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?
...is that we really don't own anything.
This is not the greatest
IANAL (but cpt kangarooski is), but it would seem to me that once you purchase a work it is yours. You have made backups for just the reason that happened ... the originals were lost.
If you're talking about the RIAA busting down your door and asking you to prove that you have a legally purchased copy of any of those CD-Rs with "their IP" on them, then I think you can be safe knowing they have to prove that it is more likely than not that those are the result of infringement.
> 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.
Honestly, I think that the RIAA would try to put a some spin on it (like that you're not allowed to use backups from another person's license or some shit). I don't think this would stop them.
Anyways, to answer the rest of your question: I'd guess you'd need the reciept; how else are they to know that you're the one who bought the cassette or that you didn't buy it after you were charged?
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
"Proof" for whom? For the RIAA, I strongly suspect that there is no possible evidence which you could produce which they would deem sufficient.
For a court of law? I don't think that it's ever gotten that far in court yet.
Even a copyright registration in your name is not conclusive proof of ownership, as George Harrison found out the hard way. Bright Tunes Music successfully sued Harrison and his publisher for subconsciously copying "He's So Fine" by Ronald Mack into "My Sweet Lord". Google1 | Google2 | Inevitability
The way the RIAA and the courts have been going, probably the only way to *PROVE* you own some music is to win a court case and have the courts say that you do.
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.
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?
Let's face it, folks. The RIAA has an agenda, and it's fairly transparent. They want, eventually, for you to pay some amount every time you access media. That's the only way they can assure their revenue stream into the digital age. Well, that and producing new talent, but they'r enot exactly great at taht, are they?
Thinking outside my Head
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.
(I am not a lawyer, etc.) There's no express right to make a backup of an audio recording, but leaving that aside, what's the point of a backup except to prolong access to the recording beyond the life of the original media? From the legal perspective, it's silly to even make a backup if one loses the right to use it in the event the original media is destroyed.
Now, the question of theft of the original media is slightly more interesting. A thief obtains no legal title to stolen goods, so if ones original media were stolen, one might retain constructive possession of the originals. That constructive possession would, if we assume the backups were themselves legal, permit the continued use of the backup media.
I wonder whether there's any precedent as to what would happen if the originals were later destroyed by the thief - would the use right terminate? If we assume that destruction of the originals in a house fire would terminate the right to use the backups, then I imagine no use right would be retained if the would-be thief hadn't stolen them but destroyed them and left the pieces in the possession of the owner. Wacky.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
The law doesn't say what constitutes proof of ownership, that's what the jury is for, so a good lawyer is probably going to get you a lot further than any object or piece of paper you can produce.
I believe the proper response for this is "mu".
Your question presupposes that there is a need for individuals to prove that they purchaced some music. I say that there is not. Should a group of the RIAA ilk take consumers to court for owning supposedly pirated music, then the RIAA or the group like them will need to prove to the court that the music is indeed illegitimate; "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases, and they must have sufficient evidence for strong suspicion for civil damages (IANAL, so I don't know all the legalese speak for the necessary evidence in a civil case).
Where they get you, however, is when you distribute said music. Getting everyone at work to upload all the music they own to the jukebox server, is what RIAA et. al. defines as "stealing". Most people here think this is a good idea, but it does violate copyright laws (since you're basically making a local copy each time you listen to a song on the server), and is not covered by Fair Use.
If you have digitized music, copyright laws and DMCA have little chance of harming you in court, because the onus is on the litigant to prove that you violated these laws. If there is any way that you could have happened upon DRM-free copies of the music, any lawyer worth the $100 you pay for an hour in court will get the case promptly thrown out, and most likely will get the prosecuting party to pay the bill for wasting everyone's time.
What happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?
Why do -I- have to prove the mp3 in my mp3 player is legal? Why can't my word suffice? Shouldn't RIAA have to prove I obtained it illegally?
They say I got it from p2p. I say I ripped it off a legal CD I misplaced later. Until they -prove- I actually downloaded it from p2p I should be innocent, shouldn't I?
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
You own the music like you own a book. It's only since companies like Microsoft have started asserting that you paid $XXX for nothing other than the right to click on a 'Yeah, I sell you my soul' button and it's only the clicking of the button (and subsequent agreement) that gives you any right to the software on the CD that you ostensibly paid for ... (god what a run-on sentence) that people have been able to swallow the idea that they don't really own the music that they 'buy' at the store.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Rip your cd's to ogg. While that doesn't guarantee that you haven't violated copyright, it's unlikely that a large collection of music files in a minority format were all acquired through file sharing.
Loose lips lose spit.
You'd never be brought to court for illegally possessing music, you'd be brought to court for illegally distributing music. And it's quite easy for them to show that you don't have a copyright, as typically only a limited number of these exist for any given song.
When jackbooted thugs start yanking the iPods of folks walking down the street and demanding to know where the listener obtained the song, then we'll have this problem. Until then, you're only sued for unlawful distribution.
Let's assume some random person is hauled into court allegedly for having music that he has not legitimately bought.
The only scenario where that might happen is if you're caught shoplifting.
The RIAA has never brought suit against someone in the terms that you describe. They've brought suit against people for distributing music, not posession. In which case, your proof would be a contract/license of some sort that gives you the right to distribute the music.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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.
What you don't own is the right to distribute copies of the text you own.
Because you do not own the text. That is why you have to pay royalties to stage a play.
KFG
If they are selling a license, what are its terms, when did you agree to it and when was it explicitly stated that they were not selling you the CD when you handed over the cash?
The RIAA and its agents claim that they are selling you the CD (not a license to the music). The shop gives you the CD in exchange for money; they are, therefore, by definition selling you the CD. Even if they aren't, you have physical control over the CD so the assumption is that you own it.
If the claim you need a license to use your own property (which is bullshit), then every single person who uses a CD they have bought is in violation (as you agree to no license when buying a CD).
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
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.
Not necessarily. First off, the BSA is a private entity and has no more jurisdition over you than I do (at least until my plan for world domination gets a little further along ;)). If they show up and "offer" to perform an audit, you are well within your rights to call security or the police to escort them out. You are also well within your rights to prosecute them for tresspassing if they come back. THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY OVER ANYTHING UNLESS YOU GIVE IT TO THEM.
Here's how my experience with the BSA worked:
BSA: Hi! We're here to help you perform a compliance audit on your software licensing.
Me (knowing full well this is a trick on their part): Get out of my building, off our property, and don't ever come back.
BSA: Why are you being hostile?
Me (dialing 911): Yes, I have some trespassers here. Can you come get them please?
911: We're sending officers now.,
Me (hanging up): I know how you people work. You come in here for your friendly little audit and then you magically seem to find all kinds of issues. Then you negotiate a "settlement" with the software makers at 1.5X the full retail price. It's blackmail and I don't like it. That means I don't like you, either. Now, I've called the police and they'll be here in a few minutes. You can leave now, or leave when they get here.
BSA: But we don't understand why you won't let us do an audit? What are you afraid of?
Me: I'm not afraid, but I don't take lightly to thugs showing up unannounced in my shop and disrupting my employees either. Blackmail is usually a mafia tactic. Do they know what you guys are up to?
BSA (to policeman): Hey! You can't thow us out. We have a right to be here.
Policeman: Sorry, but this is private property. You've been asked to leave. Now I'm telling you to leave. If you come back, and we get another phone call, we will arrest you and you will go to jail.
BSA (on the way out the door): You'll be hearing from us.
What ensued then was a series of nasty, threatening letters which I forwarded to our legal department, who got a good laugh out of them, before sending them off the state AG. The letters tried to imply that they are some sort of legal "software police" (as in an actual law enforcement entitity). That was the last we ever heard of the BSA.
HDGary secures my bank
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.