Re: Copyright laws and downloading music.

richard <member@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:c44ak4lpkmfc9ku6o47ll37rq4bnapn7n1@xxxxxxx:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:35:16 GMT, Deadrat <a@xxxxx> wrote:

richard <member@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:r3e7k4llj5ruc779ejj7rum12h340dpb57@xxxxxxx:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:00:08 -0800 (PST), jake <peppy54@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Supposing I got busted for downloading music via Lime Wire or a
similar service. Supposing also when the feds served their search
warrant they discovered that every for piece of music I downloaded,
I owned the original vinyl recording for. Would I be guilty of
anything? Why should I pay for music twice? In all their high and
mighty crusade against music piracy have they allowed for people who
bought this music 30 years ago and now want to put it to disc?


If you have the original vinyl version, then you need to do your own
ripping right off the vinyl. There are several ways of doing it.

Back in the beginning days of Napster, the head honcho for the RIAA
said to Napster, "You know what you're doing is illegal don't you?"

No it is not. Since the program was originally intended for students
to share files, of their own private work, that much IS legal in
every way.

What I can not do with the copyrighted material is to SELL the
material. Then why can't I? I own it, if I want to sell it, that's
my business. The artist already got his cut. He's been paid. I can
sell my used books with no problems. Why not music?

Because the head honcho got on some high and mighty kick they
decided to begin tracking users of Napster, fidning out who they
were and demanding payment. Uh no sorry honey, the laws don't work
that way. No you do not have the legal right to call up people and
demand they pay some $2,000 for having downloaded material that's
already been paid for legally. I think the law might call that
extortion.

And the way they track you? Your IP. Oh please. More than 1 user can
have the same IP.

Quite frankly, if some *** called me on the phone and told me I
had to pay them $2,000 or go to jail? I'd instantly file charges
against them.

Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote (somewhat obliquely) in
1985, "[copyright infringement] does not easily equate with theft,
conversion, or fraud...The infringer invades a statutorily defined
province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not
assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive
its owner of its use."

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6450_7-5081098-1.html

Written 10 years before the internet even existed. Interesting eh?
Suggest you read the rest of the site.

Like just about everything you write here, this is true only inside
your head. It has nothing to do with the real world.

People who download copyrighted music from peer-to-peer networks
without paying are guilty of copyright infringement. Some have been
taken to court, and have lost. Napster is out of business precisely
because what they were doing was illegal.

It doesn't matter whether you sell the illegal copies you make or
whether you give them away. It's the copying that's he problem, not
the selling. The artist got his cut when he sold you the CD, and he
doesn't get another taste when you dispose of the physical CD. But
he's supposed to get a cut from every copy made. He doesn't get that
cut when you make illegal copies from the CD you own.

You can sell your used books with no problem, and you can sell your
used music CDs as well. What you can't do is make copies of your CDs
except in limited circumstances.

It's not extortion to demand payment from infringers. It is extortion
in some jurisdictions to demand payment from infringers and threaten
to go to the police and file a complaint if they don't pay up.

You can't file charges against anyone. You can file a complaint, but
if you did, you'd be laughed at just the way you're laughed at here.

Whatever you don't understand about Blackmun's statement has no
bearing on the law today.


Dude,

How do you know I'm a "dude," Dude?

the copyright law ain't about making copies for your personal
use.

Wrong, as usual.

It's about making copies and selling them.

Whether you sell them, give them away, or store them in your attic, the
law is all about the copying. Some copying is allowed; most isn't.
Selling has nothing to do with it.

Yes you can sell those CD's and books you bought.

As we all agree, selling the physical things that you bought is legal.

Many courts have ruled that filesharing is perfectly legal.

Please name one such court. And then tell Napster.

As many times there are items that are granted to the public by the
author, which is legal under the copyright laws.

Of course the copyright owner may grant permission to copy his work.
We're all agreed on that as well.

As you note correctly, the sale of copyrighted material that has been
copied without permission IS illegal.
Please note the keyword "Sale".

It's your word. It's not enshrined in copyright law. Suppose you made a
million copies of hit CD and gave them away. Do you suppose that the
owners of the copyright would lose thereby? Do you suppose that they
couldn't come after you for copyright violation? Do you suppose that you
had a valid defense because you didn't make a dime?

Look at the word: copy + right. The law protects the right to make
copies. Do you see "sale" anywhere?

Why is it illegal in P2P filesharing but legal on youtube?

What's "it"? Youtube takes down videos if the copyright owner objects.

Would it not be just as illegal in newsgroups?

Absolutely. Sometimes people post entire articles. Probably a copyright
violation. The loss from the copying of such ephemera just isn't large
enough to justify a lawsuit.

It is illegal in p2p filesharing because that system uses your IP to
track filesharing and thusly, entraps YOU to become a victim of the
RIAA.

I don't know what you think this means.

In one case I read part of, the guy was not aware that Kazaa's folder
sharing method was able to include ANY file in his computer simply
because he earmarked that extension within the original shared folder.
In a p2p system, any user can see what files you have to share so if
they want a copy, click, they get it.
You can't do that on youtube or usenet.

Thanks for sharing. Even if you're not aware of some condition, you can
still be liable for damages arising from that condition. What's your
point?

The basic argument with the RIAA is, they believe infringement exists
because you are giving away something someone else should pay for.

Yep.

I have a question for the RIAA.
Let's say a group recorded a number of tunes. They made their money
from the sale of those tunes. Two years later the recording company
and publishing company go out of business. Now how ya gonna get a
legal copy of that music 30 years later?

The law determines who owns the copyright. There aren't enough specifics
in your hypothetical to determine the answer to your question.

Copyright laws were different in the '60's. So let's say for the
argument that the original copyright has expired. What right does the
RIAA have to tell me I can't share my copies with you?

The don't. The RIAA isn't suing on works in the public domain.

From what I've read, the RIAA has gotten on to a kick of going after
Universities and colleges simply because those IP's belong to the
school and the RIAA threatens the school with lawsuits. Is that even
legal? I don't think so.

You don't think so? Then given your track record, it's a good bet that
it actually is so. Threatening a lawsuit isn't illegal. Winning such a
suit isn't a given. The RIAA would have to show much more than simple IP
ownership.

Furthermore, the RIAA can't prove WHO downloaded the stuff. So they
just file a suit against the homeowner and hope they're right.

The don't have to prove who downloaded the stuff to file the suit. They
will to win it.

Let them try and find me. I'll kick their *** good just for kicks.

You'd be the one-legged man in that ***-kicking contest.
.

Loading