The media keeps screwing up the facts. Not only that but the RIAA loves to push the FUD. The issue had nothing to do with whether or not she owned them.
Doesn't matter. In court, the only thing that matters is that she distributed copyrighted materials that she didn't have permission to do so from the copyright-holders.
There has yet to be a case where downloading a copyrighted material is illegal. All the laws only pertain to: "distribution" of said copyrighted material.
And that's just another reason why Blizzard is an awesome company.
But seriously, Blizzard doesn't also sell 20,000 different games at 1 million per game. Well, the numbers are inflated, but why not. We're talking about the RIAA. You know, the RIAA exec's have 42" penises too.
. How do they know you don't legally own all the MP3s or movies you are downloading?...
Please note that they are only sueing the people who upload mp3's. So your point about owning the mp3 or movie doesn't count here....unless you have the copyright holder's permission, you are not allowed to distribute copyrighted material.
Yea, but food, steel, (and the others) were considered to be a necessary commodity for the USA. I doubt music will be.
Don't get me wrong, you're right to a point. And the congresscritters have already fallen all over themselves for a piece of the money pie to pass laws that obviously were written by the RIAA/MPAA. But it's not like the U.S. government is going to purchase bulk copies of Britney just to keep the RIAA afloat.
The targets will get a letter explaining the allegation and the penalties plus a number to call to do a deal.
Furthermore, in one recent case, a college student was told that just by filing an answer in court, the cost of any final settlement would rise by $50,000.
Does anyone know what "recent case" the article alludes to? I have not heard of it. Also, there is some confusion. The slashdot piece above says that you can pay $50,000 as a no-questions asked settlement. But I don't see that in the article, and in fact the quote from the article I posted seems to imply that by fighting the RIAA in any way would impose a +50K penalty to it... well, I'm a little confused. Anyone know more about it?
Personally, I don't think we can blame him for posting some story of his own musings and activities. Really, it should be complaints to slashdot if you dont' find this newsworthy, ja?
"We're usually under attack from 5,000 to 10,000 servers at once," Linford said, with incoming data flows as large as 100 million bytes per second. "They're extremely large attacks that would bring down just about anything." But Spamhaus, with 16 servers scattered through 10 countries, has been able to ride it out, Linford said.
Impressive.
Hopefully there isn't a slashdot story linking to them any time soon!
There have been NO cases or laws that say downloading mp3's are illegal. So the RIAA downloading songs isn't illegal. Not to mention (the F*@#$ obvious) that they already represent the copyright owner, and ARE allowed to do what they want with them. So what the hell are you smoking?
It's like a burglar saying that he's innocent of breaking into my house, because I'm guilty of entering my house every day.
Also, when the RIAA downloads this file from "nycfashiongirl", how is it possible that they immediately move this file from their shared folder so that the rest of the world can't download it.
My condolences to you for obviously never ever having run a P2P app. You can easily set your "download to:" folder and set your "shared folders:" properties to keep you from sharing. Before you even download. Amazing huh.
Heheh, well, maybe it wasn't named that due to not having to describe a medium that wasn't around at the time. (at least at consumer level).
DAT's and the Serial Copying functionality that they put in it......That would suggest that the act covered digital as well.
Actually the Serial Copying was something that was specifically mentioned in these laws. Mfg's have strict guidelines they have to follow. But this nasty 'general use' thing called the computer doesn't fall under that, so I'd still argue that the "old" Fair Use laws covering 'digital' still hasn't been addressed. It's been a while since I've read up on it, so I'll have to concede further debate on that.
SoundExchange is the company in charge of collecting the royalty payments by the webcasters. They don't collect royalties just for the RIAA copyrights, they are in charge of collecting for ALL songs that are copyrighted. Even non-RIAA.
So you don't even need to play 1 RIAA song, you still are slapped with these royalty payments. You actually would have to get an individual agreement with EACH individual copyright holder, to be allowed to play their song, and abide by whatever means you come up with them.
This is a tedious process, and although plausible... ?? Not only that, but if each and every webcaster that wanted to play non-RIAA songs went to each of these indy labels to come up with an agreement... I am sure the indy labels would find it difficult to keep track of each arrangement. I suppose they would find it easier to just go with SoundExchange.
Most of the copyright restrictions talk about commercial copying/distribution
Actually, only criminally.
These civil suits that the RIAA is pushing are civil suits, and I'm sure you'd agree that none of the kazaa users were doing this commerically. Unfortunately, the fines and penalties are nothing to sneeze at. "settling" for $12,000 + lawyer costs are the cheapest I've seen these victims get away with. Devastating if you ask me, for something that is clearly non-commercial. The guy who leaked "The Hulk" 2 weeks early got 33 months in federal prison, huge fine, and a felony on his record. Non-commercial again.
Under the Fair Use extensions of the Audio Home Recording Act it is actually legal to give a copy of a CD that you own to a friend
Analog only. Fair use doesn't cover digital as far as I can tell.
The first line that you can't cross is charging for it.
I clung to that for a while. Unfortunately that's not true anymore due to the crappy NET ACT law. This redefines what "for profit" is. Getting a copyrighted material in return is now considered "for profit". This means that trading is illegal. (I know leaching off Kazaa isn't trading, but that's another story)
copying sections of other text books and creating a compilation) have cleared that hurdle.
For copyrighted songs, isn't it 5 seconds? Maybe 30 seconds. But it's moot, because people are trading/downloading/distrib. full songs.
I agree with your 100%, and was simply trying to curb my long post by leaving out certain things. I was alluding to the topic on-hand which was digital media trading. Your analog examples are true.
I might also bring up the point that the MPAA fought tooth and nail to keep the Fair Use clause as we know it from even surfacting (VCR's as illegal). Not to mention that p2p protocol is still under appeal. I guess nothing is 100% safe.:(
Beats me. We've always been "allowed" to make tape copies and lend tapes/cd's to friends, etc. Some of it protected under Fair Use, some of it just ignored by the RIAA. But with the event of digital and millllllions of p2p users... now they think it's a problem and trying to kill it all.
Even though it's legal to own a VCR and tape shows, let's not forget the MPAA tried to make it illegal back then!
The RIAA would like to crush fair use completely by pushing a SDMI (or DRM) technology and implement a pay per play. They'd be rich. Err... Richer.
You raise good semantic questions about the definition of Copying. I don't know the answer. I think we can agree on logically the correct answer, but logic hardly has anything to do with laws nowadays.
Distribution seems to be the key word. "Making available to others". For instance, if a rogue radio station that didn't pay ASCAP royalties to the RIAA started playing music on the air... The listeners are not responsible or liable. Only the rogue radio station. I would imagine (logically, heh) that downloading mp3's excuses you, but not the distributer. Someone also mentioned that it'd be hard to prove in court that you knew what you were downloading exactly. But the distributer would be liable to know.
Remember the RIAA honeypots on Kazaa? Servers with fake songs... Well nothing came of that except songs that said "quit stealing" and message being sent to downloaders saying "we know you downloaded mp3's!". But these honeypots are not being used for the subpoenas or warrants. Only people distributing them. Personally I think it's significant.
No, I don't think they'll stop at anything, obviously. But you can't get ahead of yourself. You can only deal with the facts as they're presented. The fact that all the laws (and lawsuits) specifically state distribution is significant in itself. It's possible that they haven't sued any downloaders now because THEY KNOW it's not illegal to. Thus, the point of my conversation.
but the copying in happening in the download step
Actually this has been brought up before, and it's not true. To make a copy of a file, you must first have a copy to begin with. Thus the person who is uploading is doing the copying. Obviously the downloader doesn't have the original copy, thus can't be doing the distributing.
Buying drugs and selling drugs is 2 different things, and gets you 2 different penalties in the law. Sorry for the bad analogy
Even in the NET ACT, we see the same thing. The NET ACT is important to know because it redefines the criminal definition of "for profit". It states that the term "for profit" includes getting other copyrighted items in return. Thus, it was specifically designed to criminalize trading. (To close the loophole that only people who sell bootlegs for money as criminal. Now just trading can bump you up to criminal suits, instead of civil suits) The point is though, that leeching off a service like Kazaa falls outside this realm again.
People comfortable with sharing files online because they own the CD should make sure the file they're sharing is actually one they've ripped themselves, rather than one that just "has the same name as" and "sounds an awful lot like" a song on a CD they own. This is not to imply that sharing a song ripped from a CD is legal (that's not always clear).
What??? Man, are you in for a big surprise if you go to court.
Sharing a copyrighted file that you don't have permission from the copyright holder is illegal. It doesn't matter if you own the cd. It doesn't matter if your sister is Shania Twain. You can't distribute her songs! This whole MD5 should be different than their database, etc, etc, crap has nothing to do with anything. Sharing copies of mp3's as long as you own the CD? What the hell? Are people de-educating themselves as these stories progress?
Excellent point. The "magic number" system the RIAA uses is astounding. 52X burners count as 3 cd burners? $750 to $150,000 damages PER song is crazy.
I thought I remembered seeing something about how you have to have a certain $$ amount before getting a felony. $2000? ANyway, they then said each song was worth about $200. I think it was something like $20 per song, times 10 people. 10 people being the gestimate of people you magically distributed it to, because obviously more than one person can download a song from you. Anyway, 10 songs and you're a felon.
Anyway, these numbers don't add up. The RIAA likes to paint a screen of terror by saying that your one song you shared, can then be shared exponentially after that. Sure, it's true. You share it to 2 people. They share it to 2. By the end of the day, 1,000,000 people have it. But why would you be responsible for the 2nd thru 20th level of distribution? You only gave it to 2 people. And if it's "worth" $1 on iTunes, why isn't the damage $1 per song per download?
It's this magic number system the RIAA counts by that causes them to sue 4 students for 47 billion dollars. It would have taken the RIAA 5 years of GROSS profits to hit 47 billion dollars. How can a search engine running for a couple months on a campus amount to 5 years of GROSS profits?? It doesn't...make...sense.. you must acquit.
But none of the cases have anything to do with downloading illegal mp3's. It has to do with distributing mp3's illegally.
The laws that the RIAA has purchased only mention 'illegal distribution'. All this crap we're hearing about "illegal downloading" is just crap spewn to the media. FUD FUD FUD what? FUD FUD FUD
Slashdot Mirror
.man ,backwards that got you think I
No they're not.
Doesn't matter.
In court, the only thing that matters is that she distributed copyrighted materials that she didn't have permission to do so from the copyright-holders.
There has yet to be a case where downloading a copyrighted material is illegal. All the laws only pertain to: "distribution" of said copyrighted material.
But seriously, Blizzard doesn't also sell 20,000 different games at 1 million per game. Well, the numbers are inflated, but why not. We're talking about the RIAA. You know, the RIAA exec's have 42" penises too.
Please note that they are only sueing the people who upload mp3's. So your point about owning the mp3 or movie doesn't count here....unless you have the copyright holder's permission, you are not allowed to distribute copyrighted material.
Enjoying your new anonymizer account yet?
Don't get me wrong, you're right to a point. And the congresscritters have already fallen all over themselves for a piece of the money pie to pass laws that obviously were written by the RIAA/MPAA. But it's not like the U.S. government is going to purchase bulk copies of Britney just to keep the RIAA afloat.
Does anyone know what "recent case" the article alludes to? I have not heard of it. Also, there is some confusion. The slashdot piece above says that you can pay $50,000 as a no-questions asked settlement. But I don't see that in the article, and in fact the quote from the article I posted seems to imply that by fighting the RIAA in any way would impose a +50K penalty to it... well, I'm a little confused. Anyone know more about it?
That is the day that the RIAA will be sueing some of the people they subpoena'd. According to this article.
I can't *wait* to see what happens. Of course, this is only because I'm not on the list.
The kids name is ZeroCool, and everything will be just fine, because in the end, he gets Angelina Jolie.
It was called Aimster.
a.k.a. Madster.
a.k.a. sued, and lost.
Personally, I don't think we can blame him for posting some story of his own musings and activities. Really, it should be complaints to slashdot if you dont' find this newsworthy, ja?
Impressive.
Hopefully there isn't a slashdot story linking to them any time soon!
It's like a burglar saying that he's innocent of breaking into my house, because I'm guilty of entering my house every day.
Also, when the RIAA downloads this file from "nycfashiongirl", how is it possible that they immediately move this file from their shared folder so that the rest of the world can't download it.
My condolences to you for obviously never ever having run a P2P app. You can easily set your "download to:" folder and set your "shared folders:" properties to keep you from sharing. Before you even download. Amazing huh.
Heheh, well, maybe it wasn't named that due to not having to describe a medium that wasn't around at the time. (at least at consumer level).
DAT's and the Serial Copying functionality that they put in it......That would suggest that the act covered digital as well.
Actually the Serial Copying was something that was specifically mentioned in these laws. Mfg's have strict guidelines they have to follow. But this nasty 'general use' thing called the computer doesn't fall under that, so I'd still argue that the "old" Fair Use laws covering 'digital' still hasn't been addressed. It's been a while since I've read up on it, so I'll have to concede further debate on that.
This is why Fair Use is an affirmative defense
Best description of the day!
SoundExchange is the company in charge of collecting the royalty payments by the webcasters. They don't collect royalties just for the RIAA copyrights, they are in charge of collecting for ALL songs that are copyrighted. Even non-RIAA.
So you don't even need to play 1 RIAA song, you still are slapped with these royalty payments. You actually would have to get an individual agreement with EACH individual copyright holder, to be allowed to play their song, and abide by whatever means you come up with them.
This is a tedious process, and although plausible... ?? Not only that, but if each and every webcaster that wanted to play non-RIAA songs went to each of these indy labels to come up with an agreement... I am sure the indy labels would find it difficult to keep track of each arrangement. I suppose they would find it easier to just go with SoundExchange.
Actually, only criminally.
These civil suits that the RIAA is pushing are civil suits, and I'm sure you'd agree that none of the kazaa users were doing this commerically. Unfortunately, the fines and penalties are nothing to sneeze at. "settling" for $12,000 + lawyer costs are the cheapest I've seen these victims get away with. Devastating if you ask me, for something that is clearly non-commercial. The guy who leaked "The Hulk" 2 weeks early got 33 months in federal prison, huge fine, and a felony on his record. Non-commercial again.
Under the Fair Use extensions of the Audio Home Recording Act it is actually legal to give a copy of a CD that you own to a friend
Analog only. Fair use doesn't cover digital as far as I can tell.
The first line that you can't cross is charging for it.
I clung to that for a while. Unfortunately that's not true anymore due to the crappy NET ACT law. This redefines what "for profit" is. Getting a copyrighted material in return is now considered "for profit". This means that trading is illegal. (I know leaching off Kazaa isn't trading, but that's another story)
copying sections of other text books and creating a compilation) have cleared that hurdle.
For copyrighted songs, isn't it 5 seconds? Maybe 30 seconds. But it's moot, because people are trading/downloading/distrib. full songs.
I might also bring up the point that the MPAA fought tooth and nail to keep the Fair Use clause as we know it from even surfacting (VCR's as illegal). Not to mention that p2p protocol is still under appeal. I guess nothing is 100% safe. :(
Beats me. We've always been "allowed" to make tape copies and lend tapes/cd's to friends, etc. Some of it protected under Fair Use, some of it just ignored by the RIAA. But with the event of digital and millllllions of p2p users... now they think it's a problem and trying to kill it all.
Even though it's legal to own a VCR and tape shows, let's not forget the MPAA tried to make it illegal back then!
The RIAA would like to crush fair use completely by pushing a SDMI (or DRM) technology and implement a pay per play. They'd be rich. Err... Richer.
You raise good semantic questions about the definition of Copying. I don't know the answer. I think we can agree on logically the correct answer, but logic hardly has anything to do with laws nowadays.
Distribution seems to be the key word. "Making available to others". For instance, if a rogue radio station that didn't pay ASCAP royalties to the RIAA started playing music on the air... The listeners are not responsible or liable. Only the rogue radio station. I would imagine (logically, heh) that downloading mp3's excuses you, but not the distributer. Someone also mentioned that it'd be hard to prove in court that you knew what you were downloading exactly. But the distributer would be liable to know.
Remember the RIAA honeypots on Kazaa? Servers with fake songs... Well nothing came of that except songs that said "quit stealing" and message being sent to downloaders saying "we know you downloaded mp3's!". But these honeypots are not being used for the subpoenas or warrants. Only people distributing them. Personally I think it's significant.
No, I don't think they'll stop at anything, obviously. But you can't get ahead of yourself. You can only deal with the facts as they're presented. The fact that all the laws (and lawsuits) specifically state distribution is significant in itself. It's possible that they haven't sued any downloaders now because THEY KNOW it's not illegal to. Thus, the point of my conversation.
but the copying in happening in the download step
Actually this has been brought up before, and it's not true. To make a copy of a file, you must first have a copy to begin with. Thus the person who is uploading is doing the copying. Obviously the downloader doesn't have the original copy, thus can't be doing the distributing.
Buying drugs and selling drugs is 2 different things, and gets you 2 different penalties in the law. Sorry for the bad analogy
Even in the NET ACT, we see the same thing. The NET ACT is important to know because it redefines the criminal definition of "for profit". It states that the term "for profit" includes getting other copyrighted items in return. Thus, it was specifically designed to criminalize trading. (To close the loophole that only people who sell bootlegs for money as criminal. Now just trading can bump you up to criminal suits, instead of civil suits) The point is though, that leeching off a service like Kazaa falls outside this realm again.
What??? Man, are you in for a big surprise if you go to court.
Sharing a copyrighted file that you don't have permission from the copyright holder is illegal. It doesn't matter if you own the cd. It doesn't matter if your sister is Shania Twain. You can't distribute her songs! This whole MD5 should be different than their database, etc, etc, crap has nothing to do with anything. Sharing copies of mp3's as long as you own the CD? What the hell? Are people de-educating themselves as these stories progress?
So how are you enjoying your 100 free hours of AOL
I thought I remembered seeing something about how you have to have a certain $$ amount before getting a felony. $2000? ANyway, they then said each song was worth about $200. I think it was something like $20 per song, times 10 people. 10 people being the gestimate of people you magically distributed it to, because obviously more than one person can download a song from you. Anyway, 10 songs and you're a felon.
Anyway, these numbers don't add up. The RIAA likes to paint a screen of terror by saying that your one song you shared, can then be shared exponentially after that. Sure, it's true. You share it to 2 people. They share it to 2. By the end of the day, 1,000,000 people have it. But why would you be responsible for the 2nd thru 20th level of distribution? You only gave it to 2 people. And if it's "worth" $1 on iTunes, why isn't the damage $1 per song per download?
It's this magic number system the RIAA counts by that causes them to sue 4 students for 47 billion dollars. It would have taken the RIAA 5 years of GROSS profits to hit 47 billion dollars. How can a search engine running for a couple months on a campus amount to 5 years of GROSS profits?? It doesn't...make...sense.. you must acquit.
The laws that the RIAA has purchased only mention 'illegal distribution'. All this crap we're hearing about "illegal downloading" is just crap spewn to the media. FUD FUD FUD what? FUD FUD FUD
I agree. But there are guides out there (UberNode) that detail how to use EAC to make perfect rips.
Call the RIAA ;-)
I'm sure they're sending a subpoena to slashdot to get my IP number.