I have purchased my last CD

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by BigRed51

My concern is that in the papers that the RIAA lawyers filed in conjunction with this case, they specifically stated that it is illegal for someone who legally purchased a CD to transfer that music to his computer,

Read the links I gave. That is NOT what they said. What they said it is unauthorized use to rip the songs AND put them into the shared folder of a P2P program.

[BigRed51]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

Read the links I gave. That is NOT what they said. What they said it is unauthorized use to rip the songs AND put them into the shared folder of a P2P program.

I have read the links you gave, as well as many, many more concerning this case and others. I have done that because I find the claims and interpretations of copyright laws not only by the RIAA, but also by Soundexchange, ASCAP, and BMI to be incredulous. If you read the "PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO COURT’S ORDER OF OCTOBER 3, 2007" from this case, you will find the following statements, which I believe are very clear and self-explanatory. I would like to believe that what you are saying is true, but their statements say otherwise.

"A person violates a copyright holder’s distribution right by making an actual, unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted work."

Clearly, it makes no mention of whether the files are made available for sharing or not ... only that they are made.

"Plaintiffs should be allowed to prove actual distribution based on circumstantial evidence."

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like that would be somewhat unique.

"The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication."

In other words, if I tell someone "I'll make a a copy," then by their interpretation that is the same as publishing copies of a CD.

"It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings on his computer."

Once again, clear reference to their belief that the files are "unauthorized copies," and as such are illegal.

"intent to infringe is not required under the Copyright Act"

HMMM ... if there IS infringement, then intent is not required. I assume that this means if a CD or MP3 file is stolen, that is still a copyright infringement. But if there is NO infringement, then intent is assumed and is the equivalent of infringement.

It is also worth noting that in this case, they do have proof that someone downloaded the files from his computer ... because it was done by their investigator.

There is a great deal of evidence that that believe transferring a song from CD to your computer is illegal on it's own, whether or not is is made available for sharing:

"Copying a song you've paid for in CD form is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,'" Sony BMG top lawyer Jennifer Pariser testified during cross-examination in the Jammie Thomas case in early October."

"you need the permission of the copyright holder before you copy and/or distribute a copyrighted music recording" RIAA website ... clearly separates copying and distributing

In their defense, there are also statements on their website that are in line with copyright laws, and in conflict with these statements ... but some are pretty ominous if you think about them:

"It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but, again, not for commercial purposes.
Beyond that, there’s no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R.

Yes, they are collecting royalties on the sale/purchase of blank CD's that are marked "Audio," even if they are being used for data and not music. Some people do that, thinking they are higher quality, which is not true. I read this to say that if you have MP3 files on a CD NOT marked audio, you may be the target of a lawsuit down the road.

Finally, my intent in this thread was simply to share my thoughts, and a decision that I have made. I am not trying to coerce others to do the same, or to start a huge boycott. I am not saying that there are not people out there infringing on copyright laws as they have been rewritten in recent years. I am saying that I will no longer buy recorded music. That's all.

[jackweasel]

Originally Posted by tgm

The difference is you're still keeping a copy, which now means there are two of them out there when originally there was only one, one of which did not required purchase thus preventing obscene profiting of "the man". And why stop with only one friend? What about the other 3 million friends you have in the world?

It's much the same reason why you're not allowed to copy your $100 bill and give it to a friend. It devalues the product. If you loaned it out, with the expectation of return, that's a different scenario.

I have to agree with much of what you're saying. Guess I'm trying to convince myself that I'm only bending the rules just a little instead of breaking them.
Two points I do disagree with, however, are:
1. I don't have that many friends [much less 3 million].
2. If I made a copy of a $100 bill, and gave it to my friend he'd never be able to use it. If he tried, or did, we'd both go to jail on counterfit charges. So far, it hasn't come to that with music recordings. [LOL]

[beach bob]

BigRed (& everyone else),

By dumb luck I just ran to the airport, and caught Talk of the Nation on NPR while in the car... their last segment was about the WPost article, and had an RIAA rep and the Post's writer Marc Fisher on. They managed to lay out the issues pretty well in a ten minute segment. Like you, I've spent a bit of time reading articles about this issue in the last two days.

"Copying a song you've paid for in CD form is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,'" Sony BMG top lawyer Jennifer Pariser testified during cross-examination in the Jammie Thomas case in early October."

This quote came up in the NPR discussion... the RIAA guy stated that what the BMG lawyer said was a mischaracterization, that she was actually referring to files put up in a shared folder. I don't know; I haven't read that court document. Anyways the RIAA guy's point was that that is not the RIAA's position.

"you need the permission of the copyright holder before you copy and/or distribute a copyrighted music recording" RIAA website ... clearly separates copying and distributing

This also came up in the NPR bit... that you need the permission before you can use the recording. But there is also fair use.... The RIAA guy said that they can't actually speak for all copyright holders, but that they consider ripping a copyrighted CD to your computer for your own use (for making MP3's, etc.) is permissible. He went on to say that book publishers, the movie industry, etc. do not allow this, but the recording industry does.

The RIAA guy went on to attempt explaining how it is there are conflicts with what their public policy states, and what they have argued in courts, and that's about where he lost me. NPR correctly stated that some of the RIAA's most vocal online critics quickly came to the RIAA's defense when the Post article came out. Marc Fisher also flatly stated his article did NOT state that uploading commercial CDs to your computer is considered illegal by the RIAA. That was fairly increduluous.

SO, where are we? Makes one wonder about the WPost's motives, when they basically rehashed an article that was debunked a month ago. And then it gets repeated & linked and posted here, Drudge, etc. etc. Say something often enough, it becomes a truism??? hmmmmmmm..... you really gotta wonder.

Having read a bit on blogs, slicing and dicing specific arguements in the cases, it seems clear to me that the RIAA is attempting to move the line of copyright infringement. They frequently imply in court that 'unauthorized' equals 'illegal', freely interchanging the words as if they mean the same thing. They don't. The RIAA have clearly stated in their policy that this is not the case, but in court they are working towards it.

I'm pretty much on the same page as BigRed as far as interpreting what is going on. However, I'm not ready to give up buying CDs just yet. BigRed can take comfort in knowing that the RIAA may still come after him after his boycott, as (I would assume) he still owns copyrighted CDs. Considering this, to minimize his legal risk, the only solution is for BigRed to ship all his CDs to me. I'll PM ya shortly with my shipping address, OK?

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by BigRed51

"A person violates a copyright holder’s distribution right by making an actual, unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted work."

Clearly, it makes no mention of whether the files are made available for sharing or not ... only that they are made.

It's unauthorized because it's in a shared folder available of a P2P program.

"Plaintiffs should be allowed to prove actual distribution based on circumstantial evidence."

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like that would be somewhat unique.

Any case (civil or criminal) can be made with largely circumstantial evicence.

"The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication."

In other words, if I tell someone "I'll make a a copy," then by their interpretation that is the same as publishing copies of a CD.

Read it again. It says "offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution". This is exactly what P2P programs are designed to do . . they promote further redistribution.

"It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings on his computer."

Once again, clear reference to their belief that the files are "unauthorized copies," and as such are illegal.

Again, they are unauthorized because they were in a shared folder of a P2P program, where anybody could access them and download them (using said P2P program). They were NOT "unauthorized" simply because they were on his PC.

It is also worth noting that in this case, they do have proof that someone downloaded the files from his computer ... because it was done by their investigator.

Which proves that the files were available for distribution . . thus making him a distributor. And thus his files were "unauthorized".

There is a great deal of evidence that that believe transferring a song from CD to your computer is illegal on it's own, whether or not is is made available for sharing:

It doesn't matter what the RIAA "believes" . . what matters is how the the law reads and how the judges rule.

[tgm]

I honestly thought at the "beginning" of all this that they (the music industry) wouldn't be silly enough to sue their consumer base. How wrong I was. They may backpedal and say they agree with the fair use arrangement, but you can bet they've got lawyers in rooms somewhere looking for loopholes.
It's really a sad situation and all it's doing it putting a lot of people off of the music insdustry. It's the worst sort of PR. I think now that the general population is becoming affected, and it's getting a lot of press, "hopefully" the industry will wise up and realize that it's not beneficial (except for the lawyers). I don't think we've seen the truly obsurd suits yet. All I can do is shake my head in disbelief.


jackweasel: you need to get on myspace or something, then you'll have millions of "friends".

[Chicago Sandy]

In this particular case, the investigator was able to copy the songs from the defendant's PC because the defendant put them in a folder created for the express purpose of sharing them via an illegal P2P program. But that begs the question: what happens if you rip songs to your hard drive and you are aware that your computer is on a public, open, non-encrypted, non-password-protected wi-fi network sans firewall.......and then someone (perhaps an RIAA investigator) cruising hot spots joins your network without your knowledge and downloads the songs, also without either your knowledge or permission? Can it be considered criminally or civilly negligent to have copyrighted (not your own copyright, of course) material on a computer that you know is on an open and unprotected network? Stay tuned--if the RIAA wins the suit against the guy with the shared P2P file, you can bet that some unsuspecting person who knowingly fails to password-protect his network but may not realize he too is also making those song files available (and thus "distributing" them) will be the industry's next target.

And though BMI's creative accounting and parsimony is indeed disgusting, ASCAP at least has a mechanism in place for independent songwriters who can prove they've been writing, performing, getting airplay and having others cover their songs: the ASCAPlus Award, which can be anywhere from $50-200 per year (now distributed annually instead of quarterly). Granted, there is still a huge gap between someone like me who gets that $200 a year and someone like the writer of the article, whose 150,000 spins would have been worth at least a five-figure royalty check had they been played during survey periods on surveyed stations. (Anyone want to speculate whether, with the increasing consolidation of broadcast media with concert promotion and labels, certain large chain stations make sure NOT to spin indie songs during these times)?

[Bluelew]

So can I make a disc for my friend or not?

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by tgm

I honestly thought at the "beginning" of all this that they (the music industry) wouldn't be silly enough to sue their consumer base.

If you were to buy a product I made, then go make it available for free to anybody who wants it, you BET I'd sue you . . . wouldn't you do the same if the situation were reversed?

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by Chicago Sandy

what happens if you rip songs to your hard drive and you are aware that your computer is on a public, open, non-encrypted, non-password-protected wi-fi network sans firewall.......and then someone (perhaps an RIAA investigator) cruising hot spots joins your network without your knowledge and downloads the songs, also without either your knowledge or permission? Can it be considered criminally or civilly negligent to have copyrighted (not your own copyright, of course) material on a computer that you know is on an open and unprotected network? Stay tuned--if the RIAA wins the suit against the guy with the shared P2P file, you can bet that some unsuspecting person who knowingly fails to password-protect his network but may not realize he too is also making those song files available (and thus "distributing" them) will be the industry's next target.

I think that's a long stretch. For one thing, this kind of "distribution" you talk about is EXTREMELY limited.

The RIAA is never going to go after somebody who (illegally) makes a CD copy for his friend, precisely because they'll never KNOW about it. Plus, that kind of "limited distribution" is far less dangerous to the industry as a whole. It requires a lot of effort and time from people to do that, relative to just putting it out on a P2P network.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by Bluelew

So can I make a disc for my friend or not?

If you mean can you copy a CD that you bought onto CD-R and give it to a friend, then no. The friend didn't pay for the songs, so he has no right to it, and you have no right to give him a copy.

That being said, you'll have virtually zero chance of getting caught if you do this.

But, if you put several thousand songs on a shared folder for P2P program, and if you have a relatively fast internet connection, and your PC is available 24/7 to be connected to that network, then I'd say you stand a fairly good chance of the RIAA coming after you.

The ability of a P2P program to allow VAST distribution requires it to be open to those with the program . . . and that's precisely what makes it so easy for the RIAA to find out that you're distributing via such a program.

[dthumb]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

If you mean can you copy a CD that you bought onto CD-R and give it to a friend, then no. The friend didn't pay for the songs, so he has no right to it, and you have no right to give him a copy.

actually, that is not exactly true....you may give the music that you have legally purchased and copied in limited quantities ( seems to me it is two or three times) as a "gift". granted, this is one of the grey areas and, as you say, it is virtually untrackable, hence the reason for its being "legal"....can't prosecute what you can't prove.
on a side note...this practice is something the music industry counts on for exposure while, at the same time, condemns for the lack of sales. a recent survey by bmg music found that most people bought (legally) after being presented with copies of an artist's work by friends..stands to reason..if i like what someone has shared with me i am more likely to seek out other examples on my own...which i do and then share with others who would do as i do and support the artists' efforts.

[min7b5]

There was something about this on NPR yesterday: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=17814972

[smorgdonkey]

I definitely get where you are coming from BigRed51. I still have to purchase a few due to old ones that are now lost/have been taken...and of course, I feel really good about buying direct from an artist that I see play live (rare but it has happened).
The music business killed itself...how?

Here is my take:
-1. By cutting loose the small to medium artists that weren't going to get that 'million+' seller and concentrating solely on the biggest selling acts.

-2. By supporting the IDOL crowd rather than seeking out the true artists that exist.

-3. By pushing the style over substance mentality and getting formulaic songwriters for their 'face artists'.


The bottom line is that the 'business' became more important than the 'music' to the people who had the power to make a difference. That fueled the downloading situation which seems to have shone a light upon the other issues.

**I also don't believe that one should be allowed to GIVE the music that they bought as a gift...unless one bought two cds and they plan on giving away one**

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by dthumb

actually, that is not exactly true....you may give the music that you have legally purchased and copied in limited quantities ( seems to me it is two or three times) as a "gift".

I really, really, really do NOT believe that is true.

If you can find support for your position, I'd be glad to see it.