accuser to less than a preponderance.
Second Response:
If this is about one of the MAFIAA's "sue 'em all and let God sort it out" lawsuits then chances are it doesn't matter if he has legal ownership or not. Those suits are about distribution and not simply possesion of a copy.
No way I'm going to double-check and go dig through USC Title 17 on a Friday night while under the influence of tequila, but I don't think it's illegal to receive an unauthorized copy, just to make the copy or to distribute the copy. Feel free to dig through the spaghetti code on the other end of that link to find something that says otherwise.
PS, all typos and poor logic are the sole property of Padron's Resposada.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Or a pretty stiff jail sentence. From COPYRIGHT FELONY ACT:
Test 1 2 3 4
Sony doesn't seem to agree with you on the idea that you can still keep music if your CD was stolen. EFF has a breakdown of the EULA that comes with some Sony CD's: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004145.php/
Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer
In the case of fire or theft, hopefully you had insurance, so you will get replacements anyway. Of course, the insurance company will probably want proof as well.
A friend of mine was in that position recently. They managed to find a recent photograph of their living room, clearly showing their CD collection sitting in some stand alone CD racks. That was enough to keep the insurance company happy.
I don't think anybody has ever been sued by the RIAA merely for having music or even downloading music -- they've only sued people for uploading/sharing music (though they might like to claim `illegal downloading' and things like that.)
Well, downloading can certainly be illegal, and there have been numerous opinions to that effect by district and circuit courts. Really, no one even seriously argues otherwise.
But downloaders are somewhat harder to track down, and less worthwhile in terms of the effect on other infringers if they're shut down, so they're probably the lowest priority of RIAA et al. Uploaders and network providers are better targets and a more efficient use of resources.
I'm not sure where they get the authority, but they do occasionally do raids on business and require that the business prove that it has legal licenses for all the software they use.
Offhand, I'd guess that they either 1) get an ex parte seizure order as part of an infringement suit, using 17 USC 503, or 2) show up at the business and threaten to get such an order if they aren't allowed in to poke around.
-- 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.
Multiple people cannot have the copyright on the whole of the song
Sure they can. There are two circumstances in which this can occur:
1) The work is a joint work, in which case copyright vests in all the authors under 17 USC 201(a)
2) The copyright can be transferred in toto to multiple people under 201(d)(1).
The result is a copyright that is treated like a tenancy in common, with the copyright holders having undivided ownership in the entire copyright. They can then exploit the copyright however they like, so long as they account for profits with the other co-tenants, and don't transfer or grant exclusive interests in the work to others without complying with section 204.
-- 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.
That only applies to criminal cases, not civil ones.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004, 1014 (9th Cir. 2001).
CoStar Group v. LoopNet, 373 F.3d 544, 551 (4th Cir. 2004).
BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888, 889 (7th Cir. 2005)
I guess it depends on how you define `seriously', because I see people arguing otherwise all the time.
Actually, I think it depends on how I define 'people,' because I have yet to see anyone who knows anything about US copyright law argue otherwise. Plenty of knowledgable people, including myself, will argue that it shouldn't be illegal, but everyone will accept that it is at least prima facie illegal.
-- 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.
> I'd guess you'd need the reciept...
...how else are they to know that you're the one who bought the cassette or
You don't need anything.
>
> that you didn't buy it after you were charged?
You've got it backwards. They are the ones who have to do the proving.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.