The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Show and Tell

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 01-02-2008, 12:11 PM
ljguitar's Avatar
ljguitar ljguitar is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: wyoming
Posts: 42,556
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRed51 View Post
...SO if we buy a CD and put the music onto an MP3 player for our personal use, we are now criminals according to the RIAA. If we let someone borrow a CD we buy legally to listen to it, we are criminals. I assume that if we keep a backup copy of a legally downloaded MP3, we are also criminals. They have gone WAY over the line.
Hi BigGuy...
I think we may be premature in concluding that the allegations are going to be upheld by a judge or court. Doesn't mean I won't keep an ear to the ground, but this sounds like a frivolous suit and we'll see if it is tossed.

iTunes, Amazon, Walmart etc all permit purchasing and downloading mp3 music to our computers and iPods (and iPod-like devices), and these folks are not raising any red flags, and in fact are signing more deals with more artists. Many include instructions as to how to burn your music to CDr for personal use on their sites. I've not heard of any cease-and-desist orders to Apple, Walmart, or Amazon from the RIAA...have you?

Artists want their music heard and albums sold.
__________________

Baby #1.1
Baby #1.2
Baby #02
Baby #03
Baby #04
Baby #05

Larry's songs...

…Just because you've argued someone into silence doesn't mean you have convinced them…
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-02-2008, 12:19 PM
SongwriterFan SongwriterFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 25,422
Default

I think there has to be a bit more to the story, really.

Just how did the RIAA find out that this guy had 2,000 mp3's on his PC, for example?


Quote:
iTunes, Amazon, Walmart etc all permit purchasing and downloading mp3 music to our computers and iPods (and iPod-like devices), and these folks are not raising any red flags, and in fact are signing more deals with more artists
The RIAA certainly won't care if you have an mp3 on your PC that you PAID for (as a downloadable mp3).

What the lawsuit seems to suggest is that it's illegal to take a CD (that you paid for) and turn it into an mp3. I think they'll lose this case (as well they should).

Still, as I initially said, something tells me there's a bit more to this case than meets the eye from what we've been shown. The RIAA had to have some way to know that they guy had 2,000 mp3's on his PC. My guess (and that's all it is) is that he had them available for download through some sort of P2P software.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-02-2008, 12:29 PM
SongwriterFan SongwriterFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 25,422
Default

Here's some details that I found on the lawsuit:

http://techdirt.com/articles/20071231/124515.shtml

Washington Post Flubs Story On RIAA -- RIAA Still Not Going After Personal Copies (Yet)

from the who-needs-to-read-the-details? dept

Back at the beginning of December, we helped debunk a story making the rounds claiming that the RIAA was going after a guy named Jeffrey Howell for ripping his own CDs to his computer. That story was misleading, at best.

While we know that the RIAA is constantly pushing to extend both the meaning and scope of copyright law, in this case the details were pretty clear that they were not going after Howell for just ripping his CDs, but for putting those ripped files into a shared Kazaa folder. Now you can (and we do!) disagree that simply putting files into a shared folder are infringement, but that's different than just claiming that ripping the CDs is illegal or that he was being targeted just for ripping the CDs.

Unfortunately (and for reasons unclear to me), the Washington Post has revived the story, again repeating that Howell is being targeted for ripping his own CDs. That's simply not true, and it's nice to see a true copyright expert like William Patry question the Washington Post on this as well.

It looks as though the Post's source for the story is the same as the earlier story: lawyer Ray Beckerman. Beckerman has done (and continues to do) a fantastic job fighting the RIAA against its bogus lawsuits. However, he still has failed to explain how the RIAA's filing actually says what he claims it says. While he suggested I don't understand because I am not familiar enough with the minutia of copyright law, I don't see how he can say the same for Patry, who literally wrote a nearly 6,000 page book on copyright. Of course, now that the Washington Post has republished this already debunked story, many other publications are spreading it. I emailed the Washington Post writer asking for clarification on Monday, but have not yet heard back.

Furthermore, there is one other point that is worth highlighting. It was noted in the comments to our original post. The filing points out that when Howell ripped his CDs and put them into a shared folder, those files were no longer "authorized." It's important to note that there's a difference between unauthorized and illegal. Beckerman seems to be saying that by saying "unauthorized" the RIAA means illegal -- but that need not be the case. It's perfectly legal to rip your CDs, even if it's not authorized. It's well established that ripping a CD for personal backup purposes is perfectly legal, even if it's not authorized. What the RIAA appears to be saying is that by putting those backup files into a shared folder, the rips no longer were made for personal use, thus pushing them over the line to illegal. Yes, the RIAA is still pushing its luck in its description, but as was clearly established back at the beginning of December, it is not (yet) claiming that Howell broke the law simply by ripping his CDs -- and it's too bad that the Washington Post has repeated it in a way that caused a bunch of other sites to suddenly claim that it was true.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-02-2008, 12:32 PM
SongwriterFan SongwriterFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 25,422
Default

So, what I suspected was correct. This man put the ripped mp3's into a "shared folder" that allowed them to be shared to the world via a P2P network.

Frankly, I think the RIAA has a point, but they should really be going after the P2P companies, IMO. However, they'll simply argue that the service can be used for LEGAL purposes (even though it seems that it's virtually 100% being used for illegal purposes).
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-02-2008, 12:38 PM
SongwriterFan SongwriterFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 25,422
Default

Also, another link I found shows that the lawsuit against Mr. Howell alleges that he shared 54 songs over the Kazaa network.

It's THIS that got him into trouble . . . . NOT ripping CD's to mp3's.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-02-2008, 12:44 PM
SongwriterFan SongwriterFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 25,422
Default

And yet another link, with a few more details:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...ringement.html
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-02-2008, 01:33 PM
tgm tgm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 66
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SongwriterFan View Post
Frankly, I think the RIAA has a point, but they should really be going after the P2P companies, IMO. However, they'll simply argue that the service can be used for LEGAL purposes (even though it seems that it's virtually 100% being used for illegal purposes).

No, P2P is not the problem!!! Going further down that line of reason would put the burden on the ISP for allowing the traffic. Or the PC manufacturer for allowing it to be copied. Or Al Gore for "inventing" the internet. It's just not realistic.

Maybe we're just in the virtually 0% that use P2P legally at my place of employment but it works wonderfully for wide synchronization of files that need to be shared between employees.

I don't mean to attack what you're saying harshly but it's a slippery slope to argue many of these issues. It's a tough balance to ensure people do the right thing without limiting the advancement of technology.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-02-2008, 02:14 PM
SongwriterFan SongwriterFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 25,422
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm View Post
No, P2P is not the problem!!!
I agree, except for the fact that I have seen ZERO evidence that these programs like Kazaa are being used for ANYTHING but thievery. I think the people who wrote P2P programs like Kazaa and Napster (original version) knew darned well what the programs would be used for.

Actually, I do agree with you . . . and if somebody is using a P2P program, and has put mp3's into the shared folder, I guess I *do* think that he should be held responsible (in a civil case), using "preponderance of the evidence" against him.

What reason DOES a person have for putting his mp3's into a shared Kazaa folder other than to allow the music to be distributed?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-02-2008, 02:32 PM
tgm tgm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 66
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SongwriterFan View Post
What reason DOES a person have for putting his mp3's into a shared Kazaa folder other than to allow the music to be distributed?
Absolutely none. That's the intention. The problem is people are putting music that's not supposed to be distributed there, in addition to the large volume of music that is allowed to be there (from independent artists that encourage that sort of thing). There is no doubt the technology is being abused and often times promoted to be abused.

What we need is more ethics, both from consumers and corporations. But neither is going to be the first one to step up.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-02-2008, 02:57 PM
SongwriterFan SongwriterFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 25,422
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm View Post
What we need is more ethics, both from consumers and corporations. But neither is going to be the first one to step up.
Agreed, but I think it's much more a CONSUMER problem with the ethics.

The corporations have finally offered songs "one at a time" via download. What more does the consumer want? Oh, yeah . . . cheaper price. Well, there's only ONE correct response to that: don't buy them if they're too expensive. THAT will cause the prices to come down. But if you STEAL them, it's going to have a different effect (eg, lawsuits).

BTW, that's the "generic you", not you in particular.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-02-2008, 03:30 PM
jackweasel jackweasel is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 945
Default

With all that's been said here, I'm proud to say that I have NEVER downloaded a song from anywhere on the internet. Theft is theft, no matter if you are hiding behind a monitor when you do it or lift it [a cd] out of an unlocked car. Mama didn't raise me that way.
As for copying a cd for a friend, I take a different outlook. What's the difference between giving him or her a copy and giving them the original you paid for? Now if I was standing on the street corner passing out the latest issue from [fill in the blank] that would be different. To me, sharing files openly and for anyone on the web to copy, is the same thing as that.
Lawyers, courts, corporations and government. It's all a viscious circle and we're caught in the middle of the food chain with everybody trying to take a bite out of our a**.
And there's not a thing we can do about it.
__________________
more guitars and stuff than I deserve
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-02-2008, 03:43 PM
waynep waynep is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 1,390
Default

I think some people don't know that they are sharing their music at times. The P2P programs don't readily explain that when you close them, they stay active, providing the music to the rest of the world via P2P. I have checked my kids computers to make sure they don't have any P2P stuff running and accidently sharing something. . . .

I agree, this person we're discussing probably had some P2P software running and did'nt realize it was sharing his/her library.

Otherwise there is no way to know how many CD's I buy and wether or not I have ripped them and put them on my Ipod.

I agree, the music industry as we know is dying a slow death unless they figure out how to accomidate, no not accomidate, USE the technology that's out there. They should be able to come up with a music distribution model that works, allows portable/electronic music that's easy to use. It should'nt be that hard. And it should be used by all the companies so things work together. . . . .
__________________
Wayne
Taylor 714ce, 410R, Big Baby
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-02-2008, 05:37 PM
tgm tgm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 66
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackweasel View Post
As for copying a cd for a friend, I take a different outlook. What's the difference between giving him or her a copy and giving them the original you paid for?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-03-2008, 09:44 AM
BigRed51 BigRed51 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Plano, Tx
Posts: 1,685
Default

Perhaps I didn't make my point clear. My concern is not this specific case. I do question whether or not putting the files into a folder is really "distribution," if no one has downloaded the files. That would be the same as saying that I have sold a guitar if I listed it in the classified section, even though no one has bought it. I fail to see that logic, but that is a different issue.

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, which in turn means that it would be illegal to transfer that same music to an iPod or MP3 player of any kind. They also clearly stated that in their opinion, anyone who loans a CD that they have legally purchased to someone else for them to listen to is in violation of copyright laws. In a world where the industry has taken copyright laws FAR from their original purpose and intent, this is absolutely ludicrous. Where will they draw the line? If I buy a CD and my wife listens to it, they could interpret that as "loaning," and file suit against me.

In other words, they filed papers that may or may not be relevant to this case that I feel certain they will use for further lawsuits against their customers who buy the music legally. On the RIAA web site, it says "If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages." In these filings, they are saying that they believe transferring music you have purchased to your computer is making unauthorized copies. I personally find that ridiculous.

One last thought. If it is illegal to loan a CD to someone to listen to, I assume that they will be able to start filing lawsuits against the thousands of libraries that now have music available to check out ...
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-03-2008, 10:04 AM
wthurman's Avatar
wthurman wthurman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
Posts: 10,620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRed51 View Post
Perhaps I didn't make my point clear. My concern is not this specific case. I do question whether or not putting the files into a folder is really "distribution," if no one has downloaded the files. That would be the same as saying that I have sold a guitar if I listed it in the classified section, even though no one has bought it. I fail to see that logic, but that is a different issue.

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, which in turn means that it would be illegal to transfer that same music to an iPod or MP3 player of any kind. They also clearly stated that in their opinion, anyone who loans a CD that they have legally purchased to someone else for them to listen to is in violation of copyright laws. In a world where the industry has taken copyright laws FAR from their original purpose and intent, this is absolutely ludicrous. Where will they draw the line? If I buy a CD and my wife listens to it, they could interpret that as "loaning," and file suit against me.

In other words, they filed papers that may or may not be relevant to this case that I feel certain they will use for further lawsuits against their customers who buy the music legally. On the RIAA web site, it says "If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages." In these filings, they are saying that they believe transferring music you have purchased to your computer is making unauthorized copies. I personally find that ridiculous.

One last thought. If it is illegal to loan a CD to someone to listen to, I assume that they will be able to start filing lawsuits against the thousands of libraries that now have music available to check out ...
If you put it in folder shared out to the rest of the world, the intent to share is pretty well established. Assault does not mean hitting someone - that's battery. You can assult someone by cocking back your fist in preparation of a punch that never comes. And P2P programs have your PC listed, so it's not as if you can just stop it from happening without constant monitoring.

People can be convicted for having drugs with the intent to sell. I don't know the solution to all this, although I agree with beginning to rely on independent artists. Radio, TV and other aspects of the music industry, having lost control in the 60's and having regained nearly complete control by the late 70's, have never let it slip again. So now, you get someone different once every few years - not usually the cream, but a starving person loves lousy crackers and so it goes with a public tired of what becomes pabulum for the masses. Then, six weeks later out come 12 bands that sound exactly the same, or close enough for meatballs). We are in the pabulum cycle and have been for years.
__________________
Wade


Worry less about the guitars you want. Play the guitar you have more.
The answer will come, and it will not be what you expect.

A guitar is a tool, and a friend. But it is not the answer.

It is the beginning.


Current Guitars:


Taylor 716C Modified
Voyage-Air VAOM-04

CD: The Bayleys: From The Inside
CDBaby
Amazon
Also available from iTunes



Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Show and Tell

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=