Fools who download music
 

Something has started to really bother me about the RIAA's recent onslaught of lawsuits. It's not so much that the RIAA is suing it's customers is that the idiots that are being sued keep claiming that they didn't know what they were doing was illegal. Come on people, it's been in the news everywhere for the last 2 years; you can't tell me you didn't know.

I'm all for cheap music, I love the idea of Itunes and wish I could use it, and probably will start once it becomes available for Windows. I also dislike the RIAA tremendously and think that they are really overstepping their bounds in some cases, but anyone who can stand there and truthfully say that they did not know that the 2000 songs they downloaded from Kazaa where in violation of copyright laws is a complete idiot.

The only way I can see this argument standing is if a judge or jury uses the same reasoning that let's some woman lose a suit to McDonalds when she spills hot coffee on herself. Shouldn't the fact that file sharing is illegal be almost as well known as the fact that hot coffee is actually hot?

C'mon Cam. You're kidding, right? Illegal to download music, ha ha , that's a good one.:D

Illegal, yes, completely wrong in all cases debatable.

I agree, it is completely illegal to distribute copies of music you've purchased. It always has been, we've just gotten so much better at it lately...

For example, I just want to say that, if I had illegally downloaded Johnny Cash's "American IV - The Man Comes Around" and listened to it today, I would have to comment that it is a terrific recording, and I would recommend it highly to anyone who thought they might enjoy it.

one thing i want to know is how can they possibly prosecute every one that has downloaded a file? it seems that it would cost them too much in the litigation process.........how do they expect to win? (against every one) now i did come across an article in the houston chronicle that they were implementing special software code on the new cd's they distribute and that you can only upload a song(S) 3 times per cd per computer. so what's the deal? does it write to cache?

How is that going to help? All you have to do is convert it into mp3 format, and then you can distribute all you want...

Well, having just read up on everything I could find about the technology, I still don't freaking understand it. It does seem that, if it works, you could still do a digital capture on the analogue stream output by a CD player, and produce a fairly good copy that way, but it would take a lot more time and effort, plus it wouldn't be an exact digital copy.

From what I read, all subsequent digital copies of the protected CDs would carry with them the protection, which limits the number of copies which can be made from any one CD, and also limits how many times the copies can be played. I cannot imagine how this is done, though, and I'm still not sure why one could not rip the CD-A track to mp3.

Re: Fools who download music
 

Actually, what that suit was about was should hot coffee be capable of delivering third degree burns. The case was more complex than can be conveyed in a one-line sound bite.

Summary of facts in McDonalds Coffee Case

Similarly, the whole issue of copyright protection involves over 200 years of case law. For instance, when a band plays a song at a wedding, do they pay a royalty? When a professional DJ plays a song at a wedding, does he pay a royalty? Is he supposed to? If so, why hasn't the RIAA sued professional DJ's.

DMCA

Some of the issues relating to the RIAA and music are still in a gray area. The RIAA is trying to have it all their way and is attempting to treat music as both a license and piece of property, whichever suits them at the time.

For example, I own George Clinton's Greatest Hits. If I make an MP3 copy for my own use, under the "fair use" provision established by the Supreme Court Fair Use FAQ I am probably not violating copyright.

If I go to my friends house and he lets me put his copy of Greatest Hits in his CD player, I am not violating copyright.

If my friend places the CD in his drive and I access it via the Internet, the RIAA contends that I am probably violating copyright even though I a) own a copy of the CD and therefore a 'license' to listen to it b) am not damaging their revenue since I have already bought a copy of the CD c) have not made a copy of the song other than possibly an unusable temporary file, an 'ephemeral' file in the language of the DMCA. The DMCA specifically allows 'service providers' to create ephemeral files.

If I have a party in my house and play my personal collection of CD's for my guests, do I need to pay royalties? If I ask people to chip in for the beer and snacks, and therefore accept money, do I then owe a royalty?

IMO, copyright law is terribly convoluted, almost as bad as patent law. For this reason, items like typeface are not copyrightable. Picture books and magazines being recalled because they contain a lettter 'a' similar to someones copyrighted typeface, and we can see where keeping typefaces out of copyright is a very good idea. Unfortunately, computer fonts may no longer enjoy this simplicity, since because they are part of 'computer software', which Congress specifically wanted protected by copyright, they can now join the copyright circus with all of the other clowns.

The DMCA has given the RIAA a large stick, but some of their claims are still untested in courts. It took a while for the Supreme Court to recognize consumer rights in issues like fair use and first sale, which relate to making full or partial copies and reselling copyrighted materials as used. Some of the actions of the RIAA are still being challenged on procedural grounds. While it may make a lot of sense not to get in their way, there are still grey areas.

Personally, I would like to see the RIAA dismantled and ASCAP take over. RIAA represents music companies first. Copyright was not created to benefit music companies, and if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would be appalled at the use to which it is being put. ASCAP represents the interests of the artists more closely, and would be in a better position to develop a fair method of music distribution which could break the oligopoly standing between the artist and listener.

The library of Congress tried to come up with a licensing scheme for the whole Internet, but they have priced out many 'Internet radio' stations. I would like a way for artists to set prices for their music, and resellers distribute the music. I would have no problem paying ten cents for the license to download and play a song. Considering that many musicians sometimes get less twenty-five cents per album in royalties, this would be an improvment for the artist.

Until then, I will watch the RIAA destroy the goodwill of and entire generation of consumers. In the end, it is American citizens who, through Congress, decide the rules on copyright. We can, at a moments notice, change the rules. If the RIAA continues in a public terror campaign, then any congressmen who wish to keep their jobs may have to take away their toys.

You had you thinking cap on with that post, Rich.:thumb:

Re: Re: Fools who download music
 

Uh oh...looks like Rich is confused here.

I thought it was the Congress who, through intense lobbying by groups like the RIAA, decides the rules on copyright.

The key is the first three words.
It's time to get "mad as hell" and force congress to straighten this shit out, send the RIAA packing and come up with a reasonable solution. I doubt if many congressmen (and women) heard much flack from their constituents when the RIAA presented their draconian reforms.
It's "us" against "them" and they're organized and funded (by us) so we've got to get organized.
Sounds like a job for our Super Hero....El Sycamoro.:D

You're the third person that's mentioned me running for political office this week. If I go look around on the net, am I gonna find a committee trying to get me to run for something, a la General Clark?

(Had I tried to run for Philadelphia mayor, Sam Katz probably would have had me invalidated, accusing me of running as a dark horse to help John Street.)

Do you take this as a compliment?:confused:

Depends on how you meant it. ;)

Actually, running for office wasn't what I had in mind. I was thinkin along the lines of you going to Washington and persuading the congress to get their shit together with your indomitable charm, sparkling wit and razor sharp repartee.:blunt:
Plan II, put on your cape and tights, slap half them suckers up side the head and show them the error of their ways.:D
Considering how the people I know view politicians, if someone suggested I run for office, I don't know if that could be considered a compliment or not.:confused:

Well, look at the other 2 people that suggested it--Slang and Griff. All in jest. :)

Does this mean you're NOT going to save us from the RIAA?:(

I am merely one person--I would need an army of millions...or at the very least, an army of lawyers.

The EFF and the ACLU are going to be the crusaders on this one, but ultimately, it comes down to you and me. I will do my part by putting my upcoming CD out on my own or on an indie label (with me controlling the masters of course).

Go, Dude. I can't wait to steal it.:D

Well if you're not going to save us I'll have to try something else......Hmmm.
Hey Dave, the RIAA says you can't code, don't know how to retouch pictures and your Mom wears combat boots. :D

Nah...you're using the wrong bait. Try this:

Israel is a mean ol' country that beats up on the poor defenseless Palestinians. Suicide bombers are true freedom fighters.

Incidentally, when the Sycamore CD is finished, free mp3's will be posted. Maybe I'll create some web-only specials.

Out of curiosity, how is the new recording coming along, Syc? Have you found that software you mentioned to be easy enough to use, or did you go another route?

Since we're talking about downloading music here, and because I can't remember if I ever mentioned the stuff I do, I thought I'd post a couple of links if anyone gives a damn.

Three tracks from the CD I did with my longtime collaborator a few years ago:
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/79/l...patrick_c.html

A couple of rough mixes from the current recording we're doing of WB Yeats songs set to my collaborator's original music:
www.lunalushede.org/The Harlot's Song.mp3
www.lunalushede.org/Who But an Idiot.mp3

Part of my attitude toward downloading music is based on the idea that, at this point in my life, I'd be thrilled if someone would *want* to download any music I'd been part of making...

Okay so I posted out of my rear again, the McDonalds case isn't like these cases at all. Anyways I completely agree with all your points, but I still think that anyone who offers up hundreds of mp3's of copyrighted music and then claims they didn't know it was illegal is full of crap.

Re: Re: Fools who download music
 

The simple answer is "Yes, coffee should be capable of delivering third degree burns. Hot tap water is capable of delivering third degree burns. Coffee should be hotter than hot tap water. Q.E.D"


This is derived from a "fact sheet" put out by the American Trial Lawyers Association. I wouldn't take it as gospel truth, particularly where it diverges from the dry facts of the matter,

There are only a few decades of law involved here (sound recordings weren't even copyrightable for most of the 20th century). In the situations you describe, there is a royalty paid, but not to the RIAA; the copyright of the recording is not at issue, but the copyright of the song is. So ASCAP or BMI or some other group of Girl Scout threatening thugs gets paid. For webcasting, Congress concluded (at the behe$t of the RIAA) that both the copyright of the recording and of the song are implicated, so BOTH sets of thugs get paid.



The MPAA is a little more guilty of this; the RIAA still agrees you buy a CD, though they have an odd idea of the rights which come along with that purchase. The MPAA has asserted that you don't have permission to even play a DVD unless you buy both the disc and a licensed player. And they've gotten that to $tick in court.

The MPAA and the RIAA should just make everyone stop putting out product. That'll teach us.

Re: Re: Re: Fools who download music
 

But copyright goes back to the Constitution and the Copyright Act of 1790.

The intended goal remains the same, whatever the item being copyrighted.

latest reaction from Kazaa
 

story here

Wonder how THIS will play out?

Brian

Re: Re: Re: Re: Fools who download music
 

That "limited times" thing seems to have been swept under the rug somewhere along the way.

Copyright as it originally existed had limited times and a limited scope. It didn't really impinge on the ordinary person's life. Now it's got effectively unlimited duration, nearly unlimited scope (and they're working on removing the limitations), and constantly impinges on people's lives. Yes, both modern and current copyright both derive from the same clause of Constitution, but they really aren't too similar.

Oh crap... taking a cue from the RIAA, now the USPS is suing Americans over loss of revenue due to "peer-to-peer electronic mail." (Satire)

Re Fools who download music
 

Talk about taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut.the record industry are nothing more than complete money grabbing fuckers. OK so kids are sharing music,nothing new in that how many of us have taped music in the past from borrowed cd's albums etc.Rember the slogan "home taping is killing music"Still see a huge amount of very very rich rock/pop stars.Just how much money do these people need.Shit Sting got ripped off a few years ago for £six million.He didn't even notice it had gone. I have got a huge record,tape cd collection most bought some home recorded but I buy more music now than ever.As the lyrics to a song once said "Don't belive the hype".The record industry will be bitchin in 5 or 10 years time about some other new technology thats going to ruin them..and we will still be getting ripped off by them take the hint store bought music is too expensive.