The Acoustic Guitar Forum

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #76  
Old 01-08-2008, 03:18 PM
BigRed51 BigRed51 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Plano, Tx
Posts: 1,685
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SongwriterFan View Post
It's unauthorized because it's in a shared folder available of a P2P program.
I understand that you believe that, and I think it is a fair interpretation. If you could show me a single instance in a legal document or on the RIAA website where THEY say that, I might be convinced that it is their interpretation as well. I think if you take the time to do the research, you will find that they are very careful NOT to define what "unauthorized" is, and that they have carefully intermingled "unauthorized" with "illegal" in their publications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SongwriterFan View Post
Any case (civil or criminal) can be made with largely circumstantial evicence.
Largely, yes. The statement I quoted clearly says entirely, which is much different than largely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SongwriterFan View Post
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.
In my opinion, you are giving them much too much benefit of the doubt. I agree with your interpretation of the P2P programs, and I have not defended that means of file sharing. If they meant to make it specific to P2P sharing, however, they could have easily said that. They are very careful NOT to limit their statements to P2P.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SongwriterFan View Post
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.
Again, your interpretation. I cannot find a single instance where they have made that clarification in a legal document, or on their website. I invite you to post an example that proves me wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SongwriterFan View Post
It doesn't matter what the RIAA "believes" . . what matters is how the the law reads and how the judges rule.
I agree, EXCEPT that it is what the RIAA, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, the music companies, and the publishers "believe" (along with millions of dollars of lobbying money) that has caused the laws to be constantly rewritten over the past several years. It will now take 20 (or more) before another song goes into the public domain. That is simply wrong, in my opinion. It is also wrong, in my opinion, that I cannot LEND or copy and give away a song that is now out of print, and unavailable for sale, but a copyright holder has a better chance of making money by suing their customer than by making the song available for sale.

As I have already said, my purpose is not to argue with you, or to convince you that I am right and you are wrong. I am just expressing my opinions, based on my reading of legal documents and direct quotes from the legal representatives of companies and organizations that are involved in bringing the music industry in general, and copyright enforcement in particular, to what I consider new depths. I appreciate your comments, but I must remain inclined to formulate my understanding of the specific words that I find in print, rather than your generous interpretation.

Finally, I will add a couple of quotes from one of hundreds of great articles I have read:

S T R A N G L I N G C U L T U R E W I T H A C O P Y R I G H T L A W
Steve Zeitlin

Op-Ed in The New York Times
April 25, 1998
Copyright © 1998 The New York Times.

"Legislation now in Congress (which, of course, passed) to extend the copyright law threatens to make it more difficult for this nation's creativity to become part of our cultural landscape, part of a common heritage of folklore circulating freely in the public domain."

"under the new law our roly-poly Santa Claus, originally created by the 19th-century cartoonist Thomas Nast, would not have gone into the public domain until 1973. Even the United States Government would have had to pay royalties to use Nast's Uncle Sam in all of his century's wars."

"If corporations thought they could get away with it, they might charge a few cents every time we copied a cartoon to distribute in the office or hummed a song in the shower."

"The interests of songwriters and screenwriters and the corporations they work for have to be balanced against the importance of our collective folk culture. As Mr. [Pete] Seeger put it from his home in Beacon, N.Y., "The grandchildren should be able to find some other way to make a living, even if their grandfather did write 'How Much Is That Doggie in the Window.'"
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 01-09-2008, 11:09 AM
beach bob beach bob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: South Florida
Posts: 2,678
Default a bit of satire...

Some levity to these weighty issues

RIAA Declares Using Brain to Remember Songs is Criminal Copyright Infringement
On the heels of the RIAA's recent decision to criminalize consumers who rip songs from albums they've purchased to their computers (or iPods), the association has now gone one step further and declared that "remembering songs" using your brain is criminal copyright infringement. "The brain is a recording device," explained RIAA president Cary Sherman. "The act of listening is an unauthorized act of copying music to that recording device, and the act of recalling or remembering a song is unauthorized playback."
__________________
A Maverick Radar Guides Fate
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 01-09-2008, 11:39 AM
ljguitar's Avatar
ljguitar ljguitar is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: wyoming
Posts: 42,556
Default

Hi guys...
To resurrect a point from the original thought of buying one's last CD, I will have purchased my last CD when anything I want is available for online purchase and download.

I no longer use CDs as my main method of listening...have not for several years. The only ones I tend to use are other people's music they want to learn for lessons or content not available for download.

The CDs I purchase are immediately transferred to my computer and the CDs are either put away or gifted.
__________________

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
  #79  
Old 01-09-2008, 12:40 PM
BigRed51 BigRed51 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Plano, Tx
Posts: 1,685
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beach bob View Post
Now THAT is funny!

"With this decision, the RIAA now considers approximately 72% of the adult U.S. population to be criminals. Putting them all in prison for copyright infringement would cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $683 billion per year -- an amount that would have to be shouldered by the remaining 28% who are not imprisoned. The RIAA believes it could cover the $683 billion tab through royalties on music sales. The problem with that? The 28% remaining adults not in prison don't buy music albums.'
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 01-10-2008, 11:18 AM
beach bob beach bob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: South Florida
Posts: 2,678
Default more to chew on ....


Radiohead's 'In Rainbows' tops charts

Wed Jan 9, 6:49 PM ET

NEW YORK - Whatever the price, Radiohead's "In Rainbows" is a top-seller. The band's seventh album was No. 1 on the week's music charts with sales of 122,000 copies, according Nielsen SoundScan figures released Wednesday. The physical, standard priced release sold fairly well even though Radiohead three months ago made a digital copy of the disc available for download on its Web site with optional pricing.
"Optional pricing" meant you paid what you want... you could download it for free, or you could pay what amount you wished. A recent Spin article said that a survey was conducted of some 3,000 people who downloaded In Rainbows, and that those people paid an average of $8.00.

Interesting, eh?
__________________
A Maverick Radar Guides Fate
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 06:42 PM.


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=