Slashdot Mirror
Storing Personal Music Online Is Illegal In Japan
An anonymous reader writes "A decision in Tokyo District Court could have implications in Japan for online services that let users store files, if any music files are involved. The court case pitted JASRAC, the Japanese organization that collects fees for public music performances, against Image City, whose MYUTA service lets users employ a central server to store songs from their own CDs, to play on their own phones. The Tokyo District Court handed down a ruling declaring Image City guilty of copyright infringement (Google translation). Despite the music being stored strictly for personal use, the ruling reasoned that the act of uploading music to a central server owned by a company is the equivalent of distributing music to that company. This has implications for other services such as Yahoo! Briefcase and Apple's .Mac, which could mean these companies are guilty of copyright infringement if any of their users in Japan store music in their accounts for personal use. Here are some additional details on JASRAC's activities and methods." Neither article talks about possible appeals, or about how strong a precedent this case sets in the Japanese legal system.
If the data is encrypted, and they don't have the key, you haven't distributed anything to them.
Shifting copyright works? bad.
Animated tentical rape? ok.
How we know is more important than what we know.
So I rent an apartment, and I store some of my music CDs in there, and then the RIAA sues my landlord for copyright infringement?
If I rent storage space online for my own personal use, I can put anything I want in there, including backup copies of my legally owned music collection.
Anything less, and my fair use rights are being violated.
I know in this heavily commercial age that people automatically think that all music 'belongs' to someone else....
But for Christssake! 'Personal music', should mean music you've created. Not music copyrighted by someone else that's intended personal use.
Online?
Er. Okay. What is "online" - does this mean on a server somewhere on the vast internet which you've purchased? Or would your personal computer - which is "online" - count?
"[..] the ruling reasoned that the act of uploading music to a central server owned by a company is the equivalent of distributing music to that company." Uploading music to a central server. So when the user has a networked place to store files, would this qualify? Assuming you were the owner or a business which had one other employee, if you uploaded your music to your server for your business, would this be a violation?
So many questions.. so many loopholes.. such broad legal decisions.
That the US isn't the only country with a totally screwed legal system and idiots for judges!
since sometimes online data is redundant data. outlawing uploaded content? ok. long life to P2P.
Shifting copyright works? bad.
Kidnapping and torturing people? ok.
How is this any different from using a hosted server as an offsite backup? I can't see how this can possibly be a copyright issue...
So, if I have illegal documents in a safety deposit box, is the bank or holder responsible for what is stored?
What about online backup services? They're growing in popularity as bandwidth comes down in price. I have 200 gigs of music included in my encrypted remote backup set. Nobody can get at it but me, it is just random data as far as the host is concerned.
I can't imagine a nation as technically literate as Japan would essentially make it illegal for people to do remote backup (since 99.9% of people have SOME music on their hard drive, if only the windows startup sound or whatever other audio files come with your OS and applications).
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
I believe that storing music should be regal in Japan, and it won't take rong for the Japanese to rearize this.
I use Yahoo Japan's Briefcase to store music. I guess that JASRAC will try to sue me, except that I'm actually Chinese. So what do they do about non-Japanese people using Japanese services for this sort of thing? Will they try to prosecute across borders like the States does?
OSx86 FTW
I know the two sources are confusing, but the key point is that the 3rd party, whom is considered to be in possession of music licensed to you, commits infringement when they transfer the music back to you. Only you, the licensee has permission to do transfers, copying, etc.
So if you upload it to your own server this decision wouldn't necessarily apply. This brings up some interesting ideas; suppose a server farm was operated as a co-op where all the users own shares of the server farm. Now, if they upload music to this server farm are they distributing it to someone else?
How about if someone you don't know downloads a copy of a song from your server while you're not watching - is this distribution?
The record companies are setting legal precedents right and left these days - but I wonder if they realize what kind of corner they're painting themselves into. The basic idea of the copyright owner being the one who decides who gets copies of his work for a limited time is sound. I don't think even a hardened pirate can honestly argue against this. But this simple idea has been blown up and perverted far beyond what it was intended to be by greedy businessmen. The push-back from the general public is getting stronger by the day and it's just a matter of time before these companies find themselves holding the short end of the stick.
Want to hasten that day? Inform others of what's going on, and defund the crooks by refusing to purchase their products. Take the money out and they'll fold up very quickly.
There have been several similar rulings in lower courts in Europe, and all have been changed in higher courts. It is typical for a lower court to totally miss the deeper and more technical implications of cases such as this one.
...
The company has been providing a service to the consumer, but has not used the implicated files or distributed them to other users. As such, the company itself is not guilty of anything - let alone copyright violations. If they were, we would soon see virtually every MP3 device manufacturer being sued for copyright violations.
What is next - Suing Smith & Wesson for murder? Suing Ford for driving too fast? Suing every phone company on the planet for terrorist activities and every ISP for hacking and industrial espionage?
It is rulings such as this one that shows there is a reason for having multiple levels in the court system. And also why the judges in the higher courts are paid better
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
The bank, by storing the documents, are not infringing on the copyrights. But if they were to transfer or copy them without permission, then they would be infringing.
How to build a huge mp3 collection:
1. Launch company that stores users' music online
2. Users send you all their music
3. W00T! check out my huge crappy mp3 collection.
I haven't figured out where to put "Profit" in there. I guess that's because I'm Canadian.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
which could mean these companies are guilty of copyright infringement if any of their users in Japan store music in their accounts for personal use.
It goes beyond that, at least, according to Gigazine. What the Gigazine article is alleging is that the court decision implies that any use of online storage for copyrighted materials, ANY copyrighted materials, is a violation. Storing photos, movie clips or articles would run afoul of the decision as well. You'd have to wonder if even email could survive unscathed if this decision is taken to its ultimate end.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Encryption is simply a container, it may be locked but when you tranfer the container, you also transfer the contents.
Actually you have distributed a large amount of military-grade random numbers to them. Expect the SWAT team and black helicopters.
(...) the ruling reasoned that the act of uploading music to a central server owned by a company is the equivalent of distributing music to that company.
Sounds a lot like a safe deposit box to me. I entrust the company with my possessions in a central location (the bank vault), but the ownership doesn't change hands. I've in no way distributed the music to the bank just because I put it in my safe deposit box, that's ridiculous. Also, that notion of "distribution" would be completely ridiculous for a company. Shared hosting? Co-lo? Rented terminal services? All of those involve uploading data to a central server owned by a different company. By no means is that distribution to whomever is doing the hosting. Also think of things like Google apps, are you distributing things to Google now whenever you use their tools? I hope the actual ruling made more sense than that sentence.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"Thinkin' is so dang hard an' it hurts mah head. That's why I lets Fox news do the thinkin' for me."
Music on your keitai is big business: the cell phone providers have their own music download services, and on most phones, you do not have the ability to upload mp3s or the like yourself (there are certainly some exceptions, and I believe Vodaphone phones generally did allow you much more freedom in this regard. Vodaphone were very much the minor player in the market though.)
... as a copyright violation. With progressively higher-level manufacturing moving to China, there is strong support from the government to encourage industry to develop and invest in IP, with correspondingly strong IP laws.
Services like MYUTA threaten to undermine a very lucrative source of revenue, and the music industry is a very, very powerful lobby: Sony for example were able to have the law rewritten such that importing CDs of Japanese music that Japanese publishers had licensed to overseas companies for distribution would be illegal
That is exactly the same BS ruling that killed MP3.com back in 1999 when the original Diamond Rio Flash/MP3 mobile player changed the world. What gives the government the right to tell you what you can do with the data you bought for the express purpose of playing it yourself?
Hell, in the US, even CDs have been allowed to be loaned to friends, played at parties, like analog records always were. These copyright exceptions to outlawed monopolies and free speech are only rationalized by protecting some return on investment, not making a crazy fortune on a 3.5 minute fad.
--
make install -not war
Just your luck, China and Japan are in new extradition talks.
Yes, anyone involved in distributing a song so awful that it makes your ears bleed would be a badguy.
It would be totally impossible to predict the long term "side effects" on any ruling. Holding the judge personally responsible would only make him hesitate in every decision and probably always take the most conservative approach no matter what the more logical choice actually was.
Besides, the judge is just doing his/her job. I am a programmer - but I am not held personally responsible for each and every bug I produce. And I can't imagine any programmer taking a job under such conditions. If I make too many bugs I'll be fired. If the judge makes too many mistakes, fire him/her.
I think "personal responsibility for the rulings of judges" the way you describe it, is just insane and would paralyze the legal system totally.
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
You never know, it might be overturned on an appeal, but it does show how yesterdays copyright laws can be interpreted negativly when applied to todays technology.
I see a lot of Americans horrorizing themselves over copyright laws in Japan. Jesus Christ, mind your own damn country. The one bullying to exporting shit like the DMCA overseas, you know. Let the Japanese deal with this.
What if I own a computer which happens to be connected to the internet that stores music? Is that already "storing online"? What if I happen to own the server myself that stores the music, does that break the law? If that server is connected to the internet, does it then? Or when that server belongs to my company? What if I allow access to my computer at home, which is not a dedicated server but used as my storage space for my digital music? What if I don't allow "file access" to it, but applications that I use are allowed to behave as servers (i.e. accept connections), say, ICQ or a P2P program? What if...
Head already spinning, Mr. Judge?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...I email my collection (or part thereof) to my gMail account? Is that the same as distributing my music to Google as a company? After all, it's their storage I'm using.
Anonymity of the internet is responsible for the views expressed in my post.
Wow, I will never figure out Japan.
In Japan, it's acceptable and perfectly legal to walk into Tsutaya (i.e. the Japanese "Blockbuster"), rent an armful of CDs, rip to your heart's desire, and then return them the next day.
This reminds me of the time last year when, in the name of safety, the Japanese government tried to make it illegal to sell used electronic items.
Simple, sell a CD that teaches people how you did it.
-How to buy Real Estate with NO MONEY DOWN!!!
-How to play the Stock Market with my custom, exclusive, computer software program.
There is a translation problem. Contrary to the summary (and headline), the ruling does NOT say that "the act of uploading music to a central server owned by a company is equivalent of distributing music to that company." If it were the case, the court would have found individual users, not the company, liable for copyright infringement, but that clearly isn't the case.
The ruling actually states that for the *company* to send music to a customer is copyright infringement, because under Japanese copyright laws it is an infringement when someone distributes copyrighted material to an nonspecific third party. The issue at hand was whether or not customers of this company are "nonspecific": the company argued that they weren't, because each customer is receiving files that person had stored himself or herself; the court disagreed.
This is still just a district court ruling, so it doesn't set any "precedent" in the sense of binding other courts. It may influence how other district courts consider similar cases, but then again it may not; my impression is courts at the same level generally act rather independently. (There was a pair of high-profile cases late last year on privacy rights vs. government databases, where two separate high courts came to completely opposite conclusions for essentially the same circumstances.)
IANAL, of course. I just live here.
For the curious, the decision itself (PDF, in Japanese) can be found here.
Judges, at least here, can't do anything but rule according to the law. I actually remember a verdict that contained something along the lines of "I can't help it, it's the law" (and yes, it was immediately appealed by the general attorney).
A judge MUST heed the law. Whether he likes it or not, whether he deems it right or not. He is bound by the legal system. Which is usually a good thing, since that's what the separation of powers is about. If the judge could ignore laws he doesn't like, he would essentially void the legislative body.
The only thing in his hands is to weigh the case and determine whether the evidence provided is sufficient, and if, how severe the punishment is to be. And even there his leeway is quite limited, because both sides can (and will) immediately appeal if they deem it too lenient or too strict.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The court's decision is pretty narrowly defined - if the server is owned by someone else, then uploading music to it is considered distributing.
How about this;
Do Microsoft have servers (eg hotmail) in Japan to which users can upload files?
If so, were a user to upload, say, the Linux *kernel* to such a server is Microsoft now *distributing* the Linux kernel? And then the GPL would swing into effect...
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
The people vs. Sum Dum Guy for storing his original CD's in a rented storage building. The owners of that building have no right to possession of the CD's.
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
Music storage services: Storage usage is copyright infringement - Tokyo District Court
In a judgement on a lawsuit based on a dispute as to whether a service allowing users to store data, such as their own CDs, in "storage" on the internet, so that they can download it to their mobile phones and listen to it whenever they like, constitutes copyright infringement, the Tokyo District Count (Makiko Takabe presiding) ruled that the service does constitute copyright infringement.
The service in question is "MYUTA", started in November 2005 by the information communications company "Image City" (Taito Ward, Tokyo). Users save music data from their home computers on the company's server, and only the user who saved the data can access it.
The Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (JASRAC) indicated that this service was an infringement of copyright. Image City first halted the service, and brought a lawsuit against JASRAC, seeking confirmation that the service did not infringe copyright.
In the lawsuit, Image City asserted that "In effect, the party copying and transmitting data is the user himself/herself. There is no transmission to an unspecified number of third parties, and no copyright infringement." However, the judgement found that "The server, which is the backbone of the system, is owned and managed by Image City, and from the point of view of Image City, the user is an unspecified party. The party carrying out the acts of copying data and transmitting it to the public (an unspecified number of persons) is the company Image City." It was determined that unless JASRAC gives permission for the service, it constitutes copyright infringement. (Kazumi Kitamura)
Mainichi Shimbun, May 25, 2007 20:22 updated 21:00
If you all Google Slashdot, will it Slashdot Google?
Same as weed. Just don't get caught.
What?
So you hire a lawyer to defend the interests of your company. Then you find that the lawyer you paid robbed your company from all your assets.
You fire your lawyer, sue him/her hoping that you'll put him/her to jail.
So you elect your representatives, to create laws on your behalf. Then you find yourself robbed from all the liberties by your elected representatives, who you pay to protect your interests. What's your next step?
"You made the statement:"
Nope, someone else did. I didn't even agree with it.
This is an great example of the level of care you take when forming your opinions, that is, none.
In the future, pay closer attention.
I don't think judges generally make hasty decisions. Nobody becomes a judge that way - it takes time, thinking, patience and a lot of hard work to become a judge. Granted - not all are as good as we could hope for. But I think most of them make bad rulings out of ignorance or lack of insight. Not because they are making hasty decisions.
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
Why reply to my post then?
Fuckin' troll.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Just finished reading the decision (here, as mentioned in my other post). Some interesting points:
That last one is the biggie, and the part I don't get (or rather, I think the court didn't get). They say in 3(1) that the server operator is responsible for the act of sending the data, which is at least consistent with how they handled the file conversion/storage issue, if nothing else; but then in 3(2), they go on to say that the users to which the data is sent qualify as "the public" under copyright law, which defines "public" as "one or many unspecified individuals". The service provider naturally argued that sending data to the same user who uploaded it shouldn't count as sending it to the public, but here's what the court said to that (3(3)A, page 35, roughly translated):
If that last bit didn't make sense to you, you're not alone. As I see it, the whole point of that kind of access control is to identify the individual receiving the data, so the "unidentified individual" thing shouldn't apply. I could see an argument that the server doesn't go far enough to ensure that it really is the same person, but "unidentified"? I don't think so.
You know, the more I think about the more I can't figure out, why is it MY fault you're too fucking stupid to know who you're replying to?
Why be a cunt about it when it's obvious you fucked up?
Apps are created as a reaction to the state of things, integration leads to advancement, then the old come in and regulate it to the way it was. Why the fuck should we even bother... let them stay in the stone age. Let them destroy any trust remaining towards systems... they're old, stale, centralized, non-communicative, without advancement, full of self-justification and built on negative re-inforcement. Sustaining such systems is only possible in the short term. They should be happy to see inventiveness and the state of affairs should improve due to such inventiveness. There are always ways to route around artificiality, and it takes much longer to build back trust. Encourage progress, don't stupidly mandate against it. I'm still waiting for progressive policy, but it ain't going to come with the know-nots in charge. It'll take a few more self inflicted stupid stick wounds.
"I still don't know what point you think you were refuting."
I told you this already. Pay attention, wait I told you THAT too.
"You're obviously not interested in having a frank discussion, that's what makes you the troll."
Hmmm, that's funny I was frank and honest, and YOU resorted to calling names AFTER you said something wrong and stupid.
I guess that's what you do when you're making an idiot of yourself, call other people a troll to end the discussion because you know you're outclassed.
Good. I'm sure we'll have a lot more great movies, music, and video games when no one gets paid to make them.
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
"You butted in on a conversation that I wasn't having with you."
WTF? YOU'RE ON A PUBLIC FORUM MORON! What an idiotic attempt at a point.
"And when it became obvious to you that I had mistaken you for the original poster you didn't point it out."
That's a fucking lie, a soon as you made it clear I told you. So you're stupid and a liar. Go figure.
"So yeah, I'm going to stop talking to you now."
Of course you are, you made an idiot of yourself, blamed it on me, made stupid excuses, and then now you run like a bitch. Exactly what I'd expect.
"You butted in on a conversation that I wasn't having with you."
WTF? YOU'RE ON A PUBLIC FORUM MORON! What an idiotic attempt at a point.
"And when it became obvious to you that I had mistaken you for the original poster you didn't point it out."
That's a fucking lie, a soon as you made it clear I told you. So you're stupid and a liar. Go figure.
"So yeah, I'm going to stop talking to you now."
Of course you are, you made an idiot of yourself, blamed it on me, made stupid excuses, and then now you run like a bitch. Exactly what I'd expect.
"So yeah, I'm going to stop talking to you now."
Of course you are, you made an idiot of yourself, blamed it on me, made stupid excuses, and then now you run like a bitch. Exactly what I'd expect.
"You butted in on a conversation that I wasn't having with you."
WTF? YOU'RE ON A PUBLIC FORUM MORON! What an idiotic attempt at a point.
"And when it became obvious to you that I had mistaken you for the original poster you didn't point it out."
That's a fucking lie, a soon as you made it clear I told you. So you're stupid and a liar. Go figure.
"You butted in on a conversation that I wasn't having with you."
WTF? YOU'RE ON A PUBLIC FORUM MORON! What an idiotic attempt at a point.
"So yeah, I'm going to stop talking to you now."
Of course you are, you made an idiot of yourself, blamed it on me, made stupid excuses, and then now you run like a bitch. Exactly what I'd expect.
"And when it became obvious to you that I had mistaken you for the original poster you didn't point it out."
That's a fucking lie, a soon as you made it clear I told you. So you're stupid and a liar. Go figure.
And I'm the one being abusive?
Again, typical of the care you give in crafting your opinions, that is, none.
Owned.
Attached files are stored online on a server owned by a company. Right?
Please don't humanize the morons around me. It makes me very uncomfortable.
If your computer is connected to the internet, and therefore a part of the internet, then won't any music files stored on your computer necessarily be online?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Furthermore, the parent poster is gravely mistaken if he thinks the quality of the legal system would become better. If anything, it would become politicised and far less independend, with all the consequences of a failed system of segregation of powers.
Imagine a judge making a judgement on topics like 'abortion'...is there *any* doubt that, *whatever* the judge decides, there would be outrage by a large part of the populace, who would demand that judge be fired for his 'misjudgement'? Or is he safe when the ruling party, or the majority of the populace agrees with him, but he should be fired when the party-elite changes, or the mentality of the populace changes?
If judges can't rule independendly, then who will judge the judge? The mob? The politicians? Other judges (who also can't rule independendly)?
It is true the curent system is far from ideal, but the proposition made by the former poster would only make things worst.
It's a bit like democcracy itself: we use it, not because it's such a great system, but because all the rest is worse.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Now, that's a silly outcome. Couple of "what if" scenarios:
1. What if I rent my laptop from IBM, and I burn my purchased CD onto my laptop? Am I "distributing" to IBM? Is IBM infringing?
2. What if I lease a server in Akamai for myself. I then upload my personal collection to the rack server for personal streaming anywhere in the world (only to myself). Am I "distributing" to Akamai? Is Akamai infringing?
3. What if I store my music on my home computer which I purchased, I then stream to myself at work. Am I distributing through my broadband provider (the content is, afterall traveling through their network)? And is my broadband provider infringing?
Im sure I can think of more.....that this case took this precendent is a bit disturbing....or silly?
Real men don't need signitures!!!
When you purchase a computer with after-payments, then it technically belongs to the tally shop until you have made the last payment. Therefore, storing your music collection on such a computer becomes an act of copyright infringement too.
When retarded meets evil it can only come crashing down to what is eventually everyone's benefit. I say make it illegal to even hear a snip of copywrited music without paying a royalty and submitting for a license. I also want to see all music on TV and at all public events of all kinds flat out criminalized. Last and certainly not least all ISPs who knowingly or unknowingly carry any form of copywrited material must be immediately shut down from all operations. There is no reason why carriers should get a pass whereas all their customers are being dragged into court. Sue everyone, imprison everyone, everywhere at all times.
Are you really saying you can't see how storing a music file on a company's server means you've made a copy of the music and distributed it to that company?
I'm not saying I agree with the ruling; only that it's not as absurd as you make it sound.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
His initial statement was made with no qualifiers, and then he added qualifiers when he realized he was wrong.
Now YOU know why YOU'RE wrong too.
"WHATEVER THE HELL WE LIKE"
I know you don't like that you're wrong, but that changes nothing.
That would be perhaps the only instance in which *you* downloading to a *Cooperative* owned server would be considered the same.
Where is all logical thinking gone?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Wow...this is just too easy to refute. Seriously. Just because you CAN do a thing, it has never followed that you have a right to do that thing. Your ability to do whatever the hell you want does not take away my right to make a living off my labour, artistic or otherwise. But, the wrongness of your statement is exposed the moment you try to apply that logic to another situation. So, let's apply your logic to a couple of other scenarios, shall we?
We'll start with killing things:
"Ha! I believe killing whatever the hell we like is a natural right that everyone has.. and the criminal code is the law that takes that right away from us - apparently for the betterment of society. I don't think it is the choice, but even if it was, I'd rather have more freedom than have more people, if that's the choice to be made.
"Unfortunately, every time I get on the soap box, a vocal minority comes and calls me names like "murderer"."
And then there's theft:
"Ha! I believe taking whatever the hell we like is a natural right that everyone has.. and the anti-burglary law is the law that takes that right away from us - apparently for the betterment of society. I don't think it is the choice, but even if it was, I'd rather have more freedom than have more belongings, if that's the choice to be made.
"Unfortunately, every time I get on the soap box, a vocal minority comes and calls me names like "thief"."
I know - let's try it with sex!
"Ha! I believe having sex with whatever the hell we like is a natural right that everyone has.. and anti-rape legislation is the law that takes that right away from us - apparently for the betterment of society. I don't think it is the choice, but even if it was, I'd rather have more freedom than have more security for our daughters, if that's the choice to be made.
"Unfortunately, every time I get on the soap box, a vocal minority comes and calls me names like "rapist"."
Somehow, your logic just fails on a fundamental level...
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
A good alternative is to not upload a damn thing, just store it on your computer, and let your friends download from your shared folders with encrypted file-sharing software such as GigaTribe: http://www.gigatribe.com/ That way the cops can spend their time going after murderers, rapists and suicidal ministers!
is just like transferring money to a bank. That makes it theirs.
And in Korea, only old people store personal music online!
"You don't have the right to make a living. You only have the right to try."
You're right - that's my typo. I only realized the words "to try" were missing after I hit submit. My bad.
As for the rest of that stuff, your comments on copyright are not very informed. If you want a much better idea of what copyright is and what the issues are, I'd suggest checking out the resources at the Copyright Alliance (http://www.copyrightalliance.org/), which has quite a bit of good information, as well as a number of papers on both sides of the debate in their Documents and Research pages. They do a far better job than I can on short notice when it comes to explaining all of this.
Second, I was attacking the logic, not suggesting that killing and copying are the same thing. In order to attack that logic, I took it to the extreme. I could have used collecting komodo dragons if I wanted, but that has a bit less impact than murder, theft, and rape.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
"First, are you out of your mind? Speaking of bad logic... even comparing actual Theft (let alone copyright infringement) with murder and rape is outrageous. Murder and rape take something that can NEVER be restored."
I think you missed the point of what I was saying. I never suggested that copyright infringement was on the same level as rape and murder, or that they are the same. I was attacking the logic of the statement the original poster had made - and been modded up for.
The point is that you can't use that statement to justify murder, or rape, or theft. Therefore, you can't logically use it to justify a more minor infraction. "I believe I have to the right to" is not the same as "I have the right to." I moved the examples to the extreme to prove the point, not to suggest that uploading music is the same as murdering somebody.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
So, you are saying that someone that made music should not deserve to be paid for it? Or someone that created a good story (aka. book) doesn't deserve to be paid for it? After all, this is all just information and it should be free?
Or are you saying that work of a construction worker building a house is more valuable than that of an architect? The construction worker makes the building from plans that were conjured up by the architect. So since information must be free and copyright is unnatural, the construction worker can just copy the plans and make as many copies of the said building without any royalties to the architect that created the plans in the first place? But then why didn't the construction worker come up with their own plans???
Are you so stupid to realize that intellectual property is the same as physical property (ie. effort to create), except there is no effort involved in copying it?
I mean, if someone makes free software like Linux, why can't a company like Microsoft, take bits from the source code here and there and just insert them into theirs? OH!! It is called COPYRIGHT! Linux is *protected* by it. If it wasn't, it would just be another BSD. Now think very carefully, why oh why companies chose to put resources in Linux and not in BSD? (Hint: think competition)
Free doesn't mean for-free. Learn the difference or look it up on gnu.org.
PS. Murder and rape are not unnatural states for humans. That's how things were decided for millenia before the thing called Law showed up. And we still do it and it is even encouraged by some in what is called "war". Even in non-war eras, this is how things are decided (see Pakistan, or in India where $10,000 allows you to get away with murder, or Iran, or Rwanda, or Saudi Arabia, or; should I go on?). US still has institutional murder called the "Death Penalty" - or is it that when you murder someone that murdered others, somehow cancel each other in your head?
Most people just *choose* not to use these methods for the "errs of others".
"he said he has a right to keep his personal information secret."
He also said we have a right to copy "WHATEVER THE HELL WE LIKE"
The first statement was intended to qualify the second.
So call as many names as you like, you're wrong and you know it. And you're posting AC because you want to verbally abuse me while not being held responsible for your actions, mostly because you know you're wrong and can't do anything but toss around insults.
But you're still wrong and so was he.
I own you.
Just email yourself an mp3 on your hotmail, gmail, yahoo mail, facebook, mixi, myspace accounts then report them to the courts!
Third, it has been shown many times in many ways that copyright infringement can actually help the author/artist by spreading his work and making it far more popular than if the copyright infringement had never occurred
That is not YOUR choice. It is the AUTHOR'S choice to make THEIR WORK available such that you can copy it everywhere. Do you understand the difference??
Secondly,
Please! Get your head out of your ass. You are the type of people (and apparently MPAA uses the *same* logic as you) that think that if the work is *impossible* to copy, then there can't by copyright infringement then no "potential" loss of sales. So they come up with BS like encrypted movies that cannot be read anywhere except licensed players, etc.. I mean, assuming you can't steal their information, then your only recourse is either to buy, not to buy or use the "Theft".
Thank you. You are the type of person that makes MPAA and RIAA say "See! We need stronger protection from these thieves! More DRM! Otherwise we invest $100k in an artist and the thieves just take one copy of music and make their own copies for free". And the sane judges and politicians agree...
Linux is free and for-free but protected by copyright. And yet how many companies have been caught stealing that intellectual property? How many GPL projects are suddenly being hijacked and closed *against the wishes of its creators* (aka copyright)? (eg PearOS). And then there is people like you for whom things like GPL mean squat. Stealing the work of all Linux or GCC contributors is OK for you since you are not even depriving anyone of any earnings.
First, are you out of your mind? Speaking of bad logic... even comparing actual Theft (let alone copyright infringement) with murder and rape is outrageous. Murder and rape take something that can NEVER be restored.
You are the one that made this retarded comparison - "Murder and rape take something that can NEVER be restored". WTF are you talking about??? Do you have any idea what the Law is even about?
Just to clarify you on what Law is, it is NOT about things you can "restore". It deals with the *actions* and their *consequences*.
To clarify that with an example for the brainless,
You seal a truckload of Gummy Bears (candy). The law punishes you for *theft*, not because you can't "restore" the truckload of Gummy Bears! It is the *action* that is the crime!!
It is the *action* of murder, rape, theft (real or intellectual property) that is the crime. It is NOT that you deprive anything from anyone that can't be replaced.
For Pete's sake, you don't even understand the basis of what the law is!!!
The Book Off chain has sister chains that deal in other goods. Their used clothing chain is called Kimono Off :)
I guess this means that anyone leasing a computer is also guilty of distributing copyrighted materials, since the leased computer is still the property of the lessor until the machine is purchased outright.
bah!
the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head
> Their used clothing chain is called Kimono Off :)
What do they do with all the confused gaijin who visit that place!?
Is it really music,
if nobody plays it?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I personally have no problem with copyright. I support copyright in its original US form and the original duration (14 years plus a possible 14 year extension in the US I believe). I do not support copyright in it's current ridiculous form. Copyright in most parts of the world now defaults to 50 or 70 years after the author/artist's death. That's outrageous. Before that's up, someone will have lobbied for yet another extension as they have in the past, and repeat ad nauseum leading to truly eternal copyright, which is not at all what copyright was intended for.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
md5sum Hansons_mmbob.mp3 76c6dafd6569222312357fdfdbace3e5
md5sum kernel32.dll 76c6dafd6569222312357fdfdbace3e5
Now, that explains a few of windows short comings right there...
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
The song-storage vendor ("a song bank") seems like they had a really bad lawyer or a really tech-ignorant judge. How is this different than me storing goods at any institution, from storage lockers, to bank-safety deposit boxes, to electronic representations of "wealth" (money, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, CD's, DVD's...)...
They bank or brokerage doesn't own my goods. No "transfer of ownership" has taken place. They can't just take my deposit box contents (assuming I pay my fees). Goods I transfer into a bank or brokerage are still my goods. The bank or brokerage may make money via transaction or rental fees, or in the case of a song bank, I might have to listen to a 15 second advertisement before my song downloads...I dunno. Do the Japanese not allow me to rent space or property or have my account managed by an "institution"?
I'm then able to take my "token" (bank credit/debit card, for example), and access my account remotely. In the same way, perhaps, my cell phone number could be the ID on my call-in account. Aren't some cell phone vendors making provisions for using a cellphone as a "swipe'N'pay" device? Seems like storage of id, debit or credit card numbers in a cell phone that can be transmitted to a merchant can allow for phone purchases. Of course those numbers would be "locked" on a phone -- requiring a PIN or or thumbprint to access.
Sounds like the legal case was botched. Besides, Japanese law doesn't usually set precedent in English or American courts.
Why not keep the service running as is but locate the actual servers in China?
MP3.com arrived on the internet scene in force in 1999. It shook up the record industry with artists having the ability to directly communicate and market to listeners. It was ahead of its time it even paid artists for the number of listens and downloads they had. The offered a service so listeners could upload their music to MP3.com so wherever they travel they can access their own music. Listeners could even buy CDs from stores and have them digitally stored on MP3.com before the physical CD was delivered to their house. Most of the major labels saw the value and went along. Universal did not and sued and won the settlement forced MP3.com to sell ownership to Universal. Suddenly Universal artists dominated the site and royalties for downloads of indie artists were reduced to nearly nothing. If the court would not have sided with Universal regarding music storage, the music scene now could be very different. So dont be to shocked about the Japanese situation, its the same here.
I personally have no problem with copyright. I support copyright in its original US form and the original duration (14 years plus a possible 14 year extension in the US I believe). I do not support copyright in it's current ridiculous form. Copyright in most parts of the world now defaults to 50 or 70 years after the author/artist's death. That's outrageous. Before that's up, someone will have lobbied for yet another extension as they have in the past, and repeat ad nauseum leading to truly eternal copyright, which is not at all what copyright was intended for.
:)
Finally, something to agree on.
You probably know the reason for the extensions but I'll say it anyway. The children that inherit the estate, inherit the profits from the copyrights. But they just want to mooch off of it for infinity instead of a few years. That's the reason. Money sways politicians (or corrupts?) and hence the extensions. 50 years is still bearable, but 80 doesn't make sense (eg. widow(er) where spouse has copyright works, dies young - spouse may benefit). Extending it more is truly insane.
I do have to say though, that while I support the original duration of copyright, I also think that in today's digital age it should actually be shorter. My preference would be 5 years plus a 5 year extension. And here's why.
1.) In the digital age, it's much easier and faster to distribute your work. It doesn't take 14 years any more to "print" enough copies of your "work" to get it out to everyone who wants to buy it. Now it only takes a matter of a few months.
2.) Since it's much easier to distribute work, most copyrighted works today generate the majority of their income in the first year. Particularly in the case of music, if an album is still popular enough to be selling any significant number of copies after five years you can be damn sure the artist has already made a bundle off it and are probably set financially well enough that they could go years without an income.
3.) I really don't see why artists are entitled to have a continued income off work they did in the past any more than anyone else. Like I already mentioned, if an artist is really in it primarily for the money and what they've created is truly marketable, it usually generates a pretty massive income in the first year alone. A typical pop album that took a year to create will (based on demand for that album) generate an income as much or more than most other types of jobs. So if you're a construction worker making $20/hr building houses, and you help build a really nice house that takes a year to build, why shouldn't you still be collecting money from building that house thirty years down the road if artists are entitled to that type of compensation? Artists are just as capable of saving and investing their earnings as anyone else.
4.) It really doesn't even need to be mentioned since everyone already knows it, but for the sake of completeness I'll include this. In many cases now it's not the artists at all that really benefit from the long-term copyright. It's whatever corporation that bought out their work.
Well, that's my two cents. I'm sure there's some good counter-arguments and people who disagree with me.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.