"When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc."
In response to that he accused me of being a "copyright lawyer [who] hasn't heard of the fair use rights granted by US copyright law (Title 17, section 107)".
Because he was mixing apples and oranges, because he thought that what I was saying was inconsistent with the fair use doctrine, and because he showed himself to be rude, insulting, and ignorant, I said "you do not know what you are talking about". I guess I was imprecise, I should have said "you are rude, insulting, and ignorant".
Yes, but the RIAA has zero evidence of the defendants distributing. Please re-read the definition of distribution in the Copyright Act which you studied, and you will see that. I would also refer you to the brief of the Computer & Communications Industry Association and the US Internet Industry Association on that subject in Elektra v. Barker.
I hope you guys are aware that Question #7 threw this entire discussion off topic. None of the cases have anything to do with the legality of people making copies from their cd's. They're all about p2p file sharing.
And I hope you're aware that the person who asked Question #7, "Four_One_Nine", has never before asked a question or made a comment on Slashdot. So if he was an RIAA troll, and had an agenda, you have helped him succeed in carrying it out.
By the way, Buran, take a look at the background of the Slashdot member who asked question 7, Four_One_Nine. He's made only one Slashdot comment in his life. Question 7 in the interview. Do you think he might have an agenda? Do you think my wariness of him might have had a reason?
By the way, the guy who asked that question, Four_One_Nine, has only made one Slashdot comment in his life. You guessed it, question 7 in my interview. I wonder who he's working for.
Holmes Roberts & Owen, LLP. Their contact information is on their web site and in some of the litigation documents on my blog, Recording Industry vs. The People. See especially letters of Richard Gabriel.
I do apologize for saying "I have no idea what you're talking about". That was rude. It was in response to question 6, where the questioner was asking me in essence whether one could be exonerated for copyright infringement in the U.S. because the site from which he was downloading pirated songs happened to be located in Russia. It sounded like the kind of question one of the RIAA's paid trolls would ask. And it made no sense to me, and still doesn't. But I still should be polite, because the questioner probably wasn't a paid RIAA troll but a regular person who just doesn't know a lot about law. So, "giafly", I apologize (unless you are with the RIAA, in which case I don't apologize).
No US court is going to exonerate you for copyright infringement because (a) the site from which you did it is overseas, or (b) the site from which you did it is legal in its country of origin.
If the only thing you've ever done is make single copies from your cd to your computer for personal and/or backup use, I doubt you are going to be held liable by anyone. But of course you're going to have to prove also that the RIAA's evidence of your having shared these files over the internet is incorrect.
You would find it helpful for a practicing litigation lawyer to publicly guess on what the outcome will be in the courts? How would that be helpful? Why would my guess be better than anyone else's? Why would any practicing litigation lawyer make a public guess that the outcome on any particular issue might be adverse to the result that would help his clients' interests? I can't see why anyone would be interested in, or benefit from, a public guess from someone in my position. At best it would be a waste of breath... at worst it would mislead the more gullible among you.
If you ask me what is, I will answer to the best of my ability. If I don't know the answer I will tell you.
If you want me to guess, my guess is..... the RIAA will get crushed on every argument they have ever made or ever will make, and the courts will put them and their lawyers in jail, and everyone will be able to make as many copies of everything as they like, for free.... and after you've digested that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
I think the Diamond case just had to do with whether the mp3 player defendant was making was subject to the requirements of Audio Home Recording Act. Don't think it dealt with fair use or anything like that.
I'm not saying lawyers are smarter than computer programmers, probably it's the opposite. All I'm saying is that each discipline has its own language, lawyers speak and understand each other's language, just as programmers understand each other. When I'm among people who are not lawyers, and who are asking me legal questions, it is important not to mislead. Just because I can make an argument as to why something should be the law, doesn't mean I should do it in this forum. That is not my place here. No one asked me to fashion an argument. They just asked me questions on what is, not on what should be.
The default judgments are usually in the $4000 to $7000 range. You can tell what it will be by looking at the number of songs in 'exhibit A' and multiplying by $750. They are looking for, and apparently getting, $750 per song. Typically exibit A has from 6 to 10 songs.
If a person has no money or assets with which to satisfy a judgment, whether a judgment is $4000 or $10,000 is pretty irrelevant. I don't recommend that people default. I would rather people went in and fought the case. The RIAA makes money on the settlements, loses money on the default judgments, and loses a lot of money on cases that are contested. So I hope everybody contests the cases. But some people don't have it in them to go in to court, handle a litigation, go to court conferences, talk to the judge, wade through paperwork, go to depositions, submit to a hard drive inspection, etc.
Many people think question 7 was a good question. I do not. My initial reaction to it was that it was disingenuous, as if someone were looking for excuses to skirt the law, and asking me to help them by giving them some ideas. The whole question made no sense. When you buy a cd, you own the cd, you have no rights in the sound recording or in the musical compositions. Period.
If you want to know whether you can make personal copies for your own use, from a cd, without being sued, I can only tell you that the RIAA flip flops on the issue, and there is no judicial authority one way or the other, and there is no statutory authority one way or the other. So what kind of "legal analysis" do you want me to give you?
Meanwhile the whole subject is basically off topic. All of the lawsuits are based not on where the copies came from, but on the fact that they are in a shared files folder that is accessible to others.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not aware of any judicial precedent for the position that making copies from a cd to a computer would constitute a fair use.
There is no statute. And there are no cases. That's what the law says at this moment.
I do believe the courts will require them to prove that these were actual song files.
Only 4 companies are involved in the litigations against consumers. Only 1 of them is American.
I said:
"When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc."
In response to that he accused me of being a "copyright lawyer [who] hasn't heard of the fair use rights granted by US copyright law (Title 17, section 107)".
Because he was mixing apples and oranges, because he thought that what I was saying was inconsistent with the fair use doctrine, and because he showed himself to be rude, insulting, and ignorant, I said "you do not know what you are talking about". I guess I was imprecise, I should have said "you are rude, insulting, and ignorant".
No reason to think they will do this. Some have spoken out against it.
Yes, but the RIAA has zero evidence of the defendants distributing. Please re-read the definition of distribution in the Copyright Act which you studied, and you will see that. I would also refer you to the brief of the Computer & Communications Industry Association and the US Internet Industry Association on that subject in Elektra v. Barker.
And I hope you're aware that the person who asked Question #7, "Four_One_Nine", has never before asked a question or made a comment on Slashdot. So if he was an RIAA troll, and had an agenda, you have helped him succeed in carrying it out.
By the way, Buran, take a look at the background of the Slashdot member who asked question 7, Four_One_Nine. He's made only one Slashdot comment in his life. Question 7 in the interview. Do you think he might have an agenda? Do you think my wariness of him might have had a reason?
Good comment.
By the way, the guy who asked that question, Four_One_Nine, has only made one Slashdot comment in his life. You guessed it, question 7 in my interview. I wonder who he's working for.
The guy who asked question 7 has made one Slashdot "comment" in his life.
You guessed it, it was his question 7 on September 11, 2006.
Holmes Roberts & Owen, LLP. Their contact information is on their web site and in some of the litigation documents on my blog, Recording Industry vs. The People. See especially letters of Richard Gabriel.
I do apologize for saying "I have no idea what you're talking about". That was rude. It was in response to question 6, where the questioner was asking me in essence whether one could be exonerated for copyright infringement in the U.S. because the site from which he was downloading pirated songs happened to be located in Russia. It sounded like the kind of question one of the RIAA's paid trolls would ask. And it made no sense to me, and still doesn't. But I still should be polite, because the questioner probably wasn't a paid RIAA troll but a regular person who just doesn't know a lot about law. So, "giafly", I apologize (unless you are with the RIAA, in which case I don't apologize).
No US court is going to exonerate you for copyright infringement because (a) the site from which you did it is overseas, or (b) the site from which you did it is legal in its country of origin.
If the only thing you've ever done is make single copies from your cd to your computer for personal and/or backup use, I doubt you are going to be held liable by anyone. But of course you're going to have to prove also that the RIAA's evidence of your having shared these files over the internet is incorrect.
Thank you for your kind words and your excellent post addressed to the gentleman who was looking for a "wi fi router" defense.
If somebody doesn't do something to help the RIAA defendants economically, the RIAA will wind up dictating the law.
There's no authority on it at all, either way, that I am aware of.
If you ask me what is, I will answer to the best of my ability. If I don't know the answer I will tell you.
If you want me to guess, my guess is..... the RIAA will get crushed on every argument they have ever made or ever will make, and the courts will put them and their lawyers in jail, and everyone will be able to make as many copies of everything as they like, for free.... and after you've digested that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
I think the Diamond case just had to do with whether the mp3 player defendant was making was subject to the requirements of Audio Home Recording Act. Don't think it dealt with fair use or anything like that.
Of course I do not think they are right.
I'm not saying lawyers are smarter than computer programmers, probably it's the opposite. All I'm saying is that each discipline has its own language, lawyers speak and understand each other's language, just as programmers understand each other. When I'm among people who are not lawyers, and who are asking me legal questions, it is important not to mislead. Just because I can make an argument as to why something should be the law, doesn't mean I should do it in this forum. That is not my place here. No one asked me to fashion an argument. They just asked me questions on what is, not on what should be.
If a person has no money or assets with which to satisfy a judgment, whether a judgment is $4000 or $10,000 is pretty irrelevant. I don't recommend that people default. I would rather people went in and fought the case. The RIAA makes money on the settlements, loses money on the default judgments, and loses a lot of money on cases that are contested. So I hope everybody contests the cases. But some people don't have it in them to go in to court, handle a litigation, go to court conferences, talk to the judge, wade through paperwork, go to depositions, submit to a hard drive inspection, etc.
If you want to know whether you can make personal copies for your own use, from a cd, without being sued, I can only tell you that the RIAA flip flops on the issue, and there is no judicial authority one way or the other, and there is no statutory authority one way or the other. So what kind of "legal analysis" do you want me to give you?
Meanwhile the whole subject is basically off topic. All of the lawsuits are based not on where the copies came from, but on the fact that they are in a shared files folder that is accessible to others.
The RIAA flip flops on issues about making copies. See EFF Article "RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use"