The Canadian portion of my discussion was based purely on what little information I could find on the subject and really not something I've kept up on. I appreciate the heads up.
As for the other....
If her original intent was to make that copy available to others then the initial copying was a violation pure and simple. However, arguing intent is a tough road to follow. And to be honest, it's something that's very tough to prove for either side if pre-meditation isn't documented or a previous pattern of behaviour isn't shown somehow.
All that aside (and playing devil's advocate), why not argue damages based on legitimizing what she did? Charge her for a master use license to distribute, and the mechanical licensing and royalties. In other words, give her the opportunity to make her actions 'legal'. This would in fact be FAR more expensive than the proposed settlements as master use licenses are not exactly cheap.
You're confusing a few things...
The initial copy to her PC, from orignal media, is NOT a violation of copyright law. In fact, it's permitted under current copyright law based on the 'Fair Use' section of USC Title 17.
Specifically, the transfer of media from one format to another (what I call 'Format shifting' but the courts call 'space shifting') is permitted specifically under a case that the RIAA LOST previously. This case was RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia but is more commonly known as the Rio Decision. Under this decision it specifically permits end users to transfer copyrighted material to another format for personal use.
However, this same use of fair use does NOT permit the user to share that media after being transfered. It's this 'transfer' of the work to another person outside the limits of copyright law that is a criminal infraction.
But want to be really confused? Removing the DRM from an iTunes track is a violation of the terms of use agreement. That is a civil tort - not a criminal infraction. Same goes for the commerical use of that track. For example, if you're a DJ and play that track in a public performance, even if properly licensed with ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC (or CCLI) you are still in violation of the terms of use. This applies to almost every online music retailer. But wait! I'll just buy my CD's from Yourmusic.com, or the BMG/Columbia Record club. Think again. You're violating the terms of use with them as well. What makes it evne worse, is that in a lot of those cases, record clubs are considered promotional copies and the artist doesn't get paid for them! I recommend reading 'What they'll never tell you about the music business: The Myths, Secrets, Lies (& a Few Truths)' by Peter M. Thall. Great read if you want to find out how bad it can be for an artist!
As for copying, there are cases in some countries, including here in the US, where previous lawsuits have come back to bite the RIAA (or it's counterpart) in the butt. Specifically, there is a law here in the US tied to DAT. We are charged a 'tax' for each player, and blank tape sold. This is based on the assumption that the tapes will be copied - in other words, they assume you're going to break the law and just fine you right up front for doing so! IIRC, a similar situation in Canada is tied to CD media - or at least it was proposed as such. My understanding is that the 'tax' on CD media is meant to pay for the expected copyright violation from copying CD's. This is part of the reason why P2P services in Canada are handled and dealt with differently than the US. Other countries vary with their own laws - including in the UK where DJ's are required to pay for a license to use MP3's for playback.
Trust me on this... copyright law is nothing if not confusing as hell.
Slashdot Mirror
The Canadian portion of my discussion was based purely on what little information I could find on the subject and really not something I've kept up on. I appreciate the heads up. As for the other.... If her original intent was to make that copy available to others then the initial copying was a violation pure and simple. However, arguing intent is a tough road to follow. And to be honest, it's something that's very tough to prove for either side if pre-meditation isn't documented or a previous pattern of behaviour isn't shown somehow. All that aside (and playing devil's advocate), why not argue damages based on legitimizing what she did? Charge her for a master use license to distribute, and the mechanical licensing and royalties. In other words, give her the opportunity to make her actions 'legal'. This would in fact be FAR more expensive than the proposed settlements as master use licenses are not exactly cheap.
You're confusing a few things... The initial copy to her PC, from orignal media, is NOT a violation of copyright law. In fact, it's permitted under current copyright law based on the 'Fair Use' section of USC Title 17. Specifically, the transfer of media from one format to another (what I call 'Format shifting' but the courts call 'space shifting') is permitted specifically under a case that the RIAA LOST previously. This case was RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia but is more commonly known as the Rio Decision. Under this decision it specifically permits end users to transfer copyrighted material to another format for personal use. However, this same use of fair use does NOT permit the user to share that media after being transfered. It's this 'transfer' of the work to another person outside the limits of copyright law that is a criminal infraction. But want to be really confused? Removing the DRM from an iTunes track is a violation of the terms of use agreement. That is a civil tort - not a criminal infraction. Same goes for the commerical use of that track. For example, if you're a DJ and play that track in a public performance, even if properly licensed with ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC (or CCLI) you are still in violation of the terms of use. This applies to almost every online music retailer. But wait! I'll just buy my CD's from Yourmusic.com, or the BMG/Columbia Record club. Think again. You're violating the terms of use with them as well. What makes it evne worse, is that in a lot of those cases, record clubs are considered promotional copies and the artist doesn't get paid for them! I recommend reading 'What they'll never tell you about the music business: The Myths, Secrets, Lies (& a Few Truths)' by Peter M. Thall. Great read if you want to find out how bad it can be for an artist! As for copying, there are cases in some countries, including here in the US, where previous lawsuits have come back to bite the RIAA (or it's counterpart) in the butt. Specifically, there is a law here in the US tied to DAT. We are charged a 'tax' for each player, and blank tape sold. This is based on the assumption that the tapes will be copied - in other words, they assume you're going to break the law and just fine you right up front for doing so! IIRC, a similar situation in Canada is tied to CD media - or at least it was proposed as such. My understanding is that the 'tax' on CD media is meant to pay for the expected copyright violation from copying CD's. This is part of the reason why P2P services in Canada are handled and dealt with differently than the US. Other countries vary with their own laws - including in the UK where DJ's are required to pay for a license to use MP3's for playback. Trust me on this... copyright law is nothing if not confusing as hell.