We have a law that states making copies onto levied media (and as of the most recent statement, Hard Drives for the time being) for personal use is completely legal. Source of and systems used to create this copy are not discussed, and as such are irrelevent.
If you make a copy of a musical act for your own personal use, it is legal.
Hell, you can steal a computer, steal a CD, steal a CD-R, copy the CD onto the CD-R, and still be legally in the clear as far as copyright law goes. You'd go to jail for 3 counts of theft, and your copy will be confiscated for being on stolen goods, but it would still be a legal copy.
They also stated in their most recent rulings that Hard Drives are currently considered a permissible "audio recording medium" despite them not having any levies.
Interesting. Just occured to me that this seems to be a completely legal buisness model... Imagine iTunes, with no DRM, and downloads (bandwidth used) for $0.25? All you'd need is a massive array of CD-ROM drives.:)
Downloaders are making personal copies using the access to your system that you sold them. Any flaws?
Easy, Kazaa doesn't let you SEND files to others.:P It only allows them to ask your computer (not you) FOR them.
Sending copied music is illegal, allowing it to be sent from your computer isn't. Mind you, making a copy to be shared, is. Copies are only allowed for personal use remember. But that has nothing to do with how many (if any) people get that copy. One infringment for one shared song. Easy math.:)
And unfortunately for the CRIA, math that results in some pretty small numbers...:)
They've already made it very clear that setting up your computer to make a copy of a CD, up to and including moving the mouse over the "burn" button, and then allowing someone else to hit copy is completely legal for both parties. I fail to see how doing it over the internet would make it any less so.
However, there is a concern for people that share copied files on P2P networks, namely that if they're being shared to the public, they're no longer just for "personal use", and as such each copy you share was one you weren't allowed to make. As such, you can be sued for one count of infringment for each song you make avaliable to the public.
Hardly seems a worthwhile amount to me. Say 5000 songs. Retail value is what? At most $1.50 a song when bought on CD? So I can't see how they could sue for more than $7500, which is probably less than they pay their lawyers. They'd have to go for people with REALLY big collections for it to be worthwhile.
Besides, if you really want to get around this, as someone else stated, there's no restrictions on use of originals. Sharing a real CD is legal.
I take issue at this: "individually uploading and distributing four and five thousand copyrighted songs to potentially tens of millions of people"
IANAL, but on a P2P network, rarely do people actually perform an act of uploading. Rather, they make avaliable their computer and music for other people to use to create a copy. I can find nothing in the law that sais I'm not allowed to do that. In fact, it says I'm legally allowed to do all but hit the burn button to help someone else make a copy for personal use.
Also, we've already been told that downloaders are making a copy for personal use, and as such are not liable. Since there's only one copy being made when a song is downloaded, and they've said it's the downloaders making it, the person they got it from can't be said to be making an infringing copy for them.
So the number of people copying the file for their own personal use (ie: downloading), does not come into play in a case against an P2P "uploader".
Now, on the other hand. That person making 5000 songs supposedly for "personal use" avaliable on the 'net probably blows his rights to create those copies out of the water. As such, I can see a file sharer of being held resposible for exactly one count of copyright infringment per unauthorized copy of a song being shared.
Someone makes the data avaliable.. Umm, so what? no copyright infringement there.. Libraries make tons of info avaliable to the public.
Sets up a hosting machine, etc: So what? I can set up my machine to make CD copies, and as long as the person who's using that copy for personal use is the one that hits burn, there's no infringment. (The law is pretty clear on that.)
There is no "uploader". No one actually went and said: "Ok, send this to that person." All they did was give that other person the resources to make their own copy. As stated above, there's nothing illegal about that.
The only thing I can see (mind you, IANAL) about sharing files on P2P networks that is illegal is that if you're intentionally making music avaliable to the public, then it is no longer for personal use. In this case though, you're allowed to do things with original CDs that aren't for personal use. It's only unauthorized copies that you're bound to use only for personal use.
Whos's to say that me allowing my computer to be controlled by someone else over the internet to make a copy of the music for their personal use is me uploading though???
After all, they made it pretty clear that me helping someone else burn a CD on my computer is perfectly legal for all parties involved.
I guess where it might fall afoul is that if I intentionally made the copy avaliable to the public, then it is no longer a copy for personal use, and as such the copy I made is then infringing.
So I think these cases will have to hang on them being able to prove that the "uploader" did in fact make the copy for non-personal use. IE: show intent.
Sounds like they might have their work cut out for them. But then, as always, IANAL.
In the Canadian courts, I also have to wonder if their rediculous calculations for lost profits would actually hold up. If the downloaders are not guilty, and I'm not guilty of performing their copies, then I'm only left of being guilty of one infraction per shared song.. Not a large sum of money..
That's just it, no where has anyone been able to proove that 'sharing' ISN'T legal, based on the same law that gave us the Blank Media Levy. Users are allowed to make copies for themselves. They are not restricted to certain sources, or certain machines making the copies.
If I hit the "copy" button on someone else's computer over the 'net, it no more makes them guilty of copying the music for me than if I had walked over and hit it. And that is in fact an example given in the law itself as a LEGAL activity.
What we have here is SOCAN trying to create a Levy on something that is ALREADY legal.
Mind you, there are illegal music transfers going on over the 'net, such as uploading to FTP sites, but these aren't what SOCAN is describing.
I should also add, it does not specify that the copy has to be of an original, or that it has to be stored on a levied media. It states:
"audio recording medium" means a recording medium, regardless of its material form, onto which a sound recording may be reproduced and that is of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose, excluding any prescribed kind of recording medium;
IANAL, but it seems to me that I, as an "individual consumer" could store copyrighted sound recording in wave form on my foot without penalty, as long as I "ordinarily use it for that purpose".
I'm unsure what the "excluding any prescribed kind of recording medium" bit covers though, or if I am still allowed to "ordinarily" use my foot for other purposes as well...
Current legislation says distributing and copying for others is illegal.
It also says you MAY allow your computer to be used to create a copy for someone else, as long as that other person makes the copy.
It IS legal to sit your friend down on your computer, put the disc in the drive, move the mouse over the copy button, tell them to click "copy", take the disc out, put it in the case, and give it to them.
How, exactly, is this different if they're not in front of your computer, but rather clicking that "copy" button from over the 'net?
So while you are not technically allowed to, say upload a song to an FTP site, you most certainly ARE allowed to allow other people to download from you. As such THEY are making the copy. YOU had nothing to do with it. The fact your computer and your source was involved is completely irrelevant.
No, you are not "definately in legal trouble" for allowing your computer to be used by others. What else do you think a P2P program does? It doesn't give out copies, it doesn't force you to make copies for other people. What it does, is provide them access to your files, and allow them to make their own copies. None of that is illegal. You aren't copying for other people, or distributing copies to other people, you're simply letting them use your computer to make their own.
Sheesh, all these posts about how it used to be useful, and yet people don't realize that it's still completely functional in a program used by millions every day: Excel.
Turn on scroll lock, and the arrow keys will scroll rather than select cells.
Where have you been? Have you noticed the fact that it's important to be able to tell when a site doesn't exist? That this crap means typos can cripple most e-mail servers? That it invalidates a good section of the RFCs the Internet itself was based on???
Wake up. If you want to find a site, you use Google. If you want to go to a non-existant one, you should damn well be told there's nothing there.
The specific wording of the Copyright act essentially treats all music no matter the format the same, thus MP3s are included.
You know, I read that before, and just assumed that "a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose" was the same ones they define in the levy, but it doesn't actually say that does it?
In fact the phrase "by individual consumers" would lead me to beleive that if I "ordinarily" wrote out the wave form of the music on my foot, my foot would legally be an audio recording medium... Cool!:)
Slashdot Mirror
We have a law that states making copies onto levied media (and as of the most recent statement, Hard Drives for the time being) for personal use is completely legal. Source of and systems used to create this copy are not discussed, and as such are irrelevent.
If you make a copy of a musical act for your own personal use, it is legal.
Hell, you can steal a computer, steal a CD, steal a CD-R, copy the CD onto the CD-R, and still be legally in the clear as far as copyright law goes. You'd go to jail for 3 counts of theft, and your copy will be confiscated for being on stolen goods, but it would still be a legal copy.
They also stated in their most recent rulings that Hard Drives are currently considered a permissible "audio recording medium" despite them not having any levies.
Interesting. Just occured to me that this seems to be a completely legal buisness model... Imagine iTunes, with no DRM, and downloads (bandwidth used) for $0.25? All you'd need is a massive array of CD-ROM drives. :)
Downloaders are making personal copies using the access to your system that you sold them. Any flaws?
Easy, Kazaa doesn't let you SEND files to others. :P It only allows them to ask your computer (not you) FOR them.
:)
:)
Sending copied music is illegal, allowing it to be sent from your computer isn't. Mind you, making a copy to be shared, is. Copies are only allowed for personal use remember. But that has nothing to do with how many (if any) people get that copy. One infringment for one shared song. Easy math.
And unfortunately for the CRIA, math that results in some pretty small numbers...
They've already made it very clear that setting up your computer to make a copy of a CD, up to and including moving the mouse over the "burn" button, and then allowing someone else to hit copy is completely legal for both parties. I fail to see how doing it over the internet would make it any less so.
However, there is a concern for people that share copied files on P2P networks, namely that if they're being shared to the public, they're no longer just for "personal use", and as such each copy you share was one you weren't allowed to make. As such, you can be sued for one count of infringment for each song you make avaliable to the public.
Hardly seems a worthwhile amount to me. Say 5000 songs. Retail value is what? At most $1.50 a song when bought on CD? So I can't see how they could sue for more than $7500, which is probably less than they pay their lawyers. They'd have to go for people with REALLY big collections for it to be worthwhile.
Besides, if you really want to get around this, as someone else stated, there's no restrictions on use of originals. Sharing a real CD is legal.
"so long as I do not make any money"
Why? Is renting out use of a computer and selling CD-Rs illegal now?
Making it avaliable to your friend(s) is more for "personal use" than making it avaliable to the public, how exactly?
You mean the "uploader" allows his computer to send a copy of the bits under the control of the downloader...
Not such a tight line, is it?
I take issue at this: "individually uploading and distributing four and five thousand copyrighted songs to potentially tens of millions of people"
IANAL, but on a P2P network, rarely do people actually perform an act of uploading. Rather, they make avaliable their computer and music for other people to use to create a copy. I can find nothing in the law that sais I'm not allowed to do that. In fact, it says I'm legally allowed to do all but hit the burn button to help someone else make a copy for personal use.
Also, we've already been told that downloaders are making a copy for personal use, and as such are not liable. Since there's only one copy being made when a song is downloaded, and they've said it's the downloaders making it, the person they got it from can't be said to be making an infringing copy for them.
So the number of people copying the file for their own personal use (ie: downloading), does not come into play in a case against an P2P "uploader".
Now, on the other hand. That person making 5000 songs supposedly for "personal use" avaliable on the 'net probably blows his rights to create those copies out of the water. As such, I can see a file sharer of being held resposible for exactly one count of copyright infringment per unauthorized copy of a song being shared.
let me deconstruct this a bit for you:
Someone makes the data avaliable.. Umm, so what? no copyright infringement there.. Libraries make tons of info avaliable to the public.
Sets up a hosting machine, etc: So what? I can set up my machine to make CD copies, and as long as the person who's using that copy for personal use is the one that hits burn, there's no infringment. (The law is pretty clear on that.)
There is no "uploader". No one actually went and said: "Ok, send this to that person." All they did was give that other person the resources to make their own copy. As stated above, there's nothing illegal about that.
The only thing I can see (mind you, IANAL) about sharing files on P2P networks that is illegal is that if you're intentionally making music avaliable to the public, then it is no longer for personal use. In this case though, you're allowed to do things with original CDs that aren't for personal use. It's only unauthorized copies that you're bound to use only for personal use.
Read my post above: "But is it uploading???"
Making it avaliable online is enough to show it's no longer a personal copy, and such is infringing.
sounds legit to me.. see my post below for the reasons I can see.
Whos's to say that me allowing my computer to be controlled by someone else over the internet to make a copy of the music for their personal use is me uploading though???
After all, they made it pretty clear that me helping someone else burn a CD on my computer is perfectly legal for all parties involved.
I guess where it might fall afoul is that if I intentionally made the copy avaliable to the public, then it is no longer a copy for personal use, and as such the copy I made is then infringing.
So I think these cases will have to hang on them being able to prove that the "uploader" did in fact make the copy for non-personal use. IE: show intent.
Sounds like they might have their work cut out for them. But then, as always, IANAL.
In the Canadian courts, I also have to wonder if their rediculous calculations for lost profits would actually hold up. If the downloaders are not guilty, and I'm not guilty of performing their copies, then I'm only left of being guilty of one infraction per shared song.. Not a large sum of money..
Same thing that's wrong with a cop using a tracking device on your vehicle without a warrant as opposed to them following you.
That's just it, no where has anyone been able to proove that 'sharing' ISN'T legal, based on the same law that gave us the Blank Media Levy. Users are allowed to make copies for themselves. They are not restricted to certain sources, or certain machines making the copies.
If I hit the "copy" button on someone else's computer over the 'net, it no more makes them guilty of copying the music for me than if I had walked over and hit it. And that is in fact an example given in the law itself as a LEGAL activity.
What we have here is SOCAN trying to create a Levy on something that is ALREADY legal.
Mind you, there are illegal music transfers going on over the 'net, such as uploading to FTP sites, but these aren't what SOCAN is describing.
I should also add, it does not specify that the copy has to be of an original, or that it has to be stored on a levied media. It states:
"audio recording medium" means a recording medium, regardless of its material form, onto which a sound recording may be reproduced and that is of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose, excluding any prescribed kind of recording medium;
IANAL, but it seems to me that I, as an "individual consumer" could store copyrighted sound recording in wave form on my foot without penalty, as long as I "ordinarily use it for that purpose".
I'm unsure what the "excluding any prescribed kind of recording medium" bit covers though, or if I am still allowed to "ordinarily" use my foot for other purposes as well...
Current legislation says distributing and copying for others is illegal.
It also says you MAY allow your computer to be used to create a copy for someone else, as long as that other person makes the copy.
It IS legal to sit your friend down on your computer, put the disc in the drive, move the mouse over the copy button, tell them to click "copy", take the disc out, put it in the case, and give it to them.
How, exactly, is this different if they're not in front of your computer, but rather clicking that "copy" button from over the 'net?
So while you are not technically allowed to, say upload a song to an FTP site, you most certainly ARE allowed to allow other people to download from you. As such THEY are making the copy. YOU had nothing to do with it. The fact your computer and your source was involved is completely irrelevant.
No, you are not "definately in legal trouble" for allowing your computer to be used by others. What else do you think a P2P program does? It doesn't give out copies, it doesn't force you to make copies for other people. What it does, is provide them access to your files, and allow them to make their own copies. None of that is illegal. You aren't copying for other people, or distributing copies to other people, you're simply letting them use your computer to make their own.
Only on slashdot....
Thank god.
Huh. I knew someone a couple years ago that wanted to buy one for $100CAN. Sold him my Intellivision2. :)
Sheesh, all these posts about how it used to be useful, and yet people don't realize that it's still completely functional in a program used by millions every day: Excel.
Turn on scroll lock, and the arrow keys will scroll rather than select cells.
Wait until you meet an "anal golf teacher"!
Where have you been? Have you noticed the fact that it's important to be able to tell when a site doesn't exist? That this crap means typos can cripple most e-mail servers? That it invalidates a good section of the RFCs the Internet itself was based on???
Wake up. If you want to find a site, you use Google. If you want to go to a non-existant one, you should damn well be told there's nothing there.
Perhaps they should have the ability to get a rebate if they could prove that they were not used for music.
:) Sometime's I think we've got a pretty reasonable bunch of people running this country. Not often, but sometimes. :P
They do.
The only issue is, it costs money to apply. (I think someone said $60.)
The specific wording of the Copyright act essentially treats all music no matter the format the same, thus MP3s are included.
:)
You know, I read that before, and just assumed that "a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose" was the same ones they define in the levy, but it doesn't actually say that does it?
In fact the phrase "by individual consumers" would lead me to beleive that if I "ordinarily" wrote out the wave form of the music on my foot, my foot would legally be an audio recording medium... Cool!