Oct 05, 2007 08:16 am I'd have to read more of the case to form an opinion... but... time for bankruptcy.
Local gal fined $220,000 by court to RIAA
Posted on Oct 05, 2007 07:03 am
dbmasters
Administrator Since: Apr 03, 2002
www.smh.com.au/news/techn...1091325005.html
WOW. Almost a quarter million dollar fine for a middle class person like most of us...wow. Not saying she didn't have it coming...but still.
She'll be on the news being found swinging from the garage rafters in the next few days.
[ Back to Top ]
Oct 05, 2007 08:16 am I'd have to read more of the case to form an opinion... but... time for bankruptcy.
Oct 05, 2007 09:03 am It's outrageous!
There is no way in the world she deserves that kind of a fine.
She should have just copped the initial fee but really, WWAAAAYYY to much
Oct 05, 2007 09:07 am To quote the movie airplane:
"They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, let 'em crash!"
Anyone stupid enough to share files on commonly known systems I have little to know sympathy for. It seems harsh, but it's not like people aren't aware of the legalities after this long.
Oct 05, 2007 09:15 am As much as i like the quote :) i still don't believe the punishment fits.
If she was selling the music then fair call.
I'm not endorsing piracy but this is an extreme reaction.
Oct 05, 2007 09:34 am Seems a bit outrageous to me. I wonder which songs she was sharing up? Actually, how do they come up with the amount? What if she was sharing some crappy 1 hit wonder side "b" stuff. Would she be fined the same if say she was sharing off 24 Rolling Stone songs? Doesn't the fine have to do with lost revenue?
Oct 05, 2007 09:35 am Oh, it is extreme, but, it is copyright law, one can get many thousand dollar fine PER unit, meaning, per application, per song, or whatever. She didn't make money herself, but arguably she did stop others from buying it by giving it to them.
Either way, extreme or not, I feel no compassion for her beyond her obvious extreme stupidity.
Oct 05, 2007 09:51 am No wonder the RIAA are going after people. They can make more money sueing than they can from sales.
Piracy sucks and there should be consequences but the RIAA sucks even more. It is hard to support the RIAA cause. Is this the RIAA's first successful suit? I know that people have paid out settlements but I really haven't heard that they have been successful like this before. Who gets the money? Do the artists get a portion? Probably not.
Oct 05, 2007 09:52 am A lot of the fine has to do with making her an example. The RIAA and the courts know that they can't possibly catch more than just a very few of the millions of file sharers, so they hope these awards will scare other P2P users into thinking they may be next. In fact, the chances of getting caught and getting in trouble are smaller than the chances of winning Powerball.
Oct 05, 2007 09:58 am ah yes, chopping off the hand of the shoplifter.
Personally I would rather see the going after people profiting from piracy first. Go after Timbaland and the likes. Then go after the friggin' Chinese that are flooding the continent with knockoffs.
Oct 09, 2007 10:26 am While I admit that stealing is wrong I don't believe it's wrong to rebel against a broken system, in the long run this will hopefully cause the system to get fixed. A recent detailed study showed that at 10c per song 15x more songs would be sold - you do the math.
The case is going to be appealed
Quote:
"Nothing's been filed yet, but Jammie Thomas and her lawyer were on CNN today discussing that ridiculous $222,000 damage award for sharing songs on Kazaa and confirmed that they will, in fact, appeal. The exact nature of the appeal is still up in the air, but Thomas' lawyer says it'll have to do with whether or not Thomas actually transferred a song to another Kazaa user or just made it available on the network. That's a pretty unsettled part of the law and a fairly weak part of the RIAA's case, but we'll have to wait and see what the actual appeal says before we'll have an idea of how this will play out. Peep the full interview on CNN at the read link."
Oct 09, 2007 11:04 am "Rebelling" doesn't often do much good though. It does sometimes, but stealing just because the law says you can't is stupid and counter productive...
The whole RIAA thing is tough though. I mean, it's an incredibly stupid, outdated, outmoded system they are running, they are fighting a technology that can't be beat. The internet is not going away, yet they are failing to find a way to use it, rather, spending their resources fighting it.
Should these same labels dedicate their resources to competing with iTunes there would be a MUCH more effective outcome.
IMHO
Oct 09, 2007 11:37 am Interesting follow up story at www.news.com/For-RIAA,-a-..._3-6212374.html
I find the whole "But I don't use Kazaa" type of defenses stupid at best. If you didn't, you wouldn't have been tracked on those protocols.
Oct 09, 2007 12:14 pm it really depends on what those tracking protocols were... AOL I think _still_ uses hotswaping IP addresses...it can be very hard to track someone with those... I've seen hacker fights get out of hand just from dynamic IP addresses changing... have one that changes a couple times a minute and it can be a real mess...
but I think it's more an issue of "the kids did it."
maybe they just need to look at SCO to see how well suing customers turns out...
Oct 09, 2007 12:20 pm Yes, dynamic IP's can be a problem, but those as well, on some networks are tracked. As far as I know, and I could be wrong, IP moves are logged, or can be. Also, I don't know many networks where IP's change THAT frequently (as in a couple times a minute).
"The kids did it" I will absolutely, positively believe. However, I would guess maybe protective instinct may play a roll here since the RIAA has taken mother and child to court before if memory serves correctly.
Yeah, suing customers isn't really in the CRM handbook.
Oct 09, 2007 12:33 pm Another article: www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9218
Considering going after internet radio listeners? I guess another big problem is internet radio doesn't have to/isn't complying to the rules that broadcast FM stations/XM stations do for paying royalties.
I'm sorta waiting for when the public relents and tells all the actors that they really aren't worth that much to see, all the big-name filthy rich musicians really aren't that great to listen to, and all those dudes running around after each other on the field aren't that exciting to watch.
And people just won't pay it anymore.
But that'll only happen when the US pay scales actually match the worth of what the jobs actually entail (a whole lot less than what they are now, if you look at other countries).
My $0.02
Oct 09, 2007 12:39 pm There are quite a few questions regarding these lawsuits and I'm surprised that they haven't been challenged.
The first thing that comes to mind is that they would have to prove that the songs aren't able to be freely distributed. If I own a copy and the person downloading a copy owns it...is it still illegal? IOW's just because there is Kazaa traffic doesn't mean anything illegal was being done.
A newbie computer user could install Kazaa and not know that they were sharing out their My Music folder.
Those are just a couple of things that come to mind.
Either way you would get less of a fine if you committed a lot worse crime and this is a sad case of the punishment not fitting the crime. What she did was wrong but she shouldn't be finacially ruined for life either.
Piss on the RIAA. They are still trying to sell horse and wagons when everyone is driving cars.
Oct 09, 2007 12:48 pm [quote]I'm sorta waiting for when the public relents and tells all the actors that they really aren't worth that much to see, all the big-name filthy rich musicians really aren't that great to listen to, and all those dudes running around after each other on the field aren't that exciting to watch.
And people just won't pay it anymore. [/quote]
That's exactly where I am, I watch movies on DVD, not the theatre, I won't pay to see professional sports, I haven't bought a CD since I can't remember when...I am simply fed up with the whole thing.
Quote:
A newbie computer user could install Kazaa and not know that they were sharing out their My Music folder.
To be cliche', ignorance is not an excuse.
Quote:
If I own a copy and the person downloading a copy owns it...is it still illegal?
It has already been determined that it is...how about that, huh? During the trial in question it was stated that it is (or should be, I forget) illegal to copy a CD you own.
Quote:
Piss on the RIAA.
Agreed. But I also don't condone theft.
Oct 09, 2007 01:00 pm This stinks. The mass media and congress get all in an uproar when agents use wiretaps and survey calls and bank records of terrorists, and then RIAA demands colleges and IPs to scan all internet transactions for possible copyright infringement.
Shows what the mighty buck can do.
Oct 09, 2007 01:26 pm It is definitely not illegal to copy your own CD, that's clearly covered under the fair use provisions.
What they said in this case was that it's a violation of copyright to share a song whether or not anyone downloaded it, so the question of whether someone downloaded it is irrelevant.
Remember I am a Brit, so let me tell you the story of this group of people who didn't like the way things were being run so they started breaking a lot of laws, and a few years later we have the good old USA. The scale is different but the principle the same, you fight against something, accepting the risks, in order to change it.
Oct 09, 2007 01:41 pm I can see it now. The Boston CD Party of 2008.
Oct 09, 2007 01:49 pm Quote:
It is definitely not illegal to copy your own CD, that's clearly covered under the fair use provisions.
Yes, but "fair use" is now also being challenged and redefined.
Oct 09, 2007 02:20 pm You'll have to point to a link. I follow this stuff and I've not heard of any challenge to the ability to copy your own CD (I'm not saying there isn't one but as a member of various anti-RIAA blogs and groups we tend to stay close to this stuff)
Oct 09, 2007 02:25 pm They were trying to undermine fair use in the case we are discussing here with one or two people claiming copying your own CD is stealing.
Googling "fair use RIAA" brings up more links than you can shake a pirated CD at.
Oct 09, 2007 03:41 pm Right, they've been saying that for years. That rule has not been changed or directly challenged.
The EFF and other anti-RIAA lawyers cannot determine if downloading a song you already own is actually a problem, but sharing one definitely is.
Oct 09, 2007 03:58 pm How about this? It's not the RIAA but PRS (no not the guitar company).
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...ast/7029892.stm
Oct 09, 2007 04:00 pm Oh fer God's sake. That's just f###ing stupid.
When I want to hear my favorite band, I just grab some beers and hop down to the local garage.
I suppose the PRS is claiming that people won't buy recordings because they can hear all they want for free at the Kwik-Fit?
Oct 09, 2007 04:11 pm I personally think you should be able to download anything you have previousley bought and perhaps lost or is damaged.
I know i'll get some replies such as "If you lost you're car you can't just walk into a dealer and get it replaced" but stuff that.
Take Video Games for instance.
If you buy Half Life 2 you own it for life irrespective of what happens to the DVD.
You simply register the product, log on to their online distribution (Steam) and you can download it till the cows come home.
Bare in mind that a Game can cost 3 times that of a CD as well.
The only time i would re-buy a CD is if i wanted the actual casing and art for some reason.
Oct 09, 2007 04:23 pm What if I have a song playing in my head all day? Is my brain a storage device? Am I guilty of unauthorized copying and reproduction?
They'll be coming after that next.
Oct 09, 2007 04:26 pm I reckon they might just leave you're brain right where it is Herb!
Oct 09, 2007 04:28 pm I'm gonna question Bleak's interpretation of the principles here (no offense, of course).
If some company makes a CD and puts their 'Rules' on the cd, then it's up to you to agree with the rules, or don't buy the CD. This is just like a contract: if you don't like the rules of the contract, don't sign the agreement and then gripe about it later.
If company ABC says you can't copy the CD for your own personal use, and you agreed to that policy buy opening the wrapper, or buying the CD, or whatever they stipulate, then you should abide by their policy, and not gripe when you don't like their policy.
Course, this is only my interpretation as well =/.
Oct 09, 2007 04:34 pm Quote:
I'm gonna question Bleak's interpretation of the principles here (no offense, of course).
None taken :)
Pjk you are technically correct, regretfully i can't argue with Logic.
I just BELIEVE that i should be able to do it. That's why i mentioned the distribution Model that Valve Software have employed with Half Life 2 (and indeed all their software).
I think it'a fairer and more efficiant way of doing things.
Oct 09, 2007 04:41 pm That story on the Performing Rights Society deals with someting that I've been thinking about for a long time. It actually is against the law for business owners to play radios in their shops or stores for the public to listen to. It really is considered "public performance". Why do you think so many businesses subscribe to "Muzak" types of services? Bars that have live music are supposed to kick in $$$ to BMI or ASCAP or other PRS types of organizations. I wonder what percent actually do...
I've heard of this law before, but I've never heard of it being enforced.
Oct 09, 2007 04:47 pm Thats insane.
FFS - Radio is a the main reason why people buy Cd's by way of exposure.
Artists aspire to get on the Radio in the hope that people listen to the music and are in turn motivated to buy the CD.
One can't then whinge about poeple listening to it?
The more these stupid types of laws are enforced the more it will drive people to piracy.
Oct 09, 2007 04:55 pm That's the point though, in most cases the artists aren't whinging, they don't even get a say. Those that give free stuff away often get shutdown by their record companies (country music seems to be an exception where they all whinge about this)
There is not much question about the letter of the law. But being a law is different to whether something is right or wrong. There used to be and still are all kinds of laws that were wrong and they were fought and defeated, most often they were fought by breaking them in protest.
Oct 09, 2007 05:20 pm If I throw a party, charge five dollars a head, and play CDs on my stereo at said party, the RIAA, ASCAP, BMI and anyone else who has a problem with it can suck an egg.
Anyone here ever bought used recordings? Two weeks ago, I bought twelve CDs at a yard sale for a quarter apiece, knowing that the artists weren’t going to get any of the money. Many of the CDs were almost new. I could have had a pang of guilt for the musicians, gone to Hastings and paid full retail. I didn’t. I wonder how many members of this forum would have passed up the bargain in order to contribute to the coffers of their favorite bands.
The point here is that most people are looking out for their own pocketbooks and will get what they want as cheaply as possible or free if they can.
I doubt that anyone can realistically argue with that.
Oct 09, 2007 05:26 pm I guess I wouldn't have a problem picking up used CD's... it's not my fault if the person selling them didn't erase them from their computers.
Kinda like how it isn't your problem how the dude on the corner spends the money you give him, if he chooses to self destruct, fine. You did your part in helping to feed the poor though so it doesn't matter what he does with it.
Bad analogy, but i think it still applies.
Oct 09, 2007 05:33 pm No-one here would steal a car but if you're mate bought a brand new Mustang and offered to 'burn' you a copy ????
Oct 09, 2007 05:38 pm Quote:
No-one here would steal a car but if you're mate bought a brand new Mustang and offered to 'burn' you a copy ????
I reckon they might just leave you're brain right where it is Bleak!
Oct 09, 2007 05:42 pm Bleak has it right though, people always use examples like "buy a car" if there was a way to copy cars for virtually nothing then we'd be having the same discussion.
Oct 09, 2007 05:45 pm Hey! You can't use my own words against me!!!
and there i was thinking we were mates! :)
Oct 09, 2007 05:47 pm You can't leave me an open shot like that...
Oct 09, 2007 05:52 pm True True.
I'd shake you're hand but i'm sure it's busy!
Oct 09, 2007 09:19 pm I think soon we will start seeing more artists like Reznor, Bowie, Radiohead and more who are offering their music directly at a very reasonable price. They have all left traditional labels behind and if needed such as Reznor and Bowie will simply start their own label for the sake of putting the music back in the hands of the consumer at a decent price. Reznor sold more copies of With Teeth and Year Zero by giving music away at the same time, but offering more if you purchased it. I have bought his last 3 disc's directly from his site and paid less and gotten more by doing so. I will as well order the Radiohead box direct as it contains more then I will get in the store. If the major labels showed that same kind of class as dB eluded to above they would find they might not be loosing in the battle.
Oct 09, 2007 09:49 pm Aimee Mann made more money from 10,000 direct sales than from 150,000 sales on a record label where she ended up owing money - that = a broken system.
Oct 09, 2007 10:49 pm IMO, bottom line is the money is shifting and the RIAA is pissed. They are a sinking ship. **** happens. The RIAA does not have a model to address the usage of the internet and they should have a long time ago. This whole thing really reminds me of the dot com era. A bunch of people made really good money in the beginning and then the bottom dropped out. Old business cannot live during these times. They should have done something about it when they could but now it is too late... not to mention their very unpopular legal decisions.
The newest talent will be those that can take advantage of technologies like YouTube and MySpace. Blogging and such puts bands right at the fingertips of their fans. Why would they need a label?
The fact that they are pursuing people like this is cruel. Laws were broken but at the same time you could probably commit a violent crime and be punished less.
...anyhow, just some ramblings
Oct 10, 2007 06:25 am Quote:
I guess I wouldn't have a problem picking up used CD's... it's not my fault if the person selling them didn't erase them from their computers.
Really though, does it matter if the seller retains a copy or not?
I still acquired the recordings for myself without paying any royalties. From the standpoint of the artists' and publishers' wallets, I may as well have downloaded them illegally or "stolen" them by other means.
There are just too many gray areas in the world of intellectual property. People will be fighting over these things for a very long time.
Oct 10, 2007 06:36 am seems her lawyers were'nt the best going around.
OJ would have got away with it.
Oct 10, 2007 06:39 am Quote:
"We wanted to send a message that you don't do this, that you have been warned."
Ooooooooooooooh. Excuse me while I run and hide under my bed.
Oct 10, 2007 07:16 am Quote:
seems her lawyers were'nt the best going around.
Not sure who her lawyers were, but I am guessing she didn't come down to "the big city" to get 'em...she is a small town, outstate gal...
Oct 10, 2007 07:34 am Hey Herb it get's worse ....
Quote:
In Florida, Utah, and soon in Rhode Island and Wisconsin, selling your used CDs to the local record joint will be more scrutinized than then getting a driver's license in those states
arstechnica.com/news.ars/...eren-bitte.html
Oct 10, 2007 07:45 am The more asinine the news gets, the less it surprises me, Bleak.
I envision a new, all-powerful arm of the RIAA: The Garage Sale Squad.
It would make for a great TV series, don't you think?
Oct 10, 2007 07:48 am I would really like to see the transcript...
Oct 10, 2007 07:52 am Dude, there is a total spoof video I would LOVE to host on HRC! That is a total SNL skit waiting to happen.
The RIAA becomes a branch of homeland security or something too...
Oct 10, 2007 08:21 am Bleak, you do realize that you made that L&O file available for download..................................
Oct 10, 2007 10:26 am Quote:
Aimee Mann made more money from 10,000 direct sales than from 150,000 sales on a record label where she ended up owing money - that = a broken system.
Aimee Mann is a stuck up, arrogant, selfish *****, in my opinion, her system is a system of karma...and it's working wonderfully.
Oct 10, 2007 01:23 pm Quote:
Aimee Mann is a stuck up, arrogant, selfish *****, in my opinion, her system is a system of karma...and it's working wonderfully.
So she wouldn't go out with you huh !!
I'm really not sure what that has to do with anything being said here. The point is you make more money as an artist without the record company.
Most people say it's wrong to steal from artists, that's true, but only around 3% of what you steal is coming from the artist. Doesn't make it any less wrong but it's not quite as black and white for me.
Oct 10, 2007 01:27 pm No, it really doesn't have anything to do with it, I just saw room to take a good rip on somebody who is quite possibly the biggest jerk I have ever met.
See, to me personally, it's better to use an example of somebody who is actually a good human being when trying to get a point across, rather than somebody I simply don't give a crap about...know what I mean? Kinda like saying "oh, that's too bad somebody beat up poor Axl Rose".
You are right though, as I have always understood it, artists actually make very little from the recordings, thats where the label makes their ching, the artists makes it touring...or, that is always what I have been told.
I assume thats why one or two artists are always trying to break away from the stranglehold of the labels...
Oct 10, 2007 02:32 pm www.news.com/8301-10784_3...l?tag=nefd.blgs
Maybe this will become another Trump/O'Donnell fued...only nobody cares about these people :-)
While spoofing is possible and all that, give me a break, I highly doubt it's the real story...not saying 220k is a punishment that fits the crime, though...
Oct 10, 2007 02:46 pm This is where it gets all smelly for me.
If she is, as I assume, guilty of downloading the music etc, then this should be be fought in a different way by arguing against the system, probably can't win but it'll do more long term good and might get some others to pay her fines.
However to perhaps win on these hokey excuses doesn't help anyone except her and the lawyers.
Oct 10, 2007 02:56 pm I am totally with you on that Tony, making up stupid excuses that are technically plausible, but almost certainly not the case, is not productive for the movement as a whole. A more productive battle would be waged with the "yes I did it but..." type of argument and argue why the RIAA is out of line and in many cases, breaking the law themselves to obtain the information they obtain...unless the RIAA now has power under the Patriot Act.
Oct 10, 2007 04:52 pm Clear something up for me:
Has she been found guilty of downloading music or has she been found guilty of sharing music (making it available for others to download)?
Two very different things! (Not that I support either one...)
Oct 10, 2007 05:14 pm Both i think, but the 'sharing' is the big no no
Oct 10, 2007 05:42 pm Personally I don't think downloading should be illegal (and it isn't here in Canada). Reason being is that how do I know that I'm not able to download it for free? IMO, the person sharing the file has no right to do so and should be the one charged.
Oct 10, 2007 10:54 pm She was only prosecuted for sharing music. I guess it's inherent that she downloaded but it was the sharing that did her in, even if no one downloaded was the interesting precedent.
Oct 11, 2007 07:12 am Quote:
Reason being is that how do I know that I'm not able to download it for free?
I don't understand that argument at all...so, what about downloading software? Does that fall under the same arena for you?
I don't see how one would not know it's illegal.
Oct 11, 2007 09:19 am We allow our songs to be downloaded for free and so do many others. As for software it is when you install it that you violate the EULA not by downloading (assuming you are cracking the software or using a pirated key).
Oct 11, 2007 09:22 am Oh, sure, people are entitled to offer free downloads but then, you likely state as much on the downloads page...
Believe me, and I am sure you know, it's typically pretty obvious if you are at a site that is illegal...
Oct 11, 2007 09:35 am Don't get me wrong db, I'm not at all supporting pirating or this lady for that matter. I'm just questioning some of the logic (well most of it really) behind the motives of the RIAA.
As far as illegal sites, I was referring to p2p type downloads. Open up Kazaa (or one of the many others) and type in a song and download it. I believe that the person that has ripped it and made it available for sharing is the one who has violated copywrite. The person downloading has not.
Again, my POV is mostly for debating purposes only ;-)
Oct 11, 2007 10:25 am yeah, I guess, having never once been on Kazaa, Limewire, BitTorrent or any P2P I can't say much for or against them...
Oct 11, 2007 10:29 am Beer, I agree with the principle of what you say but I don't think that'll help you in court :). Ignorance is not a defense in most laws. So under the black and white of the law you are still wrong. If you download the latest CD from a major star you'll never prove that you "thought it was free" and even if you did it doesn't matter.
A friend put his songs up on bit torrent and got 1000 or so downloads, 950 more than he had before.
BitTorrent is the future, even if it's co-opted by the music business, but there current stance of trying to kill it it doomed.
Oct 11, 2007 11:10 am Ya I know I'm not exactly building a credible defense with what I'm saying.
OK, so then, how does one go about telling whether or not a song can be downloaded for free? Actually, I know the answer to that but I mean, how does John Q. Public find out if a song can be downloaded legally? What about this new Radiohead? You set your price is what they say. I say I dont' want to pay anything. Does that mean I can legally download it for free?
Tony, can your friends' songs be legally downloaded? I'm assuming so and this is the sort of thing I mean. How is someone supposed to know?
I think DRM was on the right track, just horribly executed. There should be a way to "watermark" audio files. If the RIAA put as much effort into a solution instead of suing then we probably wouldn't have this problem. If copy protection can be built into VHS tapes then why can't the RIAA come up with something to deter theft?
They (RIAA) can ***** all they want but this issue is not going away. Actually their tactics is probably making some people download more.
I think there must be a way to press a CD that can't be ripped. The software industry has been protecting itself by making CD's copy proof (or at least they try). To copy software you would really have to know what you are doing. That is quite a bit different that placing a music CD into you PC, opening WMP and clicking on rip.
Oct 11, 2007 11:30 am Microsoft has completely abandoned support for DRM, and will have no continued involvement cuz they said it's a hassle and a waste.
Oct 11, 2007 12:17 pm Beer, I get your point and I don't have an answer. No one here wants CD's that can't be ripped I would think ??
The DRM free is still a bit misleading. Those files are usually tagged with your email and if they show up in the wrong place they can still come after you for sharing them, it's just not a technical limitation that the track can't be played.
In the current world I don't have an answer for you and it is clearly a problem that I hadn't thought too much about. Many people would say "if it's on BitTorrent then it must be illegal" but that simply is not true.
I would imagine that Radiohead don't want their stuff on BitTorrent but they will let you take it for free if you want it from their system.
It's a tough one, but it's no different from "I bought this stuff from the trunk of someone's car - how did I know that some of it was stolen ?"
Oct 12, 2007 09:34 am So:
My wife works part time at a local radio station. Yesterday, I was chatting with the program director and he told me that the station gets its music from LimeWire.
The station, of course, pays its yearly fees to ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc. in the usual way (through playlist audits), so all is on the up-and-up on the station's end. The sources of the station's music are never questioned at any time.
This means that KXYZ-FM is legally downloading files from Joe Schmo, but Joe can be prosecuted for sharing them with KXYZ.
It's enough to make F. Lee Bailey's head hurt. I give up.
Oct 12, 2007 09:52 am Herb, I'm not sure it's technically legal, even if they have permission but I'm sure no one will go after them for it.
Oct 12, 2007 09:58 am It does sound odd since the person(s) sharing the files are committing a crime. Isn't it technically stolen property?
Oct 12, 2007 10:01 am One would think that if the station provides proof of royalty payments for any songs played, that automatically makes them legal copies, regardless of their source. But whutevver. The entire system stinks on ice.
Oct 12, 2007 10:11 am That could be true but they are encouraging piraters also so it sees that it would be similar to receiving stolen goods. It's the same thing as you owning a CD, this does not give you the right to download those songs.
and yes it stinks badly.
Oct 12, 2007 10:28 am The last time I heard, the courts ruled that a person was allowed to make as many copies of a recording as he/she wanted, as long as they were for personal use only e.g., in the car, MP3 portable, etc. Was that law changed too?
Oct 12, 2007 10:36 am I thought I heard it was legal to make a single "backup copy", I forget though, this topic has me so incredibly disinterested as it gets progressively more stupid.
Oct 12, 2007 10:41 am It is rather disturbing that we (audio peeps) don't even have a clear understanding of the laws. There are a lot more questions than answers in this thread. If we don't understand it then how is some "grandma" suppose to know?
(no offense to grandma's out there just an example)
Oct 12, 2007 10:44 am My grandma is very pissed off at you BH...
Oct 12, 2007 10:46 am Quote:
how is some "grandma" suppose to know?
Grandma's an ignorant slut.
/insider
Oct 12, 2007 11:10 am Ignorance is not a defense !!!
Herb, I wasn't talking about making copies, I was talking about downloading a song you already own, technically illegal.
Fair Use
[quote]In 1984 the Supreme Court held that time-shifting (for example, private, non-commercial home taping of television programs with a VCR to permit later viewing) is fair use. (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984, S.C.)
Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:
* Space-shifting or format-shifting - that is, taking content you own in one format and putting it into another format, for personal, non-commercial use. For instance, "ripping" an audio CD (that is, making an MP3-format version of an audio CD that you already own) is considered fair use by many lawyers, based on the 1984 Betamax decision and the 1999 Rio MP3 player decision (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999.)
* Making a personal back-up copy of content you own - for instance, burning a copy of an audio CD you own.
[/quote]
Oct 12, 2007 11:21 am Quote:
Herb, I wasn't talking about making copies, I was talking about downloading a song you already own, technically illegal.
If one owns a recording legally, and is allowed to have as many copies as desired for personal use, then that person should be able to download it as well. A copy is a copy is a copy. The 0s and 1s are all in the exact same places.
Well, maybe there are some things that I'm just not supposed to understand.
Stupid laws deserve to be broken.
Oct 12, 2007 11:40 am Ahhhh, nice cheap shot there Herb...
Oct 12, 2007 12:14 pm I guess the comparison is that if you own a CD that doesn't mean you can go into a store and take another copy.
I'm agreeing it's stupid, but I wouldn't try to test the legality if I were you :)
Oct 12, 2007 12:25 pm Quote:
I guess the comparison is that if you own a CD that doesn't mean you can go into a store and take another copy.
If that's the comparison they're making, it's rather a poor one. CDs themselves have physical value (material cost). Digital files do not.
Oct 12, 2007 02:20 pm That was just a bad example I made up. But you are placing no value on the content which is where I place all the value. I don't care about the physical part at all.
It really doesn't matter what is right or wrong or makes sense it's what the rules are. You have to admit that somehow being OK to download makes the likelihood of the illegal upload far more likely. It's like saying it's OK to buy drugs but not sell them, but without buyers there would be no sellers.
Oct 12, 2007 03:03 pm I didn't say that I placed no value on the content. I was trying to say that once I legally obtain a recording, my responsibility for paying for it -no matter how many copies I want- is over.
"Many lawyers" agree.
Oct 12, 2007 03:04 pm Quote:
It's like saying it's OK to buy drugs but not sell them, but without buyers there would be no sellers.
...but in the case of alcohol its ok to buy it but not sell it, unless you have a license.
Oct 12, 2007 05:16 pm It's not OK to buy if you're under 21 though :)
Herb, ethically you are correct but legally you are not. That might be how you want it and how it should be but that's NOT how it is.
Oct 12, 2007 05:21 pm I can't believe you lot can't legally drink till 21.
but you can vote at 18???
So you can help decide the leader of the free world at 18 but can't have a cheeky beer afterwards?
Oct 12, 2007 05:23 pm All the states were told if they didn't increase the age to 21 a few years back they would loose federal highway funding...well, not told like that, but that was what it amounted to. It was some strong lobbying by drunk driver victims groups and stuff like that...
of course, tho, we get guns and shoot people at 14 tho, so we have that going for us.
Oct 12, 2007 05:25 pm Quote:
of course, tho, we get guns and shoot people at 14 tho, so we have that going for us.
Well as long as it's balanced :)
Oct 12, 2007 05:29 pm We also have a fat stupid **** whose house uses 4 times as much energy as the average citizen of his state telling us how we should conserve energy...
Oct 12, 2007 05:30 pm Most provinces you have to be 19. A couple of them allow you to drink at 18. but you have to be 21 to buy cigarettes.
Oct 12, 2007 05:33 pm Quote:
Herb, ethically you are correct but legally you are not. That might be how you want it and how it should be but that's NOT how it is.
Quote:
the chances of getting caught and getting in trouble are smaller than the chances of winning Powerball.
I'm off to the Kwik-Mart for a ticket.
Legally obtained, of course. :-)
Oct 12, 2007 05:36 pm oh ya, you have to be 21 to buy a lottery ticket here.
|
Related Forum Topics: |
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.