It doesn't specifically speak to the downloader's side of things, and that is still a gray area, as far as I know there are no precedents considering downloading copies of something you already own.
In fact there are very few cases involving downloading period. It's considered a much harder legal case to prove, and the music and movie industries have instead preferred to go after people uploading work they own, since that is pretty clear cut infringement under current case law. The way most of these networks are designed downloaders are also uploaders, so why try to prove the harder thing when the easier thing is almost always present?
Downloading is illegal, and there have been several cases -- including an earlier part of the Naspter litigation -- that have held so.
There might be a fair use defense if you're downloading a copy to space shift, but it strikes me as being very weak.
The actual reason for pursuing uploaders is that 1) they're easier to find, and 2) shutting down an uploader has a greater impact. Usually in these cases, one goes after the head of the snake. That's why originally they went after the companies providing the P2P network. The idea was that if they could be shut down, a lot of infringing activity couldn't occur. Now you go after uploaders too, since bringing one down will have collateral affects on numerous downloaders.
Shutting down a mere downloader doesn't provide any kind of real bonus. They're the tail of the snake.
But don't misread the fact that they're the least-suitworthy target into some notion that they're safe legally. They're not.
But they didn't win, and ruled that since their service had very little non-infringing use, they were committing contributory infringement.
No, Napster was not found liable because they were unable to use the Sony defense. In fact, they WERE able to use the Sony defense. Sony however, is only a defense to contributory infringement by means of the capabilities of the technology. It doesn't -- and didn't -- prevent being sued for contributory or vicarious infringement because of other things that they did. You should read the Napster opinion; it's all there.
And also, under Sony, a technology need only be potentially capable of substantial noninfringing uses. It doesn't matter what actual uses there are at the time. Of course, Grokster, due any time now, might change that.
I think it would work. The problem is that in THIS CASE, it wasn't Napster that had the file at all. So the only thing they did that could be a direct infringement was providing the list.
I think it's good for people here to bear in mind that this one ruling isn't a huge deal; Napster still went down for a host of other reasons. This little win isn't going to bring back the golden days of P2P.
Now what we need is that proof be required you willingly and knowingly offered and distributed works. Correct me if I'm wrong, but currently, are you not be liable for accidentally leaving an insecure/shared directory where someone downloaded unauthorized copyrighted material from you?
Right now, copyright is a strict liability offense. It doesn't matter whether you infringe unknowingly, or by accident, so long as responsibility appropriately falls on you.
So if a virus makes your machine a zombie in a file sharing network, then you might be ok. But if you leave a share open and it's used to share files, you can be in trouble for that. Some ISPs have successfully argued that where they don't oversee what's on their servers, and the servers run automatically, that they should escape liability, however.
Your mental state can have an affect on the amount of damages, however. For the unwitting infringer, he might be so lucky as to pay no more than $200 - $30,000 per work infringed.
So participating in a bittorrent may not be proof of wrong doing anymore.
Oh?
Would Fox now have to prove that someone actually came away from the swarm with a full Simpsons episode and that all of the bits came from me?
No. Depends on what they want to do, but at a minimum they just have to show that they have the copyright to the episode, someone made a copy of at least part of an episode, that you helped them do it (e.g. by providing some of that part), and that you knew it at the time.
This ruling is that providing an index isn't a direct infringement. But it's still possible to be liable for indirect infringements, such as contributory infringement and vicarious infringement. Basically, if you help, or are sufficiently commercially involved with, an infringer, you're responsible too.
BT trackers are very vulnerable to contributory infringement actions, and often vicarious infringement actions too.
Remember, all Napster did was help uploaders and downloaders infringe -- and they got shut down. BT trackers aren't significantly different.
Not only should they have to prove that you distributed it, but they should also have to prove that you distributed it to someone who doesn't have the legal right to have it.
Well, you'd better write your congressmen, because as the law is right now, it doesn't matter who you distributed to, if the distribution is itself an infringement.
If I downloaded SUPER MARIO, but I already own a copy (or 8) of it, then nobody committed a crime, right?
Not enough facts to discuss whether or not it's a crime. It is an infringement, however, and that's a civil offense.
you can download a copy from someone else if you own the article in question
This is not true in the US. Perhaps there would be a fair use, but it's far from certain (and space shifting is not on solid ground anyway). IIRC, Napster tried to raise this as a defense, and failed.
But since copyright infringement is a strict liability affair, if you do download it, and that download is infringing, it doesn't matter whether or not you knew that it was the movie or not. You're still responsible.
Rather more importantly, is a portion of a movie FILE copyrighted?
As a rule, yes.
Usually, you need the entire file in order to have it be readable.
So?
Hmm... are.rar's downloaded from multiple people immune to the law?
No. I would also encourage you to bear in mind this rule of thumb: not only is it usually impossible to escape the law by being clever, but those who work in the law are clever too, and won't be deterred by the likes of you.
Either there is infringement, or there is not. If there is infringement (based upon the distribution of even a small part of a work) then damages are calculated normally.
Normally when people are talking about patents, they mean utility patents, not design patents. And industrial designs have trouble being copyrightable, due to the utility doctrine.
512(a) for transitory communications across a network. 512(b) for caching for multiple users. 512(c) for data put on servers by users. 512(d) for search engines.
You can use more than one, if you need to. But they all have their various conditions that have to be complied with (which, due to how the statute is written, might be in different subsections of 512).
Re:The author is the copyright owner
on
GPL Hard to Enforce?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The author of a work is the copyright owner in perpetuity
Well, only for the duration of the copyright, anyway. Assuming the work is copyrightable.
If there are multiple authors then the authors as a group own the copyright.
Well, jointly, anyway.
A work is technically, and legally, copyright upon creation by the author.
Again, if copyrightable.
You don't have to register something with the US Copyright Office for it to be protected.
Unfortunately.
The point of registering with the Copyright Office is to provide an official registration so that if you are legally challenged, it's likely the first person to register is the owner. But it's nothing more than a measure of protection.
There's a bit more to it. For example, you can't bring an infringement action unless you've registered.
If I create a work and you register the copyright in your name, the burden of proof falls to me to prove that I created it first.
Of course, there is the possibility of independent creation. And no, registrations aren't automatically prima facie evidence of ownership unless made before publication, or less than five years after. Thus, for some registrations, the registrant still has to prove his ownership of the copyright.
Also, you mean the burden of persusasion. The burden of persusasion is essentially who has to prove what, the burden of proof is how convincing they need to be in order to do it.
So putting your name on it does nothing for it.
Well, it's an issue as to term length (if the first 'it' is the work), and it doesn't hurt.
Does setting up any sort of firewall (be in incoming or outgoing) count as "selection of material"?
An interesting question. AFAIK it hasn't been examined.
part 10 is a bit dubious. Does compliance mean handing over everything immediately when someone's lawyer blinks at them, or does it mean they have a chance to refuse turning over information if the request is illegal or otherwise invalid through otherwise legal means?
Oh, you can always challenge these things, but it'll vary whether you can do so before making a disclosure, or afterwards. Still, when someone starts issuing these kinds of requests or orders to you, that's when you want to get a lawyer that deals in these sorts of matters, ASAP.
Interestingly, there have been some cases recently holding that the 512(h) subpoenas (which are easy for plaintiffs to use) don't apply in 512(a) cases, for various reasons I won't get into here. However, this doesn't bar all attempts to force disclosure; John Doe lawsuits can still be filed and normal discovery processes employed.
That's because the software embodies both patentable and copyrightable subject matter, but they're still not the same.
The expression of the software is copyrightable. The method by which the software works is patentable. But you can't patent the expression, and you can't copyright the method.
ISPs are not common carriers. Thus, it's possible that they could be liable for what goes over the network. There have been court cases that have gone both ways. In response to this uncertainty, Congress set up a safe harbor at 17 USC 512. It makes things clear, but requires ISPs to take some steps to comply with it.
For this sort of application, the 512(a) exception seems best. 512(a) protects C from liability stemming from C's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for C, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections. Note that 512(a) does not protect C from liability stemming from anything else it does.
In order to qualify all of the following requirements have to be met:
(1) The transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than C;
(2) The transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by C;
(3) C does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;
(4) No copy of the material made by C in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections;
(5) The material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.
(6) C must have adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of C's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of C's system or network who are repeat infringers; and
(7) C must accommodate and not interfere with standard technical measures. "Standard technical measures" means technical measures that are used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works and-- (A) have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry standards process; (B) are available to any person on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; and (C) do not impose substantial costs on service providers (such as C) or substantial burdens on their systems or networks.
(8) C must be an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.
(9) C must be a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, which is inclusive of (8) above.
(10) C must comply with applicable subpoenas and court orders.
I believe a jury of 12 peers would give me the lighest sentence under the law, if they even found me guily.
For a civil suit, in which case the word you want is 'liable' not 'guilty,' I'd guess based on the figures provided in your post that a lenient award would be about $75,000. But that doesn't mean that RIAA couldn't claim about $15 million in damages when they bring the suit. It just means you would've gotten off lightly.
If you'd like to confirm these figures, feel free. The relevant statute is 17 USC 504(c).
At any rate, it's your choice. I don't care, I just don't like to see misinformation about allofmp3's illegality.
But what happens if I add a drive, then remove another one? I like the parity features of RAID, I just don't want upgrading drives to be any harder than it has to be.
602 is not only a red herring, it doesn't work on its own merits.
Here's how it works:
The world of copyright deals with three things. First, creative works, which are intangible. The story printed in a book is the same story, no matter what book, or how many books it's printed in. That story is a work. Second, copies, which are tangible. Those books -- not the story in them, but the physical object made out of paper -- is a copy, so long as an instance of the work is within. And third, copyrights, which are rights that pertain to creative works, and may have some incidental affects on copies.
That only a tangible object can be a copy is set forth in the law at 17 USC 101. Thus an mp3 is NOT a copy. The medium it's on -- such as a hard drive, a CD, RAM, etc. -- is the copy.
Importation under 602 requires that copies -- tangible objects -- be brought into the US from abroad. Obviously this is impossible with a download. You cannot download a physical object.
What actually happens when you download is that you make a new copy, i.e. you take the intangible work and fix it into a tangible medium, making that medium a copy.
If you hold a tape recorder with a mic up to the stage at a concert, you are making a copy; the copy is the tape. If the mic is attached by a cord, you're still making a copy. If the cord is a hundred yards long, you're still making a copy. If the mic is attached to a phone, and you're on the other side of the world, taping what you hear over the phone, you're still making a copy.
You are not moving a copy, however, since nothing tangible is popping out of the other end of the wire.
Since a copy is a tangible object, and it is illegal to make copies as a rule (see 17 USC 106), it doesn't even matter if the copy from which you made yours is deleted. That's irrelevant. And since the downloader in the allofmp3 situation is the one that caused the process to occur (it's not like stuff was downloaded against your will) you're the one held responsible. And since we're talking about downloaders in the US, they're subject to US law, regardless of whether or not the uploader is.
602 is an exception ONLY to distribution. Not to reproduction. Thus, it is useless here.
But even if it were applicable, which it is not, it won't help you. This is because section 602 is divided into two subsections. The 602(a)(2) exception only applies to 602(a). There is ALSO a prohibition in 602(b), and 602(a)(2) doesn't have any affect on it. So even if you were bringing copies into the country -- which you're not -- you'd still be breaking the law.
Looks legit enough to me.
I guess that's because you're looking at a self-serving faq, and not at the law in question.
Depends on how. Remember, I'm advocating changing the laws, but I think that we should do so to generally comply with the public's norms. (At least for this issue) So if a lot of people are pirating music, this leads me to believe that we should probably legalize that piracy, or at least seriously think about it.
Yes, it might have some impacts on current businesses (while creating new opportunities for other ones) but copyright law should serve the public, not business.
It just suggests a real disconnect that would probably stop if they had to look that artist in the eye as they climbed over the fence. Can't you hear the conversation? "I love your music! You're so great! Now, can you help me down off of this fence so I can watch you perform for me? I didn't want to pay you."
And thus we might see that the public generally is in favor of allowing performers (or venues) to require people to pay to attend, but also in favor of copying music. People can be complicated.
No, of course not. Because I happen to know that my neighbor's enjoyment of her garden is its own reward. People who like to get paid for producing beautiful landscapes are called landscape architects, or professional gardeners. If they want to get into that (tough) line of work, that's what they'll do, and they'll find people (or municipalities, or businesses) that actually do want to improve the looks of their environment, and have other things to focus on... and hence the money they pay for the physical work, as well as the creativity of people like that.
We're not really talking about labor. No one is saying that we should whip artists to make them create stuff. The issue is what happens after artists willingly create stuff. Do we grant them a monopoly with regards to their stuff, or do we not give them special favors?
Our initial inclination should be to not give away monopolies, since they're bad news. Copies of works are commodities, and ideally would be priced accordingly. Copyright interferes with this. Copies should be made by anyone with an interest, given concerns about free speech, free markets, etc. But copyright interferes with this.
Copyright might, for all that, be somewhat beneficial, but we can't take it as a given.
This raises something I've always been curious about re: raid. Can you make a raid out of dissimilar drives? E.g. a 100GB drive and three 200GB drives? Or replace a dead drive with a larger one, or a different model of identical capacity? (Since it might be hard to get an identical replacement years down the road)
Can all the drives be used efficiently, or is this wasteful in some way? Would it be better to periodically create new raids with new drives, rather than trying to preserve one by slowly upgrading it in a piecemeal fashion over time?
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't specifically speak to the downloader's side of things, and that is still a gray area, as far as I know there are no precedents considering downloading copies of something you already own.
In fact there are very few cases involving downloading period. It's considered a much harder legal case to prove, and the music and movie industries have instead preferred to go after people uploading work they own, since that is pretty clear cut infringement under current case law. The way most of these networks are designed downloaders are also uploaders, so why try to prove the harder thing when the easier thing is almost always present?
Downloading is illegal, and there have been several cases -- including an earlier part of the Naspter litigation -- that have held so.
There might be a fair use defense if you're downloading a copy to space shift, but it strikes me as being very weak.
The actual reason for pursuing uploaders is that 1) they're easier to find, and 2) shutting down an uploader has a greater impact. Usually in these cases, one goes after the head of the snake. That's why originally they went after the companies providing the P2P network. The idea was that if they could be shut down, a lot of infringing activity couldn't occur. Now you go after uploaders too, since bringing one down will have collateral affects on numerous downloaders.
Shutting down a mere downloader doesn't provide any kind of real bonus. They're the tail of the snake.
But don't misread the fact that they're the least-suitworthy target into some notion that they're safe legally. They're not.
But they didn't win, and ruled that since their service had very little non-infringing use, they were committing contributory infringement.
No, Napster was not found liable because they were unable to use the Sony defense. In fact, they WERE able to use the Sony defense. Sony however, is only a defense to contributory infringement by means of the capabilities of the technology. It doesn't -- and didn't -- prevent being sued for contributory or vicarious infringement because of other things that they did. You should read the Napster opinion; it's all there.
And also, under Sony, a technology need only be potentially capable of substantial noninfringing uses. It doesn't matter what actual uses there are at the time. Of course, Grokster, due any time now, might change that.
I think it would work. The problem is that in THIS CASE, it wasn't Napster that had the file at all. So the only thing they did that could be a direct infringement was providing the list.
I think it's good for people here to bear in mind that this one ruling isn't a huge deal; Napster still went down for a host of other reasons. This little win isn't going to bring back the golden days of P2P.
No, just sounds like an offer to me. Of course, I generally avoid criminal law.
At any rate, it doesn't matter. Words can and often do have specialized meanings in different areas of the law.
Now what we need is that proof be required you willingly and knowingly offered and distributed works. Correct me if I'm wrong, but currently, are you not be liable for accidentally leaving an insecure/shared directory where someone downloaded unauthorized copyrighted material from you?
Right now, copyright is a strict liability offense. It doesn't matter whether you infringe unknowingly, or by accident, so long as responsibility appropriately falls on you.
So if a virus makes your machine a zombie in a file sharing network, then you might be ok. But if you leave a share open and it's used to share files, you can be in trouble for that. Some ISPs have successfully argued that where they don't oversee what's on their servers, and the servers run automatically, that they should escape liability, however.
Your mental state can have an affect on the amount of damages, however. For the unwitting infringer, he might be so lucky as to pay no more than $200 - $30,000 per work infringed.
No, the requirements of an offense have to be satisfied.
Copyright laws deal with copyrighted works. You can't use them for anything else.
If you want a law involving confidential information (which would cover different materials than copyright anyway) then get one of those.
But you're trying to hammer a nail with an orange here.
So participating in a bittorrent may not be proof of wrong doing anymore.
Oh?
Would Fox now have to prove that someone actually came away from the swarm with a full Simpsons episode and that all of the bits came from me?
No. Depends on what they want to do, but at a minimum they just have to show that they have the copyright to the episode, someone made a copy of at least part of an episode, that you helped them do it (e.g. by providing some of that part), and that you knew it at the time.
Basically nothing.
This ruling is that providing an index isn't a direct infringement. But it's still possible to be liable for indirect infringements, such as contributory infringement and vicarious infringement. Basically, if you help, or are sufficiently commercially involved with, an infringer, you're responsible too.
BT trackers are very vulnerable to contributory infringement actions, and often vicarious infringement actions too.
Remember, all Napster did was help uploaders and downloaders infringe -- and they got shut down. BT trackers aren't significantly different.
Not only should they have to prove that you distributed it, but they should also have to prove that you distributed it to someone who doesn't have the legal right to have it.
Well, you'd better write your congressmen, because as the law is right now, it doesn't matter who you distributed to, if the distribution is itself an infringement.
If I downloaded SUPER MARIO, but I already own a copy (or 8) of it, then nobody committed a crime, right?
Not enough facts to discuss whether or not it's a crime. It is an infringement, however, and that's a civil offense.
you can download a copy from someone else if you own the article in question
This is not true in the US. Perhaps there would be a fair use, but it's far from certain (and space shifting is not on solid ground anyway). IIRC, Napster tried to raise this as a defense, and failed.
But since copyright infringement is a strict liability affair, if you do download it, and that download is infringing, it doesn't matter whether or not you knew that it was the movie or not. You're still responsible.
Rather more importantly, is a portion of a movie FILE copyrighted?
.rar's downloaded from multiple people immune to the law?
As a rule, yes.
Usually, you need the entire file in order to have it be readable.
So?
Hmm... are
No. I would also encourage you to bear in mind this rule of thumb: not only is it usually impossible to escape the law by being clever, but those who work in the law are clever too, and won't be deterred by the likes of you.
No, there would be no affect on the damages.
Either there is infringement, or there is not. If there is infringement (based upon the distribution of even a small part of a work) then damages are calculated normally.
Normally when people are talking about patents, they mean utility patents, not design patents. And industrial designs have trouble being copyrightable, due to the utility doctrine.
There are four safe harbors in 512.
512(a) for transitory communications across a network.
512(b) for caching for multiple users.
512(c) for data put on servers by users.
512(d) for search engines.
You can use more than one, if you need to. But they all have their various conditions that have to be complied with (which, due to how the statute is written, might be in different subsections of 512).
The author of a work is the copyright owner in perpetuity
Well, only for the duration of the copyright, anyway. Assuming the work is copyrightable.
If there are multiple authors then the authors as a group own the copyright.
Well, jointly, anyway.
A work is technically, and legally, copyright upon creation by the author.
Again, if copyrightable.
You don't have to register something with the US Copyright Office for it to be protected.
Unfortunately.
The point of registering with the Copyright Office is to provide an official registration so that if you are legally challenged, it's likely the first person to register is the owner. But it's nothing more than a measure of protection.
There's a bit more to it. For example, you can't bring an infringement action unless you've registered.
If I create a work and you register the copyright in your name, the burden of proof falls to me to prove that I created it first.
Of course, there is the possibility of independent creation. And no, registrations aren't automatically prima facie evidence of ownership unless made before publication, or less than five years after. Thus, for some registrations, the registrant still has to prove his ownership of the copyright.
Also, you mean the burden of persusasion. The burden of persusasion is essentially who has to prove what, the burden of proof is how convincing they need to be in order to do it.
So putting your name on it does nothing for it.
Well, it's an issue as to term length (if the first 'it' is the work), and it doesn't hurt.
Does setting up any sort of firewall (be in incoming or outgoing) count as "selection of material"?
An interesting question. AFAIK it hasn't been examined.
part 10 is a bit dubious. Does compliance mean handing over everything immediately when someone's lawyer blinks at them, or does it mean they have a chance to refuse turning over information if the request is illegal or otherwise invalid through otherwise legal means?
Oh, you can always challenge these things, but it'll vary whether you can do so before making a disclosure, or afterwards. Still, when someone starts issuing these kinds of requests or orders to you, that's when you want to get a lawyer that deals in these sorts of matters, ASAP.
Interestingly, there have been some cases recently holding that the 512(h) subpoenas (which are easy for plaintiffs to use) don't apply in 512(a) cases, for various reasons I won't get into here. However, this doesn't bar all attempts to force disclosure; John Doe lawsuits can still be filed and normal discovery processes employed.
That's because the software embodies both patentable and copyrightable subject matter, but they're still not the same.
The expression of the software is copyrightable. The method by which the software works is patentable. But you can't patent the expression, and you can't copyright the method.
ISPs are not common carriers. Thus, it's possible that they could be liable for what goes over the network. There have been court cases that have gone both ways. In response to this uncertainty, Congress set up a safe harbor at 17 USC 512. It makes things clear, but requires ISPs to take some steps to comply with it.
For this sort of application, the 512(a) exception seems best. 512(a) protects C from liability stemming from C's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for C, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections. Note that 512(a) does not protect C from liability stemming from anything else it does.
In order to qualify all of the following requirements have to be met:
(1) The transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than C;
(2) The transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by C;
(3) C does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;
(4) No copy of the material made by C in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections;
(5) The material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.
(6) C must have adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of C's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of C's system or network who are repeat infringers; and
(7) C must accommodate and not interfere with standard technical measures. "Standard technical measures" means technical measures that are used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works and--
(A) have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry standards process;
(B) are available to any person on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; and
(C) do not impose substantial costs on service providers (such as C) or substantial burdens on their systems or networks.
(8) C must be an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.
(9) C must be a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, which is inclusive of (8) above.
(10) C must comply with applicable subpoenas and court orders.
It sounds like the former must be the tricky part. Patents and copyrights protect mutually exclusive subject matter.
I believe a jury of 12 peers would give me the lighest sentence under the law, if they even found me guily.
For a civil suit, in which case the word you want is 'liable' not 'guilty,' I'd guess based on the figures provided in your post that a lenient award would be about $75,000. But that doesn't mean that RIAA couldn't claim about $15 million in damages when they bring the suit. It just means you would've gotten off lightly.
If you'd like to confirm these figures, feel free. The relevant statute is 17 USC 504(c).
At any rate, it's your choice. I don't care, I just don't like to see misinformation about allofmp3's illegality.
But what happens if I add a drive, then remove another one? I like the parity features of RAID, I just don't want upgrading drives to be any harder than it has to be.
602 is not only a red herring, it doesn't work on its own merits.
Here's how it works:
The world of copyright deals with three things. First, creative works, which are intangible. The story printed in a book is the same story, no matter what book, or how many books it's printed in. That story is a work. Second, copies, which are tangible. Those books -- not the story in them, but the physical object made out of paper -- is a copy, so long as an instance of the work is within. And third, copyrights, which are rights that pertain to creative works, and may have some incidental affects on copies.
That only a tangible object can be a copy is set forth in the law at 17 USC 101. Thus an mp3 is NOT a copy. The medium it's on -- such as a hard drive, a CD, RAM, etc. -- is the copy.
Importation under 602 requires that copies -- tangible objects -- be brought into the US from abroad. Obviously this is impossible with a download. You cannot download a physical object.
What actually happens when you download is that you make a new copy, i.e. you take the intangible work and fix it into a tangible medium, making that medium a copy.
If you hold a tape recorder with a mic up to the stage at a concert, you are making a copy; the copy is the tape. If the mic is attached by a cord, you're still making a copy. If the cord is a hundred yards long, you're still making a copy. If the mic is attached to a phone, and you're on the other side of the world, taping what you hear over the phone, you're still making a copy.
You are not moving a copy, however, since nothing tangible is popping out of the other end of the wire.
Since a copy is a tangible object, and it is illegal to make copies as a rule (see 17 USC 106), it doesn't even matter if the copy from which you made yours is deleted. That's irrelevant. And since the downloader in the allofmp3 situation is the one that caused the process to occur (it's not like stuff was downloaded against your will) you're the one held responsible. And since we're talking about downloaders in the US, they're subject to US law, regardless of whether or not the uploader is.
602 is an exception ONLY to distribution. Not to reproduction. Thus, it is useless here.
But even if it were applicable, which it is not, it won't help you. This is because section 602 is divided into two subsections. The 602(a)(2) exception only applies to 602(a). There is ALSO a prohibition in 602(b), and 602(a)(2) doesn't have any affect on it. So even if you were bringing copies into the country -- which you're not -- you'd still be breaking the law.
Looks legit enough to me.
I guess that's because you're looking at a self-serving faq, and not at the law in question.
But not by trashing the business in question.
Depends on how. Remember, I'm advocating changing the laws, but I think that we should do so to generally comply with the public's norms. (At least for this issue) So if a lot of people are pirating music, this leads me to believe that we should probably legalize that piracy, or at least seriously think about it.
Yes, it might have some impacts on current businesses (while creating new opportunities for other ones) but copyright law should serve the public, not business.
It just suggests a real disconnect that would probably stop if they had to look that artist in the eye as they climbed over the fence. Can't you hear the conversation? "I love your music! You're so great! Now, can you help me down off of this fence so I can watch you perform for me? I didn't want to pay you."
And thus we might see that the public generally is in favor of allowing performers (or venues) to require people to pay to attend, but also in favor of copying music. People can be complicated.
No, of course not. Because I happen to know that my neighbor's enjoyment of her garden is its own reward. People who like to get paid for producing beautiful landscapes are called landscape architects, or professional gardeners. If they want to get into that (tough) line of work, that's what they'll do, and they'll find people (or municipalities, or businesses) that actually do want to improve the looks of their environment, and have other things to focus on... and hence the money they pay for the physical work, as well as the creativity of people like that.
We're not really talking about labor. No one is saying that we should whip artists to make them create stuff. The issue is what happens after artists willingly create stuff. Do we grant them a monopoly with regards to their stuff, or do we not give them special favors?
Our initial inclination should be to not give away monopolies, since they're bad news. Copies of works are commodities, and ideally would be priced accordingly. Copyright interferes with this. Copies should be made by anyone with an interest, given concerns about free speech, free markets, etc. But copyright interferes with this.
Copyright might, for all that, be somewhat beneficial, but we can't take it as a given.
This raises something I've always been curious about re: raid. Can you make a raid out of dissimilar drives? E.g. a 100GB drive and three 200GB drives? Or replace a dead drive with a larger one, or a different model of identical capacity? (Since it might be hard to get an identical replacement years down the road)
Can all the drives be used efficiently, or is this wasteful in some way? Would it be better to periodically create new raids with new drives, rather than trying to preserve one by slowly upgrading it in a piecemeal fashion over time?
The problem with it, however, is that it's illegal for Americans at least, to use it. It doesn't really seem more attractive than free piracy then.