Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Not Suing Over CD Ripping, Still Calling Rips 'Unauthorized'
An Engadget article notes that the Washington Post RIAA article we discussed earlier today may have been poorly phrased. The original article implied that the Association's suit stemmed from the music ripping. As it actually stands the defendant isn't being sued over CD ripping, but for placing files in a shared directory. Engadget notes that the difference here is that the RIAA is deliberately describing ripped MP3 backups as 'unauthorized copies' ... "something it's been doing quietly for a while, but now it looks like the gloves are off. While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market factor of fair use, it's never actually been ruled as such by a judge -- so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot here."
"so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot here." Somehow or another the bullet will wind up in the foot of a consumer.
Why not have better summaries from submitters who RTFA?
On topic, this is still bad. If the RIAA can get people to think rips are "unathorized" copies they will be able to disregard fair play soon. It's like watching a predator biding it's time and preparing for the right time to strike.Or am I the only one that remembers when they went before the supreme court they said it was okay to rip from CDs to put songs on their iPods?
Comment I posted in a firehose story (which took all of 30 seconds to realize the summary was simplistic and wrong):
More Info
here and here
Looks like the person in question was using Kazaa, which listed his mp3 files, although they weren't actually shared (uhh ... does kazaa publish them if they're not shared?) Media Sentry found them (but didn't actually download them?). He represented himself and lost big time.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
As it actually stands the defendant isn't being sued over CD ripping, but for 'old-fashioned' song downloading.
Still wrong.
They sued him over uploading, or at least, having the files in question in his Kazaa shared folder.
Yes, they may have "taken the gloves off" regarding their terminology, but this case has the exact same underlying "offense" as the thousands of other RIAA lawsuits we've heard about in the past few years.
These copies are unauthorized!
However, these copies are not illegal.
Under fair use, you are allowed to make copies for your personal use, and it is perfectly legal.
In this case, "unauthorized" is used in the sense of "Britney Spears Unauthorized Biography" instead of "Britney Spears Authorized Biography". Both are perfectly legal.
You mean the "editors" or should I call them janitors at slashdot not bother to read an article before posting?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
The RIAA and the MPAA can go frell themselves. I will continue to do as I please.
But is it illegal?
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Just because something has a fair use defense, however, does not mean it was authorized. In fact, asserting a fair use defense is a tacit acknowledgement that the copyright holder did not authorize the use, hence the need to rely on the fair use doctrine.
Finally, even if ripping tracks is a fair use (likely), putting them online for someone else (especially if that someone else is not within the sphere of your private household, going by the text of the AHRA and the legislative record behind it) to download is certainly unauthorized and (per every court that's looked at it, e.g., Napster, Grokster, Aimster, etc) not within the fair use doctrine.
geek. lawyer.
This is significant because fair use depends on the purpose of the copying. Copying to put on your portable player would be a totally different situation under a fair use analysis than copying to give away to strangers on the internet.
At least in this case, they aren't trying to argue that all ripping is illegal--just this defendant's ripping. (And in other cases, they have said that ripping for your portable player is OK).
I believe that there are similar considerations if a defense under the Audio Home Recording Act, rather than under fair use is considered. The nature of the defendant and the reason for ripping would be relevant as to whether that covers him.
If the judge doesn't go along with their argument, they'll have to shut up about ripping being unauthorized.
If they get mp3's from ripping ruled to be unauthorized usage, that will just drive another nail in the coffin of CD sales. Consumers will turn to digital download services and completely eschew physical media. Artists will see the dwindling usefulness of the record companies and go independent.
Either way, the RIAA member companies will lose out. It would be far better for them to compete in the new arena than to use litigation to drive their way of thinking down everyone's throat. If they continue to ignore the cluebat beating them over the head, they'll wind up in the same boat with other organizations that have tried a similar approach (*cough*SCO*cough*).
They're not authorised by the copyright holder.
Fortunately, you don't need their authorisation, so that's OK.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Did the person copying them have authorization? No.
Fortunately for most of us you don't need authorization for fair use purposes as you have the right to make such copies (depends on the law where you are of course).
However if you are using them for purposes that aren't covered by fair use then the fact they are unauthorized is very relevant as your copying was not permitted by right.
The RIAA aren't being tricky here, they are stating the plain truth.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
For a site that supposedly prides itself on unbiased news, Slashdot sure seems to be an even worse panderer of yellow style news presentation than Fox. Actual un-sensationalist summaries are the exception, not the rule.
Is this the same retread story that's been making the rounds for the last two weeks?
Short summary: Guy ripped CD and placed MP3 in P2P shared directory. RIAA sues him for "making available" an "unauthorized copy". Media ignores first part and reports that RIAA is suing the guy for simply ripping a CD (how would they know if that's all he did?). Frenzied and completely incorrect stories are reported and posted to slashdot, with hundreds of comments posted by people who can't (or choose not to) read and correctly comprehend the actual events.
Will somebody please put a bullet in this undead zombie beast of a story? It seems to be submitted every day and the summary is damn near always wrong.
The rips in the brief are unauthorized because they have been placed in the share directory. Here's how it breaks down:
Thus, the very same ripped MP3 file can go from "authorized" to "unauthorized" just through the act of making it available for sharing. "Personal use" is the big deal here, and I think everybody will still continue to argue over what "personal use" means. The RIAA thinks that making rips available in a share directory isn't personal use, but many Slashdotters obviously disagree.
The quote in the October article was printed out of context, too.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Am I the only person who finds it bitterly ironic that, when a correction about a misleading summary is *finally* posted to Slashdot, the misleading summary was actually in some other news source?
are doing is seeing if the judge is going to call them on the carpet for calling personal copying infringement.
The idea is that they want to establish a few things:
This is not merely an innocuous mistake. The inclusion of this language in the complaint is meant for a very specific purpose: to progress toward a legal climate where everyone who hears a copy of a song or views a copy of a movie must pay the RIAA/MPAA or face liability for copyright infringement. The removal of fair use rights is only the beginning. The RIAA wants to return to the 18th century model where every performance is a paid performance; the fact that technology now makes it possible for the performance to proceed absent the performer is irrelevant to their business model.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
When "unauthorized" is automatically equated to "illegal" we have a problem in our society. Are we required to ask for authorization from someone to do everything now?
This is a stupid article.
They ARE unauthorized copies. There really has NEVER been any debate about that. The label didn't specifically authorize them therefore they are unauthorized. ITS THAT SIMPLE.
That said, the ENTIRE POINT of fair use is to legalize 'unauthorized copies' in limited 'fair use' circumstances. Fair use, by definition, operates on unauthorized copies. You have to make an unauthorized copy in order for fair use to apply. If the copy was authorized you wouldn't need fair use -- because you've got explicit authorization directly from the rights holder.
The RIAA calling these cd rips unauthorized is about as salient as when they 'over' identify the defendant... if they mention that Jane Doe is a 35 year old woman who works as a bookkeeper, they are not suggesting that being 35 years old, a woman, or a bookkeeper are issues in the case, they are merely identifying the defendant.
Similiarly identifying the unauthorized songs ripped from CD by the defendant merely identifies the songs in question. The fact that they are 'unauthorized' vs 'authorized' is as irrelevant as the fact they were ripped from CD instead of Sirius/XM-Radio.
The judge certainly knows this. The lawyers certainly all know this. Maybe the defendant isn't aware, but that's why he should have a lawyer.
Knee-jerk reactions by bloggers who seize on irrelevant facts without knowing or understanding how copyright works is the real issue here. I propose we have another front page article... "prominent journalists and bloggers somehow don't know making a copy without explicit authorization results in an unauthorized copy, DUH!"
I am "unauthorized" to walk around town or drink my coffee. Nobody, certainly not the RIAA, has granted me any permission to do so. However, I also require no authorization. This is the important thing to learn here: when someone says you have no permission to do something, ask yourself whether any permission is needed. You need nobody's permission to exercise your rights. As soon as you accept the lie that you do, you're lost.
Maybe, but Fox claims to be a professional news organization. Slashdot doesn't, and in fact just takes stories from anybody ... no real journalism involved. Slashdot is also pretty open about that, and doesn't claim to be anything other than what it is. Really, you should be criticizing Fox for being down at Slashdot's level.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Come on guys, it's not that difficult:
The defendant in this case was ripping music directly to his p2p shared folder. The RIAA calls this unauthorized, they aren't calling all rips unauthorized.
Of course ripping is not an authorized copy, but it's not illegal. It doesn't have to be authorized by the RIAA to be legal. It's legal because of fair use.
Users aren't going to give fuck whether they are "authorized" to rip CDs or not, or even if it is fair use -- they are simply going to do it. The only thing that will stop them would be DRM, and DRM on CDs is pretty much ineffective anyway.
Sue someone...this is what we call a tipping poing, a well over due tipping point...push that envelope just a little further and see what happens...
"While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market factor of fair use, it's never actually been ruled as such by a judge -- so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot here."
What? How are they shooting themselves in the foot? Either the judge rules that ripping is fair use, in which case RIAA has lost nothing. . . because that is already the status quo, or the judge rules that it is illegal (doubtful, but hey), and they have gained a new way to sue people.
Now, I could certainly see the argument that *suing people* is shooting themselves in the foot, by developing ill will towards the member labels, but I don't see how testing a legal theory which has not yet been tested is shooting themselves in the foot? Shooting yourself in the foot implies that if you succeed in your goal, you are hurting yourself. It could be that declaring ripping illegal hurts them somehow, but the linked article fails to develop that idea.
"Unauthorized" is a highly misleading term, as the parent points out. It implies the notion that permission may be needed, when it may in fact be entirely superfluous.
INAL, but from my understanding, If you repeatedly accuse someone (individual or group) of violating your rights and/or property and refuse to press legal action, that is, as far as I know, textbook libal/slander...we need to form a coalition of music fans who rip CDs to digital file formats and sue the RIAA for character assassination.
has any judge not made an unauthorised copy of a copyrighted work?
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Call that paradoxical? I bet it wouldn't make a humanoid robot's head explode.
Perhaps you meant "ironically". Or even, "counterproductively". But "paradoxically"? No.
Fair use is often cited as a reason why people can supposedly do whatever they want with purchased media. However, fair use is NOT a law. In fact it is entirely subjective and CAN fluctuate (change) depending
on each case.
When you purchase the media containing content you did not purchased the ability to do whatever you want with the media. That includes viewing or playing of the media. That is a right granted to you by the copyright holder of the material on the media and IS revocable.
Question is, with the coming of digital media broadcasts, how much longer will we have any control (legal or otherwise) to do things like ripping content or using DVRs/PVRs?
Tell you the truth, I stand alone on this issue (really... I do). You see, while all of my media is purchased legally, surveys that I've participated in show that the vast majority of people obtain media content illegally and a significant portion of those distribute media illegally. Sigh.... folks, you are just giving ammunition to those who are restricting our "fair use" rights.
So... please reply IF you can honestly say that all of your rips and reencodings are of purchased media and are only used for your own viewing (yes, that means NOT shared among your family... that is, no multiple copies of rips on multiple devices for different people).
Welcome to the USA, the land of freedom.
Here's an interesting quote from one of the legal briefs in the case:
The phrasing that they used seems to indicate that the MP3 files were authorized until they were placed into the shared folder. Now, I'm not a lawyer, so it's possible that this means absolutely nothing, but it's still an interesting notion.
What it seems that they are saying is that the MP3's are authorized until used for an illegal purpose (i.e. file-sharing). Amazon's MP3 Music Service TOS seems to support this interpretation. It encourages users to make backup copies of MP3's they purchase (which would be authorized); and, if you violate any of the terms (such as infringing upon the copyright of the MP3), your license to use the music terminates, making the MP3 unauthorized. While the music in this case wasn't purchased from Amazon, it seems like the same philosophy is involved.
Fisher-Price has a video clip advertising its FP3 player. In this clip, they said "You could copy the songs to the player from the CDs you already own". http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=4966369 Click on Watch a clip LoL
> As it actually stands the defendant isn't being sued over CD ripping, but for placing
.sig before you do. (someone puts a blindfold on me) "Freedom and logic" (bang!)
> files in a shared directory. Engadget notes that the difference here is that the RIAA
> is deliberately describing ripped MP3 backups as 'unauthorized copies'
Apparently Engadget is confused as to what a "backup" is for and what a "shared directory" is for.
May I quote from a Speedy Gonzolez cartoon, where the fat oaf cat is looking for something to put out his friend, on fire. He grabs a bucket:
"P - E - T - R - O - L. Huh. That's a funny way to spell 'water'."
"S - H - A - R - E - D. Huh. That's a funny way to spell 'backup'."
I now humbly await my downmod. Please read my
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
If you rip your CDs to an MP3 player, and don't share the files, the RIAA will never know. Even if it's illegal as hell, you won't be sued if the would-be plaintiff doesn't know it has a case.
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
(I'm just saying.)
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
> Engadget notes that the difference here is that the RIAA is deliberately describing ...
> ripped MP3 backups as 'unauthorized copies'
They are 'unauthorized copies'. So are copies made under fair use. Unauthorized is not a synonym for illegal. It just means that you don't have the copyright owner's permission. However, there are many things you can legally do with a copy without the copyright owner's permission.
> While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market
> factor of fair use,...
You mean under the Audio Home Recording Act exception. "Fair use" is something else entirely (it is, though, an example of something you can legally do without the copyright owner's permission).
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Simple fix - stop making CD purchases. Let's watch the heads spin when artists earn gold and platinum based on downloads, not CD sales, and artist revenue is derived solely from royalties and concert receipts. Future article: "How the RIAA ended CD purchases and killed the major record labels." And seriously, to hell with the artists who have "sold out" and care more about short term revenue than their fan base. Unsustainable business model.
Even if the music label give you a written permission notarized by lawyers to rip CDs, you still can't distribute the rips aside from that covered by fair use unless you get a distribution right. Distributing unauthorized rips isn't any more illegal than distributing authorized rips. IOW, the key in this case is the license to distribute, not whether the rip was authorized or not.
Really, RIAA is a country whose left wingers are used to getting firehosed and dragged away by police, and whose right wingers are used to getting firehosed and dragged away by police. Everyone in America has a ton of guns, dodges or cheats on their taxes, breaks every traffic law their is, probably has been drunk and driven at least once, and the only thing that unites the polical culture is that everyone on both sides of the aisle seems to worship lawbreakers.
So what does RIAA have? A couple of lawyers chasing after people? No matter how many times they say copying digital works is stealing, everyone knows they only think that because they are paid to think that.
Would RIAA represent my copyrighted work if I made a game where you shot a bunch of RIAA lawyers?
This is my sig.
Fox claims to be a professional news organization. Slashdot doesn't, and in fact just takes stories from anybody ... no real journalism involved.
Define "professional".. and while you're at it, define 'real journalism'.
There are no real active peer reviewers anywhere, and no real consequences for printing falsehoods unless they're just totally false and against someone very powerful. If Dan Rather hadn't actually shown those fake Bush Nat'l Guard records on national television (60 minutes), would anybody have ever figured it out?
Jason Blair worked for the New York Times printing bogus stories for at least a year before he was found out. What if he'd just been more careful?
I don't think there is a line between 'real' journalists and bloggers, and that's not to say that I think bloggers have especially high integrity or professionalism, either. There is no real distinction between the two.
Latewire
They're definitely shooting themselves in the foot though. By saying that legally allowed so-called "ripping" is "unauthorised", What they're doing is essentially saying is that they don't recognised the law's jurisdiction.
This could easily come back to haunt them in a court of law, if it's able to be presented as evidence of intent or behaviour. Somehow I think they'll get away with it though. A company with enough time and lobbying power on its hands can easily direct (usually pervert) the cause of justice, unlike citizens sadly. Our only hope is if they directly piss off enough consumers that they consumers really turn on them and bring down the hole system by boycotting them or creating a better system. Which, laughably, is how this all started, with the better systems provided by the internet.
The Doctrine of First Sale covers sale and lending of ones own property. Therefore, used CDs (and DVDs) are perfectly legal. (And so are libraries...before the Doctrine of First Sale libraries were technically illegal!) It is only the sale of NEW CDs/DVDs that earns the MAFIAA their cut. So if you don't want to take the radical step of not purchasing music or movies, ever, this is the perfect solution.
Buy it used. Then rip, mix, burn...for your own personal consumption, of course...
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
If I had to bet, as far as the RIAA is concerned, "unauthorized" might as well be "illegal" because they sure aren't happy about it. I think someone pointed out, in the prior story, that the RIAA's own FAQ said something like that, but that they wouldn't generally sue you over them unless you shared it (I'm paraphrasing here).
:-)
It's times like this that make me want to figure out how to build a large EMP weapon, visit RIAA HQ, and tell them that their internet usage is "unauthorized" and that they need to shape up or ship out
Fuck you and Frank Luntz, too! (Not that Frankie has a damn thing to do with this, but how could I pass up the opportunity?)
They can kiss my ass. Ripping my legally purchased copy of a CD, in order to get the music into my MP3 player, falls under Fair Use. I'm not gonna buy a CD then turn around and buy the download too.
He who laughs last...probably didn't get the joke.
thank you
If I draw a mustachio on my Britney CD that may also be unauthorized, but it doesn't mean it is illegal
place all of my cd's on my lawn where everyone can see them I then be guilty of piracy if someone decided to trespass onto my lawn and steal those cd's?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Would someone just go out and metaphorically shoot these guys so that we can just be done with them please.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
To think that my friends question why I have not bought any music for such a long time. I personally bought a turntable and have refocused my music interest into checking out bargain bins and garage sales just to keep from giving these fuckers one more penny (It's kind of fun too). I really wish that normal everyday people had a way to come together and stand (I mean really stand) up to corporate shitheads.
You format shift when you place a CD in a drive and turn pits into a stream of digital bits.
You format shift when any physical medium is transformed into compressions and rarefactions in the air beyond the speaker surface.
You format shift when your ear drums translate compressions and rarefactions into nerve impulses.
The whole concept of listening to music is a series of format shifts.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If you still think you "need" the **IA, you're just not very resourceful -- or discriminating. Here's two I use all the time, there are of course others.
Music
Feature Films
Caveat Utilitor
The iTunes ToS allow you to burn your digital songs to CDs- all songs, even RIAA-labeled songs.
I just don't see what's so different about ripping from CD to MP3.
This assumes that all the music is used for personal use, which I don't see a problem with.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
..."Ripping Is Allowed, Assholes"
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
copy right means the copyright owner has exclusive rights to control who can copy and/or distribute copies of the copyrighted object.
now back in the day if ya made a casette from a few LP albums to play in yer truck on the way to the basketbvall game that was cool. nobody gave a rip
today, if ya copy a few CD into yer iPOD so ya can run around with a dongle hanging in yer ear and lookin' like a ditz-bopper I rather doubt that get you in much trouble unless some red-neck straightens yer brain out for ya
but if ya copy music onto a computer where it can be downloaded/copied by another network user then you are most definitely in foul territory
now if RIAA wants to say "any directory is sharable" I can't blame them one bit because guess what: you guys have made a total mess of computer security. there ain't no such critter
there actually IS Military Intelligence, but there ain't no such thing as "computer security" in the case of Ms Windows
it's got to be such a joke I think it's even worse than looking for an "honest politician"
so don't load music on yer computers cuz any decent RAT can download it all he wants
( end of RANT ) ( but this did need to be posted )
When you have someone log in as admin to fix your system, it's now a shared drive.
Where else, under Windows, do you put Your Music than under the "My Music" folder on Your Computer?
Now, if Kazza shares that by default..?
If the RIAA makes this an official position, and posts this in prominent public places, and posts that they intend on taking action against anyone "ripping" their content, then the first place that logically must be sued is Apple Computer Corporation. And they must be sued for Billions of dollars because they are perpetrating this. Fact is; how in the hell do you think that library in iTunes is being built in the first place!! Then; logically the remainder would be XM and Sirius radio, Napster, Rhrapsody, Real, Microsoft, and the list then goes on and on.
This also spells eminent death to the RIAA, most of the companies making CD's and producing content for said artists involved, and the artists themselves will also wind up on the cutting block.
You will see a complete change in media handling in this country and the vaporization of all "Oldies" music, and anything else currently under the encumbrances of the RIAA.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
RIAA can claim to have authority over the consumer's activities with the media he/she licenses, but it's just not so. Without a EULA, there is no agreement to which the consumer is bound, only copyright law. The law has been very friendly to personal copying of other types of creative works. I can back up my software without fear of retaliation, for example, as a license to copyrighted material is for the work and not the media on which it is delivered. I find it hard to believe that with such similarities in the media itself, the law would look differently upon music media.
If the RIAA wants to include a EULA with every CD, then they are free to specify terms of their licensing. At which time I will politely decline, and request a refund for all the CDs I have ever purchased.
...but the first thing I do is rip them and put them away. Makes a nice backup.
If this is illegal too I might as well just get the music off some file share network.
you're safe.
After a little research I can tell you that its:
* Arista
* BMG
* Capitol Records
* Elektra
* Fonovisa
* Interscope
* Lava
* Loud
* Maverick
* MGM
* Motown
* Priority
* Sony
* UMG
* Universal
* Virgin
Just don't buy any music from any of these companies and you should be safe.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Also
La Face
Atlantic
Warner Bros
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Seems to me they just took away another reason to buy a CD. If I can buy from iTunes or other online service, sync my iPod to that or make playlists and burn CDs but face the threat of lawsuits for buying and ripping a CD of the same material and then doing the same things with it, why should I buy any more CDs?
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
If you're still delaing with the mafiAA, stop reading /.
Go away.
We don't want you here.
Bye! Don't let the HTTP REQ hit you in the @$$ on the way out.
Tender, moist, delicious kittens.
For starters... Please quit conflating the act of infringement with "theft" or "murder". It's NEITHER and as such you should really, really quit doing it. Everyone that does that should do so. Honest.
Infringement is violating the right established by the government to further the production of the arts in which a party has the right to control the reproduction and distribution of a so protected work. If I infringe upon that right, all I've done is usurped your right to control that production and distribution. It's not theft, where if I take something, you're deprived of the use thereof (Sorry, "lost profits" do NOT constitute theft- you are not assured that anyone will buy the copies of your protected work, so therefore, you can't claim you were deprived of anything other than your right to control the production of the work...). It's not murder, which is the taking of the life of someone. The law is explicit in which of those three acts are which- and they're right in doing so because they ARE different.
Now, then...
Making available doesn't work well as an argument. If you use that, every library on the face of the Earth is a criminal in that case. Which, is flatly garbage, when you think long and hard about it. It's not stealing, even IF you viewed it as such.
Infringement only occurs when someone makes a copy of the protected work for themselves or others- photocopying a book, making a copy of an album or MP3 of something. And, it's not you, if you're making it available, that is actually doing the act of infringement, past the covered one of making the file in the first place, which IS fair use- and very probably is even not an infringement itself because of the AHRA (That remains to be seen as there's not been any Court ruling that indicates that this is the case- the wording of the law in question would seem that it does cover that...). Anyone making copies of the protected work are the actual infringers per the law the way it's currently written.
I am not condoning people doing it, mind. It's morally wrong, yes. I know with some
reasonable certainty that I wouldn't be doing it.
Is it illegal? Not based on a reading of how the laws are currently written, no.
Morally wrong doesn't make it illegal unless there's a law that backs that position up- sorry, things
just don't work that way.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
You missed the point. I didn't conflate those acts, I was just asserting the "wrongness" of the attempt no matter if the act was performed or not. Attempted wrongdoing isn't less wrong than actual wrongdoing. Attempted copyright infringement isn't less wrong that actual copyright infringement.
I think this is still up for debate though. Who actually makes the copy? If person A puts the file in a folder that is configured in such a way that its content can be accessed "on demand" by other computer users, and person B wants a copy of that file, who makes the copy? Is it :
I believe putting a file in a shared folder is more akin to the first situation. It's like posting a sign that reads "Send me a request and I will make a copy of this file and send it to you", and thus the infringement is made by who shared/uploaded the file, not by who downloaded it.
And this is where copyright law steps in. Copying a file/song/movie/etc and send it to someone else on request is not fair use. However, I will reverse what you said and admit that legally wrong doesn't necessarily make it immoral.
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
If you take the server as being an agent of its owner, then there's liability. But the server in P2P applications is often set up automatically without the informed consent of the owner. They are set up to automatically offer to serve anything the user downloads and rarely offer to download to a different directory than their serving directory. The RIAA is not concerned about the owner's intent, but the courts should be.
So anything in that directory the user doesn't own they could prosecute as a downloader. Anything the user does own needs evidence of downloading to prosecute as a server. (There are no uploaders.)
Bit Torrent is an exception in that its function relies on being part of the swarm and the general-purpose implementations make that very clear. Typical P2P applications don't have that functional requirement. So in Bit Torrent, if the content is infringing, then each member of the swarm is a contributory infringer, regardless of how much or little they've shared or received (as long as it is non-zero).
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?