Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Argues That MP3s From CDs Are Unauthorized
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In an Arizona case against a defendant who has no legal representation, Atlantic v. Howell, the RIAA is now arguing — contrary to its lawyers' statements to the United States Supreme Court in 2005 MGM v. Grokster — that the defendant's ripping of personal MP3 copies onto his computer is a copyright infringement. At page 15 of its brief (PDF) it states the following: 'It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies... Virtually all of the sound recordings... are in the ".mp3" format for his and his wife's use... Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies...'"
OK, here is the deal... I just bought over $200 worth of music on CD and I absolutely guarantee that this will be the last music purchase I make from any RIAA backed artist unless they start recognizing fair use. In fact, in the MGM vs Grokster case, the RIAA suggested that iPods have a substantial and legitimate commercial use in contrast to Grokster.
This case appears to be an absolutely clear fair use case. This individual, like hundreds of thousands of others *purchase* music from legal sources and while I just spent the last ten minutes typing out an explanation for why this may be the case, I have realized that we've all heard this ad nauseum. What is it going to take for the shareholders of all these companies to stand up and say enough? What is it going to take before all consumers simply say "enough of this hassle, no more music purchases?" What is it going to take before these people wake up, realize that they need to stop treating their paying customers like criminals? When are they going to realize that rather than litigate against the pirates, they should simply realize that they should compete against them by offering great service for reasonable prices and get rid of all the DRM? There is a reason that music sales are dropping (actually a dozen or so), but if the RIAA and their associated represented companies simply started going back to basics, finding and promoting good talent (there is lots out there) rather than promoting the engineered bands, or what they think should be popular, they could go back to making money. Look, Long Tail economics gives them everything they need to start making more money, even from music in the public domain. Hey, I'd buy music if made available from a huge variety of artists that are currently out of print or have entered the public domain, but are no longer available.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Will somebody shut the RIAA down already...they're becoming more criminal then they think the people that are suing are... (How's that for some nifty english)
The gates in my computer are AND, OR and NOT; they are not Bill.
Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs. Moreover, Defendant had no authorization to distribute Plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings from his KaZaA shared folder.
In other words, they're complaining about sharing the MP3s, not making them. The fight against corporate copyright bullies will not be helped by intellectual dishonesty and exaggeration.
foo mane padme hum
to a QQ BBQ sponsored by the RIAA. Enjoy!
They almost certainly were unauthorized. But that doesn't matter, as copyright law does grant you some limited rights to make copies without authorization.
In most jurisdictions these rights would include transferring cd's to mp3's for personal use.
Madness? This. Is. AMERICA!!
Clearly the RIAA is scared shitless about new media. Sites such as thesixtyone give hope though.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Mr RIAA lawyer better not have any audio files on his laptop. Better have the judge make sure he has a note from every rights holder. Check his car too. Got an iPod, Mr. Lawyer? How about your kids? Unauthorized ring-tones on your phone?
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I'm sure we could find violations by the RIAA and it's members and staff.
Can't touch this? It's discovery time.
Except that they are claiming that mp3s outside your shared folder are yours, but they are no longer authorized copies once they enter your shared folder?
That's a step beyond claiming that "making available" is piracy, which is a step beyond what most of us accept as piracy.
I do agree with your assessment, though. Nothing is helped by intellectual dishonesty and exaggeration.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Get with the program! (Seriously!)
/.ing is still buying CD's...
It's been +5 years since I bought a CD from a major label, and I know there are many others here who have voted *without* their wallets like I have. (Are you listening, mafIAA??)
I'm surprised that someone with as much exposure to the horror stories as you must have gotten in all your years of
Don't buy things from the music mongers! Support independent artists!!!
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
Technically, that would mean that simply mentally recalling your experience of a copyrighted presentation is copyright infringement then, as you are reproducing that experience for yourself without authorization.
How the heck can even the RIAA not see how utterly stupid it is to say that private copying is copyright infringement?
I heavily advocate copyright, and I even applaud a lot of the RIAA's attempts to try to crack down on cases where genuine infringement is occurring (ie, in cases where unauthorized copies are being shared or distributed), but this is just plain asinine.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I have heard that the RIAA makes more money on ringtones than on any other kind of media.
So yes, they are scared shitless about new media, unless it comes with DRM. Another Slashdot story quoted some MPAA guy (I think), who claimed that the reason they don't want consumers to "space-shift" is so they can charge us for it.
But I don't remember where the second paragraph comes from, exactly, and I can't really confirm the first. You're welcome to try, though.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Actually, if you read the document, I think you'll see that it says making MP3s and putting them in the shared folder is unauthorized. It doesn't say it would be unauthorized to make MP3s and put them in a non-shared folder.
Just to get people to respond and say how stupid and misleading the article is ... is getting quite old. But heck it works and people come back for more every day spitting out the same tired responses again and again and again. It really makes me feel good about wanting to continue reading and posting tired articles/responses on slashdot. Keep up the *fine* work guys.
The RIAAs problem is they made ripped copies *avaliable* via a shared folder. It does not say the act of ripping is illegal.
What I did find interesting was the description of MP3 as a perfect copy. Niquist aside MP3 is a lossy format. Songs in MP3 format are most certainly not a perfect copy of the origional work but they don't degrade unless re-encoded which I think was the real point they were trying to make.
How long before we see a Sopranos-ripoff about the RIAA?
This is actually good news; assuming it gets the publicity it deserves amongst the average person: it will hopefully hasten the demise of this many-tentacled beast. Tell every average person you know how they are seeking to criminalize their customers and ask them to pass it on. If we all make a concerted effort, pretty soon, everyone will know (six degrees of separation, anyone? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation) and be free to respond appropriately.
How much longer before other industries follow suit? : You buy a sofa for your living room, then decide to put it in the bedroom instead; a week later you get a summons. Sofas in bedrooms isn't fair use. You're screwed. The sofa-designer lives large, massive coke habit, fifty or sixty people around his house the whole time hands extended, bo-selecta hat, the works. To support their habits, they want $250,000 per sofa, far in excess of any possible real value. Fortunately, the sofa consortium has powerful friends in government... Also, whenever you buy a chair/stool/bean-bag, part of the cost goes towards sofa-tax. Each sofa-purchase is bundled with a free one-month vacation in a federal penitentiary, beginning at the point of delivery.
Crappy analogy but I'm just trying to see the current situation from another angle - it's become far too unreal. One day we'll all wake up from our collective nightmare and the organised criminals running the US by proxy will all have choked on each others' cocks, as suggested by the late Frank Zappa.
Seems to me like they're putting a lot of emphasis on the ".mp3 format". Would another format (.ogg or .flac) be ok, then?
Obviously, DAT never took off and SCMS became a dead end. However, look at what the RIAA agreed to: you can make as many imperfect copies (for personal use) as you wanted. What is an MP3 except an imperfect digital copy?
Unfortunately, this almost certainly has no relevance to the MP3 debate because SCMS is specific to DAT. (If it did have relevance, I'm sure someone would have argued it by now.)
of course they are illegal, albumn tapes and cds are fragile and flawed media. With such a short life span. No way can a rip of such media be legal when a replacement copy or entire media can be had.
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
Meh. My shared folder is /home/foo/.kde/apps/ktorrent or somesuch.
Am I crazy, or did that case get decided against Howell already?
Now I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy but the following quote:
.mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs..."
"...Exhibit B to Plaintiffs' Complaint is a series of screen shots showing the sound recording and other files found in the KaZaA shared folder..."
and
"...Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed
I don't think personal use is the issue - it is the fact he made the recordings potentially public is the problem. I imagine the RIAA will get him on 'unauthorized distribution'.
The guy who did this is pretty stupid - what kind of reaction from the RIAA does he expect?
Pretty much all my music is in some kind of digital form, when I rip cds I certainly don't store them in a sharable folder - it's for my private use.
Then again this is the RIAA this person will probably suffer a ridiculous fine (or jail term?) that can potentially ruin his life (it's only music for christ's sake).
If I knock over someone with my car and kill them I would probably be fined £1000 and incur points on my driving license (or a ban for 12 months).
(Hey it's the old if "it was a car" analogy).
From what I've read it clearly states that when it is put in his SHARED folder it's copyright infringment.. With SHARED folder meaning, the folder which he shares with a lot of other people (p2p).. So if he didn't put the files in his SHARED folder there wouldn't be any problems...
This is John C. Dvorak. Cease and Desist immediately !! This is MY MO and MY MO Alone! capisca?
Great site, I've been on it constantly since BoingBoing showed it to me. I have a very broad taste in music, and am addicted to any site with "points" (half the reason I finally got a /. account was the ability to keep track of my comments so I could check how they did), so they basically had me at hello.
That being said, the parent forgot to point-whore himself for the site. May I profit from his mistakes! If any of you decide to sign up for TheSixtyOne, please please list "Become" as your referer.
For those of you who already play around on the site: how legal is it? Are the artists uploading their music, or am I just listening to illegal copies? Or is it, perhaps, legally safe because it is just some weird version of streaming internet radio?
Just -1, Troll talking to another.
Makes you wonder why they haven't gone after libraries for "making available" yet...
I have the following proposal: without warning anybody of the content Mafia and their lawyers should NOW get searched! And for any unauthorisized MP3 song which gets found they should pay high fines. I am sure no one is without "illegal" MP3 (illegal in their definition for sure)...
Please correct me if I am wrong but...
What is interesting is if you consider the file structure for NTFS, the location of the file in the directory structure is determined by what is essentially metadata stored in the Master File Table (MTF). You can change the location of the mp3 file within the directory structure, without changing any portion of the mp3 file itself, by simply changing the metadata in the MTF. So in essence, the RIAA is arguing they have legal authority over BOTH the mp3 file AND the metadata contained in the MTF on your computer (which determines the location of the file in the directory structure). While I would consider that metadata private information, I can see why RIAA lawyers would have a hard-on for this case. This case seems to have the possibility to expand their power over individuals private information somewhat significantly... "your MTF is ours"
Name: Mr. Anon E Mouse; SSN: 555-55-5555
I'm very pro-copyright, but generally very anti-RIAA, and pro fair-use. Here is how I would have handled it...
"As the RIAA, we have no problem whatsoever with the plaintiff making backup copies of his CD-bought music to mp3 format, in order to preserve his disks, and to enable him to format shift to another medium. We sell music, and if the customer wants to enjoy that music on multiple formats we don't have a problem with that. We want them to enjoy the product.
However, taking those mp3 copies and placing them in a shared folder, so they can be distributed to other people without paying for them is obviously not acceptable to us. The plaintiff must be aware that this music is not offered for free by the copyright holder as they themselves purchased it, so they must be aware that they are infringing our copyright by offering it to other people. They have purchased copies of the music, and we thank them for their custom, but they did not purchase distribution rights, which (if available) would cost them many millions of dollars more..."
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
I just popped a CD into my drive and iTunes asked me if I want to add it to my music library. Upon clicking yes, the application created mp3 files on my hard drive and shared them with all my coworkers without warning me about making unauthorized copies. I hear that's also the main source of music in most people's iPods. So why not sue Apple rather than going after the small fish?
Ah... you mean Steve Jobs will make a 15 minute reality distortion field speech to the jury and the lawsuit will be over? And one more thing - the precedent will be set that not only format shifting music or anything is fair use but also so is streaming the files to your family or your coworkers. We certainly wouldn't want THAT.
Yet another misleading kdawson post. I haven't had the urge to filter by editor since the JonKatz days, but I think I'm about there again.
Unless I can no longer read and correctly understand and interpret English, this is not anything to get excited over. (But most of y'all will, cos otherwise Slashdot would be no fun at all, right?) That one sentence, in context, links the ripping to mp3 format and the "making available" in a shared folder as being one "unauthorized" process. Yes, I would say the sentence is poorly worded and potentially ambiguous, but the intent is clear. If he had ripped the tracks for his own use, and not made them available to others, no one would know or care, and there would be no case here.
Leave it to the denizens of this board, however, to twist bad syntax into something sinister. You would think that we are suddenly in danger of having the mp3 format declared illegal and ripping software impounded. There are plenty of reasons to despise the RIAA, and they are a sufficiently evil organization as it is -- we don't need to paint them as even more of an asshat than they already are.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Once they enter your shared folder, you are distributing them. Unless you have the correct license to do this, they are not authorised for this purpose.
Though I don't like this: Second, because online "piracy typically takes place behind closed doors and beyond the watchful eyes of a copyright holder," Warner Bros. Records, Inc. v. Payne, Case No. W-06-CA-051, slip opinion at 7 (W.D. Texas July 17, 2006) (Exhibit B hereto), Plaintiffs should be allowed to prove actual distribution based on circumstantial evidence. Proof based on circumstantial evidence!?
I don't think I can make this any simpler: Stop Buying Music from RIAA Members. Its easy, they don't seem to want you to buy their product anyway. Music CDs might or might not play, just like they might or might not infect your PC with rootkits. Legal downloads might or might not play on whatever portable device you have, and they probably wont play on your next one, or your next PC, so what are you spending your money on anyway? Stop Buying Music from RIAA Members.
The RIAA gets its funding from the big labels in addition to these racketeering activities. As SCO has so thoroughly demonstrated, suing your customers is not a sustainable business plan. Cut off the other source of revenue: Music Sales, and they will eventually wither away and die. I am not condoning piracy here, and as a musician its hard to advocate intentionally killing off an industry I've spent a significant part of my life studying, but it simply must be done. It is the only way to rid the planet of what has become a blight on the world. Only then can something better rise up to fill the void. It is a sacrifice we all have to make for the greater good.
Theres a theme here: Stop Buying Music from RIAA Members.
How can you tell whether music is from an artist represented by the RIAA?
Maybe we should ask for a labeling requirement on all music (CD, on-line, radio) indicating whether the music comes from an RIAA artist or not.
See their website: http://www.riaa.org/aboutus.php?content_selector=aboutus_members (list of RIAA members).
Someone needs to go around to the RIAA offices and bringeth down the feareth... If I was of half a mind to buy a CD (which I haven't for 5 years) I'd damn sure be ripping that clunky inconvenient bastard into MP3s, and if the RIAA wants to stop me they can suck various parts of my unmentionable anatomy first. Dos anyone else think they say things like this SPECIFICALLY so people don't *buy* the music they "represent" just so they can open up more avenues for lining their own greasy disgusting atheist-version-of-satan-since-I'm-atheist spawned pockets? Ah well, it's all in America anyway got a few years or months til they try their stupidity down here, not that I think it will get very far. If I've gotten any facts wrong then too bad I'm both tired and angry!
New lawyer, new rules.
Onda Technology Institute
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Then you can hardly claim the copy is only for private use.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Are they going to fine charities for playing copyrighted music too loud? http://feed.torrentfreak.com/~r/Torrentfreak/~3/197594908/ Someones got to stop these madmen and women!
mp3's in SHARED folder. The issue isn't that the music is in MP3 form, but rather on a computer, in a shared folder, where others can access it, which is not purely innocent. I hate to take the RIAA's side, but when you are always so clearly bias against copyrights...
Thank goodness that all mine are ripped to Ogg Vorbis...
EMI for example was sold and the new management (a private equity firm, thus I suppose EMI has no shareholders) are finding that the company was run as a cash cow for some selected few (producers, lawyers, a few pop divas) profits be damned.
Music sales have gone down the drain dramatically, their response has been suing their costumers.
Shareholders are simply too stupid.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Well, as far as I can understand it, it _is_ the "making available" argument, because that's what happened when you copied them to your Kazaa (or other P2P program's) shared folder. You just allowed world+dog to download them from you.
Authorized copies is a broad term. It's authorized or unauthorized depending on the purpose. Which in turn stems from the fact that you don't own the music itself, that remains property of the publisher. They just allow you to do this and that with it, but not everything else.
E.g., even if you didn't rip it, you may be authorized to play that CD in your home, but not authorized to play it in a disco or broadcast it on your village's radio station. If you want to do those, you need a whole other license.
Way I see it, the same applies to it once it's ripped to MP3s. You _are_ still authorized to listen to it, no matter in what folder it is. You're not authorized to offer it for download. Different authorizations, you know. And what they argue is that once you copied it to the shared folder of Kazaa, you offered it to world+dog to download, while failing to have the latter authorization. Although, again, you still have the former.
It's not really that new a concept to have different authorizations for different things. E.g., at work you may be authorized to access the intranet web sites over HTTP, but not to FTP to them and change their contents. You may be authorized to edit your programs and compile them, but in many companies you're not authorized to install new software on that machine. (Partially because the BSA can rip them a new one if you do.) Etc.
So, really, it does noone any service to pretend that there are no shades between "completely unauthorized to do anything" and "authorized to do everything whatsoever." Even my dog can understand that there are things he's authorized to do in the house, and things he's not. There's no such thing as a blanket authorization to the house. (And I'm willing to bet that you're smarter than that dog by far, so you shouldn't really have problems with that concept either;)
Now I'm not saying that what RIAA does is good. But, really, change the laws if you don't like them. You do pretend to be a democracy, right? Make your own party, like the Swedes did. Heck, you even have the RIAA making the case why anyone should vote for you then. But pretending that you don't understand "authorized" doesn't really solve much, sadly.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I know perfectly that I am most likely breaking the law when I share music by electronic means.
If this is limited to people in your household does not change much.
You are entitled to *personal* copies (in most but not all jurisdictions BTW) for fair use reasons.
The moment somebody else can grab your copy with your full knowledge and acceptance, you become a distributor, any way you want to slice it.
Should it be so? No, certainly not, but wishful thinking will not make things legal, fixing the legislation will.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
if you want to boycott, but not do without... there is another way. We used to call it the sneaker net, or floppy net. If you and 10 of your best friends compile a list of CDs you'd like to buy... then each of you buy one of them and 9 blank CDs, then pass out the ripped copies of that CD, you will each get a copy for 1/10th of the cost of the original. Now, there is no online record of this 'sharing' amongst friends. Nor is there any record of your 9 backup copies.
:))
I suggest that you do this with all CDs from **AA backed artists. If you have more than 10 friends, great! Remember, if you get too big, there is more evidence of your backup process, and that is not so good.
No court can handle the workload if such backup processes were to be prosecuted under the DMCA. Not only that, but the police can't possibly afford to try to enforce it... and likely that they would not want to anyway. It is the type of infringement that is simply too costly for anyone to prosecute. That is the type of boycott that would allow you to "do something" yet not do without.
HINT: One CD worth of MP3's fits rather nicely on a cheap 1Gb thumb drive.
Let the bastards fight that... they'll learn.
In case you are still wondering, yes, I'm suggesting you do exactly the things that the **AA is saying cost them so much money now. what good is a boycott if it does not hurt the corporation that you are boycotting? Simply STOP buying their products. Well, drop their revenues by 90% anyway. Take away their funds to fight in court. I know that is perhaps not realistic, but it is a method that will work if enough people do it.
Since that would involve tons of people, and physical media, not online records, investigating it would cost billions in manpower resources. Well, okay, lots of money. The point is that it removes both their revenue AND their ability to track your use of their product. Simple enough... now all you need to do is find 10 friends.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
... hardly qualifies as private.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Well, what you propose is IMHO no different than the prisoner's dilemma, only scaled to some millions of people. And it just doesn't scale.
The mechanics are just like in the prisoner's dilemma, really. With two people it's just "am I sure that my pal will do the same? or am I shooting myself in the foot?" Which boils down to how well you know him, I guess. There have been plenty of people who've been surprised there. With millions of people, it becomes "am I sure that all these millions will do the same? or am I just the idiot depriving himself of something, while everyone else doesn't give a damn?" Since you don't know them all, the latter becomes the far safer bet. And you know they'll think the same.
Briefly, if your rights depend on some tens of millions of other people doing the same thing, you've already lost them. Isolated individuals are insecure, weak, vulnerable, easy prey for FUD, etc.
No, what most of the world discovered a long time ago, is that you need some laws if you're against something.
E.g., if you want, say, the factories to stop polluting rivers, you need a law that forbids that or at least gives them a cost feedback for it. Because just hoping that everyone will suddenly say "well, I'll refuse to work for anyone who pollutes, or buy their products" just doesn't work.
Same here. If you don't like copyright law and the loopholes/privileges/whatever it gives to the RIAA, then have that law changed. Just hoping that millions of independent people will individually decide to boycott them, never worked, never will.
Or at the very least, get organized. If you want people to stand up for something, at personal cost or inconvenience, see the prisoner's dilemma again: they have to be sure that everyone else, or at least enough others, do the same thing. Plus, it gets you taken more seriously by the other side you're negotiating with. A group of a million or two sworn to never buy CDs until fair use is respected, has some bargaining power. Isolated individuals whining separately do not.
The last paragraph is why unions appeared. Much as that seems to be a swearword for many nerds.
Or before them such things as the guilds or medieval communes. Isolated burghers were no match for the noble of the land. A whole city standing together for their rights, well, now that got taken a bit more seriously.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Virtually all of the sound recordings... are in the ".mp3" format for his and his wife's use..
RIAA Lawyer: Your honor, despite sharing a surname, bank account and residence, Plaintiff's exhibit 23A - a copy of a marriage license - will clearly show that Mr. Defendant and his so-called wife are, in fact, two completely separate people. Furthermore, these DNA samples, marked Plaintiff's exhibit 23B, also provide conclusive evidence that these two "married" people are most certainly two distinct persons.
Our license to this music clearly states that it is for personal use. Copyright law makes clear that this only grants license to one person and yet the Defendant plainly admits that he illegally shared our copyrighted content with his so-called wife, a clearly separate and unauthorized entity.
This is an outrageous, flagrant and willful disregard for the law! On that basis, I move for summary judgement.
I wonder how it applies to the situation where you buy one CD, rip it to MP3, and then multiple members of the family have copies of it on various devices (music players, CDs, PCs, and even ringtones on their phones). In essence you are sharing among people who never purchased their own copy. Perhaps that is the new angle the RIAA is going for. Sharing among family. The difference between traditional sharing and music sharing is that the later is unlimited. You can only share a CD to one person at a time, just like a book. Rip it to your hard drive and everyone in the family suddenly can share the same at one time.
How does Fair Use apply in this situation?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
It is shameful one has to do this, but here we go anyway.
.mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies...'"
What they allegedly said is this:
Virtually all of the sound recordings... are in the ".mp3" format for his and his wife's use... Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed
The important bits are "for his and his wife's use". That is strike one.
Then it says: "and they are in his shared folder" Strike two. Ouch.
What is happening to reading comprehension skills?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Theft and copyright infringement are not equivalents, that is why we have two completely different bodies of law to deal with each situation.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You have provisions for *personal* copies, it is no longer personal if everybody in your household can have their own copy from your original.
The CD is the original copy. When you lend it to somebody else you are not making a new copy and redistributing it. The difference should be obvious frankly.
You are perfectly entitled not to buy CDs (sharing with one's household should be perfectly fine, but it isn't), but that will not change the law, and the dishonest record labels will continue lobbying for broken legislation like this.
The solution is buying CDs from people that explicitly allow you to make copies to your heart's content.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
A CD in an unlocked cabinet is not a new copy of the media you purchased.
If you are going to make an analogy at least make an attempt to think it through.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Way to try to justify your illegal activity, slashfags.
America, FUCK YEAH! Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah, America, FUCK YEAH! Freedom is the only way yeah, Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too, America, FUCK YEAH! So lick my butt, and suck on my balls, America, FUCK YEAH!
1. Defendant copies files (the copying).
2. Defendant put the files in a shared folder on his HDD.
3. 2. invalidates his fair-use right to 1.
Note that this argument does NOT require that he actually distributed any of the songs, or even connect to another computer.
You get rulings on this sort of stuff with a defendant that does NOT have a lawyer, then cite the precedent for those who do.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Instead of buying, stealing and crying about music every day why don't you just boycott it all together. It won't hurt I swear.. Read a book instead or go exercise or something.
An IT and a Web Design union would've been a beautiful thing at reigning in Microsoft, not to mention reducing cowboy coding of last-minute must-have features...
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
It has directories and ftp, not shares.
That's got to be one of the most ridiculous lines of reasoning I've ever heard.
Next time, you may want to make those <sarcasm> tags visible, for those of us who are slow, or sleepy. ;)
In fact, they make it really easy: Universal Music Group and Warner both have 'official' channels. All you need to do is subscribe to those channels, and they'll tell you every time they post a new video that they're promoting. Here are the links:
Warner: http://www.youtube.com/user/warnerbrosrecords
Universal Music Group: http://www.youtube.com/user/universalmusicgroup
Also, if you go to the videos link from their main label page, you can often catch new videos that they're trying to release quietly without much fanfare, since they know they probably won't do very well.
Surely this case reduces to 'fair use', as should all interpretations of Copyright Law.
Fair use: copying to alternate media for backup or personal use, allowing content to be singly-used by those in the household, possessing technology that enables copyright violation (it might be used for 'fair use').
Unfair use: distributing your mp3s to those who do not have the same contract with the same authorized distributor, offering them online free, selling and passing off, use by non-family members outside property owned or rented by the household, public showings to strangers or broadcast, using enabling technologies to actively distribute materials protected by copyright.
[This list non-exhaustive, and is opinion only]
Scream "fair use" and "backing up" all you want, but you don't have a "right" to rip a CD.
:)
Most CDs clearly state something to the effect of: Unauthorized duplication prohibited.
That includes ripping and making a copy - both fall under the "duplication" part, you see.
Not saying I agree with the situation, but you can't deny reality.
Go ahead and mod me to hell because I've gone against what you want to hear.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
I'm pretty sure the DMCA doesn't allow me having downloaded goatse's work so many times when all I wanted to do was follow a perfectly legitimate link on a forum. I sure wouldn't want THAT guy chasing me around asking for money!
The Fair Use argument was negated when he shared them on KaZaA - RTFA, and look at page 15 that is even mentioned in the summary.
.mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs. Moreover, Defendant had no authorization to distribute Plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings from his KaZaA shared folder. .mp3 format in the shared folder on Defendant's computer hard drive, and each of these eleven files were actually disseminated from Defendant's computer.
But let me point out what I believe ruins the Fair Use argument (IANAL):
Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed
Each of the 11 sound recordings on Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' Complaint were stored in the
Ramen
And they can confiscate your grey matter, eyeballs, and the nerves that connect them.
I *wish* it was that much of a stretch to make this joke.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Is this some folder that allows people outside one's home network to get at the contents via a series of magical fairy tubes? Do things in it automatically become available via some P2P protocol?
Yes. That's how he got caught. They were in this folder that automatically became available via some P2P protocol. If you have a P2P program installed and have items in it's shared folder, your personal files are no longer personal, but shared. Then they are no longer personal or authorised.
From the PDF;
"Did Defendant Howell admit on the record that he is responsible for the Plaintiff's copyrighted material appearing in his Kazaa shared folder?"
The truth shall set you free!
Circumstantial evidence happens all the time.
Life is not TV.
TV has lead people into a feeling that to prove guilt you must have a video of someone committing a crime.
Oops, doesn't work that way!
Beyond Reasonable doubt is the standard. Not beyond fucking irreasonable doubt.
Let us see...
1) You had an argument with the dead guy
2) You threatened to kill dead guy
3) You picked up a tire iron before following dead guy into room
4) We have no evidence of what happened in the room
5) You walked out with dead guys blood all over you and the tire iron.
6) You said "I won that argument"
7) Dead guy was found bludgeoned to death with a blunt instrument.
And now, because of TV, we are supposed to let you walk because your lawyer stands up and screams "Circumstantial evidence! You have no proof my client murdered dead guy."
Grow up.
Life doesn't come with CSI style videos of crimes being committed.
.... so I am clearly speculating, I very much doubt that iTunes makes the files available for them to grab them and do with them as they please.
If you are putting them in a drive that is already shared, you can't blame iTunes for this.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Will we have to start ripping our music as WAV files? Is the hard drive industry behind this? How will we tag our WAV files?
#!/
What he should be arguing is that since Kazaa's use policy explicitly forbids downloading material without copyright holder's permission, that he did not in fact violate copyright law, as he was simply posting his own material in an accessible format and location for his own use and was SHOCKED to discover that others were circumventing Kazaa's explicit rules of conduct, in violation of the DMCA. It was as if he left his personal CD collection on his front porch and uncouth ruffians helped themselves! He was, in fact, a victim of a crime.
"Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
The recording companies are not out there for any artistic, moral, or aesthetic purpose. They are there to make money. They do tons of market research to determine who buys their stuff, and then they cater to those people. They are no different than any other company. It just so happens that most buyers are teenage brats who burn their allowances on $20 CDs. These brats have money, worry about being fashionable and cool, and they spend their money to be such. Through creative advertising and marketing, the recording companies team up with clothing companies and other people to bring forth a product that makes people look "cool".
I would argue that the RIAA is correct in the following way: it costs just as much to make a CD with a pop band as it does one with a "better" band. In both cases, they pay the band, pay for studio time, and the engineers who produce the final product. They then pay for the CDs to get printed, distribution of said CDs, and for advertising of their new releases. Even a fool can see that it's much better to spend, say, a million dollars on some drivel that tons of high school cheerleaders will buy, than to spend a million on something eight bloggers will order from their mothers' basement PCs. You see, the cheerleaders will also buy the clothes, shoes, and other associated crap.
Watch one episode of Run's House and see how Russell Simmons and Rev Run make money. You'll see that they really can set the tone of what is "cool" in this country, and they do. They don't argue about being artsy-fartsy, giving small groups a big chance, or DRM! They just make money. There's no moral issue there...it's just business.
no text
... or do not really care about enough.
/. crowd will gather here and cry foul over pracitces like this, the situation won't change until you have gone out to your non-/. neighbors and friends and motivated them to change their behavior. I am sure the RIAA and other companies couldn't care less about a bunch of global geeks who get rid of their aggressions posting in blogs and /. comments.
It would really be easy: if people wouldn't buy CDs or wouldn't buy CDs that do not allow to make personal copies, record companies would quickly start to sell CDs where this is allowed.
If people wouldn't give the power to politicians who are more interested in protecting the rights of record companies and large industries, there would be laws that grant you the right to do this and maybe more.
Obviously, the majority doesn't care enough about this to change either their practice of consuming or their practice of voting or both.
So no matter how often the
And by the way: yes, all that record company and RIAA stuff is quite outrageous and all, but if you want to learn about those things that really matter, look at Monsanto & Co.
I'd still prefer to live in a world where I cannot legally copy some crappy CD than in one where each crop and animal is patented, licensed and owned by a company.
That isn't enough. Unless a copy is made from the shared folder, it still remains but a single copy. It would be like placing a book in a photocopier, but not pressing the start button. Oh, and let's take a look at who has access to the shared folder as well. Perhaps it's only there so that the person can transfer his music to his other computer, or to his mp3 player. Just because a folder is shared does not mean the contents are available to a third party.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
What does that have to do with whether it's legal to "Rip, Mix, Burn"?
No legal representation?! If this were such an open-and-shut "fair use" case I would think hundreds of attorneys would be lining up to take this case pro bono.
The RIAA has made contradictory statements on this. Remember Apple's "Rip, Mix, Burn" campaign? RIAA spokesmen were all over "... but you can't pass your disks to your friends". Not "... you can't rip your own CDs".
From page 15 of the brief: Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs. Moreover, Defendant had no authorization to distribute Plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings from his KaZaA shared folder.
Each of the 11 sound recordings on Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' Complaint were stored in the .mp3 format in the shared folder on Defendant's computer hard drive, and each of these eleven files were actually disseminated from Defendant's computer."
This is another case of someone putting up their music collection for distribution. RIAA is not maintaining that simply exercising your fair use rights is copyright infringement. Do you not yet understand why your collective voice is simply relegated to whacko status by your representatives?
If Slashdot readers can see how a decision based on this kind of wording could be abused, do you think lawyers can't see that as well?
so, what they are trying to say is ripping music into mp3 for use on computer is not fair use... ok. What about buying the mp3s then burning them on a cd??? Still infringement?
RIAA, go pork yourselves into an early grave and do us all a big favor, please and thank you.
No words of wisedom here.
Several years ago I bought an audio book from the iTunes store and needed an mp3 version to listen to on a trip. (I don't have an iPod.) iTunes would not let me create an MP3 because it was DRM'ed i.e. an iTunes store purchase. I actually didn't know that the convert to MP3 feature was disabled for DRM'ed audio, and their cryptic error message took half a dozen customer service emails (most of which were idiotic canned responses having nothing to do with the problem), when they finally pinned this down and pointed me to a web page saying this.
I also couldn't burn it to CD, then convert it to mp3, because (at least at the time) iTunes would not burn it to CD because it wouldn't fit on a CD.
At this point I asked for a refund, and they refused. At one point I became so heated in my emails that they interpreted it as a legal threat, and suggested that all further communications should go through their legal dept. - which couldn't be contacted directly, but only through a lawyer who I would have to hire.
Finally, after digging through their site, I found an old web page that advertised the MP3 conversion feature without mentioning any special restriction on iTunes store purchases. This was a mistake on their part, but nonetheless it could very clearly be interpreted as fraudulent advertising.
After a few more emails debating this web page, they finally relented and refunded my money, telling me this was a one-time thing that they would never do again.
Frankly, the time and emotional energy I spent on this far exceeded the money I was refunded. Anyway that is my story, and it is the reason I no longer buy from the iTunes store.
P.S. at that time Jazz (I think it was called) could defeat the DRM. But by the time I found that out I had already invested so much time with customer service that it became the principle of the thing. By the end of this debacle I developed an active dislike for the book, and anyway the trip I wanted it for had come and gone, so I just deleted it per their instructions, after my refund.
Yay! for the MP3-ness
Boo! for the CBR
Boo! for the still-too-high prices
...I strike at thee, RIAA!" If every nerd in the world voted with their wallets the result would be hardly noticeable.
RIAA doesn't give a shit about the effects piracy, they don't earn or lose money from record sales - their salaries are paid as long as they walk around and strike the lawhammer, regardless of the result. It is their mission to make people miserable, wreck and ruin.
The problem lies in the system that says that everything can be owned - including soft things like code, music, algorithms and speech. This causes a massive land-grab where some sit on everything they can, and then demand payment from the rest. The situation worsen when independent organs are shaped that feed upon this process.
Once you bought physical object, and did what you wanted with them. Music is not a physical object which confuses everyone. The media companies want to interpret the trade contract such as that they would own your media experience - because that would benefit them - whereas you want to interpret the trade contract such as that you own the object you bought and can do what you want with it - because that would benefit you.
So what you need to do instead of complaining on Slashdot is to address the source of the problem - society as a whole must deal with the issue of ownership of information. You are doomed in USA because you have already embraced software patents, building a huge and lucrative industry out of owning algorithms. This allows the concept of owning ethereal things to spread into other areas, such as media.
In Europe we are still reluctant to software patents, and we also still have a much saner view on copyright. SO FAR, the pro-software patent lobbying never ends.
IANAL, but from what I have gathered reading /., fair use is an affirmative defense, not a right. In this way it is similar to saying 'I did it in self defense'. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant did something wrong. The defendant might choose to deny doing the deed, or he might choose to deny that the deed was wrong, because it was 'fair use'.
The point is, obviously the plaintiff is not going to lead with a complex argument that there was no fair use here. They are going to wait for the defendant to try to claim that there was fair use, then let him hang himself trying to explain how sharing is fair use.
http://xkcd.com/756//
It's clear that the RIAA and other RICO organizations (read MAFIAA) are getting their come uppance, and are becoming desperate in their fight to retain control in a market that they will no longer dominate in the near future. It would save us all a lot of time and aggravation for the people involved to direct their energies into improving their business model to meet the needs of today's digital markets. Suing your fans is no way to keep them. The happy consumer will tell on average 3 people about their positive experience, which speaks to the expectation of the market. The unhappy consumer will tell on average 8 people, which speaks to the punishing power of consumer backlash.
Oligarchs of the world need to recognize that they are being watched, we can see the cause and effects that their stranglehold on business is doing for innovation, quality of life, and consumer rights. Corporations, you are on notice.
if I claimed I was emperor just because some watery tart lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!
... it's just that the RIAA's "authorization" might not be required for those copies.
http://outcampaign.org/
Am I the only person who read the summary (much less the RIAA supplemental brief)?
.mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs. Moreover, Defendant had no authorization to distribute Plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings from his KaZaA shared folder." (emphasis mine)
"Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed
The act of ripping them for their personal use wasn't the problem. The files became unauthorized copies when they were moved to the Kazaa shared folder. The Defendant admitted that he purposefully and knowingly shared the files with other Kazaa users (pages 17 & 18 of the brief).
--Insert catchy
I'm not one of these hypocrites who doesn't even buy music, and then comes here to bitch about every RIAA story. I've got more CDs and DVDs than I know what to do with. Between the two, I've bought near 60 discs this year so far, and they are mine. Mine to do what I please with, and that includes copying them onto my portable devices to enjoy. Where the hell do they get off telling me what I can or can't do with my own property? When I put my money down and made the purchase, your right to dictate how use the product went out the window.
This is beyond ridiculous at this point. I was all for them waging war on the mass piracy of their products. I support IP and the protection of it. But somewhere along the line, the whole thing took a wrong turn, and they are waging jihad on everyone. I wouldn't be surprised if the next radio I purchase has a credit card reader attached to it, and requires payment for every half hour of use.
Cabbies can't play the radio anymore.
Business owners can't play the radio anymore.
(How do those 2 even make sense? The broadcaster has already paid the RIAA in full to publicly broadcast those songs.)
They don't want people to play music in their cars because other people might hear it.
The same company that sold you an MP3 player wants to throw you in jail for using it.
What's next? Is Ford going to start suing people who have a passenger on board to make up for the lost sale of an automobile? When TV started to take over in the 50s, did the RIAA sue former radio listeners for lost advertising income?
They need to learn to accept that the music business is floundering. All the music I bought this year was near 20 years old. Sabbath, The Doors, Ozzy, Crue, etc... I like new music too, but nothing compels me to buy a CD from them most of the time. It's not because I pirated it. It may very well be that every radio station plays every new single 200 times a day, and I get sick of it before I can even consider a purchase.
I just popped a CD into my drive and iTunes asked me if I want to add it to my music library. Upon clicking yes, the application created mp3 files on my hard drive and shared them with all my coworkers without warning me about making unauthorized copies. I hear that's also the main source of music in most people's iPods. So why not sue Apple rather than going after the small fish?
Because, when you start suing the small fish directly with devastating results, the other small fish are far more likely to play by your rules to keep themselves safe. Fear is much more powerful tool than severely reducing the available supply. People will always find ways around supply problems by going through black market channels to get it. As long as there is a demand, there will always be illegitimate suppliers.
8==8 Bones 8==8
Except that the copyright act's fair use provisions authorize that duplication. The fact that the RIAA lawyers stood in front of SCOTUS & stated that format shifting for personal use was a legitimate exercise in fair use pretty much bars them from ever winning an actual case based on format shifting. Of course that doesn't mean that they won't try to shift the ground out a bit further so they have something to stand on when they get around to trying it.
your gravity fails and negativity don't pull you through
In Europe we are still reluctant to software patents, and we also still have a much saner view on copyright. SO FAR, the pro-software patent lobbying never ends.
While I agree with the bulk of your post, would you care to list the difference in scale of the level of innovation and patentable products produced between the U.S. and Europe? You can't take away the incentive to innovate and expect that everyone will still do so. I am NO fan of the RIAA nazis, but your solution just isn't a very good one, I'm afraid.
Sure they are unauthorized. But "unauthorized" is not the same as illegal.
All illegal copies are unauthorized. Some unauthorized copies are illegal, others are perfectly legal, because you don't legally need authorization to make them.
This is a clever bit of semantic skulduggery by the RIAA. You talk as if "unauthorized" is tantamount to "illegal", and if enough people get used to that usage it might as well be.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
it may have been mentioned earlier in this thread but, like so many reactionary slast dot stories, the original post got it wrong. The complaint is not saying that ripping MP3s from your CDs is an infringement. It, in fact, acknowledges that doing so is fair use.
However, it continues by saying that then making those MP3s available for download by others destroys that fair use.
Say what you want about the RIAA (and I think they're a bunch as @sshats), they are right on this score.
Well if it's the case...then everyone who has music is in violation since a hard drive is shared by default as "C$" or "D$." One could then argue that everything is shared! Come on RIAA!!! You lost!
I no longer understand what, in fact, fair use is...can I only listen to the CD, in the first CD player that the disk touches, all by myself?
Jeezuz...
dB Masters
You know, I'm really sick of people getting mod points and using troll on anything they disagree with. You don't agree with what bigmouth_strikes said? Fine, reply and tell him why you think he's wrong, but I don't see anything in his post that deserves a troll mod.
FWIW bigmouth, good post. I wonder if I'll get modded troll now too?
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
"The last paragraph is why unions appeared. Much as that seems to be a swearword for many nerds."
Why is that? Why is it that the intelligentsia seems to think that they can compete individually against large, organized corporations? Yes, unions are like any other institution; subject to sloth, corruption and bureaucracy. But the alternative is being a wage slave, even if the wage is higher. And it is enslavement; it's not nerds who are making the biggest bucks. The few cases in which that is true skew the perception of the average case, which is not at all as rosy.
Plus, you'd think a bunch of smart people could come up with a better-formulated union.
[Ego]out
"Fair use: copying to alternate media for backup or personal use" Yes i agree.. but if you copy then you allready violate the copyright .. you don't have the right to copy files...
This whole copyright stuff is pure madness becase you violate the law by simply copying music to other media/players.
Instead of referring to the RIAA I would suggest we all refer to them as the "Big Four" RIAA members: EMI,Sony BMG Music Entertainment,Universal Music Group,Warner Music Group or simply one of those. Even though it is more accurate to say RIAA the blame should be on the individual companies.
They set up the RIAA so it can have the bad name instead of their own. If the companies themselves get a bad reputation then shareholders would start waking up. No one wants to hold shares of a company with a bad rep (unless it is very profitable). Maybe I'm completely wrong but I'd target the individual companies as they are behind the trade group (RIAA).
In light of the fact that you continue to redefine what is and what is not illegal in an ever more restrictive fashion, I have but one response for you:
(_|_) *smooch*
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
If the misleading headlines drive up the traffic why would they shut him up? Deep in their hearts, everyone wants to be Microsoft. Why /. should be an exception?
(Posting anonymously to protect my Karma.)
To my knowledge, there isn't really much in the way of legal avenues to re-sell a digital music file.
They are much easier to distribute illegally, but when it comes to legal ways to do so... no so easy unless perhaps it's legit to load up an iPod and then sell it with the songs or whatever.
Really, if they cured their acute case of "Cranial Rectal Inversion," they'd realize that mp3 is actually a cash-cow in this sense, since there's not really a physical medium in which to sell a second-hand/used mp3... which means that all actual mp3 sales are new sales, which means more cash for them.
I've already PAID for the CD, production, distribution, other costs and profit. So by agreeing to this contract, what do I get out of it?
Nothing?
Well, that's not a contract, then, is it.
Or shall I imply that my money is licensed not given and that they have limited use of the money. Acceptance of my money will be considered acceptance of my terms.
Which I'll post to a URL that can change at any time.
This same arguement went before the Supremes in the days of audio cassettes and the Supreme Court said a buyer has the right to transfer the music and make reasonable backps. The Music companies than got the politicians to put an extra something in the sale of blank cassettes to compensate them. Anyway Apple used that precident when they came up with iTunes and there is little reason to believe it will be altered because of this silly case.
Am I missing something here? The RIAA agreed to this? Or rather, they had no way of preventing it?
Just because it is possible to convert it to analog and circumvent the SCMS doesn't mean the RIAA agreed to shit.
I used this search tool for one of my favorite singers, Derek Webb, and was surprised to find he's on an RIAA label. I'm surprised because he has given away downloads of his last two albums for free (for a limited time, I think). The one I downloaded required you to enter the email addresses of some friends so that they could also go download the album for free (and also, of course, so that the album would get free publicity). As it happens, my friends like him too, so I felt fine notifying them, and they thanked me.
Some of you may see this as being like a profit-driven chain letter, but it is interesting to note that at least in this case, an RIAA member company (Sony) was willing to give away music in hopes that it would pay off.
By the way, the downloads were DRM-free mp3s - my favorite. :)
Everyone write their local news station and tell them the RIAA has just declared it is illegal to listen to any music you own on an iPod. That is stupid and fluffy and shocking enough to be make it on TV between a car crash and a basket full of new puppies.
the real problem is how this has all twisted.
back before the riaa style corps, musicians made a living from their live shows. records went to radio stations who played them so ppl heard who they wanted to go see. the record companies wanted their piece, so they gave musicians big advances to record albums, which left them at the mercy of the corp.
now we are going back to the artist makes his/her/its money on shows and stuff, not just from recording one cd a year and jerking off the rest. artist is about to get more realistic, and more a real job. it's great to be a rich musician, but there's a reason why a lot of bands start sucking once they get money, the motivation is gone.
i for one see this as an awesome change, and it will get more of the right pp in front of the mic.
-.no
Old but still funny :) http://www.deadtroll.com/video/digitalrage1.html
Offsite backup.
Why yes , your honor, the only reason these files were on the network was so I had distributed offsite backups of my files.....
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
Major music labels spend much more money on promotion than distribution. Given that, the "obsolete" argument implodes.
damaged by dogma
I've never pirated anything in my life. Not a song, not a software package, not code, not anything. Amongst my friends I have been famous for having machines so clean that we could play a game, "What is there pirated or illegal?" Nothing was ever found because nothing was ever there. I registered everything I owned. I had vehemently opposed anyone taking something copyrighted and sharing it if it was the slightest bit questionable.
Now they want to make it so I cannot rip the CDs I buy to listen to with my family, the exact reason that I bought CDs. They want to criminalize fair use.
They lose.
I have my own web server, for personal use, such as email, websites, and sharing photos. I have set up a new site, password protected and accessed through SSL and secure FTP. There I have placed my entire music collection. As I write my trusted friends and family are uploading their music collections and downloading from the store. Right now my sister and best friend are sending and receiving gigabytes. Others are just downloading. You'll never see it. The jackbooted thugs will never see it. You'll have to know me personally, face to face, for me to grant you access. Since I've been writing this post the collection has grown by 4.8GB. I have free and fat bandwidth at my disposal.
I won't be buying CDs anymore unless some of us pitch in together and buy it for the collection. If I like music, I'll figure out how to send my money to the artist (which I have already done on occasion for music that I loved).
They can come after me. I go to a page on the web server, press a button, and it's all gone. In seconds. Nothing to see.
That's what it's come to. I don't like it. I'm a pirate now. I feel dirty and ugly. But I won't be shat upon.
They lose.
Let's suppose the RIAA were successful in hammering thru all of these restrictions,
despite our (US) tradition of fair use and unquestionable ownership of the items we purchase.
They have to realize that their universe of limits on product use essentially reduce intrinsic value.
Why would I pay $15 - $20 for a CD I'm barely allowed to use ? Maybe $2 or at most $5, probably less !
This campaign makes no business sense. Pretend they are losing 20% of their sales to piracy.
If they squash piracy but de-value their product by 50%, they are still behind by 30% + the unit cost of making CDs.
Lurking in the desert
Reading the average slashdot post that has anything to do with the RIAA has become a lot like reading a book by Kevin Trudeau. Shocking claims provoke a slight effort of investigation (in this case reading the paragraph on p. 15 of the linked .PDF), which reveals the substantial or complete distortion of the truth by the original poster. I'm just going to boycott all future RIAA posts, so take that, you cabal of conspirators against copyright law enforcement.
Not only are you wrong, but you can't seem to figure out that Master File Table should be abbreviated as "MFT", not "MTF".
This makes you an idiot.
Please don't post here anymore - you're embarassing yourself.
Given that these are the people who:
Attempted to make it impossible to tape music...
Tried to close used record shops when CDs arrived...
Wanted us to purchase anew every single album or song...
And, came up with those annoying, impossible to remove CD seals...
I say they never will learn!
now all they need to figure out is how to "scratch" mp3's so people have to buy them again! wtf!
Balderdash!
I stopped buying music from the RIAA ages ago, but it wont do anything to stop them. You know how they're continuously touting "numbers lost to piracy"? Any loss of profits to them is a loss to piracy, they wont acknowledge that maybe, just maybe millions of people stopped buying music from them because they started buying music from those tiny interesting bands that they like that they downloaded an mp3 from on the internet.
On top of this most people I know are so disgusted by the RIAA that they stopped buying music from them as well, with no mention of this by myself. And by most people I mean my aunts, my mother, my cousins, my friends from college and my little sister. I know maybe three people who still follow the bigger record labels, and I'm not sure about all of them.
The main thing that needs to stop is copyright law needs to be revisited, as it is and is overbloated, lasting too long and causing more trouble than it did years ago. Not being able to get anything unless it's over three generations old is a bit nuts. Even much of the music my grandfather listened too growing up is still under copyright. If you can't walk up to an average person, such as an aunt who knows nothing about the music industry, tell them "this is illegal" and they go "that's stupid" and they look at you like you just told them one of those laws along the lines of "Illegal to go down mainstreet with a duck on your head while carrying a squash", it needs to be fixed.
I just bought a pint of yogurt and used a tablespoon of it as starter, to make my own batch of yogurt. Is that unfair use? Sue me! This corporate feudalism can end. And I guess the best and most direct way, is to just not 'buy' (I mean borrow, according to them) their products. They'll go away---pffft! I buy less and less from large corporate entities. I've been doing this for years. You should consider it. It sucks back the power from the overly manipulative and suppressive monopolies that have been increasingly leeching leeching from you. It's just greed. They're like bullies. They only understand a sock in the nose. Nobody owns you---take it back.
This post is the reason I refer to the web as the "MISinformation superhighway." The RIAA lawyers are *not* arguing that ripping CD's is a copyright infringment. They are saying that ripping CD's coupled with placing them in a shared folder is a copyright infringement. The key is the shared folder, which allows for distribution of the music files. It's the distribution that violates the copyright, not the ripping.
Attention RIAA:
What part of Go Fuck Yourself are you having a problem understanding? What part of Fair Use has sailed over your head? When I rip MY CD's on MY computer be it mp3, ogg or flac it's to do so for convenience. It would not be any different if I recorded my CD's to a Hi-Fi VCR or cassette deck. You can take your unauthorized copy bullshit and jam it squarely up your ASS.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
The RIAA makes no claim in the brief regarding the Defendant's possession of MP3 files and pornography on his computer, other than the fact he created a shortcut to said items and admitted to their use constitutes knowledge of their existence which, along with their placement in a shared folder, constitutes willful infringement. There is only one question in the brief in favor of summary judgment related to this question:
According to the Plaintiff, it was the act of converting to MP3 and then placing the recording in a shared folder with the intent to distribute on a peer-to-peer network which was the infringing action... not converting to MP3 itself. The two actions together, they maintain, constitute the creation of an unlawful copy. The title of the article, "RIAA Argues That MP3s From CDs Are Unauthorized", is misleading.
I don't see this brief as an attempted reversal, but as testing the waters to clarify exactly at what point copyright infringement occurs. In my opinion, the RIAA finally gets the definition right: if you copy the CD of my music that you purchased, you are not infringing. You can even make a copy to give to friends, and you are not infringing. If you make a copy so that they can make more copies, or perform it publicly or display it, you are infringing.
Disclaimer: I am both a supporter of peer-to-peer networking and an independent musician and author with numerous copyrighted works. I think the RIAA is evil, but that their direction is set by their members and that it is those producers who are accountable for their actions and should exert pressure on their lobbying organization to be socially responsible when performing necessary actions to enforce copyright.
Matthew P. Barnson
I learn what I think when I read what I write
I find it ridiculicious that in this country we are fighting over mp3's, and if its okay to copy something you purchased. You're damn right I'm going to make a copy of a DVD or mp3 after I purchased it. It's called being smart and learning from lessons in the past. I've lost, had movies destroyed from kids, unmature persons, natural disaster etc. I have a backup of these things, and that makes me happy.
:(
I hope RIAA burns in HELL and goes away ASAP. What a bunch of ignorant old farts that have nothing better to do with there time but to pick on the American population.
'It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies... Virtually all of the sound recordings... are in the ".mp3" format for his and his wife's use... Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies...'
so under that logic, wouldn't it be "unauthorized distribution" to merely let his wife listen to the CDs themselves?
...you don't buy records. Records buy you!
"Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies..."
Two things:
1) Techincally, this is true. They are not "authorized copies", they are copies for which authorization is not required. Same for any application of fair use.
Hand-waving worthy of a boot to the head? Maybe.
2) Not clear from the summary where they draw the line. Are they arguing that making the mp3 is illegal, or are they arguing that putting it on a shared drive makes it illegal?
Either interpretation is invalid, at least without further information (what type of shared drive? shared with whom? just among his own computers, or a P2P share?) and maybe regardless. But if it's the share (and not the mp3 format) that defines the problem, then they are at least being relatively consistent even if they're wrong.
This would be an application of the "making available" line of reasoning, which really does require more fleshing out. Here's the thing -- I don't buy the "making available" line without further de-blurring of lines; but I don't buy that putting copyrighted files on a p2p share is an innocent act, either.
The shared storage is the digital equivalent of leaving my mp3 player on the front porch. Hard to see how that's illegal, though in a sense the tracks are "available" if someone wants to come swipe them.
But the p2p shares are also indexed for search and retreival, no? That's the digital equivalent of yelling out "Hey, come get a copy of the tunes I left on my porch!" That's a little more than "merely" making available.
I stick CDs under wobbly table legs. I can't find that use authorized anywhere in anything I've ever agreed to, or even unilaterally decreed by the CD's artist, publisher, vendor or the RIAA.
Come and get me, mofos!
--
make install -not war
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If so, then yes the *AA is correct, IF this is stated in the license when you bought the cd.
But i hadnt heard that fair use was finally struck down ( it will be, just give it time ), and i dont remember any contract that specifically stated i cant rip for personal use.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This is going to be unkind, but...
Up your ass with a splintered fiddle you riaa bastards and bitches...
Disks WEAR OUT. You think I'm going to keep replacing player-scratched media? I have finally, for the first time in my life, bought an MP3 player in Nov 07, and I have years worth of CDs I PURCHASED, and some from the net, but I don't have any habit of burning and selling or even giving away to more than 3 people EVER.
Call it space-shifting if you want, but it helps reduce wear and tear on my computer when I listen to 25 hours of music over the weekend. My CDs are in MY possession, and you're lucky I paid for THOSE, considering they are 5-25 times more expensive than they OUGHT to be. Worse, the MUSICIANS are being screwed (not just because they stupidly signed with a label that screws them in contract but) because you REFUSE to reward them for what they are worth. If I could figure out HOW to directly compensate them, I would, and just bypass your asses.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
How do i have a copy of Bing Crosby's White Christmas with a 2006 copyright?!?
:( They claim they are in MP3 to share them online. It seems they downloaded 11 songs from him and want an assumption of 43 more. Another victim that does not look very innocent.
Can the studio remix or rerelease or something forever? DO they get another 50 years tacked on? Would one have to research every song to see if the date is real or can they really go on forever?
back on topic
As for the article, very little seemed to be in the suit that related to the summary
This is another sick ploy by the record industry to abolish companies such as Apple's iTunes, Microsoft is just as guilty then by producing the Zune, and every other MP3 player out there is designed to encourage copyright theft. The very presence of XM and Serius radio is violation because of the conversion that takes place to broadcast.
Another dirty ploy by the RIAA to cloud up things enough to help guarantee them a win because of the confusion of terms to the jury. Or; at least that is what they are hoping for.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
One of the biggest benefits of Slashdot's firehose is that you can always go and take a look at the original story and the original headline as it was submitted to slashdot.
The originals are always at the top of the page under "Related Stories."
The editors do make changes to the stories and to the headline, but as someone who has had many stories published on slashdot, I have found that most of the time the changes are an improvement over the original.
In this specific case, NewYorkCountryLawyer's original headline was RIAA ups ante, argues MP3's from CD's unauthorized.
I would say that KDawson 's new headlines RIAA Argues That MP3s From CDs Are Unauthorized is substantially the same as the submitted headline.
I think NewYorkCountryLawyer got carried away this time and committed the cardinal sin of journalism, he was wrong about a fact.
I'm sure he will be more careful next time.
the RIAA would also somehow find that wiping one's rectal area with toilet paper would be a copyright infringement, if that process resulted in digital audio capture......
When you are in a store browsing - its only easy when you are downloading on the internet ;)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
If it's illegal to convert a legally purchased recording into mp3 format and place it into a shared folder, does that mean that it is illegal to convert a legally purchased mp3 into CD format and place it into the cd player of a car that I share with someone else?
What if i owned a CD and played it on a friends computer. Am i making the music available because the computer can copy the files from my CD? How about if I take my computer to fix at a repair shop, is my mp3 collection making music available to the techs? Without proof of distribution how can the RIAA say that just because it was made available that it was actually shared. Is this the equivalent of charging assault but not battery? Where was the crime! They need to prove that placing these files into a shared folder indicates an intent to distribute (don't know how easy this is IANAL) hopefully beyond just making available.
Here's an example of such a contract. Here's another.
Write letters to the bands/groups/whatever you like that are with the RIAA and tell them that you are not going to buy RIAA supported materials. Tell them that you like their music and enjoy it when it comes on the radio/what-not and would like to purchase their music and other products to compensate them for their work. Forget boycotting, but tell the artists what you want. Tell them to leave the RIAA or you will leave them.
Write them, call them, post messages to their boards asking them to consider ditching the RIAA. They may have no choice to leave (contracts) but they may be able to take voice themselves. You boycott, the artist suffers. You boycott and tell the artist why you are boycotting and what they can do will help. And by all means, when they leave the RIAA, buy their stuff and then write a thank you telling them to tell the other artists to do the same. Appeal to the people caught in the middle.
Or is it a combined listing of a number of otherwise unrelated subdirectories that were either automatically assembled into a single shared list by KaZaA as part of a search for music, or added to and deleted from by the user afterwards?
The RIAA implies a deliberate act of placing files into a "shared folder". But did the files come to the shared folder, or did the folder simply become one of many combined into a single shared files list?
This distinction could be crucial since copying (or ripping) to your "KaZaZ Shared Folder" implies an intent -- and a specific location -- that's missing entirely if KaZaA simply assembles any list of subfolders it finds into a single image that it presents to the FastTrack network.
Besides, who ever keeps all their sound files -- legal or otherwise -- in a single directory?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Trying to explain it here, it wont matter since what you have on /. is a good representation of what you have in the real world, those who think they are entitled to "information" for free be it others proprietary info like music or code where the author has not given permission for public release in the spirit of the brotherhood of man or some other ridiculous feel good idiocy.
/. are the same as those who you heard about where those "geniuses" called Radiohead, who in their finite wisdom allowed anyone to download and to decide what to pay and 50% did not pay. A business model as sound as asexualism for the perpetuation of the human race, eventually it, whatever it is, dies out.
The braintrust here on
As if that was some sort of revelation there.
The future is bad garage bands on vinyl
Sharing culture isn't meant to be illegal. Copyright is meant to last for 14 years, renewable for another 14 years; at the end of that time, a work becomes "culture" and is then shareable. Certainly under current law it's illegal to share anything at all, because the copyright cartels keep extending their reach by purchasing extensions. Does that mean that no culture is created anymore, or that the current Copyright system needs to be repaired?
What I consider to be the most deranged facet of the US system of government's checks and balances is that is impossible to overturn a bad law without breaking said law, and then pushing that case up to the Supreme Court. This essentially means that only someone very wealthy can oppose bad laws, or that a law may only be reversed by a large enough group of people that it is impossible to subdue the entire group. Unfortunately, the only way to repeal the absurd extensions to copyright is to break the laws that create them, and in enough numbers that it becomes impossible to keep us all down.
How about playing your own music? Get an instrument or make one, learn it and it doesn't have to be "right"(use a guitar for a drum), write or pickup some sheet music or to hell with the sheet music and just play. You are trying to entertain yourself anyway. What better way than to do it yourself. Be your own artist, if you think you suck then lower your standards and remember you only have to please yourself and forget everyone else and their standards. Shazam, you are your own artist, might even be theraputic, and certainly gives you something to do. And you will never have to worry about the RIAA again. Short version. Take control of your musical life.
They can bust into your house and seize your equipment but you can make it impossible to do anything with it.
Keep your mouth shut (you don't live in a free country).
Encrypt your filesystem and use secondary encryption on the sensitive folders.
Do not use any encryption products from major American companies.
The music industry is chasing away customers as fast as it can.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
"Undisputed" is a more interesting question - that involves getting at the facts and previous legal arguments of the case, which I haven't seen. But if the Plaintiff argues that it's about format, not who's distributing it to whom, it's a blatant scam, and they should be spanked for it.
Also, storage of the music in electro-chemical format inside your head is unauthorized, and the "Ache-y Break-y Heart" people want you to pay them for each of those neurons you burned copies of their intellectual property onto.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
With more retailers selling non-DRM MP3s, where should I buy?
For the duly-deserving, make that "Laser Fiddle" (instead of "splintered fiddle"), and with a warning:
"Due to excessive, irreversible cauterization, to not reinsert in previously-lased asses"...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
...is a copyright infringement. burn
Thank you. Sincerely. I was not aware of this act and though I'm not convinced it allows the library scenario, it does make a case for the making of copies for family members and friends. More from the Wikipedia article I found interesting:
Private, noncommercial copies by consumers using "digital audio recording devices" are explicitly protected by 1008. The Senate report defines noncommercial as "not for direct or indirect commercial advantage," offering examples such as making copies for a family member, or copies for use in a car or portable tape player. [14]
Unresolved Questions
Still, the AHRA was unsuccessful in its attempt to "conclusively . . . resolve this debate" over the legality of home taping. Section 1008 explicitly allows private, noncommercial home copying with 'analog' devices and media. The primary difficulty lies in the definition of "digital audio recording device." Though there are no reliable figures on the subject, the meager returns to the Copyright Office's DART fund amidst widespread copying and dissemination of digital music suggests that a great deal of copying, noncommercial or otherwise, is accomplished using devices not covered by the AHRA. For these devices, including MP3 players, computer hard drives, and most CD burners and CD-Rs, the section 1008 exemption, which applies only to copies made with a "digital audio recording device" as defined by the act, may not apply.
However, language in the RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia decision described above suggests a broader reading of the Section 1008 exemptions, providing blanket protection for "all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings" and equating the spaceshifting of audio with the fair use protections afforded home video recordings in Sony v. Universal Studios.
In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main purpose -- the facilitation of personal use. As the Senate Report explains, "[t]he purpose of[the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use." S. Rep. 102-294, at *86 (emphasis added). The Act does so through its home taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. S 1008, which "protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings, " H.R. Rep. 102-873(I), at *59. The Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or "space-shift," those files that already reside on a user's hard drive. Cf. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455 (1984) (holding that "time-shifting" of copyrighted television shows with VCR's constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act, and thus is not an infringement). Such copying is paradigmatic non-commercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act.
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
I hereby declare the RIAA unauthorized. They and I share one common problem though: wishing something were true doesn't make it so.
I have not bought a new CD since then.
Sue me. I have made perfect recordings of stuff I want. I just plug a "microphone" into my computers sound output, and record off of the websites.
Just like recordings off of a radio! Better yet, they were streamed to me w/o me asking for them!
RealTime FTW!
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
I think the issue here is that the article was a troll :-D The guy who is getting sued for infringement (1)space-shifted the files from his CDs to his computer, and then (2)he posted those files on Kazaa for other people to download. Part 1 is OK. Part 2 is not.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
*If* I read this correctly, then if the court decides in favour of the Plantiff and agrees that the creation of mp3s from CDs is indeed unauthorised (and a breach of copyright) then everyone who has an mp3 that wasn't bought from iTunes or similar can be hauled before the court. In short, nearly everyone who has an mp3 player today would have a case to answer.
So this then becomes their new stick.
What I imagine the RIAA would like to do is sell mp3s to everyone that already has CDs and make fistfulls of money (for doing nothing) like they did when everyone bought CDs to replace their vinyl albums. But as long as you or I can legally create my own mp3s from the CDs I have today, they can't make this happen.
It is very important that everyone is switched on in this case and perhaps all future cases, to ensure that the RIAA doesn't get the court to side with it on this argument.
Whew, then I only shain-brifted ("brain-shifted", for the chentally mallenged...)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Yeah, that's the problem right there with the whole RIAA thing. When it comes to physical media, there is the opportunity to earn profit off of replacing that property due to many things including damage, and more importantly, theft. I have amassed several hundred CDs over my life and throughout that time I have misplaced or damaged around several hundred dollars worth of CDs. Is there any remorse to the customer at times like these? Do they offer discounts? Do they hand out rebates at time of purchase of the original disk in case they need a replacement? How do they deal with radio stations to determine who plays what on the radio? Do they even care about their customers or are they just looking to see how far they can get away with screwing over the very people they depend on. When an industry encourages theft on their end in order to bring them more profit, something is definitely wrong there.
When the industry says that p2p is unlawful, they make no attempt to understand that type of media. There are innovations such Pandana, Imeem, Joost and a whole lot of other attempts of utilizing the so called "new" medium but the industry motioned laws that would harm these innovations from getting any type of recognition. Without recognition how can they gather interest from sponsors? I believe the RIAA had Racketeering charges dropped against them a while back but with everything that they have been doing since then, it seems that's all they have been doing recently. They used the laws to garner their own self interest above everyone else and they've gotten away with it. If this continues, the industry is doomed and there will have to be a complete reorganization of the entire entertainment industry all across the face of this planet.
First off, I do have to say this is appalling that they would try to do this again. It makes people afraid to listen to CDs on their computer for fear that their computer might do something without their knowledge (ie the whole rootkit scandal). They are so afraid of consumers having computers that they are killing themselves. If I want to jog and listen to a variety of music without having to carry another bag of CDs, change the CDs when I get bored with one and then have to worry about how many batteries I'm using just so I can feel comfortable, I'd go insane. I could listen to the radio but sometimes there's something on I really don't want to hear. I can change channels but sometimes there's nothing on that is suited for me. I can go to Pandora and search for music I like and then discover new artists that I wouldn't have normally listened to. I can go to Imeen to listen to a limited range of artists and at the same time get a real since of what I will purchase. I will purchase it because I like it and I don't want to go through the hassle of listening to music through an internet browser. For the first time in a long time. I'm preserving my investment with the music I paid for by not losing them. Sometimes I forget about artists because nobody plays them anymore. When they pop up on my playlist, it opens up so many new ideas of what my interests are.
If the RIAA had it their way I would only listen to their music so they can make profit off of me. They wouldn't care about me as an individual. They wouldn't care about all the hell I have gone through and will go through. They wouldn't care about my thoughts about anything. They would make me be more productive to give them more money. They would do everything to get some rise out of people to give them more money. They are the drug dealers and they want to hook you. If you don't pay up and go to some other source, they're going to hurt you.
You know what RIAA, get the fuck out of my life. You are not welcome here anymore. I've paid for mine, you need to pay for yours. I've been there and spent thousands on you. You have done nothing for me. The artists did something for me but I had to jump through hoops to discover the ones that really mattered. It's your damn fault. The music would have still been there wit
But I don't think that's the quote.
There was a quote, from a major exec (of something, I forget what), which basically confirms all of that.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Well that's it. He goes out and buys CDs for personal use, then he lets other people listen to them. Which part of "personal use" did he think he could get away with while letting other people listen to music which he'd only got a personal use license for?
If I went out and brought a copy of Windoze Vista (on sale at the "Scoop my eyeballs out with red-hot teaspoons Computer Emporium" in town.) and installed it on my computer - no problem. If I then stick the disc into my wifes computer and install it there - big trouble. She'd never accept the change.
Oh, and MicroSloth would probably think there was something wrong about it too.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Not sure about NTFS, but at least on Unixy systems there is one or more "directory entries" which point at the file, essentially metadata as regards the actual file, and the "location" on the physical disk. I don't think the author was concerned about the physical "location" per se, but of the intent to distribute. But as was pointed out, 'unauthorized' doesnt' mean 'infringing'. Presumably the claim is that creation of the mp3s was unauthorized (which is 'undisputed' unless authorization was granted to do so) but not infringing, but attempting to distribute same was both unauthorized and infringing.
The slashdot posting is a "troll" -- designed to create controversy, foaming at the mouth -- even seizures by some slashdot readers! (well...the seizures are probably unlikely...).
... not feeling especially masochistic this morning) it's that they compressed the song into the mp3 format that is noted for making it easier to store and transfer music files between devices (and computers) *and* putting it in his Kazaa shared folder. According to page 15, this was done for his wife's benefit. However, consistent with rulings, I believe, in past cases, they pointing out that the man is (perhaps unwittingly) making the files sharable through kazaa on a "public network" (assumption on my part -- unless man has private, internal, separate net that he is sharing the files through to his wife) which has been previously used as "sufficient guilt".
Seriously -- the slashdot post claims it is the mp3 format conversion that is "illegal". While it is mentioned as part of what the defendant did -- it isn't the point of their complaint -- "on page 15" (haven't read the entire complaint
They've won cases on this point in the past and they have a point: just as content or media on a public web-page can be considered a Copyright violation -- why not on a public kazaa-share directory?
On the other hand -- I seem to remember some cases where something was retrieved off a webserver and the web site owners were trying to make the case that it was meant to be "private" so it was a violation of the computer security laws that they "broke into another person's computer (by using the commercially standard information sharing protocol, HTTP). Personally I think that one is fairly bogus -- but which way do people want it?
We can't laugh at the litigants there who left their computer open to public perusal over http or ftp who want to claim their computer was "violated" and then turn around when someone deliberately puts a file in their shared public folder under an information sharing protocol's shared(public) directory. It's inconsistent.
OTOH (again), the husband might claim he was unaware that people other than his wife could download the mp3's he put in his shared directory for his wife. Now this seems unlikely to anyone, at all knowledgeable about computers, but I have to think of people with computer skills like my grandmother or grandfather -- some people might not think of putting a file in a shared folder in his house for his wife as "public sharing".... might be a mitigating factor, but they are admitting to putting their mp3's in a publicly-shared folder on the internet. That seems like it might be sufficient evidence (in "their world") that the defendant was culpable.
It wasn't, simply, the "mp3" format, that the original slashdot poster characterized as the basis for prosecution, but that he was sharing them over Kazaa.
I hope the defendant is well versed in previous case law (as he's representing himself). IANAL and I've not read the rest of the 20-some page complaint, so its hard to characterize the rest of the RIAA's case, but the point of the slashdot posting was that he converted his songs into mp3. That wasn't the point of page 15 -- making it a perfect example, IMO, of how non-lawyers can easily be mislead by legal jargon.
You know, you are the first person to make me realize that the RIAA is really SCO. Same business model, same MO. Why didn't I see it before?
I just read the whole PDF version of the brief and I don't see where they are claiming that the actual ripping to MP3s is the issue at all. Their language in that paragraph is sloppy but I believe they're concerned about the fact that copies of the MP3s are in their Kazaa share folder - not that they ripped the CD contents. After all, the filing drones on and on about Kazaa and their use of that particular folder.
That being said, I'm sure they're working hard at finding new ways of locking up the content in ways that take away fair use - just not here. In fact, I'd say that, if their assertions are true about MP3s being in their Kazaa share folder, they clearly have a case.
I'm not a fan of the RIAA and have boycotted their members for years. I also hope they end up going bankrupt - they deserve it. However, getting others to boycott the RIAA members is best served by accurate statements, not by mis-statements.
Chris
well I've bought several thousand LPs & CDs (some duplicates & triplicates) I have paid "license fees" on cassette tapes - to meet the music levy - despite the vast majority being for non music copying (I made original sounds for theatre groups) Most of the CDs I have bought in recent years have been specifically to create digital copies - and now they want to change the terms of "fair use"... if they want to renege on the fair use basis - that's fine - I am willing to comply as long as all my money is returned - I understand each track is now worth several thousand dollars...
if "Faith" could be proved with facts - would it still be faith? So why does "Faith" try to present beliefs as fact? -
They also serve to FIND music, as scouts, and to make it known (put it on the radio).
Go downtown and listen to live music. You'll hear some good, some bad and some AWFUL. You'll hear talented bands with bad equipment (or who don't know how to use the equipment). The RIAA can run surveys with new songs, push things on the radio, then if something looks good REALLY push it.
Once you find a new artist, you may not need the RIAA anymore to get their further work (if they go independent) but don't you like occasionally hearing new bands, with SOME level of quality filtering? You may not care for who the RIAA chooses, but to an extent, many others do for songs to stay on the charts.
>Wow. I'd like to know who you work for that they 'love' you. I know they might say that,
?but look at the money, and ask yourself again how much they love you. It's certainly not
>within orders of magnitude of how much they love themselves.
I never claimed that they loved me as much as they loved themselves.
I claimed that they compensate me because the "love" me. That is, we are engaged in a willing relationship whereby I willingly provide services and they willingly pay for them.
As opposed to being in an unwilling relationship whereby they pay because of the threat of extortion.
This is the fundamental problem with unions. They set up a de facto adversarial working relationship. Not only would I not want to work somewhere where I was considered an adversary, but companies don't like it either, and will flee to non-union locations as soon as they are able.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.