Answers From Lawyers Who Defend Against RIAA Suits

US Attorney General by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 04:45 · Score: 5, Informative

Hi folks. Sorry but I meant to put this link at the end of my answer to question 8, rather than at the very end of the interview:

See Statement of Interest of U. S. Dept. of Justice in Elektra v. Barker.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:US Attorney General by DamnStupidElf · 2006-09-14 05:53 · Score: 1

I agree with the Attorney General that playing around with the definition of distribution is not helpful to anyone, either victims of RIAA cases or copyright owners. Instead, the courts or Congress needs to make a clear distinction between what is allowed in terms of copying and modifying works in order to view or listen to them, versus simply distributing copies.

Most basically, the problem is that CDs, DVDs, MP3s, and any other digital media format require the modification of the work before it is human usable. Any data stored on optical media is encoded as a series of error correcting codes that must be copied from the optical media into a decoding device and modified to retreive the original bit stream which must then be converted into aural or visual works. MP3s and DVDs are further encoded with compression algorithms so that the recovered bitstream must be further copied and modified before the entire work is in human usable format.

The problem as I see it is that copyright law provides for the owner of a copy of a work to use a machine to decode a work to use it, but does not clarify exactly what rights the owner has in transforming the work with a device in order to use it. For instance, CDs can be played by a common CD player or a computer with a CD drive, but the computer can just as easily convert the CD to an MP3 file before playing it. What are the limits on the owner's right to use a machine to decode their copy of the work? For instance, it is apparently perfectly legal for CD players to read ahead several seconds or even minutes and store a copy of the CD data in memory so that CD player skips will not impact playback. In this case, the owner seems to have the right to make a copy of the work for personal use, but where does this right come from? If the right comes from the fair use right to make a backup copy of a work, then is it legal that the backup is the work being played, and not the original CD? If it's legal, then it should clearly follow that creating an MP3 file from a CD is simply the same case, that it is a backup that can be used apart from the original work. I, and many other people, believe that this ability to translate or copy a work into a separate device for convenience should be a fundamental fair use right. The problem is that no law or court (that I'm aware of) has addressed this issue directly.
Re:US Attorney General by Jerf · 2006-09-14 06:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

What are the limits on the owner's right to use a machine to decode their copy of the work? For instance, it is apparently perfectly legal for CD players to read ahead several seconds or even minutes and store a copy of the CD data in memory so that CD player skips will not impact playback. In this case, the owner seems to have the right to make a copy of the work for personal use, but where does this right come from?
Personally, I think that this is basically a fundamental weakness in the law and it can not be redressed, as the entire foundation of trying to work with "copies" is fatally flawed.

In fact, that fundamental problem came up in question #7 as well.

That's why when I tried to re-work communication laws (including copyright), I developed the idea of a human-experinced message, separate from the "concrete parts" that make up a message, to resolve this.

In summation, I assert that a computer shouldn't have any legal or ethical standing anyhow, so who cares how many copies a computer makes of something? What matters is human experience. Under my model, "piracy" (skip the word debates, please) is not the act of downloading something, it's the act of actually viewing/hearing it. If you download something and immediately delete it, it's not piracy.

(Note that this is really necessary anyhow; suppose you download something claiming to be public domain, yet you discover it's actually last year's top movie, and delete it immediately upon discovering that. You really shouldn't be charged with piracy. Under the law today, you are. The fact that it can be difficult to determine whether something was actually consumed is honestly the legal system's problem; it seems to be able to reasonably determine "intent" in other contexts.)
Re:US Attorney General by DamnStupidElf · 2006-09-14 07:18 · Score: 1

In summation, I assert that a computer shouldn't have any legal or ethical standing anyhow, so who cares how many copies a computer makes of something? What matters is human experience. Under my model, "piracy" (skip the word debates, please) is not the act of downloading something, it's the act of actually viewing/hearing it. If you download something and immediately delete it, it's not piracy.

In practical terms, it matters a lot. People don't watch DVDs or listen to CDs, computers decode them and present them in human usable format, and they're generally the only way of recording such a fact. Not only that, but as AI grows it will be necessary to treat any information processing system at least as if it has the capacity for human experience. How does you model handle contributory infringement like someone broadcasting "pirated" music to everyone in the world? Who is guilty, and for how much? Is it dependant on who listens, who distributes, or a combination of the factors? Also, are individual experiences unique or once someone experiences some media can they experience it again in the future as if it's equivalent to the first time, or is that dependant on some contract? If it's dependant, what do you do about the copy of the information in their brain?

Despite that, I think I agree with you about the nature of information. Information is what matters, not any specific instantiation of it in energy or matter. After all, that's what the universe is really about: Spreading information via the material laws of physics. When AIs or brainscanners become widely available, it will be necessary to have laws in place to deal with copying, modifying, or simply viewing the information that an entity considers to be part of itself. In reality, the laws we have now are actually dealing with information as well, it's just abstracted behind the fact that so far we don't have the ability to directly manipulate the information stored in matter and energy, and we work with conglomerations of it known as people and property.
Re:US Attorney General by Score+Whore · 2006-09-14 07:21 · Score: 1

Here are the guiding principles I use re. CDs->MP3s, DVDs->AVIs, etc:

1) If buy a CD then I have the right to listen to that CD. I have the right to play that CD while hanging out with my friends. I have the right to loan the CD to my friend. I have the right to convert that CD to an MP3. Essentially I believe that I have the right to listen to one form of playback of that piece at a particular maximum quality (that is, the original quality on the CD and any transformation of that CD that I personally make.)

2) What I do not have a right to: make an MP3 and share that with all and sundry via P2P or sneakernet. If I buy a DVD I do not have a right to the CD. If I buy the studio version of an album I do not have the right to the live version of the same songs. If I buy a DVD and at some point they come out with the HD-DVD I do not have the right to that new version. If I buy a CD and rip it to MP3 then sell the CD, I do not have any rights to the MP3.
Re:US Attorney General by ifrag · 2006-09-14 07:31 · Score: 2, Funny

Under my model, "piracy" (skip the word debates, please) is not the act of downloading something, it's the act of actually viewing/hearing it. If you download something and immediately delete it, it's not piracy.

Which is of course what I do with all my downloads. See also my new firefox extension, "Download and Delete". Very useful as it completely streamlines the process by automatically deleting downloads on completion.

--
Fear is the mind killer.
Re:US Attorney General by Jerf · 2006-09-14 07:57 · Score: 1

Not only that, but as AI grows it will be necessary to treat any information processing system at least as if it has the capacity for human experience.
In my essay I explicitly disclaim, albeit in a footnote, the issue of AI. That's not something we're ready to argue about yet, any more than an 19th century civil libertarian would really have been able to reasonably debate airline security procedures.

(Note that it's not because they have no clue, but because they don't have enough of one. It would take one hell of a prescient 19th century philosopher to realize that gigantic commercial airliners which didn't exist could crash into gigantic buildings which didn't exist, and kill thousands of people at one crack, and reasonably incorporate that into their opinions. That's where we are with AI and ethics right now.)

Also, are individual experiences unique or once someone experiences some media can they experience it again in the future as if it's equivalent to the first time, or is that dependant on some contract? If it's dependant, what do you do about the copy of the information in their brain?
Barring the implications of direct mind-to-mind transfer, I actually address that.

Moreover, just in general, you seem to be reflexively taking a contrary position, even as you eventually talk yourself into total agreement with me. My position is that it doesn't matter if you buy a CD, download an MP3 (over any of a bazillion distinct ways of communicating an MP3 from one machine to another), or have a friend play a CD while you record it with your mic; they all amount to the same thing, and trying to legally slice whether or not "infringement" takes place based on the copying mechanism is doomed to failure. The fact that this has other implications is not lost on me; the page I linked to explicitly calls out "two friends watching a DVD" vs. "one friend giving a copy of the DVD to his friend which he watches once" as an example of a situation that already exists where my model says the same thing happened, but the current legal model is that one was legal and one was not.
Re: US Attorney General by Civil_Disobedient · 2006-09-14 07:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

How do you know who I've gone to or spoken to? As far as going to the Attorney General, haven't you been reading? The US Attorney General is on the RIAA's side.

Yes, we all know the US Attorney General is in the back pockets of the groups that make up the RI/MPAA. That wasn't what I wanted to know. What I wanted to know was why nothing has been done with any attorney generals, specifically state AG's. In New York, for instance, (future governor, hopefully) Eliot Spitzer made quite a name for himself for going to bat against large, evil corporations on behalf of the little guy. Is Bill Lockyer a similarly spineless invertebrate?

And to answer your first question, I don't. I haven't heard a thing about you approaching any attorney general, state or otherwise. Nada. I haven't read any announcements that you approached the AG in your state, I haven't read anything about his/her response or lack thereof. I haven't heard anything. Good thing you guys are a lawfirm and not a PR firm.
Re:US Attorney General by DamnStupidElf · 2006-09-14 09:55 · Score: 1

In my essay I explicitly disclaim, albeit in a footnote, the issue of AI. That's not something we're ready to argue about yet, any more than an 19th century civil libertarian would really have been able to reasonably debate airline security procedures.

Well, it depends on how soon you think the singularity is coming, if at all. Even if it's only 50 years out, it's not too soon to come up with preliminary ideas. At best, I think the real argument will be about what subset (or superset) of human rights AIs have, and not about which laws should be made about them. At this point only futurists are considering it, and they probably won't be the ones writing the laws anyway.

Moreover, just in general, you seem to be reflexively taking a contrary position, even as you eventually talk yourself into total agreement with me. My position is that it doesn't matter if you buy a CD, download an MP3 (over any of a bazillion distinct ways of communicating an MP3 from one machine to another), or have a friend play a CD while you record it with your mic; they all amount to the same thing, and trying to legally slice whether or not "infringement" takes place based on the copying mechanism is doomed to failure. The fact that this has other implications is not lost on me; the page I linked to explicitly calls out "two friends watching a DVD" vs. "one friend giving a copy of the DVD to his friend which he watches once" as an example of a situation that already exists where my model says the same thing happened, but the current legal model is that one was legal and one was not.

When you take your argument to its logical conclusion, copyright evaporates. Lets look at the example of your web page, which you use. You list the html and pictures as concrete parts, but they really aren't. They are messages coming from another assembly which uses characters and pixels, which are in turn actually messages coming from an assembler that is the computer code that runs your graphics program and editor. The problem is you provide no base case for what a concrete object is versus a message. For instance, the message that your web server sends becomes a concrete element that Google assembles into the message containg search results that list your page, and on the other end your HTML document was a stream of concrete characters that were delivered as a message to your web server which then assembled it with your pictures and sent them to me as a new message. Who owns what, and who gets paid or gets infringed when each message is viewed by me or someone else?

In essence, you run into the current copyright problem as soon as you try to define what a concrete element is. We already use the model you have described, except we simply call the concrete parts a work, the message is a derivative work, and both are copyrighted separately.
Re:US Attorney General by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-14 16:01 · Score: 1

In this case, the owner seems to have the right to make a copy of the work for personal use, but where does this right come from?

I'd say that fair use or an implied license are the likely sources. And that's assuming that it's not just de minimis. Of course, with a lack of litigation on the matter, we'll probably never know for sure.

If the right comes from the fair use right to make a backup copy of a work, then is it legal that the backup is the work being played, and not the original CD?

There is no blanket fair use right for anything. Anything can or cannot be a fair use, depending on the circumstances. It might be okay for Alice to rip a CD but not for Bob to do so, depending on the facts regarding each. So don't assume that there's "a fair use right to make a backup copy" because there's no such thing. Each use, by each user, must be considered independently.

a fundamental fair use right

Again, no such thing.

--
-- 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.
Re:US Attorney General by ShakaUVM · 2006-09-14 17:06 · Score: 1

Under my model, "piracy" (skip the word debates, please) is not the act of downloading something, it's the act of actually viewing/hearing it. If you download something and immediately delete it, it's not piracy.

So under your proposed system, I can courier warez at will? I think the standard should be the potentiality of the human experience. In other words, if I have it on my computer, I can listen to it or not. The law shouldn't change based on if I actually chose to listen to a file. If nothing else, it would be very hard to determine if that person distributing all those mp3s was actually listening to them. I guess RIAA could set up some sort of spy mike system, but that seems to be getting even more ridiculous than what we have now.

Of course, you might address this, but your site is /.-ed.
Re:US Attorney General by Haeleth · 2006-09-14 22:00 · Score: 1

who cares how many copies a computer makes of something? What matters is human experience. Under my model, "piracy" (skip the word debates, please) is not the act of downloading something, it's the act of actually viewing/hearing it. If you download something and immediately delete it, it's not piracy.

Under the model the **AA use, on the other hand, piracy is neither downloading nor viewing, but uploading, i.e. distributing content to other people.

Guess what? If you download something on a P2P service, even if you delete it as soon as the download has finished, you have nonetheless been helping distribute it to all sorts of other people all over the world. Many of whom will view/hear it when they finish their own downloads.

Sorry, but "I didn't use it" isn't a defence for piracy, any more than "I'll put it back" is a defence if you're caught trying to shoplift -- in neither case has the victim of your illegal activity actually lost anything, but that doesn't make it all OK.
Re:US Attorney General by linkedlinked · 2006-09-23 17:33 · Score: 1

I think the standard should be the potentiality of the human experience. In other words, if I have it on my computer, I can listen to it or not. The law shouldn't change based on if I actually chose to listen to a file.

Good! Now we can finally ticket all those damned hipsters with their sports-cars that "have the potential" to break the speed limit! No more waiting for gun-owners to actually murder someone, let's just arrest up now, since they're capable of doing something wrong. Best of all, I say we should lock up victims of letter-bombing attacks, for (unintentional) possession of high explosive materials, no matter how briefly. Sure, maybe they *thought* they were picking up the week's paycheck, but what matters is that they were stupid enough to have a mailbox in the first place. (And why stop there, we should arrest the postmen for being couriers as well! Label them terrorists and let the four horsemen do the work!)
Re:US Attorney General by ShakaUVM · 2006-09-24 13:08 · Score: 1

No, just in the context of piracy. If I download a song and upload it somewhere else, it should be copyright infringement. I shouldn't have to listen to it for it to be infringement, especially since it is impossible to tell what songs you've listened to.

It's silly to misapply laws for one domain to another. Using your logic, we should send speeding tickets to airmail since they're going faster than the speed limit.

Interesting by legoburner · 2006-09-14 04:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

The interview reads like Phoenix Wright but with less murder. It truely is a shame that so many judges seem to lack the technical knowledge required in these cases, but the US must be thankful that they are not criminal cases just yet and remain civil (criminal=prison, civil=fines). France has some very media-related politicians and are normally at the forefront of oppressive european legislation (along with the UK). One of the French politicians is actually married to one of the main players in the music distribution industry which is just a bit of a conflict of interest in these sorts of cases.

--
Warhammer forums

Re:Interesting by TubeSteak · 2006-09-14 05:51 · Score: 4, Informative

but the US must be thankful that they are not criminal cases just yet and remain civil (criminal=prison, civil=fines).
The difference between civil and criminal infringement is one of willful:
A. Intention (commercial advantage or private financial gain)
or
B. Scale (reproduction or distribution of at least 10
copies during any 180 days of copyrighted works worth more than $2,500.)

You can read the US DOJ's "How To" guide for prosecuting copyright crimes.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ipmanual/ 03ipma.htm

AFAIK, criminal prosecutions have been reserved for people the FBI has gone after. Who knows, maybe the RIAA will convince some prosecutor to zap one of the smaller fish.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Interesting by JourneymanMereel · 2006-09-14 06:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

Personally, I wish they were criminal. Criminal cases in the US have a much higher burdon of proof. The require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases, on the other hand, only require a "preponderance of the evidence." Screenshots of dynamic IP addresses are more than just a reasonable doubt. Even criminal cases can result in fines, typically much lower than what the RIAA is asking for in its civil cases.

--
Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
Re:Interesting by JourneymanMereel · 2006-09-14 06:09 · Score: 1

Oh ya, and in a criminal case the defendant has a right to an attorney, even if they can't afford one. I don't think there's any such provisions in a civil case. By keeping this in civil court, the RIAA knows they can be bullies and get away with it.

--
Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
Re:Interesting by westlake · 2006-09-14 06:14 · Score: 1

commercial advantage or private financial gain
The NET Act (No Electronic Theft Act) removed the requirement for financial gain or commercial exploitation of any kind. If you choose to gamble on the discretion of the state, its willingness to prosecute, good luck.
Re:Interesting by TubeSteak · 2006-09-14 07:13 · Score: 1

If you choose to gamble on the discretion of the state, its willingness to prosecute, good luck.
The laws in question are all Federal.

That's why I brought up the Federal Bureau of Investigations

Not even a State's Attorney General can bring a (AFAIK) criminal charge under Federal Law.

The RIAA would have to convince an (Assistant) United States Attorney, who btw are not elected officials.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Interesting by webengineer · 2006-09-14 07:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've been following these "rights to music" threads for sometime now.

What I don't understand is how ANYONE can think they have a right to give copyrighted "anything" to another. Or how anyone can believe they have a right to unpaid-for copyrighted "anything" (that is, stuff they haven't paid the rightful owner for).

I could understand the fight against the big bad RIAA if the thing they are trying to stop wasn't illegal and unfair sharing of music.

Or am I missing something? Are they fighting something other than illegal and unfair theft of other's copyrighted "something"?

You can decry their methods, but is doesn't change the fact that people are stealing from them!

Or you can say, "the artist isn't properly represented by the money grubbing RIAA", but that still doesn't change that people are stealing from the artists.

I hear complaints about the cost of a CD, and even that doesn't give anyone the right to steal.

So, am I missing something. Aren't most of you complaining about these RIAA suits advocating theft? Or if not advocating, ignoring theft?

Before you flame me, consider that I too believe that if I purchase something (CD, mp3 download) that I shoud have the right to access it in anyway I see fit. Including burning a CD to play in my car, or ripping to an mp3 or Ogg to play on my portable handheld or my laptop while on the road.

So let's don't mix up theft with right of use, please.
Re:Interesting by chromozone · 2006-09-14 08:09 · Score: 1

I remember a lawyer who posted on Slashdot last year. He said in civil cases a person a person doesn't need to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Just being "probably guilty" was enough. That answered questions from people who thought they could just hide or destroy their hard drive with the assumption that there would then be no evidence. Under civil laws it wouldn't matter. If their was an ISP number found and an uploaded file that was "probably guilty" right there. They would hardly need the hard drive. The lawyer said people who still tried to play things tough and be uncooperative would most likely just be cited for contempt and worsen their condition.
Re:Interesting by Saanvik · 2006-09-14 08:10 · Score: 1

His usage is actually the common usage of state - a sovereign country. In other words, he meant the United States of America, not a state in the union.
The initial name United States of America was chosen specifically to make it clear that each state of the confederation (that's what we were in the beginning, a conferation, not a union), remained an independent country unto itself.
Re:Interesting by empvirus · 2006-09-14 08:13 · Score: 1

Yeah, but the bigger problem with criminal cases is that even if you're just accused of commiting a crime (not proven or anything), you're still socially considered a criminal for some stupid reason. And obviously, alienated a bit.

--
Sometimes I comment just to hear myself typing.
Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 08:16 · Score: 0

Think about this logically.

We asked a man who has studied law for many years about what is legal and what is not legal.

The educated lawyer replies that he basically doesn't know.

How can we be held responsible for breaking a law if we are unaware of its existance, even after we have consulted our government documents and the people responsible for interpreting them?

How can a judge rule on a case when he himself doesn't know what is really legal and what is not legal? Or worse if he doesn't even know what an mp3 is.
Re:Interesting by mOdQuArK! · 2006-09-14 08:25 · Score: 1

I don't understand why someone else thinks they have the "right" to tell me what I can do with my own private property (except if I use that private property to cause physical harm to someone).

The whole basis of "Intellectual property" is a socialist experiment - an attempt to use the power of law to encourage "innovation and creativity" that is supposed to provide a net benefit to society.
Re:Interesting by nurb432 · 2006-09-14 10:41 · Score: 1

You are nuts wishing that upon all of us.

If the DOJ got directly involved you could expect midnight raids, seized homes, etc.. Criminal cases suck, espcially when you are falsely accused.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:Interesting by Wavicle · 2006-09-14 10:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

I could understand the fight against the big bad RIAA if the thing they are trying to stop wasn't illegal and unfair sharing of music.

Do you believe that the end justifies the means? Should the RIAA should be at liberty to use whatever methods are at its disposal, including shaking down innocent bystanders and victims of other crimes (such as identify theft or unauthorized use of an access point) in order to stamp out piracy?

You can decry their methods, but is doesn't change the fact that people are stealing from them!

Yes, we decry their methods because doing an evil to stop an evil doesn't change the fact that it is evil.

If I go home and find my laptop stolen, and the neighbors claim some blonde haired kid did it. I should be able to get the names and addresses of all blonde haired kids in my neighborhood and file for discovery of their computer possessions, right? I mean, sure I may end up harassing a few good kids, but one of them stole from me! Actually, that's a bad example. I should do it the RIAA way: I should sue every blonde haired kid in the neighborhood for stealing my laptop and offer to settle for $500. It'll cost them more than $500 to defend against my lawsuit, I suspect they'll just pay up.

So let's don't mix up theft with right of use, please.

What about my rights? My right to privacy? Why must I live in fear that RIAA may come and force me to pay them $3000 even though I haven't done anything wrong? Oh, maybe force is to strong a word; for $12,000 I could pay someone to defend me against their baseless charge.

--
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Re:Interesting by Breakfast+Pants · 2006-09-14 11:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't wish they were criminal: holding civil cases to a criminal standard is absurd; desputes between parties go completely (unfairly) in favor of the one who didn't 'bring charges'. Instead, I wish they had a requirement that damages must be actual: statutory damages of $750 a song (you could rob a whole store's CD section, burn the CDs, and the store could only sue you for the equivalent of 20 shared songs) are completely absurd. Unfortunately we can't attack this with case law (although I would argue that it is unconstitutional on reasonable punishment charges--even if they typically only apply to criminal cases).

--

--

WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Re:Interesting by webengineer · 2006-09-14 11:27 · Score: 1

Of course the end doesn't justify the means.

But I read all the time about their methods and I virtually NEVER read about someone calling file sharing theft. That is, it is theft if it is copyrighted material and they are getting it or making it available to others so that others don't have to pay.

Some may want to say, "but it ain't right". It IS the law.

It is theft. I'll say it again. It is theft!

Now, having said that...

The RIAA is definitely overstepping it's bounds, but let's all take some responsibility for their actions. That is, all "us" that are stealing copyrighted material, and all of "us" that are making it available for theft.

Quit stealing, Then they'd have NO grounds for their stupid fishing expeditions.

In my opinion, people have NO right to complain about the RIAA's methods when they, themselves, are breaking the law!

And the reason I wrote this time was because it seemed to me that that's who was complaining the loudest.
Re:Interesting by BubFranklin · 2006-09-14 14:42 · Score: 1

It truely is a shame that so many judges seem to lack the technical knowledge required in these cases...
[prefice]
IANAL, _BUT_, I have been sued for copyright infringment. I have took a media copyright law course in college and have got a worldly education from my lawyer that defended me.
[/prefice]
I am actually just as worried about these lawyers as much as the judges... How are these guys ever going to win any cases with their seemingly blantant lack of understanding of basic copyright law?
Look at question #7 and the answer...
You shouldn't be trying to educate the younger generation about this stuff. The law is unsettled. Even lawyers don't know how it's all going to play out. Plus you seem to have a general misunderstanding about the basic principles of copyright law. When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc. I don't know what gives you this idea.

Copyright is an artificial right provided by law, listening is an act of nature. Reproducing copies of _anything_ we own is entitled under fair use. In fact rappers have been justified by the courts for copying other peoples work (sampling) and even selling and making a profit and that is still legal. Fair use dictates this.
The challenge that the prosecutor had to prove was damages. Period. They tried to accuse fraud and miriad of other ridiculous claims, which my lawyer shot down instantly, but the real case was damages. Since there simply was none, I had a choice. I could fight and win for an indeterminate cost. Or simply settle.
I settled for the same amount I paid my lawyer to perform one motion in court. Totally stupid.
Basic copyright law with case law backing it up says you can copy all kinds of things legally, this response was retarded...
Re:Interesting by schon · 2006-09-14 16:06 · Score: 1

how anyone can believe they have a right to unpaid-for copyrighted "anything" (that is, stuff they haven't paid the rightful owner for).

Yeah! Goddamned librarians lending stuff to people who haven't paid for it! Throw them all in jail!
Re:Interesting by webengineer · 2006-09-14 16:38 · Score: 1

Another straw man argument...

The law is that books can be in libraries. They are still for single use only. The author got paid for the volume on the shelf. And you cannot legally make a copy and take it home with you and give to others. That's all part of "fair use."

File sharing copyrighted music is illegal. Giving a copy of a song to someone else is NOT part of "fair use".

Go pay Apple 99 cents for a song. Listen to it anywhere you want. Buy a book at Borders, read it anywhere you want. Then pass it on to another. Just don't make a copy and give to another. Fair use...
Re:Interesting by shutdown+-p+now · 2006-09-14 22:00 · Score: 1

What I don't understand is how ANYONE can think they have a right to give copyrighted "anything" to another.
Actually, I can give copyrighted something to others all I want. It's when I copy that thing, copyright kicks in. And even then ... are you seriously trying to tell me that I do not have a right to make a copy of an e-book I bought for my wife to read on her notebook?
Then, of course, there are some of us (though less than the former group) who believe that the very concept of copyright is inherently flawed, and therefore, there is nothing immoral or unethical about breaking it.
Either way, breaking copyright has nothing to do with theft. One can't steal an imaginary thing.
Re:Interesting by xtracto · 2006-09-15 02:32 · Score: 1

So, am I missing something. Aren't most of you complaining about these RIAA suits advocating theft? Or if not advocating, ignoring theft?

Hello,

From you post I can cleary see that you are indeed missing something. See, copyright infringement DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO with theft.

So, from there I could just take down all your arguments, but yeah, I agree that it is wrong to do unauthorized reproduction and distribution of electronic and audio-visual media".

The problem here is the argument of the record companies, which say that each shared file directly causes revenue loss. That is completely incorrect.

Then of course come the issue of the extorsion practices they are doing and all of that, but of course it is a problem for people in the USA to do something to stop the company from doing that (of course only if they want).

As for "the artist", they have nothing to do with what is happening. The ones that sing the songs which are being claimed by the RIAA companies have no rights over the content, they gave all the distribution (copy in copyright) to the corporations, so they should just shut up and continue to perform.

--
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Re:Interesting by Wavicle · 2006-09-15 05:23 · Score: 1

I virtually NEVER read about someone calling file sharing theft.

That's probably because it falls short of the definition of theft:

Main Entry: theft
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

The "copyright" in this case is intellectual property. If you illegally copy something, the copyright owner still has possession of the IP, so they have not been deprived of anything. However their copyright has been infringed. Which is the legal theory these actions are brought on.

--
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)

Still Depressing by gasmonso · 2006-09-14 04:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

While I applaud these lawyers (that hurt me to say) I get the feeling that they are just as powerless as we. Everyone knows these cases should be thrown out, but they aren't. That's the real issue, not just successfully defending people. The entire practice of suing people over music needs to die a horrible death. I hope you can hear us Superman!

http://religiousfreaks.com/

Re:Still Depressing by QuantumG · 2006-09-14 04:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm waiting for someone's kid to commit suicide because they're too ashamed to admit to their parents that they got sued for file sharing. Either the distraught parent goes on a political rampage and gets these stupid laws overturned or they go a vigilante rampage and scare the shit out of some of these prosecutors/CEOs.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:Still Depressing by rf600r · 2006-09-14 05:01 · Score: 2, Funny

"...Everyone knows these cases should be thrown out..."

I don't know that. Why should I know that? It sounds as if this is your opinion, yet you don't even offer up any support for it. (I'm not neccesarily disagreeing with where I -=think=- you're going here, but don't just toss out gross assumptions like that.)
Re:Still Depressing by Anonymous+Cowpat · 2006-09-14 05:02 · Score: 1

it's a sad reflection on society that bad laws (or lack of good laws) often only get rectified when someone dies, usually horribly or by their own hand

--
FGD 135
Re:Still Depressing by MalleusEBHC · 2006-09-14 05:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

The entire practice needs to go? That sort of overreaction is just as bad as what the RIAA or the filesharers are doing. The problem is that ALL parties in this are being retarded:

RIAA - They are bullying people with their disproportionate acccess to lawyers and money. They are suing people for ridiculous amounts of money. They are presenting dubious technical arguments in court and are setting unreasonable precedents.

Illegal filesharers - They are committing copyright infringement. This is illegal, end of story. Regardless of what you feel about copyright or the music business, copyright exists and makes it illegal for you to share these files.

Judges - Many are letting RIAA lawyers present weak and unreasonable arguments.

Legislators - They are passing dumbass copyright laws. Yes, there should be copyright. No, it shouldn't last 873 years or whatever the hell it is currently.
Re:Still Depressing by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 05:08 · Score: 1

I believe you are absolutely right that this has contributed to depression and even suicide.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Still Depressing by QuantumG · 2006-09-14 05:16 · Score: 1

Unfortunately no-one's taken out the scissors and started cutting up the black leather yet.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:Still Depressing by Buran · 2006-09-14 05:19 · Score: 1

Nobody cares because it's been turned into an excuse to erode rights and to spy on innocent people. Did you care about that before it started happening? If not, what are you complaining about?

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:Still Depressing by infolib · 2006-09-14 05:20 · Score: 1

While I applaud these lawyers (that hurt me to say)

Actually, Beckerman has a point that they're not so bad at all. In Denmark the lawyers union is usually one of the few to stand up for the rights of the defendant when the yearly terror measure is passed.

Some of them might need to learn a little more about technology and the distinction between physical and information goods, but then again, it might just be who they work for.

--
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
Re:Still Depressing by el+americano · 2006-09-14 05:30 · Score: 1

The "just default" option was the most alarming. Isn't it $150,000 per violation? That $750 for court costs isn't going to matter much if the default judgement is in the millions.

--
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
Re:Still Depressing by neonprimetime · 2006-09-14 05:30 · Score: 0, Troll

Nobody cares because it's been turned into an excuse to erode rights and to spy on innocent people.

Conspiracy theories are so stupid. You sound like Hyde from that 70's show. The government is out to get you! Boo!

Did you care about that before it started happening? If not, what are you complaining about?

I cared about my security and well-being before 9/11. If somebody would've attacked my homeland on 9/10 I would've confronted them. Nothing has changed. I cared about my personal rights before 9/11. If on 9/10 big brother wanted to tap my phone to hunt down somebody threatening my life, I'd want them to tap it. Nothing has changed.
Re:Still Depressing by neonprimetime · 2006-09-14 05:38 · Score: 1

I am STUNNED that a conservative thought on /. was modded down!
Re:Still Depressing by Buran · 2006-09-14 05:42 · Score: 2, Informative

It's not a conspiracy theory if it's the truth. Crying "conspiracy" is just an attempt to dodge the truth that you don't like. How can you claim that it's all a theory when the story is right there (on the front page of this same site no less) that it's actually happening?

The problem is, and you don't seem to be acknowledging this, is that there is no guarantee that only criminals are having their phones tapped. And the tapping that is going on is going on in violation of the laws against warrantless wiretapping, the laws that require the use of a specific procedure to ensure that rights are safeguarded.

Doesn't seem like you're really trying to safeguard your rights, not here. You say "I care about my rights" but then you go on to say "I don't care if someone taps my phone." The government has to have a reason and a warrant to tap a phone, end of story, and telcos cannot just hand over information to the government without a warrant, end of story.

You think it's OK for the government to do this, or so it appears. So I guess you really aren't supporting privacy protection after all, huh?

Which is it? "It's OK to tap my phone and by extension yours because I support what they're doing" (which means "It's OK to violate the law and the privacy rules that protect me and everyone else") or "No it's not OK, the government should act in everyone's best interest, but as is required by law, so the government needs to obey privacy rules"(which means "Yes, I do care about privacy, and I'm not being a hypocrite who wants their cake and wants to eat it too")?

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:Still Depressing by russ1337 · 2006-09-14 05:44 · Score: 1

I cared about my security and well-being before 9/11. If somebody would've attacked my homeland on 9/10 I would've confronted them. Nothing has changed. I cared about my personal rights before 9/11. If on 9/10 big brother wanted to tap my phone to hunt down somebody threatening my life, I'd want them to tap it. Nothing has changed.
But would you let them tap your phone for no reason at all? What if their reason for tapping the phone was to listen to your calls to 'see' if you were saying anything dodgy, or worse, just for their own low-paid-middle-managment-government-employee entertainment? You OK with that? You OK with some government perv 'getting off' on your wife talking to her friend?

The law's were always there to catch the crooks and terrorists, but 'big-brother' just needed a WARRANT! (Even then, in an emergency wire-chase they had the ability to have it approved afterwards!)

How long till they come after you for something you said on the phone. - you might be added to a watch list just for talking about a movie plot or a news article. You still OK with that?

Enjoy your Liberty. Liberty indeed.
Re:Still Depressing by sobachatina · 2006-09-14 05:51 · Score: 1

I think you got that backward.

As I understood the equation was:
(Number_of_Songs * $750) + Court_costs
Not:
Number_of_Songs + ($750 * Court_Costs)

Still, you're right that the court costs will probably be dwarfed by the fine.
Re:Still Depressing by ZachPruckowski · 2006-09-14 05:55 · Score: 1

No, I think defaulting gets you $750 per song, and you pay court costs. $750 isn't the court cost.
Re:Still Depressing by teflaime · 2006-09-14 05:55 · Score: 1

Your thoughts aren't conservative. They're stupid. That's why they were modded down.
Re:Still Depressing by budgenator · 2006-09-14 06:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actualy it was the Government that taught me to assume my telephone was tapped, that the "bad guys" were always following me, that every conversation in public was recorded and ever private space was bugged. I rarely travel the same route twice in a row and the times I do routine things are randomized as much as possible. I'm gald that in our country I do these things more out of habit, rather than necessity like in many place of the world even today. I'm also glad that it's our right to privacy that's getting abused rather than our right to life; they can applogise for invading your privacy, but dead is dead.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:Still Depressing by DShard · 2006-09-14 06:19 · Score: 1

Your stunned that you were modded off topic for bringing up 9/11 rantings in a discussion about an interview with lawyers defending against RIAA suits? You sir, are a moron.
Re:Still Depressing by neonprimetime · 2006-09-14 06:22 · Score: 1

It's as simple as I trust the government to protect me and you don't. That's where our disagreement begins, and where it will end. Sorry I didn't continue the flame war.
Re:Still Depressing by Buran · 2006-09-14 06:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm also glad that it's our right to privacy that's getting abused rather than our right to life; they can applogise for invading your privacy, but dead is dead.

So if you're so privacy-conscious that you go so far to be random, why aren't you arguing for the safeguards that would still protect privacy while carrying out investigations into criminal behavior? You CAN have both; that's what's been said over and over and over and over. Or have you bitten the lie that "this is the only way" that the government wants you to believe so that it can do whatever it wants, unchecked?

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:Still Depressing by neonprimetime · 2006-09-14 06:24 · Score: 1

Same as in another thread. It's as simple as I trust the government to protect me and you don't. That's where our disagreement begins, and where it will end. Sorry I didn't continue this flame war.
Re:Still Depressing by westlake · 2006-09-14 06:35 · Score: 1

I'm waiting for someone's kid to commit suicide because they're too ashamed to admit to their parents that they got sued for file sharing.
The kid doesn't get the subpoena. The parent gets the subpoena as the owner of the account. If every kid committed suicide who had to be bailed out by his folks, there would few of us left standing.
Re:Still Depressing by Iaughter · 2006-09-14 06:36 · Score: 1

This really got through to me:
The people who come out the strongest against 'trial lawyers' are the big corporations' PR departments. They want the 'common folk' to think ill of lawyers, because the law -- as imperfect as it is -- is the only equalizer left. And it's being eroded rapidly. And people dissing lawyers all the time helps that process.
Re:Still Depressing by FLEB · 2006-09-14 06:49 · Score: 1

(( Thunderous applause ))

--
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Re:Still Depressing by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 07:00 · Score: 0

Don't post your site at the bottom of your posts. Noone wants to see it. It's already right there under your id for the 3 people who do care.
Re:Still Depressing by russ1337 · 2006-09-14 07:00 · Score: 1

Thanks for your response. I see your point now. The thing is, we have different points of view - that is OK.

What I actually don't trust is that people will interpret the Governments laws honestly, within the bounds of what the Government intended.

It might be some local law enforcement officer that pulls me over and doesn't like the look of me and thinks I'm a smart arse. He can think that - it is his right. But when he decides to remove all my liberties and freedom, throw me in jail without trial, without telling me what for, without council... he has pushed it too far. - I don't believe he should have that power. I believe the checks and balances are lost. If he had to persuade a judge to issue a warrant, or after arresting me prove to someone that what he did was 'just' then that is OK.

I *know* that one day, either you or one of your friends/colleagues/family will be 'unjustly' treated through abuse of power given under "anti-terrorism" laws. It might simply be being refused to fly home at Christmas because their name was put forward by an air-marshal trying to meet his monthly quota, and he supports the Steelers and you had a Jets shirt on.
Re:Still Depressing by tompaulco · 2006-09-14 07:02 · Score: 1

The entire practice of suing people over music needs to die a horrible death.
I am doing my part, by not making or distributing illegal copies of my CDs.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Re:Still Depressing by Buran · 2006-09-14 07:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

I wasn't aware that asking legitimate questions constituted a flame war. It's not my problem if you can't take legitimate questioning and criticism and brush it off as someone out to flame you. Belittling valid questions as beneath you does nothing to invalidate the question.

I also believe it's a mistake to trust the government to protect anyone. All politicians care about is wealth and power. All they listen to is money.

If the government could be trusted to do the right thing, don't you think it would be acting to protect the environment while we still (may) have time, handing down longer jail terms for crimes against people and real property than for spamming and software piracy? Don't you think that rape, murder, carjacking, mugging, armed robbery, and a long list of other crimes that actually hurt people emotionally and physically deserve that, instead of wasting the time and effort on crimes that hurt no one?

Don't you think that if the government could be trusted to look out for the best interests of the people, it would not repeatedly pass laws that favor the interest of businesses over the interests of the citizens? (most infamously, acting to make sure Disney can keep making money off of Mickey and therefore destroying our own creative commons, the long-standing culture of building on each others' creations, and the rich public domain on which our society has prospered for so long?

Don't you think that the government, if it really wanted to protect us, would come up with actually-effective ways to ensure safety that actually act to protect the public? Saying you can't take shampoo on a plane when the technology has existed for years to detect liquid explosives, and hasn't been deployed because of political squabbling, bureaucracy, and other petty problems is ridiculous when statistics show that many thousands upon thousands of people die in preventable road accidents every day, and yet the government will not require SUVs to not demolish cars (they override crash guards in car doors because they're so tall), they won't strengthen roofs to prevent rollover accidents, they won't provide increased funding to pull over speeders who think that they're above the law and who make the roads unsafer for us all, they won't increase average fuel economy requirements to lower pollution, decrease oil dependency, and lower prices ... ... that's just the start, the list goes on and on and on and on.

No, I don't trust the government to protect me. They haven't done anything to earn that trust lately. And I blame shortsighted mindsets like yours for not calling them to task and demanding more.

If the government can impeach its leader for lying about who he had sex with, why can't it impeach and remove a leader who lied about so many more things that actually are causing real hurt, real damage, and real destruction?

Open your eyes. Please.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:Still Depressing by neonprimetime · 2006-09-14 07:08 · Score: 1

Totally agree with you. I don't want that to happen to me either. But another thing I don't like the layers of bureaucracy that are already drowning this country. As far as the warrantless wiretaps, I get flamed all the time, because there is a provision in the dems bill that allows you to get a warrant after-the-fact. But still, I find it incredibly stupid that you would need a warrant in the first place. I also get flamed for putting scenarios into simpler forms, but here's my "simple" example. If somebody pointed a gun to my sister and shot her, then turned and pointed the gun at me I would find it ridiculous to have to travel through several levels of bureaucracy before I kick him in the balls, grab the gun, and shoot him. I don't even want to have to worry about validating myself after-the-fact. I think I need the power to kick him in the balls and ask questions later.

I never was a good story teller, so I apologize if that sounds childish :-)
Re:Still Depressing by neonprimetime · 2006-09-14 07:18 · Score: 0, Troll

I don't know why I respond, but here I am, typing again. I fail to see why you're still in this country? You don't trust any part our government, and you seem to shutter at any thought of it trying to protect you. You most likely would prefer to deny that your an American. You would probably never stand up and fight for your country. You are ashamed of your own country and everything it stands for. You, and the others like you, and destroying our country. United We Stand? Not with people like you. End of Thread.
Re:Still Depressing by Buran · 2006-09-14 07:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

So because I believe in stopping rampant government abuse and because I believe in protecting our liberties that the founding population of this country sacrificed so much for, I'm responsible for destroying my own country? Nice. Dissent isn't unpatriotic. Wishing for improvement is not patriotic.

Blindly adhering to something just because The Powers That Be said so isn't patriotic. It's only serving to destroy this nation.

You, and the others like you, and destroying our country. United We Stand? Not with people like you. End of Thread.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:Still Depressing by GSloop · 2006-09-14 08:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're clueless. Simply clueless.

First there's a VAST difference between "no trust" and "distrust."

While I don't distrust everyone, I certainly "trust" few. That's a perfectly healthy and self preserving position. Those that earn my trust over time get more power over me. Those that violate that trust lose that power. Continuing to keep that trust requires accountability and transparency. I generally don't accept explainations of your actions to protect me, on the face value of "trust us, we're doing this for your own good." You will be required to explain to me what you did, how you did it, and why. If you can't do that, you're likely to lose power since you'll lose trust.

Next:
Because ALL governments who had no real accountability and ultimate power were despot regimes, I think it's perfectly reasonable to be highly suspect when our own
government becomes more and more authoritarian and less transparent. In short, there's adequate reason to DISTRUST a non accountable, non transparent government - any government, ours, theirs, or someone else's.

If you believe blind, unquestioning trust is reasonable, I'm sure China or Iran or Pakistan are great places to live. The old USSR was a good example.

The US in principle holds to the open, tranparent and accountability principles. Look at the Constitution and the Declairation of Independence. Both are freely laced with the "Never trust your government" mind-set. And for good reason. The founders had first hand experience of a Government who had no checks, no real accountability and certainly no transparency. They knew it resulted in evil.

The Government is *of*, *for*, and *by* the people.

When Government believes it no-longer has to respect the people, obey the people, and be accountable to the people, it's in violation of both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. IMO, those responsible for that position are legally guilty of treason.

As a concrete example. The current law states that the EXCLUSIVE means of wiretapping outside of the criminal legal system requirements is the FISA court. When the executive branch ignores the law, they are legally in violation of their duties to uphold and enforce the law.

Now they can ask that the law be modified, or contest the law in court. But until a court strikes the law, or the legislative branch modifies the law, the executive branch is not allowed to ignore the law. That you'd trust a branch of government who is willfully breaking the law, as doing things in your best interest, I'd seriously question your intelligence. (It's kind of like sending the Nigerian scammer cash - "well yeah, he'd steal from someone else, but certainly he won't from me!" Oh, really - how interesting...)

Further, the courts are used to act as a balance against the executive braches of government. The court ensures, as a neutral party, that the request is balanced against the needs of the executive. It's kind of like a unanimous verdict in criminal cases. Sure, it's likely that some guilty people go free, just like the request of a criminal or FISA wiretap is a burden that probably lets some who *should* be wiretapped get away. But we'd rather err on the side of protecting the citizen from an overzelous government than opress the people because government couldn't be bothered to really care itself.

History shows far more abuse of the people BY government. Accountability of government, presumed innocence, presumed privacy and protection from survellience are the life-blood of a truely free society. Remove those and it's just a matter of time until actively evil government takes advantage and pillages the populace.

Perhaps you believe evil will never arrive, but I assure you it will. Without serious checks against government, that evil will be unchecked and what you "wish" wouldn't happen will. And you'll have to power or ability to prevent it. The end result is the loss of your "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." You know, those things that ar
Re:Still Depressing by HuguesT · 2006-09-14 08:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

This does not compute. The notion of country doesn't have much to do with govermnent. I'm betting Spaniards were proud to be Spanish even under Franco, that Italians are proud of Italy even when they don't approve of Berlusconi, and that many Americans are proud to be Americans even if they don't approve of who's the President today or the majority of Congress or the Supreme Court appointees.
Re:Still Depressing by goofyheadedpunk · 2006-09-14 08:34 · Score: 1

> You, and the others like you, [are] destroying our country.

Though you stopped short of calling him a Commie, I don't see how any of what you said follows. His complaints, while perhaps a bit defeatist depending on who you talk to of course, do raise legitimate concerns. Did you take issue with his lack of patriotism and can-do spirit, or was it the concerns?

Depending on your personality and current disposition you may think I'm flaming you. I assure you, however, that I am not but am, instead, simply curious.

--

What if the entire Universe were a chrooted environment with everything symlinked from the host?
Re:Still Depressing by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 08:40 · Score: 0

United We Stand? Not with people like you. End of Thread.

that is funny
Re:Still Depressing by Score+Whore · 2006-09-14 08:42 · Score: 1

But would you let them tap your phone for no reason at all? What if their reason for tapping the phone was to listen to your calls to 'see' if you were saying anything dodgy, or worse, just for their own low-paid-middle-managment-government-employee entertainment? You OK with that? You OK with some government perv 'getting off' on your wife talking to her friend?

You want to know what's going to happen? "They" will have a new hire and while they are training him, to demonstrate the systems capabilities, they'll tap the phone line of someone famous, or pull up a recording of a phone call of someone famous. Then the new guy will be on duty late one night, bored out of his mind reading the newspaper and come across some story that piques his interest and will tap the phone line of the subject of the story. A few months later he'll be at a barbecue with his neighbors and just as a matter of gossip he'll mention the kinds of capabilities they have without getting into any real details. Six months down the line the neighbor will come over and say that she thinks her husband is cheating on her, and so late the next night he pulls up the guys phone records and sets up an autorecord on the guys phone. Then he gets to wondering about that bitch who dumped him in college and starts recording her calls.

Sometime later a different new guy comes along and is sticking to the rules, only monitoring appropriate calls (whatever "appropriate" means in this sense), one of which is listening in on an investment bank who's name came up while listening to an arabic sounding fellow. During one session he hears about some plans the bank is putting togther for buying up a competitor and gets to thinking that if he just bought a bunch of shares in that bank he'll make a killing in the market.

It's all just human nature. The laws should be in place to ensure that both sides of the equation are sticking to the moral high ground. Which is a point the founders were able to recognize. Too bad dumb asses like Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty don't have the strength of character to stick to a true social and moral high ground.
Re:Still Depressing by neonprimetime · 2006-09-14 09:24 · Score: 1

His complaints, while perhaps a bit defeatist depending on who you talk to of course, do raise legitimate concerns. Did you take issue with his lack of patriotism and can-do spirit, or was it the concerns?

simply curious

I am defintely a minority on /. and therefore defending my view points becomes frustrating and therefore there is the occasional post where I go bizerk :-)
Yet I still post here, because I learn more every day, I am able to keep my mind open and see other people's viewpoints.
I totally agree that he has legitmate concerns, but I am just frustrated at the entire site's apparent lack of patriotism. America is evil. The government is conspring to destroy the common man. Big brother is going to reach down and take away everything you have. If all this ranting were true, then we certainly wouldn't be the country that EVERYBODY on the outside wants to come into. I'm defintely in the minority here when I say that religion and christianity in particular is not just important, but critical to the survial of this country that was built on those principals in the first place. With out the christian mindset (knowing clear cut what is right & what is wrong), you run into problems like this: Where you can't trust the government to use wiretapping to tap the terrorists instead of the citizens. So who knows where I'm at. I guess my frustrations all them from my issue I have with the concept of "seperation of church & state". How can that be when the country itself was founded on christian principles? How do I know Murder, Rape, Idoltry, Stealing, Lieing, etc are wrong? It's part of my Christian beliefs. If we try to remove religion from government, then how can we justify these acts as wrong anymore? We're heading in the wrong direction. Most people on this site don't agree with me. But I'll still speak my mind. I apologize for anything in the past or future that I might say that will offend a Slashdot user.
Re:Still Depressing by geekoid · 2006-09-14 09:32 · Score: 1

"Illegal filesharers "
Did you not read his response, or do you just have no reading comprehension?

Many of these issue are still UNDETERMINED but the courts.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Still Depressing by TeknoHog · 2006-09-14 09:33 · Score: 1

I sense a great disturbance in your logic...
Legislators - They are passing dumbass copyright laws. Yes, there should be copyright. No, it shouldn't last 873 years or whatever the hell it is currently.

So, there are dumbass laws and they should be rewritten. I agree.

Illegal filesharers - They are committing copyright infringement. This is illegal, end of story. Regardless of what you feel about copyright or the music business, copyright exists and makes it illegal for you to share these files.

So, copyright is somehow an absolute that can't be rewritten? End of story?

--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Re:Still Depressing by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 09:39 · Score: 0

separation of church and state is possible because religion does not equal morality. there are plenty of morally sound athiests in the world as well as immoral christians to prove this point. without this separation, large groups would be alienated and our country would become rather homogenous, lacking the diversity that we value so much.

even though our "forefathers" were mostly christian, our nation was not founded on christianity, it was founded on the freedom to worship and practice your beliefs as you choose, without fear of retribution, and as long as your practices don't violate the basic human rights of others. i'd say we're doing a poor job so far, especially in the case of the huge negative bias towards muslims.
Re:Still Depressing by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 09:41 · Score: 0

How do I know Murder, Rape, Idoltry, Stealing, Lieing, etc are wrong? It's part of my Christian beliefs.
Christians often don't understand that morality is not solely a Christian domain. "Do unto others..." is human nature and common sense. Most people don't require a God to treat other people with respect.
Re:Still Depressing by fair_n_hite_451 · 2006-09-14 09:48 · Score: 1

Two things:

1) EVERYBODY certainly does not want to come to America. Personally, I wish America would move. It's constantly playing the radio too loud, is horribly in debt, and has the equivalent of a car up on blocks on it's front lawn (which I can only barely see through the 14' high chain link fence topped by razor wire that it's been busy building around the property line for the last few years). This used to be such a nice neighbourhood, but lately ... oy vey!

2) While I can't attribute these views to you personally, since I don't know you, lots of people have huge, and justifiable problems with "government + Christianity". Mostly because most people professing to be "Christians", act in ways which are anything but christian. and that's not limited to the States, look around the world at any other government which is controlled by religious groups and you'll see the very same intolerance and persecution of those who don't belong "in the club". The reason you're in the minority is because most people distrust the ideals you espose as we've seen them practiced by people in power who claim to follow those same ideals.

It's that whole "fool me once, fool me twice" thing. We were fooled once by the Religious Right. They are NOT compassionate, they are NOT inclusive, and they don't care one whit for discourse. They are interested in telling everyone exactly how to live - their way ... and that, my friend, is anything but christian values.

--
Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
"I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
Re:Still Depressing by Dr.+Zowie · 2006-09-14 09:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

In the immortal words of Utah Phillips, "Love my country -- always. Love my government -- when it deserves it."

A prime founding principle of the U.S.A. is never to trust authority, particularly authority in governmental power. That is why we (supposedly) have a system of checks and balances in government -- the branches are supposed to squabble, and to have to work things out. Unfortunately, the current set of jackasses got enough control that they could sidestep those checks and balances, and are busy pillaging every bit of monetary, political, and social capital they can.

Unfortunately, critical thinking is passé enough that a majority seem to swallow the propaganda and lies at face value.

Many more people died in Katrina than died from terrorism in the last decade, and Katrina is just one hurricane of many. Why are we spending so much money occupying Iraq, and so little money protecting our homeland?

(For exampled, the occupation of Iraq is costing more than $15,000 per second -- more than 2.5 trillion dollars so far. By contrast, the Army Corps of Engineers is having trouble getting money to rebuild the levees around New Orleans. That project is estimated to cost $2.5 billion dollars, less than the cost of one weekend of the occupation.)
Re:Still Depressing by MstrFool · 2006-09-14 09:51 · Score: 1

You're glad they are only breaking one right and not an other? How long do you think it takes a goverment to go from taking your right to privacy to taking your right to life? Go ahead and look around, there are many case-studies of that in the world. Look at countries where the goverment gets total control and see what happened there, you won't likely enjoy the things you learn. Base line is, power corupts. The more powerful any group gets the more power it wants, and sooner or later some one gets into control of the group that is not ethical with how they get or use the power. History may show it's not 100 percent certain to happen, but around 98 percent certain to happen is more then I care to risk, though you may feel differently. FYI, I can't show the numbers and did pull them out of my *ss. But I am giving the benifit of the doubt to the idea that some where out there is proof that it doesn't happen 100 percent of the time, even though I haven't found it. I may be overly optimistic in that, but it leaves room for some hope at least.

--
Question reality.
Re:Still Depressing by KaoticEvil · 2006-09-14 10:03 · Score: 1

How do I know Murder, Rape, Idoltry, Stealing, Lieing, etc are wrong? It's part of my Christian beliefs.

Now that's amusing. I'm not Christian, and I still know that those are wrong. I wasn't RAISED Christian either. Nor will my 5 children be.

If we try to remove religion from government, then how can we justify these acts as wrong anymore?

Does the phrase "seperation of church and state" mean anything to you?

--
You can close your eyes to reality but not to memories.
Re:Still Depressing by goofyheadedpunk · 2006-09-14 10:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

> but I am just frustrated at the entire site's apparent lack of patriotism

Patriotism is a tricky things really. Is partriotism sticking a little flag over your SUV radio antena, or is it standing on street corners protesting? Dissention isn't necissarily a lack of love for one's nation, nor is blind acceptance of whatever happens love. In any event trying to lable people as patriotic or not is usually a really silly idea as it distracts from the issue at hand, whatever that may be. Whether or not I Love America is irrelevant if I bring up a valid point.

Example: I just moved from Chicago, where I had lived for slightly over a year, to Portland Oregon. I hated Chicago, absolutely despised it. I thought it was dirtly, loud and overall very depressing. I hate Chicago. Now, I also thought that the minority populations there, especially the blacks on the South Side, where getting a raw deal. The schools, for example, were poorly funded and even more poorly maintained. If I were to say to you in conversation, "Chicago's South Side schools are terrible!" and you were to reply, "Why do you hate Chicago?!" then you've entirely missed my point. True, I do hate Chicago but I wasn't saying anything about the quality of the city. My feelings on the city are, at that point, irrelevant. Much the same is true in situations where the discussion boils down to "Wait, are you saying you don't love America?"

> If all this ranting were true, then we certainly wouldn't be the country that EVERYBODY
> on the outside wants to come into.

Forgive me for making this assumption, but you've not travled much outside of the US, have you? This statement simply isn't true. Demonstratiably our complacense born of not having our infastructure destroyed in WWII has resulted in the US losing it's thunder in recent years. Alan Cox, for example, has no desire to come to the US. To say that everybody does this, or everybody does that, or indeed to say that most people do this or that, is almost certainly wrong. The hopes and desires of everyone on the planet are remarkably diverse.

> I'm defintely in the minority here...

Unless you've taken a survey don't make assumptions as to the viewpoint of groups of people. One tends to read in what one wants to see.

> when I say that religion and christianity in particular is not just important,
> but critical to the survial of this country that was built on those principals
> in the first place.

The US was not, in fact, built on Christian principles, or any other religious principles. The founding father's were mostly deists, which was the main intellectual "religious" preference at the time. The US's seperation of church and state was placed to make it much more difficult for a single religion to govern the US's politics, though that tends to happen anyway when most of the US population is of a certain religion. The US government was, quite opposite to your assertion, designed to keep religion out of the affairs of the state. We no more need Christianity to have a functioning government than we need Jainism, say.

> With out the christian mindset (knowing clear cut what is right & what is wrong)

Though I am agnostic I have had extensive Christian religious training. I'm a confirmed Lutheran (Missouri Lutheran Synod which is, curiously, the One True branch of Lutheranism according to some) have nearly a minor in theological studies and am quite familiar with the theological works of ancient and present Christianity. It is, then, exceedingly false to say that a Christian knows, clear cut, what is right and what is wrong. Right and Wrong has been debated amongst Christians since Jesus first started talking, which a consensus rarely being formed. Christianity is so splintered for exactly that reason, ala Martin Luther and the Reformation.

Though an absolute morality would be handy, it certainly doesn't exist in the confines of Christianity, though some would prefer that it did. However, none of those people ar

--

What if the entire Universe were a chrooted environment with everything symlinked from the host?
Re:Still Depressing by Darby · 2006-09-14 10:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's as simple as I trust the government to protect me and you don't.

Either this is a troll, or you are probably the most deeply stupid person I've ever heard of.
Re:Still Depressing by Darby · 2006-09-14 10:25 · Score: 1

You most likely would prefer to deny that your an American. You would probably never stand up and fight for your country. You are ashamed of your own country and everything it stands for. You, and the others like you, and destroying our country. United We Stand? Not with people like you. End of Thread.

Wow, maybe you truly are that deeply stupid.

So by giving up all of the rights and freedoms that defined this country, you are a good American and people like me who actually do care about doing our patriotic duty to be informed citizens and stand up against the government when it oversteps its boundaries are the ones destroying it.

Well, you're certainly good at doublethink.

You're also a slimy yellow coward whose fear of being a citizen *is* what is destroying this country.

Please kill yourself now before your weak and cowardly nature helps completely fuck our country. It's the only way one as deeply cowardly as you have absolutely proven yourself to be could ever benefit America.
Re:Still Depressing by ray-auch · 2006-09-14 10:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

The "just default" option was in response to a question on what to do if you "hadn't got the money" to pay.

In that case "just default" _is_ probably your best option - you haven't got any money anyway, so what are they going to take from you anyway ?

If the default judgement is in the millions it just means you go bankrupt for more and it might even help - if you owe so much, then maybe no one's going to question you going bankrupt.

Defending yourself might be more satisfying if you can make the other guys waste more of their money on lawyers to get nothing at the end of it, but it might be more risky. I don't think the RIAA can put you in jail from a civil suit, wheras I'm pretty sure that in a lot of places the judge can, for contempt, if he/she things you are taking the p***.
Re:Still Depressing by Monsuco · 2006-09-14 11:31 · Score: 1

This is a joke right?
Do you have any evidence that your privacy was violated? It is at best foolish and at worst parinoid to think that just because the government has said that they wiretap terrorist that it means they wiretap you. Personnaly, I doubt special agents have been assigned by the NSA to track my conversations with my Grandmother. I imagine if I called up Osama right now they might get curious as to what we are chatting about, but how many of you need to comunicate with mass murderers in secrecy? As for your right to life, if you haven't noticed, why the fuck do you thing the government wiretaps. If it hasn't occoured to you, they wiretap to protect your right to life. Now which do you prefere, to risk having your conversation with a known terrorist tapped, or to be blown to billions of tiny peaces by the real "bad guys". Hell, the Bush administration certainly isn't the most unconstitutional administration ever. It is nowere close to FDR. If you read history, you will know FDR's administration had several of their bills declared unconstitutional. After a while of this happening, FDR tried a "courtpacking" bill that would allow him to put more democrate judges into the court to stop the supreame court from killing various ND programs. That is a hugely unconstitutional thing. Then there was the Japaniese camps that were created by his administration during WWII. Unconstitutional. Government censorship of what troops can say? Possibly unconstitutional. The only thing that is even possibly unconstitutional thing Bush has does is wiretap. FDR made him look rather minor by comparison.
Oh, and the Clinton administration passed the DMCA didn't they? Really, on this issue, I doubt Bush cares.

--
The Gospel according to lolcat
Re:Still Depressing by merreborn · 2006-09-14 14:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wish I had a mod point for you. File shares are doing a bit more than breaking the law: they're pushing for change. See also the EFF page on alternative music industry business models.

The "File Sharer" position (which includes people who aren't engaged in copyright violation -- merely interested in fair use freedom) is that the RIAA *cannot win* this fight; the state of technology is such that some of us will share music and movies in such a way that we can't be caught. The technically savvy have been miles ahead of the **AA every step of the way. While they were tearing down napster, we were building Gnutella. They're just now suing children and women using Kazaa, while we've moved on to bittorrent. They just killed eDonkey, but we've been using eMule for years.

If they follow us here, we'll move to encryption, darknets, and traffic obfuscation. Technology moves too fast. Copying data will always be easy. Copying it anonymously won't be much harder.

If they keep pushing like this, there will come a time where they can't reach us any more. Then they'll have to change.

So why not cut to the chase? Give us what we want at a fair price.

http://www.eff.org/share/?f=legal.html
http://www.eff.org/share/?f=compensation.html
Re:Still Depressing by dogod · 2006-09-14 15:32 · Score: 1

"During one session he hears about some plans the bank is putting togther for buying up a competitor and gets to thinking that if he just bought a bunch of shares in that bank he'll make a killing in the market."

brilliant
1. get an application
some stuff in between...
3. profit
Re:Still Depressing by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 15:33 · Score: 0

"If the government can impeach its leader for lying about who he had sex with . . ."

As an aside, since you brought up the topic, Clinton's "crime" was actually submitting a falsified sworn affadavit - thus constituting perjury.
(The fact that it involved merely a sexual matter does not detract from the seriousness of lying under oath.)
However, I would agree there's no issue to debate concerning how the present administration has been involved in misconduct that exceeds that.
Re:Still Depressing by take5 · 2006-09-14 19:12 · Score: 1

Your points are generally valid, but in the case of copyrights,
the US government really thinks it does the right thing by strengthening
and protecting them.

Most of the commercially viable copyrighted material is produced
in the US and constitutes a vibrant "industry". Now that the
physical goods industry has moved to Asia, what is the US producing?
The intangible they call "IP".

Another important aspect of the curious stance of the US govt on
copyrights is world intellectual domination. People in every corner of the
planet are immersed in US culture, the music, the clothes, the
value system, the capitalist dream. This is a great asset they want to
protect tooth and nail.

They want Disney (and every "Disney") strong so as to sell to the kids of the
world the desirability of the "American way of life".

To put it simple, copyrights are the heavy industry and propaganda machine
of the US all rolled into one. Do not expect the lawmakers and judges to
waeken them for the benefit of nebulous ideas like the digital commons or
whatever arguments the file sharers may advance.
Re:Still Depressing by LordNightwalker · 2006-09-15 01:41 · Score: 1

Bad analogy. Here's a better one: crimes are committed every day. Everyone I meet is a potential murderer. So it's OK for me to stripsearch every person I meet on the street, and it's OK for me to break into everyones houses to search for the gun they might intend to shoot me with.

We are not talking about the right to take action when the evidence is clearly there, like you suggest. We're talking about the right to search for evidence without proper authorisation, under the guise of "protecting the people". A government that protects me must protect me not only from physical harm, but also from loss of rights. How can they do that by means of invading those rights they're supposed to protect in the first place?

That being said, I'm sure the government doesn't care either way. Black ops anyone? If some matter demands immediate action, legal or not, the government will find a solution. It usually involves a sniper, explosives, or a team of paracommandos. And frankly, I don't care either. I know I'll never be the target of such treatment because the government makes damn sure they got the right guy before they take him out; they don't just send in the "last resort" crew for just about any petty thief. The things that worry me more are the things they'll have less of a problem rationalising and justifying than murder, and wiretapping falls nicely within that category.

ps: I'm not American, and contrary to your statement in a previous post, I wouldn't want to be one either. As a matter of fact, I think this whole nationality and patriotism stuff is utter nonsense. I'm the son of Spanish emigrants living in Belgium, I'm Spanish by nationality, but was born in Belgium. I neither consider myself Spanish nor Belgian; I don't consider myself European either. I consider myself "me". I don't need to belong to a group and be fanatic about it in order to justify my existence. Be proud of the things you are for which you made a deliberate choice to be. Don't be proud for some attribute given to you at birth, in which you had no say. You might just as easily have been a Canadian, Israeli, Chinese or Maori. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying it's not OK to be glad you're an American. After all, you guys have it pretty good back there, there's certainly reason to be thankful for that. Many people in Afrika are a lot worse off than you guys. But being actually *proud* of being born in a certain geographic location, like it's some sort of achievement. Seriously, WTF?

--
Install windows on my workstation? You crazy? Got any idea how much I paid for the damn thing?
Re:Still Depressing by Buran · 2006-09-15 03:44 · Score: 1

I do expect them to, because these actions are far from being in the best interests of the people. The best interests of big business are not the best interests of the people, and it is the people to which the government owes its responsibilities, not faceless megacorps.

It's been covered over and over by essayists and articles on this and other sites that the destruction of the public domain by rampant (and basically unlimited, contrary to the original intent of the lawmakers who created copyright) is not in the best interests of the people.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:Still Depressing by budgenator · 2006-09-15 04:51 · Score: 1

Actually the government doesn't care what the troops say as long as they aren't revealing operation data or giving the impression that their personal views are representative of the USG or are otherwise illegal. Ocasionally there are individuals in an organisation who may hold positions of authority who will try to improperly use their position to censor subordinates because of a personal agenda, which really is violating #2 giving the impression that their personal views are representative of the USG.

You are the only one who has come even close to understand what I said and you're still wrong. Once apon a time I had access to certain classified information the the KGB and GRU of the former Soviet Union was very interested in, like many other people. By conducting my affairs in a manner that assumed no privacy, nothing could be revealed by accident, by not being prdictable pattern meant I was difficult to approach by agents trying to compromise me through seduction, bribery, or blackmail and even less vulnerable to kidnap and subsequent torture than a ceature of habit would have been.

We're not talking about paranoia here we're talking about not being the "low hanging fruit". The FEDs that everybody is whining about abusing their rights to privacy, have no expectation of privacy, they know that there are plenty of "bad guys" out there with a vendetta against them; there's even plenty of good guys out there looking at everything they do or say under a microscope. Even common troops are bouncing between Iraq, Afganistan and Drug Interdiction Duties in South and Central America to get themselves on the bad guys radar.

The japanese have a saying "The nail that sticks up gets hammered", Americans in general have little idea of how not to be that nail. If Im not noticeable to the bad guys, I'm not noticable to the good guys either. I'm an unprofitable target, anybody snooping arround me is going to reveal much more to me by doing so than they'll ever discover about me.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:Still Depressing by pjp6259 · 2006-09-15 07:02 · Score: 1

Because ALL governments who had no real accountability and ultimate power were despot regimes

Although the rest of your post is cogent and well argued, I'm afraid I have to take issue with this statment. You are sadly mistaken if you
think despot regimes hold ultimate power. It has been well established that real ultimate power is
reserved strictly for ninjas.

--
Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
Re:Still Depressing by bky1701 · 2006-09-24 23:05 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, you have it backwards. What does our country stand for? Freedom? That's what so many "patriots" say it stands for, and say they fight for. Yet, here you are, saying someone caring about their freedom is "destroying our country".

If the country is built on freedom, and you wish to give that away, YOU are "destroying our country", not those who want to protect what it stands for. It's easy to protect a body of power, it's hard to protect it's ideals.

I personally AM ashamed my own country, because of people willing to say what you just did. Those who brush aside what the country stands for and support it blindly. There are a few countries in history that did that... they all ended up getting invaded, falling in on themselves or getting nuked.

So while you sit their on your blind support, the country you "love" is being distorted into the thing you "hate", and you are here whining about us. I see a logical error.

--
Great Intellect...

I guess there's no Gray Area by neonprimetime · 2006-09-14 04:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

7) Gray Area Questions by Four_One_Nine
1. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently stolen (along with my 5 disc changer *@$#!!) do I retain any rights to listen to that music?
2. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently scratched or broken to the point where it is not playable, can I legally download the songs from that CD from a file-sharing network?

3. If I purchase the DVD for a movie, could I legally download songs from the soundtrack for that movie from a file-sharing network?

Beckerman: 1. There's no such thing as a listening right, I don't know where you get that from. 2. I doubt it. 3. I doubt it.

I don't know about you, but I'm depressed after reading this answer.

Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by Krondor · 2006-09-14 05:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

2. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently scratched or broken to the point where it is not playable, can I legally download the songs from that CD from a file-sharing network?

Wow, I always thought this was a fair use issue. I know fair use isn't what it used to be. I didn't realize it was completely negated. Maybe because I didn't physically make my own backup and went and grabbed someone else's "backup" it's off the negotiating table. I'm no lawyer obviously... someone care to comment?

I don't know about you, but I'm depressed after reading this answer.

I'm depressed there had to be an answer, or a question, in the first place.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by kaan · 2006-09-14 05:11 · Score: 1

I don't know about you, but I'm depressed after reading this answer.

Well, yes and no. My initial reaction was similar to yours, but after considering for a moment, I don't think this stuff matters. It may very well be true that it is not allowable to make a 2nd copy for home use, or do anything else from question #7. But it's also not legal to copy a newspaper or magazine article, or distribute music you recorded off the radio, and you know what? People have been doing both of those things for decades, and they continue to do so. Think back 10 or 20 years ago and recall how common it was for kids to swap cassette tapes, or make mixes of favorite songs. That was every bit illegal as the scenarios described in question #7.

So what's my point? The point is scale. If you're doing something on a small scale, nobody really cares. If you make a copy and give it to a friend, or your sister, or whatever, I think the precedent is well established that such acts "don't matter". What does matter (especially to the RIAA) is blindly sharing perfect digital copies to unknown quantities of people all over the world. As much as I can't stand the RIAA's entire approach to this, I sincerely believe they don't really give a shit about me making a copy of an album and giving it to my friend. They say they do, but at the end of the day it's basically impossible for them to find me and take me to court for a $15 album copy. It doesn't happen too often, it's slow and manual (the copying), limited in scope, and isn't worth that much to them financially. It's not worth their time.

But once I copy the thing and put it online for 2,000 others to download for free, I have jumped to a substantially higher level of copyright infringement, and the RIAA can do something about that - they have to find the one guy sharing that single copy, and they'll prevent 2,000 copies from propagating around the world. Of course, it's not that easy in practice, the RIAA is spending a ton of time and money on legal fees, but I think you can see their approach.

The issue of scale is extremely important. Bad behavior isn't necessarily going to be stopped, but if enough people are doing it, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody is going to do something. Remember Microsoft going through a gigantic legal battle about integrating Internet Explorer into Windows? Everyone said, "oh my god, you can't do that! No, no no!". But that's not the whole picture, becuase IBM did exactly that with OS/2 Warp - browser built-in, lots of tied in functionality. So what's the difference? OS/2 was used by a relatively small number of people compared to Windows, so the scale wasn't the same. It just didn't "matter" when IBM did it, but it did matter when Microsoft did the exact same thing on a much, much larger scale. The same thing is going on here with sharing copyrighted music. Just keep your copying and sharing small-time, local, and reasonable, don't do any file-sharing network stuff, and you won't have any problems from the RIAA.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by YankeeInExile · 2006-09-14 05:24 · Score: 1

Wow, I always thought this was a fair use issue. I know fair use isn't what it used to be. I didn't realize it was completely negated. Maybe because I didn't physically make my own backup and went and grabbed someone else's "backup" it's off the negotiating table. I'm no lawyer obviously... someone care to comment?
Take a step back -- I think the question "is making a backup of a audio recording fair use" was never adequately answered. Making a "backup copy" of some copyrighted works is a very recent addition to the statute.

--
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by hey! · 2006-09-14 05:36 · Score: 5, Informative

Beckerman: 1. There's no such thing as a listening right, I don't know where you get that from.

Probably because the law doesn't bother weighing in on behavior that is (a) inevitable and (b) self-evident. It does govern things copyrights and contracts, which makes the institution of the license, which is used to create contractual rights for the copyright holder where there are no legal ones established by statute or precedent.

Now it is self evident that people who buy recordings buy them to listen to them, and has been self evident up until now it has been inevitable that once in the custody of consumers, they play them often as they wish in any way they wish. So it is not longer the case that an unlimited ability to listen is inevitable and self evident.

One thing about legal rights is that in a practical sense they don't exist until the feasible means of infringing them exists.

There was no "Right to Privacy" recognized in the law, until in the late 19th century Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren wrote a seminal article called "The Right To Privacy" for the Harvard Law Review. They were responding to several developments, notably the development of the modern newspaper, and the development of high speed photographic emulsions.

The way a new right is created is when techological or societal progress changes something we do that was previously taken for granted, but which justifies protection under established legal principles. These princiles are broader, less specific, but logically. In the case of privacy, Brandeis and Warren discerned a generalized "right to be left alone" underpinning various legal precedents that, should it exist, implies a right to privacy in an age of mass publication.

Likewise, there may in fact be a "right to listen", which is to say a right to use something you have purchased in any way you see fit, subject to the copy rights of the owner. Certainly this accords with most people's intuitive idea of their rights.
If such a right exists, it hasn't been recognized up to this point because there has never been reason to, without the availability of technological protection measures. TPMs can potentially it practical for copyright holders to constrain the way you use their works, far beyond mere copying.

On the other hand, I doubt there is any such "right to listen". It's hard to imagine this existing without arbitrarily constraining the rights of copyright sellers to develop and create products and services. For example record companies could make it so you can only play their music on usic players provided by their business partners.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by odin53 · 2006-09-14 06:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

There has never been a fair use right for any copyrighted material that worked that way. Say you had a book that you accidentally dropped in the bathtub and was ruined, or maybe it was in your bookbag that was stolen. You don't have some fair use right to another copy, whether a new paperback or a digital one, just because it wasn't your fault that you lost the original copy; it's tough luck, buy another book. In fact, with music, you actually have an extra *statutory* right -- the right to make a backup. You still can't photocopy or scan an entire book to make a "backup" of it!

The key point to remember that often gets lost on people, and this is what the lawyer was referring to when he said he didn't know where the questioner was getting his/her preconception, is that copyright gives the copyright owner the right to control the making of *copies* of original works. All the questions of the questioner seem to be missing this fundamental point (although they do end up touching that important copyright issue of fair use). Unfortunately, I suspect that the idea of a license to copyrighted works -- particularly the way licenses are used with software -- has kind of screwed up people's understanding of copyrights.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by westlake · 2006-09-14 06:44 · Score: 1

If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently scratched or broken to the point where it is not playable, can I legally download the songs from that CD from a file-sharing network?
Wow, I always thought this was a fair use issue. I know fair use isn't what it used to be.
When your last car was worn down to rust did you also expect a free replacement from Toyota?
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:56 · Score: 0

Here's a question for the RIAA:

I have an excellent ear for music, and a very good memory. Music has been playing in a background thread in my mind ever since I can remember. My iPod, given to me last Christmas as a gift, turns out to be merely an inconvenient and memory-constrained version of what I already have. I rarely use it as a result.

Given that I could throw away all of my CDs and delete all mp3 files I have ripped from those CDs, and still have a clear-as-a-bell memory for the contents of same, would doing so be something you could sue me for?
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by jbrandv · 2006-09-14 07:14 · Score: 1

I thought that when one purchases a CD we don't own the songs ony a license to play them. Since the CD is damaged wouldn't I still have the right to listen to the songs?
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by chefren · 2006-09-14 07:26 · Score: 1

This analogy fails since you can't make a copy of the car yourself. I always thought that the original, even if unplayable, works as a sort of license for your personal copy/copies. As long as you can show that you have an original you would be safe, even if that original is damaged.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by BalanceOfJudgement · 2006-09-14 07:28 · Score: 1

You still can't photocopy or scan an entire book to make a "backup" of it!
Sure you can. You just can't give it to anyone else if you still have your original copy (that'd be the same as me copying my CD and giving a friend that copy, while keeping the original in my car). Note, you CAN loan it.

Leastwise, that's how I understand fair use and I'll fight tooth and nail to retain at least that much liberty.

--

We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by BalanceOfJudgement · 2006-09-14 07:47 · Score: 1

Oh man I love posts like this. I hadn't even thought of the self-evident argument - rights is an issue I am very interested in and it's awesome to see this.

If I had mod points (I never get them, dammit) I'd mod you up.

--

We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by plague3106 · 2006-09-14 08:25 · Score: 1

You thought wrong. Copyright is very simple; only the copyright owner has the RIGHT to make copies of the work. That's all it says. Playing isn't copying. Well, courts seem to think playing through a computer is copying but playing through a cd player isn't. Hence the confusion.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by Krondor · 2006-09-14 08:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

When your last car was worn down to rust did you also expect a free replacement from Toyota?

Flawed analogy because the cars innate value does not reside in the copywritten material encoded on the cars surface or within the car, per se. The car's value is derived in its physical ownership. A CD, in contrast, is worth pennies naturaly. The content on the CD is what is being purchased. Do you expect new food from McDonald's if the food inside the wrapper is bad (another totally flawed analogy). What about demanding new underpants because "My So Called Life" was cancelled (obligatory nonsensical response).

I thought about writing, "if the fair use act" made a provision for cars then, sure I would expect a new Toyotoa. I suppose the paragraph above counters better, especially since I said before I'm not even sure what fair use explicitely provides. It seems like it only mentions libraries;

(b) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to three copies or phonorecords of an unpublished work duplicated solely for purposes of preservation and security or for deposit for research use in another library or archives of the type described by clause (2) of subsection (a),

Again, not a lawyer, but that's the only section I found relating to legal backups.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by happyDave · 2006-09-14 09:05 · Score: 1

I'd be interested to know where the Fair Use doctrine gets in here. I think that's where the original question was coming from.

It's my understanding that the Fair Use doctrine covers the ability to make backups of certain copyrighted purchases you make.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 09:34 · Score: 0

Ding!

try again.

You can make as many copies of a legitimately purchased work as you like for your own personal use. You cannot distribute them, or lend them out or give them away - you may only lend or re-sell the orginal. If you re-sell the original, then you must destroy all copies you made for your own personal use. The law varies slightly in some places, for some works, but that is the general idea.

So long as you can prove that you possess a legitimately purchased original, *in whatever state*, then you are fine.

From a copyright perspective, if you have trashed your book or CD it is *not* legitimate to copy somebody else's copy because you did not make a backup previously. So what - the information is the same, you say. That is true, but the provenance is not. Think of it like a chain of evidence - if the chain is broken, the copy is illegitimate. Illogical it may be, but life often is.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by DamnStupidElf · 2006-09-14 11:02 · Score: 1

The key point to remember that often gets lost on people, and this is what the lawyer was referring to when he said he didn't know where the questioner was getting his/her preconception, is that copyright gives the copyright owner the right to control the making of *copies* of original works. All the questions of the questioner seem to be missing this fundamental point (although they do end up touching that important copyright issue of fair use). Unfortunately, I suspect that the idea of a license to copyrighted works -- particularly the way licenses are used with software -- has kind of screwed up people's understanding of copyrights.

Of course it's screwed up the debate about copyright, because without the ability to copy the data you can't play a DVD, MP3, or CD. Playing any digital media requires making copies of at least whole sectors from the optical media, otherwise error correction can't work (you need all the data in the hardware to correct the errors). Not only that, but decompressing MP3s or DVDs requires a buffer at least as large as the individual blocks of the media format, since the inverse huffman, quantization and DCT have to be performed on the entire block. So either it's legal to make copies of the work to play it, or it requires a license. If it requires a license, I sure haven't seen one on any CD or DVD I've bought. All it says is that it's licensed for home viewing, which doesn't exactly give me the right to make any copies, does it? That is precicely why everyone is talking in terms of rights or licenses to content, and not the original physical copyright definition. After all, when most of the copyright laws were written the only devices required to play back media did not need to make copies. Tape players directly amplified the signals coming off the tape, possibly after demodulating them. Record players were even simpler, and archives were stored on microfische which just required magnification. The digital age is completely, fundamentally different from the world copyright expects, and this is why copyright law seems so backwards today. It is. It's over 50 years old in its fundamental assumptions. The word "digital" has been tacked on to all the laws, but the basic fact is that almost every "use" of a copyrighted work today involves making multiple copies and translations of it every time it is viewed or listened to.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by jZnat · 2006-09-14 11:10 · Score: 1

Uh, cars aren't copyrighted, and you can't trivially make a backup of your car. Copyright applies to ideas; physical items don't need copyright since we don't have any matter-copiers in existence.

--
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by HermMunster · 2006-09-14 11:11 · Score: 1

Be depressed at the answer because it is not correct. He's saying you have only rights to the plastic of the CD and nothing else, when clearly it's implicit in the agreement between you and the IP holder that you bought rights to hear the music. He's almost flat out lying to you--or he simply doesn't have enough information or he's not telling you that those issues have not been addressed by the courts. At best, if he is not lying he's misleading.

Of course you have listening rights. You bought the CD with the explict intent of listening. You would not have bought the plastic CD for any other reason. There are both implicit and explict recognition that you have the right to listen.

It's like the lemon laws for cars. If you bought the car, as a normal member of your community does, you bought it for the purpose of driving the car. By his logic you have no driving rights for that car and hence the car dealership has no responsibility to give you a car that actually drives.

There's other governing laws here, but lets just say you are intending to drive it on your farm regardless of what the state may say about them granting you the privelidge. You are still entitled to drive the car even if it is on your own property. The car industry has a lemon law that keeps them from selling you something that isn't suitable for the purpose.

You didn't buy the car to not drive it, as a normal person would. You didn't buy the plastic CD to look at it or hang it on your wall. You bought the car to drive it and you bought the CD to listen to it. IP rights should simply prohibit you from transferring any implicit right to others without the transfer and abandonment of your initial purchase right. In other words, you can't sell the car and expect to be able drive it no more than you should be able to sell your CD and continue to listen to it, unless of course you gave it or sold it to say a roommate or girl friend or something like that were you would have access to it and they gave you permission to listen.

Basically he's talking out his butt. He doesn't know if you have those rights or not and it hasn't been tested in the law as to whether you have the listening rights, but certainly there is fair use and your right to make a copy of the CD for purposes of protecting it.

This is what's wrong with the lawyers. You bought the CD with the implicit and explict purpose of listening to it. This lawywer would have you believe you have only the legal right to the plastic to which it is made. Common sense should appeal to you.

What I'm saying is that he's clueless about what your rights are--nearly as clueless as the person who asked the question in the first place.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by modecx · 2006-09-14 11:14 · Score: 1

There has never been a fair use right for any copyrighted material that worked that way. Say you had a book that you accidentally dropped in the bathtub and was ruined, or maybe it was in your bookbag that was stolen. You don't have some fair use right to another copy, whether a new paperback or a digital one, just because it wasn't your fault that you lost the original copy; it's tough luck, buy another book. In fact, with music, you actually have an extra *statutory* right -- the right to make a backup. You still can't photocopy or scan an entire book to make a "backup" of it!

What is the functional diffference to anyone if you paid for a work, then said work became unusable, and you subsequently obtain a replacement at no cost to yourself, and at no loss nor any gain to anyone else? The creators of the work were paid in full the price they asked, and both parties have what they expected. Equilibrium is preserved.

--
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by shark72 · 2006-09-14 11:33 · Score: 1

"Wow, I always thought this was a fair use issue."

Don't worry... Slashdotters are famous for their misunderstanding of fair use doctrine. Falsely claiming that something is fair use is quite common around here.

"I know fair use isn't what it used to be. I didn't realize it was completely negated."

The section of copyright law that describes the fair use test has not been changed, to my knowledge, for many, many years. Where a lot of people get caught up is when copyright holders use anti-copying techniques that prohibit activity which many people consider to be fair use, such as format-shifting. Yes, you are likely legally allowed to format-shift, but the owner of the copyright is still welcome to stop you from doing so. To use a less high-tech example... small-scale Xeroxing of documents for educational use is often permitted under fair use, but nothing's stopping me from distributing my magazine on copy-proof paper, if I so choose.

Fair use doctrine is not like a mathematical formula where you can plug in a set of facts on one side of the equation and get a definite answer on the other side. This is why we have courts. Realistically, your scenario is not likely to see you brought into a court. Even if you had 1,000 CDs which were scratched and you downloaded them from a P2P network and left them in your share directory, you would be in legal trouble for sharing them, not downloading them. Sharing them is what nails you, no matter how you got the music.

"I'm depressed there had to be an answer, or a question, in the first place."

Agreed. I think the lawyer was kind. If somebody asked me if losing a CD gave one the legal right to download copyrighted music from a P2P network without the owner's permission, my response would have the phrase "freaking moron" somewhere in it. Then I would hit him with something heavy before he got to the "f" sound in his "but isn't it fair use?" retort.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 13:36 · Score: 0

Beckermann asks where the person who asked the question got this from. One possible answer is that some countries outside the USA have different laws. In Canada and the Netherlands making a copy of your copy if fair use, as is downloading. You pay a fee for that right by taxation on media such as CDs (and in the future maybe HDDs too) though.

To me, it is entirely reasonable to give a person the right to make a copy of a licensed copy. At the very least there is 1 normal, non-pirate reason for this. You can use a DAP, don't have to drag your expensive CD collection in car/train/airplane/etc where it can be stolen, forgotten, lost.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 14:07 · Score: 0

If the transient copy of digital data required to play a CD is an infringing copy, then surely the transient copy of a page of text present in the pattern of reflected photons is also an infringing copy?
How long before publishers use this fact to license books to the original purchaser? (i.e. Resale and lending are legal as required by law, but rereading requires an infringing copy hence is illegal.)
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-14 16:10 · Score: 1

In fact, with music, you actually have an extra *statutory* right -- the right to make a backup.

I know what you're thinking of, but that's not correct in several respects.

There has never been a fair use right for any copyrighted material that worked that way.

Well, anything could potentially be a fair use. I'd suggest running through the analysis. But it'll mostly hinge on the first and fourth factors.

Unfortunately, I suspect that the idea of a license to copyrighted works -- particularly the way licenses are used with software -- has kind of screwed up people's understanding of copyrights.

I agree.

--
-- 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.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-14 16:13 · Score: 1

You can make as many copies of a legitimately purchased work as you like for your own personal use. You cannot distribute them, or lend them out or give them away - you may only lend or re-sell the orginal. If you re-sell the original, then you must destroy all copies you made for your own personal use. The law varies slightly in some places, for some works, but that is the general idea.

For example, in the US, that's only true for software, and even then, only very rarely. Nothing else.

--
-- 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.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-14 16:17 · Score: 1

It seems like it only mentions libraries;

That's because that's not fair use. That's a provision that deals with libraries. It's useless for pretty much everyone else.

Fair use is at 17 USC 107. It doesn't mention backups at all. It is possible that a backup might fall under the four-factor fair use analysis, but it is also possible that it would not. It depends on the circumstances of the specific backup. There is no general rule.

--
-- 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.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-14 16:21 · Score: 1

Uh, cars aren't copyrighted

Parts of them might be.

you can't trivially make a backup of your car.

Copyright has nothing to do with whether potentially infringing actions are easy or hard. It's irrelevant.

Copyright applies to ideasphysical items don't need copyright

And yet, plenty of tangible works are copyrighted, from sculptures to architectural works. And you don't need a replicator to make copies of them, by the way.

--
-- 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.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-14 16:25 · Score: 1

Copyright is very simple; only the copyright owner has the RIGHT to make copies of the work. That's all it says.

It actually covers a lot more than that. And it never says that copyright holders have the right to make copies. It says that they have the exclusive right to make copies, i.e. the right to exclude others from making copies. If it would otherwise be illegal to make the copies (because they are libelous, or child porn, or something) then copyright won't alter that.

Patents work the same way -- they're a right to stop other people from using the invention, but not a right to use it yourself.

--
-- 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.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-14 16:41 · Score: 1

Actually, I would hazard a guess that he meant that there is no exclusive right to listen, or that there is no right to listen that trumps other provisions of copyright or contract law. And that's all correct.

This also means that a lot of your silly post is bunk. If there's no exclusive right to listen, then the copyright holder can't give you one.

As it happens, your right to listen to a CD derives from the inherent right of free speech, which copyright is a limitation on, though copyright doesn't touch on the subject of mere listening, so there's no applicable limitation. And property rights held by the owner of the CD. Listening is no different, really, from the right to use the CD as a frisbee.

As for fair use, it's never something you should rely on. Anything can be a fair use, but just as easily can not be a fair use. It depends, and it'll be different from one case to another. Sometimes making a copy of a CD will be a fair use, other times it won't be. It depends.

All in all, I'd say that he knew what was going on, and that you're the clueless one.

--
-- 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.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 17:28 · Score: 1

Good comment.
By the way, the guy who asked that question, Four_One_Nine, has only made one Slashdot comment in his life. You guessed it, question 7 in my interview. I wonder who he's working for.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by odin53 · 2006-09-14 21:40 · Score: 1

I know what you're thinking of, but that's not correct in several respects.

Yikes, you're right -- I was mixing up a few things. But that was really just an aside. That'll teach me to dash off a response without first reflecting on how long it's been since I've spent much time with IP law in any detail. :)

Well, anything could potentially be a fair use....

True; I only mean to say it has never been an obvious, settled fair use that, in the admittedly very simple hypothetical of having a scratched/broken CD, would allow one to download another copy off a file-sharing network.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by plague3106 · 2006-09-15 00:22 · Score: 1

It actually covers a lot more than that.

It doesn't though. All arguments about copyright have been about whether copyrights were violated.

And it never says that copyright holders have the right to make copies. It says that they have the exclusive right to make copies, i.e. the right to exclude others from making copies.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said "only."

If it would otherwise be illegal to make the copies (because they are libelous, or child porn, or something) then copyright won't alter that.

Why bring in that? Besides, there's no law against copying something libelous. It is illegal to libel someone, and making copies may increase damages, but its not illegal. Childporn is illegal to posses. At any rate, adding these topics to the mix adds nothing to this discussion. It actually detracts from it.

Patents work the same way -- they're a right to stop other people from using the invention, but not a right to use it yourself.

Well, I don't know how you interperated "only the copyright owner has the RIGHT to make copies of the work," but you seem to be repeating what I just said...

FWIW though, there are times you as a non-copyright holder are allowed to copy something. Format shifting and time shifting for personal use are examples.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-15 01:42 · Score: 1

It doesn't though. All arguments about copyright have been about whether copyrights were violated.

No. For example, Eldred dealt with whether a specific law was constitutional, without any copyright infringement having occurred.

But what I meant was that copyright deals with more than just copying. It also deals with creating derivatives, distribution, public performance, etc.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said "only."

No. You said that only the copyright holder has the right to make copies.

I'm saying that the copyright holder might hold a valid copyright, and thus might be able to prevent other people from making copies, but that the copyright does not confer upon him a right to make copies, so he might not be allowed to make copies of his own copyrighted work.

Copyright is the right to prevent other people from doing things. It is not a right to actually do anything oneself, or to allow other people to do things.

At any rate, adding these topics to the mix adds nothing to this discussion. It actually detracts from it.

They're just examples of how someone with a copyright might be prevented from making copies, illustrating how copyright is not a right to make copies.

--
-- 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.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by LordNightwalker · 2006-09-15 03:53 · Score: 1

Uh, cars aren't copyrighted
Parts of them might be.
No, that's patented, not copyrighted.

you can't trivially make a backup of your car.
Copyright has nothing to do with whether potentially infringing actions are easy or hard. It's irrelevant.
Correct. But since physical objects aren't copyrighted, it doesn't matter. Everything that's copyrighted is pretty trivial to copy anyway. If all works of art (using the broad term here) were impossible or prohibitively impractical/expensive to copy, copyright law would never have existed because there simply wouldn't be any need for it. However, you are correct in pointing out that the effort involved in making a copy of a copyrighted work is irrelevant.

Copyright applies to ideas, physical items don't need copyright
And yet, plenty of tangible works are copyrighted, from sculptures to architectural works. And you don't need a replicator to make copies of them, by the way.
Hmm... Not sure. What's copyrighted is the work of art. In the case of a CD, the work of art is not the physical medium itself, nor the bitpattern contained on the reflective surface, but the music that's represented by that bitpattern. Copying it to audio cassette results in a radically different physical medium, the storage pattern completely changes as well, and even the storage technique (digital vs analog) is completely different; in fact, you couldn't deviate more from the original physical object. It is, however, still considered a reproduction of the same work of art. In the case of a statue or painting though, the work of art is directly tied to the physical medium. However, what is the "work of art" being copyrighted here? The physical object, or the abstract idea or concept represented by the physical object? Frankly, I have no idea... Not that it matters: reproducing the idea means reproducing the physical object. So the point is moot, no matter what side of the line the point happens to fall on.

--
Install windows on my workstation? You crazy? Got any idea how much I paid for the damn thing?
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-15 04:01 · Score: 1

No, that's patented, not copyrighted.

Many cars have computers, and those computers have software. Also creative nonfunctional elements which could appear in paint jobs, seat fabric, etc.

If all works of art (using the broad term here) were impossible or prohibitively impractical/expensive to copy, copyright law would never have existed because there simply wouldn't be any need for it.

I disagree. For example, paintings became copyrightable prior to the development of photography. There's never been a magic technology that allows copying to occur more easily for infringers than for copyright holders. At most there is parity between them, which means it would be exactly as easy for the copyright holder to make a copy as it would be for anyone else. Often economies of scale favor the copyright holder, actually. One more CD made at the factory is much cheaper than if I burn one on a CDR.

--
-- 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.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by LordNightwalker · 2006-09-15 04:26 · Score: 1

No, that's patented, not copyrighted.
Many cars have computers, and those computers have software. Also creative nonfunctional elements which could appear in paint jobs, seat fabric, etc.
Hmm, good point; the design of the car may be (and probably is) copyrighted indeed. The same might hold up for parts of the car, such as patterns in the fabric used for the seats or things like that. Thanks for pointing that out.

If all works of art (using the broad term here) were impossible or prohibitively impractical/expensive to copy, copyright law would never have existed because there simply wouldn't be any need for it.
I disagree. For example, paintings became copyrightable prior to the development of photography. There's never been a magic technology that allows copying to occur more easily for infringers than for copyright holders. At most there is parity between them, which means it would be exactly as easy for the copyright holder to make a copy as it would be for anyone else. Often economies of scale favor the copyright holder, actually. One more CD made at the factory is much cheaper than if I burn one on a CDR.
Heh, I disagree with your statement as well. Paintings were easy to reproduce long before the invention of photography. The person reproducing the painting merely copied an existing design; the original artist is the one who did all the hard work of coming up with it and getting it onto a canvas in the first place. Painting is a little more than just applying some brushstrokes against canvas; it involves coming up with a design in the first place (unless you paint a portrait/landscape/still life/... based on real world people/scenes/objects/... you can observe while you paint), then correctly drawing the rough outlines onto the canvas, choosing the correct base and top paint colors (yes, paintings use layers) etc... Copying is a lot easier in comparison. Or to put it in terms most of us will have no trouble understanding: I played many Mozart, Beethoven etc... pieces on the piano. Doesn't mean I could've composed them though.

--
Install windows on my workstation? You crazy? Got any idea how much I paid for the damn thing?
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-15 04:49 · Score: 1

the design of the car may be (and probably is) copyrighted indeed

Actually I think that it probably wouldn't be, since it would be a sculptural work, and the utility doctrine would apply. Maybe it would work for some cars, e.g. the Weinermobile.

Painting is a little more than just applying some brushstrokes against canvas;

It's not easy. It's easier than coming up with the painting and executing it, but it's still not easy.

--
-- 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.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by plague3106 · 2006-09-15 04:52 · Score: 1

No. For example, Eldred dealt with whether a specific law was constitutional, without any copyright infringement having occurred.

Your taking my statement out of context, which is how one consumes copyrighted material.

But what I meant was that copyright deals with more than just copying. It also deals with creating derivatives, distribution, public performance, etc.

Creating derivatives and public performances have typically been viewed as 'making copies.' The question is if the derivative is different enough. If it is, its no longer a copy of the original. Same goes for public performances. If I sell my book, I've distributed it, but not broken copyright laws. If I make 100 exact copies of a book, I've violated copyright law even if I haven't distributed them.

No. You said that only the copyright holder has the right to make copies.

I'm saying that the copyright holder might hold a valid copyright, and thus might be able to prevent other people from making copies, but that the copyright does not confer upon him a right to make copies, so he might not be allowed to make copies of his own copyrighted work.

Splitting hairs. At any rate, if one can create an original, they most certainly can create copies. They might not be able to do it quickly, but it can be done. Someone that cannot afford to make copies sells the copyright to someone else, who can, but the creater loses the right.

They're just examples of how someone with a copyright might be prevented from making copies, illustrating how copyright is not a right to make copies.

Those examples are all illegal for other reasons. I don't think the law particually cares how many copies of a 'bad image' someone makes. Copying an illegal image is not illegal. If you think it is, please point out the law which makes it so.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by phorm · 2006-09-15 06:17 · Score: 1

You still can't photocopy or scan an entire book to make a "backup" of it!

Why not? If I keep the original (which, while not in usable condition, may still be recognisable as the original product), and photocopy it, copy it on a compuyter, or whatever, how am I violating anything if I do not distribute (the original or copy) and retain both as proof of ownership?

But that's not really the issue here. The issue is generally of users "sharing" files, not downloading... which while being somewhat semantical (the programs would be useless if people didn't share, and do so by default), is the big difference between copying one's own CD's or a friend's if you have the original etc.

You'll still be nailed if you rip your own discs and then have them in a shared folder. You won't be if you just rip them and stick them on an iPod or whatever.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-15 08:20 · Score: 1

Creating derivatives and public performances have typically been viewed as 'making copies.' The question is if the derivative is different enough. If it is, its no longer a copy of the original. Same goes for public performances. If I sell my book, I've distributed it, but not broken copyright laws. If I make 100 exact copies of a book, I've violated copyright law even if I haven't distributed them.

No, it hasn't been. Though I will grant that there is some overuse of the word 'copying' in various infringement tests, even when a court acknowledges that the reproduction right isn't at issue.

Regarding derivatives, if it's not very different, it's a mere copy, and the reproduction right is infringed. If it's sufficiently different, it's a derivative, and the derivative right is infringed. Only if it is seriously different can a later work based on an earlier work be neither a copy nor a derivative.

If I make 100 exact copies of a book, I've violated copyright law even if I haven't distributed them.

And if you obtain 100 unlawfully made copies of a book, you haven't made any copies, and thus haven't infringed. Mere possession of the copies isn't infringing. But if you sell them, you're distributing them, and then you have infringed.

Copying an illegal image is not illegal. If you think it is, please point out the law which makes it so.

Just because a work is rarely reproduced because it is libelous, for example, that doesn't mean that there isn't a copyright on it. Since there is no law that terminates a copyright for a work merely because it is unpublishable, the copyright holder still can come after you, just as he could with any other work of his.

At any rate, if one can create an original, they most certainly can create copies.

We're talking about the right to do so, not the mere ability.

--
-- 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.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by plague3106 · 2006-09-15 08:38 · Score: 1

No, it hasn't been. Though I will grant that there is some overuse of the word 'copying' in various infringement tests, even when a court acknowledges that the reproduction right isn't at issue.

The performance itself is a copy, and while not explicitly stated as such, thats what it is. Take a play. Each performance is more or less the same. Each performance is covered by copyright. Not everything need be in tangible form for copyright to apply.

Regarding derivatives, if it's not very different, it's a mere copy, and the reproduction right is infringed. If it's sufficiently different, it's a derivative, and the derivative right is infringed. Only if it is seriously different can a later work based on an earlier work be neither a copy nor a derivative.

There is no derivative right. Copyright is invoked because although the story may be different, many elements of the original were copied. Characters, the polictal setup of a world, etc, etc. You can't use a likeness of Micky Mouse, because Micky Mouse images are copyrighted. That you put him in a new position doesn't matter. Exceptions typically being satire however.

And if you obtain 100 unlawfully made copies of a book, you haven't made any copies, and thus haven't infringed. Mere possession of the copies isn't infringing. But if you sell them, you're distributing them, and then you have infringed.

This distinction isn't based on copyright. If you sell 100 VCRs, you're fine too. Likewise if you sell 100 stolen VCRs, you're screwed. Typically you cannot sell anything that which came about through some other illegal act.

We're talking about the right to do so, not the mere ability.

I thought you started arguing about the ability to copy, my mistake. At any rate the copyright holder does always have the right to copy anything to which they hold a copyright, which is exactly what I said originally.

The fact that an image may be illegal to posses does not strip copyright, which you acknowledge: "Since there is no law that terminates a copyright for a work merely because it is unpublishable, the copyright holder still can come after you, just as he could with any other work of his."
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-15 09:20 · Score: 1

The performance itself is a copy

I can't agree, since the law defines a copy as a material object, and a performance isn't. Also, if performing was copying, why would there be different rights for copying and performing? It's a rule of statutory construction that Congress doesn't pass redundant statutes, so they must both do different things.

Not everything need be in tangible form for copyright to apply.

No, something has to be. A play has to be written down in some fashion in order to be copyrighted. If you only did improvisational theater, it would not be copyrightable.

There is no derivative right.

Hm. Well, 17 USC 106 says this:
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

Frankly, I'm rapidly losing confidence that you have the first idea of what the hell you're talking about.

Typically you cannot sell anything that which came about through some other illegal act.

No, not at all. For example, if I trespass on your land, I can over time adversely possess it, and it becomes my land. Then I can sell it.

In copyright, if the copies are made unlawfully, but the copyright expires, there's no longer any distribution right that prevents me from selling the copies. It's fully lawful to do so, in fact.

At any rate the copyright holder does always have the right to copy anything to which they hold a copyright, which is exactly what I said originally.

And that's not true. Copyright isn't a right to make copies, it's a right to prevent other people from making copies. It's a negative right.

--
-- 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.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by plague3106 · 2006-09-18 00:47 · Score: 1

I can't agree, since the law defines a copy as a material object, and a performance isn't. Also, if performing was copying, why would there be different rights for copying and performing? It's a rule of statutory construction that Congress doesn't pass redundant statutes, so they must both do different things.

Fine. Go take a current, new play and put on your own peformance of it. See what happens.

Hm. Well, 17 USC 106 says this:

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

There's a difference between a right and something allowed by law.

No, not at all. For example, if I trespass on your land, I can over time adversely possess it, and it becomes my land. Then I can sell it.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about? The ability to do that is codified in law, and thus squatting is not illegal is it? Also, I'd like you to put out a recent case. I suspect that in today's age the law allowing squatting would be thrown out, as the original logic which put the practice into place is no longer valid. In other words, we are no longer running around looking for plots of land which don't flood, and abandoning 'useless' land.

In copyright, if the copies are made unlawfully, but the copyright expires, there's no longer any distribution right that prevents me from selling the copies. It's fully lawful to do so, in fact.

Wow, what an irrelevent argument to throw out there. I'm willing to bet that if the holder found out you made the copies before the copyright expired and could prove it, you'd still be found guilty of infringement.

And that's not true. Copyright isn't a right to make copies, it's a right to prevent other people from making copies. It's a negative right.

You're incredibilty idiotic here. You wrote a story, you have the right to copy it, even if copyright laws never existed. You don't need permission to copy your own work, just like you don't need permission to smash some dishware you own.
Re:I guess there's no Gray Area by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-18 14:04 · Score: 1

Fine. Go take a current, new play and put on your own peformance of it. See what happens.

I would be infringing the exclusive right to publicly perform the play. But I wouldn't infringe the exclusive right to make copies of it.

The ability to do that is codified in law

Actually, adverse possession comes from common law. But until the adverse possession is complete, it's merely trespassing.

Also, I'd like you to put out a recent case.

Actually it happens all the time. I recall a funny case in my old property textbook that took place in the 80's, IIRC, where there was a series of adjoining lots along a road, and each house had accidently been built on the lot owned by the person next door (e.g. A's house on B's lot, B's house on C's lot, and so on). They all had to adversely possess the lot they lived on in order to resolve the problem.

In other words, we are no longer running around looking for plots of land which don't flood, and abandoning 'useless' land.

No, that's homesteading. Adverse possession is a way of keeping land ownership simple, in that the person who appears to be the owner is the owner. It's also a function of the statute of limitations, in that if someone is trespassing, you have a certain amount of time to bring an action against them. If you let the clock run out, you can no longer sue the person for trespass, and so they end up getting ownership of the land.

I'm willing to bet that if the holder found out you made the copies before the copyright expired and could prove it, you'd still be found guilty of infringement.

I never said I made them. Only that they were unlawfully made. I just had possession of them and sold them after the copyright expired. It's good practice, when discussing legal hypos, not to fight the hypo.

You wrote a story, you have the right to copy it, even if copyright laws never existed.

I agree. But this means that the right to make copies doesn't stem from copyright. It must come from someplace else. Which is what I've been saying -- copyright doesn't give the copyright holder the right to make copies.

--
-- 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.

Anti-depressant to the rescue by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 04:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

You would be cheered up immeasurably by buying non-RIAA music. The following companies should be avoided like the plague: SONY, UMG, Warner, Arista, Interscope, Motown, Elektra, Priority, Maverick, Loud.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 04:59 · Score: 4, Informative

Also avoid Atlantic, Capitol, BMG, Fonovisa, Virgin, & Universal.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by neonprimetime · 2006-09-14 05:03 · Score: 1

There isn't much left. I guess I'm just not supposed to listen to music, or I suppose I could make my own.
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 05:06 · Score: 1

You're wrong, there's a giant universe of indy music.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by QuantumG · 2006-09-14 05:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Perhaps you could mention some then. Maybe start with your personal favourites? Then maybe we can have a discussion about the need to participate in mainstream culture.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 05:22 · Score: 5, Informative

Excellent idea. Here's a few:

Association of Music Podcasting (AMP) BoycottRIAA.com "Non-RIAA" List
Creative Commons
Defective by Design's List of DRM-Free Music Sites
dmusic
Electronic Frontier Foundation List of "Artists Online"
emusic.com
Fading Ways Records
FreeCulture.org
harveydanger.com
Janis Ian.com
last.fm
Lime Light Radio
live365.com free downloads
MagnaTune
myspace.com
Nettwerk Download Store
R.evolution I.n P.rogress
RIAARadar.com
uncoolcentral.com
Vision Metal Records

I keep a list on my blog and welcome more suggestions.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by skuzzlebutt · 2006-09-14 05:24 · Score: 1

Does anyone have a somewhat comprehensive musician list or source list of non-RIAA music/labels?

--
My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2006-09-14 05:37 · Score: 1

http://interviews.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=196 480&cid=16106142 It's a link to NewYorkLawyer's comment in this same conversation, he provides an extensive list. (No, this is not karma whoring. Answering a question just for the sake of answering it. Imagine that.)
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by soft_guy · 2006-09-14 05:41 · Score: 1

Dischord Records.

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by hkgroove · 2006-09-14 05:46 · Score: 1

For electronic music fans - everything from downtempo/chillout to drum and bass to house:

Beatport

DJ Download

Stompy
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by Dexx · 2006-09-14 05:56 · Score: 1

CD Baby

--
Feel the fear and do it anyway.
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by E+IS+mC(Square) · 2006-09-14 05:56 · Score: 1

How about digging a previous /. discussion itself?
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by hackstraw · 2006-09-14 06:30 · Score: 1

Dude, I would like to say that you are cool. It really seems as though you prefer the means over the ends and really care about what is good for people.
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by BalanceOfJudgement · 2006-09-14 07:13 · Score: 1

Here's what bothers me about this, and it touches on what the parent poster himself mentioned:

Then maybe we can have a discussion about the need to participate in mainstream culture.

Your list of non-RIAA member music producers is impressively long, and I'll definitely be keeping that list to find artists there I like.

My problem is this.

While I am not a large consumer of mainstream media, there are several mainstream bands I like - what you're essentially telling me is to stop liking them [more specifically, that I can like them I just can't listen to them, which at that point is nothing but wordplay]. While I understand the ideology behind that, I simply cannot accept its consequences - particularly because you'll be hard pressed to get that kind of approach into widespread adoption. Too many people love their Britney Spears and American Idol and will probably never understand WHY they shouldn't buy music from RIAA member corporations.

I'm not trying to be pessimist in that claim, only realist. People's habits and opinions are incredibly difficult to change. Not that I think it isn't worth it to try, but I think we need additional approaches besides "stop buying their music."

One other thing about your answers bothered me - not just because I don't like it, but in some ways it simply doesn't make sense (and that could simply be my naivete' talking, correct me if I miss something):

1. There's no such thing as a listening right, I don't know where you get that from.

If we accept that the purpose of copyright is as the Founders intended, to encourage creation and innovation by allowing creators to benefit from their work for a limited time, and that this little bit of manipulation is undertaken because of the very high social value of artistic and technological creation, then we have to ask HOW we exercise that social value - music isn't a social value if nobody listens to it.

While I won't go so far as to say anyone has a RIGHT to listen to music (because that obligates someone to create it), I will say that the social value our Founders believed in can only be exercised by society actually consuming the music that IS created. Music belongs to the culture it is created for - and as much as anyone in that culture should listen to it, so should I. In the general 'you', who are 'you' to say I have no right to?

Granted, I am speaking social theory, not law. I do wonder what your take on that thought is, though.

--

We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by ssuppe · 2006-09-14 07:20 · Score: 2, Informative

Here's a plug:

http://www.meganslankard.com/

http://www.themundaze.com/

Enjoy!
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by BalanceOfJudgement · 2006-09-14 07:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

Just wanted to add -

Interestingly, I was a huge fan of Harvey Danger's first album about 10 years ago, and thought they had disappeared into the moonlight. Imagine my delightful surprise to find them on your list - I'll be downloading their free albums when I get home. Probably will send them some $$ while I'm at it.

Yay!

--

We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by geekoid · 2006-09-14 09:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

You are implying the india recordings aren't covered by copyright, and the indie labels won't do the same thing the RIAA is doing. Both of which is false.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by jZnat · 2006-09-14 11:08 · Score: 1

Who modded this insightful? It's a joke, people! The GP misspelled "indie" as a shortened form of "independent" and instead somehow implied Indian. Blargh, stupid mods.

--
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 13:42 · Score: 0

My favorite quality non-RIAA music is from Ashmatic Kitty records. Sufjan Stevens is spectacular.
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by TheUser0x58 · 2006-09-14 14:35 · Score: 1

Matador Records is one of the biggest labels in non-RIAA music (Pavement, Yo La Tengo, Belle and Sebastien, Brightblack Morning Light and Cat Power are all popular indie bands on Matador)

Merge Records is pretty huge in terms of independent rock music. They have bands like Spoon (they're pretty popular, even in the mainstream--they were on a car commercial), The Arcade Fire (they were on the cover of rolling stone), Destroyer, and The Magnetic Fields.

For electronic music, Warp Records is pretty awesome.

Fat Cat is a pretty good one. They put out records by Animal Collective (touted by the New York Times) and Sigur Ros.

No need to participate in mainstream culture...

--
-- listen to interesting music, support independent radio... WPRB
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 15:02 · Score: 0

IANAL. No, not a wordplay. If you don't want to buy from those RIAA artists you can download music from your favourite mainstream RIAA artists just fine. The RIAA isn't after downloaders. They're not even after people who upload. They're after people who have a share list containing RIAA customers! The sharelist could be fake, that does not matter ironically. The sharelist could be faked, he addressed that somewhere.

So, if you download RIAA from a P2P network where you don't share while you download (so e.g. Usenet, Soulseek), you are safe (but not with e.g. BT, DC++). Just don't share your download folder nor reshare the RIAA music. To be a bit specific on Soulseek you'd have to play with the settings to achieve that and still have to share something as you'd get banned by people otherwise. Just share non-RIAA music then. Usenet, not requires any upload, and a gem to evade legal issues. It may cost money for subscription, or a good ISP.

So when you share something on P2P the question you should ask yourself not "do i like this enough to share"; rather "do i like this enough to share and what is the probability to get sued over doing so" or something like that.

To go off a tangent, to someone like you with those interests this may be contradicting in a way. You don't want people to buy that RIAA music, but if you don't share it, people cannot get it easily. If people think like you and want to download it instead of buying it and you don't share yours along, you are not helping people who have the exact same view as yours! Free music and non-RIAA music would be more common on P2P networks but the former is otherwise available and the latter is (usually?) still not legal.
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 17:47 · Score: 1

No reason to think they will do this. Some have spoken out against it.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 21:40 · Score: 0

While I am not a large consumer of mainstream media, there are several mainstream bands I like - what you're essentially telling me is to stop liking them [more specifically, that I can like them I just can't listen to them, which at that point is nothing but wordplay]. While I understand the ideology behind that, I simply cannot accept its consequences

This dilemma exists everywhere. While I am not a large consumer of propriatory software, there are several propriatory programs that are useful and which have no acceptable open-source substitutes. There are several companies whose products are more suitable than the competition but whose ethical practices I do not wish to support, and so on etc.
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-15 02:53 · Score: 0

There is no need to participate in mainstream culture. Define your own culture. Find like minded people and ignore the "large scale" mass media.

That's a funny remark to see on slashdot, of all places. Mainstream culture has no more power than you let it have.
Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 09:55 · Score: 1

We have gone far from what the founding fathers intended because (a) corporations rather than the creative individuals are the primary beneficiaries of the work product, and (b) the goal of returning the creation to the public after the creator has had a chance to derive some benefits from it has been thrown out the window as the duration of copyright has been extended from 25 to 75 years for purely corporatist purposes.
The RIAA-tethered bands you like are slaves too. Free them by not doing business with their slave masters.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Fair Use? by theckhd · 2006-09-14 04:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

You shouldn't be trying to educate the younger generation about this stuff. The law is unsettled. Even lawyers don't know how it's all going to play out. Plus you seem to have a general misunderstanding about the basic principles of copyright law. When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc. I don't know what gives you this idea.

Wouldn't some of this fall under fair use? Specifically ripping a CD to mp3 for listening to on a computer, iPod, etc. Are you really saying that when I buy a CD, I don't have the right to convert the music on that CD to a format of my choosing for use on a device that I own?

Note that I said for my use only, obviously if i then share that music with others the water becomes murky.

Re:Fair Use? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 05:02 · Score: 4, Informative

The law is unsettled. In order to get the US Supreme Court not to be frightened of its aggressiveness the RIAA represented at oral argument in MGM v. Grokster that making personal copies like that was ok. Now they've been saying it's not.
If they think they can win on it, I wouldn't put it past them to argue that personal copies are an infringement.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Fair Use? by theckhd · 2006-09-14 05:09 · Score: 1

Ok, so admittedly, IANAL, so maybe this is me being naive and optimistic, but in that situation couldn't the defendent cite the RIAA's oral argument in the MGM v. Grokster case in their defense? I would hope that if the RIAA stated specifically that making personal copies was ok in a legal proceeding, then they would be held to that, despite their apparent change of heart.

Not that I expect them to start suing people in this sort of situation anyway, but considering the direction the industry seems to be heading (locking everything down with DRM, effectively coercing the user into buying a seperate copy for each device) it may become relevant.
Re:Fair Use? by QuantumG · 2006-09-14 05:11 · Score: 1

Dose this mean that you are not aloud to put music on your mp3 player?.

are you trying to suggest that we do it quietly and not more than the recommended amount?

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:Fair Use? by DamnStupidElf · 2006-09-14 06:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

If they think they can win on it, I wouldn't put it past them to argue that personal copies are an infringement.

I posted about this earlier in the thread, but this requires a specific response. If the RIAA can get a court to agree that personal copies of a work are illegal (despite the existance of the fair use right to make a backup copy), they will be in a prime position to be sued on the legality of EULAs in general. If it is illegal to make a personal copy of a work, then it is also illegal to decode the work and listen to it because the decoding and possible decompression require making temporary copies in the memory or hardware registers of the decoder. Not only that, but there is a physical copy of the work either existing as sound waves in the air or an image on a video display. Not only that, but in the end the human brain translates and stores a copy of the work internally. The ears transform the work into frequency data, and the eyes make a copy on the retina, and then further transform it into internally meaningful thoughts and concepts. To make personal copies illegal would require the EULA From Hell(TM) to cover all the "allowed" paths that the media could enter the human brain, and in what form the copies could reside in the brain just so that someone could listen to a CD. At that point, it's quite likey that a judge with some common sense would invalidate EULAs in general. When I say EULA, I mean the legal "contract" that one "agrees" to by taking the plastic off a CD or software package or by clicking a button when installing software. Just see how much media the cartels can sell when each and every one of their customers must be over 18 and sign a legally binding contract just to purchase a CD.

The argument can be reduced to a simple one about books. To read a book, the reader must make a temporary copy of the work on their retinas, and then translate the words into internally meaningful thoughts which most likely will remain in the brain for some time. If fair use covers the human sensory system, why should it not extend to the devices the human sensory system uses to view the work? After all, the eyes and ears are merely tools the brain uses to interpret the world, and computers and CD and DVD players are merely the tools that the eyes and ears use to interpret digital media. If the human sensory system is chosen as the arbitrary limit for fair use, it just pushes the argument back a few years until genetic modification and implants allow the human sensory system to interpret and copy digital media directly. Making copies of information is a natural process, and trying to artifically regulate it to the point of authoritarian social control will simply fail.
Re:Fair Use? by EPage · 2006-09-14 06:55 · Score: 1

I think the thing that disturbs me most is the uncertainty coming from the experts in the legal system. If the interpreters of the law cannot agree, how am I expected, as a citizen, to read the law and judge what actions are and are not legal so that I can fulfill the intent of a just law? How can I be held accountable for a law that I do not know how to live because no one can agree on what it even means?

Are there not basic principles of which a law is support to fulfill. Two that I can remember off the top of my head include: The people being aware; Ex repo facto (which as I interpet it, the copyright extensions violate).
Re:Fair Use? by plague3106 · 2006-09-14 08:21 · Score: 1

Nope, that's allowed. Format shifting was rules a-ok. The case was RIAA v Creative (I think). It was way back when they first release the Rio... you know, the one where you transfered files over printer port..
Re:Fair Use? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 08:41 · Score: 0

Hmm...but you're not duplicating the source in that case, you are merely processing it for consumption. File sharing creates a copy of the source file, so that more than one person can access the song. You can't share your experience of a song with another person, and you can't make copies of a song that's stored in your brain. Similarly, you can't do much with the temporary buffer files that are stored in a CD player - but you can record the audio as an analog signal. So really it's about creating a USEFUL copy - useful in the sense that someone else can come along and use the data.
Re:Fair Use? by CagedBear · 2006-09-14 09:10 · Score: 1

if it is illegal to make a personal copy of a work, then it is also illegal to decode the work and listen to it because the decoding and possible decompression require making temporary copies in the memory or hardware registers of the decoder. Not only that, but there is a physical copy of the work either existing as sound waves in the air or an image on a video display. Not only that, but in the end the human brain translates and stores a copy of the work internally. The ears transform the work into frequency data, and the eyes make a copy on the retina, and then further transform it into internally meaningful thoughts and concepts.
The law is interpreted by judges who don't give a damn about any of this.
Re:Fair Use? by dexomn · 2006-09-14 13:07 · Score: 1

"Making copies of information is a natural process, and trying to artifically regulate it to thepoint of authoritarian social control will simply fail."

It will only fail because you took the red pill. =)
Re:Fair Use? by phorm · 2006-09-15 06:23 · Score: 1

You really think a judge is going to listen to an arguement about retinas and memory?

There *is* a difference between that and a storable or hardcopy duplication, not that either should be disallowed when one owns the original media or license (iTunes/etc)
Re:Fair Use? by DamnStupidElf · 2006-09-15 09:27 · Score: 1

You really think a judge is going to listen to an arguement about retinas and memory?

If judges will hear cases about evolution and prayers in public buildings, I have no doubt that the arbitrary definition of copyright in contrast with technological reality will come up at some point. Judges ultimately have to issue decisions about reality, not the ideals espoused hundreds of years ago and tweaked by greedy lawyers and businesses.

There *is* a difference between that and a storable or hardcopy duplication, not that either should be disallowed when one owns the original media or license (iTunes/etc)

There is no difference, except for the arbitrary human sensory boundary. That will ultimately shift as genetic engineering and implants allow humans to integrate digital technology into their own minds. As it is now, what prevents someone from hearing a song, and singing it again (think Happy Birthday)? Humans are very efficient at memorizing and reproducing certain types of complex information. Many people can hear a tune, and sing or whistle it from that point on. There *exists* a copy of that tune in their brain, no matter how you look at it. Copyright law simply assumed that from the beginning. The problem is that now most digital works cannot be directly recognized by the brain, and instead must be translated and copied repeatedly in an electronic device before it's human understandable. Copyright has no notion of how to handle the necessary copies and modifications without simply subsuming them into a "decoding machine." Well, where do decoding machines end and copying mechanisms begin? CD players buffer several seconds of the song before playing it to prevent CD skips from interrupting playback, but is that a genuine copy or is that just part of the decoding device? If so, how *long* can a temporary copy be kept? Can it be temporarily kept in an MP3 file on an iPod? Apparently there are no court cases or laws regarding these situations, which is the major problem for future innovation. Tivo is in a questionable legal status, for instance. The de facto standard has been that Tivo is fair use, but how much fair use that's not directly supported by law will media companies tolerate? The problem is that everything new is being defined by arbitrary lawsuits instead of well thought out laws.
Re:Fair Use? by phorm · 2006-09-15 12:25 · Score: 1

As it is now, what prevents someone from hearing a song, and singing it again (think Happy Birthday)?

Actually, it may be an urban legend, but I've heard of restaurants being sued (successfully) for singing copyrighted songs such as that very one... so perhaps that's a bad example as it's already precedent in favour of the cartels.

Am I the Only One by walmartshopper67 · 2006-09-14 04:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

... who didn't get anything from that? Who needs lawyers, I can answer every question with a synonym for "depends" myself. I realize, the law is incredibly complicated (i'm a criminal justice student myself), but come on - "I don't know what MP3 files you are talking about, how do you know you were entitled to make those copies legally?" - well fuck i don't know, was I? Stop answering questions with questions and i'll stop talking shit about lawyers.

Re:Am I the Only One by theckhd · 2006-09-14 05:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

I agree, the answer to that question in particular seemed very condescending, and almost willfully ignorant. It was pretty clear that the question pertained to mp3's made from a CD that was purchased legally:
Q: Are the .mp3 files of that CD on my computer legal or do they now belong to the thief too?

A: I don't know what MP3 files you are talking about, how do you know you were entitled to make those copies legally?

(emphasis mine)
It would have been more useful if he had answered the question that was asked, or at least elaborated more (ex: "Technically, you shouldn't even have ripped the CD in the first place" or whatever)
Re:Am I the Only One by s20451 · 2006-09-14 05:08 · Score: 1

Actually I found the answers incredibly enlightening. From reading the posts from jokers and yahoos on Slashdot who pretend to be lawyers (and then hide behind IANAL), you would think that the law on the subject is crystal clear. But, according to this guy, most of the legal theories have not been decided in case law, and anyone who tells you otherwise is talking out of their ass.

--
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Re:Am I the Only One by neonprimetime · 2006-09-14 05:09 · Score: 1, Funny

walmartshopper67 (943351)

He's not worth getting upset over, he shops at Walmart.
Re:Am I the Only One by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 05:11 · Score: 0

Seriously. This lawyer is pointing out minor inconsistencies in the questions and using them as a reason to not answer them. If he agreed to the freaking interview, what's the point of doing that? Answer the gist of the question, don't just say "what are listening rights?" What a waste of time.
Re:Am I the Only One by theckhd · 2006-09-14 05:14 · Score: 2, Informative

I don't think you need to give misinformation, but i can see where his frustration comes from. The question might have been slightly ambiguous, but the implication was pretty clearly that he ripped his legally purchased CD to mp3, and wants to know about the legality of the mp3s if the CD is stolen.

If the answer was "The law doesn't make any provisions for you having an mp3 of the CD in the first place," then you could have said as much. Pretending you don't know where the mp3's came from comes off as very rude, at least to my eyes.
Re:Am I the Only One by rabel · 2006-09-14 05:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's hard to generalize about that, because each person's facts, each person's personality, each person's intellect and ability, are different. Generally, there is no real good way to handle these cases, so anything anyone does is a mistake, in that sense. But in another sense, there are no mistakes, because there is no right answer.

Good gawd, no shit man. This is the best non-answer answer I've read in a long time. Information Content: big fat ZERO.

Hello? Lawyer guys? We all realize that everyone's situation is different. We're not asking you to write a damned legal response to a court because we're in the middle of a lawsuit. Can't you just answer the damned question? It's perfectly acceptable to say, "It's complicated, but here's my personal opinion. YMMV" or something similar.

Summary of interview: Don't share your music publicly if you want to avoid legal hassles. Lawyers can't answer questions.

Count me in on the "Still gonna talk shit about lawyers" group.
Re:Am I the Only One by BGraves · 2006-09-14 05:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

Since he is a lawyer, and answering these questions as a lawyer, he has to be extremely careful. When lawyers actually write answers, they are generally four to five page memos with many citations to include all of the conflicting case law and possibilities. If he were to write something here, then someone get sued and use it as a defense because it was not understood completely, he would be open to a malpractice suit. He was attempting to keep the answers short enough to be useful, while at the same time protecting himself. These lawyers produced the answers for free. I am sure if you wanted an in-depth answer, they would write you one and bill you per their normal rates, as opposed to being free, as they did here.
Re:Am I the Only One by walmartshopper67 · 2006-09-14 05:21 · Score: 1

Easy there, sparkplug - i realize that everything is a gray area - so just say that. In a non interactive interview format like that, answering questions with questions doesn't accomplish anything, except adding more questions. It's not your fault, everything in the law does depend on something, so perhaps this wasn't the right format for asking questions dealing with legal issues.
Re:Am I the Only One by Buran · 2006-09-14 05:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

Pretending you don't know where the mp3's came from comes off as very rude, at least to my eyes.

His attitude of answering questions he doesn't like with flippant "grow up" remarks makes him rude to mine. This guy has no sense of manners, grammar, or proper respect of others in a discussion.

I would not hire him as a lawyer if I needed one for anything.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:Am I the Only One by timbck2 · 2006-09-14 05:27 · Score: 1

If only I had some mod points at the moment - this is one of the most insightful things I've read on /. in a long time.

--
Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
Re:Am I the Only One by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 05:29 · Score: 0

Exactly. The point is that there are no black & white answers to the questions asked. If they were ever to come up in court, the decision could go either way based on the circumstances, the judge, the jury, the testimony of the prosecutor, and the testimony of the defense.
Re:Am I the Only One by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 05:31 · Score: 1

Thanks for the clarification, sorry if my response was a bit shrill.
The law is unsettled at this point. Better that people should know that.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Am I the Only One by lawpoop · 2006-09-14 05:32 · Score: 1

Lawyers are a distinct type of nerd. Think of them, and the law, as a kind of computer, or programming language, with a little bit of intelligence.

Now, imagine if you typed into a computer, "create page with data pulled from database". You would get an error. A lawyer is a little bit smarter -- they can parse your sentence and specifically identify where your query or command has failed: "I don't know what you mean by 'create'" or "'page' is ambiguous"

Basically what the lawyer is saying when he says "I don't know what mp3s you're talking about" is "You haven't given me enough unambiguous information for me to give you the answer you are looking for". It's like those old text adventure games:

> listen mp3s
Sorry, I don't know what mp3s are.
> listen ipod
What ipod are you talking about?
> get ipod from desk
OK. 1 ipod in inventory
> listen ipod.
These mp3s rock! You are really groovin' !

In order to get an answer from a lawyer, you have to have *exact* terminology. Now you know how normal people feel when they talk to computer geeks ;)

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Re:Am I the Only One by MobyDisk · 2006-09-14 05:33 · Score: 1

Mod this guy to infinity. Normally this is a trollish comment, but in this case it is dead on. This was one of the worst interviews Slashdot has had. These guys don't seem to know anything about the subject they claim to deal in. From now on, if someone says IANAL at the top of their post, that tells me the probably know MORE about the subject, not LESS. Sheesh.
Re:Am I the Only One by ari_j · 2006-09-14 05:38 · Score: 1

Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a toilet?
A: A lawyer can handle more than one asshole at a time.

To my knowledge, this joke is in the public domain. :)
Re:Am I the Only One by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2006-09-14 05:44 · Score: 1

... who didn't get anything from that? Who needs lawyers, I can answer every question with a synonym for "depends" myself. I realize, the law is incredibly complicated (i'm a criminal justice student myself), but come on - "I don't know what MP3 files you are talking about, how do you know you were entitled to make those copies legally?" - well fuck i don't know, was I? Stop answering questions with questions and i'll stop talking shit about lawyers.
Then...
His attitude of answering questions he doesn't like with flippant "grow up" remarks makes him rude to mine. This guy has no sense of manners, grammar, or proper respect of others in a discussion.

You make a post that's deliberately insulting and belittling, and you expect someone to react as if you made an intelligent, rational point? If you're not going to show a modicum of respect for someone you're trying to engage in coversation with, why on earth do you expect them to show respect for you? To quote: "grow up".
Re:Am I the Only One by Just+Some+Guy · 2006-09-14 05:53 · Score: 1

If he were to write something here, then someone get sued and use it as a defense because it was not understood completely, he would be open to a malpractice suit.

That's BS. There are certain situations where it is blatantly clear that no attorney-client relationship exists, and an interview on a global forum is obviously one of them. My wife is a doctor and has no professional fear of answering general questions ("you need to tell your own doctor about this, but here's what he'll probably say..."). I can't get sued if I tell someone who's not a paying customer that they should buy a Mac instead of another PC. What makes lawyerdom so distinctly different from every other occupation in this respect? Furthermore, if he thought he couldn't give real answers, why did he agree to the interview in the first place?

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Am I the Only One by Buran · 2006-09-14 05:57 · Score: 1

Sometimes, it takes a certain attitude to impart a particular lesson on someone. Is it immature of a parent to tell their child to grow up when the child exhibits bad behavior? I don't think so.

Respect is earned, not given, and the post was aimed at someone who had it at first and lost it over time due to a lousy attitude and lack of respect toward questioners.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:Am I the Only One by hackstraw · 2006-09-14 06:23 · Score: 1

Lawyer dude: It's hard to generalize about that, because each person's facts, each person's personality, each person's intellect and ability, are different. Generally, there is no real good way to handle these cases, so anything anyone does is a mistake, in that sense. But in another sense, there are no mistakes, because there is no right answer.

Slashdot dude: Good gawd, no shit man. This is the best non-answer answer I've read in a long time. Information Content: big fat ZERO.

Yeah, I thought so too, especially the bold part. Plus the stuff about non-evidence being evidence that would not fly in another court system, and that basically the judges are biased towards the RIAA really said volumes to me.

I can't find the quote, but it goes something like "In a system where everybody is a criminal, then the only crime is stupidity in getting caught". That seems like that is true, and the real problem is that the real losers here are those "in the system". I fully agree and suggest that everybody basically does what they want, do it carefully, and odds are you will not be caught. USENET is a real good and safe place to get what you want with little to no probability in getting caught. I don't suggest buying CDs from RIAA companies, but if you do, do it out of convenience or if it really adds value to your life. Odds are, its just as good just to copy the CD from someone else. I also highly recommend used goods. Music is too damn expensive in 2006 given all of the other crap we have to pay for. The artists get almost nothing, so don't feel as though you are hurting them. Be careful, and just face it. You are a law abiding criminal, so just don't get caught and suffer the consequences.
Re:Am I the Only One by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:33 · Score: 0

Good gawd, no shit man. This is the best non-answer answer I've read in a long time. Information Content: big fat ZERO.
EVERYTHING he wrote is very clear:

1) I don't know
2) Stay out of trouble (don't get caught sharing)
3) Don't let your ass be on the line as unsettled issues get settled

Were you looking for something in the way of a software patch?: No
thought on your part just double-click and problem fixed!
Re:Am I the Only One by Wooky_linuxer · 2006-09-14 06:36 · Score: 1

You read it wrong. AFAI understand american law (and that's not very far) it is a grey area whether copying copyrighted, legally purchased, even nonDRMed material is legal or not. Basically he said that until that is settled, answering the other questions is moot. Come on, I am not even american and I got that one.

--
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
Re:Am I the Only One by Hijacked+Public · 2006-09-14 06:41 · Score: 1

They know it now.

If only you could get them to actually understand it, and stop with linking to obscure blog entries and posting out of context excerpts of laws that have never been tested in court, as if they carried some kind of legal weight, then we'd have some progress.

--
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Re:Am I the Only One by AJWM · 2006-09-14 06:47 · Score: 1

Would it be fair to say that, when a lawyer says "the law is unsettled" (possibly preceded by "I don't know the answer to that because"), it really means that it's a crapshoot because some judges are going (have gone) to go one way, and some another -- and it won't really be settled until somebody manages to drag it up though the appeals process to the Supreme Court?

In other words, just because you and I may think that the law should be interpreted a certain way, some judge may think differently, and unless the Supreme Court (or at least the Appeals Court for that Circuit) has rendered a decision on it (and in favor of our interpretation), we could be SOL. (Of course if a given judge has already decided a similar case, you've got a pretty good idea of what his interpretation is -- and you can bet that RIAA is going to try to venue shop for a friendly judge.)

--
-- Alastair
Re:Am I the Only One by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2006-09-14 06:49 · Score: 1

Sometimes, it takes a certain attitude to impart a particular lesson on someone. Is it immature of a parent to tell their child to grow up when the child exhibits bad behavior? I don't think so.
That is also a valid point, but it seems to support my case more than yours. If you consider NYL as the "parent" telling the "child" to grow up for exibiting bad behavior... I'm not trying to be insulting with that (I realize it could seem that way), but it seems to fit a lot better than what I think you're saying -- that your insults/attitude was the equivalent of telling the child to "grow up". (Aside: I would hope a parent wouldn't tell their six-year-old to grow up... teenagers, on the other hand, are a different story.)
Respect is earned, not given, and the post was aimed at someone who had it at first and lost it over time due to a lousy attitude and lack of respect toward questioners.,

My philosophy is somewhat different -- I'll give everyone a minimum of respect until they do something that indicates they don't deserve it.
In this case, I didn't see any lack of respect, at least not until the response to your post. While I admit his initial response to the question at hand was a bit flippant, it was also a valid point -- in law, you can't make assumptions. A poorly worded phrase can cost millions.
Re:Am I the Only One by anagama · 2006-09-14 06:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

From now on, if someone says IANAL at the top of their post, that tells me the probably know MORE about the subject, not LESS. Sheesh.

Perhaps you have had the experience that the deeper into a particular subject you get, the MORE you know you DON'T know. So if you ask a lawyer about a subject in which he/she has extensive knowledge, for certain fact patterns, the answers you get will be closer to "I don't know, it isn't settled". If you ask someone who has a casual understanding, that person is much more likely to say "Oh yeah, that's fine -- no question about it."

This applies in any field -- those with greater knowledge actually know what they don't know. Another thing to realize is that when a lawyer gives you an answer you don't like, it isn't because he wants to piss you off. It's because that's the answer. The lawyer may be sympathetic but if the answer is against you, wouldn't you rather know?

However, if you insist on non-pro advice perhaps the next time your car breaks down, ask a guitarist how to fix it. Next time you have a legal issue, ask a car mechanic how to fix it. And next time you want to learn a new chord on your guitar, ask a lawyer for help. You might find someone by luck who knows the other fields from off-hours research, but chances are, you're car won't work, you're music will suck, and you'll end up in jail/owing people money. Best of luck though.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:Am I the Only One by Buran · 2006-09-14 07:12 · Score: 1

While I admit his initial response to the question at hand was a bit flippant, it was also a valid point -- in law, you can't make assumptions. A poorly worded phrase can cost millions.

Then why not write, as I would have, "It seems to me that the question you are asking is (blah). Is that correct? Please clarify. If that is indeed what you asked, the answer is..."

That's the polite and intelligent way of saying "I think this is what you are asking, here is what I think you are asking. Here is the answer to that question." It leaves the poster open to politely responding "Yes, that is what I meant" or "No, I was unclear. I was asking..." and also makes sure that the given answer is clearly tied to a particular, clarified question.

Playing stupid just makes the responder look stupid.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:Am I the Only One by 6 · 2006-09-14 07:20 · Score: 1

His answer was fine though linguistically a bit short handed. His first statement summed it up. This is unsettled law, don't try to nail down answers and tell them to people.

In the case of CD ripping. You, I, and pretty much any rational person believes we have every right to rip our CDs to mp3 and put them on hard drives, ipods etc. However this is NOT settled law. The RIAA very much would like that not to be a right and are pushing with lawyers and money to make it so.

"How do you know you have a right to rip that cd?" You know it through faith and common sense. In this case faith is likely misplaced and common sense is no defense in a court of law.

Any other answer really does place you at risk. The risk may be small and illogical but it is still a risk.
Re:Am I the Only One by sharp-bang · 2006-09-14 07:20 · Score: 1

In order to get an answer from a lawyer, you have to have *exact* terminology. Now you know how normal people feel when they talk to computer geeks ;)

Yes, and successful computer geeks (and, for that matter, successful lawyers) are those who can parse technical concepts and terminology for their clients. I have to agree with most of the above criticisms - if these guys had anything on the ball, they could easily have expended a little effort to interpolate the questions. Do these guys understand that this is one of the most popular sites on the Web; that thousands of people will read this? This is not the place for flippant snark, and they've basically reinforced some basic stereotypes of lawyers as well as blown a big chance.

--
#!
Re:Am I the Only One by sharp-bang · 2006-09-14 07:39 · Score: 1

Well said. This is why I tell my clients not to rely on lawyers for business advice. It's useful to come to them with technical questions about the law, but never ask them anything along the lines of "what should I do". Going on record with any sort of interpretation at all makes them very tongue-tied. That being said, these guys are really going out of their way not to elaborate on their answers. PR geniuses they ain't. (Perhaps that has a bearing on their stated lack of success in court?)

--
#!
Re:Am I the Only One by Infonaut · 2006-09-14 07:55 · Score: 1

From reading the posts from jokers and yahoos on Slashdot who pretend to be lawyers (and then hide behind IANAL), you would think that the law on the subject is crystal clear.

I think it's natural for people to want the answers to be crystal-clear. That's particularly true for technology-oriented people, who expect life to be logical.

I also suspect that part of the reason lawyers have such a bad rap is that they delve into all of these fuzzy, grey areas. They get their hands dirty grappling with issues that are contentious and seldom provide satisfaction for all parties. They're plumbers. People need plumbers, but they don't necessarily enjoy having them around.

--
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Re:Am I the Only One by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 08:03 · Score: 0

You provided an excellent, succinct summary of this entire discussion, and emphasized the key points most people here missed. I wish I had mod points today. Cheers to thee.
Re:Am I the Only One by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2006-09-14 08:05 · Score: 1

who didn't get anything from that? Who needs lawyers, I can answer every question with a synonym for "depends" myself.

My best friend is a lawyer and he does this stuff all the time too. Lawyers get really really good at learning how to answer every question they get with something evasive. This is in part because the USA is far too litigious and they know that if they answer a question that is true 999.999 times out of 1 million, the 1 in a million guy who is an exception will sue them for not being right in his particular case. The funny thing is, my friend has told me that lawyers like the law to be clear cut and not vague. He has stressed that lawyers hate vagueness. Yet if you ask a lawyer any question, I doubt you'll get anything but a vague answer. Remember, President Clinton was a lawyer, which is why he was able to come up with the incredible "That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" defense. I found this exercise rather pointless and frankly, I don't think the lawyers understood some of the questions they were asked, evasive answers or not.
Re:Am I the Only One by uufnord · 2006-09-14 08:47 · Score: 1

You were not the only one thinking that. I exhaustively concur.
Re:Am I the Only One by shark72 · 2006-09-14 08:59 · Score: 1
"From now on, if someone says IANAL at the top of their post, that tells me the probably know MORE about the subject, not LESS."

...and in 25 words, you have encapsulated the prevailing attitude on Slashdot toward legal matters. I'll make a clumsy attempt to elaborate on this attitude:
1. The law is consistent, and thus it's easy to draw correct analogies: the law about X says this, and X can be compared to Y, therefore Z must be true!
2. The law is easy to understand. If applying Occam's Razor contradicts your understanding, go with your understanding. (Recent example: Slashdotters have found lots of obvious prior art, yet Apple paid $100MM to license the Zen patent, thus Apple's lawyers must be stupid and/or uninformed. The prior art is valid simply because Slashdotters think it is.)
3. Complex legal issues can be authoritavely answered in just a few sentences. If the answer is "I don't know" or "that depends" or "that's for a court to decide, keep finding analogies per #1 until you're sure you're right.
4. Judges and others involved in the legal profession are largely luddites, or are incapable of understanding technology on a level of that of Slashdotters (reading decisions and other documents dispells this notion).
--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:Am I the Only One by sustik · 2006-09-14 09:14 · Score: 1

That is why you should not buy CDs, but instead download from iTunes, emusic.com, allofmp3.com, etc. If you are still buying a CD (especially from an RIAA member label) you are part of the problem. (If you buy from the band directly, ask them, I doubt that they will have a problem with you listening to their music while jogging, etc.)
Re:Am I the Only One by MobyDisk · 2006-09-14 12:02 · Score: 1

Okay, I am getting jumped on for my exaggerated statement about IANAL. I'm not really saying that lawyers are dumb - I'm really saying that this particular lawyer didnt' take the questions seriously and didn't add anything that we didn't already know. He really came-off as arrogant and not very knowledgable. Maybe my expectations were too high. Both replies to my post used one of my favorite phrases: know what you don't know. You are both correct.

Regarding some of your points:
1. You are right. That is exactly why I was hoping a lawyer would provide some answers. Or at least legally-informed opinions.

2. There is something wrong with the law when a series of experts in a field get together and conclude something, and the patent office or relevant legal authority concludes something else. I'm not saying that Slashdot provides a complete picture of any legal topic, but there are some serious clashes between law and technology that result in some real non-sequitors.

3. Nobody asked for the answer to be a few sentences. If this group wanted an interview, they should have been prepared to type more than a few sentences. I guess the expectations were off.

4. I am pretending that I heard sarcasm here. Are you saying that a group of technologists does not understand technology more than a group of older men?
Most of the judges decisions rest on applying legal knowledge on top of expert witness testimony. In theory, the judges should be able to be luddites and still make accurate decisions. But it is difficult to present a clear picture of a technology issue in a courtroom, especially when a line of expensive lawyers are paying to find an expert who will say what they want.
Re:Am I the Only One by Longfinger · 2006-09-14 12:49 · Score: 1

Your comment is the opposite of insightful. It's ignorant.

Everyone would love to have certainty, but this guy is trying to tell you that there is no certainty in this area of the law. People like things to be black and white, but very few things in life are.

When he says the law in this area is unsettled, that means that there are several legitimate but conflicting viewpoints, but no definitive answer yet from a court (or legislative body) as to which of these viewpoints is correct.

You're asking him to tell you with certainty who is going to win the Super Bowl in January, and he's trying to tell you that this is an impossible request. Sure, there are people out there that will say that so-and-so will win the Super Bowl for sure, and a lot of people believe them because they like certainty, but anyone with half a clue knows that you can't accurately predict the future.

The guy is on our side. Listen to what he's saying even though it isn't exactly what you want to hear.
Re:Am I the Only One by rabel · 2006-09-14 13:14 · Score: 1

You know, I understand what you're trying to say here. The problem with your response, and the problem with people who respond just like you do here, is that you have this attitude that everyone is ignorant because the law is flexible and changes and nobody knows because this case law hasn't been established and gee whiz you sure are an ignorant ignoramous because you don't know THE LAW like all the rest of us really smart people do.

Sigh You know what? I really *DO* know the law. No, IANAL, but I have sucessfully represented myself ProSe in court and had objections sustained and have filed documents, blah, blah, blah. It's all just so much process and procedure. Lawyers ain't all so much smarter than everyone else and they really need to get over themselves. In fact, you sound like you need to get over yourself as well.

Nobody is asking anyone to predict the outcome of a sporting event. This is fucking rules of how we should all live our lives and it shouldn't require a god-damned $250 / hour attorney just to know if I can listen to my god-damned music that I've burned to my iPod after some asshole ripped-off my CD's from my car. Furthermore, the god-damned $250 / hour attorneys need to get over themselves and answer the god-damned questions to the best of their ability.

Let me put it in geekese:

If Consulting Agency "A" bids a development job out at $148,400 with so-many hours of so-many types of developers, DBAs, Project Leads, etc. and Consulting Agency "B" bids out the same development job with "Gee, development is hard and unpredictable, we don't have any idea how much it will cost you." Who do you think will win the contract? We all know that the price could go up based on unknowns, but at least with agency "A" I have some semblence of an idea of how much it will cost and I can begin to budget.

Like I said, it's perfectly fine to answer the question with, "Case law has not been established, but in my opinion, based on my experience with these types of lawsuits and the types of judges I have been in front of... I'd say you're pretty safe if you listen to those MP3's you made of the stolen CD's, just don't share them." OR WHATEVER.

Good god, we all realize that nobody can predict the outcome of a lawsuit, and justice is served differently based upon how much money one has to commit to the task. WE GET IT. Now just answer the god-damned question or don't offer to be interviewed. Sheesh.
Re:Am I the Only One by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 14:05 · Score: 0

Careful for what? Lawyers are faithful to some kind of cult. That Oath they swear by when they become a lawyer...
Re:Am I the Only One by Longfinger · 2006-09-14 15:05 · Score: 1

I shouldn't have used the word ignorant. I responded to your post's moderation in an overly-harsh manner.

I wasn't trying to say that I'm smart and you're not because I know the law is gray and you don't. I was trying to say that even though we all want useful answers from this guy, he's telling us that there are no useful answers, and you attacked him for it.

He could have played it safe and advised us all to do exactly what the RIAA says. That would ensure that none of us ever got sued. Very few of us would have been happy with that since we don't agree with the RIAA's interpretation of the law (and we're probably right). However, since there is a chance that their interpretation of the law will end up becoming the definitive interpretation, any course of action that doesn't conform to the RIAA's standards is fraught with peril due to their aggressiveness and their resources. So he is justified in saying that there is no correct answer: if you follow the RIAA standard, you could be giving up your rights, but if you oppose the RIAA, you could lose a lot of money and time even if you end up winning (plus there is a chance you will lose).

In other words, he cannot give out prescriptive advice to the general Slashdot audience because any advice he gives could end up screwing people out of their rights and/or their money. I know this isn't particularly useful, but in itself this lack of a useful answer illuminates the legal trainwreck we're facing, and to me that's the value of this interview.

Anyway, sorry to flame. This is a fascinating and important issue, and I'm glad it's getting debated here.
Re:Am I the Only One by rabel · 2006-09-14 16:30 · Score: 1

Aww, I love you man!

Well done, I appreciate the explanation. I agree, and I think we always agreed. The lack of any useful answer indicates that this is a total trainwreck.

Oh, and for the rest of you, let this be a lesson. Use "god damn" enough and everyone will eventually decide that you're righteous.

I think it's fascinating as well. Why do we need lawyers to help us figure out if we can listen to music? The answer is because of the RIAA. They're evil and I don't buy any RIAA music. Neither should anyone else. Thank you for the gracious response and I apologize for my own name-calling. You're the better gentleman than I.
Re:Am I the Only One by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-14 16:54 · Score: 1

This is in part because the USA is far too litigious and they know that if they answer a question that is true 999.999 times out of 1 million, the 1 in a million guy who is an exception will sue them for not being right in his particular case.

Meh. I'd say it has more to do with a desire (and a duty) to be accurate. This means that where there are two possible outcomes, even if one is much more likely than the other, you can't just discount one of them and ignore it.

The funny thing is, my friend has told me that lawyers like the law to be clear cut and not vague. He has stressed that lawyers hate vagueness.

I'd say it depends. It's often quite useful, since the law needs to be flexible. I have no problem with a certain degree of vagueness, if it's in the right place, in the right way.

Remember, President Clinton was a lawyer, which is why he was able to come up with the incredible "That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" defense.

And that was a valid argument he made, if a thin one. He said 'There is no sexual relationship with her,' which is correct, if by 'is' you mean 'is presently' (since he had ended the relationship previously) as opposed to 'is or was.' Programmers work with languages in which things must be described precisely. So do lawyers, except that the languages in which we must be precise are the ordinary languages that everyone uses, often in quite imprecise ways. Legalese is just a side effect of trying to be precise.

--
-- 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.
Re:Am I the Only One by TheoMurpse · 2006-09-14 19:17 · Score: 1

This is the most accurate comment I've read for this article. What no one seems to be taking into account is that these guys could be open for malpractice if they go into too much detail, because then it could be argued that an implicit contract was made between the readers of Slashdot and the lawyers for legal services.
Re:Am I the Only One by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-15 00:06 · Score: 0

I hope to God that was sarcasm.
Re:Am I the Only One by dogod · 2006-09-15 01:55 · Score: 1

"You are a law abiding criminal, so just don't get caught and suffer the consequences.

lol
Re:Am I the Only One by TommydCat · 2006-09-15 04:25 · Score: 1

Lawyers are a distinct type of nerd. Think of them, and the law, as a kind of computer, or programming language...
I'm with you...
with a little bit of intelligence.
Lost me... :(

--
This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
Re:Am I the Only One by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 05:17 · Score: 1

Thanks. Yes there's something incestuous going on here, where non-lawyers are listening to each other for legal advice, convincing themselves of having cosmic 'listening rights' and the like.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Am I the Only One by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-16 10:52 · Score: 1

Thanks, Longfinger. Your civilized tone is much appreciated.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Am I the Only One by The+Man+From+Sears · 2006-09-23 22:33 · Score: 1

I personally took that answer as kind of a warning. To me, the interview basically said, "The RIAA has us all, customers, lawyers, judges and fileshares, up on stage dancing away. And before any of us can figure out what's going on, they change the sets and music."

Ultimately, we're all pretty much standing in a grey area right now, but the RIAA has control of the show's spot light.

Question 7 not understood by jandar · 2006-09-14 04:56 · Score: 1

The Gray Area Questions I found most interesting, unfortunately in part 1) it was clearly ("I don't know what MP3 files you are talking about") not understood that the subtopics referred to the legally purchased CDs.

Perhaps someone can give info about this?

Re:Question 7 not understood by BadMrMojo · 2006-09-14 05:55 · Score: 1

I don't want to attempt to put words in anyone's mouth but I think that the answer could also have been phrased as, "You haven't given me enough information to give you an accurate answer." You'd think the Slashdot crowd would get that.

Did you copy and rip these audio tracks to .mp3 format without express consent of the copyright holder? Was this a hybrid CD with both .mp3 and .aif files? Did you go through a filesharing network to get .mp3 files which correspond to the tracks which you purchased on disc?

I'm sure there are more questions on top of that. The questioner simply assumed that his entire story would be understood by implication, which simply won't fly with any decent lawyer (said by someone who has to live with a future one and has seen the way that law school literally changes the manner in which one considers an argument). While it's easy to be critical of the attorneys for being a bit brief (no pun intended), I greatly appreciated the chance to hear a few direct, simple answers.

Stark, simple and a bit horrifying in what they imply... Sums it up for me.

Yep...you get it coming and going. by FatSean · 2006-09-14 04:57 · Score: 1

This issue was always the one that pissed me off. I can't copy my CDs because I only have a liscense to listen to the music...so why can't I get a free new CD if I mail you the un-playable CDs?!

Fuck it, just keep stealing the music. They'll never get us all.

Personally, I've given up on network file-sharing. I have a group of friends and we have a little system see....and the RIAA will never catch me.

At least, not until they buy off the Republicans again and give cops the right to a warrant-less search of your house for non-disc-form music and video!

Which might happen...

--
Blar.

Re:Yep...you get it coming and going. by Hijacked+Public · 2006-09-14 06:10 · Score: 1

It would be cheaper for them to just buy out one of your friends. I am sure they would turn for much less than any elected official.

--
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Re:Yep...you get it coming and going. by plague3106 · 2006-09-14 08:19 · Score: 1

Who said you only had a license to listen to it? Copyright only prevents you from copying the CD. Nothing about copyright prevents you from listening to it, nor does copyright give you a 'license' to ask for free replacement media.

Comment on Answer 10 by Speedy8 · 2006-09-14 04:58 · Score: 1

I would think that the easiest way to get around this is if you forget the password. If your all shoken up about the case, and forget, who can argue with that?

Re:Comment on Answer 10 by Rick+Zeman · 2006-09-14 05:05 · Score: 1

I would think that the easiest way to get around this is if you forget the password. If your all shoken up about the case, and forget, who can argue with that?

The Marines at Guatonomo where he'd be sent because "terrorist" has been redefined (again).
Re:Comment on Answer 10 by YankeeInExile · 2006-09-14 05:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Do you think it is truly wise to play game the system with a judge who has considerable discretion in issuing contempt citations?

--
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
Re:Comment on Answer 10 by MindStalker · 2006-09-14 05:15 · Score: 1

Or maybe some bioauth that requires that you be calm! :)

I'd never get into my computer.. Damnit,, password didn't work.. Damnit.. It didnt' work again!!!

Thank you! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 04:58 · Score: 0

I really hope that your answers will prevent a lot of future white noise about these issues here at Slashdot and that we don't need to jump on FUD articles certain Slashdot editors keep posting from time to time.

I wish lawyer interviews would become more frequent to bring back the old good Slashdot quality back from the concentration camps of infotainment. This could have saved us from this whole SCO BS soap ad many other FUD that is repeated here as if it was stuff that would matter.

Thank you!

Re:Thank you! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:38 · Score: 0

Are you reading the same responses I am?
The article contains more than its fair share of FUD, with even more being posted under the "NewYorkCountryLawyer" nick. The RIAA is an international group that will try to get you imprisoned in France for downloading MP3s from AllOfMP3.com. WTF? You should buy music from Indy labels because the RIAA is the only group in the universe suing people for copyright infringement. Indy labels would never do that if all of their music was the dominant traded content on P2P piracy networks. Seriously?
Oh! Oh! I know. What about "The RIAA is telling the Supreme Court it doesn't have a problem with people ripping MP3s for their own personal use, but would ban that if it got half a chance, cackle-cackle"? Seriously, what kind of insanity is this? Are we talking about an industry group trying to stop piracy or Austin Powers's arch nemesises crowding around a table with Dr Evil trying to think of the next evil scheme? Does anyone think the RIAA wants to sue people who are doing the RIAA's members no harm?
The overwhelming impression I get from these clowns is that they have no idea why the lawsuits are being initiated, and they don't care either. Indeed, they're content to spread FUD so potential clients can think the RIAA is just indiscriminately suing people, that it has no evidence of wrong doing but is doing it anyway, that they don't even have the law on their side - because, y'know, the law is somehow unclear on whether it's ok to REDISTRIBUTE SOMEONE ELSE'S CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION TO MILLIONS OF ANONYMOUS STRANGERS.
The law is clear. Using copyrighted materials for all but a small group of "fair use" provisions that, while subjective, are clearly not going to include redistributing content in this way or even offering it for redistribution, without being the copyright holder or licensed by the copyright holder, is blatently an infringement of copyright.
There's no way to pretend otherwise. A filesharer makes a copy. The express purpose of that copy is for a P2P program to redistribute on demand to anyone who wants it. That copy violates copyright law. End of story. There's no way to read the law, or the intent and implementation of fair use, as anything otherwise. No it hasn't been tested at the Supreme Court, but why would it? It's fucking obvious. Nobody's going to advise their clients to fight that principle that far, it's too expensive and pretty much a guaranteed loss.
What we have here is a combination of ambulance chasing and PR. You received a demand for $3,500? Pretend this is the thin-end of a wedge. You're going to need a lawyer for that, right? I mean, they'll sue you and then turn around and sue you again, because they can! You need a lawyer, and what better lawyer than one who regularly posts how TEH RIAA IS TEH SUX0RZ! on Slashdot? You've got to go with them, they're fighting the Man, man!
Clowns to the left of me. Artists on the right. Here I am stuck in the middle with you.

Evidentiary Procedure by loimprevisto · 2006-09-14 05:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

Regarding question 9, this bothers me... it bothers me quite a bit. I know virtually nothing about court procedures (just what I've seen in movies, so might as well change that to nothing), but isn't there ANY formal way to make them account for their evidence? I've read a little bit about digitial forensics, and the exacting procedures specialists go through at each step to be able to say for certain that the evidence is untainted- under what basis are screenshots allowed at all as evidence? Is it pretty much just because the MPAA/their lawyer says they should be?

--
Much Madness is divinest Sense --
To a discerning Eye --
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness

Re:Evidentiary Procedure by spyrochaete · 2006-09-14 05:26 · Score: 1

Conversely, couldn't a defendent countersue the RIAA, challenging them to surrender all their hardware for investigation of their analysis techniques? Or is that right reserved for the party with the most money?
Re:Evidentiary Procedure by coop247 · 2006-09-14 05:56 · Score: 1

You are absolutely correct that the entire underpinning of each case is a joke. An astute judge would laugh them out of court, as the Netherlands and Canadian courts have done.
I'm amazed that these 60 year old judges don't understand the "tubes", I sent him an internet yesterday. Someone get Al Gore to explain this.

--
//TODO: Insert catchy phrase
Re:Evidentiary Procedure by kindbud · 2006-09-14 06:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you go read the documents he links to in that answer, where he says "We tried, we tried..." you'll find that it was in the discovery process where the screenshots were being shown to the court. At this point in the case, the plaintiffs had only a list of John Does, associated with an IP address. Each IP address had a list of songs that the plaintiffs - the RIAA - had downloaded from the host at that address. The court ruled that for discovery to proceed, all the RIAA had to do was show prima facie evidence that a case could be made. The statures say that prima facie evidence consists of (a) proof of the plaintiffs rights to the song downloaded and (b) the infringing copies of the songs. Boom, that's prima facie evidence that there is a case. Now all that needs to be discovered is who is the defendant. But making the argument during discovery that the evidence of IP address is insufficient to prove infringment on the part of the John Doe misses the point, according to the judge. The court at this point is just trying to identify the defendant, but the attorney for the defense is arguing that the case should be dismissed before the plaintiff learns who he is suing.

Wrong argument, wrong point in the case. This needs to be argued after an identified someone gets to court to defend themselves against the suit.

I am disappointed in the answer he gave, and the case he cited to support his contention that "the court won't listen."

--
Edith Keeler Must Die
Re:Evidentiary Procedure by squiggleslash · 2006-09-14 06:40 · Score: 1

It's reserved for the party or parties that would actually get something relevent to the case at hand. Someone defending themselves in a P2P piracy suit is highly unlikely to explain any good reason why there'd be evidence exonerating them on a recording industry owned computer.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Evidentiary Procedure by spyrochaete · 2006-09-14 07:18 · Score: 1

You don't have to exonerate yourself in a countersuit. You'd be suing them to prove that their methods are inadequate to incriminate anyone, and would therefore require intimate knowlege of their methodologies.
Re:Evidentiary Procedure by sweatyboatman · 2006-09-14 07:46 · Score: 1

For example there might be the undoctored screenshot of my computer's share list. So that instead of showing my list of legally shareable works (public domain recordings, stuff I made at home) it shows "Michael Jackson - Thriller.mpg" or whatever else they think I'm stealing from them.

Or a manual on how to doctor screenshots of the various file sharing programs.

Or a document digitally signed by the president of RIAA saying "Man are we going to screw this 'Sweatyboatman' guy".

I mean, it's a fishing expedition, right? They want the court to authorize the theft of my computer so they can prove their suspicions that I've stolen their music. I want the court to authorize the theft of their computers so I an prove my allegations of falsified evidence. What's good for the goose, after all.

--
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Re:Evidentiary Procedure by loimprevisto · 2006-09-14 07:49 · Score: 1

Thank you very, very much! The documents were tough reading in places (that's part of the reason I posted first... hoping someone would do the tough work for me :P); but I came across some interesting information that other people might want to read before they comment:

The exact technical procedures through which the IP addresses in this case were harvested and the technical validity and reliability of those investigative techniques are not explained. Since plaintiffs has not shown how they harvested the IP addresses, it is impossible to discern that these IP addresses were not simply invented.

...

When a regular node connects to a supernode, the regular node sends to the supernode a list of hashes corresponding to file names and metadata for all files in the regular node's shared folder. The supernode then adds this data to the supernode's master index. The transfer of the regular node's hash data to the supernode does not involve the uploading of any files from the regular node's shared folder to the supernode. Only the hash data is transferred to the supernode, not the files themselves. Because the supernode's hash data is an aggregate of all hash data collected from the regular nodes connected to it, the supernode responding to a search request may simply be providing a list of files that actually reside on other computers, not the supernode's computer.
This is from the well-presented expert testimony about how p2p networks works and the problem with the evidence presented by the MPAA. I never found a contention to those arguments in the other papers I looked at, only:

As has previously been explained to the Court in the Whitehead Declaration filed with the original Ex Parte Motion to Take Immediate Discovery, upon finding Defendant disseminating large numbers of copyrighted works, Plaintiffs gathered substantial evidence of Defendant's illegal conduct. Plaintiffs could not ascertain Defendant's name, address, or any other contact information, but could identify the Internet Protocol ("IP") address from which the Defendant was unlawfully disseminating Plaintiffs' copyrighted works. Even if Defendant's arguments were appropriate at this stage, which is not the case, (3) those arguments lack merit. Defendant claims that Plaintiffs have failed to set forth any basis for their allegations that Defendant downloaded copyrighted files, distributed such files to the public, and made such files available for distribution to others. As to the allegations of unlawful downloading and distribution, Plaintiffs respectfully submit that such allegations are well supported on the face of the Complaint, which shows massive infringement by Defendant. For example, Plaintiffs have gathered substantial evidence that Defendant has unlawfully disseminated hundreds of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works and have attached to the Complaint screenshots showing these works. See Ex. B, Complaint. Thus, Plaintiffs have already presented substantial evidence that Defendant was disseminating hundreds of copyrighted sound recordings without authorization and had previously illegally downloaded hundreds of copyrighted sound recordings.

3. Should the Court nonetheless wish to consider Defendants' argument that Plaintiffs have allegedly provided insufficient evidence to state a prima facie claim of copyright infringement, Plaintiffs respectfully request an opportunity to provide such evidence. Although Plaintiffs believe that the statements contained in the Affidavit of Defendant's expert Zi Mei are not relevant and should not be considered at this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiffs note that Defendant's expert is hardly independent, as he has openly sought help from Internet users in fighting Plaintiffs. See Help needed in RIAA case, http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7752 (last visited March 17, 2006) (Appendix A); Help Zi against the RIAA,

--
Much Madness is divinest Sense --
To a discerning Eye --
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness
Re:Evidentiary Procedure by kindbud · 2006-09-14 09:35 · Score: 1

Is that really a basis for completely throwing out both of the points raised originally?

It seems that it is, at this point in the case. It seems that the Defendant must come to trial, and only then can he proceed to argue that the screenshots do not link him to the infringement, but link only to an IP address that cannot realitically be associated with a person.

--
Edith Keeler Must Die

It's being eroded rapidly? by Snarfangel · 2006-09-14 05:00 · Score: 3, Funny

Lawyers are just like any other people. There are good people and bad people. The people who come out the strongest against 'trial lawyers' are the big corporations' PR departments. They want the 'common folk' to think ill of lawyers, because the law -- as imperfect as it is -- is the only equalizer left. And it's being eroded rapidly. And people dissing lawyers all the time helps that process.

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
William Shakespeare, King Henry VI, Part II, act 4, scene 2

It doesn't seem too rapid, merely universal and perpetual.

--
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.

Re:It's being eroded rapidly? by Daniel_Staal · 2006-09-14 05:14 · Score: 1

Actaully, read the context of your Shakespeare quote: In the play, the character is presenting ideas to create a dictatorial tyrrany (which he and the characters he is speaking to would run). Killing the lawyers is part of that.

(Ok, so if I remember correctly it's a fairly tounge in cheek presentation, but still...)

--
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Re:It's being eroded rapidly? by hey! · 2006-09-14 05:15 · Score: 5, Informative

Remember this was spoken by "Dick the Butcher", an evil henchman to John Cade, an illegitimate pretender to the throne.

JACK CADE.
I thank you, good people:- there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.

DICK.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

In other words, Cade is going to set up what we would call, in modern terms, a totalitarian state. Dick, who agrees heartily, with uncommon perspicacity sees that killing all the lawyers would be a good first step. After all, it is law that constrains the powerful in their actions against the weak.

Next we get Cade's response:

JACK CADE.
Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings: but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since.- How now! who's there?

In other words, he was "robbed" by lawyers, who use parchment (lambskin) and sealing wax (the product of bees) to bind a man to his word, after which is is never truly free to do as he wishes -- a sting worse than that of the bee.

So, we see those fond of wistfully citing the "kill all the lawyers" quote are pining for a system in which might alone makes right. Under such a system, only one person among the multitudes can be truly free.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:It's being eroded rapidly? by MECC · 2006-09-14 05:20 · Score: 1

Killing all the lawyers will not be of much use, as law holds equal potential to benefit all. Its disparate application arises from inequalities in wealth not in lawyers, and large corporations are the wealthiest entities in the all the land, so they are best able to use the law to their advantage.

Therin lies the problem, that we allow beings (perhaps monsters) to roam the earth, who can taste neither death nor life, but can harm anyone without feeling the edge of a whip or the sting of a hand.

--
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Re:It's being eroded rapidly? by sholden · 2006-09-14 05:23 · Score: 1

Of course Shakespeare was praising lawyers not dissing them in that quote.
Re:It's being eroded rapidly? by tom8658 · 2006-09-14 05:44 · Score: 1

> The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. > William Shakespeare, King Henry VI, Part II, act 4, scene 2 The next thing to do, of course, is to abolish this absurd idea of "innocent until proven guilty". After all, why should the innocent be brought to trial? It's unfair. Lawyers hardly have a monopoly on morally questionable behavior.
Re:It's being eroded rapidly? by Snarfangel · 2006-09-14 05:48 · Score: 1

JACK CADE.
I thank you, good people:- there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.

DICK.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

You missed the part that shows it to be comic relief:

JACK CADE.
Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven half-penny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hoop'd pot shall have ten hoops; and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king,- as king I will be...

Nowadays, it would be something like "A chicken in every pot, two cars in every garage, and NO LAWYERS!"

Or something like that.

--
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
Re:It's being eroded rapidly? by TubeSteak · 2006-09-14 05:56 · Score: 1

So, we see those fond of wistfully citing the "kill all the lawyers" quote are pining for a system in which might alone makes right. Under such a system, only one person among the multitudes can be truly free.
Well, when you start with a Democratic Republic, you have to co-opt the law makers (lawyers & politicians) to undo their own handywork.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:It's being eroded rapidly? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:05 · Score: 0

I'm no expert, I've never even read Henry VI. However, Seth Finkelstein makes a good argument that this is in fact a lawyer joke.

http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html
Re:It's being eroded rapidly? by Hobbes897 · 2006-09-14 06:20 · Score: 1

Hot damn, I love a good slashdot shakespeare thread!

--
Normality is now: overrated.
Re:It's being eroded rapidly? by hey! · 2006-09-14 06:34 · Score: 1

Oh, Shakspear was in the business of making money putting on plays. He knew how to play everybody in the audience.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:It's being eroded rapidly? by SysKoll · 2006-09-14 07:21 · Score: 1

The people who come out the strongest against 'trial lawyers' are the big corporations' PR departments.

Not just that. Today, for example, we heard that a woman is sueing a coffee shop chain for $114 millions after they refused a self-printed coupon for a free drink. She obviously found a trial lawyer to accept the job and file the ridiculous lawsuit for a ridiculous amount.

Today, thanks to that extortion attempt, trial lawyers have lost a little bit more of whatever goodwill they still had in the public's mind.

Good lawyers are great. Unfortunately, for each good fight you hear about, there are a dozen disgusting abuse of the judicial system that are turning US courts into a mockery.

--
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
Re:It's being eroded rapidly? by darkonc · 2006-09-14 09:55 · Score: 1

Good lawyers are great. Unfortunately, for each good fight you hear about, there are a dozen disgusting abuse of the judicial system that are turning US courts into a mockery.
Well, the same can be said of doctors, CEOs, Drug Companies, etc. etc. etc.
The thing is that there's not as much of a self-interest for entities with very deep pockets to go on an image-assasination binge against those groups.
I mean the press would have us beleiving that trusting our lives to the whims of the money-grubbing CEO's of near-monopolistic multinationals is better than trusting to the corrective capabilities of democracy (the worst of which is usually due to the interference of the former).

--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Re:It's being eroded rapidly? by SysKoll · 2006-09-14 11:36 · Score: 1

Well, the same can be said of doctors, CEOs, Drug Companies, etc. etc. etc. The thing is that there's not as much of a self-interest for entities with very deep pockets to go on an image-assasination binge against those groups.

Bad mone-grubbing trial lawyers are actually worse, because of the way the US system works. Each trial lawyer that attempts to game the system has a non-zero probability of hitting pay dirt, and that's why they routinely file ridiculous claims. And sometimes they *do* hit pay dirt. For them, it's a way to keep themselves in whores and coke. But for society, it's another abuse of the system that is now a precedent, and thus yet another weakness point in the social system. And social system deficiencies are ALWAYS detrimental to the layman and the individual. The rich and powerful find ways around them.

So ridiculous perversions of the courts are actually insidiously ruining society, mostly making it worse for individuals. On another hand, bad practioners of other trades don't have such a chance to pervert the system, and that's why they are more easily dealt with.

A bad CEO or a bad doctor has but one chance to profit from you or kill you. But bad legal precedents are effectively forever.

--
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
Re:It's being eroded rapidly? by TheoMurpse · 2006-09-14 19:23 · Score: 1

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
William Shakespeare, King Henry VI, Part II, act 4, scene 2
I know someone else already posted a good response, but I want to reiterate this: stop quoting this out of context, people! The speaker wants to set up a totalitarian state, and is advised that, in order to do this, he must kill all the lawyers. In other words, for this man to become a dictator, he must remove those who would safeguard the nation against his unilateral authority: lawyers. In other words:

Lawyers are the line of defense against dictatorships.

Now is that really what you were trying to say?
Re:It's being eroded rapidly? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-15 02:25 · Score: 0

I know someone else already posted a good response, but I want to reiterate this: stop quoting this out of context, people! The speaker wants to set up a totalitarian state, and is advised that, in order to do this, he must kill all the lawyers. In other words, for this man to become a dictator, he must remove those who would safeguard the nation against his unilateral authority: lawyers. In other words:

Lawyers are the line of defense against dictatorships.

A nice, "lawyerly" answer. However, as others have pointed out (including at least one link to a fairly persuasive argument), this part of the dialogue was probably supposed to be funny rather than an ode to the legal profession. There are several other Shakespearean examples of lawyer jokes as well, so this isn't something unusual.
Re:It's being eroded rapidly? by Ramses0 · 2006-09-15 03:52 · Score: 1

Don't know if this discussion is "too old", but I heard a different explanation, almost diametrically opposed to this interpretation.

--Robert

Fair Use? by johnsmith_12345 · 2006-09-14 05:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

So what does fair use mean? He just said we can't backup our CDs! Dose this mean that you are not aloud to put music on your mp3 player?.

credibility +100 by Ubergrendle · 2006-09-14 05:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

When a lawyer answers "I don't know" or "it depends", you know they're honest; when you're offered a guarantee its time to start running in the opposite direction. (note: this advice also applies to medical professionals).

He also reaffirmed my suspcisions that the justic system is highly subjectie to the whims and personalities of the justices preciding. Thank goodness for the right of appeal!

--
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"

Waste of Space by Tebriel · 2006-09-14 05:02 · Score: 1

If all the answers are "I don't know" or "Don't share your music" then what the hell was the point of posting the answers?

--
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979

Re:Waste of Space by Dryanta · 2006-09-14 05:21 · Score: 1

The basic point as I see it boiled down is its more the people running kazaa/bear-share p2p are the people getting busted. Don't fault the lawyer for telling the truth - you are the one who elected the (hard-ass music-industry dick-sucking) representatives that got us here in the first place. Now the call to action is no longer nerds on /. who never leave their mother's basement screaming "DISRESPECT COPYRIGHT!!!" It isn't the 14 year old kid downloading pop on Limewire or whatever. Just don't buy *AA cds, period. Don't watch MTV/VH1/CMT or whatever. If you have a hankering for a specific type of music, start a band AND a record label - release your own stuff under a creative commons license. Then when you see the new tagline in the papers about some kid getting their parents sued for all they are worth for a couple MB of mp3s, express your outrage in the form of letters to the editor, calling your state representatives, and letting everybody know what they are up to.
Re:Waste of Space by spyrochaete · 2006-09-14 05:29 · Score: 1

I have to agree with this. I was really looking forward to these answers and was quite annoyed to see so many partially or not answered. These chaps may be on the light side of the force, but next time let's get people who are willing to put some work into the interview, please.
Re:Waste of Space by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 05:45 · Score: 0

What you should take from it is that one shouldn't try to skate the edge of the line when the lines are still being defined

What was being asked in many ways is "how do I do X without being busted?" or "how much of X can I do and still be safe?" and the only real answer, which nobody wants to hear is "don't! because the rules are changing as we speak", but now it's actually coming from someone who knows what the heck they are talking about, so it's worth listening to
Re:Waste of Space by westlake · 2006-09-14 07:34 · Score: 1

If all the answers are "I don't know" or "Don't share your music" then what the hell was the point of posting the answers?
because a good lawyer tells you what you need to know and not what you want to hear

MP3 backups by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 05:05 · Score: 0

The gray area I find too uncomfortable. I'm surprised that with the RIAA dictating what's wrong with mp3 sharing that they don't release a firm stance on the idea of just backing up MP3's. I wouldn't be surprised if they were fine with just a backup for personal use....cause I do that quite a bit, but I don't have as much worry though cause I listen to mostly indie music and the site I "borrow" my mp3's from that I don't have the original CD, doesn't allow upload of RIAA music, which is fine with me.

The best thing that can happen is for artists to stop handing over the rights to their music to the RIAA. In this day and age, the only benefit of being signed to a major label is radio and MTV exposure, not all bands are going to benefit equally from that. In that sense I don't fully blame these lawsuits on just suits at the RIAA, the suits at the RIAA are backed by money made from a product that an artist decide to sell them of his or her own free will - If you want to be ticked that the RIAA is going to sue you cause you have a Madonna MP3, than Madonna is the first person who made a decision (the selling of that track to the industry) that could end with you getting sued for having that particular MP3, Madonna could easily have not signed the contract in the first place and she has far more than enough money to have created a small label on her own to release it. So in effect I see a little bit of doom for people expecting something great to come of these lawsuits, cause if the RIAA is somehow defeated than music creating copyright fans may seek even more hardline companies to deal with. In the end, it was an artist decision to release music by that method. Don't hate the game, hate the player.

What, no disclaimer? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 05:05 · Score: 1, Funny

So is this Legal Advice, or should we contact our own attorney with questions about how the law applies to our circumstances? :-)

Re:What, no disclaimer? by Farmer+Tim · 2006-09-14 13:08 · Score: 1

Most of the answers are disclaimers, and the rest didn't claim enough to need disclaimers.

--
Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.

Re:Question 6 not understood - or lacking by russ1337 · 2006-09-14 05:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

Here is another that I dont think was understood totally:

What's the position of Americans who buy from legal offshore music sites, such as allofmp3 [allofmp3.com]?. Is this safer than downloading "free"?
Beckerman: I don't know what you're talking about. The litigation wave is worldwide. The RIAA isn't American. 3 of the 4 members of the cartel are "offshore corporations". There are different versions of the RIAA everywhere. In France, and certain other places, they bring CRIMINAL cases, not civil ones

I want my lawyer to at least have heard of "Allofmp3.com" when he's defending me against the RIAA... They should have at least a good understanding of many of the wider issues. But *sigh*. What use does it do when the Judge isn't even up for the photoshop argument... isn't it about then that you push for a jury trial?

Copyright Purpose and Private Use by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 05:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

The responses to Question 7 seem vague to me. Do fair use laws not take effect here??

1. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently stolen (along with my 5 disc changer *@$#!!) do I retain any rights to listen to that music?

. a. Are the .mp3 files of that CD on my computer legal or do they now belong to the thief too?

1. There's no such thing as a listening right, I don't know where you get that from.

a. I don't know what MP3 files you are talking about, how do you know you were entitled to make those copies legally?

1.If there is no such thing as a listening right, then the purpose and sole existence of the Audio CD medium becomes moot. Does it not??? Are we really purchasing CD's to have the mental concept that they contain Audio tracks that we once heard, and to the best of our knowledge, contained on this legally purchased CD?? What is the purpose of purchasing an Audio CD, if not to listen to it??

a. Does fair use in the privacy of ones home, concerning legally purchased copyrighted material, become NEGATED just because its not explicitly stated on the CD packaging the extent of that fair use?? I thought we lived in a free market and a free world here.

In additional response to his , if the above statement can be made by a lawyer who's fighting for the 'right side' on this issue, how does private and fair use rights have a chance in our present court system??

Re:Copyright Purpose and Private Use by captainjaroslav · 2006-09-14 06:02 · Score: 3, Informative

A lot of slashdotters refer to the "fair use laws" in their posts. IANAL, I'm a librarian in fact, but I'm pretty sure there are no such things. "Fair Use" is a defense, it's not really a law or a set of laws. There are a set of loose guidelines that are used to determine whether a particular use of copyrighted material is "fair", but there are no hard and fast rules. Different judges will frequently reach different outcomes given the same case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

--
I'm just sayin'.
Re:Copyright Purpose and Private Use by kindbud · 2006-09-14 06:22 · Score: 1

There is no "fair use law." There is a fair use doctrine, which has evolved from legal rulings. But it is not embodied in any statute. Stare decisis is all that holds it up.

--
Edith Keeler Must Die
Re:Copyright Purpose and Private Use by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 08:36 · Score: 0

> If there is no such thing as a listening right, then the purpose and sole existence of the Audio CD medium becomes moot. Does it not???

The law, as you may not realize, is neither required to make sense, nor to be consistant with itself. This is why we have judges, appeals, etc. and they muddle through it however seems best to them.

But under law, he's correct--copyright concerns copies. There might be good reasons to think that such-and-such a use is fair, etc., but until that enters the realm of settled law, nothing prevents a court from ruling against you on that point.

Honestly, I hope we get more tech-savvy judges. They're absolutely right that the evidence they're coming forth with is trash. I would be very tempted to come up with fradulent evidence "proving" that the RIAA & co. were up to no good, but that's immoral*--I don't want to become like the cartel I hate :(

* Yeah, it's illegal, too.
Re:Copyright Purpose and Private Use by AgentFade2Black · 2006-09-14 08:52 · Score: 1

Please remember that in the above posts, USC Title 17 104 uses the language "fair use" in itself. Thus, fair use has been codified in American law. This may not mean much, but hey, what can you do about it?
On the other hand, I, for one, welcome our new RIAA lawyer overlords.

To effect change by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 05:06 · Score: 0

It has to be done intellegently. Their motivation is money, attack their motivation. Permanently boycott their companies, their successor companies, the artists, and the music and let them and the world know it. Don't buy it, don't listen to it, and contribute your musical skills to creative commons like projects and advertise them according.

If this starts happening en mass, you can guarantee they're going to change what they're doing.

um... by Lord+Ender · 2006-09-14 05:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

you seem to have a general misunderstanding about the basic principles of copyright law. When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc. I don't know what gives you this idea.

It seems strange to me that a copyright lawyer hasn't heard of the fair use rights granted by US copyright law (Title 17, section 107).

The person asking the legal question is better informed than the lawyer!

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.

Re:um... by mpsmps · 2006-09-14 05:38 · Score: 1

You don't know what you are talking about.

For the sake of us non-lawyers, can you elaborate on this? Why doesn't ripping an mp3 from your own legally purchased CD (e.g. so you can play it on your iPod) constitute fair use?
Re:um... by Zapman · 2006-09-14 05:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

Lord Ender says:
It seems strange to me that a copyright lawyer hasn't heard of the fair use rights granted by US copyright law (Title 17, section 107).

The person asking the legal question is better informed than the lawyer!

In response, Ray Beckerman (Lawyer) says:
You don't know what you are talking about.

Ray: Slashdot groupthink usually reaches for the Fair Use Doctrine to justify ripping music to Mp3 and using it. Saying "You don't know what you're talking about" isn't a very satisfying answer.

I would love to hear, even in brief, a discussion of why Fair Use does not apply to these cases. It seems that you started to answer this question below with how Russia and the US have different laws about what copies are allowed, and which aren't, however, I'm not understanding what is allowed here in the US from your point of view.

Thanks!

--
Zapman
Re:um... by gleffler · 2006-09-14 05:48 · Score: 2, Informative

Here is 17 USC 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair
use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in
copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that
section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In
determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case
is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding
of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the
above factors."

To emphasize: "including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

Since "Making copies for my convience and/or time shifting" is not criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, it does NOT fall under Fair Use and the /. "FAIR USE FAIR USE WHAT OF MY RIGHTS" crowd really needs to stop using this argument.
Re:um... by Richard+Steiner · 2006-09-14 05:53 · Score: 1

Especially since the ripped MP3 copy is a lossy copy, in essence no different from the analog copies which were once (and are still?) allowed because of the AHRA?

An MP3 file is NOT a precise copy of the music.

--
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Re:um... by DragonWriter · 2006-09-14 05:53 · Score: 1

Any use that conflicts with the exclusive rights under copyright is presumptively not "fair use"; if you want to make the case that it is, you ought to show how it fits the definition of "fair use". Why would it constitute "fair use"?
Re:um... by spiritraveller · 2006-09-14 06:08 · Score: 1

Since "Making copies for my convience and/or time shifting" is not criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, it does NOT fall under Fair Use and the /. "FAIR USE FAIR USE WHAT OF MY RIGHTS" crowd really needs to stop using this argument.

Note that the statute says "for purposes such as". It doesn't say "for the following purposes exclusively".

The purposes listed seem to be examples of valid purposes. Interpreting the language literally, any purposes not listed would have to be "such as" the listed ones (ie similar to them).

I guess we can litigate this to find out whether time-shifting and convenience are sufficiently similar to the other purposes... who wants to goad the RIAA into suing you for ripping your own cds and listening to them on your ipod?
Re:um... by Lord+Ender · 2006-09-14 06:19 · Score: 1

When a lawyer tells a guy he has no rights to make copies, he is WRONG. Everyone explicitly has the right to make copies for any of several purposes. Your quote makes that VERY clear. So, thanks.

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Re:um... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:30 · Score: 0

Fair Use doesn't apply to these lawsuits because it does not matter how you acquire the music. Distributing entire copyrighted works without written consent is not and most likely will never be fair use. That argument, as applies to the RIAA lawsuits over file SHARING (not downloading as so many people seem to think) is a complete nonstarter.

As far as ripping or downloading from allofmp3 or whatever, I don't think you can get much more succinct than "maybe." As he keeps trying to hammer through the slashdot groupthink, the law is unsettled; a definitive yes or no answer simply is not available, and it would be highly irresponsible for anyone in his position to claim otherwise.

Bottom line: if we don't get some Big Money behind these issues, it is eventually going to be settled in the Content Mafia's favor. What they are doing now is exploiting the common law legal system by suing defenseless clients so all the case law is in their favor. So by the time these issues get up to the Supreme Court, all the precedents will be against our side and we wont have a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing.

Combine this with their parallel strategy of buying^h^h^h^h^h^hcontributing to Congress critters to get bad laws written, and things don't look pretty.
Re:um... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:37 · Score: 0

Wow you're doing a good job of putting words into his mouth. Or maybe it's just that your comprehension skills aren't up to the level they should be.
Re:um... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:41 · Score: 0

Fair use is a defense, not a right.
Re:um... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 07:23 · Score: 0

Sometimes it's a right, sometimes it's a defense.
Think parody and quoting for the purposes of a review. Why do you think those count as "fair use" given both can hurt the market for the original product? What do you think is the source of that particular get-out?
Clue: It begins with "F" and ends with "irst amendment".
Re:um... by anagama · 2006-09-14 07:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm a lawyer but I don't have any specific knowledge about copyright and I can't really speak to the statute itself and how it will play out. In general however, when interpreting a statute, the first principle is to look at the plain language -- if it is clear, then no statutory construction is necessary. You must also presume the legislature meant what it said by the words it chose and that each word is meaningful (unless the statute is determined to be ambiguous). Whether a statute is ambiguous and is subject to statutory construction (i.e., interpreation beyond or different from the plain meaning) is the subject of $big_number's worth of litigation every year. Construction can include the legislative history, other related statutes, and other things that escape me as I sit here in my PJs on my day off.

Anyway, looking at just the cited statute alone, and no case law decided under it, it's plain that ripping a CD for personal use isn't included in the non-exhaustive list of acceptable uses. That means personal copying must fall under the more general test. In other words, it's going to cost a lot to find out whether it's OK to rip to your computer, or make a copy CD for your car (BTW, something the police in my area suggest to prevent vehicle prowls). It will cost even more if you lose.

It bears emphasis however that the people being sued by the RIAA aren't being sued for making a burned copy of media they own to play in their cars. They're being sued for giving copies of music to other people willy nilly. So while I personally use my ipod for my entire library, I don't engage in file sharing (neither receive nor send). I don't know if I'm safe on the first count, but it's pretty obvious I'm subject to litigation if I did the second -- and remember, merely by virtue of being caught up in litigation, you lose, even if you win. Think of the last line in the Seven Samurai -- defeating the bandits came at great cost.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:um... by Lord+Ender · 2006-09-14 08:23 · Score: 1

What part of this: "When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc." do you think I'm misunderstanding?

Saying "No ... rights to ... reproduce additional copies" is a lie.

Or are you AC because you are trolling?

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Re:um... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 09:39 · Score: 0

As far as the law is concerned, you actually DON'T have the right to reproduce additional full copies. Try reading up on copyright law sometime (the laws themselves, not Joe Blow's blog). You are, however, granted rights to use portions of a copyrighted work (note that it's not the whole thing) in derivitive works for the reasons posted about above. Note that nowhere in there does it say that you are allowed to make "backup" or "full" copies. This is where things enter a legal grey area. Some argue that it should allow for "backup" copies. Others argue against it. However, at this time, there is not a precedent that explicitly states "yes you can" or "no you can't." So when it comes down to it, what the lawyerguy stated is 100% accurate. You keep on trying to claim that some things are legal when in fact, they are not. Or at best, they might be legal. Would you like to be the guinea pig standing in front of the judge to find out for the rest of us?
Re:um... by shark72 · 2006-09-14 11:51 · Score: 1

"It seems strange to me that a copyright lawyer hasn't heard of the fair use rights granted by US copyright law (Title 17, section 107)."

You'd better check your assumptions, then!

"The person asking the legal question is better informed than the lawyer!"

Do you really think that?

This same thing happened to me not too long ago. A young Slashdotter with an only cursory knowledge of pricing theory (not even "just enough to be dangerous") informed me that he was shocked -- shocked -- that although I've been doing this for $BIGNUM years, I wasn't familiar with the basic concept of the supply/demand curve. The notion completely boggled him and it didn't even occur to him that he might not know what he was talking about, or even to check on Wikipedia to get up to speed. It was as if his brain was wired so he couldn't even comprehend the concept of somebody knowing more than him.

And so it goes with Slashdotters' famous assessment of their own skills. Yesterday it was economics. Today, it's that perennial favorite, fair use doctrine. The copyright lawyer doesn't understand fair use doctrine, and it couldn't possibly be that you misunderstood, or that his understanding of the subject is at a level that's three jumps ahead of you.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:um... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 13:49 · Score: 0

The argument with Allofmp3 is that they don't give money to ROMS. Something changed here in the Russian law on 1 septembre 2006 although I've not looked into that yet. With Allofmp3, you are the downloader, not the uploader. RIAA are after uploaders from whom they can see which files they share. So they'd go after Allofmp3 (who are based in Russia) not after you. Now, that you are a downloader matters in some countries where you can download legally music and video (but not upload). It doesn't even matter in the USA either (yet) since you can download and nobody is wiretapping you logging what you download (yet). The uploading matters. So Allofmp3 is safe, for now. Although I don't know what exactly changed 1 septembre 2006.
Re:um... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 04:54 · Score: 1

I am not aware of any judicial precedent for the position that making copies from a cd to a computer would constitute a fair use.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:um... by P3NIS_CLEAVER · 2006-09-15 05:38 · Score: 1

It is quite simple. People have copyrighted works in a shared folder. That is the basis if the lawsuit. What does fair use have to do with that? Obviously none of the judges believe that sharing mp3s is a 'fair use'.

--
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

http://financialpetition.org/
Re:um... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-15 07:07 · Score: 0

But it's impossible to play a CD on a computer without copying it at least into the computers system memory. Even worse, some CD playing software will cache the whole CD to hard drive so that the noise of a CD spinning doesn't interfere with the listening experience. If the right to do that does not exist, then CDs cannot be listened to and thus surely it's pointless buying a CD?

allofmp3's legality... by garcia · 2006-09-14 05:07 · Score: 1

I don't know what you're talking about. The litigation wave is worldwide. The RIAA isn't American. 3 of the 4 members of the cartel are "offshore corporations". There are different versions of the RIAA everywhere. In France, and certain other places, they bring CRIMINAL cases, not civil ones.

I know what the parent post was referring to (allofmp3.com's "legality") but I'm a Slashdotter and previous user of allofmp3.com.

The question that wasn't answered was whether allofmp3.com is safe to use as an alternative to the more expensive stores like iTS (formally known as iTMS!), Napster, and whatever MSFT calls their store.

invisible gorilla defense by 192939495969798999 · 2006-09-14 05:07 · Score: 1

The only way to defend against the RIAA once and for all would be to get a list of people they're intending to sue, and pick one that is definitely defensible assuming they had the money. Then, we all donate as much as we can to make 100% certain that person has the money to win a summary judgement based on the joke claims the RIAA makes. If we all pull together and put our chickens in one basket, we could achieve victory. Each individual case spreads the defendants' money out too thin, but one solid victory, a "victory of principle"(tm), would yield countless others at a far reduced cost.

--
stuff |

Re:invisible gorilla defense by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 05:25 · Score: 0

I'm no expert, but fairly sure that everytime the RIAA has begun to feel that they are about to be defeated in a judgment, they just drop the case and its dismissed. This prevents a precedent from forming, which would then make all subsequent cases invalid. Most cases don't even go to trial, either the defendant settles out of court, or the RIAA drops the charges if they realize they are going to lose.
Re:invisible gorilla defense by spyrochaete · 2006-09-14 05:31 · Score: 1

"victory of principle"(tm)

I don't think you can trademark that. It's already known as "setting predent". We need John Everyman to win in such a way that proves that the RIAA's evidence cannot be substantiated.
Re:invisible gorilla defense by RareButSeriousSideEf · 2006-09-14 12:35 · Score: 1

What's really needed is a database containing strategies and tactics to use in these defenses, along with a realtime track record of their effectiveness.

For starters, how about the following:

-Enter into evidence a stack of 100 fake screenshots with an affadavit showing (truthfully) that a high school kid produced them in 15 minutes.
-Enter into evidence a boilerplate document explaining how IP_Address != Defendant, with a few dozen real-world examples (open wi-fi router, etc.) for non-nerds.
-Move for dismissal unless plaintiff provides a computer name or MAC address of the specific computer on which the infringing action took place, and provide at least prima facie reason for presuming that infringing action happened on a computer under the defendant's control and/or was committed by the defendant personally.
-Move that the IP address of the RIAA investigator's computer be disclosed & entered into evidence, so that their claim can be compared with logs from defendant's router or IP history (if applicable).
-Move that defendant's independent computer forensics expert be able to seize and inspect the PC from which the screenshot was taken, to search for (dis)confirmation of said infringement & plaintiff's discovery thereof.

Ultimately, Joe Average needs to be able to win one of these without a lawyer if the **AA is ever going to be deterred in this arena. Joe needs a flowchart telling him *exactly* what to do and say at each turn of events, with the accompanying documents for submitting motions conveniently linked in. Yes, the flowchart will often terminate in "you're hosed," but it's a start anyway.

--
Pi Ran Out

Is that legalese? by Nereus · 2006-09-14 05:09 · Score: 3, Funny

They want the 'common folk' to think ill of lawyers, because the law -- as imperfect as it is -- is the only equalizer left. And it's being eroded rapidly. And people dissing lawyers all the time helps that process.

Word, homeboy. That's just whack. Quite.

I'm not disappointed... by Aaron32 · 2006-09-14 05:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

Seeing the subject, that a lawyer was going to answer questions, I fully expected to see a lot of non-answering beating-around-the-bush-type answers.

And I wasn't disappointed at all.

No lawyer is going to give you a definitive answer, and that's half the problem. The other half is no Judge wants piss off the rich, they want to piss ON the poor which can't defend themselves.

Re:I'm not disappointed... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 05:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

Sorry, Aaron. Would you rather I just told you what you want to hear?

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:I'm not disappointed... by Buran · 2006-09-14 05:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

We want real answers, not answers that look like they were written by a five-year-old, and answers that show respect for the poster, not attempts to act like you don't know what they're talking about. You played stupid in more than one of the questions that were pretty damn clear (the "someone stole my CDs one was pretty clearly asking about that CD being used in, say, an MP3-playing car stereo, an iPod, etc. owned by the person. If you didn't know what they were referring to, couldn't you have asked someone to proof read your answer first?

And then you go on to complain about lawyers being dissed. When people ask questions, they want firm answers, not wishy-washy stuff that seems to be coming from a grade schooler. Even if the answer is "I do not know the answer to that question" or "The answer to that question has not been fully decided yet, but here are some relevant links to read".

We shouldn't have to explain this stuff to someone who theoretically went to high school, college/university, and then law school. Isn't proper debate part of the law-school curriculum, and don't you have to learn to write proper arguments as part of English courses?

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:I'm not disappointed... by Overzeetop · 2006-09-14 05:42 · Score: 1

Well, I think we would have liked a bit more conjecture. I've posted above that I was disappointed in your answers, but given as legal advice they are indeed proper answers.

I guess I would have liked two answers to each question: the one you would have given to a client who had been sued by the RIAA, and the one you would give to an uninvolved client. Sometimes the things which should be legally defensible are not necessarily a guarantee that your side will prevail in court. Some more response involving what can and cannot be done with purchased music, based on written and case law, would have been enlightening. Clearly, the content providers want it both ways: you buy a physical object (which terminates your rights when it leaves your posession or becomes unusable), but you effectively have a severly limited license to the content. A run down of the legal support for format shifting, and the sharing aspects of the AHRA (taxed discs and such), would have been nice. Ex: Could his daugther have taken a copy to school if it were a taxed Music CD, or is that just for him to keep one copy at work and one copy at home, where it can only be listened to in one location at a time (that's what I learned copyright meant back in school).

I can't believe that someone asked what to do to not get sued by the RIAA, and that you actually had to answer that as a question (ans: don't share songs).

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:I'm not disappointed... by iceaxe · 2006-09-14 05:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hey all,

I think what Mr. Beckerman is trying to get across is that the legal ground here is as solid as the deck of the Titanic. Unfortunately, because he IS a lawyer, it would be unprofessional of him to offer personal opinion on specific actions or topics which are not solidly grounded in case law. Especially in a public forum.

The rest of us can afford to postulate and opine, but he cannot. His job is to represent, not to judge.

Perhaps we should get a judge to answer some of the same questions. But then, apparently, the answers would depend on which judge we asked...

cheers,
iceaxe

--
WALSTIB!
Re:I'm not disappointed... by lawpoop · 2006-09-14 06:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, man, you don't get it.

All that these people are looking for is a little respect and politeness. The slashdot crowd is highly intelligent. Many of these people have advanced degrees and work in high-end technical fields. We're not asking dumb questions or non-sense. They might be naive and certainly are uninformed, but we are not stupid.

We can handle things like "I don't know" or "It hasn't really been decided yet". "I don't know what you're talking about" is the kind of answer you give a five-year-old when they ask something naive like "Do you think unicorns are real" and you feel like being mean and dismissive.

We are not looking for you to misinform us on the law, or to yell "Hell yeah!" and support our misconceptions, or 'tell us what we want to hear'. Just treat us civilly, like intelligent *peers*. Most of us didn't go to law school, but we probably would 'get it', if you would have a little respect for our intellect, and a little patience to take the time and explain things fully.

I gave a decent defense of your answers here, but after reading your comment response, I have you say, you really are acting like a dick to some potential clientele, and could stand to learn some manners.

Just explain "Your question is fairly ambiguous; it's impossible to give a good answer without more details, but remember a lot of law has not yet been decided" instead of a terse "I don't know what you are talking about". Your reponse makes it sound like I just came up to you and spoke utter gibberish. And, to be honest and fair, you do have a very good idea of what all of us are talking about; you are choosing to play dumb and not volunteer information. There's probably good reason for that; but remember, as computer geeks, we really don't understand the lawyer mindset. It would help all of us if you took the time to explain why 'you don't know what we are talking about'.

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Re:I'm not disappointed... by rot26 · 2006-09-14 06:11 · Score: 1

No lawyer is going to give you a definitive answer, and that's half the problem.

Maybe the problem you have isn't the problem you think you have. Sometimes a meta-answer is as good as it gets. Does God exist? There is no answer, so in a sense, all discussion is moot. Does that mean that you shouldn't wonder about such a thing? No. Does it mean you should get pissed off if someone tells you that not only do they not know the answer, the answer PROVABLY does not exist at this time? No.

Brevity from someone who is (usually)paid by the hour seems a virtuous quality to me. Discovering that there IS NO ANSWER to some questions is an answer (or a meta-answer) in itself, worthy of knowing.

--

To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Re:I'm not disappointed... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 06:38 · Score: 1

"Conjecture" is exactly what it would take to answer a few of the questions. Some were easy to answer: there is no listening right. What is not so easy is whether copies for personal use are "fair use". See EFF Article "RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use"

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:I'm not disappointed... by mikers · 2006-09-14 07:23 · Score: 1

All that these people are looking for is a little respect and politeness.

Yes, but... As a lawyer, he specializes in answering these questions in court for clients. You, and the rest of us (most of the rest of us) slashdot types are not clients, therefore, he has no need to provide answers for specific questions. He is not obligated, and we are not paying him.

In addition, why should he reveal his argument lines here? I thought it is fairly well known that RIAA lawyers did read slashdot during at least one of the Napster/Kazaa/whatever vs. music industry lawsuits. Is it even in his best interest, or to potential clients, to show off all his techniques so the RIAA can have a good look at them prior to the court case (and perhaps devise defenses)?

If you want answers that perhaps you could use in court, I guess you should pay him. Sounds fair to me. That is how he makes his living.
Re:I'm not disappointed... by lawpoop · 2006-09-14 08:04 · Score: 1

Yes, he is a lawyer and he is trained to argue in court. However, this is 'Ask Slashdot', not a court. I would expect him to recognise this and respond appropriately. Do you think he goes out to dinner with friends and says to someone "I have no idea what you are talking about" when someone asks him a question that isn't perfectly legally formed? (Well, he might)

I don't think anyone here is asking for legal advice. The original AskSlashdot posted specifically stated that we could not ask him for legal advice.

If he's clamming up so he doesn't reveal his tactics to the RIAA, then he would save a lot of grief and disparagement if he just said so.

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Re:I'm not disappointed... by nitroamos · 2006-09-14 08:04 · Score: 1

i was summoned for jury duty recently. the biggest lesson for me was that lawyers are not there to uphold the law, be fair, be honest; they're there to win. the only guidance as to what the law is are the court precedents since the law must be interpreted before it can be understood. and then, interpretations you don't like can be challenged if they were not given by a high enough court.

and even furthermore, you can make an argument related to mathematical induction about how this works. just because you have a court ruling in your favor (the base step) doesn't mean it will work for you (the inductive step).

by another analogy. consider the bible -- tons of text in there. but for any verse which might seem clear to you, you are almost guaranteed to find two christians who will disagree animately as to what it means.

the answers given were unsatisfactory, but i think the whole point is that the answers were pointing out that there is little by way of reliable foundation available.
Re:I'm not disappointed... by Buran · 2006-09-14 08:09 · Score: 1

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion. I just think that a glib "I don't know" or whatever is a hell of a lot less appropriate for this particular forum than an answer that actually invites debate.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:I'm not disappointed... by jcenters · 2006-09-14 08:11 · Score: 1

I think there are a few problems in this discussion. First, we must bear in mind that Mr. Beckerman has taken time out of his busy schedule to not only answer the questions, but to also follow up in the resulting discussion. I'll agree that this is one of Slashdot's worst interviews. His answers were terse, and could be considered rude. However, I think he deserves credit for going out of his way to participate in the discussion, which doesn't happen often in Slashdot interviews. At the same time, he's dealing with Slashdot groupthink, and the general vagueness of U.S. law.

I think the gist of what he's been saying can be summed up like so:

1. If you share RIAA music on the internet, you're at risk for a lawsuit, no matter the source. However, the RIAA has expressed no interest in downloaders.
2. Much of the law surrounding this issue is determined by case law. In other words, your outcome will largely be based upon the judge's biases and whomever has the most money.

I think the most helpful thing Mr. Beckerman did here today is reaffirm our cynicism of the United States legal system.

--
vi ~/.emacs
Re:I'm not disappointed... by nitroamos · 2006-09-14 08:16 · Score: 1

yea i agree. i would have appreciated an analysis of appropriate lines of defense coupled with an analysis of how successful those arguments would be.
Re:I'm not disappointed... by LiENUS · 2006-09-14 08:20 · Score: 1

The other half is no Judge wants piss off the rich, they want to piss ON the poor which can't defend themselves.
Judges are elected and "poor", generally a judge makes less than 120k a year, while thats more than most people make, it doesnt make them rich
Re:I'm not disappointed... by Matt+Perry · 2006-09-14 08:23 · Score: 1

You, and the rest of us (most of the rest of us) slashdot types are not clients, therefore, he has no need to provide answers for specific questions.

Then he shouldn't have agreed to do the interview. That was the whole point. He was to answer some questions to help us understand the issues that he is knee-deep in every day.

--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Re:I'm not disappointed... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 08:29 · Score: 0

"All that these people are looking for is a little respect and politeness. The slashdot crowd is highly intelligent. Many of these people have advanced degrees and work in high-end technical fields. We're not asking dumb questions or non-sense. They might be naive and certainly are uninformed, but we are not stupid."

OT, but I find it interesting that this "Score:5, Insightful" comment is very similar to criticisms I've often heard of the Slashdot crowd.
Re:I'm not disappointed... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 08:48 · Score: 0

That would be wonderful!
Re:I'm not disappointed... by ryanr · 2006-09-14 10:05 · Score: 1

So are you claiming that there is no "listening right" even if I'm just talking about playing the original CD in a standard CD player?
Re:I'm not disappointed... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 11:20 · Score: 0

Oh, man, thank you for that post. You articulated it just right.

I used to be a teacher, and the lawyer's tone of voice sounded so very uncomfortable to me.

I kept imagining what it would be like if a teacher answered a student's questions with quips like "how am I supposed to know?" or "where did you get that idea from?"

How does that help the educational process?

I always welcomed questions that showed that the student had a misconception, because it gave me a chance to dispell myths and to do a quick review of the basics for the entire class. Sometimes as a teacher you need to spend as much time dispelling the wrong way of thinking, as you give to elucidating the right way of thinking. Teaching why misconceptions are wrong can be extremely helpful to the student.
Re:I'm not disappointed... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 12:54 · Score: 0

No, he's claiming the "listening right" to listen to particular song or album in perpetuity, even if you lose the original copy you purchased in some fashion, is a complete and utter fiction. Hence, the idea that it's legal to download music you once owned, but lost, is false. Any other interpretation is patently absurd, and the justice system, while flawed and tilted against the little guy, does try to be rational. So of course if you purchase a fixed recording of a performance, its assumed you have the right to (privately) convert that back into sound and listen to it. And of course you have the right to make any transient copies necessary for playback. What you don't have the absolute right to do is make fixed copies of that representation; you may have some limited fair use rights to make private copies for the purposes of space and/or format shifting, but that area of law is unsettled. Right now that "right" only exists because the **AA aren't prosecuting it, but I'd wager that wont last forever.
Re:I'm not disappointed... by RubberBaron · 2006-09-14 12:58 · Score: 1

Does God exist?

The answer is no. Not only is there no scientifically testable proof, or any logical reasoning that 'proves' God (especially if the definition of 'God' includes supernatural clauses) but no case law proving the existence of God exists.

In any case, if a lawyer is asking for questions to which he or she is expected to give answers (it being their area of expertise), then meta-answers are a poor (and probably lazy) substitute.
Re:I'm not disappointed... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 15:40 · Score: 0

You're wrong. He was not being disrepectful. He was being glib. In fact - I think the problem is that he assumed Slashdotters were more informed about the topic. I've been following this for some time so I understood EXACTLY what he was saying.

"I don't know what you're talking about" ~translation~ "This question is meaningless because its founded on an incorrectly understanding of basic copyright law"
Re:I'm not disappointed... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 17:11 · Score: 1

I do apologize for saying "I have no idea what you're talking about". That was rude. It was in response to question 6, where the questioner was asking me in essence whether one could be exonerated for copyright infringement in the U.S. because the site from which he was downloading pirated songs happened to be located in Russia. It sounded like the kind of question one of the RIAA's paid trolls would ask. And it made no sense to me, and still doesn't. But I still should be polite, because the questioner probably wasn't a paid RIAA troll but a regular person who just doesn't know a lot about law. So, "giafly", I apologize (unless you are with the RIAA, in which case I don't apologize).

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:I'm not disappointed... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 17:30 · Score: 1

By the way, Buran, take a look at the background of the Slashdot member who asked question 7, Four_One_Nine. He's made only one Slashdot comment in his life. Question 7 in the interview. Do you think he might have an agenda? Do you think my wariness of him might have had a reason?

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:I'm not disappointed... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 17:35 · Score: 1

I hope you guys are aware that Question #7 threw this entire discussion off topic. None of the cases have anything to do with the legality of people making copies from their cd's. They're all about p2p file sharing.
And I hope you're aware that the person who asked Question #7, "Four_One_Nine", has never before asked a question or made a comment on Slashdot. So if he was an RIAA troll, and had an agenda, you have helped him succeed in carrying it out.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:I'm not disappointed... by iceaxe · 2006-09-14 18:26 · Score: 1

Well, I have to weigh in again here.

Mr. Beckerman:

The site AllOfMP3.com, which operates in Russia under Russian law, claims on their site that the music they sell is completely legal - in Russia. Others must judge according to the laws of their country.

I believe the original question was asking for an opinion as to whether the music files obtained from that site would be legal in another country, such as perhaps the USA. We are all quite aware that the legalities are in flux. Indeed, most of us understand the word "flux" without looking it up.

If you like, you may look up the notices on the aforementioned website - see the section "Is it legal to download music from site AllOFMP3.com?"

cheers,
iceaxe

--
WALSTIB!
Re:I'm not disappointed... by Buran · 2006-09-15 03:41 · Score: 1

Or maybe he just doesn't post much! Not posting often doesn't mean that when someone does choose to say something, they have an agenda behind it. How do you know that user mostly reads and only posts if something very interesting to them comes along, and that they don't visit the site very often?

Seems to me like you're saying "if you aren't a dinosaur around here you don't matter".

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:I'm not disappointed... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 05:05 · Score: 1

The guy to whom I said "you don't know what you are talking about" had just insulted me, saying I didn't know about the existence of the fair use defense, just because I had said that buying a cd gives you rights in the physical object and gives you no right to reproduce copies of the cd. I am very familiar with fair use defense, and have been researching it for more than 30 years. My statement of the law was correct, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the fair use defense. Bottom line : (a) I was responding impolitely because I had been addressed impolitely, and (b) I was telling someone he didn't know what he was talking about that he didn't know what he was talking about. Yes it would have been a better /. comment had it included the reasons why he didn't know what he was talking about. Sorry. Will try to do better next time.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:I'm not disappointed... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 09:58 · Score: 1

Of course you have a right to listen to the cd you purchased. Four_One_Nine was asking whether you had a "listening right" that survived your possession of the recording so that, if you lost the cd or it was stolen, you could copy the recording from somewhere else with impunity. I think it was a fake question. And the answer to it is of course no.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:I'm not disappointed... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 10:14 · Score: 1

I do not think a US judge will care whether allofmp3.com is ok with the Russian government or not ok with the Russian government.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:I'm not disappointed... by Aaron32 · 2006-09-15 11:01 · Score: 1

You're right. I misstated that.

No Judge wants to piss off the rich because that's who gave them money for their campaigns and advertising to get elected in the first place.

They don't care about the poor, because that would mean pissing off the rich, which is stated in the previous sentence.
Re:I'm not disappointed... by ryanr · 2006-09-15 11:38 · Score: 1

OK, I was trying to see if it was deeper than that. AFAIK, copyright law doesn't spell out exactly what your rights are when you buy a copy of a recording. And not all CDs spell out your "license" terms. Which just leaves "everyone knows you're allowed to listen to a CD you bought." As in, a jury of my peers knows that, and would back me up on it.

Or am I wrong on that?

Because if that's the basis that lets me listen to my CD I bought, that leaves:

-I have no right to rip to an iPod, OR
-I'm good if the CD doesn't disclaim my right to rip to an iPod (only a few have disclaimed that)
-I'm good if EULAs don't hold up in court (not well tested)
-I'm good if everyone knows I'm allowed to rip CDs to my iPod, including a jury of my peers

DMCA shouldn't enter into it, because the vast majority of CDs don't have a protection mechanism.
Re:I'm not disappointed... by megaditto · 2006-09-15 13:40 · Score: 1

'Ripping' is not a right, it's a privilege bestowed (or not) upon you by the copyright holder.

Currently RIAA does grant you the priviledge to rip your CDs. But since they claim 'ripping' is not your right (e.g. under 'Fair Use'), they could forbid you from ripping your CDs whenever they chose to.

--
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Re:I'm not disappointed... by ryanr · 2006-09-15 16:30 · Score: 1

And where is that encoded by either inclusion or exclusion in the lsit of things I am allowed to do? As a mechanical act, ripping is no different than playing.

My point is that (I believe) "playing" is also not explictly permitted. It's simply clear to everyone involved that it's allowed. If that's the basis for allowing playing, why can't ripping be allowed in the same way?
Re:I'm not disappointed... by iceaxe · 2006-09-16 08:27 · Score: 1
OK, here are the possibilities I see:
1. You are being intentionally dense, to amuse yourself.
2. You are dense by nature.
3. You are a troll, and not Ray Beckerman. See #1.
4. You are a troll, and you are Ray Beckerman. See #1.
In any case, I am finished with this “conversation”.
--
WALSTIB!
Re:I'm not disappointed... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-17 03:23 · Score: 1

OK, here are the possibilities I see:

1. You believe people should take their legal advice from overseas internet download sites that tell you that what they are selling you is legal.
2. You believe people should take their legal advice from Slashdot comments that have been moderated to +3 or better.
3. You are not conversant in the English language and do not understand what someone means when he says that "a US judge will not care whether allofmp3.com is legal in Russia or not".
4. You are an RIAA troll trying to recruit more RIAA lawsuit victims.
5. You are an RIAA troll trying to disparage lawyers so that people will not seek legal advice.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:I'm not disappointed... by Slashamatic · 2006-09-17 05:52 · Score: 1

If I buy a CD in Russia produced by a copyright licensee in Russia then that item is probably fine to take back to the US especially if I don't want to resell it. The chain of rights is clear. Sony US gave rights to Sony Russia, for example and they produced something for the local market that is perhaps differently priced to the US.
If I order a CD by post from Russia that was produced by a valid copyright licensee, I would guess that CD would be legal? Certainly, unless the item was a counterfeit, US Customs would not be interested. Russia does at least in theory subscribe to the Berne Convention
AllofMP3.com claim that they have acquired rights to sell MP3s from their website in Russia, presumably they have acquired the rights from the Russian licensees. The transaction occurred in Russia, so the only fly in the ointment is if the US copyright owner says that the right to sell an MP3 was never granted to the sublicensee.
Re:I'm not disappointed... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-17 12:07 · Score: 0

It doesn't matter. When you download a song from allofmp3, you're making a copy of the song. You need permission from the holder of the copyright of the song in the US in order to make that copy, or you are infringing.

It's totally irrelevant if the songs are licensed in Russia or the Russian copyright holder gives permission (or is forced to give permission by statute). Those conditions are simply irrelevant.

The act of copying (and thus the infringing act) happens in the US.

The situation is not remotely comparable to going to Russia, buying a CD, and brining it back. It's not analogous, because in that example, you go there to get a copy and bring it back. When you use allofmp3, you're making a copy in the US, not importing one.
Re:I'm not disappointed... by lawpoop · 2006-09-18 03:17 · Score: 1

It's a question of how do you respond to someone who is lowering the bar. Do you sink to their level, or do you respond differently? If you respond in kind to morons, it makes you look like a moron yourself. If you respond with class and politeness to a moron, you come off as the winner. I'm certain you don't know everything, and sooner or later someone will catch you.

From my perspective, as an average slashdot reader, I have no reason to trust you. Sure, you defend people against the RIAA, but maybe you are a lousy lawyer and you really don't know what you are doing. Here comes a guy on slashdot who makes a point with some information that makes him look well-informed. On slashdot, I regularly find knowledgeable people and insightful commentary that I honestly haven't found in any other media forum. So this random slashdotter makes what looks like a good point, and you say "I have no idea what you are talking about". Well, either A.) you really don't know the law and do suck as a lawyer or b.) you have no time or patience to educate us, even when that is what you have specifically chosen to do in agreeing to the interview. I'm chosing to believe B. The problem with B is it's unsportsmanlike conduct. You're not using civility and politeness, which is causing a lot of us slashdotters to think that you are being actively hostile towards us. Your responses are harsh and defensive. Several times over, you have responded in a similar manner. The fact that you are taking the time to make such terse, unfriendly responses makes it look like you just might enjoy being a dick.

That means to me that I shouldn't hire you to take on my case, should I ever need your services, because when I need an ally most in an arena I am totally unfamiliar with, you are going to be a terse jerk, humiliating me when I am trying to communicate with you. It would be a seriously unproductive and draining relationship.

I know that law school has trained to you be adversarial and not offer your opponents any opportunity to break your streategy or resolve. This mode of interaction is causing a lot of the hostility and negative repsonse you are encountering here in slashdot. In short, keep this stuff in the courtroom, meetings, and legal letters. It's inapropriate in this forum.

On slashdot, we are looking to all looking to learn. No matter what kind of geek we are, we always want to know more. We might think we now, and bodly assert so. Most of us want to learn from our mistakes and misunderstandings. However, some don't. They are called trolls. If you respond in kind to a troll, you look like a troll yourself. Here on the internet, we only know you by what you type. If you type like a troll, we have no way of knowing whether you can act any better in other forums. At that point most will start ignoring you like they ignore other trolls. To hip you to our slang, YHBT. YHL. HAND.

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Re:I'm not disappointed... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-18 03:31 · Score: 1

1. I was adversarial long before I went to law school.
2. If you're looking for a honey-tongued lawyer who tries to make his clients like him, you wouldn't want me for your lawyer anyway.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

The Boycott List by neonprimetime · 2006-09-14 05:12 · Score: 2, Informative

Sorry, just karma whoring: RIAA Boycott List

Re:The Boycott List by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 05:18 · Score: 1

No that's excellent. Some people need to know there's a whole world of music outside the RIAA cartel.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:The Boycott List by CRCulver · 2006-09-14 05:27 · Score: 1

One should note, however, that that list obviously only includes American labels who are members of the RIAA. Slashdotters living in Europe--or Americans buying imports--should find out if the European labels they buy from are members of a local cartel-like association.
Re:The Boycott List by Java+Pimp · 2006-09-15 01:55 · Score: 1

Here's a hoot! That site seems to be blocked by the filtering software my employer uses to keep us from misbehaving on the net.

I wonder. Could this be the beginning of a conspiracy theory?

--
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!

AllofMP3.com by cyana · 2006-09-14 05:13 · Score: 1

The question directed at usage of www.allofmp3.com was, I believe, attempting to get at the specific legality of that site. It was answered in a more general sense, which is fine, but still leaves me wanting to know: Is there any legal risk associated with using their service at the moment? Perhaps 6 months ago I read that a Russian court had ruled that it was legal under Russian law... Thanks for any help anyone can provide.

Re:AllofMP3.com by Hollyfeld · 2006-09-14 05:23 · Score: 1

I think the answer on allofmp3.com really is it depends - there are too many issues involved that haven't been settled at all by the courts - is allofmp3.com legal under russian law? - assuming it is, is it legal to purchase music sold under russion law and import into the US? With or without a limit on the acceptable value? If there is a limit, is it based on the US value or the russian value? Should duties be paid on the imported goods (if you can call it that) IF it's ok to do all that, is it legal to do it via the internet? AFAIK, none of this has been answered by the courts....
Re:AllofMP3.com by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 06:46 · Score: 1

1. I think this is offtopic, because the lawsuits are based on sharing files, even legally acquired files, and are not actually based on downloading (although of course if they find evidence of actual downloading after the suit is begun, they will be glad to throw that into the mix). 2. The RIAA and its brethren are suing everywhere. 3. As to the downloading issue, if an American downloads a copyrighted song illegally, and the site from which he downloaded it was in Russia, do you seriously believe the courts would consider that a defense?

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:AllofMP3.com by meridian · 2006-09-14 13:43 · Score: 1

AllOfMp3.com is now illegal under new laws brought into effect on the 1st September in Russia. This was done to help Russia get USA approval to become part of the WTO. However Russia are now asking for other things regarding food exports or something in relation to USA, supossedly before enforcing these new copyright laws. So essentially AllOfMP3 was legal in Russia until 1st September this year. The question is, when you bought your music from AllOfMP3 before 1st September 2006 where you as a buyer actually covered by Russian laws as your transaction was made in Russia or were you covered by your Countries laws you are physically situated in for that transaction. Perhaps both

--
meridian at tha.net
Re:AllofMP3.com by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 17:04 · Score: 1

No US court is going to exonerate you for copyright infringement because (a) the site from which you did it is overseas, or (b) the site from which you did it is legal in its country of origin.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

I don't think that [phrase] means what you think.. by benhocking · 2006-09-14 05:14 · Score: 4, Informative

I don't think that [phrase] means what you think it does. In US copyright law Fair Use refers partly to how much of a given work you can use. Here's a quote:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

And another:

Noncommercial use is invariably fair. Not true, though a judge may take the profit motive or lack thereof into account.

The point is, that "Fair Use" has a lot to do with how much of a copyrighted work you can copy and for what purposes. It does not give you carte blanche to copy an entire work if it's only for your benefit. Russia, I believe, does have such rules, but not the U.S.

--
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?

Taken out of context by OzPeter · 2006-09-14 05:16 · Score: 1

Whilst the quote may be accurate, the context is not. The reference was to getting rid of lawyers who would get in the way of a revolution. Thus the lawyers were in fact protecting the rule of law.

5 seconds on google will show you this. (Assuming they are not evil)

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?

Where's the beef? by nrozema · 2006-09-14 05:17 · Score: 1

Do you argue on behalf of your clients with responses like "I don't know what you're talking about", "probably", and "you could just default"?

Or do we need to pay you $300/hr for responses with content?

Re:Where's the beef? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 06:43 · Score: 1

I wasn't "arguing on behalf of" anybody. I was answering questions.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Where's the beef? by EVil+Lawyer · 2006-09-14 06:43 · Score: 1

Indeed. The suggestion of defaulting was a bit unsettling and disrespectful. I realize that the response was meant to list all available options -- but if you're going to start listing options as pointless as defaulting, you might as well start listing others like "overthrow the U.S. government," "send the RIAA flowers and hope they drop the lawsuit," "show up to court naked and hope the judge throws you in jail for contempt -- and once you get to jail, make a deal with one of the gangs to take out a hit on the RIAA lawyers so your trial is postponed, and in the mean time sell drugs in jail to raise money to pay for competent counsel to defend the RIAA's initial lawsuit against you."
Re:Where's the beef? by sharp-bang · 2006-09-14 07:55 · Score: 1

No, you weren't.

--
#!
Re:Where's the beef? by MobyDisk · 2006-09-14 12:10 · Score: 1

No you weren't. Would this type of answer work in a court room?

Okay, seriously: For me, these answers did not help at all. Did you expect the questions would be easier? I know that some of these questions dealt with complex legal matters. You completely skirted some key issues such as the legality of making MP3 files from CDs. Holding an opinion on that is almost a pre-requisite for the entire discussion, and people wanted to know what you believed the law says on that. One of the questions dealt with getting a replacement for a damaged CD. You acted like you have never heard the RIAA/MPAA claim that customers aren't buying a CD with a copy of the music, but that they are are "licensing" the content of the disk? Are you not aware of that? Or am I completely misinformed? That's what I was looking for in this discussion.

I do have to grant you that lots of this audience are pirates with no respect for copyright law or for other people's property. They really are the "they are just bits of data so I can do anything - they want to be freeeee!" crowd, so I can understand some level of frustration. But I think educating them (and me) would go a long way toward resolving this issue.
Re:Where's the beef? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 10:03 · Score: 2, Informative

I am not aware of any statutory or judicial authority, one way or the other, on the subject of legality of making MP3 files from CDs. What do you want me to do, pretend I have? Or pretend that I know what the judges will do?

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:I don't think that [phrase] means what you thin by theckhd · 2006-09-14 05:18 · Score: 1

Yes, I actually consulted the wikipedia entry before I posted, and noticed that there was nothing in it about backing up ones files. However, the phrase "fair use" has been thrown about in this context for years, whether it's the technically correct phrase to use or not. And while I'm not a lawyer, I was under the impression that there were legal cases where the decision stated that backing a work up fell under the umbrella of "fair use." I don't have citations for or against that though.

Usual disclaimer when it comes to law by Opportunist · 2006-09-14 05:18 · Score: 1

This represents the views and laws of the United States of America. Other laws might apply where you live.

Though the chance that they're better are slim.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Question #3, no brainer by scharkalvin · 2006-09-14 05:20 · Score: 3, Informative

With all the outcrys against the RIAA and "downloading music", the answer
to question #3 is to the point. The only activity that will get you
in trouble with the RIAA is to make copyrighted items available for download
over the internet. If you downloaded gigabytes of music and did not make
any of your file system visible over the internet they wouldn't catch you
now would they?

File sharing networks are usefull for various legal purposes, but setting
one up on your home network involves some prudence. You need to make sure
that you don't expose files to the world that 1: you wouldn't want others
to see (such as your bank records or your p0rn collection) 2: you have
no rights to share (music or video files ripped from DVD's or CD's for your
own use under fair use).

I would suspect that if the creators of file sharing software don't provide
the proper setup defaults and protection to prevent unintended sharing of
parts of filesystems they might be liable for the users damages in a law
suit by third parties (such as the RIAA).

Re:Question #3, no brainer by element-o.p. · 2006-09-14 05:56 · Score: 1

If you downloaded gigabytes of music and did not make any of your file system visible over the internet they wouldn't catch you now would they?

That's an interesting question, and it leads to another, IMHO, interesting question--one I wished I had thought about before the lawyer answered the questions. What are the chances of the RIAA setting up file-sharing honeypots, for lack of a better term, for the purpose of snaring those who are downloading music rather than just uploading mp3s that they may or may not have obtained legally? Would a case involving such a scheme hold any water in court, or would a claim of entrapment invalidate the case? Does entrapment even apply in a civil case?

--
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Re:Question #3, no brainer by Richard+Steiner · 2006-09-14 05:58 · Score: 1

So what happens if they misindentify you (get the IP address wrong, the ISP gives them incorrect information, or whatever) but you happend to have tons of MP3/ogg files lying around that you ripped yourself and don't distribute?

How can you defend yourself?

I can point to retail CD copies that I own for EVERY SINGLE ONE of the thousands of MP3 files resident on my LAN, but is that (by itself) sufficient to stop the RIAA from suing my butt into oblivion based on inaccurate info?

--
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Re:Question #3, no brainer by Kaki+Nix+Sain · 2006-09-14 06:10 · Score: 1

Or maybe since it was the owners of the songs that shared them online, one could argue that it is then ok to have them. If I intentional put some of my money on the ground, I can't very well accuse whoever picks it up of stealing.

--
(C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.
Re:Question #3, no brainer by Pausanias · 2006-09-14 06:31 · Score: 1

Have you ever used P2P? Everytime you download a file you are also uploading it at the same time. That's how the whole thing works!! Without that necessary feature, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because not enough people would finish downloading files.

The only reason what you say will work is that the lawsuits are being targeted at people who are offering hundreds or thousands of copyrighted files for download---the worst offenders. If you delete a file from your shared folder after downloading it, you are (probably) OK only because the copyright holders have decided on this worst-cases-first strategy.

One day they could easily switch strategies and sue people at random, to scare off even people who remove files from their shared folders after downloading.

The only activity that will get you in trouble with the RIAA is to make copyrighted items available for download over the internet. If you downloaded gigabytes of music and did not make any of your file system visible over the internet they wouldn't catch you now would they?
Re:Question #3, no brainer by Just+Some+Guy · 2006-09-14 08:14 · Score: 1

Have you ever used P2P? Everytime you download a file you are also uploading it at the same time.

You're young enough to never have used Napster, FTP, or Usenet, but old enough to slag on others for not knowing what they're talking about?

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Question #3, no brainer by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 16:59 · Score: 1

If the only thing you've ever done is make single copies from your cd to your computer for personal and/or backup use, I doubt you are going to be held liable by anyone. But of course you're going to have to prove also that the RIAA's evidence of your having shared these files over the internet is incorrect.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Question #3, no brainer by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-15 06:54 · Score: 0

Elsewhere in the comments it has been pointed out that it hasn't been proven in court that it is okay to make MP3 copies of music you own so even if you do have the CDs the MP3s are not necessarily legal, that said if you aren't sharing them you are unlikely to be taken to court in the first place.
Re:Question #3, no brainer by lachlan76 · 2006-09-15 15:56 · Score: 1

If the RIAA did it, then it would be legal.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 05:21 · Score: 0

So you would prefer that I gave you misinformation? Or would you prefer that I told you what you want to hear?
The law is unsettled.

Grow up.

Don't shoot the messenger for telling you what reality is.

So if "ignorance of the law is no excuse" (a commonly held legal principle), but the legal experts are ignorant as to the bounds of the law... where does that leave the populace at large?

How on earth can we conform to the law if we have no idea of what the statues actually *mean*, and even the guys who are paid authorities on the law can't tell us?

We need fewer lawyers, fewer judges, and more well written, unambiguous statue law. That would be nice.

Then again, flying cars would be nice, too, and we're probably a lot more likely to get those in my lifetime...*sigh*

Re:Ignorance of the law is no excuse... by QuantumG · 2006-09-14 05:27 · Score: 1

Yeah, it leaves us as we were before: at the whim of our betters.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:Ignorance of the law is no excuse... by dogod · 2006-09-15 01:36 · Score: 1

i'm really getting tired of "ignorance of the law is no excuse". legislators want to keep compounding more and more laws and expect us to know all of them. i can understand that phrase if we were back in the time of hammurabi (eye for an eye, etc), where the laws were right out in the open for every to see and know. literally "etched in stone"

i bet most people dealing with law (lawyers, judges, police) don't even know every single one. yet they exepct us to know and understand them all.

now for sake of arugment and to make a "point". if i lived in a state that followed british common law, i could enter into a common law marrage with a girl of 12 years of age. this is currently being fought in colorado, where a 14 year old girl moved in with a man 20 years her senior. though as soon as the law enforment agencies found out, that guy was in deep shit. yet the officers and the court were "ingnorante of the law" as it currently stands. now if he had tried to marry her though the church or the courts, he would have been denied for not being 18. so there's also two conflicting laws, which presents a problem; and we're the ones who have to know which one is right.

"Rights to listen" by xswl0931 · 2006-09-14 05:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think the point made was that when you purchased the CD, you have rights to THAT COPY. You did not buy rights to ANY copy. So if THAT COPY is destroyed/stolen, then you lost the rights to THAT COPY.

Re:"Rights to listen" by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 05:28 · Score: 0

Seeing that we are speaking of Legalities, your implying that is the case. Until it explicitly spoken and ruled in law, I would not presume to state, THAT IS THE CASE!!!!
Re:"Rights to listen" by initialE · 2006-09-14 14:42 · Score: 1

I also think the point made was that when you stole the CD, you have rights to THAT COPY. You did not steal rights to ANY copy. So if THAT COPY is destroyed/stolen, then you lost the rights to THAT COPY.

--
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.

The RIAA only goes after uploaders. by DamnStupidElf · 2006-09-14 05:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

All of the cases that I have seen stem from people who are using a Fast Track sharing program such as Kazaa, Imesh, Gnutella, LimeWire, etc., having a shared files folder with copyrighted songs in it, even if the song files were obtained legally. So even making sure to pay for all of your downloads wouldn't protect you from a lawsuit. The only way I know to avoid the present litigation wave is to avoid having shared files of copyrighted songs.

I think that cinches it. If you don't want to get harassed by the RIAA, don't let other people download their music from your computer. That's been the common sense answer for quite some time, but it's interesting that he says all the cases have stemmed directly from sharing songs, not downloading them.

What I find more interesting is that the lawyers don't believe that buying a CD gives one the fair use right to rip it to MP3s for playing on another device. That, to most slashdotters, is a fundamental fair use right, but perhaps to the law it doesn't technically exist. I suppose it all comes down to whether EULAs are valid contracts or not. If not, then obviously everyone has the fair use right to copy the CD for their personal use because the data *has* to be copied into hardware registers, modified (especially during error correction), and then converted to analog audio at some point. If EULAs are valid, then I guess you can't buy used CDs because the imaginary EULA that comes with every new CD probably doesn't "allow" that. We definitely need a strong anti-EULA case to go through the courts, preferably one like this where it's blatantly obvious that the necessity of a EULA to play a CD or DVD is an undue burdon and against fair use rights.

Re:The RIAA only goes after uploaders. by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 06:36 · Score: 2, Informative

The issue about copies for personal use is an area in which the RIAA has flip flopped. See EFF Article "RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use"

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:The RIAA only goes after uploaders. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 07:39 · Score: 1, Interesting

I've seen this response several times.

Who cares what the RIAA says? The RIAA also says that personal back up copies aren't allowed despite all legislation up to this point (Home Recording Act, Net Act, DMCA).
What does the law say?
What is the intent of the current laws?

What is the point in mentioning what they say, as a means to tell someone how not to get sued rather than what their real rights are?
Seems ass-backwards to me.
Re:The RIAA only goes after uploaders. by Compulawyer · 2006-09-14 08:35 · Score: 1

I salute you sir for braving the /. flames and taking time to try to educate the /. community as to some aspects of the law.

--
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
Re:The RIAA only goes after uploaders. by Castar · 2006-09-14 09:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, I would expect *them* to flip flop. But they don't get to decide that, right? Surely someone other than the RIAA gets to define what "fair use" means in this case?

Otherwise, I'm scared :-(

--
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
Re:The RIAA only goes after uploaders. by automandc · 2006-09-14 09:33 · Score: 1

whether EULAs are valid contracts or not. If not, then obviously everyone has the fair use right to copy the CD for their personal use because the data *has* to be copied into hardware registers, modified (especially during error correction), and then converted to analog audio at some point. If EULAs are valid, then I guess you can't buy used CDs because the imaginary EULA that comes with every new CD probably doesn't "allow" that. We definitely need a strong anti-EULA case to go through the courts, preferably one like this where it's blatantly obvious that the necessity of a EULA to play a CD or DVD is an undue burdon and against fair use rights.
EULA's are very much "valid contracts" and have been upheld by the courts in many instances. There has been some debate over how much involvement is required before one can be said to have accepted the contract. So-called "shrinkwrap" licenses, in which opening (and keeping) the product constitutes acceptance are pretty much universally upheld. The less certain ones are so-called "clickwraps" where acceptance is premised on something less definitve, such as surfing to a particualar site, or clicking a button next to a tiny little window displaying the first few lines of 10 pages of legal "fineprint."
Don't be so eager for "a strong anti-EULA case." The (in)famous Betamax case established fairly user-favorable rules for end-users. The recent Kazaa case case rolled some of those rights back. "Strong cases" cut both ways, and we lawyers usually say: big cases make for bad law. What you really need are lots and lots of "small" cases that mostly reach the same conclusions.

--
I'm a lawyer with excellent karma. Something's gotta be wrong.
Re:The RIAA only goes after uploaders. by DamnStupidElf · 2006-09-14 11:28 · Score: 1

The issue about copies for personal use is an area in which the RIAA has flip flopped.

Have the courts flip flopped as well, or is it still untested?
Re:The RIAA only goes after uploaders. by DamnStupidElf · 2006-09-14 11:33 · Score: 1

There has been some debate over how much involvement is required before one can be said to have accepted the contract. So-called "shrinkwrap" licenses, in which opening (and keeping) the product constitutes acceptance are pretty much universally upheld.

Perhaps you can clarify, but I have never seen a license agreement on a CD or DVD giving me the right to make copies for the purpose of decoding and using the media. Instead, I usually see "All Rights Reserved" along with "This product is licensed for home viewing only," neither of which actually address the basic issue that copying and transformation is required to actually use the product. Is there essentially a common law(ish) concept of minimal rights necessary to use a work that are granted by default? If so, it would be interesting to know how those minimal rights are decided, and how they can be extended when technology changes.
Re:The RIAA only goes after uploaders. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 16:28 · Score: 0

Re: "I suppose it all comes down to whether EULAs are valid contracts or not."
Here's something to consider: The RIAA or its agent(s) typically violate a part of the terms of a EULA of a file sharing network (that they join for ulterior purposes).
If EULAS are to be valid contracts, why doesn't a network like LimeWire, for example, file litigation against the RIAA?
Re:The RIAA only goes after uploaders. by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 16:51 · Score: 1

There's no authority on it at all, either way, that I am aware of.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:The RIAA only goes after uploaders. by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 16:53 · Score: 1

If somebody doesn't do something to help the RIAA defendants economically, the RIAA will wind up dictating the law.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:The RIAA only goes after uploaders. by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 16:56 · Score: 1

Thank you for your kind words and your excellent post addressed to the gentleman who was looking for a "wi fi router" defense.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:The RIAA only goes after uploaders. by TheoMurpse · 2006-09-14 19:32 · Score: 1

Fair use is not a right. It is an affirmative defense to charges brought against you concerning copyright infringement. Meaning: you do not have a "right" to fair use; merely, if you are sued for copyright infringement, you can use "fair use" as a defense. Similarly, you do not have a right to possess two images of child pornography, but possessing only two images (provided you told the cops, and gave them access to view them) is an affirmative defense to charges of sexual exploitation of minors. See US Code 18,2252(c)(1),(2)(a). This is an accurate legal analogy, criminal charge versus civil charge notwithstanding.
Re:The RIAA only goes after uploaders. by Pofy · 2006-09-14 20:04 · Score: 1

>....neither of which actually address the basic issue that copying
>and transformation is required to actually use the product.

Not all types of "copying" counts as actually copying by copyright laws. How this is set up in detail varies with country but in general, copies needed for use, transfered as part of use or which are very temporary, doesn't constitute infringement.

"I don't know" by benhocking · 2006-09-14 05:24 · Score: 1

Well, IANAL either, but I feel qualified enough to say "I don't know." :D

However, my understanding is that this has only been established in Russia and a few other countries. Perhaps it has been established here in a few district courts or what-not, but I'm fairly certain not nation-wide.

--
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?

More Psychology of Fear Speak by mpapet · 2006-09-14 05:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

Question 2: there is no right answer
Question 3: So even making sure to pay for all of your downloads wouldn't protect you from a lawsuit.
Question 4: dismember the internet as we know it.
Question 5: ...And it's being eroded rapidly
Question 6: they bring CRIMINAL cases, not civil ones. (their emphasis)
Question 7: You shouldn't be trying to educate the younger generation about this stuff. The law is unsettled. Is it? I thought this was resolved years ago with VHS?
Question 8: I'm an ordinary lawyer... ...The US Attorney General is on the RIAA's side.
Question 9: the entire underpinning of each case is a joke.
Question 10: But if you just want to play hardball, the judge would probably just strike your answer and give the RIAA a money judgment by default

1. An environment of fear of noncompliance has very successfully been created and applied to music consumers, and the lawyers won't rock the boat either.
2. Another example of "I'm not a criminal so I have nothing to fear." Where an artificial fear is created and maintained to enable psychological control on a national scale.
3. I agree that sharing the music is wrong, but the psychology of fear is being used to remove any personal ownership (as in personal copies) whatsoever. I thought personal copies were long ago approved by the courts. Someone please inform me otherwise.

Cut the crap, and donate to the EFF http://www.eff.org/ if you aren't going to spend your personal time making change on the issue yourself.

--
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html

Re:More Psychology of Fear Speak by Dataghost · 2006-09-14 05:45 · Score: 1

Seeing that Lawyers don't rock the boat you'd think that the best way to attack the Copyright issue is to ask whether the RIAA as an agent of the artist can provide evidence to the fact that either 1. the artist or 2. the RIAA themselves, has gotten written permission or has paid royalty fees for the use of the copyright on the English Language held by Oxford Dictionary, or any dictionary of the English or American languages. The prosecuting attorney would probably attempt to use the fact that artistic license is protected seeing that the artist has recompiled the structure of words and yet that wouldn't necessarily be true seeing that Webster's Dictionary has nearly every word in the American language inside of it...
Re:More Psychology of Fear Speak by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 05:49 · Score: 0

"Question 3: So even making sure to pay for all of your downloads wouldn't protect you from a lawsuit."

IF you have them in your shared folder and allow people to download these files. THen you're "breaking" the law. DUH!

Tangent by loimprevisto · 2006-09-14 05:27 · Score: 0

Hmmm... makes me wonder... if you shared the entire contents of a drive that had Windows installed, would they have you for pirating windows?

--
Much Madness is divinest Sense --
To a discerning Eye --
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness

Re:Tangent by john83 · 2006-09-14 06:49 · Score: 1

Quite likely, I would think.

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

I apologize; you are right by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 05:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well I must confess that I was probably being facetious because I was annoyed at his question. I was annoyed that (a) he was counseling young people when his own view of copyright law is basically fictional, (b) he's counseling them on issues that even experienced copyright lawyers don't know the answer to, because the law is unsettled, and (c) he's going around spreading false ideas that will just get people into more trouble. So I apologize. I should have been more respectful.

We are in a time of flux, and the issues are being hammered out in cases where the content providers have all the money for expert witnesses, teams of lawyers, etc., and their opponents have nothing.

If the computer industry doesn't get into the fight of helping the RIAA victims, the copyright law is going to be expanded and twisted to such an extent that the internet as we know it will cease to exist. See amicus brief of US Internet Industry Association and Computer & Communications Industry Association in Elektra v. Barker.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:I apologize; you are right by Just+Some+Guy · 2006-09-14 06:00 · Score: 1

I was annoyed that (a) he was counseling young people when his own view of copyright law is basically fictional, (b) he's counseling them on issues that even experienced copyright lawyers don't know the answer to, because the law is unsettled, and (c) he's going around spreading false ideas that will just get people into more trouble.

On the other hand, I don't think there's a better time to remind people of what their rights are (e.g. using their property as they see fit). If the law is unsettled, then it means that society hasn't come together as a whole to make a decision. When better to lobby for our side of the debate?

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:I apologize; you are right by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:05 · Score: 0

"Well I must confess that I was probably being facetious because I was annoyed at his question."

Always a sign of professionalism...

"I was annoyed that (a) he was counseling young people when his own view of copyright law is basically fictional"

How is it fictional? This is a real issue related to fair use and the trampling of said rights.
People are told they have the right via the Audio Home Recording Act (1992) (and previous acts) to make back up copies and this is sanctioned via royalties on blank media. The law was never intended to enable companies to sue or restrict the rights of consumers to do this (via House interpretation).

Even the DMCA doesn't prevent encryption circumvention for fair use.

From the copyright office on the DMCA:
"This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued
ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use
under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing
a technological measure that prevents copying."

When you have lawyers who won't stand up for their clients, this is what you get...

When you answer : "how do you know you were entitled to make those copies legally?"
It does give the wrong impression. He said he owns the CD, what laws are there that prohibits him from copying the CD or creating .mp3's from one? I don't see one.

Answering in the said manner only implies you really don't care about his rights.
Re:I apologize; you are right by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:11 · Score: 0

Regarding the Beckerman/Grey Area question:

"I was annoyed that (a) he was counseling young people when his own view of copyright law is basically fictional, (b) he's counseling them on issues that even experienced copyright lawyers don't know the answer to, because the law is unsettled, and (c) he's going around spreading false ideas that will just get people into more trouble."

I took the following portion to explain his questions were situations that he had NOT counseled and looked forward to a lawyer being able to answer ( reasonably).

"The following questions have come up out of real experiences and I have never had anyone provide a reasonable (justifiable) answer."
Re:I apologize; you are right by DamnStupidElf · 2006-09-14 06:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

If the computer industry doesn't get into the fight of helping the RIAA victims, the copyright law is going to be expanded and twisted to such an extent that the internet as we know it will cease to exist.

The problem is that the computer industry relies on exactly the same overbroad copyright protections as the RIAA and MPAA. EULAs are essentially the mirror image of the restricted consumer rights the buyers of RIAA and MPAA media are thought to have. If you don't have the fair use right to copy your CDs or make them into MP3s, then obviously you don't have the right to run software you have purchased, and you need a EULA to even load it onto your hard drive. On the other hand, if fair use allows owners of CDs and DVDs to make personal copies and translate them into other formats, then what prevents owners of software CDs from doing the exact same thing? If you have bought a software CD and have the fair use right to transform or make personal copies of it, then you don't *need* a EULA to use it, you just copy it onto your computer and execute it, or disassemble it, or take off the silly CD copy protection it might have, all perfectly legally. The commercial software industry is probably more scared about fair use rights than the RIAA and MPAA. No one is going to buy CDs if you have to be 18 and sign a legal contract to use it, and the same is true of software. "IP" companies have relied on being able to apply the force of law against their customers without any true legal contract for long enough that most of their business models would collapse if the law changed overnight.
Re:I apologize; you are right by rizzo420 · 2006-09-14 06:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

that question was probably the best question i read in that group of questions and you completely blew it on that one.

not trying to be a troll... but you didn't really help anyone with your answers to the questions. nothing was enlightening in your responses. it's all stuff that almost everyone here generally knows or could have assumed.

thanks for trying though. next time answer the questions.

--
please me, have no regrets.
Re:I apologize; you are right by kindbud · 2006-09-14 06:45 · Score: 1

If the computer industry doesn't get into the fight of helping the RIAA victims, the copyright law is going to be expanded and twisted to such an extent that the internet as we know it will cease to exist.

First of all, thanks to the computer industry, the internet as we know it ceases to exist all the time. There used to be no home connections to the internet. There used to be no world wide web, instead, there was gopher and veronica. There used to be no SMTP, instead there was UUCP. Just because the recorded music manufacturers won't allow just anyone connected to the internet to distribute their product, doesn't mean the rest of it will fall apart. The Internet is not song downloading. If song downloading goes away, that just leaves more bandwidth for more interesting things, like VOIP and distributed computing.

--
Edith Keeler Must Die
Re:I apologize; you are right by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 07:26 · Score: 1, Insightful

(c) he's going around spreading false ideas that will just get people into more trouble
My biggest problem with your answer and the above quote is that you assume the poster of the original question is teaching the "'younger' generations" about copyright law when s/he stated it was just do-s and don't-s of music copying and sharing. While related they are not the same. If you tell children/teens nothing at all about either copyright or music copying and sharing they will go ahead and assume it is all acceptable.

My cousin got his first ipod recently and he used Limewire to get music. His parents knowledge of this sort of thing stops at knowing that it is legal to tape songs off the radio. He assumed he can download and share music and that it was fine and dandy. Despite me having flawed/skewed knowledge of copyright, I was still the most informed on the topic to set him "straight". While I can't give him an accurate idea of what is right and wrong in copyright, I CAN tell him valid do-s and don't-s of music sharing to help him avoid becoming an RIAA target. He is going to use Limewire no matter what I or anyone tells him. The least I can do is tell him to not share his songs and to remove any songs he downloads when his shared list.

Point is: Most will assume that since music sharing is very easy to do and that a ton of people are doing it, it is acceptable or there are no consequences. Not informing the younger generations of anything regarding this matter will put them MORE at risk, even if the information given to them is somewhat flawed.
Re:I apologize; you are right by professionalfurryele · 2006-09-14 07:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

With answers like you gave I sometimes wonder if a better legal system wouldn't be to just toss a coin. At least then someone like me would get justice half the time.

I did like your comment about the law being the only leveller left. Last time I checked the laws were all bought and paid for, along with our politicians and civil servants, along with the best lawyer. Our judges vary between incompetant at best, corrupt and political at worst. Our militia, who under normal circumstances would be our last hope are a bunch of mindless hicks who wouldn't know liberty if it hit them in the face with a red hot golf club. Our police force only enforce the laws that their political overlords tell them to, who did I mention are bought and paid for? And to make matter worse fundamental design flaws in the system mean that larger entities are favoured over smaller ones because of their ability to use their greater cost absorbtion potential to extort money from people.

The system is broken, and people are too stupid to fix it because we have gone from living in a representative 'democracy' in which people were told by their betters what was right for them to a geniune democracy (mob rule) where every Tom, Dick and Harry's opinion counts no matter how fundamentally retarded they are. And where do Tom, Dick and Harry go for their opinions. Why the TV, and their favourite political party if they bother to vote. Not that voting makes any difference because just in case Tom, Dick and Harry get wise the system ensures that the small subset of parties likely to win an election are uniformly controlled by money interests. And I wouldn't mind, but it isn't even a conspiracy, it's just the natural evolution of a flawed system which makes the fundamental mistake of assuming that people without a clue will keep thier mouths shut and their backsides out of a polling booth.

You really want to know why people hate lawyers, judges and the police? It's because you have all become pawns, willing pawns, of a system which is out of control and which places the interests of abstract entities above that of an ordinary guy. And which is more, you have all be deluded into developing a hero complex which convinces you that your part of the system is fundamentally right and that if we could just tweak it and fix all the parts you think are broken then societies problems would go away. Well I'm afraid the truth of the matter is you are all useless puppets.

I'm not trying to take away from the good work that you are doing, I'm just pointing out that your belief that the system works in any way shape or form is a falsehood, told to you by people who I've no doubt really convinced themselves of it just as much as you are convinced of it. But it is a falsehood none the less.
Re:I apologize; you are right by nitroamos · 2006-09-14 07:48 · Score: 1

It seems to me that on some high enough level, the creation of law depends upon the intuition of the people. On a case by case basis, you can't argue "I don't feel guilty", but if false ideas are spread enough, then when enough people get sued, the law might begin to recognize that the "false ideas" had something legitimate about them.

Maybe this is just wishful thinking. But remember that the Bill of Rights exists on this side of the Boston Tea Party, American Revolution, etc, which was... illegal...
Re:I apologize; you are right by swillden · 2006-09-14 11:18 · Score: 1

you didn't really help anyone with your answers to the questions. nothing was enlightening in your responses. it's all stuff that almost everyone here generally knows or could have assumed.
You're wrong. He did answer the questions. He said he didn't know.
If you don't think it's enlightening that a copyright attorney who has been specifically focused on this area of the law doesn't know the answers to these simple questions then you haven't really thought it through.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:I apologize; you are right by iCEBaLM · 2006-09-14 11:36 · Score: 1

Well I must confess that I was probably being facetious because I was annoyed at his question. I was annoyed that (a) he was counseling young people when his own view of copyright law is basically fictional, (b) he's counseling them on issues that even experienced copyright lawyers don't know the answer to, because the law is unsettled, and (c) he's going around spreading false ideas that will just get people into more trouble. So I apologize. I should have been more respectful.

It seems to me you were not annoyed at his question but you were annoyed at him.

You malign the public "dis"ing lawyers yet you do nothing to help your cause. This is one of the reasons why lawyers are reviled, they care little about the facts and concentrate more on the people. Discredit the person and their words mean nothing.

Perhaps next time you can stop worrying about being usurped professionally by J. Random User and maybe answer questions that you were asked to answer.
Re:I apologize; you are right by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 11:46 · Score: 0

The lawyer obviously didn't even comprehend the questions. The person who asked was assuming that the lawyer would know about legal provisions for creating backup copies of copyrighted media: he either didn't or he failed to understand that it was relevant. I would be in shock at how brain-dead this lawyer appears to be, but I've had dealings with lawyers before and this isn't unusual. Good ones exist. If you find one, hang on tight.
Re:I apologize; you are right by swillden · 2006-09-14 17:13 · Score: 1

The person who asked was assuming that the lawyer would know about legal provisions for creating backup copies of copyrighted media
Which legal provisions are those? They're not found in title 17, the only provisions for backups there apply to computer software, not audio recordings. Perhaps some interpretation of the Fair Use provisions could provide for legal backups, but as far as I know no court has ruled on it.
Perhaps this attorney understands copyright law better than you, or the questioner.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:I apologize; you are right by dogod · 2006-09-14 23:48 · Score: 1

"...leaves more bandwidth for more interesting things, like VOIP and distributed computing."

right; like the telcom industry isn't getting a nevous about voip right now. the internet has opened a can of worms that has many establised businesses almost scared shiteless. instead of adapting to the "new medium" they would rather have it legislated away in their favor.
Re:I apologize; you are right by P3NIS_CLEAVER · 2006-09-15 05:40 · Score: 1

If you have ever been in a courtroom and start throwing around esoteric arguments, the judge basically tells you to STFU. I am sorry you /.ers are unwilling to grasp the reality of the situation.

--
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

http://financialpetition.org/
Re:I apologize; you are right by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 09:25 · Score: 1

The RIAA is attempting to expand the copyright law. If they succeed the rulings will apply to a lot more than music files. For explanation of consequences of court's acceptance of RIAA's "making available" argument, for instance, see amicus curiae brief in Elektra v. Barker.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:I apologize; you are right by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 09:38 · Score: 1

I'm not ocnvinced of anything. I'm just an ordinary guy doing the best he can to be on the side of good guys rather than bad guys, working within a system that I didn't create and don't manage. I'm not here to convince you that the system works. I was here to answer your questions to the best of my ability.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:I apologize; you are right by rizzo420 · 2006-09-17 11:36 · Score: 1

i'd have to go find the information, but i believe there is case law that allowed someone to make copies for personal use under the fair use provisions. is it the betamax thing?

also, in that series of questions, the lawyer basically says "i don't know what mp3's you are talking about" when the guy who wrote the question clearly stated that he ripped a CD and those are the mp3's.

sounds to me like this attorney who is supposedly devoted to copyright law, especially with the RIAA crap, didn't do all his homework and didn't really put any thought into his questions.

--
please me, have no regrets.
Re:I apologize; you are right by kindbud · 2006-09-18 11:15 · Score: 1

Then copyright will become as respected a law as speeding limits. They can't take us all to court.

--
Edith Keeler Must Die

This is a bad path by Overzeetop · 2006-09-14 05:29 · Score: 1

And I really dislike the answers, especially in the terse language, that this question received.

Fair use really does have a say in what can and cannot be done. The AHRA also does. The question is how does this legal mess get sorted out. Last I heard, anything that wasn't explicitly unlawful was lawful. The answers seem to take a different tack.

Okay, with that off my chest, let me say just a bit in defense of the lawyer:

He's taking the part of giving legal advice, not speculation. If you ask a lawyer what a law means, and then tell him you're likely to be involved in litigation concering the matter, you will get two completely different answers. There's a lot of grey between intent and letter of the law and how its interpreted in a court. As an engineer, I understand that. There are a lot of things in my field (buildings) which will "usually" work, but if you want me to guarantee that it will withstand (insert favorite natural disaster here), I'm going to show you something that's going to be far more complex than you're used to seeing.

When I entered engineering school, way back when this stuff (digital replication) was farily new, we got a 1 hour lecture on IP and copyright. It boiled down to this: You buy one copy, you can use one copy. Backing it up is okay. Installing it in multiple locations is okay, as long as only one instance can be used at a time. If you sell the original, you have to wipe the copies - you dont' own it any more. If you can't control the use of a copy, don't make that copy. It boiled down to "treat it like a book".

I still want to know if I download a song "unlawfully" and burn it to a taxed Music CD, then rip it back onto my hard drive, is that copy now legal? ARHA seems to imply so, as would buying a cd and making multiple copies for my immediate family and friends, as long as they were on a taxed Music CD.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

Re:This is a bad path by BalanceOfJudgement · 2006-09-14 07:44 · Score: 1

When I entered engineering school, way back when this stuff (digital replication) was farily new, we got a 1 hour lecture on IP and copyright. It boiled down to this: You buy one copy, you can use one copy. Backing it up is okay. Installing it in multiple locations is okay, as long as only one instance can be used at a time. If you sell the original, you have to wipe the copies - you dont' own it any more. If you can't control the use of a copy, don't make that copy. It boiled down to "treat it like a book".
My office stands by the same approach. We have multiple computers running the same license of Visual Studio. The crux of the issue is that few of us ever use it so we try to make sure only one of us is ever using it at one time. During periods of very high workload, that tends to fall by the wayside, but our accounting department sneers at us when we ask to buy more licenses, so we try to make due.

We do have several backup purchases on hand in case anyone ever comes to us asking about licenses (that is, purchased several copies we don't use, in a half-assed attempt to comply with the license agreement). We don't install them because we're not about install, uninstall, and reinstall with a new license just to comply with the license agreement - Windows is horribly bad at removing installations of ANYTHING and I'm not about to compromise the workability of my computer when I've already done my level best to comply with the licensing.

ARHA seems to imply so, as would buying a cd and making multiple copies for my immediate family and friends, as long as they were on a taxed Music CD.
I don't really feel right making multiple copies for family and friends, but I don't hesitate to make as many copies as I want so I can listen to a CD wherever I want. It's not really feasible for me to keep a CD collection at the office, so I bring them to the office and burn them. I think that more than qualifies as Fair Use.

--

We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Re:This is a bad path by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-14 16:32 · Score: 1

I still want to know if I download a song "unlawfully" and burn it to a taxed Music CD, then rip it back onto my hard drive, is that copy now legal? ARHA seems to imply so, as would buying a cd and making multiple copies for my immediate family and friends, as long as they were on a taxed Music CD.

I think you're misinterpreting the AHRA.

Downloading the song onto an AHRA medium without anything between the wire and the medium which could itself be a medium (e.g. a computer's RAM or hard drive) would be quite tricky. Probably you'd need to build an AHRA-compliant device to do this, which means implementing SCMS, etc.

Also, AHRA only protects you from making a copy pursuant to the statute. It does not shelter you in upstream or downstream activities. So if you have an AHRA-compliant copy, you can't rip it to a computer under the AHRA. You'd need something else, which in practice is fair use. But the fair use analysis is not good. Likewise, distributing AHRA-compliant copies to others is not covered under AHRA, nor first sale, and fair use remains unlikely to help.

--
-- 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.

So if I get that right... by Opportunist · 2006-09-14 05:30 · Score: 1

your best bet is on getting a hitman and taking the judge's family hostage, threatening to kill them should his verdict not appease you. The laws have already been twisted enough that you have no chance to win, and the hitman is cheaper than paying the fine. And if you get caught, it's still less prison time than you'd get for sharing.

Works for me.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

RE: 9) Evidence? by Kittyflipping · 2006-09-14 05:30 · Score: 1

Someone needs to spoof screenshots of RIAA IP addresses sharing copywritten music... That's all the evidence we need, right? Maybe then people will start realizing how weak their cases are.

He did answer it by A+nonymous+Coward · 2006-09-14 05:32 · Score: 1

He said the law is unsettled. What part of unsettled do you not understand? I was glad to see this answer; IANAL of course, but from everything I have read, the *AA have been doing their best to grab as much law as they can for their side, piece by piece, step by step, and until they go over the edge, the law is unsettled.

It's very simple. There is no answer until the *AA stop moving the answer.

--
Infuriate left and right

Taken in context! by loimprevisto · 2006-09-14 05:33 · Score: 0

Sorry, but no.

Here's what I got on Google from searching "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" is http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html, and they thoroughly explain the context of this quote to make you realize that it is, indeed, a lawyer joke.

--
Much Madness is divinest Sense --
To a discerning Eye --
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness

Copyright laws in other countries by xswl0931 · 2006-09-14 05:35 · Score: 1

It would seem to me that if allofmp3.com was legal for an American to use then ThePirateBay would be just as legal to use. However, it seems that just because you aren't committing a crime in the country where those organizations exist doesn't mean you aren't committing a crime in the US.

Summary of answer: by A+nonymous+Coward · 2006-09-14 05:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

There is no answer. What is so hard to understand about that? The case law is unsettled; he said that. This is not about simple murder, kidnapping, etc, this is about laws which are changinga ll the time, as fast as the *AA can push their changes and keep things changing. Until the *AA stop changing things, he can't answer the question. So yes, the answer could be summarized as "stay squeaky clean", but any other answer would be wrong.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Even simple murder, kidnapping, etc, aren't simple. Look how many different kinds of murder there are: various degrees of murder, of mansalughter, voluntary, involuntary, willful, whatever. And that is law which is mostly settled. How can you possibly expect new law to be as well settled?

Reality is that unless you stay squeaky clean, they can amke a case against anybody they want under whatever corner they have pushed the law into; and even then, if they lie, they can make your life miserable.

--
Infuriate left and right

Re:Summary of answer: by shredluc · 2006-09-14 09:14 · Score: 1

....ettled; he said that. This is not about simple murder, kidnapping, etc, this is about laws which are changinga ll the time, as fast as the *AA can push their c....

The saddest part is that people seem to take this copyright law and elevate it to pedestals yet unseen. Most people are more feverish about copyright than murder (which is a problem in it's own right).

Murder has a definite ethical impact on most people and so does copyright. We don't consider murder to be a controversial issue because we know what it is and that it is ethically wrong. Likewise most people know how they feel about their property and copyright and feel ethically correct about their decision.

It is a simple issue, not a complicated one. The only complication here are greedy corporations.

I'm sure if they could find a way to profit on murder the way they profit on music, we would see MIAA (Murder Industry Association of America) preaching that some serial killer infringed on their IP of stabbing someone. It's ridiculous and insane and i can't believe that people have put up with this crap for as long as they have.

Re:Question 6 not understood - or lacking by rongage · 2006-09-14 05:39 · Score: 1

I think you will find that just because something is legal in one country doesn't necessarily make it legal in another.

We see this example of allofmp3.com and we think "...since it is legal in the Soviet State(s) and we bought it from them on their terms, it must be legal here too." - this is a very dangerous mistake to make.

Consider this near identical situation: if Marijuana is legal in Jangaland and you purchase on their terms from them, does that fact trump the laws of your homeland that make Marijuana posession (and use) illegal?

We need to kill this line of thought right now - totally dead! It is totally wrong to rely on the "where I purchased it - it was legal" crap. (Good) Firewooks are legal in Ohio, but are illegal here in Michigan. Making copies of a work without permission of the author and/or rights owner is not legal here - regardless of the laws of the Soviet States.

No, I am not a lawyer, but I do have a bit of common sense

--
Ron Gage - Westland, MI

Dear Sir by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 05:41 · Score: 1, Insightful

On behalf of the Slashdot community, I apologize that you received so many stupid and useless questions.

Re:Dear Sir by drakaan · 2006-09-14 08:35 · Score: 2, Informative

Not all of them were stupid and useless.
One that I particularly wish was less tersely answered (or where I wish some speculation as to meaning had occurred) was this one:

1. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently stolen (along with my 5 disc changer *@$#!!) do I retain any rights to listen to that music?

. a. Are the .mp3 files of that CD on my computer legal or do they now belong to the thief too?

I understand that there is no "listening right" per-se, but the question seems to stem from a typical understanding of the concept of fair-use.

If I have a right to make archival copies of copyrighted material that I have purchased a copy of on CD, and I use MP3 files on my computer as that archival copy, am I allowed to listen to the MP3 files themselves if the original CD is stolen, or has the right to do so passed on to the theif?

Assuming that's a reasonable paraphrasing of the original question, (or even if it isn't), are there answers to thaose questions, or has the issue yet to come before a judge?

I understand the reason for the answer to the original question, I think (I suspect it has something to do with being a legal professional and giving a public answer to a legal question), but I am also curious as to what the answer to it (rephrased) might be.

--
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Re:Dear Sir by el+americano · 2006-09-14 08:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is that why we got some useless answers? The questions are always hit or miss, but by my scorecard, the answers were only average:

1) Answered, but "Default Judgement" could use a clarification
2) Either none or his clients made mistakes, or they all did. He couldn't give us one example of tactics/negotiation that he'd seen fail?
3) Answered
4) Mostly answered
5) Answered - softball
6) Didn't know. Didn't check.
7) Confusing. b) see b, doubt it, don't know. The first part seems to say, "no copies". We still don't know if ripping CDs for our music players is legal?
8) Answered
9) Not answered. Cites an argument on discovery, which apparently only requires a valid copyright and the existence of a shared copy. What evidence is being successfully used? Has any evidence ever been thrown out as irrelevant or insufficient?
10) Answered

I'll give a 6.5/10, or in slashdot terms a Score:3, Informative. Maybe worth reading, but if you are up on the subject, you may not learn anything new. I was hoping to learn a lot more about what has actually been tried in negotiation and the court room. Perhaps he didn't feel it was the right format to mention these details.

--
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
Re:Dear Sir by __aayurq3262 · 2006-09-14 09:01 · Score: 1

"If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently stolen (along with my 5 disc changer *@$#!!) do I retain any rights to listen to that music?" The typical IP attorney answer to this goes something like this: At the time you made the copy (.mp3) you either did or did not have the right to make the copy. You may have had a fair use right to make it. If you had the right to make the copy, then it was not copyright infringement to make the copy and it just becomes another legal copy. You can do anything with the legally made copy that you could have done with the original - sell it, give it away, keep it, listen to it. It's not legally tied to the original in any way and your right to listen to it does not depend on owning or possessing the original in any way. He'll then go on to say that none of this has been legally tested and give some disclaimers about how unsettled the law is.
Re:Dear Sir by fermion · 2006-09-14 14:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't think any of these answers were useless, it was just not what you, and perhaps most, wanted to hear. As we all know, because we have all read the HHGTTG, a good question forms the basis to a understandable answer. Most of these question assumed certain things to be true, and then tried to make assertions based on those assumptions, and the lawyer was then expected to say, you are absolutely right, and so brilliant! Instead the lawyer did what lawyers do and gave realistic answers based on the current reality.
The fact is that most of these questions were nonsensical. Answering them would be like answering what kind of food do the trolls that run your car need. While it would be possible to use analogy try to explain that the car has no living components, but does consume a refined product that is refined from gunk that is from the ground, this would not be reality. So while the nice lawyer could have tried to fit the answer to the question, it is not usually what lawyers do, and not what I would expect a lawyer to do.
What is refreshing about these responses is that it provides a ray of reality to a site that all to often hides reality under troll and overrated moderations, and highlights fantasy with insightful mods. Which is not such a big deal, as /. is really just a bit of harmless fun. But if we do take it seriously, then we take some time to learn how to ask good open ended questions, that is questions that do not assume a certain answer, and the develop the discipline to listen to and understand the answer. Otherwise all this effort is truly made trivial, as we will be unable to learn anything at all.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:Dear Sir by Bitmanhome · 2006-09-15 08:52 · Score: 1

it was just not what ... perhaps most, wanted to hear.

The very definition of useless. The theft question(s) in particular were very interesting, so I was annoyed to find no answers. The government seems to say that while I have all rights to the piece of plastic, I have very limited rights to the information encoded on that plastic. This question was simply trying to determine where that line is, and the responder was no help.

Likewise, the "I don't understands" were absurd; this lawyer works with music IP all day, but doesn't understand the basic technology?

--
Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
Re:Dear Sir by Bitmanhome · 2006-09-15 11:51 · Score: 1

For those still reading, much of this was discussed further down the page. Read on!

--
Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
Re:Dear Sir by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-16 08:32 · Score: 1

Good comment, fermion. You've well expressed some of the frustration that I've felt, better than I've been able to articulate it. You really summed it up with this one:
"The fact is that most of these questions were nonsensical. Answering them would be like answering what kind of food do the trolls that run your car need."
.
Thank you.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Reality or Certainty? Take your Pick. by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 05:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

What do you mean by real answers?

(a)Correct answers which accurately state the law? or

(b)Answers which sound like the responder knows what the answer is when he doesn't?

It's real easy to do (b).

I don't play that.

The reality is
-the law is uncertain and in flux;
-it will be hammered out in cases where the corporate content cartel has all of the marbles;
-unless the tech industry gets wise and starts getting behind the victims of the RIAA/MPAA suits financially, the legal issues which are in flux may all be resolved in favor of the corporate content cartel; and
-the answer to every question will wind up being no, instead of what it is now: maybe.

So instead of getting on my case, do something about helping me win.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:Reality or Certainty? Take your Pick. by Buran · 2006-09-14 05:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

I mean correct answers that are properly written, don't act like the poster is an idiot, don't "answer" (quotes intended) the question in glib sentences that hint at the poster being uninformed or stupid. It's easy to do (b) and (a) at the same time, and do it competently.

This is the worst Slashdot interview I've seen in a long, long time. It looks like you spent no time whatsoever reviewing a single answer and threw out the whole thing in five minutes.

I'll get on your case if I damn well please because I'd like to see a good discussion of this but this is not it. I'm also sick and tired of low-quality "I know everything, you're a fucking moron" attitudes in discussions.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:Reality or Certainty? Take your Pick. by Wovel · 2006-09-14 06:18 · Score: 1

You have show remakrable patience and restraint in the face of abundant ignorance.
Re:Reality or Certainty? Take your Pick. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:36 · Score: 0

You are the worst kind of troll.
Re:Reality or Certainty? Take your Pick. by fruitbane · 2006-09-14 06:48 · Score: 1

My understanding is that if a lawyer makes a concrete statement about law in public it can be taken, to a certain extent, as legal advice. He has a responsibility to only commit to facts which have been borne out in court cases and are clearly and concretely on the books.

As to the other half of your comment, yes, his answers were a little glib. Regardless of the merits of your point, your post is a flaming stinker that is inappropriate even for this forum, and does not further the discussion. You are clearly not willing to come to a middle ground. You don't want answers. You want an "I'm sorry, I was wrong," and nothing less, which you are unlikely to get. That's no longer a discussion or even an argument, but a petulent demand.
Re:Reality or Certainty? Take your Pick. by Buran · 2006-09-14 07:10 · Score: 1

I don't think it's inappropriate at all to demand higher quality of a featured column of the site. Be contented if you want with substandard crap, but don't be surprised if that's all you get. If you want better, speak up. I want better, so I spoke up. If improvement is wanted, it has to be demanded.

I also never said that "I don't know" or "that is undecided but here are some relevant links" was not a valid answer. In fact, I explicitly said so in another comment. Before you flame me, check your facts first.

I also don't care what you think is inappropriate. The point of comments is to tell people what you think of an article, the article's subject, other posters, or topics related to any of those. I exercised my right. Bashing me for doing so just makes me think you wasted your time chastising me for having an opinion, which I have the right to have.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:Reality or Certainty? Take your Pick. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 07:17 · Score: 0

Well said, Buran! I think the problem is partially that civility is dead. Well, that and representative democracy...... But kudos to you for demanding some civilty, and some infomative content!
Re:Reality or Certainty? Take your Pick. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 07:26 · Score: 0

You have show remakrable patience and restraint in the face of abundant ignorance.

Except that "patience" and "restraint" are not the things you should show -- you should instead attempt to educate the ignorant so that they are no longer ignorant. One-word answers without a detailed explanation of the reasoning behind them don't do that.
Re:Reality or Certainty? Take your Pick. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 08:29 · Score: 0

You can cure stupidity. Ignornance is terminal.
Re:Reality or Certainty? Take your Pick. by fruitbane · 2006-09-14 10:22 · Score: 1

I have no bones to pick with the request itself or with your right to voice your opinion. The way you requested, and have subsequently responded, however, has nothing to do with your right to your opinion. Your tone is one of someone who thinks he is entitled and, frankly "holier than thou." Slashdot is a "free" site in that you do not have to pay for anything other than your internet connection and a computer to view it. Wanting better is one thing. Acting as if you are somehow entitled to it is another.

Constructive comments and suggestions, presented politely, are how change is brokered, at least moreso than petulent demands.

And that is my opinion.
Re:Reality or Certainty? Take your Pick. by Buran · 2006-09-14 10:39 · Score: 1

And you have decided to label me as a "he", which I find rude and offensive, as long as we're randomly deciding that things that other people post is rude and offensive, and wasting time flinging pointless insults at each other, when things would better be served by deciding you don't like someone else's ideas and/or tone but not making a public stink about it.

Come on. I've seen far worse shit on Slashdot go unremarked and yet here you are taking time out of your day to bitch at me. Talk about immature.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:Reality or Certainty? Take your Pick. by fruitbane · 2006-09-14 11:52 · Score: 1

I apparently don't happen across that other shit very often. I usually don't dive in so far into discussions as I did this one. Besides, it was particularly frustrating that you made some good points and then, to me, ruined them with the manner in which you made them. There could have been some useful discussion there but your response after that post was as flame-worthy as any in that discussion, including those with far less valuable content.

Still, my comments are no more or less irrelevant than your. You didn't like his answers, I didn't like the way your tone precluded any possibility of meaningful interchange on the topic.

Sorry about the "he" part. No intent there to offend. Written language habit.

Now, at this point, I'm going to go find other parts of my life to waste time with, like dealing with this cold that has turned my head into a faucet.
Re:Reality or Certainty? Take your Pick. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 14:27 · Score: 0

In that case, I'm selling my VT100. Anyone interested?
Re:Reality or Certainty? Take your Pick. by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 05:07 · Score: 1

Thank you for your kindness in saying so. Much appreciated.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

iRate radio by Peter+Trepan · 2006-09-14 05:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've been discovering a lot of new stuff with iRate radio. The songs that it locates for you, while not necessarily Libre, are at least free-as-in-beer.

--

Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

You are touchy by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 05:44 · Score: 0

"Grow up."

Seems like the pot is calling the kettle black.

You were purposely vague, then when pressed you *FINALLY* gave a reasonable answer which was "the law is unsettled". Okay. Give the *adult* answer theh first time and don't make him ask. You act like my 15 year old daughter who makes me pull the answers out of her painful word by painful word.

And then you wonder why people hate lawyers! (sound of my palm smacking my forehead).

Lawyers by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 05:45 · Score: 0

Beckerman:

Lawyers are just like any other people. There are good people and bad people. The people who come out the strongest against 'trial lawyers' are the big corporations' PR departments. They want the 'common folk' to think ill of lawyers, because the law -- as imperfect as it is -- is the only equalizer left. And it's being eroded rapidly. And people dissing lawyers all the time helps that process.

I agree about the trial lawyers, but being a layer yourself, perhaps you can't see how other lawyers act.

I only have direct knowledge of two lawyers involved in actual cases.

We rely on lawyers to help us through this maze of laws they have created, and what we often get is treason and deception.

My wife's car was run over by a truck on the I5, he just changed lanes into her.

She had injuries that not only took years to heal, but stopped her from getting any excersize and pretty much changed the course of our lives.

The laywer did pretty much nothing (from our pov) for JUST under a year, then he said "Here's the settlement I got you". It was the cost of the doctors plus about $750. He said if we didn't take it, he would quit, and he had left us with no time to re-file with another lawyer.

My wife still can't walk long distances, and is still terrified of trucks (too about 2 years before she would drive at all).

I later learned he had worked for the trucking industry on previous cases, I have no doubt he made a bundle of ours.

I don't know about "Any other people", but if someone hands their life to you, you have a certian responsibility--at least to not rape and pillage them, and any person I know would understand that instinctivly--anyone but lawyers and politicans.

I'm not saying that ALL lawyers are bad, but good ones are awful hard to find.

2 Words by arootbeer · 2006-09-14 05:46 · Score: 1

Boston Legal

Well.. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 05:46 · Score: 0

he *is* a lawyer..

You're losing the thread. by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 05:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

You're losing the thread of what was said.

I said:

"When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc. I don't know what gives you this idea."

His response wasn't "what about making a copy on your hard drive and copying that to your ipod?" If he'd asked that question I would have said "there is no legal answer to that question at this time."

Instead his response was:

"It seems strange to me that a copyright lawyer hasn't heard of the fair use rights granted by US copyright law (Title 17, section 107). The person asking the legal question is better informed than the lawyer!"

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:You're losing the thread. by crabpeople · 2006-09-14 07:07 · Score: 2, Informative

I think its you whoes loosing the thread.

You said:
Plus you seem to have a general misunderstanding about the basic principles of copyright law. When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc. I don't know what gives you this idea.

He said:
It seems strange to me that a copyright lawyer hasn't heard of the fair use rights granted by US copyright law (Title 17, section 107).

Now I was under the impression that you DO have the right to make backup copies of things for personal use (i dont know how to look up laws but i will assume that thats what the cited law states). Now you are saying that this is not the case?

--
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Re:You're losing the thread. by Bob(TM) · 2006-09-14 07:18 · Score: 3, Informative

Cornell Law

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work,
including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified
by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors
to be considered shall include--

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or
is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is
made upon consideration of all the above factors.

From my reading, an aspect of fair use is codified. However, it doesn't help much in justifying a backup
or rip.

--

The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
Re:You're losing the thread. by Darkforge · 2006-09-14 12:49 · Score: 1

I see the thread. It seems like you're suggesting that someone who thinks he has fair use rights has no idea what he's talking about. (That seemed to be the gist of your point about metaphysical rights to produce additional copies.)

Does this guy (or any of us!) have any fair use rights (including the right to produce private additional copies) at all, in your view?

--
When I moderate, I only use "-1, Overrated". That way, I never get meta-moderated!
Re:You're losing the thread. by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 18:03 · Score: 1

I said:
"When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc."
In response to that he accused me of being a "copyright lawyer [who] hasn't heard of the fair use rights granted by US copyright law (Title 17, section 107)".
Because he was mixing apples and oranges, because he thought that what I was saying was inconsistent with the fair use doctrine, and because he showed himself to be rude, insulting, and ignorant, I said "you do not know what you are talking about". I guess I was imprecise, I should have said "you are rude, insulting, and ignorant".

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:You're losing the thread. by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 10:10 · Score: 1

It will take years or decades to hammer out what does or does not constitute "fair use" with song files. In BMG v. Gonzalez, a p2p file sharing case, the poor lady got hammered on her claim of a "fair use" right to make copies.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Most disturbing to me... by whoever57 · 2006-09-14 05:48 · Score: 1

To me, the most disturbing part of the answers is this:

The judge didn't want to hear a word I was saying.

I've read similar comments far too often -- How can anyone possibly expect justice (or even "law") if the judges only listen to one side?

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!

Re:Question 6 not understood - or lacking by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 05:52 · Score: 5, Informative

When I said "I don't know what you're talking about" I meant why he would think that it taking place in another country would be a defense, or would make him less subject to persecution or even prosecution. This is an international wave of litigation.

Also the present wave isn't presently about downloading primarily. It's primarily about the RIAA's allegations of 'distribution'. If you bought and paid for every single RIAA song file in your shared files folder it wouldn't mean a thing to them. They will still sue you, and will insist on every penny, because it is your 'sharing' of those songs that they know about, and that they are after.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:Question 6 not understood - or lacking by blackcoot · 2006-09-14 05:53 · Score: 1

i interpreted the response as meaning "i have no idea what you're talking about with regards to allofmp3 being legal", which is a totally valid statement --- nobody has tested the legality of allofmp3 in court. just because you buy something doesn't mean it's legal (e.g: crack cocaine, stolen goods, etc.)

Worst. Interview. Ever. by JTek · 2006-09-14 05:54 · Score: 1

Am I the only person who found this lawyer to be extremely condescending (and not very informative)?

Legality of downloading not relevant to the RIAA by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 05:55 · Score: 4, Informative

In response to that much more clear question, the answer is that the RIAA is going to come after you no matter where you got the files from. They're not suing people because they have evidence of downloading. They're suing them because they have evidence of the files residing in a shared files folder.

If you had a shared files folder with 500 RIAA songs in it, and you paid 99 cents to iTunes or whomever for each and every one of them, the RIAA would come after you and demand a settlement in the exact same amount as if every one of the song files had been pirated.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Unless you happen to be GWB by The+Last+Gunslinger · 2006-09-14 05:56 · Score: 1

In that case, you can be told that what you've done is illegal and safely ignore such judgements while continuing to engage in illegal activities.

And to keep everyone's mind off what you're doing, you can make a show out of attempting to have such pesky laws amended in your favor. Irrelevant, of course, since you get to keep doing whatever you want anyhow.

Re:Unless you happen to be GWB by QuantumG · 2006-09-14 06:03 · Score: 1

That's what happens when you hand over control of the union cause ya afraid of the boogyman: a new king. Question is, what's gunna happen next election? I'm still calling a Democrats win on the platform of video game violence, but no-one seems to see that one comin' but me.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.

The listening right? by techstar25 · 2006-09-14 05:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

1. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently stolen (along with my 5 disc changer *@$#!!) do I retain any rights to listen to that music?
1. There's no such thing as a listening right, I don't know where you get that from.

The listening right his question refers to is the right to "space shift". In other words, the right to "listen" to a recording at work on my iPod, or in my car on a burned CD-R, all while the original CD itself sits on a shelf at my home. This is a frequent topic of discussion amongst Slashdot regulars so I'm not so surprised you didn't know what he meant. According to Wikipedia we have this right based on the judgement in the case, "Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc., 180 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999)". It gave us the right to make an electronic backup copy for personal use.

The current RIAA website says "If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail. "

Once the original is detroyed do we still have the right to keep our backups? Of course this question itself is a paradox because once we destroy the original we need the backup. However do we then have the right to even possess the backup if we can't prove we ever had the original? We don't know the answer to this, and that's what he was asking. However I don't believe this has been tested in a court yet.

Regardless of any of this, his question is actually off topic because (to my knowledge) the RIAA is only "going after" people who are
sharing files, not people who are possessing personal backups. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

Re:The listening right? by MedBob · 2006-09-14 06:28 · Score: 0

I don't think that a single case can confer a "right".
It simply provides case law that can support a position.
As it stands, anyone can sue anybody for anything. The probability of winning that suit is determined by the facts of the case, the law involved, and the prior cases that pertain to the particular situations in that case.

After all, the obvious conclusion after reading this interview is that in most instances, the RIAA does not really have a strong case. Like in Vegas, they're surfing the percentages.
Re:The listening right? by bstempi · 2006-09-14 06:34 · Score: 2, Funny

According to Wikipedia we have this right based on the judgement in the case, "Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc., 180 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999)". It gave us the right to make an electronic backup copy for personal use.

And what better way to make a backup than to spread it across a bunch of hard drives in multiple locations using bittorent? ;-)
Re:The listening right? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 06:40 · Score: 1

Glad you're so sure. But See EFF Article "RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use"

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:The listening right? by EVil+Lawyer · 2006-09-14 07:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

So the RIAA says it's no fair use. But is there any law on the books saying it's not fair use? What's your analysis of how RIAA v. Diamond applies to ripping CDs?
Re:The listening right? by EVil+Lawyer · 2006-09-14 09:30 · Score: 1

by "law on the books" I of course mean to include any case law.
Re:The listening right? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 09:33 · Score: 0

> But is there any law on the books saying it's not fair use?

I thought there was a test in precident (the four-factor test, if memory serves, but mind you, IANAL and this applies to the US only), not so much a "law on the books" ...

The main problem is that we have too many forces against this, on the theory that they're stopping "evil pirates" or whatever. And these people have expensive lawyers ready to argue that it's not fair use. Who are you going to hire to convince them it is fair use? Mind you, they don't necessarily think like you and I--that such a thing obviously *ought* to be fair use, whether the law considers it to be that or not.
Re:The listening right? by MobyDisk · 2006-09-14 12:12 · Score: 1

That's half of the answer people wanted. The other half is "do you think they are right?"
Re:The listening right? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 16:24 · Score: 1

Of course I do not think they are right.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:The listening right? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 16:39 · Score: 1

I think the Diamond case just had to do with whether the mp3 player defendant was making was subject to the requirements of Audio Home Recording Act. Don't think it dealt with fair use or anything like that.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:The listening right? by Pofy · 2006-09-14 20:06 · Score: 1

>Glad you're so sure. But See EFF Article "RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use"

So? One can find articles claiming the earth is flat. The important is what the law says.
Re:The listening right? by MobyDisk · 2006-09-15 01:20 · Score: 1

Why not?

I thought that an individual could legally make copies of copyrighted material for the purpose of time-shifting and space-shifting.

So why is it not okay for people to do this? In MGM -vs- Napster the space-shifting argument was irrelevant since the Napster users were sharing their music with other people. But I don't know of anything to indicate that copying something to MP3 is illegal. Isn't that why the RIAA only goes after people who are distributing, not just downloading?
Re:The listening right? by xeno-cat · 2006-09-15 03:06 · Score: 1

But no one is going to sue you for printing and distrubuting maps of the flat earth. I think what he is getting at is that his opinion on the matter is not relavent. What is relavent is that the RIAA will sue you for such things as they specifically state they will sue you for. In some ways, this trumps whatever law is on the books because who wants to go to court with the RIAA?

Kind Regards

--
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
Re:The listening right? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 04:35 · Score: 1

There is no statute. And there are no cases. That's what the law says at this moment.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:The listening right? by Pofy · 2006-09-15 06:19 · Score: 1

Ehh, the point was that it is irellevant what, for example RIAA says or doesn't say regarding what is allowed and what is not alowed by copyright law. If they change their mind, that does not change the law automatically. That was my point.
Re:The listening right? by Pofy · 2006-09-15 06:21 · Score: 1

The issue was not what RIAA do or don't do. The issue was what constitues Fair Use. To figure that out, it is irellevant what RIAA things or not (or if they change their mind). What is important is what the law says.
Re:The listening right? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 09:27 · Score: 1

Not aware of any.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:The listening right? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 10:07 · Score: 1

You're misinformed. In Betamax it was held that the making of a copy of a television broadcast for later viewing was a fair use. I'm not aware of any other holdings on time shifting or space shifting. The Diamond case did not have anything to do with space shifting as a fair use.
The reason the RIAA goes after people for 'making available for distribution' is that that's the only thing the RIAA knows about. They don't know of any downloading or of any distributing when they bring their case.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:The listening right? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 10:18 · Score: 1

Fair use issues with respect to copying of digital song files have not been hammered out yet in the courts.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:The listening right? by Pofy · 2006-09-16 00:26 · Score: 1

Were have I claimed that or even touched that subject of what has and has not been done in the courts? My comments was that what RIAA things of the issue, especially if they change their opinion of it, is quite irellevant from the point of view if it is allowed or not.

Re:I don't think that [phrase] means what you thin by LetterRip · 2006-09-14 05:56 · Score: 1

ben

"The point is, that "Fair Use" has a lot to do with how much of a copyrighted work you can copy and for what purposes. It does not give you carte blanche to copy an entire work if it's only for your benefit. Russia, I believe, does have such rules, but not the U.S."

I believe that copying for backup purposes, has been found to be fair use, as with time shifting, and likely space shifting. His arguement was that he wanted to get a backup copy from a source other than directly from his original.

LetterRip

Fine by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 05:57 · Score: 0

All of the cases that I have seen stem from people who are using a Fast Track sharing program such as Kazaa, Imesh, Gnutella, LimeWire, etc., having a shared files folder with copyrighted songs in it

Well, I've just sided with the RIAA. I support fair use and copying my cd's to my iPod, and the RIAA doesn't appear to be suing anyone for that. They appear to be suing people who share their music illegally. Fine by me.

Re:Fine by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:32 · Score: 0

thats all well and good, however, the moment you convert your cd's to the IPOD standard, you can't actually change them back nor can you re-burn them onto a "fair use" CD, I don't know where you are getting fair use of an ipod, but basically once its on an ipod or in their proprietary format, making any change to the file such as turning it back into an Mp3, is technically illegal under the DMCA, so there is no fair use in IPOD's there is only horrible, horrible DRM technology, also, you can only play your music in an ipod or I-tunes as Apple holds all rights to their format and they are not giving them up. Also, even if you burn your ipod files onto a CD, they are still on Apples proprietary format, therefore you can't play them in your car, unless you spend the extra money to buy an adapter for your car for the ipod

Wow... by GmAz · 2006-09-14 05:58 · Score: 0

Wow, I found this statement dumbfounding . I don't know what MP3 files you are talking about, how do you know you were entitled to make those copies legally?. I mean, these lawyers either prosecuting or defending in RIAA cases and they don't know what an MP3 is? This just goes to show you that the RIAA is throwing money at them to do whatever it takes to get these cases to court.

--
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!

Re:Wow... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 06:22 · Score: 2, Informative

I know what an MP3 is. Just didn't know what MP3's he was talking about. He didn't say how he got the MP3's. Can't assume that RIAA are just agreeing that everybody can make all the copies they want for personal use. See what EFF has reported.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Might you find allies in ISPs with deep pockets? by Peter+Trepan · 2006-09-14 05:59 · Score: 1

On one hand, powerful backbone providers might oppose RIAA lawsuits, since they want people to be motivated to buy fat broadband accounts and to consider the internet relatively safe from real-world hazards. (Why do you need a broadband account if you're afraid to download media?)

On the other hand, maybe they already take universal adoption of broadband (and the fees that come with it) for granted, and would support the RIAA in order to keep traffic costs down.

Would Sprint, MCI, and other backbone providers be allies or enemies?

--

Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

RIAA radar by Mateo_LeFou · 2006-09-14 06:06 · Score: 5, Informative

Hasn't been mentioned yet. You tell it about big-label artists you like, and it points you to non-RIAA artists that are similar.

http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/

--
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love

Re:RIAA radar by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 13:16 · Score: 0

So I type in "Britney" and I get a link to an artist that uses something that looks like kiddie porn on the album cover? Britney hasn't been child porn for a long while i think.

It's about time by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

It's a pleasure to see ignorant slashdotters basically get their asses handed to them by people who actually know what they are talking about. There are so many false (or at least hasty) assumptions about illegal file trading that get repeated here with every story about the **AA. Eventually, they come to be perceived as established fact. If the lawyers' answers have any effect, hopefully it will humble some of you, and show you that much of what you thought you knew was uncertain, if not just plain wrong. (Knowing the typical slashdot ego, though, it's not very likely.)

Re:It's about time by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:29 · Score: 0

I agree. It's amusing to see folks complaining about the Worst Interview Ever.

You can't ask a question that makes many fallacious assumtions then expect an answer that is both cogent and satisfying.

You are an idiot by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:07 · Score: 0

Some people simply do not have the intelligence to grasp why he can't tell you a precise answer. You are one of them.

Here is a fucking clue: there is no definite answer. There isn't enough established case law for him to tell give you the answers you want.

You think there are answers? Then find them for us. You can't? Oh, you're just a shittalking idiotic sycophant. I see that already.

He gives you common sense advice - hire a lawyer, or failing that, defend yourself and get a jury trial (pro se).

He is also right when he says that MP3 copying does not fit in under the definition of the law. Its right there in the text that others have quoted as proof.

People like you only hate others because you are too stupid and stubbron to know any better.

Re:Question 6 not understood - or lacking by TubeSteak · 2006-09-14 06:08 · Score: 1

What use does it do when the Judge isn't even up for the photoshop argument... isn't it about then that you push for a jury trial?

During a jury trial, one of the reasons to bring in expert witnesses is to educate the jurors on subjects that are essential to your case, but technical/complicated to the point that the avg. juror wouldn't understand.

Here's the catch: expert witnesses can be expensive.

You'd need a few experts to sufficiently 'educate' jurors on each point you think will introduce enough doubt* to tip the balance of probabilities in your favor.

OTOH, I imagine you could find enough anti-RIAA expert witnesses willing to testify for free.

*reasonable doubt isn't enough to 'win' a civil trial.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!

Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by logicnazi · 2006-09-14 06:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Thanks for the interview but I have to admit that I'm left feeling a bit disappointed by the answer to question 7 (the buisness about CDs getting stolen or burned in a fire). I realize that the law might be unsettled in this area but I think the questioner was asking for a legal analysis. What are the relevent questions that would have to be decided to answer these questions? What statues apply?

In particular it is my understanding that fair use has long been understood to include a right to make a backup copy of your software or music. Certainly this fair use notion only makes sense if there are SOME situations in which it is legal to restore your software from a backup. Since it is a well accepted canon of legal interpratation that one shouldn't interpret laws to have absurd consequences or to render clauses meaningless when possible it seems this provides strong reason to believe that it is okay to restore your mp3s if your CD was destroyed in a fire.

The question about the insurance company should follow pretty easily from any answers to the other questions. Surely the insurance company wishes to minimize the money it pays out and if you still retain a large fraction of the value of your music collection they will pay you less money. On the other hand if you no longer have the right to legally play/burn the music on your CDs you have lost all the value contained therein and if this sort of loss is covered by your policy they have to pay up.

The question about whether you can download music you legally own is the most interesting as it goes to the heart of what it is that you purchase when you buy the CD. Is it a physical object or some limited rights to intellectual property. Either way has some serious consequences. Many of the claims by software companies that attempt to restrict your rights to do as you want with the software you purchase rest on the notion that you are just purchasing certain limited rights to make use of the IP while if what you are purchasing is more like physical possession of a CD it puts reselling that CD on firmer ground. Now if the CD had a specific EULA banning downloading the music on the CD that would be one thing but if that isn't the case things get very interesting.

It would be nice to say that one had purchased a single right to listen to the music contained therin but copyright law doesn't work like this, generally it governs the making of copies. Thus I would guess the question comes down to whether the copy made by downloading from the internet is legal. However, if it is legal for you to copy the data from your CD to your computer what makes this case different?

Anyway the point is that there are a lot of interesting questions here and I was hoping to see some quality legal analysis not my vague musings. Maybe I've just gotten spoiled by hanging out on law blogs but I'm kinda disappointed.

--

If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 06:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's a physical object. If you lose it and want to replace it you have to buy another.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 06:31 · Score: 1

If by "quality legal analysis" you mean speculation, I don't feel that that would be helpful in this environment. I might do that in a scholarly setting among lawyers, but in this environment I could easily mislead people. I'm trying to help, not hurt, people.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by Grishnakh · 2006-09-14 06:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

That doesn't wash. Either we're buying a physical object, or we're buying a license to listen to the music.

If we're buying a physical object, then the pattern of pits and holes on the disc is inconsequential. I can copy it as I like, and do whatever I like with that data: make backup copies, encode it into MP3/Ogg and copy it to my MP3 player, or put it on Kazaa. The only reason to buy the CD instead of downloading it from Kazaa is to get the full, uncompressed version on a nice, shiny disc, to get the nice booklet, and to get the convenience of getting it in this convenient form.

If we're buying a license to listen to the music, then that license comes with limitations, such as not being able to give copies to the world. But a license is separate from the physical disc; with the license, we can still make backup copies, and use those in case the original is destroyed. That's the way licensed software works. I can legally make a copy of a Windows CD as long as I have a valid license, and don't give any copies to other people.

The record industry wants it both ways, and they can't (rightfully) have it that way. The fact that they're getting their way shows that the laws in this country are just a scam, bought by those with money, enforced by a thoroughly corrupt court system, and not worthy of any respect at all.
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:58 · Score: 0

If we're buying a physical object, then the pattern of pits and holes on the disc is inconsequential.

Wrong. The pattern of pits and holes is protected by IP law.
It's really not that hard to understand. You're just trying so hard to find a way around it that you're confusing yourself.
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by Grishnakh · 2006-09-14 07:08 · Score: 1

So which am I buying, a physical disc or a license to the data?
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by sckeener · 2006-09-14 07:11 · Score: 1

In a way I can answer. I had a similar problem with scanned books and lucky for me I provide IT support for a bunch of lawyers. So I went over to our IP lawyers and asked what I needed to be concerned about with digital copies. After talking to 3 different IP lawyers it all came down to the receipt. If you do not have a receipt you do not own the product.

One example an IP attorney gave me was you could have the original CD with books and still need to produce a record of where you purchased the product...otherwise you could be installing stolen software or have a very good fake.

Not a problem for me since I was scanning books...I just scanned in the receipt.

--
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by mungtor · 2006-09-14 07:23 · Score: 1

Amazing that even when you are trying to provide information you still come off like an arrogant cock. "A scholarly setting among lawyers" my ass. Most of the people here are, believe it or not, capable of understanding a logical progression of thought even if it comes from within your needlessly convoluted prefession.

If you have no information, can provide no insight, and are unwilling to speculate, why did you even bother with the interview? The whole thing could have been summed up in the headline. "Lawyer doesn't know how copyright law will change. Sharing music will get you sued."
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by DrWhizBang · 2006-09-14 07:29 · Score: 1

That doesn't wash. Either we're buying a physical object, or we're buying a license to listen to the music.

And Ray is saying physical object, not license.

If we're buying a physical object, then the pattern of pits and holes on the disc is inconsequential.

I wish you were right. Unfortunately, there is a thing called "copyright" that makes things a lot more confusing. I understand what you are trying to say, and I agree with you to some degree. But the RIAA does not see it this way, and they are willing to sue people over it. And as Ray has been saying over and over, the law is not firm enough on this to either back you up or blow you down.

Copyright is the "right to copy". Just like the publishers get upset if you photocopy their books, the RIAA is going to get upset if you try to copy their music. The "copyright holder" has not given you the right to copy the disc. Maybe that is outside of their rights to impose that restriction - that's what we need to find out.

--
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by chefren · 2006-09-14 07:44 · Score: 1

Even if your buying a license the disc is proof that you own a license. If you lose it the point is moot, you still can't prove you bought it. Unless were supposed to save the receipts for all the cd:s we buy..
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by Grishnakh · 2006-09-14 07:46 · Score: 1

It sounds like they're trying to make CDs akin to books, which they're not.

A book is usable as-is: I open the book and read the characters printed on the page directly. I don't need to copy it to make use of it.

A CD is totally unusable as-is. I need something to play it on. And with modern technology, we now have ways to copy data from CDs and save them to hard drives in desktop and handheld computers (iPods) so that we don't have to carry around a stack of CDs. In any type of player, the data must be read from the disc by a computer, effectively making an electronic copy. Years back, the courts upheld a concept called "time-shifting" where people recorded broadcast TV programs on their VCR and watched them later from the tape. They have also upheld the right of software buyers to make backup copies of their software in case the original install discs are damaged. I don't see how copying my CDs onto my MP3 player is any different at all, especially given that I have fully paid for my CDs.

When you buy a DVD (which is really just like a CD except that it has video too), it has restrictions written on the disc that you can't show it publicly, like in a large theater. I believe CDs have this written on them too, though I don't have any handy to check. How is this covered by copyright law? This seems like a matter of licensing. Showing a movie on a big screen for everyone to watch, or playing a CD on a big stereo system outdoors, isn't a matter of copying any more than watching the movie or listening to the CD in your own home, so I don't see how copyright law applies here. So if this restriction is valid, then surely these forms of media are licensed, not merely sold as with books.

The fact that these questions haven't been fully answered yet by the legal system, and the only way to answer them is to hire an expensive lawyer and go to court, just shows how corrupt and broken our justice system is in this country.
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 07:51 · Score: 0

Even if your buying a license the disc is proof that you own a license

Not quite, the disc is proof you have a disc. Big deal. You could have begged/borrowed/stolen it, etc.

The actual paper licence (if one exists) or a purchase receipt is the only shure way to prove you not only have a licence but that you are entitled to have that licence.
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by Grishnakh · 2006-09-14 07:52 · Score: 1

Ok, what if the disc is scratched or otherwise damaged? I'd still have the damaged disc and the jewel case with booklet. Seems like good enough proof to me. Heck, the book alone should be proof.
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by KiahZero · 2006-09-14 07:54 · Score: 1

But you've paid for more than just a physical object, you've paid for a license to listen to the music contained on the physical object. The physical object may be gone, but what happened to the license?

--
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 08:03 · Score: 0

What he's saying is that here, speaking as a lawyer, who has attached his name and credentials to his words, he has to be very careful. He has professional and legal obligations not to mislead anyone into breaking the law. Hence, he isn't going to speculate in a context where people might take that as legal advice and go off and get their arse sued. He HAS to cover his ass or HE could be sued. Worse, he could be disbarred and that would end his livelihood. So. Chill. The. Fuck. Out.

He's not saying he doesn't think the unwashed slashdot masses can get his high and mighty arguments. He's saying he's not comfortable speculating in an environment where his words could have dire consequences.
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by DrWhizBang · 2006-09-14 08:15 · Score: 1

A book is usable as-is: I open the book and read the characters printed on the page directly. I don't need to copy it to make use of it.

When you read a book, you store it in memory - your own brain - a sentence at a time while you process the text, relate one sentence to the last, build context. Electrical impulses in your brain send this data from one place to another. How is this different from a CD player reading a few bits, buffering it, converting it to audio?

You and I may understand the mechanics of CD/DVD or mp3 players. You say that the technology dictates that you need to make a copy in order to playback the media. But really this is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you may at one point reproduce what is on the disc so that there are two. That is a copy, and that is what is being objected to (right or wrong).

--
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by jjohnson · 2006-09-14 09:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

You're buying a licence to the data on that physical disc.

In other words (as Ray said elsewhere), having owned the disc and then lost it does not legally entitle you to download a copy of the data from Kazaa. You haven't purchased a licence to have the data itself, you've got a right to the data *as provided by the disc*.

The balloon Ray is trying to pop is the argument that, because the disc is orthogonal to the data, they are logically and therefore legally separate entities. They're not, and while the conflation of the two may be archaic, that's still the law, and you'll still be in trouble for breaking it.

--
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by mungtor · 2006-09-14 11:54 · Score: 1

which leads directly back to the question:

Why bother with the interview if he can't really answer any questions?

Stick a disclaimer on the answers for christ's sake. If he really is a lawyer, he should know how to disclaim responsibility better than anyone.
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 14:26 · Score: 0

Why should I do that? I can just borrow a cd from my friend, rip the songs off it and put them back on my computer.

I'm not trying to be a smartass, I agree with all of your logic, I'm just pointing out that even though it is a physical object its not the object itself (the CDrom media) thats important, its the data contained on it, which can be copied extraordinarily easily (and even if it cant because of encryption or copy protection schemes all it takes is one smart person finding a way and then pushing it to the internet). If my washing machine falls of the back of my truck and rolls off a cliff theres not much choice for me, I buy another. But if it WERE possible to make a copy of my washing machine easily, I'd surely be doing it. I'm not going to pay >300 bucks to replace the damn thing if I can get one for free with little or no effort. And if I'm prohibited by law to make a copy of my washing machine, I'll just go to another country and get it where their laws find it perfectly legal to do that.

I think this is the major problem our society (worldwide) is having right now (on both sides of the issue). We've never had to deal with the problem of massive numbers of people being able to get something for nothing, even if the "something" is just a little bit of digital content.
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 16:01 · Score: 0

That is silly... look up the term backup... its a copy of something to prevent its accidental loss... happens MILLIONS of times a day in MILLIONS of computers ... get used to it its the year 2006...
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 16:03 · Score: 0

You don't need to copy a CD either to make use of it. Just stick it in a device called a CD player. You mean MP3 player? Thats not meant to play CDs. Then again, in some civilised countries (pardon my French, no I'm not French) it is legal to make a copy of your CD and put it on your DAP. Undisputably legal.

A CD is an object containing data which is easy to reproduce (backup, copy, distribute). It is so incredibly easy and cheap to do this. Eben Moglen (FSFs lawyer) calls it "zero marginal cost", Google for it this guy is a lawyer. That is why it happens so much. That is why copy protection schemes were used.

FYI books are also scanned in and distributed over P2P. I've seen it, downloaded a few too. I must say from a practical point of view I prefer a book with paper in my bedroom on the evening instead of a book on a LCD screen but thats personal preference.

Now, to restate, as far as your usability argument goes I'm defending the devil and say 1) you need a device to make your CDs usable, but not e.g. a DAP (to copy to DAP you need a diff devide which reads CDs which counts as the devide used to make your CDs usable) 2) to copy a book, you can scan it, which happens. Hence the issue is not about usability, it is rather about what your rights are with the thing you bought a license for. That does not nullify your question (its valid and asked elsewhere too) but the usability argument/compare is BS to me.

I'm not sure if all CDs have that notion you speak about DVDs have. I have certainly seen it on audio CDs here (but I'm not from USA). I also know that this "fair use right" exists in other countries than the USA _but_ it is not an exclusive right (do I say this right?) what I mean to say is that when someone puts copyright protection on a CD and sells it to you, you have the right to make a backup of it, but if you can't that is "your problem".

Goddamnit I even want to rant on CDs with scratches, CDs lost in trains, CDs stolen out of cars, and generally the fact CDs don't last that long but oh well...
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 16:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Many people think question 7 was a good question. I do not. My initial reaction to it was that it was disingenuous, as if someone were looking for excuses to skirt the law, and asking me to help them by giving them some ideas. The whole question made no sense. When you buy a cd, you own the cd, you have no rights in the sound recording or in the musical compositions. Period.
If you want to know whether you can make personal copies for your own use, from a cd, without being sued, I can only tell you that the RIAA flip flops on the issue, and there is no judicial authority one way or the other, and there is no statutory authority one way or the other. So what kind of "legal analysis" do you want me to give you?
Meanwhile the whole subject is basically off topic. All of the lawsuits are based not on where the copies came from, but on the fact that they are in a shared files folder that is accessible to others.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Fair Use and Destryoed CDs by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 16:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm not saying lawyers are smarter than computer programmers, probably it's the opposite. All I'm saying is that each discipline has its own language, lawyers speak and understand each other's language, just as programmers understand each other. When I'm among people who are not lawyers, and who are asking me legal questions, it is important not to mislead. Just because I can make an argument as to why something should be the law, doesn't mean I should do it in this forum. That is not my place here. No one asked me to fashion an argument. They just asked me questions on what is, not on what should be.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

What rights exactly do I have? by JamesTKirk · 2006-09-14 06:11 · Score: 1

When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc.

Ray, since you seem to be following this thread, and some other people seem to be frustrated by the vagueness of the answers (I'm not blaming you, it sounds like the law is vague), I'd like to ask just what rights I actually get when I buy a CD. You seem to imply that I have just bought a piece of plastic, and that I don't even have the implicit right to listen to the music on it. Is this correct?

If that's true, we would have to be idiots to buy anything under that kind of agreement. I think we should be trying to educate consumers that they are buying something under terms that they would never accept if they were aware of the details.

Re:What rights exactly do I have? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 06:16 · Score: 2, Informative

Sure you can listen to it.
The questioner was assuming that there is some "listening right" which follows you even after you no longer have the cd anymore. I.e., he is suggesting that you can go rip a copy of the song from somewhere, without reference to the copyright laws, because your past ownership of a cd with the song on it gave you a perpetual "listening right". That is total fiction.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:What rights exactly do I have? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:18 · Score: 0

He never said you didn't have the freedom to listen to the music on that copy.
(I used the word "freedom" because calling it a "right" is misleading; it breeds a false sense of entitlement. If the CD gets scratched, for instance, your "rights" aren't being violated.)
Re:What rights exactly do I have? by JamesTKirk · 2006-09-14 06:23 · Score: 1

So I've bought the physical CD, and I can listen to it for the life of the CD. But there is no right to rip or copy the music on the CD, with the possible exception of a personal backup copy which the publishers are gratiously allowing us to make for now. Is that correct?

Sorry for the nit-picking questions, but I'm trying to zoom in on exactly what the law says I am allowed to do.
Re:What rights exactly do I have? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 06:24 · Score: 1

You can't safely assume anything in this crazy climate. See EFF article on making personal copies.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:What rights exactly do I have? by Wubby · 2006-09-14 06:45 · Score: 1

Is it possible to enumerate at least SOME of the rights that legal ownership of a CD (book, DVD, audio-tape, other work) grants me? What the RIAA "says" is very different from what the law allows. They can say it's not legal, but that doesn't mean it isn't. What IS legal as the owner of a copy of a work?

Lending to a friend?
Making mix tapes?
Playing it at a party (private or public)?
Selling it?

Are any of those currently known to be legal or does every right have to be court-won to be considered legal?

--
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
Re:What rights exactly do I have? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 16:01 · Score: 1

Lending to a friend? YES
Making mix tapes? DON'T KNOW
Playing it at a party (private or public)? YES
Selling it? YES

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:What rights exactly do I have? by shark72 · 2006-09-14 19:58 · Score: 1

"Playing it at a party (private or public)? YES"

If I've bought a CD and I haven't made arrangements for a public performance license (such as with BMI or ASCAP), wouldn't playing that CD at a public venue put me at risk of running afoul of the "unauthorized public performance" clause that's usually in the copyright statement on a CD?

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:What rights exactly do I have? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 05:13 · Score: 1

I'm not aware of any statutory or judicial authority on the subject of making the backup copies.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:What rights exactly do I have? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 10:16 · Score: 1

As I said I believe playing it at a party would be ok. If it's not a party but some kind of business pretending to be a party, I think it would not be ok.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Topic by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 06:12 · Score: 2, Informative

You are correct. The RIAA is only going after people who are sharing files.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:Topic by AK+Marc · 2006-09-14 09:50 · Score: 1

I think the issue is being missed. There are two questions:
1) What does the law say [about whatever].
2) What would you expect the finding in court to be [with regards to the same whatever].

Those are separate issues, and we are really looking for a lawyer's take on the first and getting answers to the second. It is my understanding that every individual ever gone after in these types of cases was targeted solely for sharing. No one has ever been charged with downloading. So I know what will keep me from getting targeted. But, at the same time, I want to know my rights. Fair Use is enumerated in the US Code. What rights do I have with regards to making personal backups, declaring the CD to be the backup and using the copy, and all that. The warnings on movies, the EULAs on software and such indicate that I have a "license" to use the product. So, if I have an original DVD (presumably with some sort of "license" to view the content) and I make a Fair Use backup and the original is lost, do I lose the rights to that "license"?

I understand that whether it is a license is up for debate, whether it is possible for me to make a Fair Use copy without breaking the law is up for debate (though posessing the Fair Use copy is legal, the means to make it are possibly illegal), and other such issues apply. But we want to know whether it is legal through the eyes of a reasonable lawyer's reading of the law, and secondly, how it would be treated in court.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Topic by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 16:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

You would find it helpful for a practicing litigation lawyer to publicly guess on what the outcome will be in the courts? How would that be helpful? Why would my guess be better than anyone else's? Why would any practicing litigation lawyer make a public guess that the outcome on any particular issue might be adverse to the result that would help his clients' interests? I can't see why anyone would be interested in, or benefit from, a public guess from someone in my position. At best it would be a waste of breath... at worst it would mislead the more gullible among you.
If you ask me what is, I will answer to the best of my ability. If I don't know the answer I will tell you.
If you want me to guess, my guess is..... the RIAA will get crushed on every argument they have ever made or ever will make, and the courts will put them and their lawyers in jail, and everyone will be able to make as many copies of everything as they like, for free.... and after you've digested that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Topic by AK+Marc · 2006-09-15 05:02 · Score: 1

You would find it helpful for a practicing litigation lawyer to publicly guess on what the outcome will be in the courts?

Yes.

How would that be helpful?

So that I would have some idea of what I would be in for if the situation would happen to me. Or, since it is very unlikely such a case will be brought against me, maybe just personal curiosity.

Why would my guess be better than anyone else's?

Because of your status as "a practicing litigation lawyer" in the area discussed.

Why would any practicing litigation lawyer make a public guess that the outcome on any particular issue might be adverse to the result that would help his clients' interests?

I'm not your client, and I'm asking the question. The question isn't "What should they find with John Doe you are presently litigating." The question is, "In a hypothetical of some of the typical issues brought up in a case like this, what would you expect." I've heard a lawyer that defends against speeding tickets say "most people are found guilty." and they didn't see that as a problem.

I can't see why anyone would be interested in, or benefit from, a public guess from someone in my position. At best it would be a waste of breath... at worst it would mislead the more gullible among you.

Well, I have a lawyer for a dad. My sister and mother went into public service in areas that had them testifying at least monthly (which put them in court more than most lawyers, as well as knowing many lawyers on both sides of the fence) and my best friend is a lawyer (as well as most friends of friends through him). I have never had a single lawyer ever dodge a question like you did. One is an immigration lawyer, and I ask her K1 and K3 questions all the time, which she answers without hesitation. Why shouldn't she? They are questions in her field which are related to some hypothetical. It isn't asking your legal opinion about my situation. It isn't asking for what you expect to have the verdict be for any of your clients. It is asking:
Based on your experience, what would you expect if [...]

The answer "I don't know" can not be correct. Well, it could be if you were exceptionally stupid or misrepresented your qualifications. It is very rare for a lawyer to walk into a court after the jury deliberates and not have some expectation. It is human nature to try to predict. We may realize that we have a low confidence in the prediction, but we will make one anyway. And, since you are someone that is more familiar with the legal aspects of these cases, we are asking your personal (not legal) opinion on what you think is the most probably finding.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Topic by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 05:11 · Score: 1

Show my previous response to your Dad and ask him whether I'm right or you're right.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Topic by Slashamatic · 2006-09-17 06:04 · Score: 1

Isn't this more to do with the difficulties in prosecuting format shifting? If I format shift a CD to my MP3 player, who is going to know about it? If I format shift to a shared drive on my home network, again who is going to know about it? If I then share that drive by whatever program with the world then the RIAA is going to have a file name and an IP address to chase.

MOD PARENT UP by neonprimetime · 2006-09-14 06:13 · Score: 1

Mod Parent up!!! This site is very useful!

No... by Anonymous+Codger · 2006-09-14 06:13 · Score: 1

I found his responses refreshing. No BS, no handwaving, just the facts (or lack thereof). It's a gray area, and his responses accurately reflect that. I'd hire him in a minute.

--
No sig? Sigh...

We need smart people in power by bravo369 · 2006-09-14 06:14 · Score: 1

The feeling I got from those answers is that we need smart people in positions of power like judges and attorney generals. I think those of us that actually understand how IP's work and computers and filesharing works cannot understand how these lawsuits continue on. I feel that we just need once judge with relevant technical knowledge about this stuff and the RIAA will get sent packing

And I believe... by benhocking · 2006-09-14 06:16 · Score: 1

I believe that copying for backup purposes, has been found to be fair use, as with time shifting, and likely space shifting. His arguement was that he wanted to get a backup copy from a source other than directly from his original.

And I believe that you're wrong, at least on a national level in the US. I don't think it's been decided either way, which is what this lawyer was getting at. Of course, IANAL. I wish that the lawyer himself would answer this question definitively. The question being whether the question of fair use applying to backups et al. has been answered definitively in the courts. And, of course, if it has been decided definitively, in which direction has it been decided. (I would guess that if it had been decided definitively, it would be decided in the way you suggest.)

--
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?

Re:Legality of downloading not relevant to the RIA by RobertKozak · 2006-09-14 06:17 · Score: 1

If you had a shared files folder with 500 RIAA songs in it, and you paid 99 cents to iTunes or whomever for each and every one of them, the RIAA would come after you and demand a settlement in the exact same amount as if every one of the song files had been pirated.

So if I have a folder called "Music" containing all legally bought songs from iTunes and I share that folder so I have access to it from another computer within my home network I could be sued for each and every one of them?

If thats true then I am very very saddened at the state of Copyright law and kinda depressed.

Just as I was going to post this I thought, "Hmm. I have a Windows Mobile phone, and maybe getting a Microsoft Zune plus I have a Tablet PC, which are all connected to my "home" network but when I am away from home they are still able to connect to my home network via the Internet. This makes the idea even more scary.

--
Bet this .sig looks familiar.

Hello Mr Kettle, by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:21 · Score: 0

Hello Mr Pot.

The lawyer bashers are forgetting something by Cainjustcain · 2006-09-14 06:22 · Score: 0

A lawyer can be held responsible for the content of his legal advice. This isn't your standard Slashdot Interview; Mr. Beckerman has to be more careful about what he says. On top of that you're basically asking for free legal advice and then complaining when it doesn't answer all your questions. If you're downloading music and really concerned about the legal ramifications of your actions go retain an attorney and I'm sure he'll be happy to tell you everything you want to know.

What about the Home Recording Act? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:25 · Score: 0

Didn't the Home Recording Act of 1992 give people some rights to make copies of legally purchased music? Given those rights, I think some of the original questions d make sense.

Re:Question 6 not understood - or lacking by TexasDex · 2006-09-14 06:25 · Score: 1

No, I am not a lawyer, but I do have a bit of common sense

But this is IP Law, so common sense doesn't necessarily apply. Because Copyright protects the right to create and distribute copies or derivative works, not to listen to music. Copyright law says "duplicating/distributing this is illegal", not "owning duplicates that we didn't make is illegal", which might imply that if you duplicate it in a country where it is legal, then the copy is legal. Hypothetically, say Ohio forbids the sale of fireworks but doesn't forbid their use, or maybe only forbids their use in big cities. You could legally buy fireworks elsewhere and then use them on--say--your farm, because their use isn't what's illegal, it's the sale.

And that's not the only example. In Pennsylvania, honest-to-god, it's completely legal to smoke cigarettes if you're under 18. It's maybe even legal to try to buy them (I forget), but it's illegal for the store to sell them to you. So in theory if a student found a state where sale (or giving them) to minors was legal but actual consumption by minors was illegal, and brought them to PA, in theory no laws have been broken. Unless you look at import/export laws for tobacco... my point is simply that any sufficiently complicated law doesn't always make sense.

The next question is: who is doing the duplicating, the downloader or the uploader? The large wave of lawsuits target only those who upload or share music on the internet. That probably doesn't imply that downloading is legal--it's probably because targeting sharers is easier--but imagine a band or label who offers their own music on a p2p network. They could hardly sue the IP addresses which downloaded the songs on the grounds that they infringed copyright, anymore than Weird Al's fans could be sued for downloading "Don't Download This Song" off his publicly available website.

That isn't to say that the RIAA won't find some way to go after AllOfMP3.com customers if it wanted to, but they'd be on shakier legal ground than you'd think, and they might have to do something weird like accusing the customers of "customs violations" for importing music improperly. Insanities like this are common and maybe even inevitable when you try to apply laws that control the flow of information in a non-isolated system with non-uniform laws.

--
The Cheese Stands Alone.

Uploaders only? (And the "open Wi-Fi" defense") by larryk+(OK) · 2006-09-14 06:26 · Score: 1

It seems to me that if you download anything for which the "sewers" or "sue-ers" own the copyright, you are taking a risk of getting caught, however small. On a p2p network such as eMule, the incomplete files that you are currently downloading are temporarily avaliable for download by others until a file is complete and you have a chance to move it out of your shared folder. While you are connected to the network, you can see the IP addresses of the people who are downloading to you and from you.

If you want to let your paranoia run free, imagine that the RIAA has banks of computers connected to the p2p network offering lots of desirable copyrighted material. Then they capture the IP addresses of everyone who connects to them to download something.

As a practical matter, it appears that the RIAA is only going after people who are OFFERING copyrighted material, and not people who download. If I were to share my entire collection of legally-purchased music, the RIAA would let me "settle" by paying them $750 for each song that I already own legally, even though I downloaded nothing. I know, it doesn't make sense to accuse the people OFFERING files of downloading everything that they offer, but none of the rest of their arguments make sense either.

I would like to ask a lawyer who is willing to actually answer questions about the "open Wi-Fi" defense: "Oops, I never put any password protection on my home wireless network. Whoever did all that downloading must live in another apartment somewhere close by. Or maybe it was a wardriver who parked in front of my house." Letting your neighbors "borrow" a little bandwidth from your broadband connection might be a cheap alibi.

Personal copy "fair use"? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 06:26 · Score: 2, Informative

If you think it's safe to rely on that assumption see what EFF has to say.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:Uploaders only? (And the "open Wi-Fi" defense") by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 06:28 · Score: 2, Informative

No reputable lawyer is going to tell you how to evade the law.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:Legality of downloading not relevant to the RIA by EVil+Lawyer · 2006-09-14 06:30 · Score: 2, Informative

No no. It's not about setting up a "shared folder" per se, it's about setting up a sharing scheme so that others have access to the files. When NYCountryLawyer says "shared files folder," he is talking about a folder that has been linked to a file-sharing program -- such that others can download or open the files.

Re:I don't think that [phrase] means what you thin by Grishnakh · 2006-09-14 06:33 · Score: 1

It does not give you carte blanche to copy an entire work if it's only for your benefit. Russia, I believe, does have such rules, but not the U.S.

Well, that does make sense. Russia has historically been known as the "land of the free and home of the brave" while the U.S. has historically been known as an oppressive country living under an authoritarian regime. Oh wait...

Re:I don't think that [phrase] means what you thin by Hijacked+Public · 2006-09-14 06:35 · Score: 1

Well, you know. that is just great.

We have a lawyer who has defended cases against the RIAA who writes that the law is largely unsettled. In the opposite corner we have a guy who consulted a Wikipedia entry and is under some impressions about things he can't be bothered to Google to get cites for.

I just don't know who to trust in this one.

--
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State

there is a listening right by hackstraw · 2006-09-14 06:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

It is called ASCAP and BMI licensing. This is what restaurants, bars, and music venues pay to cover the costs of licensing for cover songs, playing background music and whatnot. I've looked into this, and it appears as though for like $200/yr or so, anybody can get one of these licenses for less than 200 or whatever people and it be OK to download and play anything you want at any time.

In Britain, there is a TV license. Just out of curiosity, is there a possibility here in the US to get a music license and just be allowed to listen to what you want, when you want, or are we stuck with the buy plastic CD even though we don't want a plastic CD?

Re:there is a listening right by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-14 16:06 · Score: 1

No, that deals with public performance, not listening. And it wouldn't do what you seem to want it to do.

--
-- 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.
Re:there is a listening right by LordNightwalker · 2006-09-15 04:47 · Score: 1

In Britain, there is a TV license. Just out of curiosity, is there a possibility here in the US to get a music license and just be allowed to listen to what you want, when you want, or are we stuck with the buy plastic CD even though we don't want a plastic CD?
The TV licence is a licence that allows you to pick up TV broadcasts on a TV set or a similar device intended to display the broadcasts to you. It is NOT a licence to watch what you want, when you want. It is NOT a license to watch movies that haven't aired yet without buying a plastic DVD or VHS/Betamax cassette. And just to be complete: it is NOT a license to download a movie you missed on TV either. It's ONLY a license to watch TV broadcasts.

However, I would applaud a licence such as the one you propose. Government sponsored popular culture, paid for by the taxpayers. Eat what you want, as much as you want. The problem is it's never gonna happen; it's economically not feasible. Besides, even if we could assure the entertainment industry those taxes would net them the same amount of money than they make now on record sales etc..., they would still not be interested, since the people could now consume a lot more for the same money.

Based on this, it might sound like a good idea to go to a model where culture/entertainment is done by the government instead of the current capitalistic model; culture and entertainment would surely become a lot cheaper. However, when the government is the only source of culture/entertainment, there's always the danger that it will result in propaganda and/or cencorship.

--
Install windows on my workstation? You crazy? Got any idea how much I paid for the damn thing?

Re:Question 6 not understood - or lacking by russ1337 · 2006-09-14 06:36 · Score: 1

Thanks for taking the time and responding to my post. I really appreciate it.

The person asking the original question (#6) was not questioning the legalities of sharing the music, just its purchase from a 'supposedly legal' source - with no intent of sharing it.

i.e If I can buy a real CD from a legit online store in Australia (amazon.com.au), can I play it on my CD player in the USA. Then, if I buy an MP3 (with no intent of sharing it) from a legal store in Russia, I should be able to play it on my mp3 player in the USA. Shouldn't I?
I think its important to note that it is not illegal to purchase music in electronic format (Apple sells them and Microsoft is about to).

I believe what the author of the question was really asking is: Has the USA ruled that the online store "Allofmp3.com" is illegal.

Allofmp3.com claim they pass funds to the Russian version of the RIAA who are then supposed to pass it on to the artists through the international body. I understand it is the later part that does not happen. Allofmp3.com have paid their bit. Its like the RIAA not giving money to the international body for European artists music sold in the US. So in Russia, allofmp3 is perfectly legal. I understand the RIAA's gripe with them is they simply don't charge enough for their music and the money isnt coming back to the US, which is the Russian government body's fault, not allofmp3's.

This is a bad path-The death of common sense. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:40 · Score: 0

"Last I heard, anything that wasn't explicitly unlawful was lawful."

And that's what's wrong with the world. You all have to be told in agonizing detail what you can and can't do. And spend every waking moment trying to find that one "but you didn't tell me not to" loophole that'll satisfy YOU. Even if the big picture tells you otherwise. That's why law books read like phone books. And the legal system as well as governments the world over are as sprawled as they are. Everyone trying to "get around" something.

Re:This is a bad path-The death of common sense. by Pancake+Bandit · 2006-09-14 07:51 · Score: 1

Yes, this aspect of the law can certainly be abused. However, ambiguous laws would be much more dangerous.

Why is this modded insightful? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:41 · Score: 0

A good example of trolling.

Hang on, hang on... by Maggott · 2006-09-14 06:42 · Score: 1

If all you're buying is the media and no rights come with it, what are they claiming is being stolen via download?

Didn't this argument come up before and they specifically claimed "You're not buying the media, you're buying a license to hte music?"

--
All Hail the Maggott Show

Re:Hang on, hang on... by Farmer+Tim · 2006-09-14 15:54 · Score: 1

Didn't this argument come up before and they specifically claimed "You're not buying the media, you're buying a license to hte music?"

Here we go again.

The media is the physical embodiment of the license you pay for when you purchase the content.

In other words, you're paying for the music, but the music comes with a nice shiny disk that can be used as a talisman to ward off evil RIAA lawyers.

Alternatively, you can say that buying a particular shiny disk entitles you to use of the music that is on that disk. Not music on any other disk, not on anyone else's computer or file sharing network. The music on that specific disk.

Or another way of looking at it: the purpose of a music CD is to transport music. The music doesn't transport itself, so when the music is offered in that format it is a single object: the disk and the content license are inseparable, because the disk will always contain the same music until it reaches the end of its life.

To summarise: they're the same thing, its all about perspective. Which perpective you choose, and whether that perspective can be reconciled with how the law actually works is up to your mental acuity.

--
Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
Re:Hang on, hang on... by Maggott · 2006-09-14 17:26 · Score: 1

This has nothing to do with what you said, but did I really write "hte?" My god. I am so dishonored.

Anyway. The disparity between people's perspective and the way the law actually works is the problem. The RIAA has been intentionally fogging the issue by saying one thing to counter some arguments and saying a contradictory thing to counter another argument.

My personal perspective is that the whole concept of intellectual property is bullshit, so it doesn't really reconcile period. So obviously the law is the more important part, and the law asks the question of what they're selling.

At least, to the extent that the law even matters. Obviously the law isn't all that people are making their decisions based on or this wouldn't be an issue to begin with...

--
All Hail the Maggott Show

Cool, I can search here for "non-RIAA equivalent"! by KWTm · 2006-09-14 06:43 · Score: 1

Hey, looks like it works! I went to http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ and looked up the Irish artist Enya, and it pointed me to Celtic Woman and Méav. I haven't heard of them. I might just download a song or two, and if I like the style, I think I'm going to buy some CD's.

(Yeah, I know, the irony of downloading a copyrighted song to see if I'll buy the CD.)

Anyone know how their site looks for equivalents? Do they go to Amazon's site and scan the "People who bought this CD also bought ___" comments?

--
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]

A bad day on Slashdot by spiritraveller · 2006-09-14 06:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Seriously people, show some fucking appreciation for someone with specialized knowledge who took time out to answer your questions.

If you don't like the answers, well maybe it has something to do with the questions. Every question was modded either +5 "Interesting", or "Funny".

Not a single question was modded "Insightful". And one of the questions insulted him for being a lawyer. Another stupidly asked why he doesn't contact the US Attorney General for help in fighting the RIAA.

Of the good questions, he gave informative and helpful answers.

Maybe it's just the nature of the issue (RIAA and filesharing) that brings out the most moronic of the slashdot crowd, but I am seriously irritated by the stupidity that's been displayed here.

Re:A bad day on Slashdot by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 15:42 · Score: 2, Informative

Thank you spirittraveller. It was questions 6 and 7 that really got to me, because they both seemed to be looking for ways to skirt the law.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:A bad day on Slashdot by The+Cydonian · 2006-09-14 17:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

I see this thread as evidence to the fact that /. group-think has grown out from merely a sub-culture with its own in-jokes, to being dangerously out-of-touch with reality. That 'listening rights' question is one prominent example.

--
More than mere navel gazing.
Re:A bad day on Slashdot by Civil_Disobedient · 2006-09-26 07:01 · Score: 1

Another stupidly asked why he doesn't contact the US Attorney General for help in fighting the RIAA.

No, any attorney general. States have them, too. While the USAG might be a useless endeavor, there are still some state AGs that are willing to bring cases against corruption.

I guess there's no "IANAL, but..." by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:49 · Score: 0

"I don't know about you, but I'm depressed after reading this answer."

I'm not because some of us didn't fall for the "IANAL, but.." that's rampent around here, and actually knew what the law said. The only shame here is that it took someone in authority to drill the facts through all your thick heads. You certainly didn't listen to US (repeatedly)!

Re:Question 6 not understood - or lacking by jahudabudy · 2006-09-14 06:49 · Score: 1

Your marijuana analogy is flawed. Possessing marijuana is illegal here (US), regardless of where you bought it. Possessing mp3s is legal here, depending on how you obtained them. So, I think it is perfectly legitimate to ask "Is this method of obtaining mp3s legal/illegal?".

And I am gonna have to agree w/ russ1337 here: a lawyer specializing in RIAA suits that hasn't heard of AllofMP3.com is woefully unaware of his field.

--
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA

Re:Legality of downloading not relevant to the RIA by orb_fan · 2006-09-14 06:51 · Score: 1

From what I understand, Copyright law is to protect the holder of the copyright from other parties making a copy of that work. These people are being sued for enabling others to make a copy - not for making copies themselves - only the copyright holder can say who can legitamately make a copy.

This is why Grokster was found liable - they enabled others to make copies.

You shared folder is no different than iTunes, with the exception that iTunes has a licence to make copies from the rights holders.

Re:Cool, I can search here for "non-RIAA equivalen by Mateo_LeFou · 2006-09-14 06:53 · Score: 1

"Anyone know how their site looks for equivalents?"

I don't know, but however they do it, it's not a great algorithm. Glad your experience was great, but when I try, say, "Medeski" all I got were other medeski albums on independent labels...

Final thoughts: pitiful attempt at irony. ;) People have been arguing for years that the net impact of filesharing on sales is likely positive because so many sales are generated by downloads.

--
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love

Re:Legality of downloading not relevant to the RIA by RobertKozak · 2006-09-14 06:53 · Score: 1

No no. It's not about setting up a "shared folder" per se, it's about setting up a sharing scheme so that others have access to the files. When NYCountryLawyer says "shared files folder," he is talking about a folder that has been linked to a file-sharing program -- such that others can download or open the files.

But what is the definition of a file-sharing program? I am a Software Architect and I may have written a "file-sharing" program to make it easier to access my own files. Can anyone claim the internet is secure that no one else could see my shared files?

--
Bet this .sig looks familiar.

Well, then by pissedoffamerican · 2006-09-14 06:56 · Score: 1

I've officially lost all faith in our "justice" system. It seems the government and big business are so intertwined now that the people have lost their fundamental rights. I refuse to buy any music from music companies that are part of the RIAA. We don't need Superman, we need the Punisher. Times 1,000,000. In the meantime I'll be prepping for the next civil war.

Mod up, please by Weaselmancer · 2006-09-14 06:56 · Score: 1

This is one of the best and most level headed posts about music/copyright on Slashdot I've ever seen. Beautiful summation of the problem.

--
Weaselmancer
rediculous.

Mod Up! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 06:59 · Score: 0

^^ Parent is one of the very few people who actually understand copyright and fair use.

Re:Question 6 not understood - or lacking by Alchemar · 2006-09-14 07:02 · Score: 1

I think that he was asking about personal use, not shared files. If another country allows a certain type of copy to be made legally, but the country of residence does not, is it legal to purchase that copy over the internet? In the case of allmymp3s they are using a Russian law that allows them to make copies for distribution by paying for a broadcast license. Something that is clearly not allowed by the provisions of a broadcast license in the USA. To my knowledge a Russian court has upheld that the company is not violating Russian copyright law, but is the person in the US violating American laws? I think it is such a grey area that it will take a precise court decision and several appeals to decide, and do not expect an answer until then; but I think the answer to the original question comes of as being a sarcastic answer to the question as I have stated, instead of a resonable answer to the question as it would apply to music in a shared folder.

What are you buying, then? by Secrity · 2006-09-14 07:04 · Score: 1

"When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc. I don't know what gives you this idea."

I believe that the question comes from the fact that an increasing amount of music is purchased as a download, there is no physical form of the music purchased, you are buying a license. Computer software companies are insisting that all a person "owns" is the license to USE the software in accordance with the EULA. In some cases in the past, software companies have reinforced the concept of buying a license to use the software by providing replacement media at or near the cost of the media. It is becoming impossible to see any difference between computer software and music. The computer software based DRM and root kits that record companies have been putting on physical music "CDs" has further blurred the lines between selling physical media and selling a license to listen to music.

Re:What are you buying, then? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 08:30 · Score: 0

I believe that the question comes from the fact that an increasing amount of music is purchased as a download, there is no physical form of the music purchased, you are buying a license.

You are buying a copy and a license. The license gives you additional rights to use the copy in ways that copyright law does not explicitly allow. For instance, software licenses give you the right to copy the software insofar as it is necessary and/or reasonable in order to use the software effectively (for instance, installing it to your hard drive). Licenses for downloaded music give you the right to make multiple copies, burn to CD, etc. Otherwise, according to a strict interpretation of the law, you would not have the right to install the software at all, or to store the music file anywhere but the hard drive to which you originally downloaded it.
This does not apply to music CDs. You don't need any additional rights in order to use the CD as is. Thus, there is no need for a license.

Some answers: by nsayer · 2006-09-14 07:06 · Score: 1

1. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently stolen (along with my 5 disc changer *@$#!!) do I retain any rights to listen to that music? . a. Are the .mp3 files of that CD on my computer legal or do they now belong to the thief too?

. b. Can I re-burn a CD from the .mp3s and is that legal?

. c. Does me having a backup copy of the files on my computer mean I can't make an insurance claim?

. d. What if it is destroyed (for example by a fire) rather than stolen?

The answers here are largely governed by the American Home Recording Act. This law was the DMCA's grandfather. They managed to ram through the AHRA and bcause of that, we now have the DMCA. But it's not all bad news. The AHRA does grant you the right to rip CDs, so long as you don't distribute the copies to others.

So...

A. The MP3s are legal because at the time you ripped them, they were legal. The intervening act was not your own, so I'd be hard pressed to see how a competent trier of fact would rule it infringement.

Also, don't think of the thief as "owning" your CDs. They're still yours. Title does not transfer upon a successful theft.

B. Since you have legal MP3s, then the AHRA says that the answer is "yes."

C. You can certainly make an insurance claim for the value you have lost - the physical CD, which represents the ultimate backup copy, and the album art, etc.

D. The manner in which you have been deprived of the original CD doesn't matter.

2. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently scratched or broken to the point where it is not playable, can I legally download the songs from that CD from a file-sharing network?

No.

3. If I purchase the DVD for a movie, could I legally download songs from the soundtrack for that movie from a file-sharing network?

No.

4. If I purchase a CD that our entire family listens to, and then my daughter leaves for College, can she legally take a copy of an .mp3 ripped from that CD with her on her computer? or - similarly - could she take the disc and could I keep the .mp3 on my computer?

Yes. This falls within the rights granted by the AHRA. You both are in the same household, so it doesn't rise to the level of infringement.

Re:Some answers: by sckeener · 2006-09-14 07:16 · Score: 1

A. The MP3s are legal because at the time you ripped them, they were legal. The intervening act was not your own, so I'd be hard pressed to see how a competent trier of fact would rule it infringement.

Also, don't think of the thief as "owning" your CDs. They're still yours. Title does not transfer upon a successful theft.

B. Since you have legal MP3s, then the AHRA says that the answer is "yes."

C. You can certainly make an insurance claim for the value you have lost - the physical CD, which represents the ultimate backup copy, and the album art, etc.

D. The manner in which you have been deprived of the original CD doesn't matter.

To prove that you own something though you need a receipt. Even if he had the CD and was questioned about the MP3s, he'd have to provide proof that he purchased it. A receipt is the only way. Otherwise the CD could be a stolen or fake.

Or at least that is the case in the software realm.

--
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
Re:Some answers: by nsayer · 2006-09-14 08:51 · Score: 1

The fact that it's hard to prove doesn't alter the basic facts of the situation - facts on which the answers I gave were predicated.

Anybody know the one about the lawyer who... by cliath · 2006-09-14 07:07 · Score: 1

You guys are lawyers AND like to help people? What's it like on your home planet ;) ?

After reading their answers, its no wonder lawyers are getting treated like this. Could you possibly sound more arrogant? What's the point in agreeing to answer questions if you're going to answer it with "I doubt it." or "I don't know."

Isn't this kind of a multiple question?

Who cares? Answer it, or don't. Stop being a smart ass. How are people supposed to do what they can to help your cause when you answer questions like this.

Re:Anybody know the one about the lawyer who... by JamesTKirk · 2006-09-14 08:17 · Score: 1

Dude, it's not HIS cause, it's OUR cause. He's a lawyer who works for people like us. I agree that his answers are a bit impatient, but I think a large part of his point is that the law is unclear, and that the answers to some of these questions depend on what the RIAA decides to sue us for in the future.
Re:Anybody know the one about the lawyer who... by cliath · 2006-09-14 08:38 · Score: 1

Not everyone is in defense against the RIAA. I don't download or upload music illegally. Though, I do disagree with the situation and would like to know what is legal, illegal and undetermined at this point so that I can inform others. Instead, we get disrespectful, "holier than thou" responses. These answers are uninformative. Stating that the law is unclear IS informative, but that's not what he said in the "interview."

Re:Legality of downloading not relevant to the RIA by EVil+Lawyer · 2006-09-14 07:08 · Score: 1

"But what is the definition of a file-sharing program? I am a Software Architect and I may have written a "file-sharing" program to make it easier to access my own files. Can anyone claim the internet is secure that no one else could see my shared files?"

The definition of "file-sharing program" is not relevant. Assuming your mp3s are legal, the RIAA is not going to go after you if use a file-sharing program to make the files accessible to yourself only. If you make the files available to others, you're in trouble -- whether or not you're technically using a file-sharing program.

Further, it's not relevant whether anyone can claim that the internet is secure so that no one else could see your shared files -- the relevant issue is whether anyone could access your shared files. To anticipate the follow-up question "what if I password-protect my shared mp3s but an able-bodied haxx0r could break in and download them?", I would imagine that if you made reasonable efforts to encrypt/secure the files so that only you could access them, (assuming those files were legally obtained in the first place), you would be okay (but I would not give you anything close to a guarantee on this-- this is just the argument I'd make and expect to win with). What kind of measures constitute "reasonable efforts" will depend on the judge.

Re:Might you find allies in ISPs with deep pockets by westlake · 2006-09-14 07:13 · Score: 1

Might you find allies in ISPs with deep pockets?

The ISPs with deep pockets are interested in selling or licensing their own branded media services or providing the necessary infrastructure.

Why do you need a broadband account if you're afraid to download media?

I've seen little fear of downloading.

It's the thought that you might actually have to pay for something that sends some posters here into a tailspin.

So when my 12 yo asks, I tell him to get a lawyer? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 07:14 · Score: 0

As parents we have to give our children the best understanding of the world we can, about how to deal with it. So that means we either pass along our flawed view of the law, or up their allowance so they can hire a legal opinion, whihc will usually be "that depends".

Netcraft confirms: society is dead. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 07:15 · Score: 0

"But what is the definition of a file-sharing program? I am a Software Architect and I may have written a "file-sharing" program to make it easier to access my own files. Can anyone claim the internet is secure that no one else could see my shared files?"

Like I said to one of the posters further down the page. Your behaviour is what's wrong with the world. You get a common-sense answer, and you try to find ways around it. "What's a file-trading program?", "What if my security isn't perfect?" Sheesh! OK here's a really simple solution to all these problems. Everyone becomes hermits. No worries about "infringement". No worries about "security". In other words, NO SOCIETY! And seeing as how you all can't seem to handle the concept (or responsabilities)? Good riddence!

Re:Netcraft confirms: society is dead. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 16:26 · Score: 0

dear brethren AC, good riddAnce!

-1 troll by crabpeople · 2006-09-14 07:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Grow up.

Don't shoot the messenger for telling you what reality is."

Gee i wonder why people think that lawyers are condescending elitest assholes...
Just because hes the articles author we are going lax on down mods? that was a pure classic troll. no information and a loaded emotional opinion. God forbid you'd have to explain your point to us little people.
I guess my point is why even post comments if all your going to do is troll?

--
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...

Truecrypt is your friend by fuzznutz · 2006-09-14 07:17 · Score: 1

From the article

Q: Is there any mechanism by which the court can compel my cooperation and are there any penalties for steadfastly refusing to provide it (encryption password)?

A: There will probably be a lot of litigation over privacy issues in the hard drive inspection thing. But if you just want to play hardball, the judge would probably just strike your answer and give the RIAA a money judgment by default.

I suggest using a Truecrypt hidden partition. I have working (but clean) home directory in my non-hidden Truecrypt partiton and a Bit Torrent enabled home directory in the hidden partition. If I am compelled to divulge the password, I reveal the non-hidden image. They cannot prove that the hidden image even exists as I have revealed a valid encrypted image. I also have a "junk" Truecrypt hidden image which I use for /tmp when I have my hidden home directory mounted. When I upgrade to Edgy, I plan on using one-time-key swap partition encryption too. Just in case...

If a judge were to grant default judgment, I should have a valid case for appeal, as I have fully cooperated and, as far as I know, it is not (yet) illegal to use encryption.

RE: Q10 by joe+155 · 2006-09-14 07:19 · Score: 1

I wonder if he could say "my files are encrypted and I've forgotten how to unencrypt them (forgotten the password) you could try and do it, but this would break the DMCA, and I would be forced to act to make sure you are punished for breaking this law.

On a personal note about the interview, I think a lot of the views which are mixed in fact/fiction may come from the fact that we all have very different laws due to different countries, this can lead to confusion, but fortunately, in the UK the BPI have agreed not to sue people for using allofmp3 until they have at least finished the lawsuit against allofmp3 themselves and set out its legality in stone (or some kind of legal equivalent of it)

--
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''

Re:Question about Getting trial by jury by vertinox · 2006-09-14 07:28 · Score: 1

As I've had to attend Jury duty I'm aware that civil cases also can have trial by jury which I'm assuming would be better if you were a defendant since these people would often be like the average joe (who also maybe a filesharing themselves).

Could you go into more detail about how you get a trial by jury in a civil case and are there any downsides to this? (like fees)

--
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)

Re:Uploaders only? (And the "open Wi-Fi" defense") by larryk+(OK) · 2006-09-14 07:30 · Score: 1

Of course not. But if you were defending me, would you use it as an argument in my favor? How much weight do you think it would carry? I know, you can only speculate, but sometimes informed speculation is all that we have.

This lawyer is useless, even if his info is right. by KWTm · 2006-09-14 07:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't know if the prolonged practice of law has turned Mr. Beckerman into a law-processing zombie, but the answers he gives are beyond simply uninformative, to the extent that he wants to be correct and at the same time cover his ass.

Look at the answer to Question 7, with the multi-part question about copying CD's. I'm sure all of us would have liked to know if we can legally copy a scratched CD, etc.

Instead of producing any useful information, Mr. Beckerman simply tells the questioner that he is wrong. Fancy that. You ask a question, hoping to get info which is right, but realizing that you have to judge for yourself whether the answer is right or wrong. Instead, he says that your question is wrong.

And that first sentence in Answer #7, "Isn't this a multiple question?" What the heck? First of all, are you charging by the question? Maybe you are. Maybe you set a limit of 10 questions and are annoyed that we're sneaking multiple questions in one.

But, more tellingly ... he doesn't see the "multiple question" as a single question! Four_One_Nine was expanding on the question to clarify what he wanted to ask. Mr. Beckerman interpreted the questions literally and failed to see the meaning behind the questions.

In fact, it seems that for all of the questions and comments, Mr. Beckerman has processed the words and given some more words as output, which are all correct but fail to grasp the intent behind the words. Is he, as a law geek, outgeeking us, or is it just that I'm such a geek that I can see the various questions meanings which are not obvious to the lay person?

And then ... this takes the cake:

You don't know what you are talking about.

Okay, so ... any more info? Where is the questioner wrong? Can we inform him any further? Just saying "You don't know what you're talking about" doesn't make him know any more about what he's talking about.

I'm trying to imagine me treating my patients the same way:

"Doctor, I have this really bad chest pain when I try to breathe! Am I going to die?"
"No."
"What's causing the pain?"
"Firing of receptors in the nerve endings."

If I ever talk that way to my patients, someone please fucking kill me with a flying chair or something.

Mr. Beckerman says: "They want the 'common folk' to think ill of lawyers ... And people dissing lawyers all the time helps that process."

No, Mr. Beckerman: your apparently inability to look beyond the words that form our queries, and your obvious need to be correct at the expense of being helpful, is what is greatly helping that process of obliterating any respect I might have for you and your colleagues.

_____

Two people in a hot air balloon drifted into a thick fog and became hopelessly lost. Presently, they noticed that they were drifting next to a tall building looming out of the fog, and decided to ask the inhabitants for help. Spotting a man standing at one window gazing through the fog at them, one of the balloonists called out:
"Excuse me! Where are we?"
The man in the building stood in thought for a while, and then replied: "You're in a hot air balloon."
The balloonist called back: "Ray Beckerman, is that you?"

--
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]

Why should we need to prove we own music by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 07:35 · Score: 0

Doesn't the whole lost/destroyed CD issue assume that people must prove that their music is legal? I mean, why doesn't the RIAA have the burden of proof? It's one thing to say the law is unsettled on "space shift" arguments, and another to assume that we need to prove we paid for any music or movie we happen to have.

Also, why are people quoting the RIAA as if they make the law? I didn't vote for anyone in the RIAA. Let's traget our congress instead and ask for the laws we want. The law is unclear. You can blame lawyers, or you can ask the people who write the law to update them. Even if congress goes the "wrong" way and enacts laws we don't like, at least we'd know for sure where they stand. I think if we made an effort to get congress to respond, we might have a good chance. Afterall, how many voters have teenagers with ipods?

Re:Question 6 not understood - or lacking by jafac · 2006-09-14 07:35 · Score: 1

A question:

I assume that's because the basis of their claims is that by SHARING music, one is profitting (for sufficiently broad definitions of "profit"). Maybe you're not getting paid when you share your music folder out, but you're getting "social karma" from people who download from you, and therefore, you're "stealing" that profit from the record company.
And this is the legal basis by which the RIAA has to prosecute.

So the question is - on this basis. . .
This means that "leechers" are basically not as likely to get sued?

Does this also mean that music distributed via Bit Torrent is also pretty much "safe" - because when you are sharing on that protocol, you're -
A: not sharing a "significant quantity" of the copyrighted work (because various clients may only download one block from you - and by itself, that block is not "music" but actually small bits and pieces of otherwise meaningless digital data from several different files in the entire torrent package).
B. not sharing in a way that the people who download from you, don't know who the hell you are, because the Bit Torrent protocol pretty much anonymizes you (don't know if that stands up to legal scrutiny).

So Bit Torrent users are also less likely to get sued?

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.

Re:Legality of downloading not relevant to the RIA by AJWM · 2006-09-14 07:37 · Score: 1

Look at it this way: if nobody on the internet can access your shared folders, then you don't have to worry about the RIAA taking a screenshot of your shared folder, downloading the music files therein, and suing you.

On the other hand, if anyone on the internet can access your shared folders, then you'd better worry about RIAA doing the above. Sure, perhaps it shouldn't be your responsibility to make sure the internet can't see your shared folders that you only meant to share internally -- but do you want to argue that in court? (See, btw, "attractive nuisance"). Do you want to try proving your intentions? (Civil suits merely rely on a "preponderance of evidence" to show guilt, not "beyond a reasonable doubt".)

If you're doing something that might upset somebody else, then try to keep it quiet. Close the blinds, firewall your server, whatever.

--
-- Alastair

Re: So like.... did ya try.... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 07:40 · Score: 0

Medeski, Martin & Wood?

Great tunes!

I think you mean "mod down" by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 07:44 · Score: 0

This is one of the best and most level headed posts about music/copyright on Slashdot I've ever seen.

Level headed posts? Slashdot is no place for such a thing.

Re: So like.... did ya try.... by Mateo_LeFou · 2006-09-14 07:50 · Score: 1

"Out Louder" new (non RIAA!) album w/Scofield coming out Sep 26

--
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love

Re: Dissing Lawyers by JamesTKirk · 2006-09-14 07:51 · Score: 1

Although it sounds like a conspiracy theory, Ray's assertions that anti-lawyer propaganda is being spread by corporate America to erode the rights of citizens seems to have some basis. Check out this link:
http://www.out-law.com/page-3396

From the article:

"All indications are that they're part of a massive campaign by corporate America and its allies to propagandise for tort 'reform' - limits on the legal rights of individuals to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable for causing death and injury."

"have the money to pay" means lawyer??? by bataras · 2006-09-14 07:52 · Score: 1

Original question
-----------------
If you are completely guilty and are sued, but do not have the money to pay, what are your options?

Beckerman answer
----------------
One option is to defend yourself, relying on the affirmative defenses. If you can find a pro bono lawyer, great. If not, go in to the pro se clerk at the courthouse and ask for a jury trial. Another option, if it's acceptable to you, is to default. They will usually get a default judgment against you for the exhibit A list (the songs they downloaded) x $750 plus court costs.

My observation
--------------
As a non-lawyer, it's clear to me in the question that "do not have the money to pay" is referring to the amount you're being sued for or -maybe- the amount you're being sued for plus your lawyer fees. (some of the amounts we've heard in the press translate to your life is ruined for downloading a few albums). Yet Beckerman's answer goes straight to his fees only. And the second part of his answer basically boils down to "if you can't pay, your other option is to pay."

Follow on question
------------------
Are most lawyers similarly disconnected from the concerns of their music loving clients whose lives are being squashed by greedy monopolistic conglomerates?

Do you validate parking? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 08:05 · Score: 0

"All that these people are looking for is a little respect and politeness."

Judging by the questions I'd say they're looking for someone to validate their positions.* Not seeking enlightenment on the law so they can be better citizens.

*BTW all that crap about "degrees" and "smarts". The only difference between a smart person and a dumb one is the amount of polish they can apply to their biasis.

---
"It's been 19 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"

Hey Taco! Something else to fix in "Discussion2"

Re:Do you validate parking? by lawpoop · 2006-09-14 08:13 · Score: 1

OK, then he could say "I'm sorry, but it sounds like you are asking me to validate your position. I can't do that, because your position is legally incorrect -- for these reasons: ..."

Instead he says, "I have no idea what you are talking about". Thank you, I am a blithering moron who makes no sense. Thanks for showing me where my reasoning went astray. You've been very helpful.

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso

What Did You Expect? by dahwang · 2006-09-14 08:05 · Score: 1

I think it's pretty unfair to completely place the blame on the lawyer for the confusion regarding the legality of common actions. These questions are good questions that many people would like to know, but this guys is a lawyer, REPRESENTING PEOPLE WHO ARE DEFENDANTS AGAINST THE RIAA. I think you guys are demonizing the wrong person. The problem is not Beckerman. It's the RIAA and the judges that rule in favor of them. STOP FLAMING HIM. The questions are vague and give hypothetical situations, where a lawyer could hardly provide a meaningful response. The law is all about "IT DEPENDS". That's why each case goes through the judicial process. There is precedence for certain actions, but given the same case twice, a different jury or judge could rule differently. Mitigating circumstances also factor in, as do many other things. For the law to give all-encompassing ultimatums where things are "innocent or guilty", is not the entirely correct. THIS IS THE REASON FOR THE JUDICIAL AND APPELLATE PROCESS. The elastic clause is one thing that our founding fathers fought for. I am not a legal expert, but I do know this: we should'nt be fighting amongst ourselves. WE'RE ON THE SAME FRIGGIN TEAM. The strangest thing is, while we do want to be better informed as to what the law says concerning A or B... some of us seem to be SEARCHING for loopholes with which we can get away with a clearly illegal practice. I know I was. Bottom line. The law is still being hammered out as according to interpretation and judgment. I think we should all hear his plea for us to GET INVOLVED FINANCIALLY AND POLITICALLY in fighting these cases before it's too late. Sitting on the sidelines and waiting for someone to tell us how it's done is not the right thing to do. We need to go out there and TELL THEM how it SHOULD BE DONE. Martin Luther King Jr. didn't just wait for civil rights to happen. He made it happen. But Mr. Beckerman, please address us a little more politely. I know that there are many of us who don't appreciate your time, but we do value your responses. It's evidenced by the number of responses this thread has grown to. Slashdotters-let's practice some decorum ourselves. Yes?

Re:What Did You Expect? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 15:51 · Score: 1

You're incredibly on the mark, "dahwang". Even about my being impolite. Questions 6 and 7 brought out the worst in me, because they seemed to be asking for ways to skirt the law. Just the kind of question an RIAA troll would like to ask me.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

I have a solution by popsicle67 · 2006-09-14 08:09 · Score: 1

It isn't perfect but it will raise the mean IQ of the entire country by at least 30%. Just don't buy any music that is advertised by any record company. No more Shakira, Hickney, Seal, Mariah, 50 Cent, Dre, Eminem,You get the idea. Only buy obscure music from unknown labels that have no ad budgets. I guarantee the music is better and all of the thugs in the boardrooms and no-talents on the stage will quit to resume their former careers delivering pizza leaving us with only the ones who really like making music and respect the fans.

A message from Captain Obvious by Kamiza+Ikioi · 2006-09-14 08:13 · Score: 1

Let me sum up the interview (which I think was good, btw, even if some answers were short and maybe glib):

"Hi kids,

Listen, they are using bad evidence tactics, but judges keep allowing them. The point is, if you share music that isn't legally sharable, they will sue, and they will win, because that is the law. Can you make backups? Maybe, courts are definative on this yet. Can you download backups if you lost it? Probably not, just like you can't photocopy a book from someone else because you lost your copy. Your right is to the copy you bought, not other copies. Can you download from places like allofmp3.com? Doesn't matter at this point, because they aren't suing downloaders, they are suing uploaders.

Point is, don't share. You may feel you have all the moral protection in the world, but that's not how the world or the law works, and you will lose. If you want to 'play hardball', so will the judge, and you will lose. This is civil, not criminal, and they don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and you will lose. You may feel they are intangible objects and $750 per song may sound inflated, and it may be, but you will lose. You think I'm being a mean person for not telling you what you want a hear, that you have more rights than you really do, but if that's the attitude you bring to court, you will lose.

If you want to win, you need to have all your ducks in a row. You need to work on established law. Courts don't (aren't supposed to) make law. If you don't like the law, call your congressman. By the time you get to court, unless you have a solid case, you will lose."

I understand, and partly agree on many points, with other slashdotters about the outrage and the law. But come on, the guy is a lawyer. We threw him a bunch of what ifs, and are asking for definite answers on things that can't be foreseen. Each judge is different, each appeals court is different, and so on. The precedents for all this are still being formed. The best he can say is, "Yeah, it does suck, they are overbearing, and I'm trying to work on cases to establish precedents to help you all out. If you don't want dragged in, stop sharing. I'm not working so that the world becomes a place where 1 person buys a CD, and everyone just copies off them. I'm trying to make it so that you do have some legitimate rights with what you do with your music, that they can't harass you with crappy evidence, and that the courts realize the difference between hard core infringement and casual infringement (or whatever this guy's motives are, just taking a shot in the dark here)... rights you don't have right now according to the courts."

Come on, let's cut him some slack, he's on OUR side. He's in the courts fighting this fight, and everyone here is playing Monday morning quarterback. Anyone here who needs to add "IANAL", well... that's why they interviewed him, not you. If anyone has the answers right now, he's one of the better bets. If he doesn't have the answer, well then there isn't a good answer right now. He's not going to come in here and go "Rah rah rah! Sharing is your right, and I'm going to kick their butts as soon as the right case comes along!" That's because he's a lawyer, NOT a politician.

Sheesh, people are treating him like they're ultra-(insert far left or right) (insert political party here) and this guy like an ultra-ultra-(insert far left or right) (insert political party here) Supreme Court Nominee who was also the former (insert leadership role of controversial group).

--
I8-D

um...Priceless. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 08:16 · Score: 0

"You don't know what you are talking about."

BHWAWWWHAH! Ok now this is funny. You all invite him here (expert remember?) Then you mark one of his posts flamebait. Slashdot is turning into the Gong Show.

Re:Uploaders only? (And the "open Wi-Fi" defense") by Compulawyer · 2006-09-14 08:29 · Score: 1

No reputable lawyer will tell you how to evade the law. What don't you understand about that? A competent, ethical, and reputable lawyer will never present a defense that does not have an adequate factual basis.

Let's assume your WiFi connection is open. So what? You will have to disclose the truthful facts to your lawyer in order for him or her to competently defend you. Nothin will screw up a good case like a client who thinks he is being clever by "embellishing" facts in ways that the client thinks will help their position. At best, such embellishment damages the client's credibility and makes him look like a liar. At worst, it is perjury, a crime punishable by imprisonment in most places.

Bottom line: If you downloaded the files, having an open WiFi connection will not be the basis of a defense. The RIAA WILL ask for your hard drive (and all your connection logs, and those of your ISP) in discovery and WILL get those materials.

That said, as an intellectual property litigator, if I was defending a client who insisted that he did not download files and that it was someone else on his open router, I would absolutely present that defense if the facts supported it (i.e., no copied files on hard drive, client has only 2 computers but there are 4 IP addresses/simultaneous connections assigned by his DHCP server, etc.). If a client insisted that I present an "open WiFi" defense without any factual support under the mistaken assumption that simply having an open access point provides a defense I would first educate the client as to the way the law actually works and second, if the client persisted, withdraw as counsel for that client.

--

Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.

Re:Uploaders only? (And the "open Wi-Fi" defense") by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 08:32 · Score: 0

I currently have a criminal case against me, wont go into details but initially my lawyer did not believe my story, later the prosecutor handling my case dropped it because my story was true, now another prossecutor has picked up the case due to falsified evidence from the police and my lawyer has rather quickly learned to believe me, the point is despite the doubt in my lawyers mind he was still defending me.

"Right of First Sale" by Tsu-na-mi · 2006-09-14 08:41 · Score: 1

I believe the point of question was to explore the issues regarding the position the RIAA has taken on used CDs. The RIAA has claimed that people who buy a CD are not buying a physical object, but a license to listen to the music. If that is their position, then once I purchase a piece of music, I am purchasing the rights to listen to that piece of music, and if the media that my copy was distributed on is somehow lost due to theft or damage, that I STILL own the licence to listen to that music. Therefore, I should be able to reacquire the music through other channels without purchasing another license.

However, the RIAA seems to take both sides on this argument simultaneously.

--
I've built up so much character I have an alter-ego

Re:"Right of First Sale" by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-14 16:35 · Score: 1

The RIAA has claimed that people who buy a CD are not buying a physical object, but a license to listen to the music.

Show me. I've never heard anyone suggest that, except for people who foolishly think that licensing is common or desirable at the consumer level. It's a dumb idea for software, and it's a dumb idea elsewhere too. Fortunately, software is about the only field stupid enough to employ licensing on a wide scale. It's a bad idea, and we really ought to prohibit it.

The answer is that in normal cases, if you buy a CD, it's no different than if you buy a comb. You can use both in any lawful fashion you like. Since no law prohibits listening, listen away. There are laws about making more copies, OTOH.

--
-- 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.

Let's have some fun at their expense... by techstar25 · 2006-09-14 08:43 · Score: 1

Let's take a few of his responses and turn them around, just for fun (really, I mean no disrepect, your responses so far have been insightful). Bear with me, I'm bored.
Let's hope that the next time your computer breaks or your network is down your IT guy doesn't give the same responses you gave us.

Lawyer: My computer isn't booting. I think my data is lost. Can you help?
IT Guy: Generally, there is no real good way to handle these cases, so anything anyone does is a mistake, in that sense. But in another sense, there are no mistakes, because there is no right answer.

Lawyer: My computer crashed, my screen is blue, and has some gibberish on it. Can you help?
IT Guy: I don't know what you're talking about.

Lawyer: My browser, and my email program won't open. I might have a virus.
IT Guy: Isn't this kind of a multiple question? Virus? I don't know what gives you this idea.

Lawyer: Windows says I need to upgrade X? Have you considered doing that? Maybe you should contact Microsoft support.
IT Guy: I'm an ordinary tech doing the best I can. How do you know who I've gone to or spoken to?

Lawyer: I think the network is down. Can you verify that?
IT Guy: I doubt it.

Lawyer: I think someone stole my identity. What can I do to prevent that again?
IT Guy: Ask your insurance co.

Lawyer: This webpage won't load. What's going on?
IT Guy: I don't know.

That was fun. Don't sue me.

Re:Let's have some fun at their expense... by larryk+(OK) · 2006-09-14 09:13 · Score: 1

Techstar, you put your finger on exactly what has annoyed everyone so much. Thanks.
Re:Let's have some fun at their expense... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 15:35 · Score: 1

Dear techstar and larry:
When someone comes into me, as my client, with me as their lawyer, it's not an interview like this. They come in with a problem, I do my best to help them with their problem. If anyone does the interviewing it's me, trying to get the facts from the client.
If someone came into my office and wanted to have a consultation, and asked me the kind of questions that were asked in questions 6 and 7, questions which seem to be about how to skirt the law-- and people have contacted me and asked me questions like those -- I assume they are RIAA investigators and tell them I can't help them.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Let's have some fun at their expense... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 15:47 · Score: 1

More analogous (referring to questions 6 and 7) would be:
Lawyer: I want to use my computer to steal money from my neighbor's bank accounts, how can I set it up to do that?
IT guy: You can't.
Lawyer: Well what if we routed it through a web site in Russia, how could I do it then?
You can't.
Lawyer: Well doesn't the fact that my neighbor once used my computer give me the right to access his bank accounts?
IT guy: No it doesn't.
Lawyer: Boy, your answers are unhelpful, and I'm getting the impression you know nothing about computers. Didn't you see Richard Pryor in Superman II?

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Let's have some fun at their expense... by larryk+(OK) · 2006-09-16 16:10 · Score: 1

Even better answers (although the questions aren't analagous to 6 and 7 at all): Lawyer: I want to use my computer to steal money from my neighbor's bank accounts, how can I set it up to do that? IT guy: It's possible to do that, but it's a criminal offense. I wouldn't help you do it, and I advise you not to try. You'll get caught and go to jail. (More helpful than "You can't.") Lawyer: Well what if we routed it through a web site in Russia, how could I do it then? IT guy: Routing it through Russia doesn't make it any more legal than it was before. My advice is, don't even think about it. (More helpful than "You can't.") Lawyer: Well doesn't the fact that my neighbor once used my computer give me the right to access his bank accounts? IT guy: No it doesn't. (This answer is actually responsive, although the question is out of left field.) Lawyer: Thanks, IT guy. I've learned a lot from you today about what is and isn't legal. This has been very informative. Let's do it again sometime.

Not true by geekoid · 2006-09-14 08:51 · Score: 1

Those are just factors to be considered. Not the sole guidline.

1,2,4 have nothing to do with the amount.

The purpose of copyright law has to do with distribution.
Considering that, it is quite reasonable to make all the copies you want as long as they are not distributed.

Copyright as we know it will either be changed a lot in the next 15 years, or it will become irrelevant.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

What if the media is damaged? by FatSean · 2006-09-14 08:51 · Score: 2

I can no longer listen to the music I bought. My only recourse under law is to buy another one. Unacceptable.

--
Blar.

Re:What if the media is damaged? by ray-auch · 2006-09-14 11:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's time people realised that when you buy RIAA music on CD etc. you pay a lot for not much at all. [In other parts of the world we don't even have the fair use / format shift rights that the US (sort of, maybe) consumer has].

When you buy music on CD you are buying the following:

The limited right (no public performance etc.) to listen to the music on that CD by playing that CD in a device that will play it.

Thats it.

CD doesn't play in your player ? Too bad - use one that plays it.

But I broke / scratched /the CD ? Too bad, stuff breaks, buy another.

But the CD got nicked ? Too bad, stuff gets nicked, talk to your insurer, buy another.

But what if you don't sell it anymore ? Well, sorry we lost a sale but hey, lots of things are irreplacable. Jaguar probably can't replace your E-Type either, but they'll have some nice new models. We have some nice new music, wanna buy ?

But what if I want it in MP3 for my MP3 player ? Well why didn't you buy it in MP3 ?

No, I mean I want it in MP3 _as well_ as CD ? So buy both (when did you last see "buy the hardcover get the softcover free") ?

But you don't sell it in MP3 ? - We're very sorry we've missed a sale, see above. ...and so on

Maybe if we educated people as to what (little) to RIAA are actually selling, rather than pretend they're selling something much more useful, people would wake up and buy from independents who can/do offer far more and not from RIAA.
Re:What if the media is damaged? by Richard+Steiner · 2006-09-14 14:35 · Score: 1

Sorry, that's not correct. I also purchased a Philips CD recorder several years ago and special digital-music-specific CD-R media with which to make true digital copies of music CDs.

The music industry gets their cut from this, so I assume I'm free to duplicate CDs for MY OWN PERSONAL USE with that equipment and media.

That is the whole reason for its existence, and I have already paid for the privilege.

--
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Re:What if the media is damaged? by ray-auch · 2006-09-15 12:56 · Score: 1

so I assume I'm free to duplicate CDs

bad assumption, you either are free to do that (under the laws where you are) or you aren't - but it's entirely unlikely that the availability of copying hardware has anything to do with it.

copying consumer hardware has been sold (and promoted) for years in the UK ("high speed dubbing" anyone?) but it is NOT and never has been legal to copy tapes / lps / cds without copyright holder's explicit permission.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/m oney/2006/05/07/cnbpi07.xml for example.

similarly I can buy cars where the top gear isn't usable below 70mph, so can I assume I'm free to go faster than that (since "that is the whole reason for its existence") ? - no, the legal use of that top gear is restricted to private roads/tracks where I've got permission - NOT on normal roads.

similarly, at least here, the legal use of a CD recorder is restricted to copying CDs (eg. stuff you've recorded yourself), where you have explicit copyright permission - NOT normal purchased CDs.

Yeah, but... by webengineer · 2006-09-14 09:01 · Score: 1

I agree that copyrights are out of hand. Example: Disney renewing the mickey mouse IP again. By now Mickey Mouse really does (or should) belong to the world.

But... Copyright does (should) allow an artist to "make a living" while creating, and nothing else. It shouldn't make agents of artists richer than it does the artists. That's a battle I'd fight.

I don't believe it should be your right to give the use of something you paid for to someone else, so that now you are both enjoying the fruits of an aritst's creation only having paid him/her once. And if you place a piece of music on a folder that is shared on the Internet, you've just massively ripped of the artist, big time.

It's no wonder that copyright holders are fighting for their rights when it seems that people are willing to NOT pay them for their talent. I'd guess if file sharing wasn't so rampant, there wouldn't and "big bad RIAA". Instead, only an RIAA that provides accounting for world wide payment for the use of artist creations.

Let's don't start about big record companys. Suffice it to say that they shouldn't be making more that the artists

how much do i owe? by joeypruett · 2006-09-14 09:05 · Score: 1

i've made a copy of death cab for cutie's song, soul meets body in my brain and i'm humming it now. where do i send the check? i'm not sure where i got the idea that i have the right to play this copy in my brain or hum it. -joey

Re:how much do i owe? by joeypruett · 2006-09-14 09:14 · Score: 1

oh, and thanks for the man for answering these tough qustions.

Reasonable vs. legal by benhocking · 2006-09-14 09:07 · Score: 1

I'm not arguing that it's not "reasonable to make all the copies you want as long as they are not distributed." I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily constitute "Fair Use" and might not be legal. (Legal actions and reasonable actions unfortunately don't always correlate.) My understanding is that this is still undetermined territory on a national scale. I.e., a court decision one day will very likely determine whether this constitutes "Fair Use" or not. It probably will determine that it is "Fair Use", but it's not a done deal, AFAIK. If you know of a case that has settled it, by all means educate me - IANAL.

--
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?

Copy rights by xswl0931 · 2006-09-14 09:12 · Score: 1

IANAL, but from what I've read here and in the EFF page, making copies is NOT granted as Fair Use by Copyright Law. However, the RIAA does say you can legally make copies and put it on your IPod as a right granted by the copyright owner, but doesn't extend to all copyrights.

Re:Copy rights by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 16:03 · Score: 1

The RIAA flip flops on issues about making copies. See EFF Article "RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use"

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Wrong, worng wrong. by geekoid · 2006-09-14 09:25 · Score: 1

"In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include"

Thos are only factors used bu the courts to determin if a specific case is fair use or not.

They are not the SOLE factors.

I highly suggest your read Sect. 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Not Jury and Judge by HermMunster · 2006-09-14 09:31 · Score: 1

I appreciate the time taken by these guys to answer some questions but some of their answers aren't exactly in tune with reality. Of course, some of the answers were literal and it takes a legal inclination to understand why they answered them the way they did. Even so, much of what they answered in terms of your rights as an owner of the CD is not precise and the lawyer is answering as if he's the jury and judge--in otherwords he's experssing more his views than what reality states.

There has be no jury that has stated that you don't have fair use rights and rights to make backup copies. We've seen here on /. more than once direct quotes of congressional (and related to congressional) documents regarding your rights to make backups and fair use.

What the lawyer stated isn't exactly spot on because he essentially told you that you had the rights to the plastic and that's it. In reality you know, just through common sense, that you have more rights than to just the plastic. That fair use allows you to copy that to your MP3 player, to back up the CDs and to convert them to MP3s if you wish. The only time you don't have these rights is when you acquiesce to some other agreement. If you did not have these rights Apple would have been sued long ago. So would Microsoft (Zune), Creative, and a slew of others. The examples are the same--P2P networks agreeing to 10s of millions of dollars in settlements. The P2P networks didn't legally copy those files to others, the others did that. But the P2P networks had to pay. One could argue that they didn't protect the rights holders, but they didn't pay the money to everyone they paid them to the RIAA. IP is not just tied to the music and video industry.

The implication is that he believe the recording industry and their sponsors have the legal right to put software on your computer without your knowledge and without your ability to remove it "at will". He probably also thinks that they have the right to pop up ads and you have no right to block them.

Bottom line, don't abandon your rights to what a lawyer says even though they may have good intentions. And, also, specifically, lawyers have a bad name because of what they do not because of what corporations do to protect themselves against lawyers. Corporate lawyers are the worst, they make the biggest most extreme non-average-person changes in the law. It wasn't a lawyer like this guy that prompts the RIAA, it is the corporate lawyer.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.

If you want to stretch it... by marcus · 2006-09-14 09:40 · Score: 1

It is not really all that much of a stretch...

A book in the dark is not in "human usable format" either. I have to use a machine called an "electric light" in order to be able to read a book at night.

In addition, while I am reading the book, an image, a real, observable, recordable copy is formed on the retina of my eye. Is that a legal copy, or since it is mirrored, a derived work? Can I legally photograph the inside of my eye while reading a book or watching a DVD?

Personally, I have to use another somewhat more sophisticated(than electric light) device in order to read books and watch DVDs whether I am in a well lit environment or not. The device is a primitive optical processor commonly known as "glasses".

Believe it or not, CDs and DVDs can be "read" using the same basic mechanisms. You can shine a light on the disk, observe the arrangement of the bits with a microscope and "decode" it yourself. No CD or DVD "player" is required. All that is required are the instruments I mentioned and some determination, but hey, it took some determination to learn to read conventional media as well...

--
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO

Re:If you want to stretch it... by DamnStupidElf · 2006-09-14 10:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Believe it or not, CDs and DVDs can be "read" using the same basic mechanisms. You can shine a light on the disk, observe the arrangement of the bits with a microscope and "decode" it yourself. No CD or DVD "player" is required. All that is required are the instruments I mentioned and some determination, but hey, it took some determination to learn to read conventional media as well...

Well, technically you can't read a DVD because I doubt you're personally licensed to use the CSS algorithm. But that's just another wonder of our magnificent copyright and patent system.
Re:If you want to stretch it... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-18 10:53 · Score: 0

CSS was a trade secret, not a patent. Your ignorance is just another wonder of our magnificent public education system.

What is the.... by Creepy+Crawler · 2006-09-14 09:50 · Score: 1

Definition of ownership of a copy?

Ill explain.

1: I buy a CD In Wal-Mart.
2: I now have a case and a plastic disc with information pressed into metal foil. That information is audio, which is under copyright (and Im NOT the copyright holder).
3: I throw away the receipt after a few days (small purchase receipts do get lost, and most retailers wont accept media back)

4: How do I prove I have a legitimate copy of this disc?

What I mean is, does just possessing this disc enough to prove I didnt download it? Is there a standard license I SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN from the copyright holder?

--

Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thurs, Nov 31, @13:37

Re:Uploaders only? (And the "open Wi-Fi" defense") by larryk+(OK) · 2006-09-14 10:10 · Score: 1

I hoped that my original question might cause discussion of the Zuleta case in Georgia (which I learned about on Mr. Beckerman's website, recordingindustryvpeople.blogspot.com). RIAA withdrew its claim against Zuleta because he had an open wireless router and a roomate. The name on the Kazaa! account in question was the roommate's first name. All this brings to mind my good friend Rusty, who went to law school while in his 40's. He jokes that he tested out of the course in which they teach law students how to be arrogant a_____s. He demonstrated his considerable skills in that area to the satisfaction of the faculty.

Good Lawyers are Legion by darkonc · 2006-09-14 10:11 · Score: 1

There are a lot of good lawyers out there.. Even the ones that I saw as nasty were mostly just representing clients with a nasty bent -- but, if you got them in a back room, they'd be just as happy to help me as their current clients -- especially if money wasn't involved.

On the really good end of the spectrum are lawyers like Pivot Legal who represent the downtrodden in the most financially depressed neighbourhood in canada, Sierra Legal defence fund, who do environmental litigation and of course EFF and the ACLU.

There are actually a good number of lawyers who went into the field because they had an axe to grind about some injustice or another.

-- And the infamous $15M suit over scaulding coffee was a punitive award to suck back the profits that McDonalds made from offering free refils, then making their coffee too hot to safely imbibe until after many customers had left the premises or were finished their meal (meaning a maximum of one refill). and had actually calculated the number of badly injured customers (and what they would pay to settle with them) in deciding whether or not to go ahead with the campaign.
It's no wonder that big companies were so happy to create a buzz around the award (without providing the details)....

... So they made it seem like a mom-and-pop restaurant owner was at risk of a $15M award even if they tried to take care of their customers. Which is nowhere near what actually happened.

--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.

An economics-based approach to copyright law by grondak · 2006-09-14 10:14 · Score: 1

Adam Smith was a great thinker who has wound up giving us a fine equation for dealing with this problem. He mentioned the idea of a "natural price--" a value at or above the cost of a good's production.

Today's "production", especially for music, movies, or e-books, can take the form of a digital download. Since the cost of the download to the copyright owner is very close to zero, the natural price of the product is also very close to zero. Amortizing the cost of the production of the music and passing that amount on to consumers isn't actually happening, even in the case of physical media, because the label makes the band pay for it in their contracts (which amount to a giant loan) and pay them back out of the sales proceeds. It essentially costs labels nothing to make this music due to the contracts. So we're talking about essentially zero cost-- a zero natural price-- for music/movie/e-books.

As for information on other media subject to copyright, let's just take physical books as an example: nobody really photocopies whole books except broke college kids with access to the departmental photocopier-- so let's just consider music/movie copying. Magazine/newspaper articles get copied. However, nobody's worried about the penalties there (but they're still misaligned)

Using this natural price argument, the penalties for violating someone's copyright on digitally-delivered works are currently infinitely many times the natural price of the work. This makes the per-violation cost to the copyright holder certainly not $150,000 as specified by the law. I'm not sure there are no examples of copyrighted items that cost $150,000 each so I won't say "never." Nonetheless, it's easy to see how misaligned the actions and consequences are: zero natural price versus $150,000 cost.

We've taken an incorrect path with these overbearing copyright penalties. In essence, the government subsidizes the record labels' old-school distribution methods in an era of free distribution. They're subsidizing the labels with our money and with the fear of being penalized (forcing people to buy CDs/DVDs/e-Books). Subsidizing labels is wrong! Copyright penalties should be in line with the actual costs, not with an arbitrarily-high windfall guess about how much damage has been done to our "poor liddle label."

How then should the labels make money? Through sales of things that cannot be (easily) digitally reproduced-- things that have a natural price > 0. T-shirts, high-quality art prints, labels on other merchandise-- the Cafe' Press approach to merchandising. Or even, do the labels need to exist? Currently, it's the artists who do the merchanidising and it's the artists that make the money from it (not the labels).

Do the labels need to make money? Let's consider that one. It used to be that labels existed to ensure records made it onto store bins. Records /do/ cost money (okay, tapes too). (Please shoot me when the day comes that the labels try to sell me an SD card preloaded with another posthumous Tupac collection...) We already know that digital downloads cost a dime. So what are labels selling their shareholders? A market position and that's it. They aren't selling the shareholders an investment in a good company, or one that tries to better itself. They really aren't selling the shareholders an investment in their company's future. Physical distribution is obsolete, again, propped up by copyright law!

It's possible a label could be pushing digital downloads. So how does an all-digital label make money? Not rapidly! (but not "not at all." Some can find ways. Merchandising, anyone? ) Is $0.99 a fair price for a song when it can be downloaded for zero cost to the label? No.

However, until the law changes, it's still the law. We fix this by electing politicians who get it. Help me out and tell me which ones do.

Ya know, it's quite interesting that the point of this discussion was economic. I came to the conclusion that the price of a digital download should be equal to zero because its production cost can be made to be zero. What I didn't think I was going to conclude was this: Information Wants to be Free.

Now where have I heard that before... ?

--
[Error 407: No signature found]

How DOES the RIAA collect their "evidence?" by facerr · 2006-09-14 10:33 · Score: 1

I would really like to know. Let's say the RIAA goes after someone who is "sharing" 1000+ mp3s, all of which are copyrighted.

However, let's say this person has created a blank file in Notepad, then saved the filename as "Madonna - Like a Virgin.mp3," and then put this file in their share folder. Then this person repeats the process for 999 different song names.

Technically, you are not sharing any copyrighted songs, but to someone who just browses your share folder, it appears that you are.

Wouldn't the RIAA have to download EVERY song and verify that it is in fact a sound file? If not, then their lawsuits would have no standing.

Re:How DOES the RIAA collect their "evidence?" by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 04:23 · Score: 1

I do believe the courts will require them to prove that these were actual song files.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:How DOES the RIAA collect their "evidence?" by facerr · 2006-09-18 10:03 · Score: 1

What ways can the RIAA prove this then? As given from my example, just having a "text list" of song names does not prove anything.
Re:How DOES the RIAA collect their "evidence?" by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-18 10:20 · Score: 1

I believe they would have to have downloaded the song files. See UMG v. Lindor (Letters dated August 1, 2006, and August 4, 2006), where they want to be able to say at trial that they are suing over songs for which they do not have the song files, and we are seeking to preclude them.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:How DOES the RIAA collect their "evidence?" by facerr · 2006-09-18 11:09 · Score: 1

Hrmm -- interesting. This is good information, unfortunately it does not stop them in their tracks. However, with so many different variables, the RIAA doesn't have any solid evidence in any of their cases. So far, all that I have heard about is that they collect their evidence by surfing P2P networks, find an IP address that is sharing copyrighted work, and then filing a "John Doe" lawsuit (which in turn allows them to supeona the ISP for information). So my next question is this -- when you go to court with the RIAA, what evidence are they bringing to the table?
Re:How DOES the RIAA collect their "evidence?" by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-19 01:44 · Score: 1

You just said it. That's all they've got.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:How DOES the RIAA collect their "evidence?" by facerr · 2006-09-19 13:12 · Score: 1

Hah -- an IP address. That's it. Some REALLY needs to just stick it out and not give in to settlements.

Don't make it so hard by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 11:03 · Score: 0

How to win Super RIAA Courtroom Shenanigans 64:

Expose an attack against popular fasttrack network clients which allows the displayed IP address to be, at least temporarily, incorrect.

RIAA will be slowed down looking for another solution, existing cases based on this evidence might be reopen-able.

How to win Super RIAA Courtoom Shenanigans 64 2 - RIAA's new method of fingering sharers:

While playing the first game, attempt to shift your listening to non-RIAA music and offer the best of it to your friends. Continue this strategy in order to win SRCS64-2.

Focus on the part where you can make a difference. We've successfully identified that the RIAA is attacking their customers because the RIAA has not properly anticipated and capitalized on online services. Now, if you're going to do anything, do something useful. Prepare a concise, targeted summary that you can say when someone asks your opinion, or when someone is on the fence as to whether or not to buy a new RIAA CD. Explore your options by looking into non-RIAA bands. You don't have to push the bands on people, just find the ones you like, just like you would have before, and do what you would have done anyways: put them on mix cds along with the RIAA stuff you like, use them as background music in flash cartoons, suggest them to your friends when you here them express interest in a genre.

It's not about pushing non-RIAA on yourself and then on everyone else. It's about recognizing that this situation is crap and there are alternatives that you can explore that will still fit all of your needs.

Re:Question 6 not understood - or lacking by Jad+LaFields · 2006-09-14 11:15 · Score: 1

If NewYorkCountryLawyer in fact reads the above comment and wants to respond to it, I'd just like to explain that by "leecher" jafac means some one who downloads music but does not share it back -- he essentially answered this in question #3 and basically said that yes, leechers are safe.

I'd also like to say in regards to BitTorrent:
1) BT in no way anonymizes you -- at least, the standard implementation does not. It is trivially easy to see the IP addresses of those who you are downloading from.
2) In standard BitTorrent downloading, the seeders are people who by definition have the complete file and if there are no other downloaders or other seeders, you will in fact download the entire file from them (thus of course missing the real advantage of BT, but it certainly does happen)
3) Lastly, BT is very "social karma" oriented, and for a reason -- Azereus complains when you try to remove a file you haven't seeded a fully copy back to the swarm, many torrent sites with user logins track the download/upload ratio of their users.

--
[SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!

Fair Use?-Nature? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 11:26 · Score: 0

"Making copies of information is a natural process, and trying to artifically regulate it to the point of authoritarian social control will simply fail."

If making copies is a "natural process"? Then why do you all get huffy when the government spies on you? Or your personal information get's swiped, or leaked?

Re:Fair Use?-Nature? by DamnStupidElf · 2006-09-14 12:55 · Score: 1

If making copies is a "natural process"? Then why do you all get huffy when the government spies on you? Or your personal information get's swiped, or leaked?

I don't really care. The main problem is that powerful people can afford privacy and secrecy, creating a power imbalance. The other problem is that my personal information is all that's necessary to incur debts that I'm liable for, and credit reporting agencies can issue libel to the effect that I didn't pay "my" bills without any recourse for me to sue them for it. If anything, free sharing of all information would prevent the need for protecting private information, because it wouldn't give anyone an advantage to know it.

Obviously, as long as we remain individuals with some competing goals, it will be necessary to keep secrets. However, secrets are much different than widely disseminated and useful information (software, music, etc.) with arbitrary legal controls. Secrets are just that, they are *only* known to certain entities, and in fact secrets are essentially what make us feel human. If there were no secrets, then humans would know each other's hopes, fears, thoughts, and desires in full, and it would be very difficult to draw distinctions between the self and the collective. I don't think a collective mind is anything to fight against in the future, however. It's probably one of the most likely outcomes; just like atoms gathered into cells, and cells gathered into animals, animals will eventually gather into minds that span the universe.

Complicated laws... by SonicSpike · 2006-09-14 11:39 · Score: 1

Of course the law is complex. But why is it complex? Several reasons.

First of all, we keep electing attorneys to legislatures. Secondly, these laws are full of loop-holes and pandering to special interests. Third these elected officials (most of which are lawyers) don't have the integrity to resit the temptation to take money for influence or special legislative favors.

My solution? Dont elect lawyers, and support candidates that want to reduce the size and scope of government in order to keep it limited to its most basic and absolute functions.

--
Libertas in infinitum

Re:Complicated laws... by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-14 16:57 · Score: 1

So the people who create laws shouldn't be professionals who have experience working with the laws, and who have recieved years of specialized legal training?

Perhaps you would like to suggest that doctors ought not be allowed to practice medicine, and computer scientists should be banned from writing software?

Law is complex because we live in a complex world, with a complex society, and complex desires for what the law is to do. A simple law is something like 'an eye for an eye' but that's not a good law. Don't knock complexity. If that's the worst thing about the law, then you're doing pretty good. If it's not, then you have higher priorities.

--
-- 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.
Re:Complicated laws... by SonicSpike · 2006-09-14 17:23 · Score: 1

Statutory law should be simple. The courts and set precedents (common law) are the complex part of it - or should be.

Do you ever wonder why in a lot of counties no one can do anything to their domicile, except painting it, without a permit? Ever wonder why one almost has to have an attorney for every single legal maneuver that is ever carried out? Ever wonder why one cannot usually run a small business without an attorney?

I am not talking about major legal activities such as filing a suit, going to trial, defending oneself etc; I am referring to the relatively simple everyday tasks that due to statutory law almost always require an attorney.

Of course I understand the law is complex, I took two semesters of Copyright Law in college. But in my opinion it is OVERLY complex largely due to attorneys writing the law (thus guaranteeing that they'll always be in demand for their services), and influence from special interests to form loopholes and regulations in their favor.

Let me ask this. Would you like the auto exucetives to determine traffic laws? Thats the best analogy I can think of after the few drinks I have had.

--
Libertas in infinitum
Re:Complicated laws... by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-14 22:54 · Score: 1

Statutory law should be simple. The courts and set precedents (common law) are the complex part of it - or should be.

Well, since the common law is just as much part of the law as statutes are, and just as binding, you're still saying that the law ought to be complex. Which means that when you complain about hav[ing] an attorney for every single legal maneuver that is ever carried out, that would not change.

I think that you're still not thinking out your idea, which is why it's been so bad.

But in my opinion it is OVERLY complex largely due to attorneys writing the law (thus guaranteeing that they'll always be in demand for their services), and influence from special interests to form loopholes and regulations in their favor.

And as I said, whether that complexity springs from the courts, the Congress, or both, it's still there, so what's the point in favoring one kind over another? Sure, something like 119 is a pain in the ass. But then, so are the tests for whether a useful element of a pictoral, graphic, or sculptural work is seperable.

Also, lawyers writing the law don't make things complex in order to have job protection. That's as stupid an idea as saying that people seriously program in Intercal. The laws are written as they are in order to do certain specific things. The language must be precise, and if you have a lot of things it needs to do, they all add yet more complexity. It's not a big conspiracy, as Occam's Razor would suggest.

There are influences from special interests, but our concern there ought to be having the law favor private interests over the public interest, not mere complexity in the statutes. That's like getting your arm crushed in a machine and worrying if you've broken a nail.

Let me ask this. Would you like the auto exucetives to determine traffic laws? Thats the best analogy I can think of after the few drinks I have had.

In conjunction with the road engineers (since both make essential things for traffic), I wouldn't have the world's biggest problem with it. Do you think they'd promote crashes or something?

--
-- 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.

Suggestions for a law review article? by glrotate · 2006-09-14 11:46 · Score: 1

I would like to write something about litigation issues and strategy for these sorts of cases. Any topic suggestions?

Re:Suggestions for a law review article? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 07:27 · Score: 1

Hard drive mirror image forensics issues that are likely to arise. Procedures. Daubert Frye hearings. Substance.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Exactly... by SonicSpike · 2006-09-14 11:56 · Score: 1

I am an audio engineer in Nashville and took 2 semesters of Copyright Law in college.

The 'right to distribute (copy)' is one of the fundamental rights of copyright. And distributing a creative work, without having authorization from the copyright holder, is a clear violation of modern copyright law.

--
Libertas in infinitum

Re:Exactly... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 17:44 · Score: 1

Yes, but the RIAA has zero evidence of the defendants distributing. Please re-read the definition of distribution in the Copyright Act which you studied, and you will see that. I would also refer you to the brief of the Computer & Communications Industry Association and the US Internet Industry Association on that subject in Elektra v. Barker.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Copy-RIGHT = right to copy by SonicSpike · 2006-09-14 12:08 · Score: 1

All of the rights in copyright are on the side of the copyright holder.

That's what copyright means, the right to copy (duh). Fair Use isn't a right, it's a defense.

The system was designed this way by "securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries... [in order] to promote the progress of science and useful arts"

--
Libertas in infinitum

Re:Question 6 not understood - or lacking by jafac · 2006-09-14 12:52 · Score: 1

Thanks for the response;

1) An IP address is technically non anonymous, true. But in a world of NAT, and DHCP, etc. there's a strong argument to be made that one is functionally anonymous, as far as the legal argument that that would bring some material gain goes. But I guess a sufficiently well-dressed lawyer could successfully argue otherwise in court.

2) One wonders if it would be theoretically possible to code a patch to the Bit Torrent client that forbids any single user (IP address) from downloading a complete image from your seed. This way, there'd be no way to prove that you were sharing an entire image of the copyrighted work, because even if they obtained logfiles, or packet-captures, you couldn't assemble anything other than bits and pieces of the whole. Then the RIAA would have to track all of the seeders that a downloader got data from, and sue them as a group. (which, I suppose, is also possible).

3) So. . . . avoid torrent sites with user logins. . . ? but yeah, I grasp that there is a mechanism to punish leechers by not giving them download bandwidth.

I'm just speculating that if there's a narrow legal definition of behavior that defines "copyright violation" in downloads, if perhaps there's a way that the design of the technology can game that system. (just like the original Napster gamed the system because in 1995, users didn't materially benefit in a legal sense from sharing their music - until after the legal precedent was set that defined the social karma element as a material benefit, and therefore a violation of the wording in the copyright act.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.

Regarding Question #7 by Mikeytsi · 2006-09-14 12:55 · Score: 1

I think the main thrust of this question was the RIAA's ever changing positions on whether a Music CD is a "physical" purchase, like buying a car, or a "IP license" purchase, like buying a piece of software. It seems like the Recording Indusustry would like to define what you're buying as whatever happens to benefit them at the time. This is a nice idea for them, but really shouldn't be allowed on a legal basis.

For instance, if I'm buying a car, then making copies, being entitled to a new car if it's stolen, etc, are silly questions. If I'm simply purchasing a license to the music, provided in hard copy on a CD, then by that license and the Sony Betamax decision, I am entitled to make backup copies of the work, and should be entitled to continue to use the work by the license, even if the original is stolen.

Could you think of his question in terms of a license instead of a physical property purchase, and see if your answers are different?

--
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.

Re:This lawyer is useless, even if his info is rig by Longfinger · 2006-09-14 13:16 · Score: 1

Okay, so ... any more info? Where is the questioner wrong? Can we inform him any further? Just saying "You don't know what you're talking about" doesn't make him know any more about what he's talking about.

He was responding to someone that said he didn't know anything about copyright law, which is a silly thing to say. He responded more politely than most people would have.

This is a complicated, very muddled area of law with no clear answers even though everybody here is begging for clear answers. If you demand clear answers when no clear answers are available, you're going to get lies. You should be thankful that this guy is honest, and spending his valuable time trying to help us understand the true nature of the situation.

I think the problem with his answers... by ElboRuum · 2006-09-14 13:55 · Score: 1

...is that this is a matter of law. While most people would hope that law makes sense, in its current incarnation, it is convoluted, with many points of view. What is disturbing is that as a lawyer, because of the fact that this is currently being vetted within our legal system, that he doesn't even know, yet the RIAA is being permitted to pursue its lawsuits and being given every leniency in the quality of the evidence it provides to support its case.

What's most disheartening is that the people who are being sued neither know their rights, as the whole 'licensing' vs. 'ownership of a commodity' has muddied the waters as to what they do have a right to do with the purchase they've made, nor is there anywhere they can go to get information regarding their rights. Meanwhile, corporations with immense legal war chests prey upon their customers.

Since electronic media is so ubiquitous these days, it is very dangerous for the questions of what it is you are actually purchasing and what rights you have to remain in limbo and the have them become the subjects of lawsuits without much concern for bridging that gap.

I guess my main complaint is that law, in its most basic definition of spirit, was created to protect lawful people from criminality and to punish the unlawful. If a pre-teen girl can be sued by a multinational consortium of media companies without a single thought given a priori to whom it is they are actually suing, simply in an effort to ferret out those who are guilty, then what we see here now with the RIAA is a serious abridgment of the purpose of law.

If... by caller9 · 2006-09-14 14:22 · Score: 1

If you can't do, teach. If you can't teach, judge.

I accept the verdict of /. moderators by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 14:37 · Score: 1

I accept the verdict of the moderators. I should have been more polite and explained why his flamebait was in error. Better yet, I shouldn't have swallowed the 'bait'. I should have just stayed away from that comment.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Response to 9 by caller9 · 2006-09-14 14:44 · Score: 1

Just fuckin buy your music and quit bitching. C'mon. Sure you're getting soaked on the prices of this crap but it's freakin crappy music anyway. There hasn't been any good mainstream music ever. The really good stuff you should buy anyway to put money in the pockets of the artists you like. The rest of the crap you can pick up on shoutcast.com, et. al.

My apologies by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 15:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Questions 6 and 7.

I've thought a lot about the many comments which related to my manner of responding to questions 6 and 7, and I accept their verdict : I was rude and disrespectful.

Then I asked myself why, since I'm not usually quite that obnoxious.

Here's why I think it happened.

1. I go into everything public assuming that anything is being monitored by the RIAA, because it is.
2. I assume that everyone who asks me questions or makes comments could be an RIAA troll, because some of them are.
3. Both questions seem to ask questions about how to skirt the law. The first about whether doing something illegal from an "offshore" site would stand on a different legal footing than doing it from an American site. The other about whether buying a cd gives you rights in the songs that were contained on the cd, such as a perpetual right to get new copies from any source you like, based upon a perpetual "listening right". I found both questions to be rather odd.

I found it hard to believe that either question was an honest, good faith question, and responded sarcastically and impatiently.

I guess the fact that the questions were so positively moderated, and ultimately selected by the Interviews editor, indicates that they were honest, good faith questions from real Slashdotters so I should have just answered them respectfully. So to the questioners, if you are good guys, I apologize. And to those who complained about me, those of you who are not RIAA trolls, I apologize as well.

I've also noticed a lot of frustration, and anger, for not telling people that it's ok to make copies from a cd to your computer, keep them and use them on your computer, and keep them and use them on your mp3 player as you see fit, so long as it's for your personal use. Some people seem to assume it's because I don't know anything about the law, or don't know what an mp3 is, or something like that. After all, it seems like a simple enough question, and common sense would dictate that the answer should be yes, that it's ok. But there are no cases on the subject, and there is caselaw to the effect that your computer is not a personal audio device like an iPod is. And if you see the EFF article on the subject, "RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use", you'll see that the RIAA has flip flopped on this issue.

So I could go ahead, act knowledgeable, and tell you "sure, go ahead, that's perfectly legal". Or I could also go ahead, act knowledgeable, and tell you "no, that's absolutely illegal".

In either case I would be guessing, and I would be dishonest in pretending to know the answer to a question on which the jury is still out. So I would appreciate your cutting me some slack.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:My apologies by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 17:22 · Score: 1

By the way, apropos of my paranoia about RIAA trolls, let me mention one little factoid:
The guy who asked question 7 has made one Slashdot "comment" in his life.
You guessed it, it was his question 7 on September 11, 2006.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:My apologies by bigmaddog · 2006-09-14 17:22 · Score: 1

I think part of the difficulty you're facing is that this is, well, Slashdot. A lot of the posters are highly opinionated and are not really looking to be convinced of anything. If you're vague on a point someone feels passionately about, put on your asbestos pants. If you go against what people feel is right, you better be wearing a cup under those pants.

The other thing is that, from what I've been reading of the discussion, many people inadvertently confuse what they think is right with what you say about the legality of the matter. Us being technophiles, it seems natural that if you legally obtain music in one medium (CD), you can transfer it to whatever medium you find best for its consumption (IPod, phone, computer) and all is peachy. Given that, as you say (and there's some disagreement from Slashdotters about this) there is no right to listen, that whole idea of moving your music about how you like pretty much flies out the window. But that's not telling the audience what they want to hear, and it doens't mesh with what they feel is right, even if that (or something vaguely like it - I was paraphrasing at best) may be your interpretation of the law as it stands.

--
Even as you read this, your pants are strangling your loins! Aaa!
Re:My apologies by mgcarley · 2006-09-14 21:08 · Score: 1

The question I have is, when a company (such as Sony, EMI, Warner etc) produces a CD containing music in the public domain or was [probably] never copyrighted to begin with (perhaps, like the works of Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Bach etc), where does legality fit in?

How is [insert RIAA-associated label here] to know that this instance of the piece is theirs, save perhaps for some ID3 tags which may - or more often, may not - give away the version of the piece as being their version?

If I were to be handed a notice saying that my copy of "Moonlight Sonata" or "Etude #2 in C Minor" is illegal, where would I stand, in terms of the law?

Surely one could argue that it is NOT, in fact copyright by [insert RIAA-associated label here], given that the piece is 100+ years old and invariably in the public domain, AND, there would be little evidence to support that a particular song/album [copyrighted by RIAA-associated label] had been ripped/downloaded/whatever...

Who are they to suggest that I didn't make a studio recording of this myself? Just because it sounds the same as your version? Funny that, I thought that was the point of recreating music of this nature.

--
Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
Re:My apologies by WizADSL · 2006-09-14 21:22 · Score: 1

The where are the answers to questions 6 and 7? You can still answer them. The fact that the person asking one of the questions had never posted before is to unusual, a lot of the people who read this site don't register. If the opportunity comes up to have a question that they have answered by an expert presents itself and it is something they are interested in, they will register just to ask the question. I am really interested in the answers to these two questions, I have thought about them myself. They may seem like "traps" to you, but these are the questions people really have! Question 6 is asking if downloading from a LEGAL offshore site is ok, allofmp3 if you are familiar with it seems to live in a gray area because in the US you may not be able to run a site the way they do, but their local laws allow it. Question 7 seems to be asking the basic question about copyright (as I misunderstand it). Doesn't copyright law allow of a backup copy of software (CD, DVD, PC, etc) to be kept be the legal licensee? I realize that copy protection exists because even if I am allowed to make a legal backup copy, the company supplying the disc is not required to help. If there is copy protection involved and I bypass it to make my legal backup copy, isn't that now against the law because of DMCA? Which takes priority? Further, since my purchase of a CD/DVD/PC disc is only a license to use it, then shouldn't I be able to get a replacement copy of that disc of the copy of the media?, since I still "own" a license to the disc? Question 7 seems to deal mostly with this, since I am buying a license to the music and a copy of the media, can I replace damaged media by making a copy of the same CD a friend might own?
Re:My apologies by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 10:12 · Score: 1

Thanks, bigmaddog, you've really helped put it in perspective.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:My apologies by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 10:21 · Score: 1

1. I do not think a US judge will care whether allofmp3.com is or is not legal in Russia.
2. I am aware of no legal authority for the proposition that because you once owned a cd you can in the future make copies of it from other people's cd's. I have never heard of anyone making such an argument anywhere other than on Slashdot.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:Question about Getting trial by jury by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 15:31 · Score: 3, Informative

When you first put in your Answer you say "Defendant Demands a Trial by Jury" in your Answer. Then you're entitled to a jury trial. If you neglect to do it, you may be deemed to have waived your right to a jury trial.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:Uploaders only? (And the "open Wi-Fi" defense") by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 15:58 · Score: 1

Dear "larryk";

Go back to your original question. You were asking whether you could evade detection by using an open wi fi router connection. And I'm telling you that's an improper question. And you know it is.

Now you're invoking the Zuleta case, where the defendant DID NOT infringe any copyright. What does that have to do with the fact pattern you posited -- one where a person DID infringe a copyright with an open wi fi router connection?

Answer: nothing.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Default judgments by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-14 16:17 · Score: 2, Informative

The default judgments are usually in the $4000 to $7000 range. You can tell what it will be by looking at the number of songs in 'exhibit A' and multiplying by $750. They are looking for, and apparently getting, $750 per song. Typically exibit A has from 6 to 10 songs.

If a person has no money or assets with which to satisfy a judgment, whether a judgment is $4000 or $10,000 is pretty irrelevant. I don't recommend that people default. I would rather people went in and fought the case. The RIAA makes money on the settlements, loses money on the default judgments, and loses a lot of money on cases that are contested. So I hope everybody contests the cases. But some people don't have it in them to go in to court, handle a litigation, go to court conferences, talk to the judge, wade through paperwork, go to depositions, submit to a hard drive inspection, etc.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Summary of slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 16:29 · Score: 0

"It is a simple issue, not a complicated one. The only complication here are greedy corporations."

Funny how in these attempts to simplify "greedy public" isn't mentioned. That's why no one outside this forum takes this place seriously. It's not about truth or fairness. It's about how much slant one can put to their respective argument. Another characteristic which slashdot would have you believe belongs only to "greedy corporations", or "government", or [insert entity other than self here]. The day you all start growing up, and taking responsability for your actions instead of buck-passing is the day the general public starts listening.

For example by el+americano · 2006-09-14 17:43 · Score: 1

It's too late now, but a concrete example for number 2 might be:

I'm pretty sure it would be a mistake to wipe my hard drive once a lawsuit has been brought against me. Destroying evidence is a big mistake, right? However, when you get the first notice from your ISP, maybe that would be a good time to install Edgy Eft....from scratch. After discovery, he mentioned in the court record, they drop the John Doe suit and open a new one against just you. So data was not erased before the suit was brought, right? Man, I'd sure hate for someone to get that one wrong. It just seems to me that with the law, it's most important to know what not to do.

BTW, number 3 was a useful answer to avoid all this. I admit here was some good information there too.

--
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx

RIAA isn't american ? by Builder · 2006-09-14 20:39 · Score: 1

The RIAA isn't American. 3 of the 4 members of the cartel are "offshore corporations"

I was under the impression that RIAA stood for Recording Industry Association of America. That kinda implies that they might in some way be American. The RIAA have no pull in the UK. Sure, we have a similar organisation (BPI), but the RIAA do not operate here.

He then goes on to say 3 of the 4 members of the cartel "offshore corporations"

For starters, looking at the RIAA membership list there are a lot more than 4 members of the cartel.

I am deeply concerned by the lack of accurate detail in this answer!

Re:RIAA isn't american ? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 04:18 · Score: 1

Only 4 companies are involved in the litigations against consumers. Only 1 of them is American.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:RIAA isn't american ? by Builder · 2006-09-15 08:19 · Score: 1

That still doesn't make your original statement true.

Also, I was under the impression that the RIAA was bringing the lawsuits. Is this not correct? If not, that would have been some very useful information to impart.
Re:RIAA isn't american ? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-16 08:28 · Score: 1

OK OK I'll be more precise. Boy are you technical.

1. 3 of the 4 members of the RIAA's litigation cartel are foreign corporations.

2. Although the RIAA is bringing and managing the litigations -- presumably to make sure that all of these competitors work in lockstep and no one bolts from the pack -- it brings the actions in the names of the actual recording companies.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:This lawyer is useless, even if his info is rig by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-14 20:51 · Score: 0

Wow.. you wrote all that based on the fact that he made what was likely a small joke?

Niice. Put it back in your pants before you short out your keyboard.

Next, you might want to read for clarifications in the comments. They address the "no idea what you're talking about" comment as well.

I, for one, would abandon the lot of you for the ignorant majority who have seen fit to denegrate someone for taking their personal time to attempt to address questions based on an area of law that is currently being explored in the courts.

I hope some time in the future you provide your free time and get spit on for it.

--

Laywer guy, you might have been slightly more verbose in your answers.

The above statement in no way detracts from my contempt for the ignorant children who've posted.

--

I think the difference between Digg and Slashdot is the arrogance.

Re:Legality of downloading not relevant to the RIA by HuskyDog · 2006-09-14 22:02 · Score: 1

Now we are getting somewhere. So, if I purchase some MP3s from allofmp3.com, download them to my computer and don't make them available to anyone else at all by any means whatsoever, then I am in the clear, yes?

The reason that we are all asking these apparently dumb-ass questions is that we have heard to the contrary. Specifically, here in the UK, where the local equivalent of the RIAA the BPI are suing allofmp3.com and their chief council said in evidence to parliament "AllofMP3.com is illegal under UK law and it is illegal to download from it". Now, she did go on to say that they wouldn't be prosecuting users, but of course that could always change.

Now, you are a US lawyer and can't be expected to understand UK law, but you might be able to speculate whether it would be illegal to download from allofmp3.com in the US.

What if my car is totalled? by plague3106 · 2006-09-15 00:15 · Score: 1

I can no longer drive the car I bought. My only recourse under law is to by another one. Unacceptable.

You don't have the right to copy; you have the right to listen to a copy made by the copyright holder, and they may require you pay for it.

Re:Uploaders only? (And the "open Wi-Fi" defense") by larryk+(OK) · 2006-09-15 02:09 · Score: 1

Country Lawyer, you have missed my point entirely. I'm in my 60s and have no interest in downloading copyrighted material, especially what passes for music today. And I'm paranoid enough to be afraid to even try (which you would notice if you read the earlier part of my original comment). I even have security on my router. But I'm fascinated by p2p technology and the anarchy that it represents. It is my non-lawyer opinion that the recording industry is seriously abusing existing copyright law and engaging in legalized extortion, just because they can. So I'm cheering for the people that they are sueing, the scofflaws and the innocent alike. Do you get the impression sometimes that a lot of others agree with me? Someday soon the RIAA will wake up and see that their former business model is dead, to everyone's benefit, including their own. The more that p2p filesharing becomes uncontrollable by the RIAA, the sooner that day will come, and that's why I cheer for the scofflaws. Call me a subversive or other names if you want, but American resistance to unfair laws is as old as the Boston Tea Party. All of the very reasonable questions that were left unanswered by Mr. Beckerman, an expert in the field, should convince anyone that the present copyright law is a mess. No one who buys a CD (or an online mp3 file) has any idea what rights they actually have to their purchase. According to the RIAA, they have none at all. I'm far from the only one who thinks that what the RIAA is doing is immoral, if not illegal. The defendents haven't even had their day in court yet, from what I can tell. The RIAA seems to be afraid to actually try a test case. When someone fights back (at great expense, of course), they skulk away. I understand that you, as a lawyer, are required to be shocked (SHOCKED!) when someone even considers breaking a law, even if the law is an ass. After a lifetime of lawyering, you might even think that way full-time. But I hope that my "open router" suggestion will make it just a little more difficult for the RIAA to sue guilty downloaders (or uploaders) successfully, and hasten the day when this travesty ends. Now get off your high horse, OK?

The answer is that in normal cases, if you buy a CD, it's no different than if you buy a comb.Since no law prohibits listening, listen away.

A comb isn't a pattern from which I can (re)produce a given musical work. A CD is. Every time you play a CD, you're using the encoded pattern to copy the sound of the original recording. Doesn't copyright law forbid this copy? If so, why not?

In some countries (Canada for example), copyright explictly limits your right to read a book out loud: to reproduce the sounds of the story. (See section 32.2(d) of the Copyright Act for details).

It's a valid question to ask why you're allowed (assuming you're allowed) to listen to a CD at all, and under which circumstances it's legal to do so.

Re:Why doesn't copyright apply? by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-15 03:39 · Score: 1

Every time you play a CD, you're using the encoded pattern to copy the sound of the original recording. Doesn't copyright law forbid this copy? If so, why not?

There is no exclusive right under copyright regarding mere performance of the CD. There is an exclusive right to make copies, but copies are defined as material objects in which the work is fixed, and from which the work can be perceived. This would basically have to be a memory buffer for the CD drive, if anything. But using a CD player to merely play a CD is likely to be: 1) de minimis infringement, and therefore effectively non-infringing, so copyright isn't relevant; 2) a fair use, when analyzed under the four-factor test, which would make it non-infringing, or; 3) permitted by the copyright holder under an implied license. Of course, there's also the fourth possibility: that a court wouldn't apply the MAI rule to this set of circumstances, finding some way to distinguish a general purpose computer from the very limited purpose electronics in a CD player, for example, resulting in none of the exclusive rights being invoked to begin with. MAI has been getting some criticism lately, you know.

It's a valid question to ask why you're allowed (assuming you're allowed) to listen to a CD at all, and under which circumstances it's legal to do so.

No, it is not. The default rule is that all that is not prohibited is allowed. So the question is why you shouldn't be allowed to listen to a CD. The presumption is that you can. Copyright holders have the job of showing why not. And if they never bother to raise the question, who cares?

--
-- 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.
Re:Why doesn't copyright apply? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-18 07:36 · Score: 0

There is no exclusive right under copyright regarding mere performance of the CD.

So I'm free to give a concert consisting of some other artist's songs, so long as I don't write down the sheet music or otherwise encode the performance in a physical medium?

No, it is not. The default rule is that all that is not prohibited is allowed.

And we don't know what is prohibited. So we don't know what is allowed, either. According the article, even lawyers don't know what the law means. How can a non-legal expert know what the experts can't make their minds up about?

So the question is why you shouldn't be allowed to listen to a CD. The presumption is that you can.

You only can unless and until some body of law says you can't; and no one knows what those laws say and what they mean. That's the very question at issue -- what exactly does the current set of copyright laws imply, legally. And given that even the lawyers are saying they can't tell us what the law says, it's all the more valid to ask these questions.

Copyright holders have the job of showing why not. And if they never bother to raise the question, who cares?

If they raise the question after the fact, you may be found guilty of infringement, if a judge decides that they're right in their legal arguments. In short, you do have to care, because otherwise you risk breaking the law. No honest citizen can risk that.

How Interviewing a Judge From One of These Cases by greyfeld · 2006-09-15 03:39 · Score: 1

These guys obviously don't have the answers we would like to hear, or perhaps more succinctly, the answers that we need to settle these questions. How about getting an Interview with a judge from one of these cases?

Re:Cool, I can search here for "non-RIAA equivalen by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-15 05:05 · Score: 0

I put in "progressive" because I like prog rock and the first result it gave me was Johnny Cash live at Fulsom Prison. Uh? He's a great singer but not really progressive.

Re:Question 6 not understood - or lacking by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 05:15 · Score: 1

I am not aware of any rulings on Allofmp3.com.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Financial ruination or jail? by phorm · 2006-09-15 06:11 · Score: 1

Civil or criminal. A criminal conviction might do the following: a) Put you in jail
b) Give you a record
c) Drain your finances in court fighting it
d) All associated issues with the afforementioned

A heavy civil penalty (the RIAA is often seeking damages in the $100,000's to more) will have the effect of:
a) Bankrupty, and poverty

However, the worst effects of (a) are - in addition to the possibility of being abused in prison - the financial ones as well... a record means getting a good job can be really hard, jail time can kill a marriage etc. Being bankrupt (civil penalty) can be much the same... it's pretty hard to afford a mortgage/house, car to get to work, etc when you're up to your eyeballs in virtually unimaginable debt.

I'd choose civil over criminal, but neither is a bed of roses by a long way.

DO YOU SEE WHAT YOU DID RAY? KANGAROOSKI HELP! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-15 07:01 · Score: 0

No, it's not fucking legal in the US. FUCK.

This has been explained about one thousand fucking times, but people are nonetheless content to stick their fucking fingers in their ears.

I don't understand why Ray won't answer the damned question, because I really want to stop reading fucking uninformed nonsense comments from people who really really wish allofmp3 isn't too good to be fucking true.

You are buying a disc. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-15 07:28 · Score: 0

You're not buying a license. There are no licenses or EULAs for CDs. You're misapplying what happens to software to what happens to music. There is no license. You bought the disc.

Re:You are buying a disc. by Grishnakh · 2006-09-15 07:35 · Score: 1

Ok, great! If I only bought a plastic disc, then I should be able to copy it, encode it into Oggs, etc.
Re:You are buying a disc. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-15 08:43 · Score: 0

No, because copyright restricts what you can do with the work that's on the disc.

It's just like how you can own a car, but you're not allowed to drive it on public roads unless you're licensed to do so.

You need a copyright license to make copies of the works on the disc, to perform them publicly, to make derivative works of them, etc. But the things you need a license for are very limited, and they're all spelled out at 17 USC 106.

Suffice it to say, you don't need a license for mere use and you aren't given a license to do anything under 17 USC 106 (hence "all rights reserved.")

So, you while you are in fact buying the disc -- and you do in fact own it -- you still can't do anything you like with it.

Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-15 07:42 · Score: 0

This is the answer you should have given for #6.

People really honestly believe downloading from allofmp3.com from within the US is legal. They trot out arguments that such downloading is somehow importation (which it isn't), drawing (false) analogies to going to Russia and buying a physical CD and bringing it back to the US.

The non-answer to #6 is only going to perpetuate the myth and I really would have hoped you could kill it dead, once and for all.

Re:Question 6 not understood - or lacking by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 09:29 · Score: 1

A US court will not care that the defendant is not violating Russian copyright law.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:Legality of downloading not relevant to the RIA by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 10:32 · Score: 1

If you download without proper authority from the copyright owner or his authorized agent it would be a copyright infringement.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:Uploaders only? (And the "open Wi-Fi" defense") by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 10:36 · Score: 1

Well I don't think you should be encouraging these young people to commit perjury. If you consider that being on a high horse, tough. I ain't getting off of it.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:Uploaders only? (And the "open Wi-Fi" defense") by larryk+(OK) · 2006-09-15 11:41 · Score: 1

Perjury? I never said any such thing. Anyone who commits perjury is extremely stupid. Ask Scooter Libby. It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone who addresses straw men and not my actual words. Goodbye, and may you have only innocent clients - for their sake. And be careful not to fall off that high horse.

Re:Uploaders only? (And the "open Wi-Fi" defense") by megaditto · 2006-09-15 13:53 · Score: 1

Given that GP aparently uses his real name here, telling you anything else could be a career-ending move for him.

--
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.

'Twas Brillig by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-15 14:40 · Score: 1

Thank you all for the interview, and for the rough and tumble comment period which followed it. I really enjoyed it. It was incredible fun.

I've even learned an important new legal research method in the process. A lawyer can't just read a bunch of cases and statutes to know what the law is. He also needs to come to Slashdot, because if somebody here says something's the law, and it gets moderated to +5, then it's the law.

Maybe lawyers don't know it, and Congress doesn't know it, and the judges don't know it, but sooner or later, I'm sure they'll come around.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:'Twas Brillig by skwang · 2006-09-26 07:50 · Score: 1

I've even learned an important new legal research method in the process. A lawyer can't just read a bunch of cases and statutes to know what the law is. He also needs to come to Slashdot, because if somebody here says something's the law, and it gets moderated to +5, then it's the law.
No, no, no. Only if it's moderated +5 Insightful does it become a law, +5 Interesting is just a suggestion and +5 Funny is Leno's new monolouge opener.
Seriously...Mr. Beckerman,
Despite some of the questions and comments in this entire discussion I think you handled yourself pretty well. I must say you have educated me with regard to many issues surrounding music-sharing/RIAA lawsuits/etc. For that let me personally say "Thank you."
--Shawn
Re:'Twas Brillig by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-26 08:06 · Score: 1

And I thank you, Shawn, as well, for bringing a smile to my face. It was a really fun experience.

But I do have to question something you've said.

On the legal points, I'm sure you're right.

But about +5 Funny.... I really don't think that what Slashdot moderators think of as funny will go over so well on mainstream TV.
But maybe that's just me.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

take another look at the Napster fiasco by catmistake · 2006-09-16 03:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

As an audiophile, I truly believe that focusing on the root cause of all this RIAA gestapo BS would be fruitful: mp3s are NOT an exact duplicate of the digital quality of CDs, not by a long shot. I think the crux of it is that IF the RIAA can shut down Napster because individuals downloaded mp3s, THEN, by the same logic, the RIAA should shutdown radio stations because individuals tape songs off the radio (uh... cassette tapes... anyone rememeber those?).

The reason they can't/don't shut down radio stations is because the copy off the radio is not "digital quality." I submit that mp3s, while digital, are NOT the perfect digital copies the RIAA claim they are (listen to the high-end... cymbols sound like glass breaking, all fuzzy, also, even at higher bit rates the low end becomes less defined), the compression completely changes the original waveform to create something that doesn't sound NEARLY as good as the original uncompressed waveform. mp3s are just about at broadcast quality, but not the digital quality of CDs

I'm not sure, but I'd guess that any disinterested audio engineer would agree... mp3's suck compared to the original digital source. If this is the case (and I guarantee you that it is), then just like radio, mp3 sharing sites will actually help sell music, because once you hear a substandard copy of a song you like, the probability increases that you will purchase CD to hear the quality you desire.

To my knowledge, no one has even attepted the technology argument, or objected to the RIAA's claims that mp3s are "perfect digital copies" of the source waveform. From the initial introduction of this litigation, the RIAA has hoodwinked us, and no one even noticed!

If this argument has never been used... why not?

--
The Admin and the Engineer

Re:take another look at the Napster fiasco by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-16 04:28 · Score: 1

Thanks, catmistake. But where's the legal argument in there? Since when has it been a defense to copyright infringement that the copier is doing substandard work?

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:take another look at the Napster fiasco by catmistake · 2006-09-16 04:37 · Score: 1

afaik, since the RIAA made the argument that mp3's were perfect digital copies... that was the original basis of their original argument, wasn't it? That's the argument that shut down Napster, wasn't it?

--
The Admin and the Engineer
Re:take another look at the Napster fiasco by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-16 04:54 · Score: 1

I am not aware of the perfection of the copies being an issue.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:take another look at the Napster fiasco by catmistake · 2006-09-16 05:28 · Score: 1

from the original complaint (source: , pg. 11, #41):

Most Internet piracy of sound recordings is accomplished using a technology known as MP3, which stands for Motion Picture Expert Group 1, Audio Layer 3. MP3 simply is an algorithm that compresses a digital music file by a ratio of approximately 12:1, thereby reducing the size of the file so that it more easily and quickly can be copied, transmitted, and downloaded over the Internet. There are several other compression technologies used for this purpose, and many of them produce a high fidelity sound quality. MP3, however, has become the standard for piracy because it is available for free on the Internet and because it does not incorporate any security to limit copying and distribution of the sound recording. Thus, once a sound recording has been converted into the MP3 format, it can be copied and distributed an unlimited number of times, without meaningful degradation in the sound quality. Once downloaded (i.e. copied and saved to a computer hard drive), a music file can be played from the computer, or further copied onto home or car stereo equipment, or portable players, designed for use with MP3 music.

Again, my argument is that it is not a HIGH fidelity duplication, and that although once ripped there is no degridation in quality, the degredation comes from the ripping itself...

So, seems to me like they made it an issue... is it really a non-issue, legally? They can just make unchallenged claims, and if unchallenged, becomes legally true?

(thanks for answering, btw... it all makes me so angry I may get tired of shaking my tiny fists in the air and just go get that law degree)

--
The Admin and the Engineer
Re:take another look at the Napster fiasco by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-16 05:42 · Score: 1

My off the cuff reaction is that it would be a non-issue on the question of liability, but might relate in a small way to the damages. I.e., since the quality of the copies is inferior, a few audiophiles like yourself will still insist on buying the originals.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:take another look at the Napster fiasco by catmistake · 2006-09-16 05:57 · Score: 1

Thanks for sharing your knowledge. Now... go get 'em... take no prisoners (and best of luck).

--
The Admin and the Engineer
Re:take another look at the Napster fiasco by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-16 06:09 · Score: 1

Thanks, catmistake.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:How Interviewing a Judge From One of These Case by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-16 04:52 · Score: 1

grefeld wrote: "These guys obviously don't have the answers we would like to hear, or perhaps more succinctly, the answers that we need to settle these questions"

Actually the second clause is not a more succinct version of the first, it is an entirely different concept.

Which is really what you meant to say? (a) the answers you would like to hear, or (b) the answers you would need to "settle" the question one way or the other?

If it was the former, I can't help you. I can only tell you what is.

If the latter, I settled the 2 questions that consumed 90% of this forum's time. Question 6 asks if you would be safer to do illegal downloading from a foreign site, and I think my answer reflects that it is "no". Question 7 asks if you have a perpetual listening right, so that you can make additional copies without permission if your first copy is lost or stolen, to which which I think my answer reflects that it is "no".

The questioner in 7 was assuming, and many subsequent commenters were asking if it was so, that one could freely make copies of one's own cd for backup purposes, mp3 player purposes, etc. To that 3rd question I indicated that there was no law one way or the other on it. Some people didn't like that answer. It wasn't "what they wanted to hear", and it didn't help them "settle the question". Can't help that, though: there is no law one way or the other on that subject.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

No, it's not by xeno-cat · 2006-09-16 09:29 · Score: 1

The RIAA's opinion is what is going to get you sued, hardley irrelavent. As to what is actually legal, the resident lawyer has said it's not exactly clear yet. So it is very unwise to discount what one side of the argument believes the law to be.

Kind Regards

--
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w

Re:No, it's not by Pofy · 2006-09-16 22:33 · Score: 1

>The RIAA's opinion is what is going to get you sued, hardley irrelavent.

I was not commenting on the "getting sued issue". I was commenting on what, in fact is, the law. If you can or will get sued has nothing to do with what the law says. You can get sued for anything regardless of what the law says. That was my point, about the law, not about wether people sue you or not. That might be relevant for other reassons, but not for what the law says. Read my posts please.

Re:Legality of downloading not relevant to the RIA by HuskyDog · 2006-09-17 05:59 · Score: 1

I am sure that we are all most grateful for your efforts to expand on your original answers, but as always, each answer just raises more questions:

1) Does this rule also apply in the physical world? Example: I walk into a small record store and buy what I genuinely believe is an original audio CD, but which is actually, unknown to me, a pirated copy. Have I committed a copyright infringement, and if not, why is it different from the download case?

2) What steps would a judge expect me to have taken to ensure that what appears to be a legal paid download is realy so? Would I have to have written to each artist, or their agent and enquired if the relevant site was providing legitimate downloads? Clearly, this is not a big problem whilst there are a small number of big download sites run by large corporations, but imagine if the industry expanded into hundreds of small companies, perhaps offering music from specialised genres (e.g. www.mandolin-mp3s.com). It would become a complete legal minefield. BTW, I do realise that the legal system doesn't care how completely inconvenient and impractical complying with the law becomes.

3) Suppose that I was sued for purchasing MP3s from what I believed was an entirely genuine site. Could I, assuming I had enough money, then attempt to recover the damaged by sueing the download site for fraud? false advertising? something else?

As before, I don't expect you to know what the answers would be here in the UK, but if you would care to comment on the US case then I am sure that many people would be most interested.

Thank you,

Re:Legality of downloading not relevant to the RIA by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-17 12:16 · Score: 0

1. No. If you buy a pirated CD, you're not guilty of infringment because you don't violate any of the exclusive rights set out in 17 USC 106. You'd didn't make a copy, distribute a copy, publicly perform a copy, make a derivative work, etc.

But when you download, you're not buying a copy that was already made, you're making a new one. Thus, unless you have permission to do so, you violate the exclusive right of the copyright holder to make copies, as spelled out in 12 USC 106. Read the Napster decision or Utah Lighthouse Ministries if you don't believe me that downloading is making a copy, it's spelled out very clearly. People like to delude themselves into thinking that the "other side" makes the copy or that nobody makes one and that they are merely sent a copy. Those notions are wrong, and there's clear precedent against them -- and anyway they don't make any sense given the statutory definition of a "copy" (whch is a physical object, like a CD or a hard drive).

2. Copyright infringement is strict liability. This means your state of mind is irrelevant. If you infringe, you're liable, no matter what precautions you take, or whether you knew you were infringing or not.

3. Possibly.

What is the problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-18 06:42 · Score: 0

To me, a common-sense approach would be:

1. An owner may make any number of copies in any format.
2. All copies must be the property of the owner.
3. Giving-up ownership of one copy, rescinds ownership of all copies.

That seems to encapsulate both an intuitive view of music ownership and, to my sense, *should* satisfy all reasonable copyright owners.

Better answers for 7) Gray Area Questions by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-18 07:01 · Score: 0

Four_One_Nine posted the following questions. I didn't think the lawyer fully understood the questions. When they did understand the question they hid behind the "it's still being litigated" arguement. (I liked the answers to most of the other question...thanks lawyers!) My more direct answers are gleaned from conversations I've had with representatives of the RIAA. So, I guess I'm answering a bit like the lawyers by changing the question from what is legal to what is in the RIAA's crosshairs.

>7) Gray Area Questions
>(Score:5, Interesting)
>by Four_One_Nine

>Over the years I have attempted to educate some of the 'younger' generation
>about the do-s and don't-s of music copying and sharing. The following
>questions have come up out of real experiences and I have never had anyone
>provide a reasonable (justifiable) answer.

>1. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently stolen (along with my 5 disc
>changer *@$#!!) do I retain any rights to listen to that music?

My answer:
The lawyer said that there is no such thing as a listening right. That's true, but there is a right to display a work. When you play a CD on your stereo, you are displaying the work. This right belongs to the copyright holder and there are limits on your ability to do that even if you play the original CD. For example, BMI and ASCAP collect from resteraunts with more than a certain number of speakers for playing a CD or even the radio.

According to the RIAA, the rights go with the original disc. In my original discussions, they said backup copies are acceptable, but that backup copies may only be made from the original. Since then, they have argued in a brief that backup copies should not be allowed.

>. a. Are the .mp3 files of that CD on my computer legal or do they now belong
>to the thief too?

My answer:
They are backups (of equal or lesser quality) and you may listen to them. Of course it doesn't belong to the thief. They stole it.

>. b. Can I re-burn a CD from the .mp3s and is that legal?

My answer:
Not according to the RIAA. You may not make copies for backup purposes from anything but the original CD.

Also note that purchasing from the Apple music store does allow you to make several CDs.

>. c. Does me having a backup copy of the files on my computer mean I can't
>make an insurance claim?

My answer:
The lawyer was correct to direct you to the insurance company.

>. d. What if it is destroyed (for example by a fire) rather than stolen?

My answer:
Makes no difference...theft or fire, famine or sword.

>2. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently scratched or broken to the point
>where it is not playable, can I legally download the songs from that CD from
>a file-sharing network?

My answer:
No. The RIAA says, you cannot. I asked them this explicitly. You may only make backups from the original CD.

>3. If I purchase the DVD for a movie, could I legally download songs from the
>soundtrack for that movie from a file-sharing network?

My answer:
No, for the same reason as in #2. Also, owning a DVD of a movie doesn't give you the right to the soundtrack anyway. It's a separate work. The foley sound and dialog has been removed. The whole song is on the CD when only 15 seconds of it may have appeared in the film. (That was me, not the RIAA).

>4. If I purchase a CD that our entire family listens to, and then my daughter
>leaves for College, can she legally take a copy of an .mp3 ripped from that
>CD with her on her computer? or - similarly - could she take the disc and
>could I keep the .mp3 on my computer?

My answer:
No and no. The RIAA allows for backups, not for multiple copies to be used simultaneously.

Blessings,
Anonymous Coward

Re:How Interviewing a Judge From One of These Case by greyfeld · 2006-09-22 08:06 · Score: 1

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my comment. You are correct. Your answers clarified the questions that were presented to you. What people want to hear and settling the issues are indeed two different things. People just want to know under what circumstances they can make copies and share music, if any.

What I really wanted was an answer to my question regarding the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which was highly moderated, but not chosen as one that was presented to you for the interview. If you have a moment, maybe you could weigh in with an educated viewpoint as mine just comes from reading the act and making some deductions based on it. I realize your time is valuable and will understand if you pass. Thanks.

"I was wondering under what circumstances, if any, copying of recorded music on CDs is allowed for personal use." Below is a link to my original posting with my reasoning and question(s).

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=196283&cid=160 83613

"perfect digital copies" by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-23 15:18 · Score: 1

Dear audiophile "catmistake",

I was thinking of you when I read the RIAA's responses to our second set of interrogatories the other day in UMG v. Lindor.

They made a big point of saying that the copies they downloaded from defendant's computer were "perfect digital copies". See "Preclusion Motion Filed in UMG v. Lindor; Lindor Says RIAA Cannot Introduce Songs into Lawsuit if it Has Not Produced Song Files", where we asked them, in essence, how they intend to prove that if they can't actually produce those allegedly downloaded files.

Their "perfect digital copies" line comes up in their responses to followup interrogatories (exhibit B to Reply affidavit of Morlan Ty Rogers).

Maybe you know better than I do why they made such a point of how 'perfect' their 'digital copies' were. Maybe they thought that if the copies were really, really perfect, it wouldn't matter that they didn't have copies of them.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Correction to answer #3 (shame on Beckerman) by gosand · 2006-09-25 07:30 · Score: 1

Beckerman: The only way I know to avoid the present litigation wave is to avoid having shared files of copyrighted songs.

I think we need to be VERY careful about how we say things. I think what you meant to say is that people should avoid having shared files of copyrighted songs, without the copyright holders permission to do so.

This is one of those things that bugs me, because it leans the general thought in one particular direction. Copying and sharing copyrighted music or other works is NOT illegal, in and of itself. It is only illegal if you don't have the rights to do so. There are many copyrighted works that you can legally copy and share.

I know, it is very pedantic, but I think it is something very important to keep clear.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

Re:Correction to answer #3 (shame on Beckerman) by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-25 10:29 · Score: 1

gosand said:
"I think we need to be VERY careful about how we say things. I think what you meant to say is that people should avoid having shared files of copyrighted songs, without the copyright holders permission to do so."
Yes, but I think you should be careful about your phrase "permission to do so". Some people reading this might construe that as indicating that if you lawfully purchased the song file, then it's ok to share it.
A correct statement would be: the only way I know to avoid this wave of litigation is to avoid having shared files of copyrighted songs unless you have the copyright holders' permission to share those songs over the internet with others. If they are songs from the major record labels, you definitely do not have such permission.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

You must be new here by skwang · 2006-09-26 07:56 · Score: 1

Your comment was too insightful and too even-headed to belong on Slashdot.

You must be new here!

Please pick up your complimentary GroupThink(tm) brochure on the table to your left. It tells you what to think and what to write in each discussion topic(Linux vs. Microsoft, Democrat vs Republican, BSD vs Nintendo, etc.) In the future we'd appriciated it if you'd keep to the party line. Thanks and enjoy your stay!

Re:You must be new here by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-09-26 08:15 · Score: 1

Good one!

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:Question 6 not understood - or lacking by airos4 · 2006-09-26 21:11 · Score: 1

Actually, that brings up a question my friends and I were discussing the other night. If for instance I travel to a country where marijuana use is legal - Amsterdam was the example, although I don't actually know their drug laws - and while there enjoy the legal freedoms I have there. When I return to America and I am required to take a urine toxicology test, can I say something like "but it's legal where I did it, I have not done it anywhere that it is considered illegal, and so I broke no laws in the doing" as a defense?

Possibly flawed analogy: it's legal to make a right turn on red in New Jersey. It is not legal to make a right turn on red in New York City. So if I make my right on red in NJ while being followed by an NYPD cruiser, should they be able to pull me over once I enter NYC because I broke the laws of the land? (for the purposes of this, ignore the jurisdiction question of being able to write tickets outside of your city borders.)

--
I wish there was a choice that said "Factually Wrong -1" when I mod.

Um, no.. by airos4 · 2006-09-26 21:29 · Score: 1

From what I've read over the course of the RIAA inquisition, they generally tend to use simple clients - the same as the one you use to connect to the network - to browse what you're offering, print the screenshot, and move on. They aren't involved in sniffing the actual hashes to see what you're sending and receiving at any given moment.

Further, not every P2P network hashes the files and lets you send block 4 while downloading block 2 and 5. Many of them simply have you wait until you receive the entire file before you can be a source to it.

So, it is indeed possible to download without uploading. It's called "Wait until you see 'File Complete' and then move it out of the shared folder."

Or you could just do like I do and swap porn instead. The RIAA doesn't care about Tera Patrick's newest adventures yet.

--
I wish there was a choice that said "Factually Wrong -1" when I mod.

Slashdot Mirror

Answers From Lawyers Who Defend Against RIAA Suits

740 comments