The word personal can easily be argued by any competant first year law student as covering giving a copy to a friend (this means 1 copy, 1 friend).
If you make two or more copies then this will be argued as falling under manufacture and distribution. Neither of which are covered by the above exclusion, regardless of noncommercial status.
As the post above points out, it may also be a goodwill thing, but the law protects consumer and artist alike. Anything else is lawful interpretation.
Bottom line, P2P is not necessarily commercial (although any P2P client with ads is), P2P is not personal use.
The first part ("...portion of a song...") can be covered by fair use, if you do it in the right context. This type of use must be covered on a case by case basis.
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Where P2P becomes an issue is in the distribution of said copyright to an audience that is obviously not personal in nature. Giving to a friend, meaning one, is personal. Giving to 2 friends could fall under distribution and/or manufacture. That's a whole different ball-game, not covered by the above exclusion.
...each file is a digital copy from a CD which I own.
If that's the case then there's no reason to argue. You, in fact, did pay for those songs. The fact that you make personal copies falls under the following exclusion of even US copyright law: USC Chapter 10, Section 1008.
Private, noncommercial use is protected (no problem). However nothing about P2P networking is private. If it were, then the RIAA would not be able to find out who's sharing and downloading. The last point is only to emphasise why P2P is not private, not to emphasise the general lawfullness of things done in privacy.
US Copyright law makes a distinct delineation between information and style/artistic presentation. Music is art.
Further:
"...ideals of copyright...emphatically NOT a grant of property."
Yes and no. The law grants protections to those whom create original works. These protections include exclusive right to reproduce and perform those works. Barring non-commerical, personal use, making copies
is wrong. P2P networking is not personal, thus is not exempted.
Bringing up arguments about eighteenth century "right to publish" is bogus. The first amendment automatically protects your right to publish. It even protects your right to parody a copyright work (although not to gain financially from such parody). As a previous post already said, Whatever helps you sleep at night.
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
--
Bold emphasis added.
The only question is the meaning of the word, noncommercial.
Just as the Internet is not quantum physics, computers are not inherantly secure. I think the assertion of no proof is the lack of biometric and/or video camera security. A computer lab that requests userid/password cannot guarantee that the logged in person is who they say they are.
I would point out that when a city closes a road for construction that is in front of a business, that city must provide alternate means for customers to get there, including clearly marked signs - or that city must offset that businesses "potential lost business" with cash.
Cities don't give up cash easily, so if there was not a legal precedent for "potential lost revenue" having value, then cities would not go through these hurtles. Yet, they do.
Every copy that is stored on someone's hard drive, is lost revenue. If you merely wanted to 'see if you liked the song' you'd find an alternate method of listening (like a streaming broadcast, or walking into a Music store). The song was downloaded because someone wanted it - but didn't want to pay the $0.99 for a legal online download. Sorry, in my not so humble opinion, that is theft.
However, that still does not give the music and movie industries the right to sue and prosecute little old ladies with Macs that couldn't possibly have perpetrated the crime.
Middle School is the worst. Ask any cop, teacher or social worker.
This is where kids first become large enough to put people in the hospital and they often do.
This is where most kids are first introduced to drugs.
This is where kids first start getting sexually active (a blow job isn't sex / you can't get aids from sucking dick ) - and all the other bullshit that these kids feed eachother.
Middle School is where children start making adult decisions, but don't have to face adult consequences. It's all a joke, because nobody gets punished.
High School isn't much different, but at least in High School, these kids start seeing the adult consequences of the decisions that they are making. You actually have to sit in jail for assult in a High School. And for those that actually plan on attending collage (sadly, far too few), the fear of expulsion actually means something.
If you think it's "only Middle School" then it's been way too long since you've been to one.
I doubt it. Actually, a lot more situations fall under Fair Use than most people think.
Making a physical copy of a venerable media qualifies as fair use. Making an MP3 of a small portion of a song to use as an example of that song is also fair use (in the more traditional sense). In fact, making a cassette tape of a CD and giving it to someone you know (without money exchaning hands) is also fair use.
However, putting a copyright work in a location where absolutely everyone can copy it is not fair use.
I still don't see how P2P sharing in schools is linked to organized crime, as the article suggests.
That's exactly my point. It's similar to writing an article about children riding bikes without helmets, and adding in a blurb on child fatalities in car crashes.
Perhaps the educational videos bought by the school district were purchased by the shopping cart video dealer down of 4th street.
Right but Organized Crime has no interest in depriving others of money, unless it's a direct derivative of making money for themselves.
P2P based piracy doesn't fit. Selling pirated CDs and Video Tapes does, but unless the school store is selling pirated CDs - then this just doesn't fit.
So now the Copyright Infringement of Music and Movies is linked to
organized crime activities. O.K., I can believe that.
A school district is searched because of piracy?
Obviously the AZCentral.com site sees the link, but I don't. For
organized crime to bother, there would have to be money exchanging hands,
and I highly doubt that either students or staff of the Deer Valley
Unified School District are paying for downloaded pirated materials.
You have to admit that Asimov, is a guru in that he wrote fiction and non fiction about both science and future science. So, he's probably a poor subject for attack anyway.
I see your point fully when it comes to an SF writer like Hubbard. I mean, to found a religion? If you make that point, I fully concede. I can't imagine, even a very insightful fiction author being able to credibly form a religion.
But putting those two anomolies aside. I would say that Orwell and Bradbury, or even gasp Stephen King have just as high a guru status as, say, Philip Dick, Arthur Clarke and (the subject at hand) Neal Stephenson.
Are you saying that Grisham is just as insightful as Isaac Asimov? If Grisham is that insightful, then you have indeed, "undermin[ed] the rest of [his] argument".
Otherwise, his argument seems well in-tact to me.
If I'm missing something, please inform me. But I've read several Grisham novels, and while they are very entertaining, they do not strike me as having brought to the fore-front anything that was not already well understood.
In fact - your point, in many ways (again, correct me if I'm missing something) actually seems to support his argument.
The original post compared Grisham's lack of influence on lawyers to Asimov's profound influence on 'geeks' as if to point out that fiction authors should not be taken so seriously.
" Why do people treat fiction authors [like] gurus?"
Yet, the moral quandries outlined at the base of many Dicken's stories are still used today to illustrate decisions that people face in daily life. Science Fiction or not, Orwell's 1984 is often quoted by civil rights proponents and law-makers alike.
Basically, Anonymous Codger was trying to illustrate why Asimov has influence on science where Grisham does not influence law. I see no reason for you to present your point as an argument.
Again, correct me if I'm missing part of the picture here.
If Grisham wrote profound stories on the morality of laws and what they could mean if prosecuted, then lawyers probably would put more stock in his stories.
However, the morility plays that have shown up in Grisham novels that I've read were not profound. They were just extensions or plays off of what we already know are current consequences of laws.
On the other hand, Asimov (and I'd point out Philip Dick) put a lot of thought into the moral and ethical issues that could come out of technology that doesn't yet exist.
Some of these predictions have already come true, because they were both profound and well thought out. There has been scientific research into robotics based on ideas from Asimov and Dick.
They all tell good stories, but the bonus of SciFi is the profound consideration of things that could someday become reality.
That said, there are things suggested by SciFi writers that are absurd. But people use thier own judgement as to whether these ideas have merit. Obviously, a lot of people have respect for Asimov's ideas. I think your best bet is to read some Asimov books and judge his ideas in their original context.
Yes, but it's not a question of whether I am down with it. It's a matter for the editorial staff.
So long as they avoid libel (which is a matter for the courts), then it's an issue of institutional choice.
If everything that's called news must be true, then you would deny me the pleasure of reading The Onion. It's a news parody site, but at first glance it's not obvious. The top of the page says, "America's Finest News Source (tm)," so it must be news. Yet the Supreme Court ruled to protect parody as a first amendment right. What's wrong with that?
What about the Weekly World News? It's the highest circulated paper in the US. I see nothing wrong with their editorial "fact" fabrication. Nowhere does that paper say, "Entertainment Value Only". People use it for entertainment though. What's wrong with that?
Basically, you can't hold these institutions under different legal standards than the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. They are all publishers. So long as they avoid libel, they are free to print whatever they want. Their accuracy beyond that is an institutional choice.
If you don't feel they are accurate, and you expect them to be, your only recourse is to spend your money elsewhere. If enough people do that then the advertising will suffer.
A good example of this is the New York Post. This is a paper that suffered under claims of inaccuracy for years. Now they report more "gossip" to keep readership up. How many respected newspapers keep gossip on the front page?
I, in a very humble opinion, see nothing wrong with any of this. It's publishing. It's there to sell papers.
Where I do see a problem, is when someone expects the government to keep someone's first amendment rights in check. Libel and Slander laws exist to protect when a first amendment right infringes on someone else's rights. You do not have the right to force someone to give you accurate news. You do have the right to investigate and find out the truth yourself. Our system, as it exists, is pretty good. What's happening is exactly what should happen. Lies and mis-spoken facts are getting out there, and then being found out. This is the way our system has evolved. And sometimes it doesn't work quickly, but it does work.
Bottom line, there is no way to force the truth onto those whom don't care. Those seeking the truth can find it. Until I can no longer find the truth when I seek it out, then I see nothing wrong with it.
If a post about the opinions of slashdotters and moderation is on topic - this is that article where it is.
Yet, while a late comer, I'm confident that the post will be modded down simply because it's insulting. Not that there's not a point - I believe the user may have a point, but it's obvious that this poster also has a bone to pick.
It hasn't been moderated as I post this - let's see what happens.
Yeah, that's exactly why I thought it very odd that blogs would be part of an argument.
Slashdot (at least after reading the FAQ) is obviously a site dedicated to editorial of it's readers, which could include anybody!
You might as well chide The Onion for it's inability to get a story straight. It looks like a news source. It says it's a news source. Then it must be true. I mean THIS ARTICLE couldn't be a parody. I have friends that have done the exact same thing!
Slashdot Mirror
If you make two or more copies then this will be argued as falling under manufacture and distribution. Neither of which are covered by the above exclusion, regardless of noncommercial status.
As the post above points out, it may also be a goodwill thing, but the law protects consumer and artist alike. Anything else is lawful interpretation.
Bottom line, P2P is not necessarily commercial (although any P2P client with ads is), P2P is not personal use.
However, The second part ("making a cassette tape...") is cited in the following exclusion:
1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Where P2P becomes an issue is in the distribution of said copyright to an audience that is obviously not personal in nature. Giving to a friend, meaning one, is personal. Giving to 2 friends could fall under distribution and/or manufacture. That's a whole different ball-game, not covered by the above exclusion.
If that's the case then there's no reason to argue. You, in fact, did pay for those songs. The fact that you make personal copies falls under the following exclusion of even US copyright law:
USC Chapter 10, Section 1008.
Private, noncommercial use is protected (no problem). However nothing about P2P networking is private. If it were, then the RIAA would not be able to find out who's sharing and downloading. The last point is only to emphasise why P2P is not private, not to emphasise the general lawfullness of things done in privacy.
Further:
Yes and no. The law grants protections to those whom create original works. These protections include exclusive right to reproduce and perform those works. Barring non-commerical, personal use, making copies is wrong. P2P networking is not personal, thus is not exempted.Bringing up arguments about eighteenth century "right to publish" is bogus. The first amendment automatically protects your right to publish. It even protects your right to parody a copyright work (although not to gain financially from such parody). As a previous post already said, Whatever helps you sleep at night .
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
--
Bold emphasis added.
The only question is the meaning of the word, noncommercial.
Just wanted to clarify that point.
Cities don't give up cash easily, so if there was not a legal precedent for "potential lost revenue" having value, then cities would not go through these hurtles. Yet, they do.
Every copy that is stored on someone's hard drive, is lost revenue. If you merely wanted to 'see if you liked the song' you'd find an alternate method of listening (like a streaming broadcast, or walking into a Music store). The song was downloaded because someone wanted it - but didn't want to pay the $0.99 for a legal online download. Sorry, in my not so humble opinion, that is theft.
However, that still does not give the music and movie industries the right to sue and prosecute little old ladies with Macs that couldn't possibly have perpetrated the crime.
This is where kids first become large enough to put people in the hospital and they often do.
This is where most kids are first introduced to drugs.
This is where kids first start getting sexually active (a blow job isn't sex / you can't get aids from sucking dick ) - and all the other bullshit that these kids feed eachother.
Middle School is where children start making adult decisions, but don't have to face adult consequences. It's all a joke, because nobody gets punished.
High School isn't much different, but at least in High School, these kids start seeing the adult consequences of the decisions that they are making. You actually have to sit in jail for assult in a High School. And for those that actually plan on attending collage (sadly, far too few), the fear of expulsion actually means something.
If you think it's "only Middle School" then it's been way too long since you've been to one.
Making a physical copy of a venerable media qualifies as fair use. Making an MP3 of a small portion of a song to use as an example of that song is also fair use (in the more traditional sense). In fact, making a cassette tape of a CD and giving it to someone you know (without money exchaning hands) is also fair use.
However, putting a copyright work in a location where absolutely everyone can copy it is not fair use.
I still don't see how P2P sharing in schools is linked to organized crime, as the article suggests.
Nope, I don't feel sorry for them.
Perhaps the educational videos bought by the school district were purchased by the shopping cart video dealer down of 4th street.
P2P based piracy doesn't fit. Selling pirated CDs and Video Tapes does, but unless the school store is selling pirated CDs - then this just doesn't fit.
So, this is similar to harrassing those whom went to Al Capone's soup kitchens in Chicago during the depression.
"Yes, I admit it, I ate food that he provided me."
Why not just link pirating and P2P with Al Quaida?FBI Raid on your enemy: $125,000.
Add agents with guns drawn: $120 each weapon
The FBI Press Relations agent standing outside the door of your enemy ... Priceless
The article pointed out that this school district has every student log in, so that everything that student does can be traced.
In not disagreeing with your point, but I wanted to clarify that one statement.
However, I see no reports of sweeps outside of Arizona. Thus, no news of a National sweep.
So now the Copyright Infringement of Music and Movies is linked to organized crime activities. O.K., I can believe that.
A school district is searched because of piracy?
Obviously the AZCentral.com site sees the link, but I don't. For organized crime to bother, there would have to be money exchanging hands, and I highly doubt that either students or staff of the Deer Valley Unified School District are paying for downloaded pirated materials.
Am I missing something here?
I see your point fully when it comes to an SF writer like Hubbard. I mean, to found a religion? If you make that point, I fully concede. I can't imagine, even a very insightful fiction author being able to credibly form a religion.
But putting those two anomolies aside. I would say that Orwell and Bradbury, or even gasp Stephen King have just as high a guru status as, say, Philip Dick, Arthur Clarke and (the subject at hand) Neal Stephenson.
Otherwise, his argument seems well in-tact to me.
If I'm missing something, please inform me. But I've read several Grisham novels, and while they are very entertaining, they do not strike me as having brought to the fore-front anything that was not already well understood.
In fact - your point, in many ways (again, correct me if I'm missing something) actually seems to support his argument.
Yet, the moral quandries outlined at the base of many Dicken's stories are still used today to illustrate decisions that people face in daily life. Science Fiction or not, Orwell's 1984 is often quoted by civil rights proponents and law-makers alike.
Basically, Anonymous Codger was trying to illustrate why Asimov has influence on science where Grisham does not influence law. I see no reason for you to present your point as an argument.
Again, correct me if I'm missing part of the picture here.
The Official FAQ: http://www.asimovonline.com/asimov_FAQ.html
However, the morility plays that have shown up in Grisham novels that I've read were not profound. They were just extensions or plays off of what we already know are current consequences of laws.
On the other hand, Asimov (and I'd point out Philip Dick) put a lot of thought into the moral and ethical issues that could come out of technology that doesn't yet exist.
Some of these predictions have already come true, because they were both profound and well thought out. There has been scientific research into robotics based on ideas from Asimov and Dick.
They all tell good stories, but the bonus of SciFi is the profound consideration of things that could someday become reality.
That said, there are things suggested by SciFi writers that are absurd. But people use thier own judgement as to whether these ideas have merit. Obviously, a lot of people have respect for Asimov's ideas. I think your best bet is to read some Asimov books and judge his ideas in their original context.
Maybe he writes "choose your own ending" books under a pseudonym.
So long as they avoid libel (which is a matter for the courts), then it's an issue of institutional choice.
If everything that's called news must be true, then you would deny me the pleasure of reading The Onion. It's a news parody site, but at first glance it's not obvious. The top of the page says, "America's Finest News Source (tm)," so it must be news. Yet the Supreme Court ruled to protect parody as a first amendment right. What's wrong with that?
What about the Weekly World News? It's the highest circulated paper in the US. I see nothing wrong with their editorial "fact" fabrication. Nowhere does that paper say, "Entertainment Value Only". People use it for entertainment though. What's wrong with that?
Basically, you can't hold these institutions under different legal standards than the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. They are all publishers. So long as they avoid libel, they are free to print whatever they want. Their accuracy beyond that is an institutional choice.
If you don't feel they are accurate, and you expect them to be, your only recourse is to spend your money elsewhere. If enough people do that then the advertising will suffer.
A good example of this is the New York Post. This is a paper that suffered under claims of inaccuracy for years. Now they report more "gossip" to keep readership up. How many respected newspapers keep gossip on the front page?
I, in a very humble opinion, see nothing wrong with any of this. It's publishing. It's there to sell papers.
Where I do see a problem, is when someone expects the government to keep someone's first amendment rights in check. Libel and Slander laws exist to protect when a first amendment right infringes on someone else's rights. You do not have the right to force someone to give you accurate news. You do have the right to investigate and find out the truth yourself. Our system, as it exists, is pretty good. What's happening is exactly what should happen. Lies and mis-spoken facts are getting out there, and then being found out. This is the way our system has evolved. And sometimes it doesn't work quickly, but it does work.
Bottom line, there is no way to force the truth onto those whom don't care. Those seeking the truth can find it. Until I can no longer find the truth when I seek it out, then I see nothing wrong with it.
If a post about the opinions of slashdotters and moderation is on topic - this is that article where it is.
Yet, while a late comer, I'm confident that the post will be modded down simply because it's insulting. Not that there's not a point - I believe the user may have a point, but it's obvious that this poster also has a bone to pick.
It hasn't been moderated as I post this - let's see what happens.
Slashdot (at least after reading the FAQ) is obviously a site dedicated to editorial of it's readers, which could include anybody!
You might as well chide The Onion for it's inability to get a story straight. It looks like a news source. It says it's a news source. Then it must be true. I mean THIS ARTICLE couldn't be a parody. I have friends that have done the exact same thing!