So you're saying that musicians can't make a living by touring and performing anymore. Doesn't this go against the typical/. group-think--that it is OK to download as long as you see them in concert?
This is, effectively, distribution of a copy, willful or not.
I still disagree. You created a copy of a CD. That is legal under fair use. So now you have two copies of a CD. He steals one. You keep one. The result is exactly the same as if you willingly gave him one or if he downloaded it. But just because the result is the same doesn't mean the crimes are the same.
If you willingly gave him a copy, that is technically an unauthorized distribution. The copyright laws say that it is illegal to distribute and it is illegal to copy. The receiver in this case is guilty of nothing and the giver is guilty of both copying and distributing.
In your hypothetical, the friend took a copy without your permission. The friend didn't make a copy and didn't distribute anything. Therefore, you are the only one who is guilty of anything, if you insist that someone is guilty. Thus, it is still an unauthorized distribution. But that leads to ludicrous results. For example, some people keep their original CDs at home and make copies to keep in binders for the car or office. What you are saying is that if someone steals that binder (containing 128 CDs) from you, then you are guilty of 128 counts of copyright infringement, even though it was taken without permission!
Do you really think a record store is infringing copyright everytime someone steals a CD from them? Or is it only becaus the friend is stealing a copy? It's illegal to give alcohol to a minor. Do you think you should be charged if a minor steals your keys and steals your alcohol?
The example you gave later isn't really theft. 'Allowing' your friends and family to steal is basically the same as giving it to him.
This is probably why the MPAA isn't as litigation happy as the RIAA is.
There is another big reason. While a 128 kbit MP3 of a 3 minute song is of reasonable size for easy downloading and decent quality, a copy of a movie is either huge or of low quality. Thus, people still buy DVDs for the ability to have very good quality with no download.
Ditching a system that had worked for centuries was a bad idea and now they can see their lack of foresight.
Can't quite figure out what you're talking about. What system has worked for centuries? The movie industry and record industry haven't existed for even 100 years.
Private performances are legal. Copying a private performance is not legal. It's not like the net, because with the types of services being discussed here, the only option is to copy. Streaming is another category.
He is a photographer who presumably wants people to see and buy his photos. But he doesn't want a search engine to be able to find his photos. That's business genius for you.
It is binding precedent, but only in states covered by the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit covers MT, ID, WA, OR, CA, NV, AZ, AK, and HI. Other states are covered by other circuits that may or may not have reached a decision on this issue.
It is legislated. See 17 U.S.C. 101. The words in the statute are public performance. This is defined in section 101 as "to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.
Here you are wrong -- my point is that he is both stealing AND infringing on copyright.
How? What is forbidden by the copyright statutes is listed in 17 U.S.C. 106. Again, with respect to music, the right to copy, the right to distribute, and the right to publicly perform a CD all belong to the copyright owner. How does listening to a stolen CD violate any of those rights? Your reference to a license is wrong as that is not the accepted law in the US. You don't own a license to listen to the music that is exclusive to you. You own a CD. If someone steals the CD, they own the CD.
No, you buy the license to consume the music on the disc according to the RIAA and recognized by Congress. The RIAA doesn't approve consumption by any other means than an accepted audio CD playback device.
Wrong. The RIAA may want you to believe you can only play on an "accepted audio CD playback device" but the government does not agree. The courts have already ruled that converting to MP3 and placing it on a portable is legal. It is also legal to make a copy for personal purposes.
Many people say that it is only a license, but I have never seen anyone link to a source where the RIAA says you are only buying a license.
Seems to me that the RIAA companies should have to decide if they are selling the physical CD, in which case the buyer can do anyything they want with it(excluding reproduction for commercial purposes)
This is the position they take. You CAN do anything you want to a CD, including copying it and converting it to MP3. What they don't want you to do is distribute the contents, for free or otherwise.
I had Defender for the Atari 800 and I remember that it was a very easy game. I think you got a bonus life every 10,000, instead of being limited to 1 or 2 bonus lives. So you could theoretically play forever. I remember once playing for 1 hour, getting bored and started killing myself. It took forever (well, I was a kid, probably just 10-15 minutes) to kill all my ships).
This is theoretically a "public performance" of copyrighted art -- but stuff like that happens all the time, like when you hum your favorite tune, for which you have no license. Absurd, isn't it.
It's not a public performance. While it is not really defined in the copyright statutes, it is accepted that playing music for small groups of friends is not a public performance. There is also a small business exception in which if your business is smaller than a particular size, playing music is not a public performance.
The second violation would be his stealing the copied CD from you -- he did not purchase the music, so any listening he might engage in later (I assume that's what he stole the CD for) would constitute copyright infringement.
Where did you get that idea from? It is theft. Only. If you stole a CD from a Best Buy, you are not guilty of copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is from copying, publicly performing, distributing. Stealing a CD fits into none of those categories.
Why does the RIAA limit our ability to distribute? Because they know they wont be needed if we become the distributor
Because, until the advent of P2P, it wasn't possible for anyone else to be a distributor. The RIAA does need to try to figure out what to do in the new economy.
Why do we need the RIAA to buy copyrights from musicians, distribute musicians music, and then make all the money from CD sales, when we can distribute the music, the musicians can keep the profits, and we can gain enhanced fair use rights.
What profits? If consumer take over distributing, how are artists going to get any money?
Even Microsoft has a replacement media program. If your disks are damaged in some way and unusable you can send them to Redmond and they'll ship you another copy.
But that's because you are buying a license when you buy software. You can read the terms of the license and decide whether or not you agree with the license. With CDs, there is no license. You buy a CD and you receive the contents of the CD. You have fair use rights to create personal copies, but are otherwise limited in your ability to distribute, perform publicly, create derivative works, and copy. The limitations are in the copyright statutes.
For the most part, there aren't restrictions to CDs. You can tape them, you can let friends borrow the CDs. While some of those activities may be technically copyright violations, no one really cares. P2P puts everything on a much larger scale. It's not just letting a friend borrow your CD or even burning a copy for your friend. It's allowing millions of people throughout the world copy a CD. How can that not effect the music industry.
Stupid analogy. There are many uses of cars that are legitimate. In fact, the vast majority of uses of cars are legitimate. That is not true with P2P trading. While Kazaa, et al. CAN be used for legitimate purposes, everyone knows that 90+% of material on Kazaa are not legitimate.
There have been many advancements in bowling. In the beginning was the rubber ball on the laquer surface. These balls didn't hook much, and accuracy was at a premium. Then came plastic which hooked a little more, but not too much. By the 70s, the new big thing was urethane which hooked even more. Another big advancement was the development of the two-piece bowling ball. It used to be a three piece bowling ball, with an inner core, a weight block, and the surface of the ball. The two piece ball brought more weight to the middle of the ball, changing the trajectory of bowling balls. Yes, more and more hook.
With the 90s came the latest development--reactive resin bowling balls. Urethane balls used to hook fairly early. With reactive resin, the balls traveled further down the lane, hooked later, and hooked even more.
Since then, various forms of reactive resin have been developed. In addition, new forms of weight blocks have been developed, some with very sophisticated, multi-piece construction.
The end result is that it is now a lot easier to hook a bowling ball than it was in the 70s. With the greater angle of entry into the pocket, strikes have become more common and scores have gone up. The old timers long for the good old days where accuracy was more important. (Ironically, as the balls have become easier to hook, people ("crankers") want to hook the ball even more, resulting in a loss of top players who throw a normal size hook.)
In many ways, these developments are similar to the use of materials in tennis and golf, with power becoming more and more important.
The intent of causing artificial scarcity of a resource is either to increase the market value of the resource, or to regulate the resource for broader social reasons.
The constitutional reason for regulating it is to promote the development of new works. Would Metallica have created a new CD if they knew they would get $0 for it? Maybe, maybe not. But shouldn't it be theit choice to do so, not yours?
There are plenty of people on the Internet who create writings and music and art for free for all to see and hear. But it's their choice to do so. When you choose to put Metallica on Kazaa, you are making the choice for Metallica.
There are a lot of copy protected CDs in the world. But there are very few copy protected CDs in the U.S. You may be able to use that as a reason in the future. But not now.
The artificial scarcity created by government regulation (copyright) is way out of touch with the reality so the free market, even when it has to operate as a black market, will take care of the customer demand.
What 'artificial scarcity' are you talking about? There is nothing 'scarce' about music. You can go to any number of internet sites and buy CDs. Try buy.com.
The free market is in action. It's just that people would rather pay $0.00 for music rather than anything more than $0.00.
Yes for now except once they get done with the filetraders then I can see them starting after the leechers with download bots recording the IP addresses of leechers too.
Once the filetraders are gone, the leechers will be also, because there will be nothing to leech off of.
Sort of off-topic, but a lot of joke posts here are saying how difficult it is to translate IM. How difficult is it? The Washington Post had an article describing how FBI agents trying to catch pedophiles are being trained by 13 year old girls to learn how to use IM to act like a teenage girl. Some quotes:
As undercover assignments go, posing as a teenage girl online to catch pedophiles has its share of challenges for the typical FBI agent.
Should he ever capitalize words in instant messages?
Is it okay to say you buy your clothes at 5-7-9?
And what about Justin Timberlake? Is he still hot or is he so two years ago?
[snip]
Most of their classmates did not know about their FBI work until yesterday, when Bald commended them on their achievements. Thanks to the girls, Bald said, the FBI has gathered such valuable information as: never begin a chat with "hello"; never use proper grammar in instant messages; and "pos" stands for "parent over shoulder."
If adult humans need to learn how to speak IM, how can a computer?
Since 9/11 there have been several incidents where the passengers of a plane acted against threats (including the shoe bomber case). Passengers will not allow 9/11 to happen again.
The reason 9/11 happened in the first place was because pilots and passengers had always been taught to cooperate with terrorists under the assumption that the terrorists will land the plane somewhere and make demands. Once it was shown that hijackers will pilot planes into buildings (an attack unheard even by 'experts'), passengers (starting with the 4th hijacked plane) will gang up on a hijacker and prevent the hijacking from happening. And pilots will do anything to prevent a hijacker from gaining control of the plane.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that musicians can't make a living by touring and performing anymore. Doesn't this go against the typical /. group-think--that it is OK to download as long as you see them in concert?
I still disagree. You created a copy of a CD. That is legal under fair use. So now you have two copies of a CD. He steals one. You keep one. The result is exactly the same as if you willingly gave him one or if he downloaded it. But just because the result is the same doesn't mean the crimes are the same.
If you willingly gave him a copy, that is technically an unauthorized distribution. The copyright laws say that it is illegal to distribute and it is illegal to copy. The receiver in this case is guilty of nothing and the giver is guilty of both copying and distributing.
In your hypothetical, the friend took a copy without your permission. The friend didn't make a copy and didn't distribute anything. Therefore, you are the only one who is guilty of anything, if you insist that someone is guilty. Thus, it is still an unauthorized distribution. But that leads to ludicrous results. For example, some people keep their original CDs at home and make copies to keep in binders for the car or office. What you are saying is that if someone steals that binder (containing 128 CDs) from you, then you are guilty of 128 counts of copyright infringement, even though it was taken without permission!
Do you really think a record store is infringing copyright everytime someone steals a CD from them? Or is it only becaus the friend is stealing a copy? It's illegal to give alcohol to a minor. Do you think you should be charged if a minor steals your keys and steals your alcohol?
The example you gave later isn't really theft. 'Allowing' your friends and family to steal is basically the same as giving it to him.
There is another big reason. While a 128 kbit MP3 of a 3 minute song is of reasonable size for easy downloading and decent quality, a copy of a movie is either huge or of low quality. Thus, people still buy DVDs for the ability to have very good quality with no download.
Ditching a system that had worked for centuries was a bad idea and now they can see their lack of foresight.
Can't quite figure out what you're talking about. What system has worked for centuries? The movie industry and record industry haven't existed for even 100 years.
Private performances are legal. Copying a private performance is not legal. It's not like the net, because with the types of services being discussed here, the only option is to copy. Streaming is another category.
He is a photographer who presumably wants people to see and buy his photos. But he doesn't want a search engine to be able to find his photos. That's business genius for you.
It is binding precedent, but only in states covered by the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit covers MT, ID, WA, OR, CA, NV, AZ, AK, and HI. Other states are covered by other circuits that may or may not have reached a decision on this issue.
It is legislated. See 17 U.S.C. 101. The words in the statute are public performance. This is defined in section 101 as "to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.
Here you are wrong -- my point is that he is both stealing AND infringing on copyright.
How? What is forbidden by the copyright statutes is listed in 17 U.S.C. 106. Again, with respect to music, the right to copy, the right to distribute, and the right to publicly perform a CD all belong to the copyright owner. How does listening to a stolen CD violate any of those rights? Your reference to a license is wrong as that is not the accepted law in the US. You don't own a license to listen to the music that is exclusive to you. You own a CD. If someone steals the CD, they own the CD.
No. It's not a public performance. It is distributing on one end and copying on the other. Both of which are forbidden by copyright statutes.
Don't you think distributing music for free on P2P infringes the right to profit from their copyrights?
Wrong. The RIAA may want you to believe you can only play on an "accepted audio CD playback device" but the government does not agree. The courts have already ruled that converting to MP3 and placing it on a portable is legal. It is also legal to make a copy for personal purposes.
Many people say that it is only a license, but I have never seen anyone link to a source where the RIAA says you are only buying a license.
This is the position they take. You CAN do anything you want to a CD, including copying it and converting it to MP3. What they don't want you to do is distribute the contents, for free or otherwise.
I had Defender for the Atari 800 and I remember that it was a very easy game. I think you got a bonus life every 10,000, instead of being limited to 1 or 2 bonus lives. So you could theoretically play forever. I remember once playing for 1 hour, getting bored and started killing myself. It took forever (well, I was a kid, probably just 10-15 minutes) to kill all my ships).
It's not a public performance. While it is not really defined in the copyright statutes, it is accepted that playing music for small groups of friends is not a public performance. There is also a small business exception in which if your business is smaller than a particular size, playing music is not a public performance.
The second violation would be his stealing the copied CD from you -- he did not purchase the music, so any listening he might engage in later (I assume that's what he stole the CD for) would constitute copyright infringement.
Where did you get that idea from? It is theft. Only. If you stole a CD from a Best Buy, you are not guilty of copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is from copying, publicly performing, distributing. Stealing a CD fits into none of those categories.
Because, until the advent of P2P, it wasn't possible for anyone else to be a distributor. The RIAA does need to try to figure out what to do in the new economy.
Why do we need the RIAA to buy copyrights from musicians, distribute musicians music, and then make all the money from CD sales, when we can distribute the music, the musicians can keep the profits, and we can gain enhanced fair use rights.
What profits? If consumer take over distributing, how are artists going to get any money?
But that's because you are buying a license when you buy software. You can read the terms of the license and decide whether or not you agree with the license. With CDs, there is no license. You buy a CD and you receive the contents of the CD. You have fair use rights to create personal copies, but are otherwise limited in your ability to distribute, perform publicly, create derivative works, and copy. The limitations are in the copyright statutes.
For the most part, there aren't restrictions to CDs. You can tape them, you can let friends borrow the CDs. While some of those activities may be technically copyright violations, no one really cares. P2P puts everything on a much larger scale. It's not just letting a friend borrow your CD or even burning a copy for your friend. It's allowing millions of people throughout the world copy a CD. How can that not effect the music industry.
No. You buy a disc that contains music. There is no license except those that come from the copyright laws.
Stupid analogy. There are many uses of cars that are legitimate. In fact, the vast majority of uses of cars are legitimate. That is not true with P2P trading. While Kazaa, et al. CAN be used for legitimate purposes, everyone knows that 90+% of material on Kazaa are not legitimate.
With the 90s came the latest development--reactive resin bowling balls. Urethane balls used to hook fairly early. With reactive resin, the balls traveled further down the lane, hooked later, and hooked even more.
Since then, various forms of reactive resin have been developed. In addition, new forms of weight blocks have been developed, some with very sophisticated, multi-piece construction.
The end result is that it is now a lot easier to hook a bowling ball than it was in the 70s. With the greater angle of entry into the pocket, strikes have become more common and scores have gone up. The old timers long for the good old days where accuracy was more important. (Ironically, as the balls have become easier to hook, people ("crankers") want to hook the ball even more, resulting in a loss of top players who throw a normal size hook.)
In many ways, these developments are similar to the use of materials in tennis and golf, with power becoming more and more important.
The constitutional reason for regulating it is to promote the development of new works. Would Metallica have created a new CD if they knew they would get $0 for it? Maybe, maybe not. But shouldn't it be theit choice to do so, not yours?
There are plenty of people on the Internet who create writings and music and art for free for all to see and hear. But it's their choice to do so. When you choose to put Metallica on Kazaa, you are making the choice for Metallica.
There are a lot of copy protected CDs in the world. But there are very few copy protected CDs in the U.S. You may be able to use that as a reason in the future. But not now.
What 'artificial scarcity' are you talking about? There is nothing 'scarce' about music. You can go to any number of internet sites and buy CDs. Try buy.com.
The free market is in action. It's just that people would rather pay $0.00 for music rather than anything more than $0.00.
Once the filetraders are gone, the leechers will be also, because there will be nothing to leech off of.
The reason 9/11 happened in the first place was because pilots and passengers had always been taught to cooperate with terrorists under the assumption that the terrorists will land the plane somewhere and make demands. Once it was shown that hijackers will pilot planes into buildings (an attack unheard even by 'experts'), passengers (starting with the 4th hijacked plane) will gang up on a hijacker and prevent the hijacking from happening. And pilots will do anything to prevent a hijacker from gaining control of the plane.