Worried about a music lawsuit? Check here

The Houston Chronicle ^ | July 26, 2003 | Dwight Silverman

[Pern]

Nervous music file-swappers who worry they may be on the list of 871 people targeted by recording industry subpoenas now have a Web site where their fears can be allayed -- or confirmed.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit group that fights for personal and privacy rights in cyberspace, has set up a Web site that lets users of file-sharing services check to see if their screen names have been targeted for legal action by the Recording Industry Association of America.

According to information on the site, the data is gathered from electronic court records and may not be complete. The database is updated when new names are available.

Users of file-sharing services such as Kazaa, Grokster or Morpheus usually sign on with an alias commonly known as a screen name. The alias is associated with a number known as an IP address that's assigned every computer that connects to the Internet.

The RIAA is presenting 871 subpoenas to Internet service providers demanding to know the real name and contact information tied to the IP address and screen name. Recent court rulings require providers to give up the information.

At the end of August, the association has said, it will begin filing lawsuits against file swappers.

The RIAA is going after people who are making music available for download, rather than file-swappers who are downloading music. The association has indicated it will sue offenders who offer as few as eight copyrighted songs via file-sharing services.

The association has suggested one way to keep from getting sued is to turn off shared folders so no songs are visible to other users. Critics of this approach have pointed out that, if everyone does this, it will cripple file-sharing services because no music will be available for download.

Millions of people use file-sharing services every day, with estimates ranging as high as 43 million in the month of May, according to a recent study by the NPD Group. The music industry is turning to suing swappers themselves after legal action against the file-sharing services failed to shut them down.

The music industry is suffering through one of the worst slumps in its history and blames the rise of digital music for its much of its pain.

[FLAMING DEATH]

Yikes...that should read:

"...is just a knee jerk reaction FROM a bunch of..."

Not enough sleep last night.

[Kevin Curry]

Perhaps so, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I'm not so sure it is stealing, because if I pay for a product (a CD), I should certainly be able to do with it as I wish.

You could do anything just about anyting you want with that CD as long as it is for your own personal use. You may even make copies of it. Make a million of them if that is that thrills you. You just may not give any of them away, sell them to third party (you may sell the original--but don't keep a copy), or otherwise use them to deny or limit the inetellectual property holder's exclusive right to profit from the sale or use of the underlying intellectual property.

It really isn't that hard to understand, is it? This is the logical result of the "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" theory you are espousing: the intellectual property owner is really only protected to the extent of the first CD made. After that, it's free to everyone who is able to copy it.

There are limited exceptions for fair use--particularly in the areas of political discussion and parody. But commercial music does not fall with these exceptions. It is not even a close call.

Finally, you are NOT conservative if you cannot honor private property rights--even (perhaps especially) intellectual property.

[FLAMING DEATH]

I am not arguing with what the law IS. But, there are some pretty clear analogies that offer very similar situations to the whole downloading issue, and these are either legal, like making knockoff clothing, or people don't have a problem with them, such as the posting of articles on Freerepublic. I fail to see the differences.

I don't doubt what the law about downloading is. The intent of my arguments was to show that the law is flawed because the average person sees very little wrong with very similar behaviors, but somehow get indignant about people downloading music. To disagree with it is one thing, but to question a person's character overall (saying they aren't much of a conservative) is liable to be a statement that comes back and bites you. It is silly to find a single issue upon which a person disagrees and start making such statements.

And, when you try to justify law just because it is law, remember that Prohibition was law, too. Most now agree that it was a bad one. This is the position that I take...copyright law, as it is written now, is law just as surely as the sun rises. But, in my opinion, it is a pretty bad law.

"This is the logical result of the "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" theory you are espousing: the intellectual property owner is really only protected to the extent of the first CD made. After that, it's free to everyone who is able to copy it."

Who owns the music, the artists or the corporations? Legally, of course, the recording companies do. Why would artists allow this? They have no choice. Most artists don't have the money to distribute their work to a national audience, so they have to consent to extortion in order to get their music out.

Why do copyrights exist? Do you think the original intention could have been for the benefit of the ARTISTS, and not the companies who hold all the cards in the deck? The Internet has provided a way for a budding artist to distribute his work nationally, for relatively little money. THIS does more to protect the private property rights of the actual artists than does current copyright laws, which, because of a near monopoly by the RIAA (check it out yourself...see how many labels are members) protects the property rights of the people who extort the music from its creators.

You might argue that nevertheless, the corporations do own the music, and the artists voluntarily gave up their rights when the agreed to record. True enough. But, what choice did they have until now?

The true property owners, the artists, do not benefit from this perversion of ownership. The remaining Beatles had strong objections when their music was sold to do a Nike commercial. But, there was little they could do, because all of those years ago, they signed their names on the dotted line, and gave up the rights to their music so that they could share it with the world. If they hadn't, we may never have heard of the Beatles. Were their property rights protected?

Also, you might say that artists now have the option of distributing their music this way, but you need to realize that these lawsuits by the RIAA, if allowed to continue, will kill much of the independent music that people may now download perfectly legally.

Not only that, but many artists have found that sales of their music have increased because they have allowed fans to freely share it. Phish and the Grateful Dead are good examples. Both allow recording of their concerts and "bootlegging", distributing the recordings freely. As a result, they have enjoyed an almost legendary success. And, as I posted here before, Wilco wouldn't have even been able to release the album "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" if they hadn't offered it free on the Internet first.

For what purpose do we protect property rights? Shouldn't it be so the creators of the music can benefit from the fruits of their labor? Why protect a system where intellectual property is legally extorted by recording companies, who make outrageous profits by making CD's for pennies and selling them for $20?

The music industry has taken a law that was designed to protect people who created intellectual property and perverted it to protect their own bloated and outdated distribution schemes which fill their own wallets.

And, perhaps most importantly, if we are true to our values and wish to take the position of judgement against others, why do we selectively ignore some parts of the law and wish to enforce it in other circumstances? For example:

"Finally, you are NOT conservative if you cannot honor private property rights--even (perhaps especially) intellectual property."

Then why are you reading copyrighted material that was duplicated and posted here? Virtually every article that you read on Freerepublic has been copyrighted by someone. Is that not intellectual property? Is it not the private property of the organization that produced it? And, by visiting and posting on this site, do you not give your consent to this activity?

[FLAMING DEATH]

I found this on the website of the Houston Chronicle, the source from which the article we are debating was copied:

"No portion of the content may be directly or indirectly copied, published, reproduced, modified, performed, displayed, sold, transmitted, published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed in any medium. Nor may any portion of the content be stored in a computer or distributed over any network except that you may download or print one copy of occasional articles strictly for personal and non-commercial use."

Now, it seems, since you are visiting this site and even providing input about the articles which have been posted here, that you consent to this breaking of the copyright law.

Is this because you do not understand the law, or is it because you believe that this part of the law is invalid for some reason?

[Wil H]

OK, try this for analogy.

In the process of stealing a piece of art from an art gallery, you damage it .

Can you claim it is no longer original?

[FLAMING DEATH]

When you download music, you don't damage or destroy the original. The CD you copy still works fine. Only the MP3 is degraded in quality.

I want to pursue further the analogy between copyright of news articles and copyright of music.

Obviously, thousands post news articles on Freerepublic each day. This is just as much a copyright violation as ripping and sharing MP3's. Read the copyright notice from the Houston Chronicle in my last post, and you will agree.

I can't understand how this be justified, while music downloading cannot. Kevin Curry hasn't answered yet...

By the way, I've enjoyed the debate thus far...

[Wondervixen]

Why is downloading music from the internet any damn different than popping a cassette into your radio boom box and getting it from your favorite radio station?

[Bill S]

I didn't fixate on the expense, that's what those advocating illegal downloading cite frequently as their rationale for stealing. And it is stealing! When you buy a CD you buy the right to use the content according to the copyright laws. Whether you like those laws or not, as responsible citizens we are obligated to observe those laws. Advocate for changing those laws if you wish but don't just ignore those with which you disagree. If Free republic's use of material is illegal then I also oppose that. As a conservative I believe deeply in the rule of law no matter my personal opinion and there are some pretty stupid laws. I write to my elected representatives to get those laws changed. Selective observance of laws eventually leads to anarchy.

[Wil H]

OK let's try again.

look at who is harmed in the two instances you cite.

A newspaper depends on advertising for it's revenues, that in turn is affected by circulation.

Newspapers don't make money selling actual papers, It is costly and time consuming to circulate paper copies but the newspaper company does it as it was it's original method of broadcasting it's content.

If you copy and reproduce their articles they don't much cars so long as you acknowleedge the source. Some papers insist that you redirect people to their website to read the whole article so that they will get web hits which are now used in calculating circulation numbers.

So when you copy and distribute an attributed news item you are helping the newspaper reach it's goals.

The writer doesn't suffer - he was paid by the newspaper either a flat fee or a salary to write the article, his fees or salary are also indirectly a function of circulation.

The newspaper doesn't suffer UNLESS you reproduce it with acknowledging the source, and that is where they might go after you on copyright.

Now look at the music industry. A song takes considerably more time and work to bring to the market.

It is only commercially viable if you can sell multiple copies of it. The artist, the recording company et al are all directly dependant on the volume of sales, there is no residual revenue other than play royalties from radio and TV.

So if you copy and distribute their product you are in direct competition with the recording company, you have stolen their product and are depriving them of revenue.

Let's not stop at music, after all, you claim it is only a data file, lets apply your logic to all computer files.

Why don't you post a copy of Windows XP installation disk on a server for anyone to download and see how long it is before Microsoft come knocking on (or down) your door..

[FLAMING DEATH]

"If Free republic's use of material is illegal then I also oppose that."

But you're still here posting, and I don't think you're going to quit. If, as you say, you don't selectively ignore laws with which you disagree, then there's a real problem with you giving your consent and approval to others at this site to violate copyright laws.

Personally, I don't find anything wrong with people posting articles, because I think it is a stupid law. And yes, we ALL disobey stupid laws, whether we realize it or not...for example, we speed when we think the speed limit is too low. Or, we might make a small improvement to our house without getting the proper permit. Think, and I'm sure you'll find an example of how you selectively obeyed laws.

My opinion on "selective obedience" is mixed. Of course, I believe in the rule of law, and I get angry when I see people breaking the law, but also, our law system has been so vastly perverted that it is impossible to get through a day without breaking at least one law. I'd be willing to bet that both you and I are breaking one right now, in all likelihood. We have to maintain order, but at the same time, we have to get the pendulum swinging back toward the side of common sense.

[Bella_Bru]

Toilet paper.

Ooops. You mean, I wasn't supposed to try it out in aisle 9 first?!?! I wanted to make sure I was buying the softest, yet strongest possible.

[strela]

I didn't fixate on the expense, that's what those advocating illegal downloading cite frequently as their rationale for stealing. And it is stealing! When you buy a CD you buy the right to use the content according to the copyright laws. Whether you like those laws or not, as responsible citizens we are obligated to observe those laws. Advocate for changing those laws if you wish but don't just ignore those with which you disagree. If Free republic's use of material is illegal then I also oppose that. As a conservative I believe deeply in the rule of law no matter my personal opinion and there are some pretty stupid laws. I write to my elected representatives to get those laws changed. Selective observance of laws eventually leads to anarchy.

Applause. Sig material (if I could squeeze that much into the sig area).

[strela]

Why is downloading music from the internet any damn different than popping a cassette into your radio boom box and getting it from your favorite radio station?

Because copying a radio station broadcast for personal use is specifically allowed by law. Downloading ("stealing") music is not.

[FLAMING DEATH]

I want to make sure I understand.

Could I paraphrase your last post to say, "Copyright law may be ignored, if such ignorance doesn't harm anyone?"

Believe me, I'm not trying to remark on your character, or imply that you are less of a conservative or anything like that. Obviously, we both have a problem with the copyright law the way it is written, as do many people. That's what I'm trying to highlight by discussing this.

I just think people shouldn't be too critical of those who share files.

[dfwgator]

Why is downloading music from the internet any damn different than popping a cassette into your radio boom box and getting it from your favorite radio station?

Because the radio station has permission from the record company to broadcast the music. The person who shares MP3 files does not have such permission.

[Wondervixen]

Either way, you get the music without paying for it.

[dfwgator]

Either way, you get the music without paying for it.

Well that is if you are willing to tolerate poorer quality audio with DJs talking over it.

[dfwgator]

Also, radio stations only play certain cuts from an album, they don't play full albums like they used to do. The problem isn't so much with the downloaders who get a song here and there, and otherwise wouldn't bother buying the album anyway, but rather, there are many who download entire albums, and I suspect that these are the ones the RIAA is going after.

[Wil H]

I'm not saying copyright law should be ignored. I think that newspapers copyright their intellectual property as a matter of course just so no-one else claims rights to them. not to prevent redistribution. They are not averse to the reproduction of their work as recording comapanies are, they have different agendas.
A newspaper wants to broadcast it's message in a timely fashion to as many as it can reach. - if some copying and re distribution takes place to achieve that it is OK AS LONG AS THE ORIGINATOR GETS CREDIT AS THE AUTHOR. Greater distribution benefits the newspaper and increases advertising revenues so they do not enforce their copyright rights.

Recording companies are selling their product and that is all they have to sell. They want to maximize revenue from those actual sales.

[Tribune7]

Freep poll (file sharing, copyright)