[M. Thatcher]

Would love original url, many thanks in advance.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Hmmm.... I just downloaded a few samples of a band called The Electric Amish, and now, I think I am going out to buy their CDs :0)


Chad "I want to hoe your land" Fairbanks

[aberaussie]

Um, did I misread this, or do they have males and females rooming together at Emory?

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Boy, am I stupid! I thought Kazaa was an African-American holiday celebrated in late December.

[Nick Danger]

Imagine no possessions,
no rights for even me,
No need to buy my music,
it's all on MP3,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a lefty,
And I reap what I have sown,
I sang about this bullsh*t,
Now all I can do is moan.

[Drango]

There are temptations no ordinary human can resist,'' he says

'cuse me?

[zook]

This is not a moral issue at all. Suppose I stand on a street corner and sing an original song. On what moral basis can I say, "no one who hears this song can sing it themselves"? In fact, I would be the one with the moral problem, since I am attempting to coerce others from repeating my words.

Downloading music, intercepting cable signals, etc., are not immoral acts. Certainly we can make them illegal, but in themselves they are not immoral.

[SamAdams76]

If CD sales are off, I think the music industry needs to look within. Perhaps the product is not what it was. Or more likely, maybe the pricepoint is just too high. Now that Joe Six-pack sees that he can buy a stack of 100 blank CDs for under $20, he now realizes just how much he's been getting ripped off these past 20 years.

Speaking for myself, I'd buy a lot more CDs if I could get them for a reasonable price. It's a royal pain in the neck downloading MP3s and then burning them to disc. I've got a few "homemade" CDs and they just aren't the same and I hardly listen to them. I'd much rather have the genuine CD with the artwork, liner notes and its crisp, clean sound.

[Lockbox]

An interesting legal discussion by David Boies (yes the same one) regarding Napster. This is from Wired Magazine

Can you walk us through the case and the arguments you're making?

Sure. There are four basic issues, and the recording industry has to win on each of them in order to prevail. If Napster wins on any one of the four, Napster prevails. The first issue is: Are Napster's users engaged in copyright infringement? If they are not, that's the end of the matter, because nobody alleges that Napster directly infringes any copyright. Napster's only alleged liability is for contributory or vicarious infringement. You cannot have contributory or vicarious infringement without having some underlying infringement. So when Napster's users engage in noncommercial sharing of music - noncommercial copying of music - is that activity copyright infringement?

We say it is not, for two basic reasons. The first is that this kind of noncommercial consumer copying is recognized as fair use under common-law theories and doctrines, and under the Supreme Court's criteria. And second, with respect to audio recordings - that is, music - the Audio Home Recording Act directly says that noncommercial copying by consumers is lawful. The 9th Circuit, in RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, in 1999, read that statute as permitting all - and all is the word of the opinion - all noncommercial consumer copying as lawful.

The second issue?

The second issue is whether Napster can be held responsible if some users engage in copyright infringement. We maintain that Napster cannot be guilty of vicarious or contributory infringement, because the service unquestionably involves substantial noninfringing uses. In the 1984 decision in Sony v. Universal Studios, where the entertainment industry had tried to stamp out VCRs, the Supreme Court said that even though VCRs were predominantly used to copy copyrighted materials, because there were substantial uses that did not infringe copyrights - either because the material was not copyrighted or the copyright owner did not object - you could not find that Sony was guilty of contributory or vicarious infringement.

Now, the recording industry sometimes seems to argue that what matters is which use of the technology predominates. That has never been the law, and, indeed, in the Sony case, it was absolutely clear that more than 80 percent of the use was copyright infringement. So the issue is not, Which is the predominant use, but rather, Is there any substantial noninfringing use? And in fact, in Sony, the Supreme Court did not say there had to be any actual substantial noninfringing uses - it said that the technology merely had to be capable of substantial noninfringing uses.

One noninfringing use is space-shifting. [Music listeners space-shift when they copy songs they already own onto more portable media.] The 9th Circuit has held that space-shifting is clearly a noninfringing use, and both Napster's expert and the RIAA's expert say space-shifting is a very substantial use by Napster users.

Another noninfringing use is to distribute music that is either not copyrighted at all, or whose copyright has been lost, or whose copyright holder doesn't object, and that kind of music represents another use of the Napster system.

Yet another related use is sampling. Assume you've got copyrighted material, the copyright is valid, and the copyright holder has not given permission. Even under those circumstances, sampling has always been held to be a fair use. Now, there was some suggestion in the RIAA's court filings that sampling is not a fair use, which is not consistent with what the Supreme Court said in the Sony case. But even if sampling were not a fair use - and we think it is - certainly space-shifting, the sharing of uncopyrighted music, and the sharing of copyrighted music where permission has been granted all would be fair uses.

There's no question that these are already very substantial uses on the Napster system, and there's no question that these uses are growing. For example, when we put in our court filings, there were 15,000 to 17,000 artists who had expressly authorized Napster to permit its users to share their music. By the time we got to the hearing stage, it was more than 24,000. And it's over 25,000 today.

Issue number three?

The third point is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which we have argued that we are covered by, and which was specifically designed by Congress to give a safe harbor to Internet service providers so that they would not be held liable for their users' activities. The RIAA argues that if, as a general proposition, you know your users are engaging in some copyright infringement, you can't take advantage of the DMCA. But that can't be what the DMCA meant, because if you didn't know your users were doing it, you wouldn't have any liability anyway. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act was designed by Congress to say, "You know, service providers, even though you may have knowledge that some users are engaged in unlawful activity, that doesn't mean you have to monitor what each of your users is doing."

The DMCA also set up a notification procedure, through which service providers like Napster can say, "Look, if you believe somebody is infringing, you bring us a notice. We will then shut them down unless they give a counternotice. If they give a counternotice, it's up to the court to decide." And that system has worked with Napster. Hundreds of thousands of users have been terminated because of those notices. Congress set up a system. That system works.

OK. The fourth and final issue?

Copyright misuse. The 9th Circuit has made it clear that if copyright holders use their copyrights for anticompetitive purposes - to try to gain control over something they do not control directly through their copyrights - that's copyright misuse. It is clear that the RIAA has set out to control the Napster media. They have written documents saying they want to shut Napster down and then take over the technology. The RIAA's members are acting in concert. They have pooled, according to their own statistics, 90 percent of the copyrights on music. All of those kinds of activities constitute copyright misuse. And if they are engaged in copyright misuse, they cannot enforce their copyrights.

[Jhoffa_]

It's stealing. I don't listen to music much, but when I do, I buy it.

But what's really going to piss the recording industry off is when satellite radio gets big.. and then someone makes one with a "save as" feature.

That's going to be the ultimate piracy device.

[CaptIsaacDavis]

KIDS WISH CANDY WAS FREE AND THEY LEARN THE HARD WAY THAT IT IS NOT, BECAUSE THERE ARE EVERYDAY PEOPLE READY TO TEACH THEM AND PUNISH THEM FOR PETTY THEFT. SHAME ON THE PARENTS AND INSTITUTIONS THAT LET THIS GO ON AND DON'T SET UP MASS DETENTION CENTERS FOR A 1 DAY NATIONAL "TOUGH LOVE--FOLLOW THE LAW" DAY FOR THESE CRIMINALS. LIVES OF CRIME START WITH A PILFERED CANDY BAR OR SONG -- UNCHECKED.

THIS IS ALL A REFLECTION OF BABY BOOMER YIPPIE/HIPPIE CRIMINALITY. THEY ARE READY TO LET PETTY CRIMINALITY SLIDE FOR THEIR PRECIOUS YUPPIE PUPPIES BECAUSE THEY GOT AWAY WITH SO MUCH MORE!! FROM SONGS TO HANDOUTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT. IF THIS IS NOT STOPPED DECISIVELY, A LARGE MINORITY OF THIS "Y" GENERATION (AS IN "Y-PAY?") WILL TURN OUT TO BE RAVING LEFTIES WHO WANT EVERYTHING -- OF YOURS -- FOR FREE.

[montag813]

Free music or stealing?

Borrowing a copy of music which was legally purchased, like recording LotR off cable and lending the tape to your friend.

[FITZ]

People have been copying music since before the 8-tracks, if they make it impossible with CDs---which is up to them to do ---certainly not the government's job ---then people will record casettes.

[Revolting cat!]

This is becoming the new I Am a Bad American thread. And, as the late great Paul Lynde used to say "I'm shick of it!" (I think it was Paul Lynde.) I've said and heard everything there is to say and hear about it. So let me focus on another seemingly trivial aspect. How many trillions does RIAA say they're losing? Where would that money come from? Where does it go if not to purchase the latest Faith Hill? This custom of presenting totally dishonest figures is what, in my eyes, destroys the credibility of these organizations. I don't want to hear any more when I hear that 40 million children are in poverty, that there are X million homeless, that 10% of everybody is "gay"!

The point here is that most of the downloaders would not purchase the overpriced CD's to own the one or two tunes from each of them that they are now downloading! You make bogus claims, you don't deserve sympathy!

[koax]

i just downloaded it, and win xp immediately asked permission to report a "problem" to its maker, bill gates.

one of my college computer instructors says that ms routinely collects copyright infringement info.

[Six Bells]

The piper must be paid.

[kAcknor]

....the industry says it's obvious what's happening.

kAcknor Sez:

This is what's obvious to me:

I recently heard a song on the radio that I liked. Had to listen around a few weeks because of the irritating habit they have of not telling the name of the groups they play, but I eventually found out. Then while Christmas shopping I passed a shop in the mall and decided to get the CD with the song.

Found it.

$19.98!!!

They have to be kidding. The only cut I knew was that one, and it just wasn't worth it.

So, the "industry" catches my ear, hooks me into wanting the cut. Has me actively searching and anticipating buying the CD, then blows it completely by overpricing.

I DJ a bit for a local Swing Dance club, and dance myself. But if they want me to spend cash on unknowns (like the rest of that CD) they can forget it. I'll stick to stuff I listen to first at the club or from friends. I'm finished with getting one good song, and the rest trash.

If they want to fix the "problem" they better look at their own first. Discounts, sales and fair pricing works. It's time for the music companies to learn this.

"yIQeqQo' neH, DoS yIqIp!" (Don't just aim, hit the target!)

Basic HTML help for new FR posters. <Ver 1.4>

[Quietly]

But it's not illegal on Kazaa, is it?

[Timesink]

It's really nothing more than an academic matter any more as to whether or not downloading music is legal. It's like spending hours debating speed limits and jaywalking. It exists, it will always exist.

That said, the actions of the RIAA are so beyond the pale, their proposed legislation so utterly unconstitutional, that they have long since lost the moral ground, regardless of the law.

[xm177e2]

Reznor - along with a massive cohort of popular musicians including Missy Elliott, Neil Young, the Dixie Chicks, DMX and Elton John - have the law and morality on their side.

But the side with the law and morality appears to be losing, at least in the hearts and minds of music fans.

Musicians have worked so hard for the last few decades to stamp out the idea of morality among their listeners... I think there's a word for this phenomenon, a word left-wingers seem to like: "Blowback"

If they had spent the last 20 years teaching their listeners the importance of property rights they wouldn't be in this mess now.