Fools who download music

[Cam]

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?

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[Cam]

Illegal, yes, completely wrong in all cases debatable.

[Elspode]

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.

[plthijinx]

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?

[Elspode]

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...

[Elspode]

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.

[richlevy]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[elSicomoro]

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

Originally posted by richlevy
In the end, it is American citizens who, through Congress, decide the rules on copyright.

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

In the end, it is American citizens who, through Congress, decide 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.

[elSicomoro]

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.)

[xoxoxoBruce]

You're the third person that's mentioned me running for political office this week.

Do you take this as a compliment?

[elSicomoro]

Depends on how you meant it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.
Plan II, put on your cape and tights, slap half them suckers up side the head and show them the error of their ways.
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.