Thanks, catmistake. But where's the legal argument in there? Since when has it been a defense to copyright infringement that the copier is doing substandard work?
Thank you all for the interview, and for the rough and tumble comment period which followed it. I really enjoyed it. It was incredible fun.
I've even learned an important new legal research method in the process. A lawyer can't just read a bunch of cases and statutes to know what the law is. He also needs to come to Slashdot, because if somebody here says something's the law, and it gets moderated to +5, then it's the law.
Maybe lawyers don't know it, and Congress doesn't know it, and the judges don't know it, but sooner or later, I'm sure they'll come around.
Well I don't think you should be encouraging these young people to commit perjury. If you consider that being on a high horse, tough. I ain't getting off of it.
1. I do not think a US judge will care whether allofmp3.com is or is not legal in Russia.
2. I am aware of no legal authority for the proposition that because you once owned a cd you can in the future make copies of it from other people's cd's. I have never heard of anyone making such an argument anywhere other than on Slashdot.
As I said I believe playing it at a party would be ok. If it's not a party but some kind of business pretending to be a party, I think it would not be ok.
It will take years or decades to hammer out what does or does not constitute "fair use" with song files. In BMG v. Gonzalez, a p2p file sharing case, the poor lady got hammered on her claim of a "fair use" right to make copies.
You're misinformed. In Betamax it was held that the making of a copy of a television broadcast for later viewing was a fair use. I'm not aware of any other holdings on time shifting or space shifting. The Diamond case did not have anything to do with space shifting as a fair use.
The reason the RIAA goes after people for 'making available for distribution' is that that's the only thing the RIAA knows about. They don't know of any downloading or of any distributing when they bring their case.
I am not aware of any statutory or judicial authority, one way or the other, on the subject of legality of making MP3 files from CDs. What do you want me to do, pretend I have? Or pretend that I know what the judges will do?
Of course you have a right to listen to the cd you purchased. Four_One_Nine was asking whether you had a "listening right" that survived your possession of the recording so that, if you lost the cd or it was stolen, you could copy the recording from somewhere else with impunity. I think it was a fake question. And the answer to it is of course no.
We have gone far from what the founding fathers intended because (a) corporations rather than the creative individuals are the primary beneficiaries of the work product, and (b) the goal of returning the creation to the public after the creator has had a chance to derive some benefits from it has been thrown out the window as the duration of copyright has been extended from 25 to 75 years for purely corporatist purposes.
The RIAA-tethered bands you like are slaves too. Free them by not doing business with their slave masters.
I'm not ocnvinced of anything. I'm just an ordinary guy doing the best he can to be on the side of good guys rather than bad guys, working within a system that I didn't create and don't manage. I'm not here to convince you that the system works. I was here to answer your questions to the best of my ability.
The RIAA is attempting to expand the copyright law. If they succeed the rulings will apply to a lot more than music files. For explanation of consequences of court's acceptance of RIAA's "making available" argument, for instance, see amicus curiae brief in Elektra v. Barker.
Thanks. Yes there's something incestuous going on here, where non-lawyers are listening to each other for legal advice, convincing themselves of having cosmic 'listening rights' and the like.
The guy to whom I said "you don't know what you are talking about" had just insulted me, saying I didn't know about the existence of the fair use defense, just because I had said that buying a cd gives you rights in the physical object and gives you no right to reproduce copies of the cd. I am very familiar with fair use defense, and have been researching it for more than 30 years. My statement of the law was correct, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the fair use defense. Bottom line : (a) I was responding impolitely because I had been addressed impolitely, and (b) I was telling someone he didn't know what he was talking about that he didn't know what he was talking about. Yes it would have been a better/. comment had it included the reasons why he didn't know what he was talking about. Sorry. Will try to do better next time.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, catmistake. But where's the legal argument in there? Since when has it been a defense to copyright infringement that the copier is doing substandard work?
Thank you all for the interview, and for the rough and tumble comment period which followed it. I really enjoyed it. It was incredible fun.
I've even learned an important new legal research method in the process. A lawyer can't just read a bunch of cases and statutes to know what the law is. He also needs to come to Slashdot, because if somebody here says something's the law, and it gets moderated to +5, then it's the law.
Maybe lawyers don't know it, and Congress doesn't know it, and the judges don't know it, but sooner or later, I'm sure they'll come around.
Well I don't think you should be encouraging these young people to commit perjury. If you consider that being on a high horse, tough. I ain't getting off of it.
If you download without proper authority from the copyright owner or his authorized agent it would be a copyright infringement.
1. I do not think a US judge will care whether allofmp3.com is or is not legal in Russia.
2. I am aware of no legal authority for the proposition that because you once owned a cd you can in the future make copies of it from other people's cd's. I have never heard of anyone making such an argument anywhere other than on Slashdot.
Fair use issues with respect to copying of digital song files have not been hammered out yet in the courts.
As I said I believe playing it at a party would be ok. If it's not a party but some kind of business pretending to be a party, I think it would not be ok.
I do not think a US judge will care whether allofmp3.com is ok with the Russian government or not ok with the Russian government.
Thanks, bigmaddog, you've really helped put it in perspective.
It will take years or decades to hammer out what does or does not constitute "fair use" with song files. In BMG v. Gonzalez, a p2p file sharing case, the poor lady got hammered on her claim of a "fair use" right to make copies.
The reason the RIAA goes after people for 'making available for distribution' is that that's the only thing the RIAA knows about. They don't know of any downloading or of any distributing when they bring their case.
I am not aware of any statutory or judicial authority, one way or the other, on the subject of legality of making MP3 files from CDs. What do you want me to do, pretend I have? Or pretend that I know what the judges will do?
Of course you have a right to listen to the cd you purchased. Four_One_Nine was asking whether you had a "listening right" that survived your possession of the recording so that, if you lost the cd or it was stolen, you could copy the recording from somewhere else with impunity. I think it was a fake question. And the answer to it is of course no.
The RIAA-tethered bands you like are slaves too. Free them by not doing business with their slave masters.
I'm not ocnvinced of anything. I'm just an ordinary guy doing the best he can to be on the side of good guys rather than bad guys, working within a system that I didn't create and don't manage. I'm not here to convince you that the system works. I was here to answer your questions to the best of my ability.
A US court will not care that the defendant is not violating Russian copyright law.
Not aware of any.
The RIAA is attempting to expand the copyright law. If they succeed the rulings will apply to a lot more than music files. For explanation of consequences of court's acceptance of RIAA's "making available" argument, for instance, see amicus curiae brief in Elektra v. Barker.
Hard drive mirror image forensics issues that are likely to arise. Procedures. Daubert Frye hearings. Substance.
Thanks. Yes there's something incestuous going on here, where non-lawyers are listening to each other for legal advice, convincing themselves of having cosmic 'listening rights' and the like.
I am not aware of any rulings on Allofmp3.com.
I'm not aware of any statutory or judicial authority on the subject of making the backup copies.
Show my previous response to your Dad and ask him whether I'm right or you're right.
Thank you for your kindness in saying so. Much appreciated.
The guy to whom I said "you don't know what you are talking about" had just insulted me, saying I didn't know about the existence of the fair use defense, just because I had said that buying a cd gives you rights in the physical object and gives you no right to reproduce copies of the cd. I am very familiar with fair use defense, and have been researching it for more than 30 years. My statement of the law was correct, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the fair use defense. Bottom line : (a) I was responding impolitely because I had been addressed impolitely, and (b) I was telling someone he didn't know what he was talking about that he didn't know what he was talking about. Yes it would have been a better /. comment had it included the reasons why he didn't know what he was talking about. Sorry. Will try to do better next time.