Slashdot Mirror
Legal Implications of MP3 Rulings
Daniel M. German writes "The CyberLaw Journal of the NYTimes has an
excellent
article about the MP3 and the
implications of the recent ruling on the case
RIAA vs. Rio. Simply put, by making
a copy of your MP3 you are "space shifting"
your already adquired music. Further, it
is fair use. Some even claim that fair use
might mean it is legal to own a copy,
even if it came from an illegal source. Quite
interesting reading. " Its the NY Times, so you need
a free account to read it.
It's just like bootleg movies - producing the copies, not purchasing/acquiring/owning them, is what's illegal. The law is very simple. It addresses the unauthorized duplication or reproduction of works, not the unauthorized ownership (at least not yet... :/ Big Brother will be watching you someday, tho...unless someone kills him off before it's too late).
/. d3wdz. :p
BTW, LTNW,
- RF (rf@brightrain.dhs.org)
Of course, this doesn't mean that current laws are in good shape
But make no mistake, software is the same as hardware (for Turing devices, i.e. current digital computers), software is just easier to create, distribute, etc.
I remember seeing these "audio" cds at a local record store... thinking.. "Hmmm... maybe I should buy those, since I'm burning audio cds..."
:)
Then, my eyes peered over to the new Sony cdr's. 10$ for 3, or 15$ for 10? That's where I think they're wrong... I can make my own audio cd's from the comfort of my keyboard, and put them in a regular cd player.
Naturally, a computer is more expensive than "Phillips do it yourself audio cd burner", but I feel the cost is more justified....
Karnal
Copying of software is a completely separate issue. The crux of the argument is the Digital Recording Act of 1992 the text of which can be found as in Title 17 Part 1001-1008 or so of the US Code. The intent was to decriminalize personal use copying of music in exchange for the manufacturers collecting royalties on the sale of digital audio recorders and media and paying them to the RIAA. The law was crafted so that computer equipment that wasn't primarily intended for recording music wouldn't be subject to royalties. There is nothing unfair about this. The recording industry is still able, should they so chose, to go after people who make copies other than those which constitute fair use under the digital recording act.
I don't see anyway the Rio, which doesn't make copies could be subject to the digital recording act, and computer hardrives, computer cd-burners etc were deliberatly excluded. No royalties, but also no protection for the consumer against being sued.
The real damage here is the legitimizing of space shifting. You can buy music in one format and copy it so that you can play it in your car, on your RIO, or on your computer. I really don't see the RIAA getting this one back, although I could see them conceivably getting the digital recording act extended to cover the RIO.
The digital recording act says nothing about software copying, so you're stuck with fair use and probably the more limited rights granted by your license. No space shifting here!
A complete evil outcome could be the RIAA lobying for royalties on computer equipment and media intended primarily for non music usage.
Isaac
The RIAA has maintained that ripping a CD and listening to music YOU PAID for is illigal.
And guess what? They are wrong. Hey, Microsoft claims Internet Explorer is an integral part of their OS... Companies can claim whatever they want. In this country, the courts are called upon to sort it out.
scare colleges into policies where all mp3's on networks are illigal.
No, just unlicensed mp3's of RIAA artists. They can't touch any independant artists. Say your local (unsigned) college band decides to put some of their songs on a website in mp3 format. I would like them to try and get that page shut down (unless it was distributing other RIAA material). This would be like MS trying to make ISO images illegal because they are used to send pirated MS software.
I think they call it a peripheral because it cannot be made to function without a computer. (You have to use a computer to put the music on it, and you have to use a computer to change it.) You can only listen to it away from a computer. I can't believe the lawyers actually got the courts to understand this. It's cool. That judge may actually have brains, and isn't afraid to make all that money mad.
Nature abhors a vacuum. So does my sister's dog.
....Whats with this? It ain't true, Most of the CD's i rip are 160 VBR, and i can't tell the difference from the real CD. The only reason everyone thinks that they are slightly below CD quality is because for some strange reason, 99% of people encode at 128kbs. 160 kbs verible bit rate files arn't that much bigger.
Also, think how much more money artists would make if they sold mp3z directry to the fans. The could sell them at 5% of the price and still make more money than they do now.
A good search will turn up testimony before Congress in 1993 by record industry people talking about internet distribution of music and it's implications. (the term "celestial jkebox was sometimes used) This was before MP3's.
The only reason they did not act on it before the last couple of years is that the hardware and software just wasn't available to actually make it possible for a consumer technology.
With all the wing-flapping going on here, the truth is that the record companies will probably win because they will deliver a more compact, higher fidelity package of music that is easier to access and just outright more attractive to most purchasers and users of music. Don't kid yourself about them being cigar-smoking fatties either. They are high-tech wizards just like you and have been thinking about this for a long, long time.
And they will protect their intellectual property at the same time.
Wonder how long until music CD's come with a shrink wrap license agreement? After all, the terms of the Home Recording act could be rendered moot if you 'voluntarily' entered into an agreement that superseded them. Expect the entrenched record companies to fight this ruling tooth and nail...
Interesting factoids from _Rolling Stone_'s article on MP3 this month:
- most bands make about 10% on album sales
- most bands don't even break even until 500,000 are sold
- bands' revenue is primarily from concerts and paraphenalia (the dreaded black concert t-shirt!)
Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
Well, not exactly. For example, if you have pirated copy os MS Word - it doesn't really matter where did it come from. It is still illegal
A week ago i wanted to buy a rio from a store, not an internet shopping site. I went to Fry's Electronics here in Southern California. I spent 30 minutes looking for the MP3 player section. Couldn't find it! I had to ask someone and then he had to ask somone and he was wrong and then we all went searching. Minutes later the Rio was found on the modem and network hub aisle on the very top shelf. I like my rio. I question the marketing strategies of Fry's. The Rio was featured on sale in their 6 page Fourth of July Weekend Bonanza....figures.
People can still rip the whole album to mp3 no matter how the band distributes its music.
The poster's point stands.
With all the wing-flapping going on here, the truth is that the record companies will probably win because they will deliver a more compact, higher fidelity package of music that is easier to access and just outright more attractive to most purchasers and users of music
I have to disagree with this statement. MP3 while lossy and not as god as CD or vinyl, is still good enough for the common man. The average consumer doesn't hace the sound system in their home to tell the difference, and if they do they probably don't know how to use it to it''s full potential. To quote Chuck D. from an article in Wired "The shit has already hit the fan". The RIAA DOES NOT represent the whole music industry nor do they represent artists. Artists themselves see MP3 as an escape from f*cked up contracts low raylaties and other evils of corporate America. The RIAA had advanced warning with tapes and CDs, there was no avanced warning with MP3, its already here. My point, even if "the industry" comes out with a better compression mathod with all sorts of protection, MP3 is already here and they can't make it go away. An open source compression method with better sound quality would stand a chance but anything with copy protection is dead in the water before it even gets started.
The digital home recording act also EXPLICITLY exempts home computer equipment. This was done SPECIFICALLY so that the DHRA would not hinder the development of the fast growing computer industry (and it is still so very young).
The DHRA does not apply WHATSOEVER to computers. It ONLY applies to consumer hardware that is sold for the sole purpose of recording music. If it is a computer peripheral, it is exempt.
There are already two: The American Society of Composer, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP); and the Broadcast Music Inc (BMI). Both of these companies act as licensing middlemen between public performers of music (TV, radio, Muzak and Muzak-like services, bars, clubs, DJ's, etc) and the writers and publishers of music.
Both ASCAP and BMI have web-based license agreements already. It looks like they have taken the route of treating the web like other venues that they license, rather than trying to keep music off the web.
I wonder... If I signed license agreements with ASCAP and BMI, and paid them my licensing fees (for BMI, a minimum of $500 annually, or 1.75% of my gross revenues), could I run a legal, free, MP3 site?
FYI - The "Phillips do it yourself audio cd burner" actually supports normal blanks. You just need to have the special disc in at the beginning - you can then pop it out and put a generic blank CD in.
Yes, yes, but I was only really referring to the suite of walkman-like players (most notably, RIO), and their collective ability to play non-encrypted mp3s. If all of the makers of these devices are forced (either legally, or by inter-corporate financial presure) to comply with the recording industry's standards, then it will only really be possible to play do-it-yourself digital tunes *on a computer*. Currently, garage-band X can cut mp3s, release them on the net, and expect that everyone with a RIO will be able to listen; if the Industry has the player-manufacturers by the balls, there will be no "unsigned" music market.
This is what I have always thought. That while it may be illegal for someone to upload an mp3 of copyrighted material, it should be legal for me to download it and listen to it. Follow this logic. Radio stations broadcast music which many people record on cassette tapes. It isn't illegal to record music off the radio for you're own use. Similarly if I were to download an mp3 for my own use it would be as if I had recorded it onto my computer off the radio. The only difference it that the Radio had permission to broadcast it whereas the owner of the ftp site didn't, but that's their problem and not mine, now isn't it?
The rio is not a recording device, it is a playback device.
Secondly, yes, any device that is marketed for the primary purpose of moaking a digital recording is covered by the act.
A home computer, though fully capable of digital recording, does not fall under this clause. And neither does software for use on that computer.
The DHRA specifically exempts computers.
Yes. In several interviews with panel members involved in the creation of the DHRA, I recall reading that they knowingly exempted general purpose home computers from the DHRA, they KNEW that this kind of stuff would be possible in the future, and they did not want to impede the progress of technology. They didn't just 'forget' about computers.. they knowingly exempted them.
In that case, I'm sure you wouldn't mind if these musicians switched to an Internet label like MP3.com, gave away sample tracks for freebies and Internet radio, and sold their CDs for $5.
Believe it or not, if they did this and sold the same number of CDs they do now, they'd make more money.
You wonder why the traditional recording industry is so hated? There's your answer.
Wow! 800 megs of mp3's you must have SO much music
I am really really envious of you
Term limits like this would lead to a permanently rotating group of voting 'officials' who would be 'handled' by a permanent 'staff' with their own permanent agenda.
That describes government in Washington. Term limits always leads to more power in the bueraucracy.
It is really interesting to watch as the ossified institutions of the 19th and 20th century struggle to catch up with the changes imposed by the dawn of the Information Age. It is a curse: "May you live in interesting times" and I think it has been laid upon us all.
The RIAA is trying to hold onto what's past instead of what's ahead. Ask IBM what happens when you don't try to forge ahead with the new ideas, rather than try to stop the change.
RIAA, get in the MP3 business itself. I remeber how upset they were when cassettes became big. "Oh, the end of an industry" the moaned. It didn't happen then and it won't happen now. There will always be people who buy music and CDs, if not for the "quality" then for the convenience.
It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off
Just out of curiosity brought on by the 2% wholesale cost of recording devices going to the RIAA:
Why don't actual artists start a group, like "Recording Artists Association of America", so they can get in on things like this (and blank casette/cd charges, too)? Or is there one already? Not to say I think this fee is desirable.. but if it's around, it would be nice to see it actually being used for the point of copyright - to allow people to make a living producing artistic things.
It's interesting that the law against digital audio copiers doesn't apply to the Rio because it is viewed as an extension of the hard drive.
With miniaturization of computers and proliferation of embedded systems, soon every appliance will be labeled a "Computer Peripheral"
Is the AIBO dog a peripheral? How about those eBooks?
I looked for the RIO at Best Buy, and it wasn't next to the MiniDisc players and other stereo equipment. Instead, it was on a shelf next to blank CD-Rs. Go Figure.
Exactly true. I have over 800 megs of MP3s on my network at home. that translates into alot of music!!! and guess what, except for about 30 some-odd songs, I ripped them all myself, from my personal CD collection. I dumped em all to an extra 840meg HDD and now never have to put a CD in my 'puter (i don't even own a stereo)
Its fast, convenient (once setup) and its LEGAL!
the ones i downloaded are all Indy groups, who recorded the stuff themselves, then posted it to get exposure.
Besides that, if the record labels want to regain control of the industry, they'd better remove their heads from their asses and wake up. As long as you don't distrubute the MP3s there is no legal problems. Heck even if you there isn't anything they can do about it!! I for one will not be buying an MP3 player this holiday season, and for the record, I've never paid more than $15 for a CD, most of mine are used or were on sale.
Gnothe se Auton
Now now... The article did not say that "fair use" extended to illeagal copies. Just that WHERE you get the copy is irrevelant. So, if I were to download "Bon Jovi - Keep the Faith" in MP3 format from a "pirate" site, I'm still legal because I happen to own that CD. It just saves me the trouble of ripping and compressing it myself. It doesn't hurt the artist (I bought the CD). So where's the problem? Granted, many people don't own the source of every MP3 file they have. I won't deny that. Hell, I probably don't have the source disc for all of mine. But I'd say I have a high percentage. Does that make it right? Probably not. But in the end, does it really matter?
;)
I'm plenty happy to give money to the artists. I've bought 2 discs from MP3.COM and plan to buy more when I find more artists I like. I don't buy CDs from the record companies, but that's because I don't like any of the music I've seen them make for a last few years enough to spend that kind of money on it. Oh.. I just remembered, I just bought one.. "Weird Al - Running with scisors" Gotta love Weird Al.
Nobody's perfect, but at least some of us make an effort.
Before you dismiss me as yet another pirate, you may want to talk to some artists too. I've been in communication with a few just starting out and they love the whole concept of MP3 distribution. They are aware that some people will copy thier stuff, but they tell me that they get lots of people buying thier stuff on MP3.COM. And in the end they feel it helps them sell CDs because of the increased exposure.
It's a lot like software piracy, which has been going on since the dawn of computers. People copy the software, decide they like it, and support the creators of it. Sure, there are going to be people that will only copy. But buy giving people free copies that company gets more users, and some of those users will buy the new version when the upgrade comes out. In the end, they do better. I know people that have not paid for any M$ software, ever, and they have just about everything M$ ever made. I know more people that have done this then copy MP3s.... And M$ is still in business, being charged with a monopoly no less. Food for thought.
Given that space-shifting is now legal, it becomes possible for non-profit websites to legally distribute ripped music, I think. If they require everyone who enters their site to acknowledge that they must own whatever CD the songs they are downloading comes from, then that might be construed as fair use.
The web sites are only providing a convenience: the music the user already owns in mp3 format. It seems to me this might stand up in court if someone has the uhmmm... courage to go up against the RIAA.
Just my opinion and all...
personal attacks hurt, especially when deserved
but I'd imagine that the site owner would also need to own all of the material. Given the scale of some sites I find this highly unlikely.
The whole notion of claiming that someone might be entitled to "fair use" of a copy that is not legitimately owned, is absurd. My disdain for the RIAA aside, I see groups promoting ideas like this just as guilty of pursuing their own (extreme) self-interest.
The idea was mentioned (by another poster) for a Recording Artists Association of America. This seems like it might be a great idea - if the chances of it become yet another bloated, money-grabbing bureaucracy were minimal. Artists could then have full control over how they distribute their work, and how much they're paid for it. I have a feeling though, that even IF a major shift like this were to occur, there'd still be a faction of people who think they're entitled to enjoy an artist's work for free. Let's call it entertitlement - the newest form of welfare.
I thought for a sec they will be talking about how
you have the right to shift your stuff from time
domain to frequency domain (video part of MPEG
uses FFTs) Heh.
This is the crux of the battle between any purveyor of information commodities in analog/physical format and a purveyor of the very same commodity in digital format (or sometimes even between 2 digital formats!). The law is awkwardly worded to refer to a digital audio device which could be marketed to consumers, which, according to this ruling, excludes whatever bizarre things we choose do with our general-purpose digital devices. Observe:
(3) A ''digital audio recording device'' is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use, except for -
(A) professional model products, and
(B) dictation machines, answering machines, and other audio recording equipment that is designed and marketed primarily for the creation of sound recordings resulting from the fixation of nonmusical sounds.
I'm not quite sure how calling the Rio a "peripheral" excludes it from this law. In fact, I'm not quite sure how you can call the Rio a peripheral, since it's actually useful even without a computer, as opposed to a printer, scanner, modem, etc. Nonetheless, this law seems to apply as easily to Winamp and RealJukebox as it does to the Rio (after all, is software not a device, albeit not a physical one?)
In any event, the courts (and businesses) are going to have a hard time of determining what is the nature of any information commodity as it becomes available in digital form, and consequently, is easily accessed from any of a number of devices. Books, TV shows and movies, and phone calls will certainly cause growing pains (and quite possibly, bankruptcy) for publishers, networks, studios, cable companies, and phone companies (not to mention ISPs) as the physical media are replaced by digital formats.
One thing is certain, though: the excuse of "it's just part of a computer, not an X" is not going to hold legal weight much longer. It won't make any sense when your TV/VCR, radio, and phone are computers or network devices.
- Richie (with apologies to Nicholas Negroponte)
How many industries can survive for 100 years? Perhaps some companies that deal in natural or addictive resoruces like metals, paper, or tabacco. But the record industry is less then 150 years old. Technology created it, and technology can destroy it. It does not matter what the main stream population does. The sheep can follow whoever they want. Our music will always be free for us! Let the masses pay for their over priced CD. Somebody will rip it for us and we'll get it for free down the line. WE are the intelligencia. We are the TRUE rulers.
I believe in DUNE they said, "He who controls the spice, controls the universe!" Substitute technology with spice in that sentence and you have the truth of our modern age.
To me, the scary thing about this whole business
is that the Recording Powers have once again succeeded in preventing home users to use a great digital medium to play their home-created material. Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't it be impossible in "Phase II" and beyond, for home users to play back tracks, on one of RIO and friends, even if they wrote and recorded the material themselves? Or will it still be possible to encrypt your own (homemade/mixed) songs yourself, so you can listen to them on your own player, assuming the actual recording was done elsewhere? What I'm really getting at is, will it be possible to distribute your own, free music, with appropriate (meaningless) encryption, if necessary, so that others can listen to it on a RIO, or will only the recording industry have the power to do that?
You could ignore many of the clauses of those licenses anyway. Things like reverse engineering have legal precedent to be under fair use. That's why the software companies are trying to change the laws on that, and put some legal substance into them, as well as make practices like remote disabling of software legal as well. (Didn't pay your Office bill this month? MS comes in and shuts off your Office apps!)
Even if this ruling implies that you can copy your software all over the place like that, it won't hurt the bottom lines of most companies. It happens now all the time, and MS isn't cash-starved because of it.
It's not the pirates that will push this view, it will be the record companies! They're going to get their lobbiests to start whining about how it is possibly "legal" to pirate music, and use that to manipulate Congress into fixing it, i.e. passing more stupid laws like the Digital Recording Act that funnel money to the RIAA.
It really is strange, though, that copyright lawyers would draw that conclusion. When you inadvertantly buy stolen goods you're not allowed to keep them, so how could anyone claim you're entitled to stolen music, for free!? It makes me wonder if those two lawyers aren't shills for the RIAA, already putting the above scenario into effect.
Very well put and thought-provoking
I'll only argue with one small point: The Japanese do not control the record industry. MCA/Universal was the content company Matsushita purchased. They since sold it to Seagrams (a Canadian company), which I think has since bought Polygram (which was previously Dutch-owned).
Just as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, North Americans still overwhelimingly own & run the entertainment content business (Sony's ownership of Columbia being the big exception), while Japanese (and to some extent Korean) companies overwhelmingly own & run the entertainment hardware business.
Do audio-only CD burners actually sell?
I can put a CDR drive into my PC for about $175. If I already have a good (I do) CD-ROM drive that can rip Audio, I can dupe audio CD's quite readily, at that minimal cost of $175.
Of course, using the Windows-based Adaptec EZ CD software won't do for Library CDs (scratched all to hell, and yes, I'm being a serious pirate here). That's why I have a second drive in my Linux box with CDParanoia compiled on it. Add 100-base ethernet, and you have a fine combination for volume production (or build XCDRoast if you're a Linux purist, and your CDR is SCSI- SCSI emulation seems to kill CDParanoia on my hardware). 50 CD spindles sell right over the counter (retail, cash, i.e. no tracability to me) for $60.
I guess I've described severe hardware literacy here, but it's a far cry cheaper than buying a specialized machine that's only utility is copying Audio CDs.
This is interesting. If you stick a copy of, say, Winblows 98 on your Hotline server, and I pull a copy off an install it in my computer, how's that not "space-shifting" the digital work too?
I haven't read the actual text of the ruling, but this seems to be in quite a spot for blowing the concept of copyrighting in general out of the water, to a more "give it to anyone, but don't sell it to anyone" mentality.
Personally I think that's a more reasonable interpretation of the concept of a copyright anyway... don't limit who can use something, limit who can profit from its use. Of course in this case distributing the copy is still illegal, but being in posession of said copy isn't.
Maybe we'll start to see some intelligence re: software patents one of these days. Or worse these "business practice" patents.
Can someone help me.
Does this ruling mean I can legally convert a purchased SDMI song to MP3?
This might require cracking the encryption, but is it legal?
And would software that did the cracking be legal?
The digital recording act isn't what the big change here is, its the concept of "space-shifting" a digital work. It depends how tightly the ruling was worded if it could be interpreted to mean any digital data.
Comes down to largely if the court said "digitally encoded music [video?]" or if they said digital content or other more generic thing.
No, you are specifically not allowed to broadcase anything that you specifically have a 'personal use license' to enjoy. And that's the extent of your rights to commercial music you've purchased on Tape, LP, or CD.
The RIAA collects 'tribute' if you even so much as play the CDs from your personal collection in your mom-and-pop market, or a party that you charge admission to attend.
I remember how upset they were when cassettes became big. "Oh, the end of an industry" they moaned. yeah, and I thought the same thing when CDs came out (because I was foolish), but tapes are still prevalent. I record some of my mp3s to tape to listen to in the car. If I had a CD-R, I'd probably make CDs of music to listen to in my car (if I had a car, and if that car had a CD player).
The RIAA is having a moo over mp3s since they're on the net, it's a lot easier to make copies of the music, as opposed to making tapes of everything, but it's the same principle. They should just shut up and start their own mp3 site. If they were really stuffy, they could make it a ratio site. Who cares.
I wouldn't go there anyway.
Insert mind here.
Does this mean that a site that does not charge for access can host a shoutcast server with ripped music without any legal snafo's? I know a University that would put a shoutcast server in about 15 minutes (about how long it would take to do a restore on a NT box) and put up a server if they did not any licensing fee problems.
Thanks
Scott
Scott
C{E,F,O,T}O
sboss dot net
email: scott@sboss.net
Scott
janitor
sdn website family
email: scott at sboss dot net
I'm not sure I understand the legal implications here, but it may constitute "fair use" to download, for personal use, a MP3 of an illegally copier or distributed song. This means that someone could set up sites in countries which have little or no copyright laws, and everyone in the US could download a copy without violating the law. If true, this is just plain wrong. Artist's do deserve protection for their copyrighted works.
I believe part of the argument stems from the fact that the Rio is not a recording device, just a playback device, and thus not covered by that law at all. The 'digital recording' has to already exist on your harddrive before it can be transfered to your Rio. In this sense the Rio is a computer periphial as opposed to a stand-alone device, since without a computer it is useless, even though it can be used away from the computer. I agree that being a recording device is not mutually exclusive with being a computer periphial, and in this case it is confusing to use them in the same argument/sentence.
The enemies of Democracy are
The apparent irony is that Sony runs ads saying "Copy your CDs onto MiniDiscs!" and Phillips is saying "Copy your CDs with our Audio CD Burner!" and meanwhile they're both fighting MP3.
However, not many people know that all blank recordable media sold in the US (Cassette, MiniDisc, Blank Audio CD) has a Record Company Tax built into the price. Just compare the cost of the Phillips blank Audio CD versus your standard computer blank - $3 versus $1.50, or twice as expensive. An audio cassette tape can be more expensive than a VHS tape.
This "Tax" is a complete scam, because it applies even if you are making recordings of non-copyrighted works (such as your own). MP3 are the tip of the media-less iceburg, and they're scrambling to come up with something to replace the 80s-era media tax comprismise. But, as it's been pointed out here repeately, anything they come up with is already obsolete.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
When you inadvertantly
:) ) And since you own the 'stolen' item legitimately already (as a CD), why should you be forced to give it up?
:)
buy stolen goods you're not allowed to keep them, so how could anyone claim you're entitled to stolen
music, for free!?
Maybe because of the circumstances? With stolen goods, as I understand it, you must return them because the original owner no longer has [whatever was stolen] (or perhaps so they can be used as evidence?). How can you return a 'stolen' copy of music, either to the 'original' owner (whoever that is decided to be -- the artist or the record company) or to the government for use in a legal proceeding? In the first case it's pointless since the original owner still has the 'stolen' item. In the second case you would almost certainly make another copy. (unless they wanted to take your hard drive
Perfectly reproducable stuff plays havoc with our legal system
Daniel
The courts have stated that is is legal to rip your own CD's. Now, we have know for a long time that there is nothing wrong with ripping your own CD's. However, The RIAA has maintained that ripping a CD and listening to music YOU PAID for is illigal. They were going to use this to their advantage to iradicate mp3's, and scare colleges into policies where all mp3's on networks are illigal. Now we have to law on our side saying you can rip your own CD's. The RIAA cannot spread this Fear, Uncertainty, and Illigality any longer. But remember, we have only won one battle. Not the war geach
Stuff like this worries me about how much longer I'll be able to hear my favorite music, because I listen to less popular stuff. The CDs are allways more expensive than CDs from the popular groups because fewer are sold. If pirating music becomes wide spread, then I'll have to pay even more for my CDs. Musicians like Ian Boody and Ron Boots might have trouble finding the money to continue making their music. Quite bad if it happens. I worry that if certain copies of music that are not paid for are made legal, musicans who practice thier artistry and talent in lesser popular varieties of music will have to find jobs elsewhere.
I have no trouble paying for music because I want the muscians I like to continue to make music. So, I don't allow people to copy my CDs, and I don't give away any MPEG files I make from my CDs.
"Luncheon meats make the sawdust in your stomach explode."
I'm not quite sure how calling the Rio a "peripheral" excludes it from this law. In fact, I'm not
quite sure how you can call the Rio a peripheral, since it's actually useful even without a
computer, as opposed to a printer, scanner, modem, etc. Nonetheless, this law seems to
apply as easily to Winamp and RealJukebox as it does to the Rio (after all, is software not a
device, albeit not a physical one?)
NO! Software is not a device. It's thinking like this that has put us into the horrible mess with software patents and such. If anything, software should be copyrighted at most. Where have you been the last five years? Have you paid any attention?
The big monolithic recording industry that we know today hasn't even been around 50 years.
Well into the 1950s, most records were made by local distributers or the artists themselves and were sold through local outlets. I heard once that in the 1950s US South, there was something like 100 independantly black owned record companies. (Are there even 100 independant/not-pirate MP3 sites on the whole WWW?)
The big national money wasn't really in the records - it was in the sheet music (so people could here their favorite local bands play the established tunes).
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
From how I understand it, it would be legal for those sites to distribute the material, However, once the material hits a locality that has copyright laws, it then becomes illegal.
"One of the most important aspects of this decision was the court's holding that computer hard drives are not subject to the Audio Home Recording Act," said EFF's Steele. This means that computer manufacturers can continue to design their products without any restrictions from the audio industry, she said.
One veteran copyright lawyer pointed out that if the Audio Home Recording Act does not apply to personal computers, which are important copying devices in the digital age, the law becomes almost meaningless and offers little or no protection to copyright holders, who worry about online music piracy......RIAA will seek to lobby Congress to have the law amended to extend to computers and computer peripherals.
Personally this scares me to death. So far the judges have used some common sense when it comes to issues like this, but I don't expect Congress to use much common sense under lobby pressure. If congress is stupid enough to accually amend the law, I can only imagine how destructive this would be to the computer industry. I see no possible way such a law could be followed without great expense. Such an expense could destroy much of the computer manufacures. Accually if pressured most would simply buckle and be forced to impliment SDMI or something stupid like that.
(I appologize if this was posted twice)
Ok, so I am off topic a little but I just got an idea. The RIAA sees digital distribution (MP3 or any of the better encoding methods) as a major competition to their business. Legally, they can't do a thing about non-RIAA artists/labels. They tried with the RIO but failed. The obvious indicator is the number of lawsuits bought against MP3.com. Digital distribution offers significantly easier distribution and lower overhead cost.
Now, the only advantage the RIAA has to make artists believe they actually do something. What's that you ask? Well, the RIAA "protects" them from piracy! All they would need are some comments from recent Slashdot MP3 stories. "Look at all those bad people out there that will pirate your songs. If you go to a little guy, they can't 'get them' because they aren't as big as we are. And, if you even think of going on the net, you won't get 1/10 the royalities you do from us because of the pirates." In other words, it's the perfect mind game: make someone think they are in a good situation by making others look worse. Kindof like when your parents told you to eat your vegetables because there were millions of kids that didn't have any food at all.
Does that make sense to anyone else or am I just hallucinating again? Ovbiously the worst thing to do here would be threaten to pirate more because the RIAA's little game just becomes stronger (someone a little more paranoid than I may wonder if some of the pro-piracy comments on slashdot are RIAA sponsered....) Instead, maybe people should start supporting artists by buying their mp3's (or even non-RIAA CDs) and tell new artists about the advantages of a site like mp3.com. Not everyone knows about mp3 (most people don't) so it's quite likely an artist wouldn't know (except for the piracy part from the RIAA...).
Ok, right now bandwidth on the net is MUCH to small
to send movies of any quality. I wouldn't be surprised if in
a few decades we will be having the same discussion about
high compression mpegs. Of course there the movie
industry does spend millions to produce the special
effects in movies.
Actually, I hope a similar thing happens to publishing companies
where does the $50 I spend for a book go? All that
money doesn't go to the author, I can tell you that!
I'm pretty sure that you're allowed to 'broadcast' anything that you legally own, shoutcasting included.
With this ruling I wonder about copying software for 'fair use'. Can I now forget/disregard the increasingly stringent rules implied by shrinkwrap licenses and claim fair use when I copy software from the original CD to my work PC, home PC, laptop and whatever other hardware I own and use personally? This ruling might have very interesting implications far beyond music.
I can just see one more nail in the coffin of non-free software.
Look at it this way. You can do that now, nothing can take that away from you. You can't uninvent something.
You seriously think MP3 will go away? Heck no! It may be replaced by something else, but free music is here to stay. If I can hear the music, through ANY means, then it is possible to put it on a computer system and give it to others. There is NO way that can be taken away. It might be illegal, but I can still do it. Don't let the record companies fool you. You CAN do whatever you want. You may be not allowed to, but they can't stop you from actually doing it.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangst:
The Rio doesn't "make copies" it plays copies.
The laws that the US has regarding kiddie porn do not make it illegal to own a VCR simply because you can play an illegal tape on it.
>>the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of
We get around this portion because CD-RIPPING is not marketed as nor the primary function of most computers.
The RIAA is going to simply insure their own extinction.
LK