Copyright Violation

[WabUfvot5]

Does it if they buy your music? What if they buy it a few years later?

Back on topic... I think there would be problems if they medium was the same. DVD to DVD blank for instance. DVD -> iPod is probably legal enough.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Jebediah

DVD -> iPod is probably legal enough.

Yes, but the people doing the suing can't even make up their mind about that... They've come out on both sides of the issue.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

If I'm a musician, how the hell is the guy who downloads my song for free my "customer base"? That's a red herring if ever I've heard one. He doesn't become my "customer base" until and unless he actually pays me for something. You know. Like a customer does.

But you're not doing the suing. The RIAA is suing, on behalf of/representing,
the music business, isn't it? And aren't they suing the people who buy music, ie, customer base?

Are you saying they don't sue people that ever buy music?
Or people that buy music never copy their buddies disc?

My objection is they have huge war chests and legal staffs that steamroller over everybody in their sights, just because they can. I never will approve of "let God sort 'em out".

Then they want the power to destroy my PC if they suspect I have pirated music. There would have to be a payback for that.... just couldn't let that slide.

[WabUfvot5]

Originally Posted by Flint

Yes, but the people doing the suing can't even make up their mind about that... They've come out on both sides of the issue.

We're not lawyers but I would wager good money Circuit City either got the OK from legal or made an agreement to exempt what they are doing.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Jebediah

We're not lawyers but I would wager good money Circuit City either got the OK from legal or made an agreement to exempt what they are doing.

Actually, it's probably like those disclaimers on photograph and document copying machines that place the responsiblity on the users to insure that it is legal for them to be copying the item.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Jebediah

We're not lawyers but I would wager good money Circuit City either got the OK from legal or made an agreement to exempt what they are doing.

My point is that the AAs, the ones doing the suing, can't give a straight answer as to whether transfering a DVD to your iPod is something they think is okay or not. Meaning: at their discretion, they could decide to sue over this or not. It's up to circuit City is they want to skate on this thin ice or not, but the AAs have made it clear that pretty much anything you do, no matter how harmless, is fair game to them, in the face of all common sense.

[richlevy]

The thing that AA's really want to eliminate are the fair use and first sale doctrines. DRM's on downloaded songs technically violate 'first sale' doctrine, so I'm sure in the fine print somewhere is a note that you are 'leasing' and do not own, your iPod copy of the song.

[WabUfvot5]

Would that be entrapment or enabling by Circuit City? I guess the moral is to do your copying in private (or at worst find the local nerd and pay him / her to do it).

I don't use purchased cds in my car or walkman... I only use copies of cds I have purchased.
If a cd has copy blocking software on it I will not buy it, that artist does not want my money.

[melidasaur]

Originally Posted by richlevy

The thing that AA's really want to eliminate are the fair use and first sale doctrines. DRM's on downloaded songs technically violate 'first sale' doctrine, so I'm sure in the fine print somewhere is a note that you are 'leasing' and do not own, your iPod copy of the song.

I don't think fair use is applicable here - fair use is something that is mostly used by educators in handing out photocopies of articles or using a movie for class room viewing - and educational and limited purpose.

This is all an issue of licensing and not copying - no copyright is being violated because they aren't copying things and then selling the copies. They are merely transferring, providing a service and giving you the copy, in hopes that you don't make further copies at home. And that is the answer straight from the lawyers mouth .

I too have heard that.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

huzzah for those bands. that still doesn't make the guy who downloads it for free my customer.

Nor the guy who buys or leases it. That guy is the recording company's customer. And when the record company decides to stop selling it, as they eventually do with 95% of material, there won't be any customers at all because it won't be available at any price.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by melidasaur

I don't think fair use is applicable here - fair use is something that is mostly used by educators in handing out photocopies of articles or using a movie for class room viewing - and educational and limited purpose.

This is all an issue of licensing and not copying - no copyright is being violated because they aren't copying things and then selling the copies. They are merely transferring, providing a service and giving you the copy, in hopes that you don't make further copies at home. And that is the answer straight from the lawyers mouth .

It is probably more 'first sale' than 'fair use'.

BTW, read the Wikipedia on 'first sale', it has this little gem.

Microsoft was countersued in Microsoft Corp v. Zamos (Case: 5:04-cv-02504) for violating the Clayton Act. In Microsoft v. Zamos, after unsuccessfully trying to return legally acquired unopened copies of Microsoft Software purchased at a student bookstore, as specified in the Microsoft EULA, Zamos sold the software on EBay for a profit of $140.00 . Microsoft investigators sent a message to Zamos, through eBay's website, asking whether the disk containing the software included the phrase "not for retail or OEM distribution." Zamos confirmed by return email the same day that the disk did include the phrase. Microsoft then sued Zamos claiming that "Microsoft has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial and irreparable damage to its business reputation and goodwill as well as losses in an amount not yet ascertained... Defendant's acts of copyright infringement have caused Microsoft irreparable injury." and sought legal fees and the profit from the sale.
Zamos responded on Jan 3, 2005 by countersuing Microsoft with Clayton Act charges and further charged that, "Microsoft purposely established and maintained a sales and distribution system whereby rightful rejection and return of merchandise that is substantially non-conforming is either impossible or practically impossible due to the ineptness of its employees, unconscionable policies, malicious intent and deceptive practices," thus engaging in fraud and violating the Consumer Sales Practice Act.
Microsoft offered to drop the case when local Ohio papers carried the story. Zamos however refused to drop the case until Microsoft apologized and paid for the cost of copies of legal documents at the local copy shop. In March 2005, Microsoft and Zamos agreed to a settlement, which included a non-disclosure agreement with regards to the settlement terms.

Way to go Mr. Zamos!

edited:
Here's a better link to the Zamos story.

To this day, Zamos's greatest critic remains his girlfriend. "She thinks it's wrong to sue anyone ever, and that I should have just gotten out of it as fast as possible, but I have a different view of the legal system," he says. "I think it's the only real way to effect any change. There are a lot of problems with this country, but at least I can defend myself in a court of law, which is saying a lot."
Zamos ponders what would have happened if he hadn't put up a fight. "I would have just declared bankruptcy, gone to grad school, and moved in with my girlfriend, like I was planning on anyway," he says.
When asked if he'd ever consider being a lawyer, Zamos answers, "Are you kidding? I hate this stuff!"
He plans to go into pharmaceutical research.