Slashdot Mirror
Teens Don't Think CD Copying is a Crime
An anonymous reader writes "An article in the Orlando Sentinel reports on a poll done by the LA Times and Bloomberg. The informal study looked at teenager attitudes towards copying media. Only 31 percent said they thought it was illegal to copy a CD borrowed from a friend who had purchased it. Attitudes about ill-gotten media were less clear, and the article admits than even the legal system is slightly fuzzy on this issue." From the article: "Among teens aged 12 to 17 who were polled, 69 percent said they thought it was legal to copy a CD from a friend who purchased the original. By comparison, only 21 percent said it was legal to copy a CD if a friend got the music for free. Similarly, 58 percent thought it was legal to copy a friend's purchased DVD or videotape, but only 19 percent thought copying was legal if the movie wasn't purchased. Those figures are a big problem for the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America, both of which have spent millions of dollars to deter copying of any kind. The music industry now considers so-called 'schoolyard' piracy -- copies of physical discs given to friends and classmates -- a greater threat than illegal peer-to-peer downloading, according to the RIAA."
... hard at work!
This is not the greatest
in a related study, 95% of teenagers said they don't care if its legal, they want their goddamn Kanye West CD.
"Just because you're eloquent doesn't mean you aren't a fucking crackpot." -Wavebreak
You want to know what is a crime? I'll tell you what is a crime. It's a crime that these large organisations reap the profits from pressed pieces of plastic onto which are recorded hideous noises that sound like gang-warfare in Harlem and Watts, and then use this money to harass families and children for every last red cent so they can line their pockets.
So yeah, copying a CD is not a crime.
The numbers should be 100% 'legal/OK' for copying a bought CD/DVD.
In Germany the copy from a legally bought CD given to a close friend is legal. So the law was made according to the natural feeling of the public.
Although that copying has been limited recently by the addidion 'you may copy - but not if the media is protected by a _WORKING_ digital protection'. Well.. most CD anti-copy schemes today are easy to overcome and this very soft rule has not been tested in court yet. The musiv industry just plainly tries to keep their too high prices up by suing everyone around and lobbying for more limiting laws.
Spelling errors were made for your amusement only...
a greater threat than illegal peer-to-peer downloading, according to the RIAA
Yes, because, at least for p2p, they have their sueing and scare-tactics. The RIAA didn't get their claws on CD-burning technology early enough to prevent its use for pirating music, so they see it as a greater threat.
I have a friend,who is well off,can very easily afford to by a CD.But,sadly,all he does is only copy from friends CD or worse coy from friend's mp3 and pop it into the car & go.
I once asked him about buying,he said "I dont have a habit og buying.Just listen and go!"
All this doesnt mean I support DRM though.
Wincopy
I thought it was ok to copy CD's and VHS, didn't they decided that was legal in the 80's? As far as I know that hasn't been overturned. The only thing that makes copying DVD's illegal is the encryption. Regular CD's are still fair game, right?
I sure hope the RIAA won't use these figures as an excuse to restart their litigation campaigns again. Given the RIAA's history, I wouldn't be surprised though...
In further news, the RIAA and MPAA have recently decided that everything is, in fact, a greater threat than everything else. "We intend to launch our initial wave of lawsuits against everything very soon," said industry spokesman Blodug Fossergrim. "Everything else will have to wait."
It must be noted that NOT ALL CD OR DVD MEDIA SOLD IS COPYRIGHTED.
Many artists - and DVD video creators - encurage you to copy and spread their work/information.
Thus; just asking "is it legal to copy a CD" is misleading.
For example, the documenaties you can download from http://torrentchannel.com/ are completely legal to copy and share with your friends.
It is legal to copy a CD you made with a song you wrote yourself where you yourself are singing.
It is not legal to copy a CD where the copyright belongs to some member of the very evil MPAA.
Thus; it is a bit stupid to just ask "Is it legal to copy a CD", the obvious answer to that question is "YES, it IS LEGAL - unless the Copyright holder of the work on that CD objects to it"...
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
Read Orson Scott Card's Essay on this: http://greghowley.com/20
He favors decent IP laws, but points out that the RIAA and their greedy counterparts around the world rip off both customers and artists. The web allows self-publishing. Use it.
Those who want to control the flow of information with to control you. Beware, zombies lie ahead!
What's funny is that we suddenly have 10 year olds with a criminal record because they took advantage of a service available on pretty much every computer. I'm not putting a dent in studio sales by downloading a movie. They hardly make anything on the DVD sales compared to ticket sales. Didn't they teach us on Sesame Street to share?
If CDs are made illegal, I'll go back to the tape cassette. I have the technology !
The music industry now considers so-called 'schoolyard' piracy -- copies of physical discs given to friends and classmates -- a greater threat than illegal peer-to-peer downloading, according to the RIAA.
I can see some RIAA rep running around junior high schools and handing out a subpoena to every kid with a portable CD player with a burned disc inside.
The teenage demographic is their prime target. They want these kids to continue to consume the music they put out without questioning it, thusly creating a pattern for them to follow their entire lives.
Thankfully, these kids have decided that it's more reasonable to think that sharing music with friends of yours isn't a crime. This creates panic in the RIAA because if enough people come to think that way, it suddenly won't be illegal. As much as you can say that the law will still be on the books, if enough people are breaking the law, how well does that law hold up?
These kids are just exhibiting common sense, and common sense is the enemy of the **AA's.
The RIAA brought this on themselves with an aging business model where media sells for far more than its worth to many consumers.
Is it right to deny your friend a copy of your CD because some company claims to own the right to make copies of it? It's a stark moral choice: do you help your friend or do you defend the rights of the owner? It's pretty obvious to me which one is right. Unfortunately it's probably just as obvious to others that I'm wrong.
How we know is more important than what we know.
This is completely legal here in Canada.
"My fellow Americans, these are not the droids the nation is looking for."
I wonder if on the grand scheme of things whether the RIAA et al's resistance to free copying will end up being an endnote in history books because later generations will simply ignore them, thinking (and rightly so) that they are living in the past?
Why should they have to limit themselves simply because the recording companies refuse to adapt?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
You, sir, are the enemy of every true businessman by trying to draw attention to the rights of people who should have no other rights, nay duties, then to hand over their money to those who deserve it.
Your entire argument is exactly what the content industry doesn't want to get out. ALL copying period is illegal. That is why in many countries now you pay money to the content industry for blank media even if you fill it with your own content.
I still hope that a really good honest laywer will one day make a case about this and get the politicians involved convicted for fraud.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I personally don't go to any concerts because the price of a ticket is inflated. I'd pay 10$ for a show of musician I wanted to see, but not $50 and upwards per seat. At $10 a seat, the musicians and everyone involved would still get paid. I think the problem comes in that if they add in additional supply(extra days playing concert), the demand would be satisfied too much, and they'd be unable to charge the inflated price for the tickets. So instead of playing a $50 concert one day, and a $10 one the next, they'd be playing maybe two concerts for $20 a piece for a loss of $20 per ticket and extra work involved(theoretically). I know they're aiming for the profit mark on the supply/demand curve and not caring about the public's greater interest. I guess this is where fanboys come in. They buy the tickets for the inflated price, never knowing its inflated, while the people who have some demand, but less are left to skip the concert and listen to the CD. Even if mega musicians in today's age never sell an album because of piracy, they could technically just start playing more concerts and still make way more money than your average man.
God spoke to me.
It's only natural for a kid to share their favorite music with their friends. The only part of this that should be criminal is the quality of the music being exchanged in these swaps.
Wow, you must be one of those early adopters.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Let me stake out a position here:
I think that most people who are happy to freely duplicate copyrighted works have never been in the position of selling anything of their own.
I think that people who sell their own materials (be it books, music, software etc.) are more likely to be aware of the effort that creators put into their creations. Such people are more likely to identify with fellow creators. They are thus less willing to duplicate material without fair recompense because they know how wretched they feel when they see copies being made of their own materials.
These beliefs lead me to make the following testable proposition: A person who starts selling their own original materials will be less willing to duplicate the copyrighted works of other people.
I welcome informed discussion. Of course, this is Slashdot, so I expect the signal-to-noise ratio to be woeful!
AussieScribe
especially lately!
Tomorrow's headline: Teenagers are not literate in copyright laws! There was the same response as this to the article about evolution illiteracy. The average person simply doesn't know.
Doesn't know, and doesn't care... Apathetic and amoral are the values that prevail today. Not that it's a bad thing, mind you. But I would've preferred to hear that Teens don't think copying CD's is illegal in a defiant stand against the RIAA, "THE RIAA CAN SUCK ON THESE", said one young man as he pointed his two index fingers to the sky, instead of I want to listen to MY Justin Timberlake/Ciara/Fergie and nobody's gonna stop me...
Of course enjoying the fruits of someone's work without paying for it (when they expect to be paid) isn't theft!
Last night I went to see a movie I've been looking forward to all summer. And the cool part was, it was free! You see, the guy who takes the tickets at the theater is kind of old and it's easy to sneak by him. Geez, they're not even going to try to protect their rights! Anyway, it's not theft, because there were empty seats in the theater, so they weren't going to get any money even if I didn't go. And besides, everything Hollywood produces is crap.
Then I took the subway home. It didn't cost me anything because I jumped the turnstile. One of my friends said I was committing "theft" -- obviously he can't think for himself. I mean, the city was running the train anyway, and there were empty seats. Besides, the subway sucks, and they fill the route with lots of stops I'm not interested in (I only want to pay for the stop next to the theater and the one near my apartment).
There used to be a bus line that was more convenient, but the city shut it down, with some lame excuae about not making enough money to justify the expense. That just shows that they suck and don't deserve my money anyway! Fight the Man! Transportation wants to be free!
I probably won't go to that theater any more. I heard they're installing some new "security system" to prevent people from getting in without paying. That really pisses me off! How dare they! It just goes to show how evil they are. And besides, it serves them right if they lose money -- watching movies in a big theater with other people is an outdated business model!
That's so gay.
sample size?
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
**AA needs to just sue the f**k out of the kids. I mean, it's been an effective tactic so far...
Parents, for hundreds of generations, in their kindness of human nature, have always taught their children that if there is no loss to the sharer, then sharing is good.
After thousands of years of being taught this, from one generation to the next, whilst still being taught this, we are being sued by collectives of people in companies under the law now set by our granddads (55-75 year olds) in power. These laws were set so that certain collectives could make significantly extra profit without contributing more work to society, to the significant detriment of the children of today and the next generations.
. . . that said P2P file sharing was a silver bullet that was going to destroy their whole business? Now they are saying that 'Schoolyard Piracy' is more of a threat? Schoolyard Piracy has been around Forever. Ever since cassette recorders hit wal-mart shelves, people have been copying each other's purchased music. And it was probably going on before then, but I wasn't around so I wouldn't know. Even though people were copying music from each other in this physical, sneakernet, manner, the recording industry (and, comparatively, software industry) flurrished. And aside from the occational 'copying is bad' print ad, the music industry never cared. What changed? People also used to record songs off the radio all the time. Now XM is in trouble for simply providing a device capable of it. What changed? Personally, I buy music if I think it's good enough to buy, which is actually quite often. I like owning the physical cd, and I don't like getting music that is DRM protected because I don't like the lack of trust I'm being given. So if I buy music online it's from emusic.com. Just last week a friend of mine copied an album for me- it's awesome, I decided after listening to two songs I wanted to buy it- but it's not available on emusic, so I've been spending the week trying to physically find it so I can give the artist and record label money for it. The only reason they don't have my money yet is because they refuse to make it available in a reasonable format online. Who's fault is the lack of this sale? You know what happened when software companies started acting like this? Open source software started showing up. . .
Back in the 80s when I was a teen no-one thought twice about copying tapes, and I'm pretty sure most didn't realise it was a crime.
I think it is fairly obvious, people of all ages know it is illegal. People of all ages just dont care. they buy some they "steal" some, they dont care if it is "illegal" because they dont see it as immoral.
the RIAA is too busy trying to get everyone to buy everything all the time, which will absolutely never happen.
and no it isnt like shoplifting sometimes so dont bother with that one...
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Then, finally, show a music executive, laughing, having lunch at some expensive restaurant, drinking fine wine, getting some young artist to sign on the dotted line. "Copyright Infringement" [fade to black] "It's NOT theft."
"
You've got the wrong image, there. You need footage of a teenager actually getting to meet his all-time favorite talent. You know, right there in the green room, for a one-on-one with, say... I don't know, Green Day or Avril Lavigne. The teenager says to Green Day, "Dudes! You guys totally rock. You're like the soundtrack of my life - I listen to you all the time, and I really can't wait for that next CD you're working on. I know you've been working on it all year and everything, but you won't mind if I just rip my copy off, right? I mean, I love you guys, just not enough to actually pay you what you're asking for your work. You know, a buck a song is totally unfair to me, personally, even though I want you to entertain me even more in the future, cuz you guys just totally kill with your songs about The Man and everything. Hey, are you going to eat that extra back-stage food? One of those club sandwiches would go great with my $3.75 half-caffe-double-shot-no-whip-skinny-iced-latte.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
... of stickers that read "Skateboarding in not a crime". Now, everything is all "geektafied" which, for us twenty-somethings that got beat up by skateboarders in school when bleeding-edge was a 486-DX2 50MHz (and if you overclocked the FSB from 25MHz to 33MHz, you REALLY are geeky), is quite a paradox. And I don't mean a pair o' Doc Martins (steeltoe, remember? Ouch.).
Gravity is a contributing factor in nearly 73 percent of all accidents involving falling objects. -Dave Barry
Copying a CD isn't a crime. Copying copyrighted material is. Every CD out there, music or software, isn't necessarily illegal to copy.
First it was audio tapes was going to make it easy to pirate music, it's a terror.
Then there's giving a friend a tape and dubbing it. It's far worse than copying off the radio.
Then it's was online downloads are going to kill the industry. It's far more damaging than people trading songs
Then it was peer to peer, it's killing in the industry. It's easily worse than direct downloads.
Now it's trading cds it's far worse than peer to peer.
Flavor of the month? I'm not talking about the song. Do they even notice that they don't think it's right to pirate if the guy before them pirated? That says the know right from wrong. The fact is the huge price for a single CD is probably what's making them believe piracy is legit. A school kid paying 20 bucks is insanely high. It's akin to an adult paying around 1000 dollars for an item.
Maybe the Riaa needs to remember they used to get a lot of attention for their artists off of tape swapping, perhaps it's time to do it again, and not kill the practice at the same time killing their positive image.
"Illegal" war, by what law? Let me tell you something: in case you missed this detail, Iraq was a brutal dictatorship. And, mind you, dictatorships have no right to sovereignity. Any free country had the moral right to invade Iraq to overthrow Saddam, at any time they felt like!
It's a vicious circle. Here's how it works:
I have no mod points, so I will simply reply with a "lol!"
Because yes, indeed, I did laugh out loud. Parent, that was the perfect response to Grandparent, bravo!
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
Definately, it is a crime to charge me 1 Euro for every blank CD/DVD I buy for my own video productions.
I've paid for multiple music albums already, but where can I get them?
Unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material for personal use may be a civil violation, but it is NOT a crime, and never has been. If teens don't think copying CDs is a crime, good!
You notice that all these RIAA filing sharing suits are SUITS, not indictments? What does that tell you?
Copying is a crime if it's done commercially. I think it might also be a crime if the material is hosted on a computer for sharing, but prosecutions for that are very very rare.
The entire idea of criminal copyright infringement is a fairly new concept. Copyright violation is a civil matter unless it is done on a commercial scale.
Violations of civil laws are not crimes.
I don't know why this concept is so difficult to grasp by slashdotters, because clearly teens have figured it out.
Let me stake out a consumer viewpoint...
Perhaps you've got some talent that is vaguely interesting to me...
I don't owe you anything, but I choose to SUPPORT your expression by listening/reading/watching and sharing the news with others...
At some point in the process you are just pleased as hell that anybody cares at all...
Soon your art is broadcast over airwaves onto my property, into my car, on commercials between my kids cartoons, on my elevator and your excerpts are slipped into the pages between jumk mail that's dropped in my mailbox uninvited. You sell your services to advertisers/promoters who are trying to take my money. Your clothes line is produced by third world sweatshops and sells for 3X more than the generic brand. You are trying to sell me a perfume with your name on it (and some pimple cream too) and you have a commercial on the air urging me to imbibe addictive substances so I can get a "free" mp3. You sell pictures of your frigging baby to the news media.
Do I protect your financial interests when my friend asks to copy a song? Probably not...
Wait, you're not THAT artist? You're struggling, selling CDs at your show and living at home waiting for your big break? Ah, then, nevermind, because nobody is copying your damn CD!
ART is not some magic invisible soul cream. If you are selling your art, then you are selling your thoughts. Good luck to you on that, but don't cry about how people are stealing your thoughts. That's just crazy talk. Unless someone steals the plastic you bought and put your thoughts on, then they didn't steal anything from you. A law may say that its theft to listen/read/watch your creativity uninvited, but laws also once valued some people at a fraction of the value of others. Laws are just constructs of the general consensus, and that consensus is changing.
"Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
I've been following the copyright argument ever since Napster started the war in 2000 and I STILL don't understand copyright laws. Whats this bullshit about "copy protection circumventing", "fair use" and "copyright infringement"? Who the fuck are the MPAA and the RIAA? How the hell does "P2P" work? Why the hell is it called "P2P" when it should be called "PtP"?
If the schoolyard piracy is even more threatening than P&P piracy, then: Close the Schools!
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Seriously, I read through the whole thread and this is the only one that actually captures what's going on.
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
Fighting against illegal copying of data is nothing new, but it's not nearly as hillariously cheesy these days:
0 332617729
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=483760909
Most people see murder as illegal, therefore most people want it illegal. Most teens think CD copying as not illegal, therefore teens don't want it illegal.
Add to that that the number of murderers is in the thousands, whereas the number of music copiers is in the millions, yuo see the difference in the "acceptable" scale.
Or maybe you don't.
Being a jew also was a crime, ad even punished by death penalty...
Yeah right, and 12 year olds are such experts on the law.
has been dead ever since they started harassing teenagers and court and harassing dead people and their families, dragging people into court without having any clear evidence. They are deader than dead as any moral authority. If teenagers dont think copying cds is a crime, they are right... I am glad that teenagers still have any sense of morality, the adults dont have it as it seems.
1. Get everyone to produce their own content
2. Find out the world of hell distribution is.
3. They all understand that the internet is a miracle from god to spread their work.
4. The world is a better, more culture rich place
5. Profit???
"how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
Here's something that's very relevant: http://www.questioncopyright.org/ Copyright was created to protect distributors, not artists. Copyright has never "protected the artist." It just keeps lame-duck businesses afloat. The RIAA doesn't care if it wins or loses its lawsuits... it only cares about keeping this mentality alive.
Neither do I...as long as I have the CD/DVD. The law isn't what's right & wrong, the law is what's popular. Keep pirating I say!
http://nathanlindsell.blogspot.com/
...these youngins are just emulating the 30 year olds they idolize.
And is an unenforced (and unenforcable) law really a law? People get what is technically wrong confused with what is ethically wrong. To those not interested in the distinction, the distinction doesn't exist. Drunk driver often honestly believe it's ok for THEM to do it, because THEY never killed anyone.
That's why COPS is so funny.
Shaw's Principle: Build a system even a fool could use, and only a fool would want to use it.
The music industry now considers so-called 'schoolyard' piracy -- copies of physical discs given to friends and classmates -- a greater threat than illegal peer-to-peer downloading, according to the RIAA.
Maybe this is an indicator that the ??AA are finally getting that DRM doesn't prevent music and movie sharing over the Internet. But they still want/need their precious DRM, because DRM is the key to controlling all legitimate uses of media and extracting maximum cash from consumers and advertisers. They are citing casual copying now - copying that doesn't involve a first copy originating from an expert who knows how to evade DRM - so they can keep DRM and induce legislators to mandate it.
Note, however, that before peer-to-peer and before the Internet, this is exactly the same thing that the ??AA were citing as leading to their "destruction", despite the fact that the industries made tremendous gains during and after the widespread adoption of audio and video tapes.
I've brought this up (copying music, from P2P sources really) to my community college students an an introductory computer science course.
Did they know that copying music is illegal? Usually, 1 or 2 out of a class of 30 is informed on the issue and knows it's illegal.
Of the rest, the response will quickly become: But can I really get prosecuted for this? And the answer is of course "no", there are no police searching for you making one copy for your friends. Which is actually a pretty sensible response. Why the fuck do we have these laws that everybody in the entire country is breaking? (See also: marijuana laws.) Beats the hell out of me, although I suppose it's handy to a police state to know you there's always something you can arrest anyone for.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Heh, the old "It sucks, therefore copying is not a crime" argument. If it sucks, why are you stealing it?
I personally pirate music because I have not been offered the correct price. I have a couple of bands that I really like, and I buy their CDs and go to their shows when they come to town. I have a few other bands that I kinda like, and listen to once every blue moon, but not enough to buy the music. I'd pay a buck for their whole catalogue. But not $1 a track or even $1 an album. Get the RIAA to sell me that stuff at the right price and I'll pay.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Don't copy that floppy!
I fear the Y2038 bug
It is human nature to share stuff, especially when sharing it does not reduce its value to the sharer and can actually increase its value by giving the sharer greater status or encouraging the sharing of other knowledge in return. Human society is built on sharing knowledge. If we were not naturally inclined to share knowledge, we would never have progressed beyond the level of small nomadic family groups - the human equivalent of a pack of apes.
It's also no surprise that kids feel less comfortable sharing something that was not initially paid for - we all inherently understand that it takes work to create or discover new ideas. But we also inherently understand that the work (and thus the cost) is in the creating, not in copying. Under the current system of charging for each official copy, the simplest reconciliation of the two is to be sure that the lineage of the copy you receive includes at least one paid-for copy. It doesn't quite match up, but it is probably the closest that monst kids are going to get given all the other constraints on their lives.
I'm sure there are more than a few people just itching to condemn me for supporting thieves with no respect for copyright owners. Save it. This is slashdot, we've all heard it before a million times. This post is not about morality, it is about human nature for better or for worse.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
- Ads by Google -
DVD Duplication in the UK
Hi speed and low prices for DVD duplication - 01494 536646
www.alpha-duplication.com
DVD Duplication
DVD duplication from just 24p a unit. call now 01886 830084
www.dvtapes.co.uk
CD/DVD Duplication
Short run high quality duplication. Barnet/North London 020 8440 5777
www.cdcopyshopltd.co.uk
Google clearly doesn't think it's a crime. Then again, Google will provide you with furniture porn if you ask it nicely.
"No, no, no, don't tug on that! You never know what it might be attached to."
My sister wanted me to buy her a USB flash drive for her birthday (and I did) so that when she goes to her friend's houses, she and they don't have to mess with burning cds. She can just plug in her flash drive, and get what she wants, or if they want something she brings it to them on the flash drive the next time she goes to their house.
Well...
1. You're paying again for songs you already have. If you buy a new cd, you're paying the same people the same rights, which you already had. You just get a new plastic disk and that's it.
2. They can (and they are) currently forcing you to use the media in the way they like it. If you buy a record, you'll need to pay again for the mp3, again for the cassette (if they even publish it!) and again for the CD. You're using the same song four times for the exact same purpose with the exact same content (jitter not counted) and you're forced to pay for the rights four times. If some lame producer thinks it's funny to just publish it on write-protected CompactFlash for some weird device, you can't even get the song. Same if the cd isn't popular enough, you can't get it without paying for delivery charges of a medium you don't want.
3. The artist isn't even getting any real amount of what you pay for the Cd. I believe it was once calculated to be about 80 cents on a 20-dollar 20-track album. The rest disappears in the meantime, nobody really knows where it went or why you'd need to pay those people.
Music is overpaid and underallowed. The more you'd like to do with your music, the more the RIAA wants you to pay even if there isn't any lawful right you're also buying with it.
How about replacing a plain CD with a cd with 20 rights-object-thingies in there? Each object would give you a discount on any other CD you also buy that contains that same track, since you shouldn't pay for the rights again. In the worst case, you can replace your scratched CD for the price of the CD, not the CD and another bag of rights. You could send one to itunes in a way and receive the song for a very low price in itunes format, since you already had it. Add a bit of education to that (copying isn't legal unless you also have a rights-object-thingy for it, pretty much the same as with a car or a house, they all have personifying property logic) and the problem would be solved for the better of both. It even requires no DRM.
He went to church, listened to the music, went home and wrote it out...
In many countries, private copying between friends is explicitly permissible; it's one of the reasons people pay taxes on blank media. It's reasonable to think that those activities might fall under "fair use", even in the US.
This argument's been running in earnest even since the launch of the compact cassette. But music companies are still going strong. It's a somewhat cynical game they play. Deep down they know kids with no money aren't going to always buy the latest releases. But they need to get each generation to get out of the habit of 'free music' when they grow up. So the hype about the damage needs to be continuous.
If those 69% of students live in Canada and the copy is for personal use, they are correct. You can legally make a copy of whatever music you wish, as long as you don't distribute it, publicly perform it, or sell it.
I find it hard to believe we don't have better things to do with tax dollars then seeing if kids think copying music is wrong. For decdades kids have done this. Now that the music industry is getting hit hard with drops in sales they need to find an excuse for their over priced garbage. In a time where we are faced with high gas prices which in turn pushes the price of everything else up, delivery surcharges and such, we turn to the kids and blame them for the music industry's failure to see that there are other important things to purchase then cd's. Shame on the music industry to not notice that music has been copied from the begining of records, be it reel to reel, cassetts and now cd's. The consumer has always had the option to copy music. What was prevalant when I was a teen was dual cassett tape players and what was the purpose of having two cassett decks in one machine... to copy tapes. We now have so many things we can use to copy music it's not funny but it's always the users fault, not the company's that make this technology. MP3 players are so prevalant in today's society and seem to be ok to purchase yet each one can be considered illegal because all the music is a transfer of a copied file which was copied from a cd or a bought file on line. A copy is a copy no matter how you look at it. These kids are just doing what we all have been doing for the past 50 years, copying music. Right or wrong as long as technology is out there to reproduce anything we have, be it music, video or computer files, people will use it as it was intended to be used. Don't go after the people that use the technology as it was intended to be used, go after the companies that make this technology available to us. Stop crying recording industry, music will always be copied until you go after the companies that make it so damn easy to copy your product which I will again state, it has been done for the past 50 years!!!!
Simply because theft or stealing implies that the aggrieved party does NO LONGER have the item you took away.
You've fallen into the propaganda black hole, stupid. Look theft or stealing up in a dictionary.
Moron.
Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/
Go read the problem with music and link it to your particular artistic endeavor, and then come back and tell me if your real problem are the teens "ripping" your profits.
Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/
No, more like "the favorite band among the 10 artists and bands the RIAA-member conglomerates push to mock up an illusion of choice".
Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/
Among teens aged 12 to 17 who were polled, 69 percent said they thought it was legal to copy a CD from a friend who purchased the original.
Man, I just love these kids. Wait a sec, I'll tel you while.
As a quick intro, I'm not even 30 yet, but I still remember the good old days when we used to record dozens of casette tapes with songs from the radio, play it for ourselves, play them on parties, copy it to other friends. Then, if someone managed to get an original tape from somewhere (where I grew up these things were really not that easy to get) we just were just exstatic, everybody copied it and we listened to it till the tape rotted away. We never ever felt we were doing anything that could be labelled as s crime, crime is when you kill someone, not when you listen to music.
These days I buy CDs. I have CDs from most of the bands that we were listening to when we were kids too. If I weren't listening to them on those tapes, I probably wouldn't have bought these disks. If one of my friends would ask me to borrow him a disk, I would do it with no second thought, they would do the same. I know some associations would label us as criminals, still, while I rarely would download music these days, I would still like to know what I'm buying before I'm buying it. I make oggs and mp3s of them to listen to on my portable and on my laptop. If somebody would label me a criminal, I'd smack'em. Still, if I couldn't make a copy or I couldn't lend it to a friend, I'd rather not even buy it.
So, why I love these kids ? Because they are not that brainwashed yet to forget what fair use should mean. In time, they will be, they have no escape. Still, I hope someday someone will realise that drming everything and dog, constraining people up to their necks [well, ears in this case], closing down everything and trying to control and watch everything and everybody is not a solution to anything. Instead of trying to establish even more harder lockdowns, they should just sit down, use their brains and figure out a bussinness model that suits every side - artists, listeners, studios. Yes, I didn't include associations in that list.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Copyright infringement is one issue where personalising it is actually misleading. The biggest reson that copyright infringement is not theft isn't connected to bad analogies with car theft, but with the fact that infringements also act as advertising, and often the infringer wouldn't have bought it anyway.
Strangely enough, the displacement of sales and the advertising effect appear to counter each other almost exactly. However, copyright infringement remains an abuse of trust, so it is still wrong; it is simply mistaken to believe that it leaves the artist out of pocket.
I will say here, to make my position clear, selling pirated goods is theft. What is different? People appear to have a certain sum of money that they spend on music/videos etc; if pirated goods are bought, that money is redirected from the artist or his/her representative, since that cash is no longer in the hands of the purchaser. Accordingly, I would have profiting from piracy be a crime with a fine proportional to the money made, rather than the degree of infringement.
Wikileaks, no DNS
Reading the steady influx of typical /. "Copying everything is legal! Information wants to be free!" etc., I thought of the following:
/. posters do.) If they did they wouldn't be advocating people use their software without paying.
Why won't people who believe that also tell us what they do for a living. I believe we'll find out that they don't work in software (as many
When you're out of the dance you can sing all you want as they say in my country.
Improve at backgammon rapidly through addictive quickfire position quizzes: www.bgtrain.com
And the funny part is: making low number of copies for close friends or relatives or personal use, as well as copying a borrowed CD for your personal use IS LEGAL. In most of Europe.
Land of the free, indeed.
-m.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060809/od_afp/usatta ckspolloffbeat_060809145351;_ylt=ArnrtaXH3JkyylylP
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
The Court's ruling (even tho I'm ecuadorian, I keep tabs on U.S. law because I know it'll trickle down to where we are... eh, according to my investigation, it's already trickled down in a form that is nastier that in the States...)
Okay, getting back to the point here (I've had 4 beers now) is that the Court's ruling was that the "VCR had substantial non-infringing uses, and that it was legal, because of time-shifting". The Court waived any ruling regarding even private copying for archival, much less copying for a friend (yes, that's the VCR I'm talking, so copying of cassettes or CDs would be included as well). The Court simply didn't rule in favor of private copies (which is dealt with in another case) or copies lent to friends (for which there is no ruling in case law ATM).
So, if you're "time-shifting", it's legal (with 100% certainty if it's analog, murky waters if it's digital). But there has been no Court that explicitly states that lending to a friend is legal. In the States. So, you'd better stay away of that.
Or do what I do: just download, rip and copy from lent copies (originals only, to preserve the quality, which is a big plus if you're dealing in Ogg Vorbis like me) and just don't give a fuck about the law, which was bought, after all.
You know what? Law is supposed to be fair. That's the purpose of Law. Too bad it's been co-opted by mafia-style robber barons.
Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/
"Among teens aged 12 to 17" 12 year olds are teens? Since when?
I see dead pixels!
Both sentences in your post not only are blatantly wrong (there are laws in war, did you know? you just can't do whatever you please) but they spread FUD as well. The war on Iraq is wrong because it's a violation of sovereignity (which is a principle we hold dear to) and because it's killed innocent civilians (forbidden by international law) and because it's dragged the entire U.S. into being polarized about issues that, to anyone with a shred of human decency, would have been solved EONS ago.
Killing is wrong (unless you're doing it to defend yourself in an immediate threat, which is CLEARLY not the case with Saddam). Killing innocent people is even wronger. In reality, you should take a look at the real interests behind the war, rather than the moustache-faced man called Saddam (yes, we know he's a bitch, but that's an issue his own country's people should have dealt with, instead of the States).
Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/
RIAA doesn't really care if you steal or not...
if slashdot keeps it up, riaa will die before they make any legitimate headway into complete social control
"They will soon, they will soon..."
they want their story back!
There is no reason to think that copyright is absolutely necessary for the creation of works.
Give lack of copyright 10 years.
If the enhanced freedom of society does not seem to outweigh the expected reduction in creation, then bring copyright back.
I seriously doubt, though, that after having 10 years without copyright, that any government would dare to bring it back.
It would be like the prohibition.
The RIAA needs to come up with a new schtick. Let's take a walk through memory lane....we've all likely taped a radio program/song or other onto a cassete at some point in the past. VCR's came out and I'll be dammed if we weren't all recording MTV when it was cool, Movies or Mom's Dallas shows. It didn't seem a crime when I was a teen. Those fancy boombox radio-tape, and tape-tape setups were used as a norm and I don't recall seeing an article in my local newspaper. The times have changed and so should the marketing wheel. Is it a crime to copy cd's and other Copywritten material? Yeah...it is. Just like in the olden days when everyone did it with cassettes and the VCR (or two)....your ma included most likely. As I see it, the RIAA can grow and change their interests or they will be constantly fighting a losing battle against 13 year olds and their unaware parents. The artists they represent and fight for will follow the bandwagon that leads into the new era of exposure and profitability.*Assuming we as a people accept net nuetrality as bunk of course* ...get into the 90's already RIAA~ ...of course teens don't think it's a crime. With crystal meth and "X" sweeping the nation, unwanted juvinile pregnancies, broken homes and increased crime rate playing on attitude, it's likely easy for todays teens to rip off a cd without thought. Why does the RIAA spend millions or more while beating a dead horse? Is it just me- or with some thought, they might actually build a marketing empire that "gets it"? ...Include a bonus that the teenyboppers would pay for... a popular "insert brand name here" sticker or patch- or maybe a signed photo/poster, exclusive tickets, etc. I see people wearing matching TF clothing because they think it is cool(?)- maybe get David Hasselhoff to sign sigs... Exclusive throw away clothing w/ purchase- .....now that is just a tip of the iceberg of random ideas. I'm not your marketing department. I don't get paid to brainstorm for the RIAA.
Is the RIAA accepting any trends and building off of them, or just focusing on bashing 13 year olds?
I still don't know why I'm responding to a lame article in the first place...but I am. I'll deal with it.
Just my 2 pennies.
t
--
I didn't create the VCR, I just went down to radio shack and bought one. I taped mork and mindy as a test. It was all downhill from there.
...that's just the iPod generation for you - everything cool needs to have an "i" in front of it. ;)
...now they're just BEGGING to be a "victim" of piracy, from what I see.
...But this is just one way how things can go and it makes me glad that the children of today act as they do. And I *seriously* doubt that this will turn them into a generation of delinquents, highway robbers and mass-murderers - just let them listen to the music.
...not getting britnified in studios.
:P
But seriously, even I myself as a law student, although I know it's illegal and would rather pay the author a fair price, there's also another side to it:
- in the current state it's not the author that gets most of the money anyway - it's the recording industry. So you don't really feel that bad "ripping the poor bugger off", since in the biggest you're ripping off Sony, Virgin etc. And making CD's (or DVD's for that matter) just does not cost that much!
- p2p is the perfect black market! Since the majority of people consider the prices of music and movies on the normal market too high, a black market formed. But in this case a decentralized market that cannot run out of resources and has virtually nonexistant distribution costs, meaning the price is the lowest as can possibly be (in most cases free).
And what does the recording industry do to fight against such a black market? The obviously logical step would be to lower their prices and make their ware more available. What do they do? Narrow down the rights of the consumer/customer with technology like CSS and DRM, make their prices even higher and start illegal actions like suing children and that PirateBay incident.
I think this is where the law should come in and maybe this time it's the later that's the better. Why? Because law has two major roles that it plays - one's the one most people know: forcing people to act in a certain way; but the other one's: to keep in touch and reflect the social reality. And what's the social reality coming to? That people aren't prepared to pay more and more and more for recordings. That P2P technology is a great means of distribution. That people don't want to have the guy they bought it from (be that a record label or a computer manufacturer) restrict their use of what they bought. etc etc
In any case I think that records shouldn't be thing to strive - musicians should preform, that's what I think's the more importaint part in making music! Live concerts
p.s. sorry that this post is a bit incoherent - i have some major exams on monday and don't have time to write good - i just let it out
p.p.s. hook's the nick - just didn't bother making an account yet
the FBI busted the boys for downloading and took them to see a sad Brittnay Spears boarding a G4. she couldn't afford the G5 because of piracy... the G4 didn't even have a plasma or surround sound (or something to that effect).
is passing off 1 good song and 11 crappy others as an album (or CD) and selling it for $12.99 or more.
It is nice to know that 69% knows that copying a CD s not theft. So how are we going to explain to the other 31% the same.
Copying a CD is not illegal. I have plenty of Linux CD's I copy, give away or let people make a copy. I still need to figure out where I can get a refund of the extra tax I pay.
It might be illegal to copy the content on it, but that will differ from case to case. Yet that is something different alltogether.
Also this discussion as getting a bit stale. I remeber that I copied music on casette to give copies away, to play in the car or to just be able to listen to only those few numbers I wanted to hear in the order I wanted to hear them.
So what do you do when you have say 100 CD's and only want to listen to only one number from each? I turn those into MP3's and listen to them in the car that way.
These people want me to change the CD each and every time, making me a danger on the road where I might kill children. Please **AA, think of the children!
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
[Sneaking into a cinema is] not theft, because there were empty seats in the theater, so they weren't going to get any money even if I didn't go.
I know you're being sarcastic to illustrate that this really is immoral, but you can't equate any misdemeanour that exists with theft. Yes, sneaking into a cinema to watch a film is wrong. No, it's not theft. Taking the actual film reels from the projector, so that the other people in the cinema can't watch the film any more, would be theft.
They don't go the next step, so a lot think its legal - but do they think it should be legal? Ie, now that they have been told its illegal are they going to stop or decide "Well, that law is clearly wrong and i'm not going to follow it" ?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
For an MBA case study I came up with a business plan for a record company that actually gave away CDs and still had gross revenues approaching 70%! How? It's simple.
e als_itunes_stats/ [Accessed September 10th 2005]
You can get CDs pressed in China for as little as $0.25 in quantities of 10K. Even cheaper, approaching $0.10 in sufficient volume. Domestic record companies already own the means of production, so I'm sure their cost would approach $0.10 per CD if not actually be sharply lower.
My business plan called for giving these CDs away, primarily at live shows but this could also be accomplished via other channels. CDs given away are intended to be nothing more than loss leaders, contain maybe six tracks, with advertisements and "hidden extras" such as Bios also included and, most importantly, prominently contained URLs leading people to iTunes.
Now it gets profitable.
iTunes pays 70% of the selling price to the distributor / band / whomver owns the music.
Give away some tracks on CD, get people interested and then reap massive margins from electronic distribution rights. The average customer on iTunes purchases SIXTY tracks (Smith, 2005). The average customer will more than pay for that CD. Just the average; we're not talking about the higher volume, rabid fans either.
I did a market analysis and we projected annual growth rates in excess of 60% from the iTunes distribution channel.
So I think record companies have it half ass backwards. Give the fucking sound away, and they'll make more money in the long run.
----
References
Smith, T., 'Apple Touts iTunes customer total', [online], Available from: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/08/apple_rev
A message from our sponsor
Inform them its illegal. The do it slightly more quietly. Luckly the RIAA can sue anybody below 18, which means we have time to breed a whole new wave of priates.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
When RIAA goes after pirates who copy material for the sole purpose of reselling that material, they have every right to go after them. They are undeniably taking one paying consumer away from the rightful retailers.
...
People who trade music to not instantly equate with someone who would have otherwise purchased the music. That's where RIAA seems to get stuck - they assume that if you're not constantly handing over your money (or your parents money) you must be a thief.
By RIAAs thinking, am I a thief for listening to songs I don't "own" on the radio? What if I hear a song I don't own at a friend's house? Are these copyright infringements? Isn't there some concern that no money left my pocket and went into RIAA's coffers? They do have a HUGE team of lawyers they have to pay, after all
What we really see here is a greedy corporation that is only concerned with the quickest buck. Since modern music has such limited sales potential, they need to look at other revenue streams. Prosecuting international pirates just isn't cost effective - so, they aim for the "easy targets" (thanks to our legislation and dead constitution), and go for the college & high school kids.
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -- "Step Right Up", Tom Waits
You're wrong when you say it doesn't apply to computers.
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. - (emphasis added)
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.
So go ahead, make copies onto music/audio CD-R discs, even give copies to your friends. You can do so legally and without any moral problems - you've paid for the right to do so. As a matter of fact, not copying CDs would be theft - the music industry stealing from you through these forced royalties. (And the RIAA fought for this law. Thanks, RIAA!)
Oh, and if you also use those audio CD-R discs for downloaded music, then that would be legal, too!
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I'd stop jaywalking and driving over the speed limit. Prostitution is illegal in Illinois, but if I could afford a hooker I'd hire one. The fucking President of the United States doesn't care about "legal", why in the hell should I?
When did they outlaw taping, anyway? And what country are we talking about here; legal WHERE? I understand they collect a tax on blank media in Canada. And what happened to the Home Recording Act of 1976 in the US?
Does somebody have a link to the actual law against taping? Because if it's against the law, I've been breaking it a lot longer than any teenager has been alive, and will CONTINUE to do so. I'll also continue to vote against asshats who want to outlaw NONCOMMERCIAL copying.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
They would not be stealing, they would by copying without permission.
There is a legal difference between both, so if you are going to point the finger, do so while holding the correct arguments.
There are also situation in which copying is perfectly legal, even without permission.
Once can't issue a blanket statemnt regarding copying without knowing the particularities of each case.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If the 'next generation' already disregards the laws, then the RIAA has lost, and its just a matter of the cleanup. Once these people get into office the law will be changed, after its ignored for years and years.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
from the don't-copy-that-floppy dept.
Zonk. When has music *ever* come on a floppy?
... a crime would be what the majority of the people believes to be a crime.
Screw the FSM - Real geeks believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn
I actually tried this, and got knocked back!
I'm a huge fan of a Melbourne (Australia) 3-piece punk/rock/rockabilly band, and I copied their CDs several times to give them to friends overseas. When I met the lead singer/guitarist of this band at a pub, I told him about it and offered to give him $20 AUD, or at least buy him a drink. He politely declined, and told me he was happier that I was spreading good word-of-mouth for the band.
I've bought enough merch and been to enough concerts that my conscience is fine with giving my mates copies of this band's music - and, having spoken to the other band members of several occasions, they don't mind either - but I got the impression that small-scale copying of CDs isn't a huge deal for relatively-sucessful artists.
Maybe these guys are unusually generous, or maybe they get more dosh from tours than from CD sales, so I can't condone my course of action for _all_ artists... but, hell, if illegally copying one CD leads to one new fan (who would otherwhise not exist, such as in the case of my international friends), isn't that a net win for the band/artist?
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
Except then you'd' be full of shit, since copyright infringement is theft.
Actually, you would be wrong. Copyright infringement isn't theft, it is ----- infringement. To have theft, you need something tangible to steal. Copyrights, by definition, are intangible property. So, in effect, you aren't stealing anything, you are infringing on the copyright owner's right to say how their intangible personal property is to be used, but in the end, it is still their intangilbe personal property.
By definition, you cannot steal something that is intangible. You can steal the medium it is recorded on or the documentation of what the intangible item is, but, you cannot actual steal what you cannot physically posses.
The simple solution, if you want to legally copy a CD is to do so via analog through a wireless speaker connection. That way, you can use the broadcast exemption already allowed. Of course, I should add IANAL and your mileage may vary.
You've gotta be fuckin' kidding me. Schoolyard piracy? Really? If a lawyer ever tried to sue my son or daughter for "schoolyard piracy," first I'd slap a "Jab-me-in-the-asshole-with-a-cow-prod" sign on his back before court proceedings began, and I'd bring an ass-load of counter-suits against him personally, the organization he worked for, whoever the artist was whose music got copied...and then I'd sue that lawyers dad for unleashing such a dickhead upon my society. I realize that I wouldn't win a fuckin' one, but I have 13 (soon to be 16, go NYU) Jewish lawyers in the family, I could at the very least waste a lot of their time and money, and send one of their lawyers packing home with a severe asshole wound. As for my time and money, my whole life I've worked towards the goal of not ever having to do anything anymore. And my family works for family pro-bono. So c'mon all of you RIAA lawyers, sue my kids, let's get this rolling. You trot out the paper, I'll bring the cow-prod, whaddaya say? The new Family vs. the old Family. Let's do this.
I need to make sure I drink more coffee before reading shit like this...
I think you have to differentiate mass distribution of copyrighted stuff via P2P networks from simply copying/sharing with friends. There was never any real issue that I'm aware of with people taping LP's or copying music cassettes for friends before the age of digital music - we never saw the RIAA trying to crack down on dual tape decks as being an illegal copying device!
Of course digital media and the internet does change the issue of copying, but in a sane world that shouldn't result in preexisting "rights" (even if only by precedent) being taken away. By all means the RIAA should prevent people from sharing via P2P, but at the same time IMO it should not be going after people who simply let their friend tape or copy a CD.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner.
This is ground breaking news!
Kids in highschool, think copying *IS OK*
Oh my.. let the teachers know as soon as possible, gotta watch them for copying during tests too!
o_O
Thanks to the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act), making a copy of a friend's CD is indeed legal!
The reason that "Music" CD-R is more expensive than "Data" CD-R? License fees paid to the RIAA to cover the copies made in this way. The artists are supposed to get compensated from those fees, but like so much where the RIAA is involved, the artists are being left out in the cold.
Let's insist that the facts be reported rather than the RIAA and MPAA's propaganda, shall we?
Who, me?
While infringing on someone's copyright is, by definition, not theft, but infringement! What you describe by sneaking into the movie without paying or riding the subway without paying or riding the bus with paying, etc., etc., is the theft of a service being provided.
The difference between what you describe and copying the CD you purchased is that the act of purchasing the CD has paid for the service of producing that CD. Now, if you turn around and distribute that copy to others, again, you are not stealing anything tangilble or a service, you are instead infringing on the copyright owner's rights. If the copyright owner gives you permission to make and distribute copies, then you can do so. If not, you cannot. Again, this isn't stealing. Copyright law allows you to make copies for your own personal use. Where it becomes infringement is when you distribute those copies to other people.
So, back to your scenario, you are indeed stealing. You obtained the service being provided for free. Assuming you didn't steal the CD, then what you are doing is listening to music without the copyright owner's permission. This would be similar to taking a short cut home from school by cutting through somebody's back yard. Both are infringements (of course, if you are the original purchaser of the CD and make the copy, there is no infringement, this is like cutting across your own back yard).
What's the penalty for a school kid who infringes on the owner's right and cuts across a yard? Not much, usually just a reprimand, at most, it's a very, very small fine. Why should it be any different just because the RIAA has expensive lawyers?
In spain is legal to copy cd's, music, books or videos if you don't earn money, so it is true. Straight of access to the culture.
But it seems to change in the next years if our law only hear the voice of the companies.
Un Saludo.
Doing something illegal is perfectly okay these days, if enough people do it. An example of this is illegal aliens--somehow that seems to be just fine. So must be making copies of CDs. Anyway, when you buy a blank CD you pay for the right to copy anything--the license fee is included. It's just more work for the members of the overstaffed legal industry.
Back 25 or so years ago, I was doing the pretty much the same thing with my turntable and my two tape deck stero. I was making tapes of albums, recording radio, and making copies of other tapes for my friends and myself. Usually mix tapes, but occasionally just a straight copy. As I recall this was a rather popular thing to do.
I think it's awful that my kids who are now 3 and 4 years may not be able to do that with their friends in ten years.
Copyright infringement isn't a crime.
It's a civil matter.
The constitution says so.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Sony/BMG/RIAA offers the solution of extending the old systems of copyright into a DRM future, and blurs the language to further that cause. If you want something different, start by contesting the language, or in this case insisting on it being used accurately. This is a common theme for every change, whether liberal (Queer is our word!) or conservative ("Pro-Life" not anti-abortion.)
Copying a song is not the same as stealing a bike; and you know that's true.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
The copyright holders often have piracy hotlines that you can call to report bootleggers. So you call up the holder and say. "Hey, this Ofc so-and-so with the *blank* Police Department. We got a guy here with 200 copies of *blank*. You guys want to press charges?" The reply is always, "No, that's not really worth it to us; it's not enough."
If the victim doesn't care, why should we? Yeah, it's illegal and the bootleggers know it. They hide, they try to weasel out of stuff, which is always funny because the victim never gives a damn.
I had a guy who got hit with a car, but didn't want to press charges because he wasn't hurt. He won't testify, why bother with the arrest, report, evidence gathering, court time...? Then he complains the cops don't want to do anything. We're not the ones who don't want to do anything. No victim, no crime
You know why teens don't think CD copying is a crime?
Because it isn't.
Not inherently, anyway. The natural state of information is free. The pigopolists have made up (read: bought) laws that create an artificial crime out of duplicating otherwise freely available bits. It's all in their imagination, of course, but they've managed to make their farce a reality. Teens see right through that farce and are just ignoring it. Good for them.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
...it that teens are idiots. Film at eleven.
Theft implies one party is deprived of something while the other gains it.
Check out the cave on the east side of lake Hylia. Strange and wonderful things live in it.
The solution for the music industry is to see CD and MP3 copying as a new kind of radio. Leverage the trend instead of fighting it. How about a web site that provides free copies of every song commercially available but at a lower bit rate, or with a 5 second commercial on its tail! The net effect of such a free site will be that teens, and others, will discover more music and buy more CDs and downloads of the songs they like the most. For a critical mass of music listeners, the convenience and enjoyment of using such a site will outweigh the tedious process of copying CDs or downloading using peer-to-peer software. But only if the free downloads work reasonably WELL and the site is interesting.
If you can't beat them, join them.
hideous noises that sound like gang-warfare in Harlem and Watts
If there are noises in Harlem and Watts that sound like gang warfare, isn't it a perfectly valid method of expression to record these things and then play them back? Obviously you're referring to gangsta rap, but such rap seeks to express perceptions and attitudes of those who exist in reality and actually do these things.
MCs are those who observe this reality and describe it for listeners in clever rhyme schemes and with wordplay derived from slang from the area the music is describing. People are represented in music.
If you don't like the sound gang warfare, that's probably because it's a terrible thing, but it's still reality, there's no denying it. It won't go away until it's not a reality anymore, and if you dislike that reality so much, then try and change it instead of saying "Well, people should stop it!!!"
I'm not sure if that was your attitude or not, but if so, it's pretty ignorant to call it "hideous noise" per se, rather than referring to it as a valid interpretation and expression of reality, and is a form of art.
Twinstiq, game news
>Only 31 percent said they thought it was illegal to copy a CD borrowed from a friend who had purchased it.
^ this is legal in sweden, and up until last year it was legal to copy a cd from a friend who had downloaded it.
That copying music doesn't affect the artist or the record label executives, but instead all the other people like songwriters, musicians, caterers, and employes that were involved in the creation of that album. It's not like an artist went to a studio and crapped out a CD.
Show them the issue of Architectural Digest that featured Rod Stewart and his big Malibu house. Tell them that they will go to jail for not paying money to this creep and his record companies. Then explain to them the concept of the public domain and how the 'entertainment' companies have stolen the public domain by bribing legislators to pass laws indefinitely extending the copyright period.
Most will put two and two together and realize that the 'entertainment' companies are ripe for plucking.
As for the rock stars in the room, they wouldn't even notice the fans unless they had excessive secondary sexual attributes ('big tits' for all you rock stars reading this). The talent is kept to coked up and dazzled by their corporate handlers to be able to pay attention to details of the music industry business. It's only after they have been discarded by their companies and the tits and coke stop coming that they start to count the pennies flowing from their greatest hits CD sales.
Attention Parents: This is a warning! You must teach your children not to accept CDs or DVDs from strangers in schoolyard. RIAA is going to start deploying 'undercover' agents into schoolyards to catch these 'DVD dealers'. I predict the next round of law suits will be directed at little Timmy and his grade school friends.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
What is really scary is that todays youths don't think it's stealing/theft/whatever. THAT is what I am scared of.
I know this is a bit late, but maybe somebody who would otherwise be confused of their rights will see this and take notice.
In Canada I would expect to find that < 5% of teens think that it is illegal to copy a CD borrowed from a friend who had purchased it because it is legal to do so there. The Government of Canada operates a business and consumer information website that (among other things) presents a fairly understandable breakdown of what copyright is and what rights it grants consumers and artists.
Source: CIPO - A Guide to Copyright
I've been unable to find a really concise and understandable breakdown of copyrights in America that wasn't run by the BSA, RIAA, etc. Why hasn't the government taken it on themselves to inform citizens of their rights rather than leaving it to the recording industry cartel to tell us what wish that they wish our rights were?
Re: the clip: Funny that they should mention Tetris as one game which might disappear if it were copied, since that was subject to its own copyright infringement by various software houses back in the late 80s. An infringement which ultimately led to its mainstream exposure, perhaps? It's OK for them but not for us? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris#History
There will ALWAYS be music and musicians. One cannot say with any certainty that there will always be a music industry.
Just a thought.
Heard any good sigs lately?
(Showing my age here)
When I was growing up, I think you would have been hard-pressed to find any teen or adult who thought it was illegal to ask your friend to make a tape of an album of theirs. This was acceptable normal social behaviour. If anything, the recording industry has made progress fro themselves in that they have managed to at least frame things so that you CAN find people to say this.
You have a good point about artists making a living, but what I don't think you consider is that some of us simply will not tollerate the lack of freedom in the products we purchase.I don't have a problem with buying music, I have a problem with how it is sold. If I want "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" from Napster, I can't buy just the song, I have to buy all 9 songs on the CD. Songs are .99 each so the whole CD is $9, right? No, I have to pay $16 for the whole thing. I can buy it at Wal-Mart for about the same price. Why would I accept buying a digital form of the CD that had no shipping costs, virtualy no storage costs, no cost for a disk, no cost to print the book with lyric/pictures/etc, no cost of a jewel case, and no cost of storing the disk on a shelf waiting for it to sell. The digital version also isn't easily transferable between the devices I own. I use Linux for everything, but no one wants to allow Linux to have access to digital music. I have very little experience with iTunes, but its music is also DRMed and anti-Linux. Until the music industry sells music without DRM or DRM that will allow me to play my music on every device I own any time I want, I won't buy music. I listen to the radio or use pandora.com for all of my musc needs.
And in other news, 100% of all laws polled agree that copyright infringement is not a crime!
Arrr, them skipping wheel's mine or I hook ya! Teeeacher, I don't wanna play with Bob when he says the sounds!!!
Take off every 'ZIG' !!
Sorry to be pedantic, but you cite US Code like this: 17 USC 1008. If you didn't already notice, the section is prefixed with the chapter number. It's also easier to use Cornell Law's US Code search to directly link to code in question.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Looking through the comments, I've interpreted that all the extra revenue going to the execs instead of the artist was deserved due to time spent on distribution, law, etc. that runs the business.
What I can't understand is that when I visited counties such as the Philippines, etc. where piracy is rampant, the legit ones actually are about 1/2 the cost of what I find here in the US. In addition- CD's in the US have jumped considerably over the past 7-10 years. What happened to these labels such as BMG lowering their cost by 30% as they promised a few years back? This all doesn't add up.
A LOT of things haven't been tried in court properly or with definitive yes/no rules and that's why things are so fuzzy. The music industry does not want a lot of court action (at least where the outcome is not assured) because they might not be able to clamp down as much as they are now.
Sooner or later things are going to come to a head and there will be a clearer line about creating 'mix cd's' or copying a disc for a friend.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I'll get flamed for this, but I don't really care. Considering kids are NOT brought up with a sense of right and wrong, doesn't surprise me that kids would think it ok to illegally copy music, software etc. Everything taught by government schools is socailism. Capitialism is "wrong" according to liberals. Everything belongs to the "collective" It starts at a young age. First day of school, all the supplies your parent bought for YOU are taken away, put in a big basket for the entire class. It starts there, and the indoctranation continues. Government good...private business bad. Founding fathers bad......hollywierd "celebs" good.
Do not THINK, period.
A teen is essentially an animal without any form of conscience whatsoever. It is a leech, a freeloader, a non-person. It exists only to consume, which is why and entire industry has spawned only to feed on their insatiable hunger for anything irrelevant.
A "teen's opinion" is an absurdity. Teens do not have the right to have opinions, they should be kept on a tight lash, exactly as one would have with a particularly stupid and vicious dog. And they should be punished, harshly and without mercy, for any trespassing.
A shame it's illegal to put them to sleep. Many should be.
"An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so."
With copyright terms such that media content, first concieved of 60 years before my birth, will not be public domain until after I am dead -- who honestly believes that copyright is currently a just law?
Didn't the RIAA say some years ago that they didn't have a problem with friends copying CDs? They said that that's not a threat and they're focusing on peer-to-peer as the end of the world. A quick, random browse through the internet archive didn't turn anything up, but I don't have the time right now to go all the way through it. Does anyone else remember this?
But why even copy the DVD? Most DVDs are released around $19.95 - $29.95 now. If you wait and buy them used, you can get them for $10 to $15. By the time you figure the cost of the blank dual layer DVD media plus a case plus the cost of the rental (assuming that is what you are burning from) and the cost of your time, why bother? It's even worse if you are going to have to shrink it to fit on a single layer DVD. Although the media is cheaper, you are either going to lose quality, or spend more time packing it to make it fit or both.
Again, why bother? Sure, when DVDs were $49 when first released ($79 for VHS) there was a large savings to be made, but today, what, at most you are going to save a few bucks. Other than the notion of saving a few dollars, what's the lure?
s it right to deny your friend a copy of your CD because some company claims to own the right to make copies of it? It's a stark moral choice: do you help your friend or do you defend the rights of the owner?
Wouldn't the moral choice, given the way you phrased the question be to loan your friend the copy of the CD you purchased? In that way, your friend is not denied the ability to hear the music, nor is the copyright owner denied their legal rights, either.
Of course then the real question becomes one of personal morality. Assuming your premise is that your friend does indeed need to listen to the CD, the question really is whether it is alright for "you" to deprive the copyright owner by making an additional copy, not for personal use, but for other use, so that you are not denied the ability to listen to the CD because "you" chose to lend your legal copy to someone else.
Using a different example than a CD, if your friend needs a car to get somewhere, is it alright to take someone elses car to give to him (thus depriving the legal owner of his right to use it) instead of lending your friend your car, so you don't have to do without? Following your logic, both examples should yield the same result, but I would imagine for most people, they would not.
Anyway, I am not saying this is what the article is about, nor do I agree with it. I only point out that it is the argument you have formulated whether it was your intention or not.
It seems that most kids today are coming to the realization that copying data for personal use isn't theft, as a practical matter and shouldn't be as a legal matter. The source they copy the information (be it software, a movie, or music) from still retains exactly the same use of the information as it had before the copy was made -- NOTHING is missing or stolen.
I'd really like to see FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Amendment) implemented so that these kids could just use their common sense to effectively nullify the efforts of despicable organizations such as RIAA and MPAA in court. These kids seem to understand the idea of "No harm, no foul."
"You're young, you're drunk, you're in bed, you have knives; shit happens." -- Angelina Jolie
Even though you have money and bought your music outright, these days, you don't really own the rights to it. Much like money, yeah, you sweated your butt off for it and now you have it on payday. But, do you really own your own money? (Deep and resounding) Nuuuuupe! Just try burning your money! Technically, that is destruction of government property. You really don't own your own money and you don't really own your own music either. Music and money certainly to go together very well. That's a "Virtual Détente" (or a virtual ownership, based strictly upon the mommentary possession thereof), it appears that, you have it but you don't. Also, since the government has the true and final ownership over your own hard earned money, similarly, does that also mean the government also owns your music too? Or, is your music just another "medium for exchange and trade" and in the final ownership of each recording company? The latter certainly appears to be the case, with the abundance of P2P networks! Wether truely legal or not, appears to be irrelevant, as it is generally publicly accepted as "that's how it is." Much like, how the general public has accepted "corruption within the government."
As someone who makes money from using open source products in web design, as well as putting creative effort into those products without getting paid for it, I don't have much compassion for "artists" who feel they are being wronged.
That unpaid creative effort put into open source products (content) is repaid by my ability to provide better web design (services). So how does that relate to the model of producing music?
Well, the musician's content is the music. Their service isn't distributing music (that's not even their forte). Their service is performing music. They could look at free distribution and advertising of their music as a good thing, much like open source, allowing them to better provide the service of performing music (shows).
Just imagine for a moment if you spent $1000 in the studio, and next to nothing on distribution, yet every person in the US had a copy. You could play shows at $50/hour every day of the week. You could do what many musicians would love to do: quit your day job.
Incidentally, I wonder how many musicians pirate software, or even use free open source software. That would be a little hypocritical to value your content so much, yet not paying the software developers for theirs, wouldn't it? Yet I bet it happens all the time.
The one problem is that the AHRA really does not apply to computers:
As for computers themselves:
Computers as a whole don't fall within subsection (3) because their digital recording function is not "designed or marketed for the primary purpose of
There was a court case about all this some years back. The RIAA was arguing that computers and computer peripherals such as mp3 players did fall within AHRA. They wanted this to be the case so that they could 1) get royalties, 2) require computer and peripheral manufacturers to implement the SCMS system of DRM that is mandated by the AHRA. In the case, RIAA v. Diamond, both the district and circuit courts found that computers were outside of the AHRA. The cases are worth reading. They even look at the legislative history in which Congress, in debating the law, also said that this law wouldn't apply to computers.
What the AHRA does apply to are Audio CDRs, whether or not you use them in computers or in standalone Audio CDR burners.
Oh, and if you also use those audio CD-R discs for downloaded music, then that would be legal, too!
Of course, if the computer that the downloads go through has RAM or a hard drive that's involved with the downloading, you might still be screwed. The AHRA only protects you against infringement suits with regards to fixation in the AHRA-compliant media. Fixation in other media wouldn't qualify unless you had a sympathetic court that isn't fond of the MAI v. Peak line of cases. The 4th Cir. maybe?
Oh, and jZnat is correct re: how to cite the USC.
-- 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.
. . .the legal language is supposed to be to codifying; law flows from morality. . .
God fucking help us when everything "immoral" is a crime.
KFG
How about this...
... but we just sold a million records... how can there be no profit?
...and thanks for that. Our stock is up 10 points this year, I get a huge bonus for that.
---
Famous Rock Band:
Record Company Exec: Look kids. I got expenses. I got lawyers. I suggest you talk to mine...
Famous Rock Band: But we're the hottest act right now... what do you mean we still owe you money
Record Company Exec: Don't you guys read what you sign?
Famous Rock Band: We just did that anti-piracy campaign
Record Company Exec:
Famous Rock Band: What do we get?
Record Company Exec: You got fame... and oh, by the way, you signed away concert revenue plus you owe me two more records....
----
The difference between your story and mine is that my story is closer to reality than yours.
Laws represent (at least, used to) the common sense of the population and fix what is thought of as "right".
If we reach a critical mass where it is believed that sharing/copying is right - should laws contradicting this view not retracted?
You're like the soundtrack of my life - I listen to you all the time, and I really can't wait for that next CD you're working on. I know you've been working on it all year and everything, but you won't mind if I just rip my copy off, right?
You've got a very warped image of fandom, there. Think Grateful Dead. People who really like an artist will usually go out and buy "stuff" (material goods) associated with that artist. They will also subscribe to forums, services, etc. about/from said artist -- and are likely to be willing to pay to do so. What true Green Day fan (I don't even know WTF Green day is all about, except that it involves trendy music...*yawn*...I've never been much into pop music) would not like to participate on a forum where the band members (or their flaks) post news and reply to user comments? Most pop bands (the kind RIAA and its ilk make a killing from as they sell zillions of grossly overpriced recordings) do concert tours. Those are very real things to experience and while bootleg recordings can (and are made) there is nothing like being at a good live concert.
If it suddenly became perfectly legal to copy and distribute commercial music and video recordings for personal use (read: not for profit), we would not see any precipitous drop in the quantity or quality of movies and music available to the public. What we would see is an entirely different marketing strategy -- one tied to material things that cannot be copied. Is an original edition Mickey Mantle baseball card with an authentic, handwritten (not machine generated) signature from the baseball player himself worth more than a replica of a decades old card with a reproduction of his signature on it? You bet!
The kids mentioned in the original article seem to understand (somehow) that only the legitimate copyright holder should be able to make a business out of selling his works but that copies that are made and passed around for personal use are (and should be) a fact of living in today's increasingly technological world, where anything that can be cheaply and easily recorded almost certainly will be.
Letting these kids perform jury nullification on many of today's obsolete IP laws would greatly improve the world we all live in.
"You're young, you're drunk, you're in bed, you have knives; shit happens." -- Angelina Jolie
because when you shop at target you deny wal-mart that revenue.
I think I should sue you for damages on behalf of the waltons now : )
In fact, by saving your money you deny EVERYONE revenue, I think you should be required to consume instead of saving money for retirement or college, after all even if you spend those dollars later youre denying retailers and merchants today's dollar which is more valuable.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
[with regard to downloading, then burning onto audio CD-R] Of course, if the computer that the downloads go through has RAM or a hard drive that's involved with the downloading, you might still be screwed.
I would argue that as long as the download were only kept on the computer temporarily (being ancillary to the process of making legal "use" of an audio CD-R), it's legal. During ANY other forms of copying subject to the AHRA, multiple copies exist along the chain - copying from LP to cassette? A temporal copy (in the form of electrons) exists on every bit of copper and in every transistor along the path at some point in time. Copying from CD to DAT, or using an audio CD recorder - a copy exists at some point in the buffer memory of multiple devices.
Once having burned the CD-R (and it can be burned as a ISO9660 with MP3s, no need to make a Red Book CD - the law is agnostic toward format), you have a fully legal copy of the work, and fair use rights no different than you would with a purchased CD. At that point, copy it back to the computer (format shift) and use it on your iPod, too, as is accepted practice.
Oh, I don't see it as a problem that the AHRA doesn't apply to computers - I'm happy buying $0.50 audio CD-Rs and paying the tax in exchange for the legal right to copy copyrighted audio content.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Think about it--what is more important--the questions about the 2004 vote or copying a CD?
...where 93% of those polled believe it is a crime to actually purchase a CD and the remaining 7% just responded "Micro$oft suxors".
A few years ago, US software corporations complained that in China, certain businesses had the same copyright mis-understanding as these teenagers. This is indeed a valid concern, also the article does not describe how bad is the problem overall compare to everything else going on.
"Teens Don't Think CD Copying is a Crime". I do not know about the United States, but it is not a crime to copy music in Denmark. When you are copying someone elses copyrighted works you are breaking copyright rules, and the copyrightholder can take the case to a civil court. You will not be arrested by the police. Teens are clever.
The music industry is making teens addicted to music though advertising. Maby it is not good music, maby teens can not afford it, but they got to have it. When you claim to own culture and insist on advertising it, you are inviting to copyright infringement. Apocalypse is near.
Music, movies and litterature is NOT a product. It is culture, and as a society we are dependent on it. Stealing from a drugdealer is not so bad, is it?
I was at a concert in January. Afterwards there was a meet-n-greet with the band. When I handed the CD insert of one of his albums to the guy, while standing there with 3 t-shirts I'd just bought, I made a point to tell him that I wouldn't have bought the CD and wouldn't have been here tonight at the concert, if I hadn't downloaded his music first.
His response?
"Good!"
This just in: in a remarkable show of cooperation between the **IA and the public education system, elementary schoolers are now taught how to recognize copyright infringement at home and in public and report it to the **IA for legal action. Says one local child, "I'm so glad my teacher told us about those evil pirates. And now my parents listen when I ask them for something...." taking a page from George Orwell.
quia potentia mens mentis
Tomorrow's headline: Teenagers are not literate in copyright laws! There was the same response as this to the article about evolution illiteracy. The average person simply doesn't know.
So what? Slashdot editors don't even know - the title referred to a 'crime' but most of the article discussed the (percieved) legality. The article's author has no clue - he refers to "stolen music" and doesn't object when an RIAA person uses the term.
Most people aren't even familiar with the term "tort". Isn't it some kind of cake?
Having no idea about a subject seldom makes people think twice before discussing it, and even (if they can) passing laws concerning it.
backup your CD, then give / sell the original to a friend?
I don't see anything that makes destruction of backups a crime.
Blogging because I can...
Aha... another example is the Digital Audio Tape (DAT). These tapes are far more expensive than their data counterpart (DDS) due to the tax the RIAA has already incorporated in the price.
Too bad for the RIAA most DAT recorders can use the DDS tapes, which do not have the tax included in the price.
And too bad data CD-R's on computers can record digital audio. What's an evil corporate conglomerate to do?
And that's a good argument. But in some jurisdictions -- those that stand by MAI v. Peak -- it would probably fail.
During ANY other forms of copying subject to the AHRA,
Well, the other ones tend to involve AHRA-type devices, so would not have the same problem as a non-AHRA device using AHRA media.
you have a fully legal copy of the work
No you don't. This is where reading the statute very very carefully becomes key.
Section 1008 says this:
A more typical exception, such as section 110, says this:
See the difference?
Section 1008 copies are not non-infringing, they're non-actionable. They're still just as infringing as ever, you simply can't be sued over them. But their infringing nature still stains them if you engage in some other activity outside of the 1008 safe harbor. For example, the first sale statute (section 109) only applies to copies that are lawfully made. Since a 1008 copy isn't lawfully made, you can't transfer it. The fair use analysis will be affected by this as well; you'd already have three factors against you, and since this is a mere substitute for a lawfully created copy, made in order to avoid paying full price, it'll lose the fourth factor as well.
Oh, I don't see it as a problem that the AHRA doesn't apply to computers
I agree. It would be bad for it to apply to computers.
-- 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.
the first sale statute (section 109) only applies to copies that are lawfully made. Since a 1008 copy isn't lawfully made
In what way is a copy made under Section 1008 unlawful? 1008 makes non-actionable " the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a...medium for making digital musical recordings." There is nothing which says it is only non-actionable to copy onto such a medium. It is also a "use" to copy off of the media. If I "use" the media to make a digital music recording onto my PC, that falls under 1008. Once the content has touched the media for which the consumer has paid indirect royalties, further "noncommercial use" is covered.
MAI vs. Peak is bad law (which isn't surprising, coming from the 9th Circuit), and ripe for overturning. The sole purpose of software on a disc is to load it into RAM and run it. That's fair use. To say otherwise is to say you can buy a book, but not have the right to read it. They must have had incompetent counsel. I'd like to see the RIAA try to claim people aren't allowed to rip CDs for playback on their iPods.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Look, teens haven't the capacity to think or process before or beyond a given minimal point. Their thoughts on anything should be shredded and used for bait. It's just biological baby. peace, zappin
Schools are as bad as P2P Software (Limewire, Kazaa, BitTorrent, etc) and must be shut down THIS INSTANT. They give young children the avenue to trade pirate software, music and movies. This must be stopped!
"Teens Don't Think CD Copying is a Crime"
That's good, because the type of CD copying discussed in TFA isn't a crime. It's a civil offense.
In what way is a copy made under Section 1008 unlawful?
They're unlawful because they're not noninfringing. They're still infringing, but since they're nonactionable, you can't be sued over the infringement. That doesn't mean there's no infringement.
There is nothing which says it is only non-actionable to copy onto such a medium. It is also a "use" to copy off of the media.
Nice try. The statute says that it is nonactionable to: 1) manufacture, import, or distribute the relevant devices and media, and; 2) "the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
So, unless you're making one of those recordings, you're not protected. And as we already discussed, a computer's hard drive can't be a digital musical recording as that term is defined in the statute (at 17 USC 1001(5)) because of the presence of computer software.
Once the content has touched the media for which the consumer has paid indirect royalties, further "noncommercial use" is covered.
That's just not what the statute says at all. It might be what you'd like it to say, but let's try to stick to reading the statute that really exists, hm?
MAI vs. Peak is bad law (which isn't surprising, coming from the 9th Circuit)
Oh, it's good law, it's just a bad decision. As for the 9th Cir. though, what's your problem with them? They're in desperate need of a sensible circuit split, but otherwise they're pretty ordinary.
The sole purpose of software on a disc is to load it into RAM and run it. That's fair use.
No, I'd say that there's a normal implied license, where there's not an express license. And of course, there's section 117, which makes it noninfringing to make copies of software you own for the purpose of running it. But pervasive software licensing (which is bizarre, and AFAICT totally unjustified) avoids 117 because the licensees arguably don't own anything.
I'd like to see the RIAA try to claim people aren't allowed to rip CDs for playback on their iPods.
Back when Rios were the Duke of New York, A Number One mp3 players, the RIAA brought exactly that suit, based on the AHRA, and lost. So I guess you got your wish already!
-- 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.
...but the RIAA is really trying hard to make it one. if you keep calling your red haired neighbour girl a witch, the other neighbours will probably start believing this shit or just try that with "terrorist". uh man, the ppl around you will go nuts. seriously, those guys get too much money from my legal copies to get more money by suing the crap out of everyone. i'd say we make that a crime.
what's the big deal? i mean, i wouldn't have bought a lot of stuff, if i hadn't pirated it before i could afford it. why whould i buy some tape, if i don't even like the group or listen to it before that? they do not even criminalize normal folks like me and you, but also cut off the hand that feeds them. with caviar actually.
also, if someone can't afford (or won't, because it's not worth it anyway), it doesn't matter if she'd copied it or not. if you don't like it, you don't buy it. if you like it you probably will. so, if you copied something you probably like, you might buy it. if you did not copy it, you will never EVER buy it, because you do not even know (or learned to like) it. still if you you copied it, like it and can't afford it (yet) you maybe do tell your friends about it, who in the long run would probably buy (or at least propagate) it too. that's way better advertising than any shit billion dollar ad campaign could ever be. SO CUT US SOME SLACK, WILL YOU!
Does music on an iPod fall under the definition of "digital musical recording?" There are other programs stored on an iPod (i.e. the calendar, games, etc.) which are not "incidental" (def. "related to and relatively minor by comparison") to playing music. Does that affect the Rio decision you mentioned?
:-)
The definition does not force the "digital musical recording" to exist only on an AHRA device/medium, so a computer dedicated to playing music could be covered, since the OS and other programs would be incidental to that role.
The 9th makes bad law. It defines the "active judiciary." It is consistently the most reviewed and reversed (relative to size) circuit (cf. the 5th).
Copying off an AHRA CD to a computer so you can at some indeterminate time make a "digital musical recording" is a "use" in much the same way that someone growing dope in their backyard or a butterfly flapping it's wings is regulatable interstate commerce, or that invoking eminent domain to transfer private property to a private corporation is "public use."
Thanks for the discussion, it can be nice arguing with lawyers, since they usually don't go all "ad hominem" when presented with something with which they disagree.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Does music on an iPod fall under the definition of "digital musical recording?"
:-)
;)
I don't know. I'd have to know more about how an iPod worked. But I'd suspect not.
The definition does not force the "digital musical recording" to exist only on an AHRA device/medium, so a computer dedicated to playing music could be covered, since the OS and other programs would be incidental to that role.
I agree. And that's basically what a CD player is. But hardly anyone has general purpose computers that are used so as to qualify for that.
The 9th makes bad law. It defines the "active judiciary." It is consistently the most reviewed and reversed (relative to size) circuit (cf. the 5th).
All the circuits have their ups and downs. But when you take the 9th's size into consideration (it's the biggest circuit, with the most cases), it's pretty middle of the road in terms of review and reversal. There's an article about it here. Plus, it's not like either review or reversal are bad or indicate a failure by the lower court.
Copying off an AHRA CD to a computer so you can at some indeterminate time make a "digital musical recording" is a "use"
Except that it's not going to fool anyone. There is a limit to how far you can be clever with the law and get away with it, and you're passing it. You'd do better not to delude yourself or mislead others along these lines.
in much the same way that someone growing dope in their backyard or a butterfly flapping it's wings is regulatable interstate commerce, or that invoking eminent domain to transfer private property to a private corporation is "public use."
Meh. I don't really have a problem with either Wickard or Kelo.
Thanks for the discussion, it can be nice arguing with lawyers, since they usually don't go all "ad hominem" when presented with something with which they disagree.
Yes. Of course, only an idiot would disagree with a lawyer.
-- 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.
>But pervasive software licensing (which is bizarre, and AFAICT
>totally unjustified) avoids 117 because the licensees arguably
>don't own anything.
How so? What does licensing have to do with ownership? They are completely unrelated. Or do you know of some law stating that that you can't own anything if there is licenses involved? it is perfectly possible to own something, yet require license to do certain things with it, just as it is possible to not own something and not needing any license to dom something.
There is nothing such as "a licensed thing" (exchage thing for whatever product you want). A license is a permission to do something you would otherwise not be allowed to do or alternatively you can call it the contract that llows you to do it. But something that is not forbiden, is completely irellevant to get a license for. More specifically, none of it has nothing to do about your ownership. For example, I can own a copy of, say, a book or a music CD, yet is not allowed to make certain types of copying or public performances with it. Doesn't matter if I won it. I need it because the copyright holder has the exclusive right to those. I don't need any licese to read the book or listen to the music since there is nothing forbidding me to do it (it is not an exclusive right of the copyrigth holder).
Sure, you can still provide licenses for it, for example a license to use software, but that does not turn use of it infringing if you don't have such a license. If I sell a license to breath, it won't magically turn all breathing without such a license illegal. The same applies to software, you don't need such a license to use it and just because someone DO provide such a license does not turn it illegal, nor does it magically turn it impossible to own copies of the software.
Further, it is typically the contract (or license) itself which claims that it is needed. That is, it claims that you need it because it says so. So for those licenses/contracts they claim that you don't own it so you need to agree to them and since you agree to them, you are not the owner. Obviously if you don't agree to them, what is said in them does not apply and you can be the owner and not needing them.
I'll use that pedantic excuse next time.
In Norway, it is and has always been, legal to copy any copyrighted work(exept computer programs) between your family and close friends. But I still think money has been made from the selling of movies and cds trough the years...
Funny thing, earlier this spring I was in the Futureshop (basicly the same as Bestbuy) and overheard some teens in the listening area listening to the music and seeing what tracks are on the cds... while quite nonchalently talking about what tracks they were gonna download later that night. I also noted that they left the store without buying anything... I wonder which is more likely, for them to buy the music they had an interest in via itunes/other legit place, or to use P2P program? I think it's fairly obvious, if you enjoy something then the person who gave you that enjoyment should be compensated. Meh. My 2 cents.
move along, nothing to see here.
Are you moderators asleep or what?!
How so?
Let's consider the difference between these three scenarios:
1) I own a car and I sell it to you in exchange for money.
2) I own a car and I sell it to you in exchange for money and your binding promise that you will not use drive it on the weekend.
3) I own a car, and I hand you the keys, tell you that you can borrow it to drive to the neighborhood Stop 'N Rob.
In the first scenario, you end up owning the car and can do any damn thing with it that you like, so long as you don't break the law. In the third scenario, I still own the car, and you can only do things with it that I permit you to do.
Arguably, the third scenario is the equivalent to consumer software licensing.
The second scenario, however, is probably more along the lines of what's happening, yet not appreciably better. Here, while you own the car, you are still restricted as to what you can do with it. The law permits you to drive on the weekend, yet I am requiring you not to, and since we'd have an enforceable agreement (probably backed up with a reversionary property interest), you really couldn't.
If a EULA sets out terms for use and reproduction of the pertinent software, and is enforceable, then it doesn't matter whether 117 could apply or nominally applies. You can't actually use it without breaking the agreement, losing your right to the software, and thus losing a 117 right too.
Obviously if you don't agree to them, what is said in them does not apply and you can be the owner and not needing them.
Unless, of course, the owner won't sell it to you without your agreement, in which case failure to agree results in you not being the owner. While agreement to EULAs comes after the exchange of money for the software, most courts have been enforcing EULAs as being a part of the same, unitary sales transaction. They're just terms that are put forward after the money changes hands. You can reject them, but then you need to return the software and get your money back. If you don't, it's assumed you agreed based on your conduct. The ProCD case is the leading pro-EULA case (and n.b. it dealt with public domain material).
-- 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.
He's supposed to like cookies, idiots!
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
>Arguably, the third scenario is the equivalent to consumer software licensing.
No, software is sold in a shop. That is the exact same scenario as the first one. The fact that someone esle than the one selling the software in addition wants to make acontract about your use is another issue. Still, it does not change the fact that I own the software.
>The second scenario, however, is probably more along the lines of what's happening, yet not
>appreciably better.
Again, no not at all, since the seller is not the same as the one making a contract about use. In all the examples above, you should have the manufacturer of the car deciding on the use of rules. So you would have:
2) I own a car and I sell it to you in exchange for money and the car manufacturer wants you to make a binding binding promise that you will not use drive it on the weekend, you can agree to it or not agree to it.
In no way does it require you to agree to it, but that does not make it forbidden to drive it on any day, including weekends.
>If a EULA sets out terms for use and reproduction of the pertinent software, and is
>enforceable, then it doesn't matter whether 117 could apply or nominally applies.
But you don't need the EULA to use the software at all due to the fact that one have the 117. It is the very contract (EULA) that makes the claim that you don't own it and thus would need it. That is, the contract itself says a certain condition should apply which in thurn would require the same contract. Without it, you similary don't need it.
>Unless, of course, the owner won't sell it to you without your agreement,
They do. Or actually, someone else sells it to you without requiring any agreement at all.
>in which case failure to agree results in you not being the owner.
You do realize that selling means changing ownership. Claiming they sell it to you on the premisises that you don't own it is a contractiction in itself. Either you sell it or you don't.
>While agreement to EULAs comes after the exchange of money for the software, most courts
>have been enforcing EULAs as being a part of the same, unitary sales transaction. They're
>just terms that are put forward after the money changes hands.
And that is according to the consumer sale law in most every country not permited. In addition, the sale, in itself a contract, is concluded and finnished when you exchange money and goods. A third party, and even the two parties that made and finnished a sale, can't come afterwards and demand a change or additional terms to an allready finnished sale. Similary a car manufacturer can't nock on your door or leave a note in your trunk claiming you have to agree to new terms later on.
>You can reject them, but then you need to return the software and get your money back.
Why would I have to retrun them if I doesn't agree to new additional terms? I have made no such contract to start with for example. If I sell you a chair, I can't turn up with new terms or contracts and have you return the chair if you don't agree to them. The fact that the offered contract claims so is irellevant since it isn't in effect if I don't agree to it.
>If you don't, it's assumed you agreed based on your conduct. The ProCD case is the leading
>pro-EULA case (and n.b. it dealt with public domain material).
And it is completely irellevant for example in most every palces in the world. Further, it doesn't deal with any situation were you would NOT agree to a "clickwrap" situation (although I have to go back and read it again for details). Finally, it was not a consumer situation situation since he had a company which was the user in question so normal consumer protection would not apply (unless consumer in USA has some very different meaning than in many other places in the world). For non consumers, there is far more freedom to negotiate any terms. You can of course also find many believing the ruling was not according t
The got it right (IMHO): 50% of every purchase goes to the artist. You can choose how much you want to pay. You can listen to everything in full. You get the choice of several formats to download. You are encouraged to share the download link with friends. Sounds good? I think this is how online music distribution should be handled.
Oh, and I'm just a satisfied customer...
In fact, that's what the legal language is supposed to be to codifying; law flows from morality, not the other way around.
So, as most people dont find it immoral to copy a CD (not only teens), the law should reflect that. Was that your point, right?
YHL
HAND
First thing I do is make a copy of my discs, stick the originals on the rack, and use the copies (or a master-CD of mp3 copies) for my car, etc.
It makes a lot more sense to copy a CD and use the duplicate than use a copy as backup when the original is lost/wrecked/stolen.
But that did remind me of some advice my dad gave me the last time we hit a concert and I got to meet the band
"make sure you give them an original disc to sign and not a copy"
I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if somebody tried to get 'em to sign a copy. Of course a signed copy would also be pretty lame, I just brought the original case and got the various band members to sign the pages with their profiles (from the insert).
A frequent various music sites like Garageband and others. Whilst they do have their share of crap, there are also some good songs (and at times some fricking amazing ones) that I've found on there. In fact, some of my favorite songs are "Creative Commons" licensed, which - depending on the CC license - allows (and even encourages) copying, distribution, posting it on your webpage, or various use, personal and sometimes even commercial (though you must give credit to the artist).
I'm particularly fond of the CC-licensed stuff because I can pull up somebody's appropriately licensed song, and mix it with some homemade video clips or whatever, and post them online (with credit to the artist, like a "song by: XXXX" caption subtitle at the beginning) without the risk of getting sued.
No, software is sold in a shop.
No, the argument goes, it only appears to be sold in a shop. In fact, a proponent of this theory would say, it is being licened, and the shop is merely a means of distribution, not really a participant in the licensing transaction.
Again, no not at all, since the seller is not the same as the one making a contract about use.
And yet, many courts have found that the seller is in fact the manufacturer. The store is an intermediary, but not really part of the transaction, however much it might appear to be to you. Again, I'd suggest reading the ProCD case, which is a key precedent and widely followed.
But you don't need the EULA to use the software at all due to the fact that one have the 117.
And the pro-EULA argument is that you don't own it. When you paid money to the store and walked out with the software you were at step one of agreeing to the EULA. When you take the software home and click on the 'I agree' button, you are at the second and final step of agreeing to the EULA. If you stop, and don't agree, then you need to return the software and get your money back. The reason being, since the cash register portion of the overall transaction isn't the full transaction, you don't own anything when you walk out of the store. And when you agree to the EULA, you still don't own anything; you've just been given permission to use the software that remains owned by the manufacturer (hence it being styled a 'license').
You're basically adopting the theory that the cash register transaction is wholly independent of the EULA transaction. The court in the ProCD case said that they are just two halves of the same, single transaction. Other courts have gone your way, but not so many.
And that is according to the consumer sale law in most every country not permited.
I couldn't give a rat's ass about most every country. I'm interested in what happens in the US. I trust that other countries will do what's best for them, just as we'll do what's best for us.
In the US, sales of goods fall under state law, which is each state's version of the UCC. Basically, whether the ProCD argument is right or the Klocek argument (the one you're making) is right, hinges on how you read a couple of very specific provisions of the UCC in light of the facts regarding how EULAs are said to function. (Except in VA and MD, which rather stupidly enacted UCITA, which is very pro-EULA)
weather there being a license of some sort means one can't own something, which is not true. As you yourself gave an example of, you can own something, yet agree to restrictions on use or other conditions as part of the purchase (or even as not part of the purchase) and that does not need to change the ownership
Of course, if scenario 3 applies, you own nothing. If scenario 2 applies, you own the copy, but have agreed to a contract which overrides 117 and which is likely enforceable in that regard. In either event, 117 is irrelevant. The only way that 117 will work is if you own something and if there is no contract that in any way overrides it which is enforceable against you.
-- 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.
>No, the argument goes, it only appears to be sold in a shop.
No, if it appears to be sold, it is sold, that is how sales work. Sale laws has a lowg tradition in human society and is well regulated. It is a a deal/contract between you and the shop were money and a product changes hand and ownership. End of story. A thir party can't change that fact.
>In fact, a proponent of this theory would say, it is being licened,
There is no such concept of a thing being licensed. Licenses is for actions, things you do, the right to do stuff. Further, as I have shown, llicensing has nothing to do with ownership, one does not exclude the other. It doesn't matter if I own a thing or not from the purpose of requiring licenses to do things that are otherwise reserved as exclusive to the coprygith holder. For example, it is completely irellevant if I own a music CD or not for the purpose of determining if it is copyright infringement to play it in the public. Regardless of which, I need a licenese from the copyright holder for that (that act of public playing, not for the CD itself).
>And yet, many courts have found that the seller is in fact the manufacturer. The store is an
>intermediary, but not really part of the transaction, however much it might appear to be to
>you.
Perhaps your country has a very different law than most countries but in most countries, the shop is the seller and the one responsible for the sale, no matter what, for example the recipie and all such are for the sale versus the shop with whom you basically form a contract of exchaning money for a product. If you want to work as a middle man, you need to set up that same contract between others first, typically requiering a sort of contract to be formed between the customer and whoever else it is, there is almost never any such thing done when buying software (the exception I can think of is various forms of deals for educational versions of some software) aand as far as I am aware, never for music for exmaple. It doesn't matter what someone else wants to call it or claim, what matters it what actually happens and how it is done. All that is reqgulated by law. But please, point to the cases were the manufacturer and not the shop is the seller, it would of course be good to know next time i buy a car for example so that I don't mistakenly thinks it is the one owning and selling the car but actually the original manufacturer.
>Again, I'd suggest reading the ProCD case, which is a key precedent and widely followed.
It has nothing to do with the issue of weather you can own or not something. It was about the situation of if one can add extra terms, change existsing terms and form new terms with a third party after a sale. Obviously it is at most valid in the country (or even states) were it was handled, until some other case overtunes it. Still, the main issue here is your statement that ownership is impossible if there is licenses involved. and that case does not in any way state you can't own, for example music (which was the main topic of this slashdot thread I believe.
>And the pro-EULA argument is that you don't own it.
I have a reciet showing I do and a contract with the shop. Further, acording to WHAT would I not own it? According to the EULA, so if I don't agree ot the EULA, it is in valid and void, at which time I do own it.
>When you paid money to the store and walked out with the software you were at step one of
>agreeing to the EULA.
But I am the owner, if I disagree with your step 2 since then the EULA is void. Besides, contracts are quite well defined in most countries on how they are formed and entered, your description doesn't match. The same applies for ordinary slaes, of which ALL steps are completed when you levae the store.
>If you stop, and don't agree, then you need to return the software and get your money back.
Says what law or contract? Do note that at this point anything said in the EULA itself is void since there was
That's right...I'll steal some music; the health care industry, the Fed Gov, big oil and all the rest will steal *me* blind...
It's just my lame way of fighting back!
Anyway, the Music Industry (oxymoron) is the Death of Art. The future of music and writing publication is MySpace and YouTube not the boardroom at Disney or the RIAA
Power to the People!!
(psychedelic, flower power, hippie, peace love, rock and roll...)
You want to know what is a crime? I'll tell you what is a crime. It's a crime that The Corporations(R) are making stuff that some people are willing to buy and selling it at prices that some people are willing to pay, man. You know, it's like, why can't we all just get what we want for free, y'know? What's wrong with that?
So yeah, it's a crime that I have to pay for the things I want.
</sarcasm>
Jesus Tap-dancing Christ, it's absurd I have to post this anonymously in order to not burn karma. What the fuck is wrong with you people? When did you stop using the ability to use logical thought processes?
Pofy, your argument is sound, but the parent was just stating how the law is established here in the USA. It is farked up, but he is correct - most courts have characterized the "sale" of software just like he explained, as a licensing agreement that doesn't really involve the store you "buy" the software in. And unfortunately, we're a Common Law nation, so court decisions have force of law as precedent in other cases unless overruled. So until judges come to their senses - or rather, until we somehow tame the corporate lobby - we're stuck with the precedent.
Posted as AC due to my employer.