Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by TyC, Jan 28, 2003.
Agreed. I do hope that they have at least one more ace up their sleeve. I would have sued the RIAA too.
Never been on their site, but they could charge for legal copies, but I thought that they ran peer to peer, which would mean that they really couldn't stop any illegal distribution of anything, and it would be up to the studios to persue their own movies.
I think that would be the best solution. Since there are just a few of the major record labels, (and not too many more studios) it should be up to them to police their own problems.
After all, if you put Mickey Mouse up on your website, the feds won't be beating down your door, Disney will.
What I fail to understand is how in one court they can be convicted of pricefixing, while in the next they're hammering about copyright protections. Either they want laws or they don't.
I feel music piracy in particular is a case of two wrongs not making a right; but no one in the DRM camps will acknowledge that there are two wrongs being perpretrated here.
A big concern I have is that there is nothing being done to enable my leagal uses of copyrighted material. Wheras they are so bent on preventing other's illegal use that they are willing to curtail my legal access. Why is that acceptable?
Price fixing and copyrights have nothing to do with one another, and just because the labels have been convicted of one does not mean that their other rights are thrown aside.
A very large part of the problem is that the vast majority of people do not know what they are really legally entitled to, and make extrapolations with no basis in law for determining what they can and can not do with music or movie software.
Fair use is not a right to copy, it is an exclusion from prosecution for copying, based on a set of weighted parameters. The AHRA allows specific uses of material, but again these are misrepresented most of the time, and in some cases don't have case law to back them up.
If the myths about usage "rights" were actually made clear, the legality of various common practices on the net would be much clearer.
Ryan, perfect example about the hard drive; so long as you don't share your archive there should be no problem, Right? However that copy-protection scheme out there prevents disks from playing on PC's. So now, not only are they attempting to prevent you from archiving the songs on your harddrive, they are trying to prevent you from even playing the disk itself on a PC. Regardless of if the "jukebox" you describe is OK, simply playing a disk on a PC is legit. This copy-protection scheme prevents legitmite playback in computers. (And please, no one reply with the description of the workaround for this -- Forum rules)
Again, you are not comprehending the nature of the fair use and AHRA provisions. Neither grant you any right to copy material. Both provide freedom from prosecution under specific terms for copyright infringement. There is a difference.
See: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/index.html for the copyright law.
As for recording to hard drive, according to article 5Bii of the AHRA, computers are not in the definition of a digital recording device, and are therefore not subject to any provisions of the AHRA. (http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm) Rio challeneged this, but as yet there is no legislation AFAIK that includes computers in the definitions covered by the AHRA.
Jeff, Wasn't the price of CD-R/RW raised to provide royalties to musicians? They knew what we were going to do with them, and covered their butts from the get-go.
The price of all consumer digital audio recorders and all blank media for such recorders includes a royalty tax. Computers and professional digital audio recorders are exempt from the tax and the associated SCMS copy protection.
Thus MiniDiscs and CDs sold as "music" CDs are taxed. CDs sold as "data" CDs aren't. Computers can record on either type of CD, but home stereo CD burners will only record on the taxed ones.
That's why I'm hoping they have something new to feed the court, so to speak.
While reading the last two posts I thought of how I used to record songs right off of the air - and it was mine to listen to over and over again, just like VHS tapes later with movies on TV. Taking it off of a site today is just the technology making its presence known.
The data vrs. music/movie brings up more points too. I know that Australia had a court ruling for the data/on DVD's and rentals there.
And last but not least, (Just to confuse everybody even more) you go to see TTT. You pay $8.50 (or whatever) to see it one time, and one time only, yet we don't have self-distructing DVD's that come out on the market 6 months later. Hoy can they explain that one away?
Ryan, you've summed up my feelings on this subject perfectly...
Jeff, i'm impressed with your interpretation and understanding of the laws surrounding this issue. however, it is quite obvious that media companies (especially the music industry) need to "get with the times" and quit trying to apply "old thinking" to new technologies.