What's new

RIAA impending lawsuits (1 Viewer)

Dave Poehlman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2000
Messages
3,813
And then you support the RIAA but rip your own?
What I mean is, I can understand the RIAA's point. Looking at the big picture, this sets a huge precedent for all types of media. So, RIAA's battle isn't just about the music industry getting the shaft... films, software, books, anything that can be transmitted electronically is facing this type of piracy.

I download music because I can. I know it's not right, and if the RIAA shut file sharing down all together, I don't think I would miss it. I do still buy CD's of artists I really enjoy. If I happen to download someone and I find I like their work, I'll go out and buy it. But, if I only like one or two songs from someone, I'll download the songs I like and leave the rest.

I agree with you, this lawsuit is dumb. Trying to make an example of a handful of college kids isn't going to do accomplish anything except create even more resentment for the RIAA.

However, downloading copyrighted material, even though you may be doing it in protest to high CD prices doesn't make it any less illegal.
 

Rob Gardiner

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
2,950
However, downloading copyrighted material, even though you may be doing it in protest to high CD prices doesn't make it any less illegal.
Again, I don't think downloading MP3s for personal, non-commercial use is illegal. I don't see anything in copyright law that makes downloading an MP3 any different (for the downloader) than taping off the radio. It certainly is NOT theft, and I don't think it constitutes copyright infringement. The downloader is not distributing the material, nor is he earning a profit from it.

Edit bad "quote" tag
 

Dave Poehlman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2000
Messages
3,813
Again, I don't think downloading MP3s for personal, non-commercial use is illegal. I don't see anything in copyright law that makes downloading an MP3 any different (for the downloader) than taping off the radio. It certainly is NOT theft, and I don't think it constitutes copyright infringement.
However, with that mindset, you would have to say making a copy of your friend's CD without paying for it is also legal.. or a photocopy of the new Harry Potter book.. or a DVD-R copy of Episode I from Blockbuster. You aren't distributing these copies either.
 

Rob Gardiner

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
2,950
During the Napster’s legal challenges, many copyright issues were brought forward. Besides arguing that Napster was only a medium that users may or may not conduct illegal activity on, Napster also claimed file sharing was protected by a fair use exception in copyrights. Fair use is an exception in copyright law that allows the use of copyrighted material in special situations. A court decision had previously allowed ftp access of copyrighted material. Tape swapping, letting a friend borrow a tape to record an additional copy, was also ruled as legal. Even though tape swapping was quite common, the quality of the sound was often less than optimal, and a decent amount of time was put into making a copy.
 

Stacie

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 17, 1999
Messages
126
A few words on fair use:

The problem with deciding that something qualifies as fair use by analogy is that the courts must determine what is and isn't a fair use on a case-by-case basis. It's extremely difficult to generalize about what is and is not a fair use. The courts make the determination by assessing four factors:

1) Nature of the use of the copyrighted material. Is the use primarily educational, or for entertainment? Is it for profit, or non-profit? If your goal in copying something is educational and non-profit, the courts are much more likely to deem it a fair use. Copying works for entertainment, even if you don't intend to profit from it, is not usually considered a mitigating factor in determining whether or not copyright has been infringed.

2) Nature of the copyrighted work. Is the work more creative, or more factual? The more factual the work is, the more likely that your use will be considered fair. Note that this factor will usually weigh heavily against the copying of any music, which is entirely creative and not factual.

3) Amount or substantiality of the work used. Are you copying an entire work, or only a very small portion of it? If you copy only a small portion of a work, your use is more likely to be considered fair. Note that even if the amount of the work is small, your use might still be an infringement: if you have copied what is deemed to be "the heart of the work," it probably won't qualify as a fair use, even if it's a tiny portion of the work. Think of a five-second sample from a song used as the basis for another artist's work. Such uses (if unauthorized by the copyright owner) have often been found to be infringement and have resulted in huge damages awarded to the plaintiffs.

4) Impact on the market for the work. This is pretty self-explanatory. Anyone who claims that file sharing negatively impacts the market for CDs (or paid-for downloads, or whatever) is relying on this factor to count against fair use.

The point is, anyone engaging in file sharing (especially large-scale file sharing) should consider carefully what they might be up against if they were sued. Case law is pretty much all over the map on fair use, because it must be decided individually in each case. That said, I wouldn't bet against the interests of copyright owners prevailing. It has happened often enough in the courts, and Congress has amply demonstrated whose side of this battle they're on. I don't think it's very smart to rely on questionable precedent as a defense.

Again, IANAL. Get qualified legal counsel if you really want to know what's what.
 

Ryan Wright

Screenwriter
Joined
Jul 30, 2000
Messages
1,875
It's extremely difficult to generalize about what is and is not a fair use.
See, the lawyers and RIAA backers (not accusing you of being either! :laugh: ) love to trot this out. I disagree. It is very easy for me to understand what is and is not fair use. Making copies for my own use, and sharing with immediate friends certainly is fair use. Sharing with millions of "friends" on the Internet is more cloudy.
 

Dave Poehlman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2000
Messages
3,813
Well, I guess I didn't realize the nebulous scope of "fair use". I'm off to Sam's Club to get another spool of CD-R's. ;)
 

Josh Simpson

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
926
For me, I hardly buy cd's much anymore because I'm hooked on DVD. See, when I can buy a 2 disc dvd set of a movie I love, full of extras for around 15 bucks, but a cd of maybe 2 songs I want for around $16-20 bucks. I choose the DVD.
 

Thomas Newton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 16, 1999
Messages
2,303
Real Name
Thomas Newton
Again, I don't think downloading MP3s for personal, non-commercial use is illegal. I don't see anything in copyright law that makes downloading an MP3 any different (for the downloader) than taping off the radio. It certainly is NOT theft, and I don't think it constitutes copyright infringement.
In the radio example, the broadcast was legal and probably was royalty-paid. Timeshifting the radio broadcast is 100% legal Fair Use under the Betamax decision (substitute the word "radio" for "TV"). Even librarying is presumptively legal Fair Use, given the source for the copies.

In the anonymous downloading example, the distribution of the files is infringing. The content and sound quality of the files might be similar to what you could get by doing legal taping off the radio, but the law will probably view the downloaded files as 'tainted'.
 

Thomas Newton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 16, 1999
Messages
2,303
Real Name
Thomas Newton
However, with that mindset, you would have to say making a copy of your friend's CD without paying for it is also legal
Right before grilling Napster types (in a way that made it clear that he didn't think Napster-style trading was legal), Senator Hatch said that if he copied a CD for his friend, Senator Leahy, that would probably be Fair Use.

There needs to be at least some breathing room in copyright laws -- otherwise you get ridiculous outcomes like wedding videos that can't be shared with close friends because the ceremony included music!

Or Hillary Rosen saying it's not Fair Use to make a tape of a CD you own, for your wife to play in her car.
 

Steve Owen

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 7, 1999
Messages
416
sharing with immediate friends certainly is fair use
I'm not sure you have a legal leg to stand on there. You can read about "fair use" doctrine here. There's another good read here.

So while no one has ever been sued for casually making a copy of CD for a friend, the fact is that you would have a very hard time arguing that such an act would be fair use under the law.

As far as the words "theft" and "stealing" that Jeff and others like to use... As has been stated, they're the wrong words. No where in copyright law does it talk about theft. It's called "copyright infringement". If I walk into a record store and take a CD without paying, that's theft. If I download it off the internet, that's copyright infringement. The way the law is written, there's really no room to dance around this distinction...

-Steve
 

Rob Gardiner

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
2,950
While the end result may seem the same to you, the matter in which something is obtained is a basic part of the law. Consider the difference between obtaining sex through consent or by rape. In both cases you end up with the same thing (sex), but in one you do so through appropriate means, the other by violating someone's rights. Are these the same?
Jeff,

I am speechless. Since you have brought up an analogy comparing downloading an MP3 to the act of rape I can only assume you meant this as a tasteless joke. The analogy sure as hell doesn't hold up:

I would argue that a person's right to his or her own body is pretty much absolute. Rape, as far a I know, is never legal. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. :rolleyes

Copyright however is not an absolute right. Ther is an exception to this right and it is called fair use. You may be perfectly willing to relinquish your fair use rights if the RIAA asks (or threatens) you to, but please don't expect us to do the same.
 

Jeff Ulmer

Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Aug 23, 1998
Messages
5,582
Rob, I am in no way trying to make a joke. I am pointing out a serious flaw in your understanding of copyright law and fair use (which is not a right either by the way, it is an exemption from prosecution under a set of weighted circumstances as Stacie outlined above). Your inference that there was no difference between taping off the radio or downloading unlicensed files is incorrect, and my analogy points out quite clearly that the means is very often the deciding factor in what is and isn't acceptable in law. You have so far failed to see that difference.

Depriving people of their rightful income is no joke.

Unlawfully distributing someone else's work is no joke, and is also never legal.

The RIAA is in no way attempting to relinquish fair use provisions by these lawsuits, they are attempting to stop the unlawful distribution of someone else's property. They are enforcing the law.

You may roll your eyes, but I don't take downloading unlicensed material as a joke. It can have an adverse affect on the livelihood of those who create the product, and by taking their product from unlicensed sources, you are indeed violating their rights. The flippant disregard for these rights I take great exception to.

Again, I suggest you actually research the copyright law, fair use provisions, and case law.
 

Chris Lockwood

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 21, 1999
Messages
3,215
> Senator Hatch said that if he copied a CD for his friend, Senator Leahy, that would probably be Fair Use.

Interesting. I thought distributing copies to someone else (whether for profit or for free) was a no-no.

In other words, I buy a CD in a store & make a cassette copy to listen to in my car (pretend I have no CD player)- I thought this was OK. But if I make the tape & give it to a friend, that's not, because he never bought that music legally (and has no reason to once I've given it to him). The latter case is the same as pirating to me, just not for profit.
 

Stacie

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 17, 1999
Messages
126
I said:
See, the lawyers and RIAA backers (not accusing you of being either! ) love to trot this out. I disagree. It is very easy for me to understand what is and is not fair use. Making copies for my own use, and sharing with immediate friends certainly is fair use. Sharing with millions of "friends" on the Internet is more cloudy.
But my point is, what you (or I) as an individual think constitutes fair use doesn't matter. Or, at least, it doesn't matter much (your earnest belief that you're not infriging copyright might be considered a mitigating factor in awarding damages, but it won't have any bearing on the court's decision regarding whether you infringed copyright). Fair use is something that must be decided by the courts on the facts of each individual case, according to the criteria I outlined in my last post. Fair use is an extremely nebulous and fluid legal concept. The statute was written that way intentionally to acknowledge the difficulty of making absolute determinations on infringement. Some issues related to fair use, such as time-shifting, have been pretty much settled by high-profile cases. But plenty of others haven't been settled.

For example, I have heard experts in copyright law make credible arguments that copying a CD you lawfully own onto a cassette or your MP3 player so you can listen to it in your car is NOT a fair use. Now, I personally think it is a fair use (I do have 1,000+ MP3s on my iPod, after all), but until and unless this particular issue is settled in the courts, I'm taking a chance (though it might be a small one).

Also, what Jeff said is absolutely correct. There is no escaping the conclusion if you read the actual statutes that fair use is not a "right," but rather an exception to rights exclusively reserved for copyright owners. This may seem like splitting hairs, but it's a pretty important legal distinction. The rights of copyright owners in the disposition of their intellectual property are much stronger than allowances (such as fair use, first sale, etc.) made in the law for the public's use of copyrighted works. The burden is on you to prove that you haven't infringed.

I'm not an RIAA backer in any way, shape, or form. I think their tactics are heavyhanded and frankly stupid, and that in the long run, the industry will change beyond recognition no matter what they do. That said, the RIAA is a very wealthy, powerful group with a lot of legislators and judges on their side. They are positioned to cause a lot of people a lot of pain, and I don't think it's smart to ignore the possibility, especially in light of what they're trying now.

I am a believer in the value of protecting intellectual property. That doesn't mean that I believe that current US copyright law strikes an acceptable balance between the interests of copyright owners and those of the public -- I don't think it does. But until and unless the law changes, I'm not going to take unnecessary chances. What I think the law should be won't matter in the least if I'm prosecuted. I can work to change the law, but disagreeing with the law doesn't give you a free pass to disregard it. Infringe all you want -- just be prepared for the potential consequences.
 

Rob Gardiner

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
2,950
Unlawfully distributing someone else's work is no joke, and is also never legal.
Jeff,

I really hate having to repeat myself over and over again. This line of yours is complete and utter bullshit. Do you acknowledge any exceptions to copyright? Senator Hatch does. Do you know something that he doesn't? A teacher can distribute someone else's work to his class without compensation and it is LEGAL. A film festival can exhibit a film for which the music rights have not been cleared and because it is a non-commercial screening, it is LEGAL.

Rape laws do not have exceptions such as these. Your analogy has NO MERIT.
 

Rob Gardiner

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
2,950
For example, I have heard experts in copyright law make credible arguments that copying a CD you lawfully own onto a cassette or your MP3 player so you can listen to it in your car is NOT a fair use. Now, I personally think it is a fair use (I do have 1,000+ MP3s on my iPod, after all), but until and unless this particular issue is settled in the courts, I'm taking a chance (though it might be a small one).
Stacie,

I'd like to hear more about this. I was under the impression that "format shifting" along with "time shifting" is in fact fair use. I have some links to support that but I will have to dig them up...
 

Jeff Ulmer

Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Aug 23, 1998
Messages
5,582
A teacher can distribute someone else's work to his class without compensation and it is LEGAL.
Again READ THE FAIR USE PROVISIONS. You will see why this, in some forms, is covered under fair use. Teachers can not just copy any and all material for their class for any reason. There are specific guidelines for this which most academic institutions outline for their staff, based on the fair use provisions.

As for your film festival example, again, there are provisions of fair use which may allow this, but I wouldn't say it is a given.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,823
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top