If a record store (in cozy with RIAA) sells CDs, and you pick the locks at night, borrow a CD, copy it, and bring it back without them knowing, who's fault is that?
Maybe slightly their fault for not locking things up well enough, but mostly yours for breaking in against their will. --
Doh. Got hung up in section 106(5). The exception just says that only a copyright holder can do all those things in public. But you're allowed to do them in private.
Just wanted to clarify so other people don't get hung up in that.
--
mp3.com should be forced to compensate companies for any ad revenue/subscription fees they made in relation to my.mp3.com.
Used CD stores profit from songs without having to pay the copyright owners a single cent. Profiting without reimbursement is fine in some cases, I think it should okay in this one too.
My.mp3.com is adding value to your CD... it tries to allow you to play it more conveniently. As such, it's adding value, and so it should be able to make money from that if people find it valuable. --
If the 18yo could PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're buying the beer for a 21yo, and they could PROVE that they're going to immediately give the beer to the 21yo without doing anything else, shouldn't it be legal for the 18yo to buy the beer for you?
Of course, it's nearly impossible for the 18yo to prove they won't drink it themselves, thus the law. But if they could, I don't see any problem with it. --
1) Yes, MP3.com, as a business, copied the MP3's. However, I think this should only be illegal if they subsequently give copies of the songs to employees or non-employees who don't already own a copy. I think the "business use" is put there because distributing music internally could cause large financial damages.
2) Businesses ARE allowed to make money from the RIAA's music without permission. For instance:
1) MP3 does have a right to distribute from the ASCAP (see here)
2) Do I have to be licensed from the ASCAP to sell a used CD on ebay? I'm distributing someone's copyright without their permission, and profiting from it. --
Another situation where people profit from other's copyrighted works without permission:
Used CD's. The store gets paid for their effort in bringing buyers and sellers together, and they get a bit more on top of that. This is completely legitimate. Yet they're still profiting from other's copyrighted works without permission. --
The lawsuit is not about any particular format. MP3.com copied 45,000 copyrighted CDs onto computer servers. Whether the copies on the servers are in MP3 or any other format is irrelevant -- the suit is about the unauthorized copying and has little to do with technology at all.
...
However, MP3.com does not own the rights to most, if any, of those 45,000 albums, and it had no right to copy them into a digital music library without getting authority from the people who own the copyrights.
Well lets be honest now... Earthlink had the permission of the copyright holders to do that.
Yes, in a way, by putting it up for all to see, CNN (for example) is giving permission for the data to be copied anywhere.
That's not quite right though. What if I printed off the CNN.com website and started handing out the copies to people? And charging enough to make a small profit since I'm giving them a more portable copy? Would that be okay? I'm guessing "no". So how is this different from the ISP case? I don't think it is. --
MP3.com absolutely did not broadcast the music. They gave copies of music to people who had already paid the copyright holders for the right to listen to it whenever and wherever they wanted. --
I bought a portable CD player the other day. I wouldn't have bought it if it weren't for the CD's that RIAA produces. The manufacturer profited from the RIAA's music by allowing me to listen to the RIAA's music in more places. The manufacturer didn't have an agreement with the RIAA to profit from their works. Yet they did it anyway. --
As much as I hate to say it, MP3.com was engaging in distributing copyrighted material without permission and deserve to lose the case
They distributed it to whom? People who had already paid for use of the copyrighted material. Does this require permission from the copyright holders? --
Anyone know of artists who are scared to release their music because of my.mp3.com? Now that their music is easier to use, who knows, people might start buying more music! --
does not mean that mp3.com has the right to profit off copying others work
*gasp*, believe it or not, Earthlink took in $450 million for the first half of 2000 by passing copyrighted data from the rightful copyright holders to you! They copied it over their networks and they profited from giving you access to someone else's works! I can't begin to imagine the amount of damage this has done in terms of scaring off future copyright holders. --
IMHO, MP3.com shouldn't have lost this case. I know there were legal reasons, but if you take a step back and look at the situation, I don't think that MP3.com actually harmed anyone or even caused loss of potential profits.
MP3.com was distributing mp3's to users who already owned the CD's, so the copyright holders were getting their money.
MP3.com was making money for providing access to someone else's intellectual property, yes. But ISP's also make money for providing more convenient access to other's IP. That's value added, so I personally think it's okay to make money then.
MP3.com shouldn't have to pay, it hasn't been shown that anyone was harmed. --
Slashdot Mirror
If a record store (in cozy with RIAA) sells CDs, and you pick the locks at night, borrow a CD, copy it, and bring it back without them knowing, who's fault is that?
Maybe slightly their fault for not locking things up well enough, but mostly yours for breaking in against their will.
--
Just wanted to clarify so other people don't get hung up in that.
--
Can you reference those court decisions? I've been looking, but it takes a lot of time.
--
For the actual law, see the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, Chapter 10, Section 1004(b).
--
Used CD stores profit from songs without having to pay the copyright owners a single cent. Profiting without reimbursement is fine in some cases, I think it should okay in this one too.
My.mp3.com is adding value to your CD... it tries to allow you to play it more conveniently. As such, it's adding value, and so it should be able to make money from that if people find it valuable.
--
Of course, it's nearly impossible for the 18yo to prove they won't drink it themselves, thus the law. But if they could, I don't see any problem with it.
--
2) My intention was to point out a case where it's legal to profit from someone else's copyrighted songs.
Yes, the laws say that mp3.com was wrong. I think the laws should be changed.
--
Argh, I can't find the text of Rakoff's ruling anymore, but yes, he agreed with the RIAA on that point.
--
Why should they be sued for profiting from other's copyrights without permission? These people do it legally:
--
2) Businesses ARE allowed to make money from the RIAA's music without permission. For instance:
--
2) Do I have to be licensed from the ASCAP to sell a used CD on ebay? I'm distributing someone's copyright without their permission, and profiting from it.
--
Used CD's. The store gets paid for their effort in bringing buyers and sellers together, and they get a bit more on top of that. This is completely legitimate. Yet they're still profiting from other's copyrighted works without permission.
--
- The lawsuit is not about any particular format. MP3.com copied 45,000 copyrighted CDs onto computer servers. Whether the copies on the servers are in MP3 or any other format is irrelevant -- the suit is about the unauthorized copying and has little to do with technology at all.
(emphasis mine)...
However, MP3.com does not own the rights to most, if any, of those 45,000 albums, and it had no right to copy them into a digital music library without getting authority from the people who own the copyrights.
--
Yes, in a way, by putting it up for all to see, CNN (for example) is giving permission for the data to be copied anywhere.
That's not quite right though. What if I printed off the CNN.com website and started handing out the copies to people? And charging enough to make a small profit since I'm giving them a more portable copy? Would that be okay? I'm guessing "no". So how is this different from the ISP case? I don't think it is.
--
I'm allowed to copy CDs onto my disk drive. What's the difference?
--
So does mp3.com. (see here).
--
MP3.com absolutely did not broadcast the music. They gave copies of music to people who had already paid the copyright holders for the right to listen to it whenever and wherever they wanted.
--
I bought a portable CD player the other day. I wouldn't have bought it if it weren't for the CD's that RIAA produces. The manufacturer profited from the RIAA's music by allowing me to listen to the RIAA's music in more places. The manufacturer didn't have an agreement with the RIAA to profit from their works. Yet they did it anyway.
--
Don't distribute music (you don't have rights to) to people who already paid for the music?
--
--
Anyway, with mp3.com, copyright holders see the money for every person that listens to the music. Big diff' 'tween napster and mp3.com.
--
They distributed it to whom? People who had already paid for use of the copyrighted material. Does this require permission from the copyright holders?
--
Anyone know of artists who are scared to release their music because of my.mp3.com? Now that their music is easier to use, who knows, people might start buying more music!
--
*gasp*, believe it or not, Earthlink took in $450 million for the first half of 2000 by passing copyrighted data from the rightful copyright holders to you! They copied it over their networks and they profited from giving you access to someone else's works! I can't begin to imagine the amount of damage this has done in terms of scaring off future copyright holders.
--
MP3.com was distributing mp3's to users who already owned the CD's, so the copyright holders were getting their money.
MP3.com was making money for providing access to someone else's intellectual property, yes. But ISP's also make money for providing more convenient access to other's IP. That's value added, so I personally think it's okay to make money then.
MP3.com shouldn't have to pay, it hasn't been shown that anyone was harmed.
--