Judge shuts down RIAA in music piracy case

[buckethead99]

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/13812.cfm#comments


The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA (http://www.afterdawn.com/glossary/terms/riaa.cfm)) has suffered another legal setback after a judge denied a ruling in a music piracy case (http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/006876.html) this week. The judge ruled that "the sole act of making a music (http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/13812.cfm#) file available in a "shared folder" does not violate copyright laws."

In the case Atlantic v. Howell, the RIAA asserted that a "sound recording" that is legally ripped to a PC (http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/13812.cfm#) and then stored in any type of shared folder is unauthorized and illegal. The assertion was not really clear however, as a shared folder is a very broad category.

The RIAA saw some backlash for its assertion when the rumor was spread around the Internet that the RIAA believed that ripping CD (http://www.afterdawn.com/glossary/terms/cd.cfm) music was illegal. The group cleared up the situation by saying that it doesn't consider ripping illegal but that adding music recordings to a shared folder that can be accessed by others in a P2P (http://www.afterdawn.com/glossary/terms/p2p.cfm) file sharing (http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/13812.cfm#) program is illegal and should be stopped.

The ruling this week has shut those theories down however. U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake tossed out all the RIAA's motions including the "making available" and "offer to distribute" theories that pertained to "shared folders."

The judgment could have long lasting effects in all of the RIAA's music piracy cases as it is now harder for the group to prove that "a copyrighted file actually changed hands given the anonymous nature of file-sharing programs and the lack of cooperation from Internet service providers with these lawsuits."



The RIAA will soon be buried for Good.:thu:

[Dean Roddey]

Come on. The RIAA is no group of saints, but folks who have ripped stuff to the shared folder of their P2P system are hardly doing the industry any favors and are not the good guys. Yeh, maybe some small number of them aren't actually sharing them, but these types of things really just go way beyond standing up for the little guy against the big, bad RIAA. It's more in the vein of gloating over the fact that the RIAA can't stop anyone from stealing their stuff and therefore they will go away. But people keep forgetting that the ultimately it's not the RIAA who made that music and therefore isn't getting paid when it's stolen.

[edgerunner]

Yeah - I think this attitude is the overflow of emotions that reacted against all the horror stories of Record Companies taking advantage of artists and consumers. That whole sentiment fuels this attitude that stealing in this case is ok because your stealing from the rich to give to the poor a la Robin Hood.

There's a big dif between ripping CDs you bought for personal use, and distributing those files to anyone and everyone. And sadly, once you've taken down all those big bad record companies . . . well, you've also taken down most of the musicians who made their living writing and recording for them.

Hell I'm guilty of making copies (though not distributing to others really) from CDs borrowed from the library or friends and of copying large storage drives of mp3s from friends. MANY $$ of music that I would not otherwise listen to. This was the logic I used to self justify my actions - and I am a somewhat "moral" person otherwise. I am only now waking up to the fact that my actions multiplied by millions of people are what is partly to blame for taking down not just the music industry - but musicians too.

I really don't expect to see a big shift in this attitude though. People are now habituated to expect that "music is free" and that these companies are "bad" so I am not too hopeful for the music biz going forward. Unless they can find some new way to make money I think we could be headed into a very dark time for "professional" musicians and recording artists.

I DO buy music too - for certain artists I'll go out of my way to support by buying CDs, merch, tix for shows etc. But the truth is that I have taken a BIGGER chunk than I could ever pay for, and I know I am not alone. I imagine that the VAST majority have done this (another self justification - hey everyone else is . . . ). So we musicians and fans are guilty to some extent of our passion's demise.

Chuck

[slight-return]

Man, another article where they dont link to the acaul decision (At last as far as I saw)

Anderton posted an article today (different case) and I about fell out of my chair as the reporter actually linked to the decision.

[buckethead99]

I dont Download music I buy it used most of the time,The tactics the RIAA have been using to stop illegal Downloading were obscene and immoral.


The Music industry has to Change,they can Never stop people from sharing music. IMO.

[Li10]

I never download music illegaly. I just don't get why people do it...

If I want something, I'll pay for it.

[Dean Roddey]

I dont Download music I buy it used most of the time,The tactics the RIAA have been using to stop illegal Downloading were obscene and immoral.

When did it become obscene and immoral to sue people who are stealing from you?

[Deeprig9]

Jack White should have simply paid the kid a visit between Comparative Lit and Campus Diversity and bought him a hot dog on the sidewalk and talked with him a while about the impacts that millions of people like himself have on up and coming artists, like Jack White used to be.

[buckethead99]

When did it become obscene and immoral to sue people who are stealing from you?
First you have to define stealing.
And also sharing.

The RIAA sued some people for a outrageous amount of money and not a dime went back to the musicians.


The RIAA has said that burning a CD You bought is Illegal,They are goons and its good to see them lose in court.:)

[fetishfrog]

The RIAA will soon be buried for Good.:thu:

Cool, that will put the number of organizations fighting to protect victims of music copyright infringement at a healthy 0. I rue the day.

Hey Buckethead99, do you have any music online? Me and a few million friends would like to download it, listen to it, and never pay you a dime.

[buckethead99]

Yeah - I think this attitude is the overflow of emotions that reacted against all the horror stories of Record Companies taking advantage of artists and consumers. That whole sentiment fuels this attitude that stealing in this case is ok because your stealing from the rich to give to the poor a la Robin Hood.

There's a big dif between ripping CDs you bought for personal use, and distributing those files to anyone and everyone. And sadly, once you've taken down all those big bad record companies . . . well, you've also taken down most of the musicians who made their living writing and recording for them.

Hell I'm guilty of making copies (though not distributing to others really) from CDs borrowed from the library or friends and of copying large storage drives of mp3s from friends. MANY $$ of music that I would not otherwise listen to. This was the logic I used to self justify my actions - and I am a somewhat "moral" person otherwise. I am only now waking up to the fact that my actions multiplied by millions of people are what is partly to blame for taking down not just the music industry - but musicians too.

I really don't expect to see a big shift in this attitude though. People are now habituated to expect that "music is free" and that these companies are "bad" so I am not too hopeful for the music biz going forward. Unless they can find some new way to make money I think we could be headed into a very dark time for "professional" musicians and recording artists.

I DO buy music too - for certain artists I'll go out of my way to support by buying CDs, merch, tix for shows etc. But the truth is that I have taken a BIGGER chunk than I could ever pay for, and I know I am not alone. I imagine that the VAST majority have done this (another self justification - hey everyone else is . . . ). So we musicians and fans are guilty to some extent of our passion's demise.

Chuck No you just have to market your music better,Many bands are doing well. I fully support Independent labels and the direction they are taking us.
again piracy cannot be stopped no matter how much drm Microsoft uses. http://www.eff.org/
Has some great Ideas check it out.

[Deeprig9]

First you have to define stealing.
And also sharing.

The RIAA sued some people for a outrageous amount of money and not a dime went back to the musicians.


The RIAA has said that burning a CD You bought is Illegal,They are goons and its good to see them lose in court.:)


Sucks they didn't kick anything back to the musicians, but at least they are willing to stick their necks out and look like the bad guy on our behalf. Let them keep $100,000,000 from the suit. Split up to every band in the world would leave us with about 25 cents each.


Burning a CD you bought is illegal. Copyright law specifically states that unauthorized reproduction without consent from the copyright holder is illegal. It's very explicit. You can make 100000000000 copies and never give them away or sell them, and it's still illegal. If you want 2 copies because you want to give one away, or have a backup, or keep one in your lexus and one in your ferrari, and a third to keep at the office and another one for your home, and another one for your wife, then you need to buy 7 copies. That's the law. Right or wrong, it's plain English. Just like an All you can Eat buffet, you can listen to your CD or mp3 as many times as you want, but you can't let other people share with you or the restaurant/music business is totally fucked. It's not a difficult concept. The only difficult part about this issue are the people who argue that shareware is totally awesome and cool, and there's nothing you can do about it, so there, deal with it, fuck you, I downloaded it, it's mine, go to hell, record companies blah blah, corporations blah blah, radio blah blah, that's the only complicated part, because you've got to worm your way around blatant hypocrisy and contradiction at every turn, at every drooling stutter, you've got to find a way to justify your theft and the harm you are doing to musicians, even with reverse psychology like the old "It helps musicians!" schtick.

[fetishfrog]

Burning a CD you bought is illegal. Copyright law specifically states that unauthorized reproduction without consent from the copyright holder is illegal. It's very explicit. You can make 100000000000 copies and never give them away or sell them, and it's still illegal. If you want 2 copies because you want to give one away, or have a backup, or keep one in your lexus and one in your ferrari, and a third to keep at the office and another one for your home, and another one for your wife, then you need to buy 7 copies. That's the law. Right or wrong, it's plain English. Just like an All you can Eat buffet, you can listen to your CD or mp3 as many times as you want, but you can't let other people share with you or the restaurant/music business is totally fucked. It's not a difficult concept. The only difficult part about this issue are the people who argue that shareware is totally awesome and cool, and there's nothing you can do about it, so there, deal with it, fuck you, I downloaded it, it's mine, go to hell, record companies blah blah, corporations blah blah, radio blah blah, that's the only complicated part, because you've got to worm your way around blatant hypocrisy and contradiction at every turn, at every drooling stutter, you've got to find a way to justify your theft and the harm you are doing to musicians, even with reverse psychology like the old "It helps musicians!" schtick.

Pretty much sums it up for me :).

[slight-return]

just a note here guys

We do all realize that it was a motion for summary judgement, right?

[FireWithin]

Cool, that will put the number of organizations fighting to protect victims of music copyright infringement at a healthy 0. I rue the day.

Hey Buckethead99, do you have any music online? Me and a few million friends would like to download it, listen to it, and never pay you a dime.


That would be awesome if that happened to my bands! :thu: Considering we are not hippie losers trying to make a living off entertainment but actually are grounded in reality. We would be famous over night! :thu:

F$#% the RIAA! With them gone maybe talented musicians playing WHAT THEY WANT, from the heart, can actually get paid and not screwed by the industry. Level playing field anyone? Most talented and best music floats and all the trendy crap being pushed by the RIAA sinks?

I've NEVER enjoyed what they say is good. Most of it is cookie cutter shit that's been done a million times. Some of the best musicians in the world are never found on the radio or MTV. Let people decide and let musicians be self-made. The smart, talented and ambisous will rule as it should in any free market.

The RIAA is simply communism

[FireWithin]

btw, i've never supported downloading and steeling music. If you are really upset about that, get mad at apple and/or microsoft for inventing tech. to rip music in the early 90's.

What I can't stomach is the RIAA and the forced rule. They tell us whats good and thats bull. Some will never make it becuase they are not a MTV face and that's bonk. It should be about the music. So, seeing anything that will destroy the RIAA is a good thing. With them out of the way, downloading will not stop but at least WE have a chance to progress and perhaps the the hippie dream of living off your passion could become real....with a allot of talent and brians.

Down with the RIAA and major labels. Support indies! Understand, they are not doing this FOR YOU! They are doing it FOR THEMSELVES. They will never give you a penny of the money they gain from some poor mother of 3 for stealing songs.

[Deeprig9]

just a note here guys

We do all realize that it was a motion for summary judgement, right?

I did not realize that! That means there is still hope!

GO RIAA!!

[sabriel9v]

Sucks they didn't kick anything back to the musicians, but at least they are willing to stick their necks out and look like the bad guy on our behalf. Let them keep $100,000,000 from the suit. Split up to every band in the world would leave us with about 25 cents each.


But that's the problem. The RIAA is not really protecting the interests of artists worldwide, but labels...specifically labels based of North America. If artists were actually receiving the money earned from RIAA lawsuits, it wouldn't be a problem. But for the most part, thats not happening.

[slight-return]

To be honest, given the costs of litigation, there may not be that much (if anything) left of the damages.

The artists may also have contracted away large portions of their IP (to an organization such as a label) and so may not see $ from judgements on IP they sold or licensed

[bdemon]

That would be awesome if that happened to my bands! :thu: Considering we are not hippie losers trying to make a living off entertainment but actually are grounded in reality. We would be famous over night! :thu:

So you want to be famous without any profit from your fame? Sorry, if I'm gonna have photographers chasing my ass 24/7, catching me at embarrassing moments (You seen some of those Amy Winehouse or Britney pics?), having fans of all temperament demanding autographs when I'm on the toilet, you can bet I want to make a few bucks out of it. I ain't donating my privacy to charity.

F$#% the RIAA! With them gone maybe talented musicians playing WHAT THEY WANT, from the heart, can actually get paid and not screwed by the industry. Level playing field anyone? Most talented and best music floats and all the trendy crap being pushed by the RIAA sinks?

You're speaking with WAY broad generalities. Yes, the RIAA sucks. Yes, the record industry is full of sharks. But lots of talent has broken through to the top in that system. What we need is a broader system that provides more opportunity and options for artists. The Internet can offer that, but as long as the general public can file share effortlessly they're going to think ALL music is supposed to be free...and that's not right.

I've NEVER enjoyed what they say is good. Most of it is cookie cutter shit that's been done a million times. Some of the best musicians in the world are never found on the radio or MTV. Let people decide and let musicians be self-made. The smart, talented and ambisous will rule as it should in any free market.

The best musicians in the world have been found on radio and MTV and many others have been discovered elsewhere. Check out your local newspaper club listings regularly and you'll see all sorts of touring acts. I go to a club here in the Bay Area called Yoshi's...the best jazz acts in the world play here. Most of them have no mainstream following (Mike Stern, Charlie Hunter), but when they come to town (at least once a year) they play for five nights, most of them sold out. People are deciding.

The RIAA needs their hands slapped in a few cases, but their basic case against online file sharing to totally legit, IMO.

[slight-return]

Yoshis is a great venue! (I mean hell, there are a number of "Live at Yoshi's " recordings out there -- Joe Pass, Pat MArtino, Mulgrew Miller - just to name a few)
man, caught some GREAT music there [While I used to catch the Stern shows, etc I'm more the classic stuff...like I'd basically camp my ass there for every Elvin Jones show...but yeah, move quick or that would get sold out

Funny anecdote abt that -- I noticed once that my wife had Yoshi's on her speed dial...above MY number :(


used to live down by th old location in Rockridge

When i moved to Seattle, i asked em where to go for a similar experience (Jazz Alley up here)
same general circuit, though i miss the sushi

[fetishfrog]

That would be awesome if that happened to my bands! :thu: Considering we are not hippie losers trying to make a living off entertainment but actually are grounded in reality. We would be famous over night! :thu:

Interesting perspective...so people trying to make a living playing music are not grounded in reality? All the musicians I know who are making a living doing music (the number is high enough to be considered an accurate sample size) completely agree with me and are totally grounded in reality, which I dare say is largely responsible for their success.

The RIAA is trying to protect musicians from illegal downloading, whether the benefactor is Brittney Spears or Pat Matrino.

Down with the RIAA and major labels. Support indies! Understand, they are not doing this FOR YOU! They are doing it FOR THEMSELVES. They will never give you a penny of the money they gain from some poor mother of 3 for stealing songs.

Downloader hurt indies too. How you cannot see that is beyond me. If the RIAA had their way, indies would have the same protection as the majors.

So, seeing anything that will destroy the RIAA is a good thing. With them out of the way, downloading will not stop but at least WE have a chance to progress and perhaps the the hippie dream of living off your passion could become real....with a allot of talent and brians.

So were will the money come from in your new hippie business model. Touring? Touring (merch sales included) has always been a loss leader for album sales. With the rising costs of touring, how do you suppose this will suddenly become profitable? Magic?

[Deeprig9]

Fetish.... read this:


http://flagpole.com/News/Letters/2008-04-30

[fetishfrog]

Fetish.... read this:


http://flagpole.com/News/Letters/2008-04-30

Thx for this. I'll have to look into it.

That Michelle Gilzenrat person needs to be stabbed in the neck.

[Deeprig9]

No... don't say such things. She's alright.

[sabriel9v]

The RIAA needs their hands slapped in a few cases, but their basic case against online file sharing to totally legit, IMO.

Their basic case is legitimate. The only problem is they insist on eroding principles of net neutrality for their own personal gain. One single industry should not be responsible for how people use the Internet in the privacy of their own homes.

[buckethead99]

Cool, that will put the number of organizations fighting to protect victims of music copyright infringement at a healthy 0. I rue the day.

Hey Buckethead99, do you have any music online? Me and a few million friends would like to download it, listen to it, and never pay you a dime.
If I did you could do it without me or the RIAA doing anything about it If you are smart;). Sharing music is simply never going to be stopped not anymore than the war on Drugs has stopped people from using drugs.





http://www.eff.org/wp/better-way-forward-voluntary-collective-licensing-music-file-sharing


Here the EFF has a good solution so the Artists get money for there music,Its not a perfect plan but it beats Yours.:idea:

[slight-return]

Their basic case is legitimate. The only problem is they insist on eroding principles of net neutrality for their own personal gain. One single industry should not be responsible for how people use the Internet in the privacy of their own homes.

That's one reason why it's important to have precision (ie "broken computer speak"), judicial recusal, (interest) conflict checks for counsel, etc
so that the legal analysis is clean.

so that, if one has issue with techniques of investigation, unfair biz practices, breaking of communication law - those are addressed on THOSE grounds.
and IP issues are addresed in IP law

Net neutrality is an interesting one (not really my area so I can't speak authoritatively ), but I'm not aware of there being specific legal test to claimed legal protection (or even the specific claim to legal protection sans test) for that at this time* (that may have to be legislated before it is ejudicated)

[Note on net neutrality, the issue is bigger than one single industry - film, VOIP, advertising, content hosting, online backup, server-side application hosting, telecommunication HW/services prviders...any number of industries are involved in that]

*I think I asked before, but if someone has code or caselaw on net neutrality, I'd appreciate it (good stuff to read in the hottub :) )

[slight-return]

If I did you could do it without me or the RIAA doing anything about it If you are smart;). Sharing music is simply never going to be stopped not anymore than the war on Drugs has stopped people from using drugs.


http://www.eff.org/wp/better-way-forward-voluntary-collective-licensing-music-file-sharing


Here the EFF has a good solution so the Artists get money for there music,Its not a perfect plan but it beats Yours.:idea:

One thing to keep in mind it that law doesn't necessarilly to "solve" anything (any number of criminal and civil wrongs are not solved by law), what they can provide is redress

The EFF's idea s a biz model and can be implemented UNDER-- actually is SUPPORTED by existing law


the "flat fee" type plans (as the popularly cited EFF paper) can suffer from some problems (some of which alread exist with the existing attempts at "'solution")

one is that the claim is it would be "voluntary" (as opposed to compulsory) which doesn't really "solve" the problem of piracy

Using a flat model with distribution based on popularity could negatively impact the smaller volume artist (as the income is finite and the distribution is based on popularity...we have a zero sum -ie adversarial - system that rewards only consumption)

The plan also does not address the moral rights of the author to control his/her work -- the role of copyright is not limited to the benjis
[US copyright law is already skewed to th finanacial more than the rest of the world, which itself, is problematic as we move to more uniform protection (hey, we're the US we always being the different guy)]

The proposal doesn't allow for alternative distributions such as limited releases, doesn't allow for the artist to control for quality or association with the content (you often see this protection of "attribution" come up in visual works)

The EFF proposal also does not address parallel, piracy-based distributions...it could be an incentive to pirate less, but it doesn't offer enhanced protection

[fetishfrog]

No... don't say such things. She's alright.

I'm sure you're right, but the sense of entitlement that is so clearly displayed in her article makes my blood boil.

[Deeprig9]

That's why I wrote the letter that I linked you to.

[Dean Roddey]

That would be awesome if that happened to my bands! Considering we are not hippie losers trying to make a living off entertainment but actually are grounded in reality. We would be famous over night!

And that would be of what value to you working at Burger King? And it would do what to help you get the equipment you need to tour or make more music or put your children through college? I hate to break it to you, but you are the one who is not grounded in reality and are really a lot closer to Abbie Hoffman than the people you are putting down. In the real world, people have to pay rents and have health insurance for their family and deal with emergencies and put their children through school and so forth.

F$#% the RIAA! With them gone maybe talented musicians playing WHAT THEY WANT, from the heart, can actually get paid and not screwed by the industry. Level playing field anyone? Most talented and best music floats and all the trendy crap being pushed by the RIAA sinks?

You somehow think that the people out there stealing the music are only doing stealing from large labels? Those people have no political position. They are strealing it because they can. And they'll steal from you just as quickly as from Sony, and you will be a in a lot worst position to try to protect yourself.

[buckethead99]

One thing to keep in mind it that law doesn't necessarilly to "solve" anything (any number of criminal and civil wrongs are not solved by law), what they can provide is redress

The EFF's idea s a biz model and can be implemented UNDER-- actually is SUPPORTED by existing law


the "flat fee" type plans (as the popularly cited EFF paper) can suffer from some problems (some of which alread exist with the existing attempts at "'solution")

one is that the claim is it would be "voluntary" (as opposed to compulsory) which doesn't really "solve" the problem of piracy

Using a flat model with distribution based on popularity could negatively impact the smaller volume artist (as the income is finite and the distribution is based on popularity...we have a zero sum -ie adversarial - system that rewards only consumption)

The plan also does not address the moral rights of the author to control his/her work -- the role of copyright is not limited to the benjis
[US copyright law is already skewed to th finanacial more than the rest of the world, which itself, is problematic as we move to more uniform protection (hey, we're the US we always being the different guy)]

The proposal doesn't allow for alternative distributions such as limited releases, doesn't allow for the artist to control for quality or association with the content (you often see this protection of "attribution" come up in visual works)

The EFF proposal also does not address parallel, piracy-based distributions...it could be an incentive to pirate less, but it doesn't offer enhanced protection


I agree but its a plan anyway,Better that we have now.
Piracy will always be a problem we have to face the facts of it all. Hell even Blu Ray encription has already been hacked.:rolleyes:

[slight-return]

I agree but its a plan anyway,
Better that we have now.

'better" can depend on who you are.
It could be a number of things...better for some, useless to others, potentially even a distraction from the core issue


It doesn't really address piracy, rather it's a volume biz model


Piracy will always be a problem we have to face the facts of it all.

has been since roman times (while there wasn't a fledged IP theory back then, there there was, for instance, a difference between quotation for purpose of homage and plagarism)

So has, murder, trespass, larceny and any number of things...certainly ain't a digital specific dealeo

[fetishfrog]

That's why I wrote the letter that I linked you to.

Well done sir, well done indeed! :)

[fetishfrog]

And that would be of what value to you working at Burger King? And it would do what to help you get the equipment you need to tour or make more music or put your children through college? I hate to break it to you, but you are the one who is not grounded in reality and are really a lot closer to Abbie Hoffman than the people you are putting down. In the real world, people have to pay rents and have health insurance for their family and deal with emergencies and put their children through school and so forth.

You somehow think that the people out there stealing the music are only doing stealing from large labels? Those people have no political position. They are strealing it because they can. And they'll steal from you just as quickly as from Sony, and you will be a in a lot worst position to try to protect yourself.

Unfortunately many musicians I talk to never understand the gravity of truth present in this post, and many of them simply refuse to see that, so long as we tolerate illegal downloading, no one wins.

Actors, screenwriters, directors, etc...these people all seem to get it. Why not musicians? Hell, writers went on strike over it, actors are waiting in the wings to do the same.

[Deeprig9]

So many musicians are guilty. And communism is making a resurgence, it's pretty much full bloom, you've got two presidential candidates stating flat-out they want the government to take over the healthcare industry in lieu of some regulatory issues.... and they are winning in the polls. And these are the same people complaining about recession! Sorry... different topic, but same mentality, the mentality of entitlement. The failure of our school systems to teach reality and practical science and economics. On and on. Jesus Christ, I'm only 29 and I'm already sounding like my old man. Smart man he is!

[Instrospection]

I never download music illegaly. I just don't get why people do it...

If I want something, I'll pay for it.

That's getting to be a rare sentiment nowadays.

[The Real MC]

Burning a CD you bought is illegal.

Nice try.

Ever hear of "fair use"? It is an exemption to copyright law and is designed for backup for personal use. The US Supreme Court affirmed our fair use right years ago.

If I want to burn my own CDs to play in my car so I can leave my originals safe at home, it's legal. If I want to make copies of my DVD movies so my kids damage the backup and not the original, it's legal.

The RIAA and MPAA doesn't want the consumer to know this and they keep browbeating that we have to by extra CDs/DVDs if we want backup copies. Well I got news for you, consumers are not that stupid.

You may not like fair use, but tough noogies.

[buckethead99]

Yes "Fair Use" Thanks for bringing that up. As long as you don't sell a copy you can Back up your music. The RIAA Goons said it was illegal to rip music to ones own PC.:rolleyes:

[slight-return]

Nice try.

Ever hear of "fair use"? It is an exemption to copyright law and is designed for backup for personal use.

A couple of notes on fair use
It isn't an exemption to cpyright law, it's part of copyright law. it isn't designed for backup for personal use (as is, say 17USC117 for software). It isn't really designed at all, it's doctrine [though specific types of fair use are now codified under 17USC107. Backup isn't included in the codification]



The US Supreme Court affirmed our fair use right years ago.


As in the "betamax" case (Sony V Universal)?

A couple of thing to keep in mind there.
That was a contributory infringement case (wherein there is question of signifigant legitimate use, rather than are all or even most uses legit).
The fair use in betamax" was time-shifting, where one takes a broadcast, a support copy and views it at, a later time...once (no persistent copy )


A general point about fair use, it's an affirmative defense and is handled on a case by case basis [campbell v acuff-rose, for instance, spoke to that]

As to if duplicating phonorecordings for personal archival reasons (or if multiple "listenable copies would be considered archival) is a fair use...I dont believe that's been fully put to legal test



ugh, the wife and I joke that a few terms should be stricken from the language..."fair use", "zero sum", "vintage", a few others due to their mis/over-use

[The Real MC]

A couple of notes on fair use
It isn't an exemption to cpyright law, it's part of copyright law. it isn't designed for backup for personal use (as is, say 17USC117 for software). It isn't really designed at all, it's doctrine [though specific types of fair use are now codified under 17USC107. Backup isn't included in the codification]


The US Supreme Court affirmed our fair use right years ago.


As in the "betamax" case (Sony V Universal)?

A couple of thing to keep in mind there.
That was a contributory infringement case (wherein there is question of signifigant legitimate use, rather than are all or even most uses legit).
The fair use in betamax" was time-shifting, where one takes a broadcast, a support copy and views it at, a later time...once (no persistent copy )

As to if duplicating phonorecordings for personal archival reasons (or if multiple "listenable copies would be considered archival) is a fair use...I dont believe that's been fully put to legal test


You are wrong.

It was already tested in court - reproduction by a library (a non-profit entity) of a copyrighted work to replace a damaged copy. See http://www.copyright.gov/ (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;


Personal backup is non-commercial use, there is no profit to be gained or lost.

[slight-return]

You are wrong.

It was already tested in court


you didn't cite the caselaw


- reproduction by a library (a non-profit entity) of a copyrighted work to replace a damaged copy. See http://www.copyright.gov/ (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)



It's not just that it is not-for profit, but that it is a library and that duplication may very well not be under fair use, but under special limitation in 17USC108
(you didn't cite the caselaw, so I don't know which, specific case you are talking abt)

Within the codified fair use (there can still be doctrine outside of the statute) - notice the purposes outlined in the body (criticism, comment..., etc)


Personal backup is non-commercial use, there is no profit to be gained or lost.


Remember that in the four-part test, none of the four points overarch the others (in soderberg v cleanflicks for instance, there was no profit loss...yet Cleanflicks' use was determined not to be fair use. Gonzales' use was private, but also did not pass fair use)

[17USC506, has even been amended by the NET act to include provisions for massive non-commercial use as criminal now this change was abt 20 years after addition of fair use to statute]


Intersting note: while US copyright law is more heavilly skewed to the purely financial that the rest of the world, copyright is a general protection of rights (attribution, for instance, is an example often called a "moral right", WWCoG v Philly Church of God is another example of non-commercially motivated copyright protection)

[Note on Perspective: I work in patents and the wife is an IP atty that also teaches uni IP classes..."fair use" is something that comes up every semester -- it's terribly misunderstood as it's become a buzzword.
Now, I realize that, often, these discussions come from parties with specific interests - "fuck the man / fuck the thieves". It's those sorts of issues that can skew the legal analysis and why there is the truism "A lawyer who represents himself has...", why we have conflict tests for attys, why there is judicial recusal, etc -- that's not where I'm coming from]

[n4vgm]

I always learn from this board. One thing I thought of was this. We did not define "shared folder" before. Just because a folder on my hard drive is shared does not mean its part of P2P. I could be sharing my entire C drive on a home network that just so happens to be on DSL/cable to the Internet. I could have a P2P client installed but nothing in its shared folder. I could have P2P but no folders shared. Distribution sharing would have to have a specific setup and a proven patern of P2P connectivity.

Perhaps I'm being picky but it would make a big difference in court.

[slight-return]

Perhaps I'm being picky but it would make a big difference in court.

not at all (no, you are not being picky) - that's the kind of stuff that can get argued (not just "shared, but all th other stuff, I noticed the EFF's amicus brief brought up some point about "unauthorized").
The points you bring up about how the sharing network is structured (and interacts with private storage) appears to be, largely, why summary judgement didn't go down.

[stupid anecdote - I had this one thing I worked on where one point turned on if a word was a ggerund or participle. It was a license and the wording could work two ways depending on what word was effected by what modifier..."frozen pipe wrench" - A wrench to work on frozen pipes or is the pipe wrench frozen? Ech side, of course, was sure that their interpretation was 'obviously right' one and the other guy was engaging in mere semantics]

[The Real MC]

"fair use" is something that comes up every semester -- it's terribly misunderstood as it's become a buzzword.

While you dispute fair use, you yourself seem to have conflicting opinions (http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?p=27916541#post27916541) on fair use, my friend...

Your own words from the thread "Isn't downloading fun!!!??"

I download all the time!!!

authorized stuff though

it's important to remember that "downloading", including torrenting is merely method for distribution of data with signifigant legit use

piracy? no thanks (used to be in SW dev - seen my own stuff on "treasure chests")

"authorized" meaning you legitimately paid for it.

So Mr. Patent Lawyer... what media do you play back all that downloaded stuff from?

How is that different from me making my own media - CDROM, iPod, etc - to play back stuff I legitimately paid for...? And BTW, I don't p2p *ANYTHING*.

[slight-return]

While you dispute fair use, you yourself seem to have conflicting opinions on fair use


It may seem to you that way for any number of reasons (on both the above points) - you may very well not be reading closely enough, you could have an emotional attachment to the issue which can cause all kinds of interpretive skew (you know "a lawyer who represents himself..." and all), etc


"authorized" meaning you legitimately paid for it.

nope - a lot of it is actually free!

Authorized meaning that I have been given authority (that's what "authorized" means) to make copy of the work


for instance

Escape Pod is published under a CC license allowing for copying
the stuff over on legal torrents is published under a variety of licenses allowing for download

Linux (currently use Ubuntu) stuff is generally under a GNU GPL style license (torrenting that stuff is very handy)

found an archive of Device magazine and shot off an email to our own Craig Anderton for permission to download it...granted (stipulated personal use only)

I do have an audible acct - that's a paid service (I am authorized run that a few different ways. I usually use a sandisk)

Oh, all kinds of stuff is out there SW, audio programming, etc



So Mr. Patent Lawyer


Nope, wife's the pat atty - I'm just a patent monkey

Your own words from the thread "Isn't downloading fun!!!??"


YUP! I even go on to remind folks

it's important to remember that "downloading", including torrenting is merely method for distribution of data with signifigant legit use

Downloading is data transfer from system to system (usually with implied hierarchy). It doesn't nescessarilly imply anything (such as legal status) about the data


How is that different from me making my own media - CDROM, iPod, etc - to play back stuff I legitimately paid for...?


Well, one way they are different is the explicit authorization of the copyright holder tha obviates the legal question



my friend...

Really? I mean you seem kind of hostile

[The Real MC]

How is that different from me making my own media - CDROM, iPod, etc - to play back stuff I legitimately paid for...?


Well, one way they are different is the explicit authorization of the copyright holder tha obviates the legal question

You're still equating copyright for profit with personal backup for non-profit use. Copyright does not grant profit to the holder, it only grants exclusive distribution in the market. Just as patents do not grant profit to the patent holder, they only grant exclusive use of subject material for a limited time. There is zero, none, nada distribution involved with a personal backup. The backup remains in the possession of the consumer.

Consumers have been making personal backups of legitimately purchased music on cassette tapes, 8-track, reel to reel, since the 1960s without any objections from labels. Today we make our own backups on CDRs - while the labels may not like it they cannot reverse a forty year precedent.

Really? I mean you seem kind of hostile

I don't mean to come across that way. I'm perfectly willing to have a civil discussion.

I am also a software developer and respect the value of copyright, patents, IP, etc. That is also why I do not p2p. I can afford to purchase my own CDs and DVDs. But I object when the entertainment industry tells me I cannot make personal backups of legitimately purchased media. Cite me case law where they have successfully convicted an individual over personal backup.

[Sir Ricardo]

The RIAA will soon be buried for Good.:thu:

boy, I don't get you guys.

Even "ripping" from CDs is a blatant act of thievery (assuming you are giving the "ripped" songs to somebody else, in other words, not for backup).

Come on....how often does someone "back up" their CD collection? Probably never. Why do you need to "back up" your collection of CDs? The friggin' things are practically indestructible. No, generally, the reason CDs are "ripped" is to give to somebody else...i.e. not for "personal" use.

Let alone file sharing. What a total brazen crime.

The whole point of doing these activities is to avoid paying for the CD in question.

The fact that somebody may not like "the man" or "the record companies" is irrelevant.....(I'm not referring to you, buckethead99).

The important thing is that:
> the creators of the music (the artists and producers) have gotten together with
> the promoters/manufacturers and distributors of the music (the record companies and the retail outlets) to attempt to sell their music. Music is traded for cash.

Just like buying a car.

But "ripping" and file sharing is an attempt to do an end run around this sales process. Avoiding paying for something. Of course, the artist, producer, record company, and retailers lose.

Just like stealing a car.

:cop:

[pjrake]

Even "ripping" from CDs is a blatant act of thievery

i ripped my whole CD collection so i can put it on my iPod. i think that's one instance ripping a CD is seen as legitimate.

you are right about "backing up" a CD collection argument. i don't know anybody that did that.

-PJ

[slight-return]

You're still equating copyright for profit with personal backup for non-profit use.


I'm not I'm commenting on the nature of fair use

Copyright does not grant profit to the holder, it only grants exclusive distribution in the market. Just as patents do not grant profit to the patent holder, they only grant exclusive use of subject material for a limited time.



Well, they don't actually do that.

they only grant exclusive use of subject material

Patents, for instance, don't grant exclusive use - they don't grant right of use (affirmative right to practice) at all.

That they do grant is the negative right of control (copyright does not necessarilly have to be "in the market")


There is zero, none, nada distribution involved with a personal backup. The backup remains in the possession of the consumer.

Remember that distribution isn't the only infingement -- distribution is under 17USC106(3), but reproduction is under 17USC106(1)


Consumers have been making personal backups of legitimately purchased music on cassette tapes, 8-track, reel to reel, since the 1960s without any objections from labels. Today we make our own backups on CDRs - while the labels may not like it they cannot reverse a forty year precedent.

Copyrights can be exercised at the discretion of the copyright holder. w/o a judgement, we don't really have precedent.
[Also note that copyright, even of phonorecordings isn't just "the labels" but any copyright holder of a phonorecording]





I don't mean to come across that way. I'm perfectly willing to have a civil discussion.


Haven't been doing a great job of it so far with phrases such a "Well, Mr. patent lawyer"

That is also why I do not p2p


P2P is merely a distribution technology, it doesnt imply the legal nature of the data being xmitted



Cite me case law where they have successfully convicted an individual over personal backup.

Note : conviction would be for criminal infringement. Most of copyright law is civil

You aren't reading closely enough. Please reread post #41 wherein I discuss

As to if duplicating phonorecordings for personal archival reasons (or if multiple "listenable copies would be considered archival) is a fair use...I dont believe that's been fully put to legal test

Once again, remember that fair use is an affirmative defense (not to mention handled on a case by case basis) .


now earlier you mentioned it was tested in court (in #39 that is was SCOTUS and in #43 again), but didn't cite those cases



But I object when the entertainment industry tells me I cannot make personal backups of legitimately purchased media.


Yup! made that clear -- that why the wife and I joke about "fair use" being stricken from the language b/c of the buzzword status. Folks use the term sweepingly to support views w/o good understanding of the legal mechansim

[The Real MC]

boy, I don't get you guys.

Even "ripping" from CDs is a blatant act of thievery (assuming you are giving the "ripped" songs to somebody else, in other words, not for backup). Come on....how often does someone "back up" their CD collection? Probably never. Why do you need to "back up" your collection of CDs? The friggin' things are practically indestructible. No, generally, the reason CDs are "ripped" is to give to somebody else...i.e. not for "personal" use.


Bzzzt.

CDs are not "indestructable". Leave them in a car during the summer and they will warp, rendering them unplayable. No amount of careful handling will prevent scratches on the playing surface of CDs, let alone handling while driving a car.

That is why *I* back up my CDs. Repeat I do not p2p nor do I give them to anybody else.

Please cease with the generalizing - I am not the "thief" that fits your conspiracy theory.

Let alone file sharing. What a total brazen crime.

There is nothing criminal about "file sharing" as there are legit uses for it.

The whole point of doing these activities is to avoid paying for the CD in question.

Boy this forum is crawling with RIAA fanboys... I paid for all my CDs I backed up, thank you very much. You want to see my receipts...?

But "ripping" and file sharing is an attempt to do an end run around this sales process. Getting something for free.

I got news for your "sales process" - while I do buy my CDs, I have bought fewer and fewer every year. Why? YOUR PRODUCT SUCKS!

I pay $16-20 for a CD with one or two decent songs, the rest filler garbage. That is poor value for my money.

Much of the new music promoted by the labels has no appeal to me whatsoever. I'm tired of talentless pretty faces being masqueraded as music. I'm tired of label accountants and MBAs devoid of emotion deciding what music should be marketed. I'm tired of "me-too" groups and styles.

Radio pushes your trash and I can't stand it. It is trash 24/7 mixed with high ratio of mind-numbing ads, ads, ads. I have officially sworn off radio and only play CD compiliations in my car.

So where do I find good music? Not in your distribution channels - radio, Fye, Coconuts, Walmart, etc. There is better music that is being excluded from the distribution channels and I am finding it on the 'net not on the radio or at Walmart. One need only look at CD stores closing around the country as proof.

If your "sales process" cannot supply me with a product with value, then I will find it elsewhere. It's a free country.

The plain fact is the labels have refused to embrace the internet as a distribution channel because they cannot control it or exclude whomever they wish.

Of course, the artist, producer, and record company lose.

Yeah, yeah, yeah there's that "artist sympathy" card again. It is well known that the RIAA represents the record labels, not the artists.

If you want to argue any differently, then start with opening your accounting books that prove the file-sharer infringement settlements are going to the ARTISTS not just the labels. Include receipts as proof of payment to artists. And I'll assign my own accountants for review, tell your cronies to stay home.

[The Real MC]

There is zero, none, nada distribution involved with a personal backup. The backup remains in the possession of the consumer.

Remember that distribution isn't the only infingement -- distribution is under 17USC106(3), but reproduction is under 17USC106(1)

Would you kindly supply full disclosure and link to quoted sections to support your argument, please?

How can you reference sections of copyright law from the tip of your tongue, yet claim you are not a lawyer?


Consumers have been making personal backups of legitimately purchased music on cassette tapes, 8-track, reel to reel, since the 1960s without any objections from labels. Today we make our own backups on CDRs - while the labels may not like it they cannot reverse a forty year precedent.

Copyrights can be exercised at the discretion of the copyright holder. w/o a judgement, we don't really have precedent.

My point exactly.

While copyrights can be exercised at the discretion of the copyright holder, they cannot be redefined at their discretion. Why should a practice that has not been objected to for over forty years suddenly become offensive?

That's like the horse and buggy industry using anything to justify their argument that automobiles should be illegal.



I don't mean to come across that way. I'm perfectly willing to have a civil discussion.


Haven't been doing a great job of it so far with phrases such a "Well, Mr. patent lawyer"


Perhaps under your quick knee-jerk response it did not occur to you that "Mr. patent lawyer" is a more respectful address than "Mr slight-return". If neither is suitable, maybe you would care to supply a name other than the alias you are hiding behind.

I will not submit to ad homimen tactics, that is very unprofessional of an IP official. I am already starting to question your integrity.

Cite me case law where they have successfully convicted an individual over personal backup.

Note : conviction would be for criminal infringement. Most of copyright law is civil

You aren't reading closely enough. Please reread post #41 wherein I discuss

As to if duplicating phonorecordings for personal archival reasons (or if multiple "listenable copies would be considered archival) is a fair use...I dont believe that's been fully put to legal test

Emphasis mine... again, show me case law of successful civil or criminal infringement judgement against personal backup.

now earlier you mentioned it was tested in court (in #39 that is was SCOTUS and in 43 again), but didn't cite those cases

I was quoting directly from the official government copyright.gov website but they supply no reference to specific cases.

IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) and I do not have the resources to research case law. Since you seem remarkably capable of referencing exact sections of copyright law that define distribution vs reproduction, you would be so kind to share the search resources and techniques at your disposal. Otherwise I am playing against a rigged deck with the dealer holding back the cards.

[fetishfrog]

Boy this forum is crawling with RIAA fanboys... I paid for all my CDs I backed up, thank you very much. You want to see my receipts...

I got news for your "sales process" - while I do buy my CDs, I have bought fewer and fewer every year. Why? YOUR PRODUCT SUCKS!.

These two comments are interesting.

First, I take issue with the 'RIAA fanboy' tag. I don't think anyone here blindly follows their lead. In fact, they are often criticized for their 'kill everything that moves' approach and I, for one, think it's cost them dearly. However, let's examins what the RIAA does and how this affects the second statement above.

The RIAA is an organization that protects record label interests. In the case of file sharing, they are strongly opposed to the practice as it directly cuts into label revenue by allowing people to access music whose production was financed by labels by not paying for it, and therefore rendering it impossible for labels to earn a return on that investment. How does this affect the artist, the label, and you? Simple. By limiting a label's disposable income, you basically force them to hold onto cash they'd otherwise invest. This means, unless an artist can turn a measurable profit quickly, they are a financial liability and will be dropped. All that crappy music you complain about??? Well how is a label supposed to take a chance on a more 'outside' artist' when money is tight? How is a label supposed to market a more 'outside' artist when money is tight? Any thoughts??? How is an 'outside' artist supposed to exist with an ever diminishing support structure that wasn't particularly helpful in the first place?? The internet??? There's so much noise on the net that no one, and I mean no one, who isn't seriously inclined to seek out music will ever find you. And then, there's no real guarantee that you'll ever get paid for your work.

Example, EMI/Capital Music had a relatively impressive catalog of classical works that were largely financed by revenue generated from the sale of Beatles records. With that revenue diminishing, how are these works going to be funded? Orchestras are expensive, as they should be. The musicians present are skilled in ways many of us will never imagine and yet, they'll be the first to go when label revenue drys up. If you wonder why the product sucks, look no further than your local bit torrent site. You kill the hand that feeds you, you starve.

[slight-return]

Would you kindly supply full disclosure and link to quoted sections to support your argument, please?

Sure, (cornell has a great ref for the US code you want Titles 17 Chapt 1 of the usc code, Beezer, for instance, brings up the distinction in A&M v Napster .. in there it is noted that "sharing" and downloading re subject to different areas of code)

but let's go ahead and get fully cited, earlier you mentioned it's been tested in court" - but didn't cite that case, let's get those cited (I think that was #39) and then we can go through the posts and cite the rest of the stuff



How can you reference sections of copyright law from the tip of your tongue, yet claim you are not a lawyer?


'cause that's my job! (I work in IP, but I'm not a laywer)

It's reallynot too tough - I mean we're talking really basic basics here




My point exactly.

See that's the thing - that' wouldn't necessarilly be "fair use" hell abt 2/3 of title 17 chapt 1 are exceptions




While copyrights can be exercised at the discretion of the copyright holder, they cannot be redefined at their discretion.


They haven't been redefined...again, to have precedent - we'd need ruling



Why should a practice that has not been objected to for over forty years suddenly become offensive?


could be any number of reasons (better forensics, more objectionable practices in unauthorized use, other areas of law that mitigated a percieved problem,such as the AHRA, may be seen by the copyright holder to not be providing protection, better chance of winning cases due to type of evidence) there wouldn't even nessecarilly have to be a stated reason for a change in policy to have a legal standing


Perhaps under your quick knee-jerk response it did not occur to you that "Mr. patent lawyer" is a more respectful address than "Mr slight-return".


In the context of "So, Mr...." I don't believe that to be be the case as that phrasing is fairly typical of attack or belittlement, esp given that you had not, previously, used title with my or others



If neither is suitable, maybe you would care to supply a name other than the alias you are hiding behind.

Sure - Jim...and you ?(I assume thereal MC isn't your name, unless you had some funky folks).
I don't believe using a moniker on a web forum where it is common practice would constitute hiding



I will not submit to ad homimen tactics

That's good - doesnt apply to my responses. But it's good that you won't

that is very unprofessional of an IP official.

That wouldn't be a correct term either. IP professionl, yes, IP official, no



I am already starting to question your integrity.


Always a good question to ask.

I mean, having someone say " you are wrong... it's already been tested in court" without actually having looked into those tests could bring up that question.



Emphasis mine... again, show me case law of successful civil or criminal infringement judgement against personal backup.

Again, you aren't reading closely enough.
It's a legal question that may very well have not been fully answered (please reread, I believe is was post #41)
(it's important to remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)
and again, remember that fair use is a case-by-case affirmative defense



I was quoting directly from the official government copyright.gov website but they supply no reference to specific cases.


you mentioned "tested in court" but there wasn't any caselaw attached to that
[notice that the ref is a general explanation of "fair use" doctrine it goes on to mention the Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. it's not a great source for if a certain use falls under "fair use"]



It's not a challenge, it's a request so we can take a look an analyze it (like the distinction for "library" -- they can have special status in areas where a private archive would not - remember "fair use" is an affirmative defense and is handled case by case)

As you say, you aren't a lawyer, and work in SW (not law) so there may be quite a bit you are misunderstanding about the cases .


IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) and I do not have the resources to research case law.


That's why it's probably not appropriate to say "you are wrong, it's already been tested in court"

Since you seem remarkably capable of referencing exact sections of copyright law that define distribution vs reproduction, you would be so kind to share the search resources and techniques at your disposal. Otherwise I am playing against a rigged deck with the dealer holding back the cards.[/b]

You aren't "playing against" anything, it's a discussion


Since you seem remarkably capable of referencing exact sections of copyright law that define distribution vs reproduction


It's not too remarkable, I maybe have above average recall, but not remarkable -- you just get used to it when you work in it
(you may have heard pat attys throw around "102" or "103" those are shorthand refs to part of title 35 - same kind of stuff. Or you may have heard musicians refer to Adim and be able to 'remarkably' tell you the notes in it -- smae deal)

the cases, well those are pretty familiar b/c they are popular if not landmark and help clearly

there's tons - cornell law has a great site for US Code, findlaw can give you some good caselaw (it's not Lexis/Westlaw, but it's free and does a decent job)
Just googling cases will often get you the case names and you can usually pull the actual decisions right off the associated court's site

I totally encourage you to check em out and use em regularly. I mean, I'd much rather have people more educated about law

[The Real MC]

These two comments are interesting.

First, I take issue with the 'RIAA fanboy' tag. I don't think anyone here blindly follows their lead. In fact, they are often criticized for their 'kill everything that moves' approach and I, for one, think it's cost them dearly. However, let's examins what the RIAA does and how this affects the second statement above.

This better be good.

The RIAA is an organization that protects record label interests.


They protect the label, not the artist. From that definition, henceforth any reference to THE ARTIST is not relevant to your argument.

In the case of file sharing, they are strongly opposed to the practice as it directly cuts into label revenue by allowing people to access music whose production was financed by labels by not paying for it, and therefore rendering it impossible for labels to earn a return on that investment.

iTunes made it work. The only reasons the labels object to it is because (1)they have no control over the cost and (2) they have no control over distribution and cannot exclude content providers that are non-RIAA members.

The issue is not return on investment - the issue is bloated label bureaucracy and extravagant practices. We the consumer are tired of paying for excess fat.

How does this affect the artist, the label, and you?

The "artist sympathy" card again. Remember the RIAA protects the record labels not the artist, the artist is not relevant to your argument.

Simple. By limiting a label's disposable income, you basically force them to hold onto cash they'd otherwise invest.

"Invest"?

You mean accounting tricks to nickel-and-dime artists to death and deprive them of their royalties?

Like a record label exec visiting a recording session, ordering fine food and drink for himself, then charging them against the artist account? Inflated promotion and replication expenses? Fabricated expenses that did not exist? Extravagant expenses from services that are covertly associated with the label?

And the "standard contract" demands that accounting audits be performed by auditors at the labels' discretion and choosing, meaning the fox is guarding the henhouse. The artist doesn't stand a chance at proving accounting fraud.

These are tactics that make military contractors charging the army for $600 toilet seats look like choirboys.

You use the artist to support your argument yet your accounting tricks and endentured slavery contracts betray your DENIAL of the artist.

This means, unless an artist can turn a measurable profit quickly, they are a financial liability and will be dropped. All that crappy music you complain about??? Well how is a label supposed to take a chance on a more 'outside' artist' when money is tight?

Do what the consumer does - cut frivolous spending.

How is a label supposed to market a more 'outside' artist when money is tight?

Cut frivolous spending.

Any thoughts???

Cut frivolous spending.

The internet??? There's so much noise on the net that no one, and I mean no one, who isn't seriously inclined to seek out music will ever find you.

And then, there's no real guarantee that you'll ever get paid for your work.

Better ask Radiohead and NIN about that one.

Example, EMI/Capital Music had a relatively impressive catalog of classical works that were largely financed by revenue generated from the sale of Beatles records.

You have to be kidding. Only a fool would fund traditional works from a single source of revenue totally unrelated to the genre.

With that revenue diminishing, how are these works going to be funded?

Shift the promoting resources from the talentless pretty faces to the honest forms of music.

There, wasn't that simple?

Orchestras are expensive, as they should be.

Orchestras have suffered from exploitation of record labels, publishing houses, and the like for decades and are wise to the tactics of the industry. The only reason they are expensive is because the industry backed them into a corner and they fought back.

Must I remind you that it was established that any "artist" is irrelevant to your argument yet you continue to exploit them to support your argument?

The musicians present are skilled in ways many of us will never imagine and yet, they'll be the first to go when label revenue drys up.

And while classical music is devoid in Walmarts, I still find talentless pretty faces hacking worthless music. Not my fault you cannot discriminate pearls from stones.

If you wonder why the product sucks, look no further than your local bit torrent site. You kill the hand that feeds you, you starve.

Flawed argument. Bit torrent is not the reason your product sucks. They did not generate that product, the label did.

[slight-return]

While a different subconversation I would like to raise a point of order

Must I remind you that it was established that any "artist" is irrelevant to your argument yet you continue to exploit them to support your argument?

To be established, we'd need agreement or arbitrated judgement -- otherwise we have disagreeing assertions, but not establishment as such

[The Real MC]

If neither is suitable, maybe you would care to supply a name other than the alias you are hiding behind.

Sure - Jim...and you ?(I assume thereal MC isn't your name, unless you had some funky folks).

Mike Colaroso, pleased to meet you... my handle originated from another forum when impersonators started using my initials to libel me, nothing nefarious about it.

[slight-return]

Mike Caloroso, pleased to meet you...

excellent , see much better

"The Real MC" originated from another forum when impersonators started using my initials to libel me, nothing nefarious about it.

never said there was - (you , however, did mention "hiding" bc of my use of moniker)

my original moniker was jdwinger (my name) but I left during the musician's friend buyout (due to concerns abt control of the forums), but have since returned, hence "slight-return"

[The Real MC]

While a different subconversation I would like to raise a point of order

Must I remind you that it was established that any "artist" is irrelevant to your argument yet you continue to exploit them to support your argument?

To be established, we'd need agreement or arbitrated judgement -- otherwise we have disagreeing assertions, but not establishment as such

He asserted that the RIAA protects the record label interests, with zero mention of artists' interests. I am in agreement with that. That has been established.

Besides, we're not in court.

[slight-return]

He asserted that the RIAA protects the record label interests, with zero mention of artists' interests. I am in agreement with that. That has been established.

Well, here (given "'no mention of") we could have agreement (hence establishment) that the RIAA protects labels' interest


but it wouldn't, specifically, address if he feels the RIAA directly or indirectly protects the artists' rights as well


Again, we have an absence of evidence v evidence of absence situation.

Would he assert, for instance, that the Record label is acting, for example, as proxy to the musician who may have contracted with the label (or that other, mutual interest may exist) or does he feel there is no such connection?

this would be something he would have to answer. If you two are in agreement in THAT, then you two would have establishment of point (within the scope of your conversation)



Besides, we're not in court.


Yup! that's why it's a point of order, not a legal objection

[The Real MC]

That's a long stretch of reasoning. He failed to assert the artists' interest so he cannot add that to the argument after that omission was highlighted.

So on that point of order, I'm making the establishment.

[slight-return]

That's a long stretch of reasoning.

That (if it is a stretch of reasoning that there could be mutual interest)would be a point for you to agree or disagree on with fetishfrog

He failed to assert the artists' interest so he cannot add that to the argument after that omission was highlighted. So on that point of order


only if you two have agreed to the exclusion (of the artists' interests, etc). If not, it's simply has not been addressed

You are left only with agreement that the RIAA does protect the labels' interests



I'm making the establishment.

establishment would have to be mutual or made by an aribtrating authority, if it's unilateral and not made by arbiter - then it isn't established, it is merely asserted

[fetishfrog]

That's a long stretch of reasoning. He failed to assert the artists' interest so he cannot add that to the argument after that omission was highlighted.

So on that point of order, I'm making the establishment.

If you cannot see how protecting a label's interests also protects the interests of the artists signed to that label, then we have nothing to discuss.
Perhaps it's a long stretch of reasoning for you, but for me it's obvious. Hell, I even gave an example.

Example, EMI/Capital Music had a relatively impressive catalog of classical works that were largely financed by revenue generated from the sale of Beatles records.

Now, I'll spell it out for you. You see, classical music sales are not as profitable as pop record sales, so in order to fund the production (recording, mixing, mastering) of classical music sales, monies earned from the sale of pop records was redistributed to fund these not so or not at all profitable records. The label made money from the pop record (label interest protected), got to write off a loss on the production of the classical record (label interest protected), an orchestra got paid to play (88-120 artist interests' protected), artist earned mechanicals on performance and licensing of recording (88-120 artist interests' protected) and so forth.

With the labels earning less money, the opportunities for these ventures disappear as quickly as the gross revenue.

This situation applies to jazz, world music, prog rock, basically any non-pop genre.

[fetishfrog]

iTunes made it work. The only reasons the labels object to it is because (1)they have no control over the cost and (2) they have no control over distribution and cannot exclude content providers that are non-RIAA members.

The issue is not return on investment - the issue is bloated label bureaucracy and extravagant practices. We the consumer are tired of paying for excess fat.

Question, how many artists are making a living off iTunes sales who never had major label support? If the answer isn't a reasonable percentage more, then I say the iTunes model isn't working without the foundation the label had already laid. The whole Radionhead/NIN experiment only worked because they were already well established, having been on labels for years. It worked so well for Radiohead, they said they'll never do it again. Telling.

Until iTunes begins to fund the recordings of artists across all spectrums (and, in effect, becoming a major label) the comparison doesn't hold up.

[The Real MC]

only if you two have agreed to the exclusion (of the artists' interests, etc). If not, it's simply has not been addressed

You are left only with agreement that the RIAA does protect the labels' interests


Lack of addressing the issue on his part does not constitute an agreement on my part.

There will be no twisting of innocent actions to fit the argument. Sorry, been down that road, fool me once...

[The Real MC]

If you cannot see how protecting a label's interests also protects the interests of the artists signed to that label, then we have nothing to discuss.

If you turn a blind eye to the exploitation and abuses of artists at the hands of major labels, then God help you.

Now, I'll spell it out for you. You see, classical music sales are not as profitable as pop record sales

Oh, Puh-lease. I'll spell it out for you: PUBLIC DOMAIN. Labels cry pain over classical music because they make much less profit from public domain works. The label extorts bigger profit out of pop record sales because they own the copyright, the publishing, the mechanical rights, the recording rights - far less revenue than with classical works, most of which is PUBLIC DOMAIN.

There is a great demand for Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, etc. It's out there, but from a business perspective the labels put less emphasis on promoting classical because of lower return on investment.

This situation applies to jazz, world music, prog rock, basically any non-pop genre.

I respectfully disagree. All of these styles were wildly popular in their day and were revenue generators. I went to see Bela Fleck and was impressed that he sold out the venue - in a town where he gets zero radio exposure. The impression left here is that the labels are not feeding the public what it wants.

[The Real MC]

Question, how many artists are making a living off iTunes sales who never had major label support? If the answer isn't a reasonable percentage more, then I say the iTunes model isn't working without the foundation the label had already laid. The whole Radionhead/NIN experiment only worked because they were already well established, having been on labels for years. It worked so well for Radiohead, they said they'll never do it again. Telling.

Until iTunes begins to fund the recordings of artists across all spectrums (and, in effect, becoming a major label) the comparison doesn't hold up.

You're evading the argument.

Labels are a dinosaur - obsolete, out of touch, devoid of emotion and reasoning, with an iron grip on an obsolete business model that is dependent on control of the distribution channel. The internet is the new distribution channel, and the labels don't like it. Adapt, or die.

[slight-return]

Lack of addressing the issue on his part does not constitute an agreement on my part.


Of course! no agreement, so no establishment

you guys did appear to agree the the RIAA represented the interested of the labels-- but did NOT agree on the exclusivity of that -- hence the "You are left only with agreement that the RIAA does represent the labels' interests" comment
-- but perhaps that is in error and one of you doesn't feel that the RIAA does NOT represent the labels' interests (Im not sure which one that would be)



There will be no twisting of innocent actions to fit the argument.

I hear ya! -- like attamepts at unilateral establishment

[jaytee123]

I never download music illegaly. I just don't get why people do it...

If I want something, I'll pay for it.


How do you discern between the bands that want their music shared and the ones that do not?

[slight-return]

Usually a good place to start is to look for policy ordeclaration of rights reserved/allowed (either imbedded in the medium - sometimes in the audio on longer form wors, sometimes in tags or sometimes in the titels as with a (CC) designator)

another helpful thing can be to explore legal-specific operations such as Jamendo or the various legal torrents sites

If you find an artist, you can also look to their web presence, contact them directly, etc for clarification
certainly not exhaustive, but should get you rolling

[Deeprig9]

If you turn a blind eye to the exploitation and abuses of artists at the hands of major labels, then God help you.



Oh, Puh-lease. I'll spell it out for you: PUBLIC DOMAIN. Labels cry pain over classical music because they make much less profit from public domain works. The label extorts bigger profit out of pop record sales because they own the copyright, the publishing, the mechanical rights, the recording rights - far less revenue than with classical works, most of which is PUBLIC DOMAIN.

There is a great demand for Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, etc. It's out there, but from a business perspective the labels put less emphasis on promoting classical because of lower return on investment.



I respectfully disagree. All of these styles were wildly popular in their day and were revenue generators. I went to see Bela Fleck and was impressed that he sold out the venue - in a town where he gets zero radio exposure. The impression left here is that the labels are not feeding the public what it wants.

I'm glad you brought up my friend Bela. Do you know how he makes his money? Record sales. With what he has to pay production/travel/roadies and band salary, he breaks a little over even on tour. Bela doesn't carry Victor's bass cabinet into the venue and sound check Futureman's synthaxe.

Bela has also been signed to one major label or another for the last 20 years.


What do you think about that?

[Poker99]

I got news for your "sales process" - while I do buy my CDs, I have bought fewer and fewer every year. Why? YOUR PRODUCT SUCKS!

I pay $16-20 for a CD with one or two decent songs, the rest filler garbage. That is poor value for my money.

Then why do people pirate songs they don't like?

I'll tell you what... They get it because they like it. Then they come with the old argument "well there is only 2 songs I like on the album so I won't buy it".

That's strange logic. The product is crap, but you still listen to it?

[fetishfrog]

If you turn a blind eye to the exploitation and abuses of artists at the hands of major labels, then God help you.

I'll not pretend to deny that, throughout the course of history, record labels have, on numerous occasions, screwed artists. It's an unfortunate and shameful practice and they should be held accountable for their behavior. There are two things to consider when pulling out the 'label screws the artist' argurment.

1. Since the label has, time and time again, put the artist at the bottom of their consideration in terms of them getting paid, please explain to me how illegal downloading cures this. The oft heard argument 'well, the label would screw the artist anyway so who cares' in regards to the illegal downloading is hypocracy in it's highest form. Now, instead of the label screwing the artist, the downloader is screwing both the label and the artist. The label's return on their investment suffers, leaving less money to go around, leaving the artist more likey to go unpaid. Two wrongs don't make a right.


2. For every 'artist who got screwed by the label' story that we hear, there are 20 'artist didn't read or didn't understand his/her contract and signed it anyway' scenarios that often get misrepresented in the public eye, making the artist look like the victim, when in fact, the artist was merely too lazy or had too many stars in their eyes and signed a deal not particularly suited to them. No one ever bothers to explain the incredible costs incurred by major labels regarding: recording production, distribution, marketing, tour support, promotion material distribution, etc... but the artist knows as they are spelled out in the contract, line by line. If the artist doesn't want to pay a percentage of the marketing costs by allowing a recoup of royalties, they shouldn't sign the deal. Of course, most artsts' don't have the disposable cash a large label does, so it's intelligent from a certain point of view to do so...just don't complain about it after the fact.


Oh, Puh-lease. I'll spell it out for you: PUBLIC DOMAIN. Labels cry pain over classical music because they make much less profit from public domain works. The label extorts bigger profit out of pop record sales because they own the copyright, the publishing, the mechanical rights, the recording rights - far less revenue than with classical works, most of which is PUBLIC DOMAIN.

There is a great demand for Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, etc. It's out there, but from a business perspective the labels put less emphasis on promoting classical because of lower return on investment.

You couldn't be more wrong. Most records released run at a loss, labels depend on the sales of large numbers of units from a small number of artists. Classical is NOT a profitable genre by any measure, certainly not by Brittney Spears/Radiohead measure. The labels need large selling artists to generate the income necessary to allow then to take chances on smaller selling artists and genres. You take away that income, you take away the opportunity for a label to finance riskier projects. Simple math. Plus, with no publishing royalties to pay on classical recordings, they should be more profitable per unit sold, but never move enough units to be profitable overall.

[Deeprig9]

I've had this argument 500 times with friends and it always ends the same, I win the argument and they change the subject. There is no justifiable reason to share music. The only possible reason is because you want to "stick it to the man" and that's philosophical, and even if you want to be a criminal communist, it still doesn't hold merit this technological age where bands are already cutting out the record companies and trying to sell directly.


Anyone who says they want to "sample" the music before they buy it is bullshitting. Every band has a website or myspace where you can "sample". Hell, some bands want you to share their songs, some don't. Respect the copyright owner's wishes.

If someone illegally downloads my album, I see that as taking $7 out of my wallet, and I'll beat your fucking ass down for stealing from me. If you are bigger than me, or a black belt, I'll cap your fucking knees and piss on your face. Stealing is stealing. I hope I'm in a successful position someday to track down 1000 people who downloaded my stuff illegally and beat the everloving shit out of them, and piss on their bloody faces.

What do you think about that?

[Sir Ricardo]

The only possible reason is because you want to "stick it to the man"

In my view, the reason people download free stuff is because it is free.

It allows them to get music for free, instead of paying for it.

It's that simple.

They get to avoid paying for something that legally has to be bought.

It's when they get called on this illegality that they come up with just a whole boatload of reasons......"it's right to stick it to the man"......"the record companies deserve it for X, Y, and Z"......"if the music were better I'd pay for it (sure you would)"....."everybody's doing it, why shouldn't I?"...(I hear you, Bro, it's a riot and we are all stealing TVs, why don't you take one too?)......"blah blah blah"....

Everybody knows what they are doing is illegal; it's how they "justify" it that cracks me up.

[Deeprig9]

Hey, "Real MC", I just heard about 15 minutes ago that Bela is playing his next show in ATL for $70 a ticket at the botanical gardens. I wonder why? Why does it go from $25 to $70? Gas prices? Or.... something.... else?

[The Real MC]

Anyone who says they want to "sample" the music before they buy it is bullshitting.

I have purchased CDs I have auditioned in kiosks set up in stores.

You really need to stop generalizing.

If someone illegally downloads my album, I see that as taking $7 out of my wallet, and I'll beat your fucking ass down for stealing from me. If you are bigger than me, or a black belt, I'll cap your fucking knees and piss on your face. Stealing is stealing. I hope I'm in a successful position someday to track down 1000 people who downloaded my stuff illegally and beat the everloving shit out of them, and piss on their bloody faces.

What do you think about that?

BRING IT ON...

[The Real MC]

There will be no twisting of innocent actions to fit the argument.

I hear ya! -- like attamepts at unilateral establishment

And attempts at extreme generalizing?

You ARE a lawyer...

[The Real MC]

I'm glad you brought up my friend Bela. Do you know how he makes his money? Record sales. With what he has to pay production/travel/roadies and band salary, he breaks a little over even on tour. Bela doesn't carry Victor's bass cabinet into the venue and sound check Futureman's synthaxe.

Bela has also been signed to one major label or another for the last 20 years.


What do you think about that?

Open the accounting books under full disclosure, and we'll see about that...

[The Real MC]

Then why do people pirate songs they don't like?

I'll tell you what... They get it because they like it. Then they come with the old argument "well there is only 2 songs I like on the album so I won't buy it".

That's strange logic. The product is crap, but you still listen to it?

Evasion, twisting the argument, placing blame on others. Classic manipulator tactics.

I've had this argument 500 times with friends and it always ends the same, I win the argument and they change the subject.

Evasion is not winning an argument. That is the tactic I am seeing over and over, you people are putting your hands over your ears and going LAH LAH LAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

You have not won any argument. I will not engage in pointless discussion with trolls who are incapable of reasoning, make gross misjudgements of character, and are using anything to justify their flawed argument.

[Deeprig9]

Evasion, twisting the argument, placing blame on others. Classic manipulator tactics.



Evasion is not winning an argument. That is the tactic I am seeing over and over, you people are putting your hands over your ears and going LAH LAH LAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

You have not won any argument. I will not engage in pointless discussion with trolls who are incapable of reasoning, make gross misjudgements of character, and are using anything to justify their flawed argument.

YOU brought up Bela Fleck, ASSHOLE, and I'm throwing it back in your face. You don't like that, so you become what you claim to abhor. Go fuck off, you idiot troll.


Yes, for the record, that is a personal attack on you.

[Deeprig9]

Open the accounting books under full disclosure, and we'll see about that...

I've booked Bela and I know what came in the door and what he spent and what the promoter got and what the door got and what the openers got, you can live in your little fantasy land snowcastle like a dumb little Barbie bitch or you can take me at my word. It's up to you, moron.

[Sir Ricardo]

YOU brought up Bela Fleck, ASSHOLE, and I'm throwing it back in your face. You don't like that, so you become what you claim to abhor. Go fuck off, you idiot troll.


Yes, for the record, that is a personal attack on you.:poke:

I've booked Bela and I know what came in the door and what he spent and what the promoter got and what the door got and what the openers got, you can live in your little fantasy land snowcastle like a dumb little Barbie bitch or you can take me at my word. It's up to you, moron.
:confused:
Girls! Enough of the personal attacks! You are going to get this thread pulled! So go get your Barbie dolls and play homemaker or something, and let this thread develop!

Yours, Ken:wave:

[Deeprig9]

I have no reservations, like Bordaine, about calling out a bullshitter. This is a forum for good information through interaction, it's the nature of the beast. I may be harsh with my words, but words are nothing but crude expressions of thought, and my thoughts are crude. But I'm intellectually honest.

[HKSblade1]

In my view, the reason people download free stuff is because it is free.

It allows them to get music for free, instead of paying for it.

It's that simple.

They get to avoid paying for something that legally has to be bought.

It's when they get called on this illegality that they come up with just a whole boatload of reasons......"it's right to stick it to the man"......"the record companies deserve it for X, Y, and Z"......"if the music were better I'd pay for it (sure you would)"....."everybody's doing it, why shouldn't I?"...(I hear you, Bro, it's a riot and we are all stealing TVs, why don't you take one too?)......"blah blah blah"....

Everybody knows what they are doing is illegal; it's how they "justify" it that cracks me up.

This is exactly the problem. The freeloaders ( not down-loaders) and pirates think they are helping the artist by stealing the songs they want. F'k the RIAA they say. All the while, screwing the artist they say they support :freak:

Workmanship of the music itself has lost all sense of value thanks to file sharing and theft which most people still think is legal :freak:

One band I read fought back after their album was torrented. They opened a shared folder of their own. Linked it up and added some nice content to their file. F'kd peoples registries, added over 1000 pron links, button style viruses. Sony had one that was supposed to target mp3, mpa, wma and all other media files and delete them.

One guy on a blog said he got fired for pron on his laptop after d-loading a movie file of Jackass. Was eating lunch at work. Fiddling with his laptop and all this pron just popped up. Co workers saw it and reported him. He was fired for "sexual impropriety" Good one for the RESUME.

I lmao at that one and was immediately attacked by the pirating clan. Ideas like this are going around and bands and movie sites are adding some extras to the downloads. Some start running program routines after 10,000 keystrokes, mouse clicks. Dude boots up one day and his drive is formatted!!

The pron industry is getting heavy into their own "extra files" for hosting torrents. I heard they had one that deleted video and pic file including psd. Guys over at an Adobe forum were pissed off that files they had for work just disappeared :cop:

If all this is from the media creators adding their own junk files to torrents, they have every right IMO. Pirates are going to have to watch out for what they steal :eek:

[The Real MC]

YOU brought up Bela Fleck, ASSHOLE, and I'm throwing it back in your face. You don't like that, so you become what you claim to abhor. Go fuck off, you idiot troll.


Yes, for the record, that is a personal attack on you.

I was using Bela as an example of the content provider failing to provide consumers what they wanted. You twisted the argument by trying to bring up Bela's profit, which you seem incapable of providing proof through disclosure of accounting records. Britney makes tons of profit too, but she is a talentless lip syncer who cannot even lip sync to her own backing track at the last MTV MVA and consumers are sick of her crap.

I have known too many booking agents to take them at their "word"... either put up, or shut up.

[The Real MC]

If all this is from the media creators adding their own junk files to torrents, they have every right IMO. Pirates are going to have to watch out for what they steal :eek:

And they better tread carefully, because government and armed forces use bittorrent for legitimate and national security purposes. When the Sony rootkit fiasco was uncovered, they got a firm warning from the government to back off.

[HKSblade1]

Then maybe the Govt needs to set up their own servers for illegal trafficking. If the govt has a problem with shutting down illegal torrent sites or adding some "extra" files as a form of users protecting themselves from thieves, then the works of artists, movies, and software co is soon to be over.

[fetishfrog]

I was using Bela as an example of the content provider failing to provide consumers what they wanted. You twisted the argument by trying to bring up Bela's profit, which you seem incapable of providing proof through disclosure of accounting records. Britney makes tons of profit too, but she is a talentless lip syncer who cannot even lip sync to her own backing track at the last MTV MVA and consumers are sick of her crap.

I have known too many booking agents to take them at their "word"... either put up, or shut up.

Tours typically run at a loss and were often factored into record contracts as such. Labels would provide tour support in the form of disposable cash (for buses, crew, meals, hotels, etc.) in exchage for a recoup against record royalties and merch sales. There are notable expections (Dave Matthews, Grateful Dead, etc) but it wouldn't be surprising at all to see Bela's numbers be less impressive than expected. With much of that disposable cash gone, tour support dries up quickly, and ticket prices/merch prices soar to make up for it.

Britney's last record went multi-platnium, not exactly a failure. Not her old numbers for sure, but I certainly wouldn't mind going multi-platnium.

Anyhow, you've failed how to explain how the new, download heavy system, is going to provide all the up-front, disposable cash a label provided, and all the benefits of said cash.

[The Real MC]

Then maybe the Govt needs to set up their own servers for illegal trafficking. If the govt has a problem with shutting down illegal torrent sites or adding some "extra" files as a form of users protecting themselves from thieves, then the works of artists, movies, and software co is soon to be over.

Sabotaging torrents has unintended consequences besides govt, such as the Adobe forum complaining of their legitimate work disappearing. That is economic damage in the form of lost labor.

There is no justification for sabotage tactics if they are causing economic damage. None.

So if the works of artists, movies, and software is to survive, they will have to adapt.

Look around you. Gov't has adapted. The software industry has adapted. Retail has adapted. Services have adapted. Your own artists keep telling you to adapt but the industry refuses to accept it because they don't want to abandon the monopoly they own on distribution channels. None of you have acknowledged or disputed this fact, you choose to evade it with your manipulative tactics.

[The Real MC]

Anyhow, you've failed how to explain how the new, download heavy system, is going to provide all the up-front, disposable cash a label provided, and all the benefits of said cash.

I already have - CUT FRIVOLOUS SPENDING

"LAH LAH LAH..."

[fetishfrog]

I already have - CUT FRIVOLOUS SPENDING

"LAH LAH LAH..."

Cutting frivolous spending is a good idea but it doesn't actually generate cash, just stretches your cash farther. Label, in response to the cash crunch caused by delcining record sales, have undergone merger after merger and downsize after downsize, effectively cutting frivilous spending. In spite of this, they continue to suffer from the cash crunch. So, again, WHERE'S THE MONEY GOING TO COME FROM??? It's not going to fall from the sky when you cut spending.

Also, a side point...all of the mergers and downsizing that have resulted from the decline in record sales actually exacerbate the 'diversity in music' issue you complained about earlier. Declining profits mean less investment in riskier projects, so all the music gets homogenized, and you bitch about it, not realizing you're indeed part of the problem.

[fetishfrog]

Look around you. Gov't has adapted. The software industry has adapted. Retail has adapted. Services have adapted. Your own artists keep telling you to adapt but the industry refuses to accept it because they don't want to abandon the monopoly they own on distribution channels. None of you have acknowledged or disputed this fact, you choose to evade it with your manipulative tactics.

The industry tried to adapt by implementing various copy protection schemes (good ol' DRM) like software companies but everyone bitched and moaned and cracked the schemes and there you have it. Perhaps record companies should begin requiring a dongle purchase or challenge/response sequence with every download. Everytime you want to listen to your iPod, you need to enter a password tied to that unique download to authorize its use. Is that what you want? That would be adapting like the software companies and government. I'll bet though, that the overwhelming sense of entitlement that every illegal downloader wears like a badge of honor will justify a variety of insane reasons why this too, is bad.

[The Real MC]

The industry tried to adapt by implementing various copy protection schemes (good ol' DRM) like software companies but everyone bitched and moaned and cracked the schemes and there you have it.

That's not adapting, that is counteracting. The software industry learned copy protection doesn't work and dropped it altogether. They learned this back in the 1980s. Here we are in 2008 and you still don't get it. This is why you are called dinosaurs.

Perhaps record companies should begin requiring a dongle purchase or challenge/response sequence with every download. Everytime you want to listen to your iPod, you need to enter a password tied to that unique download to authorize its use. Is that what you want? That would be adapting like the software companies and government. I'll bet though, that the overwhelming sense of entitlement that every illegal downloader wears like a badge of honor will justify a variety of insane reasons why this too, is bad.

I work in professional engineering using DRM schemes such as dongles and other miriad authorization schemes. For many reasons, they are an inconvenience and they cost the company money. Better solutions have come along and we have embraced them. They're out there, so quit hiring firms to sabotage innocent victims and put your resources into finding better solutions that do not alienate your customers. I want to see this succeed as much as you do, but it is going in the wrong direction.

[The Real MC]

Cutting frivolous spending is a good idea but it doesn't actually generate cash, just stretches your cash farther. Label, in response to the cash crunch caused by delcining record sales, have undergone merger after merger and downsize after downsize, effectively cutting frivilous spending. In spite of this, they continue to suffer from the cash crunch. So, again, WHERE'S THE MONEY GOING TO COME FROM??? It's not going to fall from the sky when you cut spending.

Cut frivolous spending, do I have to spell it out to you?

Where are the majority of entertainment resources located? NYC, Los Angeles. Areas with extremely high cost of living.

When cost of living skyrocketed in Silicon Valley, many high technology industries fled for more favorable environments so they could afford to compete.

The same thing happened in any state and city with rising costs.

High Technology companies adapted.

Now you must do the same.

[slight-return]

And attempts at extreme generalizing?

Actually, no - its specific to posts #56 and #62



You ARE a lawyer...

While I do work in the IP field, no, I am not a lawyer

[slight-return]

Evasion, twisting the argument, placing blame on others. Classic manipulator tactics.



Evasion is not winning an argument. That is the tactic I am seeing over and over, you people are putting your hands over your ears and going LAH LAH LAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU.



I think it does bring up an important point to the discussion. We certainly do see it in thread

such as in



"I download all the time!!!

authorized stuff though" [quoting - sight return, anoher thread]


"authorized" meaning you legitimately paid for it.
[Post #46]

When, if fact, the nature of "authorized" was...authorized

Authorized meaning that I have been given authority (that's what "authorized" means) to make copy of the work [Post #47]



Since you seem remarkably capable of referencing exact sections of copyright law that define distribution vs reproduction, you would be so kind to share the search resources and techniques at your disposal. Otherwise I am playing against a rigged deck with the dealer holding back the cards.
[Post #53]

Even though in a prior post- you ref to the US copyright website page


It was already tested in court - reproduction by a library (a non-profit entity) of a copyrighted work to replace a damaged copy. See http://www.copyright.gov/
[Post #42]

That actually contains a link to the text of Title 17 right on the very website


to this

Well, one way they are different is the explicit authorization of the copyright holder tha obviates the legal question - slight-return
[Post #48]

you respond with


You're still equating copyright for profit with personal backup for non-profit use.
[Post #49]

Even though I made no mention of profit (although you did Personal backup is non-commercial use, there is no profit to be gained or lost. [Post #42]


I mention
As to if duplicating phonorecordings for personal archival reasons (or if multiple "listenable copies would be considered archival) is a fair use...I dont believe that's been fully put to legal test [Post #41]

Yet, later, you request
Cite me case law where they have successfully convicted an individual over personal backup. [Post#48]

You declare


It was already tested in court - reproduction by a library (a non-profit entity) of a copyrighted work to replace a damaged copy. See http://www.copyright.gov/
[Post #42]

but then you later state you don't have the resources to declare that


IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) and I do not have the resources to research case law.
[Post #53]



And misquote the page you ref (which is on fair use in general and even disclaims "Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations.") as you state


It was already tested in court - reproduction by a library (a non-profit entity) of a copyrighted work to replace a damaged copy
[Post#42]

Yet the cited webpage states
reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy
[ [url]http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html][/url ]



In (well, at least, there may be other areas) posts, 41,51, and 55 I remind the thread that "fair use" is a case by case affirmative defense...and that went on to be completely ignored

[The Real MC]

In (well, at least, there may be other areas) posts, 41,51, and 55 I remind the thread that "fair use" is a case by case affirmative defense...and that went on to be completely ignored

I also remind you that no one has uncovered any case of successful criminal or civil copyright infringement involving personal backup.

No, we're not evading, are we...?

[slight-return]

I also remind you that no one has uncovered any case of successful criminal or civil copyright infringement involving personal backup.

No, we're not evading, are we...?

as I stated earlier


As to if duplicating phonorecordings for personal archival reasons (or if multiple "listenable copies would be considered archival) is a fair use...I dont believe that's been fully put to legal test

[Post #41]


You, however, did assert


It was already tested in court

[Post #42]

and

Ever hear of "fair use"? It is an exemption to copyright law and is designed for backup for personal use. The US Supreme Court affirmed our fair use right years ago.

[Post #39]

Yet didn't cite the caselaw nor did you address fair use being an affirmative defense handled on a case by case basis

[you, also, haven't adressed the other points in Post #98 -- yet you mention evasion]

[fetishfrog]

That's not adapting, that is counteracting. The software industry learned copy protection doesn't work and dropped it altogether. They learned this back in the 1980s. Here we are in 2008 and you still don't get it. This is why you are called dinosaurs.

I work in professional engineering using DRM schemes such as dongles and other miriad authorization schemes. For many reasons, they are an inconvenience and they cost the company money. Better solutions have come along and we have embraced them. They're out there, so quit hiring firms to sabotage innocent victims and put your resources into finding better solutions that do not alienate your customers. I want to see this succeed as much as you do, but it is going in the wrong direction.

Ok, so which is it? Did software companies drop copy protection back in the 80's or do you work in engineering today where copy protection remains an inconvenience? You cannot have it both ways.

I cannot recall a single software purchase that I've made ever that did not have some form of copy protection ranging from: Dongles, Challenge/Response, Serial Number with Vendor supplied Auth Code, etc. Included in this list of purchases are:

Pro Toold HD
Sonar
Cubase
Windows XP
OSX
Soundforge
Waves Plugins
McDSP
Sony Oxford
Final Cut Pro

All of them performed fine, no issues.

[fetishfrog]

Cut frivolous spending, do I have to spell it out to you?

Where are the majority of entertainment resources located? NYC, Los Angeles. Areas with extremely high cost of living.

When cost of living skyrocketed in Silicon Valley, many high technology industries fled for more favorable environments so they could afford to compete.

The same thing happened in any state and city with rising costs.

High Technology companies adapted.

Now you must do the same.

They did cut frivilous spending to the tune of billions of dollars. Now, what's left is no money for anything but the most homogenized tripe. Careful what you wish for, I suppose you got it.

[The Real MC]

Ok, so which is it? Did software companies drop copy protection back in the 80's or do you work in engineering today where copy protection remains an inconvenience? You cannot have it both ways.

I cannot recall a single software purchase that I've made ever that did not have some form of copy protection ranging from: Dongles, Challenge/Response, Serial Number with Vendor supplied Auth Code, etc. Included in this list of purchases are:

Pro Toold HD
Sonar
Cubase
Windows XP
OSX
Soundforge
Waves Plugins
McDSP
Sony Oxford
Final Cut Pro

All of them performed fine, no issues.

I have worked in engineering since 1985.

Ever hear of Lotus 1-2-3? Very popular spreadsheet in the 80s until they implemented copy protection. After too many problems on the consumer end, consumers bought MS Excel to replace it. Lotus dropped copy protection but the damage was already done.

Copy protection is generally frowned on in the engineering community.

Windows XP Activation proved to be so much of a problem - false negatives when system components were changed/added - that companies still refuse to deploy it.

Windows XP Media Player implements DRM. Rip your CDs to mp3 and MP marks them. Re-install XP after a crash and restore your mp3s, and MP thinks you are not the author and refuses to play them.

Far more businesses refuse to deploy Windows Vista because of its restrictive DRM and the way it bottlenecks the processor.

At my current position, we have critical systems using license dongles. When one system crashed, the license dongles could not be reused because the activation system tied it to the serial number on the hard disk. Well, if the hard disk is toast, so is the dongle. We lost precious production capacity, which was a big inconvenience for us in the form of higher production cost.

After spending $1500 for a replacement dongle and going through that asinine process, we looked at alternatives.

[The Real MC]

They did cut frivilous spending to the tune of billions of dollars. Now, what's left is no money for anything but the most homogenized tripe. Careful what you wish for, I suppose you got it.

And the major labels are STILL based in NYC/LA.

Many independent non-RIAA labels operate elsewhere and still put out decent product.

[fetishfrog]

And the major labels are STILL based in NYC/LA.

Many independent non-RIAA labels operate elsewhere and still put out decent product.

And perhaps it makes financial sense for them to stay? Perhaps they have 50 year leases at incredible prices, or own their buildings outright? Perhaps the cost of moving, relocating/hiring new staff, etc far outweigns the cost of not moving. I think you're making far too many assumptions about what is a financially sound desicion for them to hold this opinion with any real conviction.

And yes, plenty of non-RIAA labels put out fine product, but don't pretend these labels have or ever will have the marketing/distribution reach that majors had and still have.

[fetishfrog]

I have worked in engineering since 1985.

Ever hear of Lotus 1-2-3? Very popular spreadsheet in the 80s until they implemented copy protection. After too many problems on the consumer end, consumers bought MS Excel to replace it. Lotus dropped copy protection but the damage was already done.

Copy protection is generally frowned on in the engineering community.

Windows XP Activation proved to be so much of a problem - false negatives when system components were changed/added - that companies still refuse to deploy it.

Windows XP Media Player implements DRM. Rip your CDs to mp3 and MP marks them. Re-install XP after a crash and restore your mp3s, and MP thinks you are not the author and refuses to play them.

Far more businesses refuse to deploy Windows Vista because of its restrictive DRM and the way it bottlenecks the processor.

At my current position, we have critical systems using license dongles. When one system crashed, the license dongles could not be reused because the activation system tied it to the serial number on the hard disk. Well, if the hard disk is toast, so is the dongle. We lost precious production capacity, which was a big inconvenience for us in the form of higher production cost.

After spending $1500 for a replacement dongle and going through that asinine process, we looked at alternatives.

We use copy protected software all the time and never have issue so, while it sounds like you did, that fact is, it's still in practice and widely used.

[The Real MC]

as I stated earlier


As to if duplicating phonorecordings for personal archival reasons (or if multiple "listenable copies would be considered archival) is a fair use...I dont believe that's been fully put to legal test

[Post #41]


You, however, did assert


It was already tested in court

[Post #42]

and

Ever hear of "fair use"? It is an exemption to copyright law and is designed for backup for personal use. The US Supreme Court affirmed our fair use right years ago.

[Post #39]

Yet didn't cite the caselaw nor did you address fair use being an affirmative defense handled on a case by case basis



RIAA vs Diamond Multimedia Systems Inc (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9856727) was a 1999 case that sought to halt the manufacture of the Rio mp3 player under the argument that the Rio was subject to the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA). The RIAA lost the case.

The RIAA brought suit against Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc, (Diamond), "alleging that the Rio [a device manufactured by Diamond] does not meet the requirements for digital audio recording devices under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, 17 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (the "Act"), because it does not employ a Serial Copyright Management System ("SCMS") that sends, receives, and acts upon information about the generation and copyright status of the files that it plays." The Rio is a portable digital audio device which "allows a user to download MP3 audio files from a computer and to listen to them elsewhere." The lower court denied the RIAA's request for injunctive relief, holding that the RIAA had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, and the RIAA appealed. On appeal, the ninth circuit upheld the lower court's decision to deny injunctive relief but found that the lower court had erred in holding that the Rio was a covered device under the AHRA. The court noted that in order to be a digital audio recording device, the Rio must be able to reproduce, either "directly" or "from a transmission," a "digital music recording." 17 U.S.C. § 1001(1).

Under the language of the AHRA, the court proceeded to determine that the hard drive from which the Rio downloaded music files was not a digital music recording, because it contained much more than "only sounds, and material, statements, or instructions incidental to those fixed sounds," thereby falling outside of the definition of a digital music recording under 17 U.S.C. § 1001(5)(A). Likewise, a digital music recording does not include a material object "in which one or more computer programs are fixed," subject to certain limitations. 17 U.S.C. § 1001(5)(B)(2). As the computer hard drive from which the Rio made its copies was not a digital music recording, the Rio could not be considered a digital audio recording device under the AHRA, unless it was capable of reproducing a digital music recording indirectly from a transmission. 17 U.S.C. § 1001(1). According to the court, "a device falls within the Act's provisions if it can indirectly copy a digital music recording by making a copy from a transmission of that recording. Because the Rio cannot make copies from transmissions, but instead, can only make copies from a computer hard drive, it is not a digital audio recording device."

Computer hard drives cannot be considered digital audio recording devices either, "because their 'primary purpose' is not to make digital audio copied recordings." 17 U.S.C. § 1001(3). "ecause computers are not digital audio recording devices, they are not required to comply with the SCMS requirement and thus need not send, receive, or act upon information regarding copyright and generation status." Moreover, MP3 files do not even contain the codes which provide information regarding copyright and generation status. As there would be no code to prevent the copying of the MP3 file from the hard drive, the SCMS would be of no avail. In fact, the copy which the Rio made would be labeled under the SCMS as having "original generation status," thereby allowing an additional copy to be made. Because no additional copies can be made from the Rio, the Rio makes less copies than the SCMS would permit.

The court also finds that the Rio works in harmony with the main purpose of the statute: "the facilitation of personal use." Citing the purpose behind the enactment of 17 U.S.C. § 1008, "[t]he Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or 'space-shift,' those files that already reside on a user's hard drive." Cf., Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455, 104 S.Ct. 774, 78 L.Ed.2d 574 (1984) (holding that the "time-shifting" of copyrighted television shows using a VCR constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act, and thus is not an infringement). "Such copying is paradigmatic noncommercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act." Thus, the court found that the Rio was not subject to the AHRA, and that the lower court had acted properly in denying an injunction.

Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992, 17 U.S.C. §1008

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or [B]based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

[The Real MC]

And perhaps it makes financial sense for them to stay? Perhaps they have 50 year leases at incredible prices, or own their buildings outright? Perhaps the cost of moving, relocating/hiring new staff, etc far outweigns the cost of not moving. I think you're making far too many assumptions about what is a financially sound desicion for them to hold this opinion with any real conviction.

You are a fool if you sign a FIFTY YEAR LEASE in this day and age. Own your building in LA? Sell it, buy a similar building in more favorable conditions, make a profit. Staffing? The high technology companies have dealt with it for ages - in my job hunt a few years ago, I resigned to finding work out of town because I accepted that the work had dried up in my home town - YOU GO TO WHERE THE WORK IS.

Why am I still spelling out CUT FRIVOLOUS SPENDING?

And yes, plenty of non-RIAA labels put out fine product, but don't pretend these labels have or ever will have the marketing/distribution reach that majors had and still have.

And that is why they object to the internet as a distribution channel. The labels have an iron grip on their distribution but it is crumbling underneath them with CD stores closing all over the country. Open your eyes, my good man.

[The Real MC]

We use copy protected software all the time and never have issue so, while it sounds like you did, that fact is, it's still in practice and widely used.

But we have exploited other alternatives - all legal.

[fetishfrog]

Why am I still spelling out CUT FRIVOLOUS SPENDING?



Because the things you are declaring frivolous are, in fact, not. I've give example time and time again about how and why large cash pools are beneficial to artists and all you can respond with is 'cut spending'. It's being done right before your eyes, the result of which is the homogenization of major label music, which I've pointed out several times, and all you do is complain about how all new major releases suck. Why am I still spelling this out? You and all your file swapping buddies are the primary cause of all the problems you blame labels for, which, in turn, exacerbates the problems you complain about. It's like watching someone repeated slam their head into a wall, all the while complaining about the pain.

You are a fool if you sign a FIFTY YEAR LEASE in this day and age. Own your building in LA? Sell it, buy a similar building in more favorable conditions, make a profit. Staffing? The high technology companies have dealt with it for ages - in my job hunt a few years ago, I resigned to finding work out of town because I accepted that the work had dried up in my home town - YOU GO TO WHERE THE WORK IS.

If you signed your lease in 1970, you're not done until 2020. If you own your own building, why sell, make a profit, and spend that profit to move somewhere else...so you can then begin to pay a lease? A major moving out of a major market is stupid, the whole of the entertainment industry is in NYC and LA, there is little sense in relocating to Lincoln, NE. Most of the entertaiment industry related work/offices/studios are still in these markets, moving would be foolish. So they are, in effect, staying where the work is.

[Dean Roddey]

It's just not practical these days to not use some sort of copy protection to at least keep the honest people honest, because it's so trivial otherwise, that even otherwise honest people won't even think about ripping it off. At least if they have to positively step over a threshold and do something they know is wrong they'll think about it. Otherwise, too many people just won't think at all. It's so trivially easy rationalize why you aren't paying for that software you are using every day.

You shouldn't make it onerous, but all non-trivial software these days, and lost of semi-trival software, use some sort of copy protection or licensing system.

[slight-return]

RIAA vs Diamond Multimedia Systems Inc (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9856727) was a 1999 case that sought to halt the manufacture of the Rio mp3 player under the argument that the Rio was subject to the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA). The RIAA lost the case.

I'm familiar with it - notice that this is a case of if the RIO fell under AHRA as a digital recording device and if under 17USC1008 - it's not a fair use case , it was not even a direct infringement case at all, and was not argued on those grounds.



You, however, stated that Personal archival storage of phonorecordings was fair use and was tested before SCOTUS -- RIAA v Diamond was 9th cir)



Now, there is only one mention of "fair use" in the decision - and that's that the rio is in harmony with the purpose of the AHRA. Now there you'll notice "space-shifting" is mentioned as an extension of "time-shifting" from Sony v Universal (aka "betamax" -betamax was also merely a contributory, not a direct infringment case - time-shifting was just to show that there can be signifigant legitimate use). Now an interesting thing about the "time shifting" paradigm is that in "betamax" it's specifically mentioned that the time-shift model is based on a 'view once and erase' model -- so archival (persistent copy) uses may very well not be congruent with the time-shift style use. You may remember Napster tried to push the space-shift use and didn't do well [RIAA v Napster]

But again, this is in ref as to the RIO falling under AHRA laws, not a fair use case itself and not dealing specifically with archiving (even in the ancillary mention of fair use)

And remember (I'm not sure if you are understanding this part - you don't seem to address it at all) - fair use is an affirmative defense handled on a case by case basis

Remember, legitimate use doesn't have to be "fair use" -- abt 2/3 of chapt 1 in title 17 are limitations to right of copy

[I think one major problem might be that you merely want copying to be "allowed" by whatever legal mechanism-- I am addressing if it, specifically, falls under "fair use", if it has been tested by SCOTUS as claimed, etc because those were the claims made. This goes back to the joke the wife wife and I have about "fair use" being a buzzword for "I want to"]

I am, however, glad to see you are beginning to read - well, I'm not sure if you are actually reading them- but at least researching the caselaw.


[funny note - I sometimes comment on accuracy of legal sstatements used and the party, often, misinterprets this as an attack or an attempt to hold an opposing position. Scafeets, for instance, a few weeks ago thought that I was promoting piracy b/c of some legal distinctions I brought up. I suspect that Real MC thinks I am "pro RIAA / anti-archiving" (or something similar) because, again, I bring up some legal distinctions -- Funny thing thing is, I even mentioned from the get-go I dont think the fair use of archiving has been fully legally tested. I realize, often, these threads are sarted by intensely interested parties. This can lead to an "us v them" attitude and attempts to bolster, not examine, positions. This is why there is the truism "a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client".]

[The Real MC]

And remember (I'm not sure if you are understanding this part - you don't seem to address it at all) - fair use is an affirmative defense handled on a case by case basis

Remember, legitimate use doesn't have to be "fair use" -- abt 2/3 of chapt 1 in title 17 are limitations to right of copy

Study of fair use cases (yes, I've been researching) does indeed show it is an affirmative defense handled on a case by case basis - albiet still not clearly defined. But I can find no case of successful criminal or civil copyright infringement involving personal backup.

I suspect that Real MC thinks I am "pro RIAA / anti-archiving" (or something similar) because, again, I bring up some legal distinctions -- Funny thing thing is, I even mentioned from the get-go I dont think the fair use of archiving has been fully legally tested.

Rest assured I hold no such "pro-RIAA" assumption.

[The Real MC]

You and all your file swapping buddies are the primary cause of all the problems you blame labels for, which, in turn, exacerbates the problems you complain about. It's like watching someone repeated slam their head into a wall, all the while complaining about the pain.

Stop right there. Not only do you have blinders on, but you are wearing earplugs as you fail to read in previous posts that I DO NOT P2P. Because of your quick knee-jerk reaction to blame file-sharers for your woes, you neglect people like me who do not p2p and are complaining of poor value in your product. So the file-sharer is a poor crutch.

If you signed your lease in 1970, you're not done until 2020. If you own your own building, why sell, make a profit, and spend that profit to move somewhere else...so you can then begin to pay a lease? A major moving out of a major market is stupid, the whole of the entertainment industry is in NYC and LA, there is little sense in relocating to Lincoln, NE. Most of the entertaiment industry related work/offices/studios are still in these markets, moving would be foolish. So they are, in effect, staying where the work is.

Good Lord, will you take off your blinders already you are not listening to what I am saying or looking at what is going on around you. I am not going to waste energy repeating what I have said more than once. Small wonder you are dinosaurs, keep up the ignorance and you will truly become extinct.

Everybody is to blame except you, and we are tired of this disposition. Perhaps you need to be reminded that the major labels were convicted of price fixing a mere few years ago.

[slight-return]

Study of fair use cases (yes, I've been researching) does indeed show it is an affirmative defense handled on a case by case basis


Well, yeah it's one of the basic basics of fair use. that's why Ive been saying it so much -it's one of the things people don't understand.




- albiet still not clearly defined.


that's BECAUSE it's on a case by case basis -- see it grew out of doctrine (it wasn't entered into statute at all until '76)

which is why characterizing fair use as "is an exemption to copyright law and is designed for backup for personal use. " isnt particularly accurate on a number of points



But I can find no case of successful criminal or civil copyright infringement involving personal backup.


you may not even find an unsuccessful case using a fair use defense in a personal archiving case...youmight not even find much in the way of suit filed (and later dropped)-- to hold an affirmative defense there would have to be a suit (there is no obligation to file suit and then the burden in an affirmative defense is on the D ). That's why it may very well not have been fully legally tested.
It's really important (and QA guys might remind you of this) to dig that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence -- given that "fair use" is an affirmative defense, we'd need to find caselaw showing a succefful use of that defense (again, in an affirmative defense, burden is on the D) with the similar fact-pattern to show that 'it has already been tested in court'
and we'd need to find a SCOTUS case (SCOTUS isn't allowed to give advisory opinions) with an archiving fact pattern to say "It the US Supreme Court affirmed our fair use right years ago."




Rest assured I hold no such "pro-RIAA" assumption.


I'm not seeing how that fits in with your ealier assertion

You're still equating copyright for profit with personal backup for non-profit use

My comments weren't based on that

[The Real MC]

Rest assured I hold no such "pro-RIAA" assumption.


I'm not seeing how that fits in with your ealier assertion

You're still equating copyright for profit with personal backup for non-profit use

None of my analysis was based on that

Did you not work in software development at one time? Are copyright privileges available to software, printed media, electronic media - not just music? Where in my broad assertion did I specify music copyright? I'm afraid you've made a gross misjudgement by reading too deeply into my assertion.

[slight-return]

Did you not work in software development at one time?

yup - why you would see that as material to the copyright analysis in question-- I have no idea


Are copyright privileges available to software, printed media, electronic media - not just music?


certainly! ( though are are differences in each there can even be differences in phonorecording type). But that doesn't really have to do with the "you are equating profit and copyright" statement
Even in SW (possibly, especially in SW -- the GNU GPL is an example of that), protection of copyright does not necessarilly have to be a profit-based interest
and the analysis of copyright law certainly doesn't have to be


Where in my broad assertion did I specify music copyright?

Never said you did - what I mentioned you did say was that I was equating copyright with profit.
The bredth (possibly overly so) may very well be the problem with your assertion - you never did back it up
and you did mention tht the thread was full of RIAA fanboys (without specifying)

and you have offered that you can't find a successful infringement case for personal archiving (which isn't an analysis of "fair use" )





I'm afraid you've made a gross misjudgement by reading too deeply into my assertion.



you never did address that assertion you initially made (nor the other things I mentioned in Post #98 I think) that I was equating the two

I don't think I made any definitive judgement at all (please read closely)
"I'm not seeing how that fits in with your ealier assertion"

Now, if you care to clear that up, how the copyright analysis v software or other "content" industry fits together in how you see my analysis, etc please do so

[The Real MC]

and you did mention tht the thread was full of RIAA fanboys (without specifying)

I believe my exact words were

crawling with RIAA fanboys

"full" is completely encompassing, "crawling" is not.

You're wasted more than your share of birdshot.

[fetishfrog]

Stop right there. Not only do you have blinders on, but you are wearing earplugs as you fail to read in previous posts that I DO NOT P2P. Because of your quick knee-jerk reaction to blame file-sharers for your woes, you neglect people like me who do not p2p and are complaining of poor value in your product. So the file-sharer is a poor crutch.

It's not that I haven't read it, it's that I think you're a liar regarding your use of p2p. Simple as that.

The poor value problem has been exacerbated as a result of p2p, not the other way around. I've explained why too many times to go through it again.

Indies have been hurt by p2p file sharing every bit as much as majors, more in some cases. They don't have the deep pockets to weather the storm. How do you explain that, poor quality? How are upcoming bands going to get a foot hold...iTunes??? Does iTunes market, provide tour support, etc. No??? So a band with no marketing beyond its webpage lost in a sea of internet noise is somehow going to break through by selling songs on iTunes? Has one band...ONE BAND, ever made it out of the garage exclusively selling on iTunes? No. And they never will.

If you don't understand why, it's because you've never played the game. And you haven't, and I have, and still do, and it's obvious. And I'm not going to explain it anymore. Copout? Yes. True? Yes.

Good day.

[slight-return]

I believe my exact words were

crawling with RIAA fanboys

"full" is completely encompassing, "crawling" is not.


but certainly not very specific and doesnt particularly cover the issue of that assertion, nor does it address "crawling" in light of the other parts I mentioned





You're wasted more than your share of birdshot.

That is an analysis we could place elsewhere (as in the above - or Where in my broad assertion.. ) and even starts ealier in your initial statements about "fair use" and your US copyright office citation (a very very broad introduction to the concept)

[slight-return]

I believe my intentions have been misinterpreted

I believe, it's a given - through my lens of number of interrelated fields, that what we have is a falsely adversarial relationship and that very little legal theory will actually get discussed; which was my role here.
The Real MC, Im glad I could get you started in caselaw research - I find it an underserved part of basic civics - due to the above resaon, I doubt I can be of much further help.
Please continue your study of law - as will I, it's a process - I think its beneficial

[The Real MC]

It's not that I haven't read it, it's that I think you're a liar regarding your use of p2p. Simple as that.

You sir, do err in calling me a liar. So here is your proof:

There are tons of threads on HC discussing p2p, file sharing. Use the search tool on my name, and find me one thread where I disclose that I use p2p. Go ahead, just one.

Perhaps it has not occurred to you that I *HAVE* played the game; have composed music, have made CDs of original music, have them on the market in the past. So tell me my good man, what good reason would I have to condone or use p2p?

I find your blanket accusations highly offensive.

Good day.

Yes indeed. This discussion, good sir, is over.

[Deeprig9]

Reasons the RIAA is wrong about p2p copyright infringement:

1: Record companies need to cut spending, relocate their offices to Dothan, Alabama or Florence, South Carolina.

2: Case law says a computer is not a recording device, but other case law in modern reality is still pending. Recording and Duplicating have two different definitions, specific to congressional copyright law. Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman.

3: REal MC has known too many booking agents and they are mostly full of shit, so any allegorical data without a highlighted 1040 complete with IRS form consent verification (typically used by underwriters to verify tax returns with the IRS on mortgage applications) is worthless.


4: HP never got a patent on "ethernet" in the 80's, so it's the common computer language today.

5: My dog licks his asshole.












Case Closed. The RIAA sucks and we need to move on.

[skippydmongoose]

5: My dog licks his asshole.


:rolleyes: Link?

Seriously, they're never gonna stop this shit, and it's fucking impossible to police.

[The Real MC]

Reasons the RIAA <snip>

I'm not demanding repentance, but what a fine specimen of a petulant sourpuss you are. I haven't see petty contention like this since grade school. News update: you're a big kid in the real world now, so stuff that disposition in that childhood where it belongs and grow up.

[CrashStitches]

Cool, that will put the number of organizations fighting to protect victims of music copyright infringement at a healthy 0. I rue the day.

Hey Buckethead99, do you have any music online? Me and a few million friends would like to download it, listen to it, and never pay you a dime.

Some artists are fine with that. Take our music, and now that you know us you can come to the shows and buy our merch.

The old ways are dying. This is the age of communication, not big-bank labels taking 90% of record sales. Adapt or perish.

[CrashStitches]

If someone illegally downloads my album, I see that as taking $7 out of my wallet, and I'll beat your fucking ass down for stealing from me. If you are bigger than me, or a black belt, I'll cap your fucking knees and piss on your face. Stealing is stealing. I hope I'm in a successful position someday to track down 1000 people who downloaded my stuff illegally and beat the everloving shit out of them, and piss on their bloody faces.

What do you think about that?

I think you're a psychopath to want to viciously maul a human being for $7. Where's your site? I wanna DL your stuff, you super-tough hombre. :o

[Sir Ricardo]

Hey Buckethead99, do you have any music online? Me and a few million friends would like to download it, listen to it, and never pay you a dime.

This about sums it up.

This illegal downloading rips off the artist, record company, and producer.

So way to go all you criminals!

:idea:

[the-good-way]

Originally Posted by fetishfrog
Cool, that will put the number of organizations fighting to protect victims of music copyright infringement at a healthy 0. I rue the day.


Some artists are fine with that. Take our music, and now that you know us you can come to the shows and buy our merch.

If you *allow* them to (copy), if you are 'fine with that' , it isn't infringment. Copyright gives you that choice, you already *can* allow people to copy your work.

[skippydmongoose]

Some artists are fine with that. Take our music, and now that you know us you can come to the shows and buy our merch.

The old ways are dying. This is the age of communication, not big-bank labels taking 90% of record sales. Adapt or perish.

exactly

.0000001% of artists even see a significant $$ amount from sales

they get money from gigs and merch

they probably welcome getting their name to more people

[Nijyo]

4: HP never got a patent on "ethernet" in the 80's, so it's the common computer language today.


Ethernet was first invented at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) in the mid-70's and eventually became a joint industry standard (agreed to by umm.... 3com, Intel, and Xerox I think) in the mid-1980's.

Not so much a language so much as a network data transmission standard.

Yes, I work in computers, why do you ask :rolleyes: