Know Your Rights: Why is copyright law so screwed up?
By Nilay Patel 
posted Oct 5th 2007 6:53PM
posted Oct 5th 2007 6:53PM
Know Your Rights is Engadget's new technology law series, written by our own totally punk copyright attorney Nilay Patel. In it we'll try to answer some fundamental tech-law questions to help you stay out of trouble in this brave new world. Disclaimer: Although this post was written by an attorney, it is not meant as legal advice or analysis and should not be taken as such.
What on earth is going on with that $222,000 RIAA judgment against that poor woman in Minnesota? Is the system really that broken?
Why do you always ask questions that you know will have answers that you don't like?
Come on -- almost a quarter-million dollars for sharing 24 songs on Kazaa? No one even uses that anymore.
Well, the truth is that the system isn't broken at all, really -- it's working exactly as it was designed. Under the rules in place now, anyone who willfully infringes a copyright is on the hook for at least $750 and a max of $150,000 per infringement. Since each song you share is a unique copyrighted work, that means you get hit with that penalty for every track in your shared folder. This obviously lead to some strange hypothetical results -- sharing that copy of "Wave of Mutilation" triggers the exact same legal mechanisms as sharing all of, say, OS X or Vista, since those are considered single copyrighted works, but that's how we determine damages in our system.
Well, so why were the damages so ridiculous in this case?
A range from $750 to $150,000 is pretty huge, and we may never know exactly why the jury in the Jammie Thomas case settled on $9,250 per infringement as their number -- and most observers seem to agree that it's a figure that is out of proportion with whatever harm she may have caused the labels. There is also no conclusive evidence that damages of this size have done anything to halt the growth of P2P file-sharing.
The real problem that's being brought to light is that our system doesn't always keep pace with the rapid changes in technology. Every system has flaws, and it's incredibly unlikely that lawmakers, of all people, will be able to draft legislation forward-looking enough to avoid similar breakdowns in the future.
So why even bother? If we can't get it right, why even try to impose all these limitations? It just seems to lead to things like DRM.
What you're asking is more of a philosophical question than a legal one -- what law students will recognize as a "policy question." The copyright system is designed to reward creation and penalize unauthorized copying -- which is exactly why those fines for willful infringement are so high. If you were an author and someone straight-up copied your work and re-distributed it, wouldn't you go after them for as much as you could? Just look at the way we react to less-obvious copying situations, like those Apple ads that seem to lift a little more than they should.
Now, if you copy something in a non-willful way, the copyright owner has to show how much they were damaged and how, so we don't drop the hammer as hard on that kind of copying -- and the judge can reduce those statutory damages pretty drastically if you prove that you didn't know you were infringing. But the main idea -- straight from the Constitution -- is that the copyright system should promote the "useful arts" by giving authors the exclusive rights to profit from their works.
Whatever, I'm an coder and I license everything I write with an open-source license, so how on earth does this broke-ass system help me?
Because open-source licenses like the GPL and Creative Commons wouldn't be able to exist without strong copyright law to back them up.
How does that work? I thought they were all viral and subversive and damn the man! Talk hard!
Calm down, Harry. While open-source licenses are incredibly innovative ways of turning copyright law inside-out, they still depend on the existence of copyright to make all those sexy viral provisions stick. That's all a license is, after all -- a set of conditions under which an author lets you use his / her work. If you don't own anything, how can you enforce your rules? The reason why open-source licenses have power is because anyone who breaks them is liable for -- you guessed it -- regular, old-fashioned copyright infringement, and all the penalties that come with it.
So you're basically saying that there are parts of the system that are a little out-of-date when applied to the modern tech landscape, but that overall things aren't as bad as they seem?
Exactly.
This was so much easier when I just got to flame away about how broken everything was.
Don't worry, you can still do that. We won't tell anyone.
Thanks.
No problem, Mr. Emo Pants. Just try not to get your guyliner all over everything like last time.
What on earth is going on with that $222,000 RIAA judgment against that poor woman in Minnesota? Is the system really that broken?
Why do you always ask questions that you know will have answers that you don't like?
Come on -- almost a quarter-million dollars for sharing 24 songs on Kazaa? No one even uses that anymore.
Well, the truth is that the system isn't broken at all, really -- it's working exactly as it was designed. Under the rules in place now, anyone who willfully infringes a copyright is on the hook for at least $750 and a max of $150,000 per infringement. Since each song you share is a unique copyrighted work, that means you get hit with that penalty for every track in your shared folder. This obviously lead to some strange hypothetical results -- sharing that copy of "Wave of Mutilation" triggers the exact same legal mechanisms as sharing all of, say, OS X or Vista, since those are considered single copyrighted works, but that's how we determine damages in our system.
Well, so why were the damages so ridiculous in this case?
A range from $750 to $150,000 is pretty huge, and we may never know exactly why the jury in the Jammie Thomas case settled on $9,250 per infringement as their number -- and most observers seem to agree that it's a figure that is out of proportion with whatever harm she may have caused the labels. There is also no conclusive evidence that damages of this size have done anything to halt the growth of P2P file-sharing.
The real problem that's being brought to light is that our system doesn't always keep pace with the rapid changes in technology. Every system has flaws, and it's incredibly unlikely that lawmakers, of all people, will be able to draft legislation forward-looking enough to avoid similar breakdowns in the future.
So why even bother? If we can't get it right, why even try to impose all these limitations? It just seems to lead to things like DRM.
What you're asking is more of a philosophical question than a legal one -- what law students will recognize as a "policy question." The copyright system is designed to reward creation and penalize unauthorized copying -- which is exactly why those fines for willful infringement are so high. If you were an author and someone straight-up copied your work and re-distributed it, wouldn't you go after them for as much as you could? Just look at the way we react to less-obvious copying situations, like those Apple ads that seem to lift a little more than they should.
Now, if you copy something in a non-willful way, the copyright owner has to show how much they were damaged and how, so we don't drop the hammer as hard on that kind of copying -- and the judge can reduce those statutory damages pretty drastically if you prove that you didn't know you were infringing. But the main idea -- straight from the Constitution -- is that the copyright system should promote the "useful arts" by giving authors the exclusive rights to profit from their works.
Whatever, I'm an coder and I license everything I write with an open-source license, so how on earth does this broke-ass system help me?
Because open-source licenses like the GPL and Creative Commons wouldn't be able to exist without strong copyright law to back them up.
How does that work? I thought they were all viral and subversive and damn the man! Talk hard!
Calm down, Harry. While open-source licenses are incredibly innovative ways of turning copyright law inside-out, they still depend on the existence of copyright to make all those sexy viral provisions stick. That's all a license is, after all -- a set of conditions under which an author lets you use his / her work. If you don't own anything, how can you enforce your rules? The reason why open-source licenses have power is because anyone who breaks them is liable for -- you guessed it -- regular, old-fashioned copyright infringement, and all the penalties that come with it.
So you're basically saying that there are parts of the system that are a little out-of-date when applied to the modern tech landscape, but that overall things aren't as bad as they seem?
Exactly.
This was so much easier when I just got to flame away about how broken everything was.
Don't worry, you can still do that. We won't tell anyone.
Thanks.
No problem, Mr. Emo Pants. Just try not to get your guyliner all over everything like last time.
lol, antiemo.
Off topic, I found ot how to write in japanese on my macbook! はじみまして！
バカです。
Wow, i just discovered i have japanese fonts installed! Thanks!
I feel for this lady, but let's be honest here. KaZaA doesn't just magically show up on somebody's computer without their knowledge. Furthermore, 24 copywrited songs don't download themselves. Sure, the kids could've done it (or the pesky neighbors, or the cat), but it was her responsibility to keep an eye on what they were doing. Also, what most people forget is this lady more-than-likely could've settled out of court for a fraction of what she's stuck with now, but chose to fight a losing battle. I hope she appeals this, though, as $220,000 is a ridiculous amount of money for about 2 albums' worth of songs.
After appealing and most likely having the verdict overturned, she should countersue to the tune of however much she overspent on all the albums she DID buy. Last I checked a cd isn't worth the same and/or more than a new release special edition DVD. So with a cd costing about 20 bucks from the store and being worth about 4 thats at least a couple hundred dollars depending on the size of her collection...
What if (hypothetically), I were to go to the local library and download music? Would there be any way possible at all for me to be sued?
if they can figure out who was using the computer at the time yes. on the other hand they could just sue whatever government organization handles your library increasing the costs of that organization and eventually your taxes.
no, they couldn't - there's an immunity given to public libraries for infringements of copyright that take place on their premises provided there's a notice saying this somewhere around; see Title 17 of the United States Code §107 (f) (1)
@bhaal feel free to cite the source of your information. To my knowledge the only exemption extended to libraries happens ins § 108 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives. That's actually a fair use clause stating any work that is no longer being produced on a current media can be reproduced (ex. old records not being produced on CD may be copied to a CD in an effort for preservation) but this is considerably different from granting exemption for downloading works.
Reminds me of trying to explain the difference between how copyright law is written and enforced to my cousin.
I understand why the woman is being fined... she broke the law. However, if the RIAA sued me, and took my house, my car, my children's college funds, my retirement, and put my family into poverty, I'd do whatever I could to assassinate members of the board of the RIAA.
If they ruined your life, as well as your family, what would you do?
your right. I'm just waiting for the day that someone in the RIAA gets killed over this shit. Ruining someone's life to set an example is terrible. Hope they go to Hell for this(in the very serious sense)
it's only a matter of time before they really kick someone over the edge and he runs into lawfirms and starts killing people. Then the lawyers can sue the RIAA over losses for "dangerous working conditions".
And if someone does run in to a building shooting a bunch of RIAA lawyers... who's going to cry?
emolicious!
I love this column, keep up the good work! ^_^
I just ROFL'd .
eh. doesn't have the same effect as "loled"
I have to add something here.
The *original* intent of copyrights as stated in the Court of Queen Anne (where the first copyright was created) and as is actually stated in most copyright acts (the US as well) is to give creators *limited* monopoly in order to promote the creation of new works.
It was never intended to be unlimited in time and scope.
On the 'duration' end, originally a copyright lasted 30 years and could not be transferred to someone else. Now (partially because corporations are now considered persons in a limited way), copyrights can be transferred to businesses who might live far, far longer than the original creator of a given work. This is important because now a copyright lasts the life of the creator plus 75 years.
As well, creators (or rather, corporations who have become copyright owners, mostly) has lobbied successfully for the extension of copyright from the original to long over 75 years, with the possibility (as long as Disney is in business) of extending that indefinitely. (The US SSC noted that they felt there was no implicit restriction on the length of a copyright.)
On the 'control' side, copyrights have never excluded copying without permission. Title 15 section 506 spells out the hook that everyone misses: the copying may NOT be for financial gain, nor may be damage the value of the original work significantly - which is a legal grey area that the N.E.T. (No Electronic Theft) partially cleared up by establishing an upper limit of value and number of copies that constitute damaging the original work. It is still, however, not zero.
In most other countries who are members of the Berne or Universal Copyright Conventions, the 'escape clause' is even simple. The Canadian copyright law (Bill C-41, section 42) allows any personal copying with three limits: the two previous given, and a restriction on the copying of photoplates which I believe has been withdrawn.
Canada goes even further. In exchange for the Digital Media Levy, Bill C-43 Sections 68 and 80 make it clear that the duplication of music for personal use - even of music you do not own - is legal. Similarly, downloading files for *personal* use in Canada is legal (a Canadian SSC judge essentially ruled on that, much to the chagrin of the music and movie industry...)
Now, in the case of the lady who allegedly posted some music on Kazaa - well, that's the break line, even here in Canada. Downloading is legal because you're not in violation of C-42 Section 42. But UPloading isn't legal because it causes a situation which can violate the 'no significant damage' rule.
Clearly, the copyright act was never intended to be a blunt force legal instrument nor is it unassailable. Consumers should get involved in this process and make sure their needs are represented as strongly (if not more strongly - 'Of the people, by the people, for the people?' - that's all people, not just businessmen and there are more of us than them).
Wow... you seek way too smart to be writing comments on this page.... if you make your own website, let me know ^_^
nice comment!
omg i love ur show, Flipping Out!
I believe that copyright under Queen Anne's Rule was only 14 years.
So let me get this right, I am allowed to download music since I live in Canada? If so, would bittorent be allowed too? Thanks
Well said. I just wish the author had directly quoted the part of the Constitution he referenced:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
The most important part of that clause is "limited times", because having ideas shift into the public domain after not too long a time is also vital to the progress of science and useful arts, by allowing others to easily build new ideas on top of the old ones. But copyright has been extended over and over again, from the original 14 years to the current obscene life + 95 years. Most recently at the urging of one giant hypocritical company who wants to prevent their precious Mouse from becoming public domain, while they keep producing movies of stories taken from the public domain. And the MPAA, who testified to Congress that "limited times" means "forever minus one day".
Copyright law isn't too badly broken, but the current term of copyright is BS and needs to be fixed.
@Louis: The duration defined in the Statute of Anne was indeed 14 years, but with the possibility of a single 14 year extension, so a potential maximum of 28 years total.
Bravo Jeff Lewis....Truly a well written comment which I enjoyed reading. I am sure many other readers feel the same.
Actually, uploading is legal in Canada, as well as downloading. In Judge Finckenstein's ruling on uploading ( http://www.news.com/2100-1027_3-5182641.html?tag=nefd_pop ), he cited a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision ( http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc013.wpd.html ), where the Supreme Court found that "The Law Society [of Upper Canada] did not authorize copyright infringement by providing self-service photocopiers for use by its patrons in the Great Library. While authorization can be inferred from acts that are less than direct and positive, a person does not authorize infringement by authorizing the mere use of equipment that could be used to infringe copyright. Courts should presume that a person who authorizes an activity does so only so far as it is in accordance with the law. This presumption may be rebutted if it is shown that a certain relationship or degree of control existed between the alleged authorizer and the persons who committed the copyright infringement." The judgement is that simply by offering music on a shared drive for others to copy is analogous to offering use of equipment which could be used in an infringing manner.
A significant debate is underway in the courts, the Congress and federal regulatory agencies regarding decisions that are being made within the electronics, content and computer industries - about how to best protect copyrighted material in a digital world. Right now the internet is not safe for users to view or download files without potentially infringing on copyrights and suffering large fines, penalties or even worse.
An ever-increasing number of unlicensed downloads are taking place in private homes all over the world. According to recent data, over twelve million people are simultaneously sharing 1.08 billion music, movie, and software files on the Internet at any given moment.
Imagine a person or child sitting down in front of a Television with a remote and selecting a few dozen channels or video on demand selections and finding out later that they have committed copyright infringement and are being asked to pay several hundred thousand dollars in fines. What makes this even worse is there is really no way to determine if a certain piece of content is appropriate for use, copyrighted or not, until the damage is already done.
A typical internet user does not build the internet applications, program the search engines, or manage the internet networks that they use. More could be done with these key elements of the internet to insure that standards are set that provide a higher degree of safety from copyright infringement or exposure to inappropriate content. We live in a society that requires people to wear seat belts; Why?, because they provide an additional layer of protection from unnecessary injury.
A national copyright and rating database could serve as a seat belt for the internet to protect users from injury as well. Copyrighted materiel could be registered along with an associated audience rating of the content allowing internet applications, search engines and network operators to establish national standards for digital rights management.
Now is the time for us all to work together to provide a level of protection from unnecessary injury and make the internet safe again for average citizens in their homes.
Thank you for your leadership in this important social and technological issue.
JLH
So, is it just p2p that they are going after? What about bloggers? I know that a lot of music bloggers post tracks that are provided by labels. How do you know which ones are or aren't? What if no one in your home has used a p2p in over a year but your nephew logged on to one and downloaded a half dozen tracks? Just how are they deciding who to go after? Is it someone who is on the p2p for long periods of time? Is it someone who popped in to grab a track and split? Is it someone who has been downloading from blogs?
Are they sitting and monitoring p2ps like Kazaa, Oink or Soulseek and looking for random people? Are they making tracks available and catching the people who are downloading those particular tracks? How is this done?
This is disgusting...
Drug dealers and Rapist go away for a few months to a few years, and this poor woman has her life destroyed because she fracking shared a few songs? You've got to have your head up your ass to believe our legal system is till on the right track.
Unbelievable.
You are right my friend, although a "the legal system is screwed" argument doesn't really do the problem justice. The laws are aging, true, but its still clear whats right and wrong.
Its about money. Its still more illegal to rape somebody than it is to steal a song. The problem is, the victims of rape and / or drugs are not likely to have millions of dollars. Justice (or injustice) comes to the rich who can afford it, in most cases. We all know that OJ having some coin got him out of what he almost certainly did.
Blaming the system is the wrong way to go about it. Its not perfect, but its the best shot. It won't ever be perfect.
Getting pissed at the system is silly. Get pissed at the RIAA. Instead of moving to figure out a way to monetize P2P, they invest everything in to suing the crap out of their core fan base.
Radiohead's new record, unattached to any record label and available for download at prices the consumer is willing to pay, has been discussed. In fact, check out Canadian singer / songwriter Issa... her site (http://www.sheeba.ca/store/) sells songs at a price you choose, and wouldn't you know it? We consumers aren't as horrible as they expected, because she gets OVER the suggested $0.99 per track!
Its time for the RIAA to accept that in a world where you can get a 160 gig iPod (costing $40,000 to fill up in the traditional, dollar a track model), their ideas on how this should happen are unrealistic.
Its time to either go to a subscription model, like cable TV... or to grasp that recorded music sales are the loss leader for the industry as a whole, and the money is going to be made in concerts, in merch, in licensing...
Young whippersnappers. I remember the good old days when the best way to steal music was to join Columbia Music under a fake name, get your 10-CDs-for-a-penny in the mail, then move. Over and over and over again.
US laws were made way before we had computers but were made to protect property. Thats why we sentence people 10 years in jail for stealing a pack of gun and give someone 2 years for killing. this does not have to do with copyright but are the same just that who can argue against 200 year old laws that still apply some how to today.
If someone stole a pack of guns, I hope they would get 10 years. Who knows what they are planning on doing. :)
I can just see it on Fox News:
Man Steals Pack of Gum
Terrorist??
My worry concerned with this particular case is not so much the fact that there were damages assessed in conjunction with the uploading of songs, but that even if she didn't do it she is the one who is liable for the damages. Even if, for example, you were the victim of a criminal act and your computer was hacked and made into a p2p mirror/whatever the lingo is, you get the pay the piper - if I read the news about the case correctly. So if someone tresspasses in my backyard without my knowledge and sells drugs back there, are they going to haul me off to jail?
Here's something I would very much like to point out to the RIAA and all of the Music labels that make up it's membership.
Back before filesharing became huge, I bought on tape all my music, and then all over again on CD when the format changed. Once filesharing began it's rise to popularity, I still bought all my music on CD. I used the filesharing system to preview tracks and albums to see if it was worth my cash, and if it was, I went and bought it, if it wasn't, I deleted the offending tracks. I still have a music collection that spans about 10,000 discs (some of which I wished I hadn't paid for), although all that is now in storage as I have ripped all my legally obtained music to my hard drive to cataloge and use as I please without taking up an entire wall of my house for storage.
On October 10th, Radiohead (now no longer under any contractual obligation with any music labels) is releasing their new album "In_Rainbows." They have a site where you can pre-order the album in either a disc boxset, or as a file download. Here's where it gets interesting, the boxset is a specific price and will be shipped in early November to pre-order customers, the file download however, has a user selectable price, from 0.00 to 99.00 pounds. Radiohead trusts their customers and knows the point is the music, and rather than making people go find it illegally, they make it available at whatever price your conscience can handle. I for one, put in 0.00 for the download, but have already put money aside for the boxset, and am looking up other ways I can support Radiohead as a band. They get it, they understand the relationship between an artist and their audience is more than money, even if they can't work for free.
This is a lesson the RIAA and it's record labels would do well to learn, trust your customers and they will give you all you need and support you, treat them like criminals and they will hate you, shun you, and eventually, topple you.
I sincerely hope more bands follow Radiohead's example.
Great comment man. I agree totally.
Unfortunatelly, RIAA, MPAA and the like are not about music or films, but about money (STRICTLY). I mean, tastes might differ, but we all know that most of the music and/or movies that are everywhere these days are not made for the sake of art. "Artists" are often sold using their looks rather than their qualities, movies are marketed by their cast and/or visual effects, not the merrits of script, directing and acting performance. I don't mean a famous actor may not be a good one, or a good looking singer may not sing well, but that those are not the things that should matter.
Another point is related to what has been said further above. Copyright law is indeed not about the artists' unlimited rights, but about setting a balance between the artist's right to get compensation and the user's right to have access to art. So a question that I think should be asked and is not is "to how much art can a person of a certain income have access these days"? There should be a balance there, because humanity learned during the enlightenment that any form of art has ultimately an educating purpose for the user (an aspect all but forgotten these days). So if we give unlimited rights to artists, it means we don't care about the average level of education of people. And I think this is indeed visible around the world these days.
I am not a fan of Radiohead, but I really admire this move I hear they are making.
And what about the 8th amendment?
It doesn't apply. This isn't a criminal case, it is a civil lawsuit for copyright infringement.
Also, the 8th Amendment is effectively worthless since the Death Penalty has never been ruled Cruel and Unusual.
$9000 PER song - That blows my mind. What I don't understand is how the RIAA can prove that this woman did that much damage?
I would like to know the comparable punishment for stealing 24 songs worth of CDs from Best Buy and then turning around to sell them!
Also, it seems strange to me that they are using backwards logic... In this case, it didn't matter who may or may not have been committing the crime, because it was her connection - she is liable. However, if you were at a library or on a university campus the RIAA would still go after you evern though you do not own the connection!
"how the RIAA can prove that this woman did that much damage?"
That's the thing - they opted not to. They had two choices: (1) ACTUAL damages, (2) STATUTORY damages (eg, the estimated 750 - 30K stated in the article). They chose the latter, thus the JURY got to decide just how much to charge per infringement.
So... they got her IP address and prosecuted her for uploading. They charged her with copyright infringement for making songs available for others.
Why can't they get the IP address of the other people who were connected to her through the Kazaa network. Why stop at her? They should get everyone in the chain!
what if someone were to start a fundraiser to help this lady out and any other people who have gotten sued thousands of people together could easily help them. i guess it could be a file sharing union to help show that file sharing cannot be stopped. these lawsuits would be meaningless if thousands of users donated
Awesome idea, except this should be a company: Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Insurance Company, or CILIC.
Okay, so Im not saying that she should be sharing music, but don't at least a large percentage of the people who use p2p do it because they can't afford the music? I dont know about her in particular, but the RIAAs kinda going after the poorer audience. I'm not promoting it, but people should be able to enjoy what they like, especially when radio sucks. And theres no music wellfare or anything.
Plus, for all the people that download music, they are still getting other people interested in it, whether they paid for it or not. I mean, I listen to music with friends, so they get to know what I've got. I know I've gotten music just because I liked it when I heard it on someone else's ipod. Without p2p, the music would never get to some of these people.
They scare all these people away, and they've lost a huge audience, many of whom won't ever actually buy the music. And thats all this really was- a way to scare people away. A quarter million is nothing to them- gained or lost.
Keep in mind p2p really started by duplicating tapes. If it werent for the excessive duplication of their demo then who knows if Metallica would be as popular as they are now. When napster came along they no longer cared about how people were finding them but about album sales only, or at least it seemed as such. They took down napster and now their friends are taking down p2p as best they can.
the truth is... the woman from Minnesota shared thousands of songs on Kazaa, but the prosecution decided to on a certain 24 songs probably to get the most leverage... but the fine is still ridiculous... what is more ridiculous is that they would hold a Supreme Court case over this matter or that someone would try to sue another for the crime she committed. What moronic times that are upon us... half an album of songs could ruin your life and an entire album would nearly put you on death row.
Actually she it was 1700 songs. And guess what? Not one of them actually got uploaded (or at least observed being uploaded by RIAA and/or their toadies)! So effectively she cost the companies absolutely nothing, but still has to pay a quarter mil. The thing is the ruling is legally suspect and will likely be overturned on appeal, because the RIAA lawyers (liars? sounds about the same) convinced the judge to change the jury instructions to say that distribution is not necessary to establish liability, when case law and precedent have shown that is is necessary, and the RIAA counsel neglected to tell the judge that the case they were citing had been vacated on appeal a few days earlier.
If you are curious about the RIAA and their extortionist practices, check out the blog "The RIAA Vs. The People", written/maintained by two lawyers in New York that do a lot of work defending would-be victims of the RIAA and defending your fair-use rights. The RIAA hates this blog, calling it "the Anti-RIAA Blog". I fail to see what is so anti-RIAA specifically in exposing the truth, but oh, well.
nobody AFAIK blames the COURTS for the copyright mess, they probably blame the idiots in DC who were lobbied into this(the legislators).
The RIAA is just protecting it's huge investment(made in the Sonny Bono Act). pretty typical behaviour for a coalition of capitalists :)
I like the fundraiser idea. It would be a way to fight back and would be totally legal. :D
I have a 12" notebook without a cd/dvd drive and a big dvd collection. I recently downloaded my a few of my favorite (owned) dvd's as avis over a torrent so i can watch them on my notebook. Once the files were downloaded i took them off the torrent so i wouldn't share them with others.
Is this legal?
AFAIK (and IANAL)...no. The MPAA doesn't even think RIPPING your DVDs to your notebook should be legal even though it is technically within the scope of fair use.
The argument is in follow (I paraphrase):
Once upon a time, there was a land of magic and rainbows. In this land, everyone paid for the property and all was well. But under the surface in this mystical, happy place there were dissenters - 9,250 of them to be precise. These dissenters, these vermin, wanted to get their slimy, rodent-like hands on the property of the kind, benevolent music moguls without paying, but were unable to do so because there was no way they could each get any of it without paying. Then one day, in this land of unicorns and leprechauns, a vile temptress, more beast than woman, came along and copied twenty four (more than two tens!) songs and maliciously did distribute them to those 9,250 dissenters. Through market forces, it was determined the value of each track was a dollar, and they had lost 9,250 dollars per track distributed! This temptress, this bride of satan, must be punished!
An alternate theory, for those who want to know why 9,250 was chosen is that 9*2+5+0 = 23. If you get the reference, good for you.
*is as follows
damnit.
"Intellectual property" is not property and copyright is not a right.
"IP" is a agglomeration of 4 independent and totally different concepts: copyright, patents, trademarks and trade secrets. All of them are just packets of information that society has decided to treat specially for its own good. None of them is a fundamental right and any of them can be taken away by the society at any time, if it is clear that these concepts outlived their purposes. For the first two: copyright and patents, such end seems to be nearing very fast.
Why do I feel so 1984ish when people talk about property that is not property and about a right that is in fact not a right?
Wave of Mutilation!
love the pixies.!!
DEATH TO THE PIXIES!
I'm constantly amazed at how the mob on the street has a total disregard for the property rights of those people who CREATED the value that they claim to have a right to steal, unearned.
I know this post will be unpopular here among the mob, but what good is a society in which people have a right to eat each other's products without compensation. What good is a society of leeches who smashes and grabs what they like without consideration for the people who produced the values or the people who bought those values?
Of course, the RIAA creates inconvenient barriers to free-trade sometimes (trade being a payment for value), but why do people rarely scoff at the bootleggers and parasites who "distribute" these values without payment to the producers?
Be careful of what you endorse.
I pay for all my music, an anomaly in my generation (21 year old).
That said, the punishment does NOT fit the crime, here. It's important to ask rather this woman caused over 200k in damages for the RIAA.
While I agree justice should be blind, this is a tragedy. If the RIAA goes through with this, artists would be wise to protest / boycott the RIAA.
As Brian has stated: you have a valid argument but she did not create over $200k in damage! Personally I perfer to buy small label or no label music as it is usually cheaper and just sounds better these days.
Wrong.
Some of us have taken a deeper look at copyright and the environment in which it exists. We've found the idea that copyright is property to be sorely lacking, and indeed nothing more than propaganda. We are not thieves, but people who want to return to the original, healthy balance that once existed in copyright.
I like the assasination idea.
I don't understand this whole case. I thought the copyright was owned by the writers and performers of the music, not the distributors. How can the distributors sue for copyright infringement?
The artist doesn't own the copyright. That's one of the problems with the system. When an artist signs a record contract with a label, that label owns EVERYTHING that artist chooses to release on that label, and the artist is required to release a certain amount of music through the label. It's all about money. Nobody gives a shiat about the music anymore, it's all about how many billable events they can get you to endorse.
You bought the album on DAT (cassette)? $10. You want the album on CD? $15 You want the AAC file (damn sure we're not going to give you an unencrypted MP3!)? $1 per song. You want to transfer your CD to MP3? sorry, you'll have to buy the AAC file.
If I read in tomorrow morning's newspaper that this woman had walked into the RIAA office and killed 137 people, the biggest news to me would be the fact that I didn't get cream cheese with my bagel.
Once contracted the original artist only owns a portion of the rights to the work, and that varies from contract to contract. Since the distributer spent the capital investment in creating the work it would SEEM fair but they become over zealous about prosecuting infringement. I don't have a problem with them gaining compensation but amounts like that are ridiculous. This is also why so many bands are going 'independent' by creating their own record label or signing on with a record label created by musicians.
We all benefit from file sharing so let´s share the burden. She should install a website, so that people can donor. The file sharing networks could be an impressive tool to rival the music industries financial power, too! So let´s unite and donor to the victims of the RIAA. They are the only ones who deserve the title "victim".
there are two types of legal professionals - those who know *how* and those why know *why it can't be done*. you're obviously the latter, shitty, kind.
just wat to say. I am so glad I dont live in the USA.
I find it really amazing how we will make sure a song will get paid for but a person that has been violated or killed or a government that may infringe on human rights will not be help accountable but a song and a movie well that is important.......
I am a musician. Also, my band is putting out a CD in January 2008. We will have spent a total of $8,000 putting it all together. ...and paid for it all ourselves. If you ask me for a burn of my album, I will punch you in the face. It isn't about money, but it is about making a living. If I can't afford to be a musician because nobody is willing to pay for music, I have no incentive to continue to produce it. So my tight-wad friends, don't forget to feel guilty for stealing my or anybody else's music. ...but I (probably) won't come after you if you do.
I understand, respect, and support your opinion, when music is your bread and butter, you really don't like the fact that there are people out there who are trying to get it for free. That said, I would like to pose a counterpoint:
I've known a large number of bands, most of them fitting into the category of "starving artist" more than you would believe. These guys bum rides to gigs, borrow each other's equipment to play, do shows for gas money, and live off of bread sandwiches and handouts. They live and die by their music. I've been to their shows and bought them groceries. They know that an audience is what it takes to make it, and so they do what it takes to get their music out there. They release songs on p2p networks, they record demos for any nightclub owner that asks for one, they freely give their music out to those who want it because they know that when the time comes for them to make a name for themselves, their money will come from those people who were there when they were nothing.
Sure, one could make the point that they are struggling *because* they give their music out freely, but they do make an effort to get some compensation for their music, their ID3 tags have their homepages, their CD's also have their mailing addresses, they tell their audience that if they like what they hear, to consider supporting the band in some way. A couple bands have actually gone the same route as you and paid to have an album cut, and they cringe every time they talk about how much it cost.
By the way, since I am the type to support these bands in one way or another, I would like to go ahead and plug Army of Darkness and Duckfood, both some very cool Inland Empire Death/Punk/Metal/Ska influenced bands. Here are their respective MySpaces with some sample clips:
Duckfood - http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=178113382
Army of Darkness -
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=11166734
Then you are dumb and have been brainwashed by the music industry.
If you are a good musician, then an album is just a promotional material. You should earn you money by real work, like concerts and appearances. Selling albums, merchandise and other swag at such events is just a side income and convenience for the fans.
If you can not earn your living from concerts and other live events, then your are simply not good enough. And if you are not good enough, then you do not deserve to be paid - go get a job where you are good at.
Wow, Aigarius, you're really not in touch with what is FAIR or the INDUSTRY. (And don't give me the "life is not fair" thing.)
So, you have decided that my album is free for you to use? The music I (not you) have created? It's people like you that treat everything as if you have some RIGHT to it. You probably sneak into shows without paying cover, too. ...and expect your friends to buy you drinks. ...that is if you're not just some 12-year-old kid typing on his dad's computer.
I, Aigarius, am not dumb. And I have not been brainwashed. I know plenty of GREAT musicians who are "starving." It isn't all about how good you are as a musician. It's about how well you PERFORM, PROMOTE and ORGANIZE your BUSINESS.
That being said, I have other recordings that I use for "promotion." I have even already given away some of my newest recorded music out for promotion.. --and with great successes. And for the record, I definitely do not suck. (but I'm not saying I'm Jimmy Paige or anything)
Now, to my main point:
An album is not "just promotional material." It is a work of ART. Do you understand that? It is the final product of an artist! --an accomplishment! It is something to be proud of.
The idea isn't only about making a living, it's about principal. ...especially at a "smaller" level, when it all comes down to somebody in the music industry getting screwed, it's always the musician. I'm not just giving you a sob story... It is truth. I have worked in every facet of the industry from studios, to A&R, to Radio Promotion, and everybody in his suit is trying to make money off of the musician/band. The difference is now, even the fans have a way of taking money out of the musician's pockets. Musicians have to be smart to avoid all of the "leeches" out there.
At a much bigger level, it is still the musicians getting screwed indirectly. Sure, major labels are taking the first hit financially because they aren't selling CDs anymore. ...so where are the labels going to make their money? Oh yeah, the concerts and T-shirts.
I'm not completely guilt-free, though. And I understand the industry is changing. (I love my iPod) But there are some legit. channels to getting free music such as sites like archive.org.
The girl who lost in court for downloading music did get screwed, too. She did break the law, but the punishment doesn't fit the crime. $9K per song is too much. They should have just charged her court fees, and double what the song is "worth," and maybe made her do "community service" like promote for a band for a year.
-JimT
That's why I don't buy, share or listen to music. If I need to hear a good song I hum one in my head...
I'm sorry, but I have to ask... Is "guyliner" what I think it is? 'Cause if it is, thats awesomely funny... But it just seems a little too... Eh, disgusting?
How about this one.
What if I were to download TV shows from the internet, tv shows of which I can get from my cable TV. It would be exactly like using a TiVo, but making somebody else do my work... is this legal? I do understand that it is sketchy, but I would like to watch my tv shows whenever I want.
Also, what the heck is up with TV advertisements? Why do I get advertisements on something I freakin' pay for... especially watch a good show for about 6-8 minutes, then see commercials for 2-6 minutes... that's so much crap... which is why I ordered myself a TV tuner for my PC. =)
You're totally safe here. It's not like you're making copies for all of your friends. ...or making copies and selling them. You should be able to choose how you watch the programming you pay for. You are paying for that cable TV, aren't you?
However, don't be silly. Commercials are how the whole thing is paid for. What you pay for your subscription is quite minimal in comparison. If advertisers start seeing less value in TV, they'll put less money into it... therefore the programming will probably have lower and lower budgets. All that equals shitty TV. Just hit mute during the commercials and practice your guitar for 5 minutes.
-JimT
I think it's easy for people to overlook the fact that music is HARD TO CREATE and that it doesn't magically appear out of the air...because in the age of wifi/p2p... it feels like it does. It's not such a stretch to recognize that finding a painting and taking pictures of it, 1-1 scale, and, not only taking it for oneself, but to leave a stack of copies of that painting out for anyone to take is flat out stealing from the artist, in spite of not physically taking the painting itself.
Creating music is a difficult and expensive process, and illegally downloading music from a band takes money out of their pockets (even though the labels own the masters - the money not earned from an album sale is money not recouped and then directly taken from the artist themselves).
Yes, it seems like it would be a great way to promote a band. But if you're album sales are taken away, what do you have left...ticket sales? Like a venue would just let a band play there for free? Or swag sales? The "side item" revenue of this sort of thing just doesn't support an artist, and pay for its own production at the same time.
If you get an album for free, somebody has to pay for it... one of those somebodies being the artist.
Music is the product of a great deal of labor and sacrifice. Why would anyone want to compound that by taking without permission or compensation that product from an artist that they appreciate enough to want their music to begin with...in otherwords... it feels like stealing to the artist. Why would someone steal from someone they liked?
Does a quarter of a million dollars match the crime? eh...probably not. But its not as though she were ignorant of the act being a crime, nor was she ignorant of the stated consequences. She just did it thinking that she wouldn't get caught. Now that she has been caught, she's going to have to deal with the punishment. The RIAA went after her knowing full well that she can't afford these damages. The RIAA/MPAA probably spent a great deal of money that they won't get back on a judgment that is only a piece of paper - and not, to my understanding - bankruptcy-proof. Suing is a lose-lose situation.
She probably had a number of letters sent to her trying to get her to quit doing it, including some that would have generous uses of the words "cease" and "desist."
But the message to community is real. And its loud and clear. Stealing is not worth it. Property is property, intellectual or otherwise.
No, the system is absolutely, definitively, undeniably broken. Copyright was designed to spur the commerce of creativity by allowing those who put the work in, to recoup their investment. It was not designed as a license to print money, as a property to be seeded (inherited) through generations, or to be under corporate control.
Copyright law should last 20 years. The system is broken.
For the last four years, The Beatles didn't perform live. They never took in any money from concerts. Are you saying that they weren't "good enough" because instead of spending incredible amounts of time away from home, sleeping in busses, they made records called Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Beatles, Abbey Road?
After the band broke up, the four didn't do much touring. John would play the occasional benefit, and George organised Concert For Bangladesh. Paul toured with Wings, until John died. It wasn't until the 90s, really, that Paul and Ringo started touring heavily.
Are you arguing that the four musicians that thousands of people consider the greatest rock band ever weren't "good enough?"