Quote:
Originally posted by Cam
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?
|
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.