| Oooh boy.. You know the dogs in the manger over at the RIAA will sue-
and then the technological illiterates will be fighting the MIT students..
I actually pity those poor thieves .... |
|
thumbs down from:
bokamba 
| The RIAA is in the wrong for suing anybody that downloads music. The person downloading [the music] was not the person who copied it to begin with. Thus, the person violating on copyright infringement is the person copying it to their hard drive, and NOT the person downloading it. The copyright lost its meaning once the information has been removed from the album. For all they know (RIAA) it is not the same artist or song. From the copyright standard, the person downloading cannot be held responsible for a file that may or may not be copyrighted.
Personally, I will not go and run for a new Album just because I like the artists last one. I will not purchase a CD unless it has more than three songs that I like on it. I have always been this way. Why buy a CD with 13 tracks of crap and one good song? The record labels know this and that's why they try and change their sales by making “the best of”, or CD singles.
Downloading has not changed the opinions of the consumers, it was the technology that has mislead them. |
|
| said by ryeman:
The RIAA is in the wrong for suing anybody that downloads music. The person downloading [the music] was not the person who copied it to begin with. Thus, the person violating on copyright infringement is the person copying it to their hard drive, and NOT the person downloading it. The copyright lost its meaning once the information has been removed from the album. For all they know (RIAA) it is not the same artist or song. From the copyright standard, the person downloading cannot be held responsible for a file that may or may not be copyrighted.
Sorry, but this is completely incorrect. You infringe copyrights when you download a copyrighted song (without permission) just the same as if you rip and upload that song to a P2P network. Of course, if you rip that song and don't upload it or share it out, you are well within your fair use rights.
The RIAA is only going after the sharers because they are easier to prosecute (scan P2P network, find someone sharing a lot of files, sue, repeat). If you download a song, you are still in violation of copyright laws, but you are relatively safe from being sued. (For now, at least.)
said by ryeman:
Personally, I will not go and run for a new Album just because I like the artists last one. I will not purchase a CD unless it has more than three songs that I like on it. I have always been this way. Why buy a CD with 13 tracks of crap and one good song? The record labels know this and that's why they try and change their sales by making “the best of”, or CD singles.
Here I agree with you. I don't buy many CDs and really have not changed my CD buying habits at all. I've gotten burned buying the CD of a band who had a song I liked only to find out that that was the only song of theirs that I liked. I mostly buy greatest hits collections now. I may try some of the legal download sites, but will explore how the quality of the song suffers if I burn it to CD and then rip it to non-DRM MP3 (for my own personal use only, of course).
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ |
|
|
|
 Da22inBuck Fush
join:2002-06-10
Charlotte, NC | Actually...you are completely wrong. Copyright infringement is any reproduction, display or distribution of copyrighted (protected) material without permission of the copyright owner. The bold type words are verbs, not nouns. Infringement occurs when you facilitate the distribution of those files because of the negative impact you have on the market value of the work and the harm done to the copyright owners (who are often the authors of the work).
Distribution of copyrighted materials without express consent is illegal; hence the subpoenas sent to hundreds of people sharing files. The act of downloading copyrighted material is no more illegal than downloading freeware. If downloading were illegal, why wouldn't the RIAA load up a server with thousands of .mp3's and nail anyone who pulls them down to their computer?
The violation is the ripping AND distribution, not the acquisition. Possession of such material is debatable from a legal standpoint and absolutely un-enforceable...therefore to say downloading is illegal is inherently false and lacking any basis other than your own mis-interpretation.
--
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." - George Bernard Shaw |
|
 eberglarThanks for the memoriesPremium
join:2001-03-04
Bloomsbury, NJ | said by Da22in:
Actually...you are completely wrong. Copyright infringement is any reproduction, display or distribution of copyrighted (protected) material without permission of the copyright owner. The bold type words are verbs, not nouns.
No - they are nouns.
--
Procrastination is like masturbation. It seems like a good idea at the time, but in the end, you're really only f*cking yourself. |
|
| reply to Da22in
said by Da22in:
Infringement occurs when you facilitate the distribution of those files because of the negative impact you have on the market value of the work and the harm done to the copyright owners.
Not quite true. First off the negative impact has to be apparent, which with P2P it is not. Most, if not all, of the sales losses the labels are reporting can be attributed to either their own actions to sabotage the figures or from simple competition. Remember independent labels have had sales increases and absolutely no problems with P2P.
Also Copyright Law does not give the copyright owner exclusive rights to their work. Anybody can take that work and sell it, make remixes, derive new work based on it, and all sorts of other things. There is nothing the copyright owner can do about it. Copyright Law only keeps the owners from being exploited. If anybody does any of the things I mentioned they have to pay royalties to the copyright owner, thus making sure a fair share is given to the copyright owner.
Also copyright owners are more often not the creators of the work, but businesses who either represent the artist or hired the artist. In other words record companies and publishing houses are the ones who own most of the copyrights out there.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com |
|
| reply to Da22in
said by Da22in:
Actually...you are completely wrong. Copyright infringement is any reproduction, display or distribution of copyrighted (protected) material without permission of the copyright owner. The bold type words are verbs, not nouns.
And downloading a copyrighted work is unauthorized reproduction of that work.
said by Da22in:
Infringement occurs when you facilitate the distribution of those files because of the negative impact you have on the market value of the work and the harm done to the copyright owners (who are often the authors of the work).
The RIAA doesn't have to prove that you negatively impacted the market value. Just that you were involved in illegal reproduction of a copyrighted work.
said by Da22in:
Distribution of copyrighted materials without express consent is illegal; hence the subpoenas sent to hundreds of people sharing files. The act of downloading copyrighted material is no more illegal than downloading freeware. If downloading were illegal, why wouldn't the RIAA load up a server with thousands of .mp3's and nail anyone who pulls them down to their computer?
Because it would be too much effort for them. Instead of suing 60 million people (some for downloading just a handful of songs), they're going after the top sharers. This way they can take a good chunk of copyrighted songs off the P2P networks with each lawsuit. In addition, they scare people into stopping sharing which further reduces the amount of illegal song files on the P2P networks. Eventually, the amount of files drops so low that people just won't bother with the network anymore. Or they'll use it to trade MP3 files that they are allowed to distribute.
said by Da22in:
The violation is the ripping AND distribution, not the acquisition.
Actually, the ripping is perfectly legal. It falls under fair use. (Although, the RIAA would love to make that illegal as well.) It's making it available for distribution or downloading it that is illegal.
said by Da22in:
Possession of such material is debatable from a legal standpoint and absolutely un-enforceable...therefore to say downloading is illegal is inherently false and lacking any basis other than your own mis-interpretation.
Just because something isn't enforceable doesn't mean it's legal. From the 9th Circuit's ruling in the Napster Case ( »www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopin···Document ):
said by 9th Circuit Court:
We agree that plaintiffs have shown that Napster users infringe at least two of the copyright holders' exclusive rights: the rights of reproduction, § 106(1); and distribution, § 106(3). Napster users who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs' distribution rights. Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs' reproduction rights.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ |
|
