RIAA sues man for ripping his own CD's!

[Travis In Austin]

There's a lot more at stake here than the interests of the RIAA. Every corporation in America has their eyes on this process. In short, the only reason the RIAA has succeeded as well as they have is because the courts have over the years kept a heavy (and then heavier) thumb on the scales in favor of corporate interests, and specifically against human individual interests.

Mark,

There are a number of copyright legal scholars who are in total agreement with you. Specifically, how laws such as laws are are adversly effecting 1st Amendment rights, eliminating fair use even though that was not the intent of the law, as well as chilling education and research.

Travis

[falcon20x]

I just got back from Europe and it is funny how they handle that one over there. While they are still crying like babies about people stealing music, they do not comment on the millions they are getting from the special taxe on blank CD and DVD sold every day. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, let me explain. The authorities decided it would be to hard, expensive and time consuming to fight illegal downloads so they decided to add a special tax on all the recording devices as well as blank CD's and DVD's. The taxe was created to compensate the money lost due to illegal recording. Wondering how long is it going to take for that to happen here.

Actually, we have been doing that here since 1992 when the Audio Home Recording Act was implimented. 

Alright, so what are whinning about?

Oh yeah, it is never enough.

I'm just waiting for the day when i'm going to buy a CD player with a quarter slot on it. this way I can put my brand new CD,(probably a $ 100 by then) and see the thing asking me for a quarter every time I want to play a song.

Want music with that player?

[oldtimer]

Falcon, that's why they'll have to pry my 1979 turntable from my cold, dead hands...

[Travis In Austin]

The story actually came out Dec 12.... The guy ripped to his computer and it was a shared file that was down loaded to other people. or had access to other members....So actually he screwed the pooch ,,, and got nailed. Guilty as charged !!!! If you wanna play, and share your toys, you gotta pay.

Maron,

You are absolutely right. I knew there had to be a whole lot more to the story. It's a Kaza file sharing case. I am surpirzed the Washington Post missed this so bad, but it really is true-- never believe what you read in the paper.

While it is true that the attorney for the Record Co.s did make the arugument that sound files on the defendant's computer were "illegal" it was a minor point, in a supplemental brief, that goes to the issue of determining the amount of damages/fines the defendant has to pay. The brief does not argue that making a copy of a cd onto computer, by itself, is infringement, but only where there is evidence that files were transfered or shared. What the actual point that was trying to be made was that since the defendannt ripped them in MP3 format, this was further evidence that the defendnat intended to transfer them (because they are compressed and faster to transfer over the internet). Taken out of context it could look like the brief was trying to argue that copying the cd to the computer in MP3 format would be infringement, but that was not the position being taken.

The article was a bunch of hype, and the RIAA (which is not a party to the suit, only the spokesperson) did not do a very good job of clarifying what it was trying to do or say.

Making a copy from a cd you own, to your computer, or another cd, or anything else for "non-commercial" use is not infringment and is not illegal. It is fair use, and it was specifically addressed in the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.

You had to suspect that this was hype because this would be no different then with a music server situation. You can buy music servers that have built in CD transports to allow you to transfer your legal cd's to your server/hardrive, for your own personal use. There is no problem with doing that. Now if you hook up the sever to the internet and tell the world they are free to download whatever they want you are going to have some problems.

Travis

[mas]

You know, the Grateful Dead had an open policy of allowing (encouraging?) bootlegs, and lo' and behold, they never starved. Allowing friends to make tapes (cd's, etc) for each other is as much free advertising and exposure cancelling out so-called lost revenue. Maybe if the music press went on a lockout, forcing the industry to pay for every possible bit of exposure and advertising, a little sanity could prevail. Just imagine, which unfortunately is about as effective as lennon's song by the same name.

Are you aware that the band has, in large measure, ceased this?

[Travis In Austin]

the only reason the RIAA has succeeded as well as they have is because the courts have over the years kept a heavy (and then heavier) thumb on the scales in favor of corporate interests, and specifically against human individual interests.

If you look at the legal techniques being used, you can see the giant Court Thumb at work. It is anti-democratic to the point of simply being Fascist. Although "court talk" can be pretty boring stuff, this site makes it pretty interesting reading, and very understandable for the non-legal mind.

Fascinating rant.

I didn't really see it as a rant, if the story were in fact accurate it would be very scary.

And a wonderful misrepresentation of the role of the courts in society.

I think it is always healthy to question. Our courts at one time held that seperate but equal was fair, that puting all Japanesse americans in concentration camps was legal, etc., etc.

Just for curiousities sake, you might want to look into the text of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act which dictates the current usage limits as defined by Congess. The Courts are simply enforcing the law. No it doesn't, it doesn't have anything to do with the case mentioned in the article. I don't know what you mean by "usage limits" because that Act covers the manufacture of equipment/software to get around copyright protection. The other component was to protect ISP provider from infringement liability if they met certain standards. It has NOTHING to do with transfering files to others over the internet or making a copy to your own computer.

If you don't like it, and there are plenty of things about it not to like, work to change the law.

And the "non-legal mind" would do well to cool it with the wacko conspiratorial rants against the courts, where here, in one of their few moments, the courts are not legislating from the bench but simply enforcing the law as it stands. If the court had in fact ruled that making a copy of a cd to your own computer, both of which were legally owned, they would be legislating from the bench. Fortunately, the article was only about the attorney for the record company plaintiffs "trying" to make the argument.

[Travis In Austin]

ENDQUOTE:

1. The above court procedures have nothing to do with the Digital Milenium Copyright Act.

As I have mentioned before in the forum, we were able to get our District Court to end this practice of multiple does. Of course this is going to go jurisdiction by jurisdiction, but if you try and file someting here you have to file a seperate lawsuit for each Doe.

I have attached a copy of the judge's order. As you can see, he saw right through what the record companies were trying to do.

Travis

RIAA 111704.pdf

[Travis In Austin]

1. The above court procedures have nothing to do with the Digital Milenium Copyright Act.

More fascinating illogic...

Without the Act, there would be no standing on which to inititate a suit. If you are referring to the DMCA again, that Act has nothing to do with a suit by a record company against an individual for sharing files over the internet. downloading music or making an illegal copy. The federal courts have jurisdition over patent and copyright matters by virtue of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Anyone who claims to own or have an interest in copyrighted material has standing to sue for infringement. THe DMCA did not change whether there was jurisdiction or standing in any way, either by limitation or expansion.

And the courts do not initiate a suit or 'go after' anyone. The court is simply the framework in which lawyers pursue restitition under the law.

And, short of reforming the law passed by Congress which provides standing for the lawsuits, it sounds like the opposition needs better lawyers better able to make such 'simple' points!

And a guy copying CDs to his computer and redistributing them to others is FAR different than someone simply copying them for his own personal use. Duh!

I guess the real problem is that the court has windows!

[Jay481985]

I wonder the legality of those websites that you pay someone to load all your cds into your ipod for a fee now.

Also some companies do that when you do a complete home theater with a music server where the company loads your cds into the computer, since it is your files but transfered by someone else......

[oldtimer]

You know, the Grateful Dead had an open policy of allowing (encouraging?) bootlegs, and lo' and behold, they never starved. Allowing friends to make tapes (cd's, etc) for each other is as much free advertising and exposure cancelling out so-called lost revenue. Maybe if the music press went on a lockout, forcing the industry to pay for every possible bit of exposure and advertising, a little sanity could prevail. Just imagine, which unfortunately is about as effective as lennon's song by the same name.

Are you aware that the band has, in large measure, ceased this?

Well Mas, they may have stopped it way after the cat is out of the bag, but the general proposition that this practice added to their mystique and appeal and ultimately revenues should be beyond dispute. Now that they don't tour due to the death of a key member may have something to do with this; peer pressure from others who would be otherwise embarrassed by this example may have had something to do with it as well.

[mas]

the only reason the RIAA has succeeded as well as they have is because the courts have over the years kept a heavy (and then heavier) thumb on the scales in favor of corporate interests, and specifically against human individual interests.

If you look at the legal techniques being used, you can see the giant Court Thumb at work. It is anti-democratic to the point of simply being Fascist. Although "court talk" can be pretty boring stuff, this site makes it pretty interesting reading, and very understandable for the non-legal mind.

Fascinating rant.

I didn't really see it as a rant, if the story were in fact accurate it would be very scary.

And a wonderful misrepresentation of the role of the courts in society.

I think it is always healthy to question. Our courts at one time held that seperate but equal was fair, that puting all Japanesse americans in concentration camps was legal, etc., etc.

Just for curiousities sake, you might want to look into the text of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act which dictates the current usage limits as defined by Congess. The Courts are simply enforcing the law. No it doesn't, it doesn't have anything to do with the case mentioned in the article. I don't know what you mean by "usage limits" because that Act covers the manufacture of equipment/software to get around copyright protection. The other component was to protect ISP provider from infringement liability if they met certain standards. It has NOTHING to do with transfering files to others over the internet or making a copy to your own computer.

It addresses ANY attempt to circumvent ANY copyguard. It therefore does have something to do with the use of many of the current commercial music files.

If you don't like it, and there are plenty of things about it not to like, work to change the law.

And the "non-legal mind" would do well to cool it with the wacko conspiratorial rants against the courts, where here, in one of their few moments, the courts are not legislating from the bench but simply enforcing the law as it stands. If the court had in fact ruled that making a copy of a cd to your own computer, both of which were legally owned, they would be legislating from the bench. Fortunately, the article was only about the attorney for the record company plaintiffs "trying" to make the argument.

As noted, no one is suing anyone over simply making a backup copy of material for personal use. Although such actions under the DMCA of any copyguarded material is forbidden by virtue that it is illegal to even attempt to circumvent such encryption.

Yes, and as such the basic complaint that "the Court" was doing this was incorrect. What lawyers have attempted and what "the Court" has extablished as precedence by rulling are two different things. "The Court " made no such ruling (at least to my knowledge!). Which was exactly my point.

With regards to the DMCA, the RIAA is actively citing the act in it's correspondence and formal complaints.

And the EFF has been very active in fighting this very aspect of the current actions. http://www.virtualrecordings.com/effcomment.htm .

Witness a copy of letter the RIAA has used to contact suspected violators as posted on the http://www.uvm.edu/ets/projects/copyright/RIAA_DMCA_Complaint.html website:

Bottomline, Fair Use needs to be better defined to allow personal archiving of legitimately obtained material. And non-profit and educationsal useage restrictions relaxed in an equitable manner.

But the redistribution of copyrighted material with the intent to defraud the owners of their compensation was and is still illegal, as it should be. ...Regardless of how smucky the RIAA has behaved in response to said offenses. And don't misinterpret my position, I am not a fan of the RIAA. (nor of BMI or ASCAP!)

After all, the artists who complain are completely free to make their material available for free, or to require that their material not be subject to such limits.. But of particuar note is how few do!

A Typical RIAA Copyright Complaint

(Details have been altered to obscure identity)



--------------------------------

VIA EMAIL

October 17, 2003

Dean of Library and Information
Technology

University of Vermont

Bailey/Howe Library

Burlington, VT 05405



Re: Copyright infringement at IP
address: 132.198.xxx.xxx on 15 Oct 2003 19:35:50 EDT (GMT -0400)



Dear Sir or Madam:



I am contacting you on behalf of
the Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (RIAA) and its
member

record companies. The RIAA is a
trade association whose member companies create, manufacture, and

distribute approximately ninety
(90) percent of all legitimate sound recordings sold in the United
States. Under

penalty of perjury, we submit
that the RIAA is authorized to act on behalf of its member companies in
matters

involving the infringement of
their sound recordings, including enforcing their copyrights and common
law rights

on the Internet.



We believe a user on your
network, using the above referenced IP address, is offering 512 files
for download

through a peer to peer
application. Many of these files contain copyrighted sound recordings
that are owned by

our member companies. For your
reference we have included a representative list of some of the
infringing

sound recordings being offered at
the above IP address.



We have a good faith belief that
the above-described activity is not authorized by copyright owners,
their agent,

or the law. We are asking for
your immediate assistance in stopping this unauthorized activity.
Specifically, we

request that you remove or
disable access to the infringing sound files via your system.



We believe it is in everyone's
interest for music consumers to be better educated about the subject of
copyright

law and music. In addition to
taking steps to notify this network user about the illegal nature of
this activity, we

encourage you to refer him/her to
the MUSIC Coalition's website at www.musicunited.org. The site contains


valuable information about what's
legal and what's not when it comes to copying music.



You should understand that this
letter constitutes notice to you that this network user may be liable
for the

infringing activity occurring on
your network. In addition, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,
if you ignore

this notice, your institution may
also be liable for any resulting infringement. This letter does not
constitute a

waiver of any right to recover
damages incurred by virtue of any such unauthorized activities, and
such rights as

well as claims for other relief
are expressly retained. Moreover, this letter does not constitute a
waiver of our

members' right to sue the user at
issue for copyright infringement.



Thank you in advance for your
prompt assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, please
feel free to

contact me via e-mail at
antipiracy2@riaa.com, via telephone at (202) 775-0101, or via mail at
RIAA, 1330

Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite
300, Washington, D.C., 20036. Please reference Case ID xxxxxx in
any

response or communication
regarding this infringement.



Sincerely,

Online Copyright Protection
Department

RIAA



Site Details:

----------------------------

Date Found: 15 Oct 2003 19:35:50
EDT (GMT -0400)

Network: KaZaA

IP Address: 132.198.xxx.xxx

Port: 2741

Protocol: FastTrackUS

UserName: xxxxxxx@KaZaA





Title: Air Force Ones

File Name:
Nelly_-_Nellyville_-_Air Force Ones.mp3

File Size: 3127225

Artist: Nelly

Length: 3 minutes 15 seconds

Album: Nellyville

Language:

Keyword:

Resolution:

Genre:

Quality: 128

Description:

Title: Blackened

File Name: Metallica -
Blackened.mp3

File Size: 6376931

Artist: Metallica

Length: 6 minutes 41 seconds

Album: ...And Justice For All

Language: en

Keyword: metallica

Resolution:

Genre: Metal

Quality: 128

Description: Made with
RealJukebox

Title: Disposable Heroes

File Name: metallica - disposable
heroes.mp3

File Size: 7948456

Artist: Metallica

Length: 8 minutes 17 seconds

Album: Master Of Puppets

Language: en

Keyword: metallica master puppets


Resolution:

Genre: Metal

Quality: 128

Description: ©1998 Nugget
Man®

..........

[Daddy Dee]

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/riaa-not-suing-over-cd-ripping-still-kinda-being-jerks-about-it/

[Travis In Austin]

Travis--

Really interesting. Thank you for that. Why then do other districts or courts allow this practice to continue? It would seem obvious thatbr eaking this practice nationwide would be a worthwhile cause.

And, in that same procedure, what about this practice of ex parte filings?

Mark,

The order I attached involved ex parte filings, it just held that they cannot do it in mass. We were able to get our court to say they had to do it one at a time. Ex Parte just means that it is filed without having to serve it on another party, that they can proceed with the case until they know who the defendant is. So, for example, let's say that someone was selling Jucy Music BBX's on ebay, but it was not you. They were a cheap non-functional imitation. You would have several options. Contact law enforcement and advise them fraud was being committed, and/or ebay. You would also have the option of seeking an injunction against the seller. If you call/write ebay they will not disclose the seller's information to you. However, if they receive a subpeona they will immediately fax the information to you as to the identity of the user (they have a whole department that does nothing but respond to court orders for this purpose). You cannot get a subpeona unless there has been a lawsuit filed. So you would be in a Catch-22, you can't sue for the injuection because you don't know who to sue, but you cannot find out to sue because you cannot get a subpeona unless suit has been file. With a Doe defendant you allege that a Doe is infringing on your copyright, that they are selling on ebay, and that you will amend the name of the Doe when you learn there identity. You file the suit, you get the subpeona, you learn the identity, you amend your complaint, and you serve the sum-bit_h. What counter balances someone trying to get personal information just for the sake of doing it is that ebay is required to notify you that the records have been requested and they will comply unless they hear from you and that you file, at your expense, and opposition to the request. If the request is made without a good faith basis the requester could be sued for abuse of process, face a bar complaint, etc.

As far as nationwide, it is going to be a state by state, and Federal Court by Federal Court type of thing. This goes to your point where a judge can have an impact on how a case is going to proceed. In Travis County they are going to have to be more sure about wanting to file against someone because they are going to have to file a seperate filing fee for each defendant. In a jurisdiction where a judge might be more sympathetic (this is counter-intuitive to the usual liberal vs conservative, individual vs. corporate idological breakdowns) to the Plaintiffs might allow them to bring them in mass.

Thus, courts (i.e., the Judge) can make a hugh difference in how cases proceed, whether it will be tough going, easy going, etc. However with regard to these kinds of cases, the issues are multilayerd and complex. Something that helps the little guy can impact other little guys. Something that hurts the big company can also hurt the little guy. Looking at the decision/order I attached for example, the attorneys for the record co's involved could claim the judge was anti-big business, pro little guy, but a starving recording artist (there are a lot in Austin), could read it and think how anti-arts the judge is, others could say he is anti-performer vs. pro-songwriter, etc., etc.

Political leanings do have an impact, but so do a lot of other things besides politics. That will never change because judges are human and are going to bring everything in their past into the decision making process.

Travis

[Travis In Austin]

With regards to the DMCA, the RIAA is actively citing the act in it's correspondence and formal complaints.

Witness a copy of letter the RIAA has used to contact suspected violators as posted on the http://www.uvm.edu/ets/projects/copyright/RIAA_DMCA_Complaint.html website:

You arn't going to try and go back and say you meaning something else now are you? In your posts to Mark you refered to the DMCA twice, and it's not even on point. The Home Recording Act controls. Nothing in the Washington Post article mentions that the CD's were copy protected and that is why there were going after the guy from AZ. Try to keep up here, the issue that is of concern to everyone is whether there is a problem with making a copy of a cd you own to your own computer. You can look at and read the DMCA all day long, it does not apply, that Act even says it does not apply.

The letter you cited is clearly to an ISP, and like I said, the DMCA provides for limited liability to an ISP if they comply with certain requirements. One of them is if they receive notice of possible infirngment by a user that they take action. That letter it giving an ISP such notice. Again, the DMCA has nothing to do with an individual putting a copy on a computer, or making illegal downloads or providing a shared file. The DMCA does not cover an individual who copies his own CDs, whether he gets around copy protection or not. The Act specfically provides that it does not change anything with regard to fair use.

You can still copy a copyprotected CD if it is fairuse. The DMCA does not discuss usage in this context.

Bottomline: THe DMCA has nothing to do with the issues raised in this thread or the article. Fair Use, with regard to recorded music was was covered in 1992, and is defined as a person who purchases the music, as a record, a CD, or any other format can make a copy for non-commercial use. The only question that needs to be answered is how far can the copy go. Can it be give to a family member to use? To a friend to see if they want to buy it?

Travis

[Travis In Austin]

how many times have you dealt with them?

Between ASCAP and RIAA I would say about 30 to 40. Again, this is on issues where they have tried to say that things are protected which clearly are not protected, or where they were trying to collect a royalty where one had already been paid.

If you are downloading music, movies, etc. from the internet you are probably violating copyright and fair use is not a defense. Making a copy of a cd you own and putting on a musicserver, a home computer, making a backup copy, even making a copy for your wife to use in her car is all fair use.

The main point of all of this is that the article title was: Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use. The title is misleading and just creates more confusion. Downloading a song that you do not pay for, whether it is for personal use or not, is a copyright violation. The record industry has been going after personal use downloads for a long time. They then suggest that the Industry is going after people who make a copy of a cd onto there computer. The suit against the guy in AZ had nothing to do with him putting copy of the CD on his computer. What it did have to do with is his putting the songs in a folder on his computer that would allow others in cyberspace to download those files and that he allowed people to download them, and knew they were downloading them.

So the RIAA was either trying to create a misimpression that copying a CD to your computer can get you in trouble, or the paper was just trying to stir the pot by creating a misimpression that the RIAA was going overboard. Either way, it is bad news because someone reading that article could easy come away with the impresson that making a copy of you computer could cause you trouble.

Travis

[Jay481985]

I think it was a bit oh both as confused people are scared people (RIAA probably stance) and scare tactics sell (media stance)

I was thinking that if the RIAA were to actually go after people who brought the cd and converted it to mp3, Big names like Sony, Apple, Microsoft, Creative, etc stand to lose millions if not billions in sale of mp3 players so I bet the RIAA would not dare emproach powers above them. That is why i said amicus curare before. They would have a big stake in a theoretical case like that.

[mas]

With regards to the DMCA, the RIAA is actively citing the act in it's correspondence and formal complaints.

Witness a copy of letter the RIAA has used to contact suspected violators as posted on the http://www.uvm.edu/ets/projects/copyright/RIAA_DMCA_Complaint.html website:

You arn't going to try and go back and say you meaning something else now are you? In your posts to Mark you refered to the DMCA twice, and it's not even on point. The Home Recording Act controls. Nothing in the Washington Post article mentions that the CD's were copy protected and that is why there were going after the guy from AZ. Try to keep up here, the issue that is of concern to everyone is whether there is a problem with making a copy of a cd you own to your own computer. You can look at and read the DMCA all day long, it does not apply, that Act even says it does not apply.

The letter you cited is clearly to an ISP, and like I said, the DMCA provides for limited liability to an ISP if they comply with certain requirements. One of them is if they receive notice of possible infirngment by a user that they take action. That letter it giving an ISP such notice. Again, the DMCA has nothing to do with an individual putting a copy on a computer, or making illegal downloads or providing a shared file. The DMCA does not cover an individual who copies his own CDs, whether he gets around copy protection or not. The Act specfically provides that it does not change anything with regard to fair use.

You can still copy a copyprotected CD if it is fairuse. The DMCA does not discuss usage in this context.

Bottomline: THe DMCA has nothing to do with the issues raised in this thread or the article. Fair Use, with regard to recorded music was was covered in 1992, and is defined as a person who purchases the music, as a record, a CD, or any other format can make a copy for non-commercial use. The only question that needs to be answered is how far can the copy go. Can it be give to a family member to use? To a friend to see if they want to buy it?

Travis

Not quite!

And I am not trying to change a thing. But you are want to debate an aspect that was not my focus. And that does not render my point incorrect. But you may again be shocked that not everyone wants to focus on the point you chose to focus upon or on points tangential to the initial thread post..

Any attempt to circumvent

copyguard of any copyrighted material is absolutely covered by the

DMCA. This aspect has been a fundamental issue within the Information

Assurance community since inception of the DMCA, extending back the the infamous

case involving De-CSS, and as it extends far beyond simply music, with which the RIAA is also involved! Oh!

As

as much current recorded music also employs various versions of

copyguard, this is covered as well. It even included the protection of

rootkits! Ironic, huh? See any problems with that?

While i appreciate your insight into various aspects of copyright law to which I have little exposure, there are aspects of the topic to which you evidently are not aware. And while they may not constitute the majority of legal actions, they are nevertheless a constituent part of many of the actions.

My reference was to this facet that effects those aspects

to which I am familiar and has been used specifically by the RIAA in

pressing their charges. And this goes far beyond just music as it

ranges from copying almost any pre-recorded VHS tape since ~1988

utilizing Macrovision to various schemas utilized to copyguard

pre-recorded CDs and DVDs. And there are more media categories than simply music that are so effected. And the RIAA is involved in many of them as well!

As stated in the RIAA letter itself,

they have freely utilized this Act in their attempts to enforce what

they feel is the protection of the copyrighted material under their

jurisdiction. Does this mean that it is the sole issue cited by RIAA?

Hell no! But then I never said nor intended this. I mentioned that it

as it is a staple in their arsenal of tools. The fact that it does not

address all aspects of the issue is moot and beyond the scope of my

intent - as I know little about the broad scope of general copyright

law. But I am familiar with the security and various aspects effected by the use of encryption!

If

any of the material was so encoded (and there are quite a variety of

freeware and commercial tools available which can and do strip varying

degrees of protection - including products issued by companies

incorporated in Barbados/Antigua who were recently excepted from

obeying such laws by the WTO - an example being Slysoft's AnyDVD suite

which totally strips all copyguard, region codes, game playback restrictions, etc., including that employed in HD media) - then it serves as yet one more lever to be used against those copying copyrighted material, as evidenced in their letter.

This

is the same type of legal leverage utilized in Videocypher's adoption

of DES after the then industry standard 40 bit encryption was broken by

some guy at Viacom working to refine Oak's video and data encryption

system! (And i can comment on that as was personally just a bit involved

with that adventure! ) Adoption of DES provided them (with rather

technologically effective and legally astute) additional coverage as any attempt

to break DES was covered by the Federal anti-espionage laws. And while

the laws were not directly intended to protect commercial activity,

they had the secondary effect of providing exactly that leverage.

Thus the DMCA provides similar coverage for any version of copyguarded copyrighted material.

What would be nice is an attempt to discuss the intent of what I

said, instead of listening to you try to restate what I said and meant.

Like it or not, I do get to work with infoSec issues everyday. And I

would think that several graduate degrees in the area would afford me a

modicum of knowledge regarding the subject area.

The fact was that the original issue with which I took primary exception with was that it was not "the courts" who

were going after those who merely copied material. Nor were they (to my

knowlwdge) going after anyone who merely copied material for their own

use as was originally presented - witnessed by my modifying the heading

on my response to focus on the REDISTRIBUTION without compensation of

such copied material! And as you pointed out, it is the "lawyers" and

not the "courts" who are taking such action. And as also mentioned,

the act that is being targeted (again, to my knowledge) is the

redistribution of copyrighted material. Although the very act to even

attempt to circumvent mechanisms designed to protect copyrighted

material is covered by the DMCA.

And at the time of relaease, this problem extends even to the

protection of rootkits such as Sunncomm's MediaMax that Sony/BMG dumped

on everyone! Despite the public relations debacle that ensued, and

resulted in Sony withdrawing the product! The DMCA legally could have

been used protect attempts to break or circumvent the protection!

Ironic, huh?

So

while you may focus on pre-recorded music, you might also want to

discover one of the major legal tools used to combat software piracy as

well. Welcome to the additional leverage that the DMCA provides!

But

then I guess that you have forgotten that the RIAA also attempts to

stop the copying of copyguarded video material as well. And a

fundamental tool in this arsenal is the use of the DMCA to the degree

that it makes the attempt to circumvent such copyguards, even on your

own material that is procured legitimately, is illegal!

And just as with your misinterpretation of the focus of my Tull comment where my focus was on the issue of whether or not Tull had been overhyped prior to Thick as a Brick

which you completely ignored, now you are attempting to talk about a

newspaper article to which I have not read nor even addressed. So

tell me what my focus is on. And if you think so, you have again missed

my point. My focus was on the fact that "the courts" were not the

instigators, but rather lawyers, and also aspects of the DMCA which are even cited by the RIAA in their letters and which ALSO used as leverage by said lawyers..

Of course, we could all sit around and ponder why the RIAA letter specifically refers to the DMCA. Of course you might wonder why I cited that and presented supporting evidence supporting that contention.

The

fact is that I am entitled to focus on any aspect of the issue that

interests me. And my intent, just like in the Tull thread was not to

adress the entire topic as introduced. It was intended to respond to a particular facet of a particular response that 'interested' me. No more, no less.

And

diatribes against "the Court" are simply ludicrous.As is trying to

explain my particular interest in the issue. And you again missed my

point in an atempt to present your own. and what may have been

presented in the original article which I have no interest in reading.

If

you want to again misinterpret what I said in order to focus on an

issue tangential to my very small point, have a ball. But I guess the

problem is that I have failed to again provide details of my personal

experience in this small area and that my comments were limited in

scope to that which I am familiar! ...Were only more comments by others

so limited!

ROFLMAO.

Note: the MPAA and RIAA are related entities.

[Guest srobak]

As noted, no one is suing anyone over simply making a backup copy of material for personal use.

That is EXACTLY what they are trying to do... quoted from the article:

"The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief
filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer
from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted
recordings."

It doesn't go ANY further about what happened to the files once they were on his computer, but simply the act of ripping them TO his computer is "illegal".

More from the article:

"But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."

"The industry's own Web site says that making a personal copy of a CD
that you bought legitimately may not be a legal right, but it "won't
usually raise concerns," as long as you don't give away the music or
lend it to anyone."

In other words - take the whole "fair use" argument and toss it straight out the window. This also pretty much means that *everyone* in possession of an mp3 player to which they have copied ONLY ONE song from a CD they physically own onto it is pretty much fair game to get taken to the cleaners by RIAA. Remember back in the day when you would make a casette copy of your LP or CD so you could play it in the car? Yeah... there too... nevermind the fact that it was only for your own, personal use and was not distributed.

This takes it to an entirely new level in this war... and if they do follow through with it - there will be far more backlash than they could ever hope to control and squelch. If anyone thinks that this is in the right - then you best damn well better be the first ones to toss your mp3 players in the trash, and delete your My Music directory.

[mas]

Nope.

As previously posted:

"The
story actually came out Dec 12.... The guy ripped to his computer and
it was a shared file that was down loaded to other people. or had
access to other members....So actually he screwed the pooch ,,, and got
nailed. Guilty as charged !!!! If you wanna play, and share your
toys, you gotta pay.

Maron"

But fair use and just what you can legally do regarding personal backup copies and multiple installations on one's own equipment, and the extent to which material can be used for education and non-profit use is still an area that needs both clarification and reform.

This affects not only music, but software and many media formats.

I am not defending the methods of the RIAA, except to say that the owners of copyrighted material are due compensation. The laws need to be reformed and updated as much of the laws do regarding copyright and patent law as a result of advances in technology that were never imagined when the laws were originally authored.

But simply citing exceptional and sensationalized cases is not a solution either! Especially if the story has been reported in a manner intended to create an impression that is not necessarily consistent with the facts.

I am a firm supporter of clearly defined and reasonable Fair Use provisions where material can be reasonably used for personal as well as education and other similar non-profit uses where the primary purpose is not simply the redistribution of material with the sole intent to defraud the rightful owners of the material of compensation.

Personally I am not even worried about the making of a just a few hard copies, despite the fact that this is currently illegal.

But the widespread redistribution of material via P2P online sites is well over the line. And i will leave others to enter in to the classic debate over just wich side of the demand/supply relationship you should target. If anyone is doing this on a massive scale, i have little sympathy. And while I do not keep up with every case, i also feel sardonically confident that not everyone charged is necessarily what would be reasonably considered a 'massive' abuser. The irony is that most folks who are initially represented as being a poor abused victim turns out to be a little less innocent than at first represented. Oh well. But I am sure that that is no compensation to that person who may have been charged for making two copies of that Hanna Montana CD.

i am not surprised to hear of abuse on both sides of the debate, and there has to be a better more reasonable way to effectively manage and prevent the large scale copying and large scale distribution of copyrighted material that provides for the personal uses of all. And in the digital age where identical copies are able to be made and distributed, an equitable solution needs to be established that acknowledges and enables all parties.

But thus far, I have not heard of a proposal that equitably addresses all of these concerns. And that is where we need to see more activity.

And we make a mistake to simply focus on music files.

I must admit that from a purely logical point of view, one should have the equivalent of site license rights for the use of the material - where one is free to make a backup and to use it on one's own equipment, even if that involves several copies or transfers to various formats, be it a CD, hard drive, MP3, or whatever. But being realistic, I doubt most, including myself, will be content to do this religiously, and it doesn't make sense to render the casual exception to the rule as criminal.

Neverthess, large scale redistribution is wrong.

But evidently EMI is reported to be cutting funding to the RIAA for prosecuting such cases. Aside from a simple cost containment issue, one wonders if this is indicative of a more significant change in position.

But like it or not, DRM is with us, and the usual complaints are not going to change that. Again, what is needed is a more comprehensive and equitable solution. And such a solution needs to extend to a larger scope than simply audio.

It is interesting to note, that while there may be intelligent alternatives pending, I have not heard of any comprehensive alernatives presented, even by such involved organizations such as the EFF (Electronic Freedom Foundation). And if there have been, and the proposal is workable and equitable to all parties, it would make sense to see more activity to both make this known and to actively lobby for its support.

[Jay481985]

my head hurts