RIAA To Sue Individual's for File Sharing (This could mean you!!!!)

Miami Herald ^ | 06/25/2003 | Ted Bridis

[motexva]

They "had" to in the past.

They no longer "have" to now.

That's what this is all about. A small band can distribute their music and promote their tour entirely over the internet now. We're not 100% there yet, but almost. The RIAA knows this is the trend of the future, and they know there's nothing they can do about it. They're acting to protect their copyrighted interests (read profit stream) while they can, because in 20 years or sooner, media isn't going to work the way it does now. We're talking about companies that have been around for almost 100 years - they have 20 and 50 year profit plans. p2p messed it up for them, and they're acting to protect their interests.

As I said, if they were only going after the admittedly widespread infringement that goes on in p2p, I would feel for them. Instead, they're having to argue that my dad copying a CD from the library is illegal, that me making a copy of a CD on tape for a friend is illegal, that copying a song off the radio is wrong. Because if they don't, then the logical argument behind going after the p2p-ers falls apart.

Like I said, the courts are going to sort this out, and the only ones unhappier than the p2p abusers is going to be RIAA.

[Orangedog]

The Gods themselves do tremble at the mere thought of that. Oh the humanity!

[wizzler]

Actually wizzler, copy of stuff to reel to reel was never considered illegal, say 20 years ago.

Actually, that's simply not true.

I really wish people would quit pulling stuff out of their rumpuses when it comes to the subject of copyright.

[Dirk McQuickly]

The conundrum that the record industry (and every creative industry, for that matter) is this: In spite of its efforts to maintain copyright laws which protect the originality and uniqueness of a particular work (important: along with the payment for performance), the RIAA did not have the foresight (nor the "upstairs wattage") to lobby for protection versus technology that would make their exclusive ability (read: monopoly) to manufacture said recordings in a superior manner economically obsolete.

Now. If I were to buy a loaf of Wonder bread, find out their exact recipe, start baking my own loaves and distribute them free (not for profit) to my friends and family -- if millions of people had access to that recipe and shared it with others -- would the Wonder Corporation have a snowball's chance in hell trying to sue thousands and thousands of people for "infringement" of a patented recipe in court? Remember, there's no profit, just sharing. Think about that for a second.

As for the RIAA, they are victims of their own lethargy. For the same reason companies like United Airlines and Xerox file for bankruptcy and become shadows of their former influence and market dominance, the RIAA finally figured out that rickety noise in back wasn't a bump in the road, but the entire wagon getting unhitched and left in the dust.

At the rate they are going, certain artists can become (and some are) corporations unto themselves. The Madonnas and Celine Dion's of the world can finance their own music and publicity and will always have products that people will buy in the store (for pleasure, for gifts, etc.) Others, for example, The White Stripes, have grown in immense popularity by word of mouth. Someone downloaded such-and-such by the White Stripes from Kazaa and brought it into work and played it on the computer and everyone heard it and loved it, blah blah blah -- instant sales. Self promotion with little or no effort except having written and performed the music and technological Fate made for COST FREE publicity across the globe.

But if it's on your hard drive, you're going to jail.

The thing that makes America awesome is that we are never allowed to rest on our laurels -- in any facet of life. RIAA fell asleep at the wheel. Someone stepped into the gap and developed the kind of computer technology that would bring near-professional level recording capabilities to your den (at the cost of buying a computer).

The next play belongs to the RIAA. They'd better think twice before making a move that will leave them with a real checkmate.

[Michael Barnes]

re #124

True or not, I recall radio stations on the west coast telling listeners when they would play a particular new song and get their tape decks ready.

[Jhoffa_]

They didn't "have" to then either.

You know, when you sign a contract with those guy's what you're in for.

But now, it's so easy.. they can simply bypass RIAA, and that suits me fine. If they're a bunch of legal begals and fat cats, then they are nothing more than dead weight.

Just cut them right out if they are so bad.

As you said, they may well end up being the big losers in this deal when it's all played out.

[motexva]

Take my dad to court - the judge will laugh you out. There's still something called "fair use." Again - the courts are going to make some judgements here that will both please and displease RIAA. They want to go after people like my dad, they're going to get their ass handed to them on a plate. There are court cases that establish the precedent that what my father does is in fact not illegal - however, since he's using digital and not analog media now, RIAA somehow wants to argue that it is.

Scale of distribution is also taken into account in these cases, no matter what RIAA thinks. That's why they're only going after the people with hundreds of songs on their hard drive. My father is not breaking the law, at least when he makes one copy.

You guys sound good, but you're not really telling the whole story. There's a variety of factors the court considers in these cases, and making one copy (or even several copies) hasn't traditionally crossed the line. Issues of scale and profit are also considered. But RIAA doesn't like to talk about that.

If I have time tomorrow I'll look up and cite the relevent case law. Too late now . . .

[dagoofyfoot]

On your home page you have stuff about Bill Clinton. Why did you want to do that if you don't represent some part of the Democratic committee?


Ha! right pal I really say some nice things about Bill Clinton on my home page


Don't even try to spin that crap with me.


Copyright applies to far more than the music industry.


Then why don't you answer the question? I tell you why. Because basicly my friend, you're full of crap!


Because some humans think with their hearts instead their heads. And that's OK. Really.


Oh really? Gee it doesn't sound like it. Just answer the damn question!

[wizzler]

Instead, they're having to argue that my dad copying a CD from the library is illegal, that me making a copy of a CD on tape for a friend is illegal, that copying a song off the radio is wrong.

They don't "have" to argue these things. These things are already violations of copyright law. The logic behind the anti-downloading argument is not contingent on this things being true. You're making something of a tautology here.

I think a lot of folks around here are gonna be mighty surprised when more of this stuff gets into court. There's a real lack of understanding among a lot of folks on what copyright is all about. The decisions that come down from the bench -- including from our beloved conservative judges -- are going to favor copyright holders. Because there's not a lot of wiggle room for interpretation of the law here.

[Golden Eagle]

This could mean you!!!!

(If you're a thief.)

How many of you will stop downloading any music because of this?

Some of us never started.

[motexva]

I'm going to bed - but please feel free to cite the case that established that making one copy of an album to reel to reel or cassette tape consituted actionable copyright infringement. I'm sure it will edify all here . . .

[dagoofyfoot]

Then you should have no trouble convincing the court of this black and white distinction


Um...gee,what was that old saying?


Five million chinese can't all be wrong!

[Jhoffa_]

For some reason, I don't think that you really scared anybody in HS....

That's because I'm such a nice guy..

You know, respectful, honest.. Not the kind you would find filching your music..

Stuff like that.

[mylife]

Copyright applies to far more than the music industry.

How much "copyrighted" Material is cut and reposted on FR? I think the courts need to weigh "intent". No one here intends to rip off printed media.

[Jhoffa_]

Okay, well..

As I said, good luck!

[mylife]

Do we all owe the miami herald 50 cents??

[wizzler]

Yes, please do look up the "relevant case law," because once again you're treading into territory that I don't think you're well acquainted with.

And don't get your feathers all ruffled about being told your father is doing something illegal -- you're the one who introduced the personal element into the argument. You can't do that and then expect everyone to sit around and pay some kind of deference just because he's your dear ol' dad.

He's making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work. That is illegal. It doesn't matter how harmless you think it is, or how cute that Pops sits around on the computer enjoying his favorite Bach.

Is any copyright holder going to bother with him? Likely not. It doesn't mean what he's doing is right or legal.

[dagoofyfoot]

bottom line is its thievery plain and simple


So why havn't they been able to shut down Kazzaa?