Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
lol, antiemo.
Off topic, I found ot how to write in japanese on my macbook! はじみまして！
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?
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?
emolicious!
I love this column, keep up the good work! ^_^
I just ROFL'd .
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).
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.
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.
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.
And what about the 8th amendment?
$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!
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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?
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.
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. =)
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?"