RIAA = Music Gestapo?

[kelpdiver 2]

DSE - when people talk about the RIAA these days, it usually refers to the governing leadership and their pack of hungry wolves lawyers, not the musicians that are represented.

However, if all musicians agree with your stance that the RIAA's legal tactics are appropriate, that might not remain true.

The reality is that they're fighting the wrong fight - they can't win this one and the sooner a new approach is found, the better. You can't police the internet, and especially not overseas.

I'm amazed the itunes 99cent model works as well as it does - I have a hard time with the idea of paying for a lower quality bit rate over a full sized wav file, but the old model of $18.99 albums is toast.

[DSE 5]

We're never going to reach complete agreement here, so I'll leave these thoughts...

You want your right to privacy, so do I.
However, when any crime is committed, rights to privacy are tremendously diminished. The Constitution doesn't contain the word "Privacy..." The Fourth Amendment does. It prevents a government agency from searching citizens or their property without facts or apparent facts that are reliable and generate a belief that incriminating evidence can be found on the citizens or the property.
Well...if you're downloading/uploading illegal media, the computer is obviously involved. It's where the media is stored, therefore, the illegal property is in the computer, which means your computer has no right to privacy once a warrant is obtained based on facts or apparent facts that are reliable and generate a belief that incriminating evidence can be found in the computer. A court could potentially say that for example, Outlook is off-limits to the search. However, that's probably where passwords and usernames to file sharing sites can be found, so it's not likely. Either way, "presumption of guilt" isn't so much a part of the process as the requirements for obtaining a warrant. Hopefully we can agree that a warrant isn't something easily or frivolously obtained?

You want to protect individual rights. So do I. Very much so. What about MY individual rights as an artist? Our songs, films, photos are our product, no different than PD's product is a canopy for which they enjoy patent protection. Norman Kent's product are photos and video. He's entitled to payment for use and protection from unauthorized use. I hope we agree here. Would you have a problem if he had an attorney send a letter to a DZ for selling unauthorized copies of "Willing to Fly?" Would you have a problem if the DZ refused to quit selling the DVDs, and he litigated, winning the maximum allowed by copyright law, both civil and criminal?

When our products are illegally reproduced, a crime has taken place. When those products are uploaded beyond the control of the creating individual, damages cannot be specifically measured. Copyright law provides for specific civil and criminal damages, aside from punitive damages. If you're unhappy with the damages set forth by your representatives, I'd urge you to write them to attempt changes in the laws/proscribed damages. Hopefully we can agree that while the RIAA and other industry organizations influenced Congress in setting compulsory fees, Congress acted as our representatives through the legal process that makes our country what it is?

You want the punishment to fit the crime...how does one measure the damages? Madonna's American Life experiment (while bungled and counterproductive) demonstrated that the damages easily run into the hundreds of thousands. Actual damages cannot be assessed. The point of the litigation is to demonstrate zero-tolerance, not recover money for artists. No doubt, the damages are extreme, and likely will be for a while, until an amendment is made to the laws of the land.

You specifically said "I'll sue your ass" is a replacement for "I'll kick your ass." Doesn't that infer that in your opinion an asskicking is preferable to litigation? If so, imagine 50Cent showing up on Jammie Thomas' doorstep with his 9mm because she illegally shared his music.Im' sure we both can agree this wouldn't be good for anyone.

Even if we come from the perspective that the "punishment doesn't fit the crime," I'm sure we can agree that if a crime is committed, then a crime has been committed. Regardless of who commits it.
Maybe 3-4 years ago, a parent could plead innocent to knowing their 12 year old was pillaging Napster for everything he could get. Today...parents, universities, churches, etc are responsible for what is downloaded to their computers. Your argument that someone could arbitrarily put music on your computer as a means of skirting the law or setting you up seems pretty far-fetched. I can steal a car and put it in your garage but that doesn't make you liable for the theft of the car, unless you knew it was there. I don't believe for a moment that the RIAA wants to "search every computer on the internet." The technology they use to identify persons illegally uploading/downloading music isn't terribly different than software technology used to identify distributors of child pornography. Do you suppose your local state Attorney General's office wants to search your computer for that kind of content? I'm reasonably confident we can agree that this isn't a rational belief.

It's not about a single or even a few dozen $1.00 downloads. It's about a few million downloads, created by a few thousand uploads. It's rampant. nearly 75% of those under the age of 25 have admitted to stealing AT LEAST $1000.00 worth of music. Roughly 10% of those over the age of 30 have admitted to "a few illegal downloads." I think we can agree that if 70+% of the 14-25 y/o age group admit to stealing "at least $1000.00 value" in illegal music, it's not insignificant, and a lot more than a $1.00 download.

I believe we've already agreed that artists deserve to be paid for their work.

IMV, the only place we significantly disagree is you appear to feel that since the industry is heavy handed, and the punishment doesn't fit the crime, so the crime should more or less be overlooked. In my mind, this is the same as condoning theft.

Heavy-handed though it may be (and I disagree with the $222,000.00 Thomas judgement as a punitive gesture, but it did send a hell of a messageI think we can agree that the laws of the land currently dictate that if you dont' protect that which you own, the ability to do so, even the ability to continue to own property, may be taken away from you. Whether we're talking about music or otherwise (ref Kirlin).

-The original topic was flawed. RIAA is not suing anyone for simply ripping music, the defendant was uploading unauthorized copies to sharing sites and downloading the same.

-RIAA has not sued churches for hundreds of thousands to receive royalties. ASCAP, BMI, SESAC all manage that particular avenue of music royalty distribution, completely disconnected from RIAA.

-Not everyone has illegally downloaded music, but a huge majority of the world population has. According to an industry report, 85% of Asia had not paid a penny for the millions of music downloads found there.
As the Garth Brooks/Madonna's/Eminem's of the music world comprise less than 2% of the actual working musicians recording for a living out there, these downloads are taking bread off the table of "normal working" people. Piracy hurts us all in the short and long run.

-As mentioned earlier, I'm not entirely comfortable with every aspect of how the RIAA operates, just as many skydivers are unhappy with certain aspects of the USPA or how every soldier is happy with their Commander In Chief. However, in the absence of any other representation...

It's a tough discussion when we're talking about intangible property. What is the worth of one song vs another, and how does it compare to a candy bar?
Once you consume a candy bar, it's gone, it can't be shared. Once you "consume" a song, you can listen to it again, and flawlessly reproduce it/share it with millions of others, all at the touch of a single button. Music and movies currently suffer from this convenience along with the concept of "if you can't touch it, it is worth less." This will eventually happen with books, photos, paintings, and once cheap personal fabricators hit the market, so will sculptures, designer plates, bicycles, and any other reasonable physical object.

Isn't the value in the art more than the intrinsic cost of the art? It costs SO MUCH to make a record today, and the cost of the music is so little, isn't the real value in how it makes you feel, what it recalls, and what it means to you?
Every one of us has special songs that when we hear them, it recalls magic or tragedy and allows us to relive or revive those moments. We're lifted to a higher plane, we're inspired to be something more than we might be at any given moment, as a result of the artistic expression of someone's thoughts, dreams, or rhythms.
Isn't that what deserves protection, along with the assigned value of the individual artist's work? If we don't value the artists work, then we run the risk of diminishin the value of our relationships to the art, and to ourselves.

Apologies for the length, if you read this far. It's obviously a subject on which I'm fairly passionate, as most of us are about our livelihoods.

[champu 1]

Quote

Imagine the uproar if you could create a digital copy of a physical object such as a rig, candybar, or vehicle, and pass it along to a friend. Can't be done, but the exact same principles and laws do, and should apply.

This argument is silly. If it came to pass that technology one day allowed us to create a digital copy of a physical object, who would honestly give a rat's ass about the implications that would have on copyright enforcement?

Quote

Do you feel it's OK to walk into a 7-11 and steal a handful of candy bars to hand out to your buddies?

Enforcement of IP rights is a tricky problem. Record labels know this well from the compact disc DRM fiascos a few years back. Analogies like this one do a disservice to those who recognize it to be a tricky problem and come up with more elegant solutions than trying to sue anything that represents change.

If the RIAA wants to gather evidence against people and file lawsuits, and they feel it is in their long-term best interest to do so... well... that's their choice, but they need to cut out the vigilante bullshit. Storming establishments in RIAA uniforms with badges... attempts to shake down ISPs for information with no court subpoena... loading their CDs with software that trashes the computer's driver files... programs like this that (imho) call in to question their ability to really do anything in good faith...

It would seem the courts are just as busy trying to keep a leash on the rabid beast that the RIAA has become as they are with hearing cases that it brings against people.

[DSE 5]

Quote

If it came to pass that technology one day allowed us to create a digital copy of a physical object, who would honestly give a rat's ass about the implications that would have on copyright enforcement?

Uh...the technology already exists. And is expected to be less than a $1000.00 on a desktop by 2015 if not sooner.

Quote

It would seem the courts are just as busy trying to keep a leash on the rabid beast that the RIAA has become as they are with hearing cases that it brings against people.

No, it wouldn't. The ratio is about 25,000:1

[bluheelrtx 0]

Quote

Instead of having to buy CDs that have one or two songs we like and a bunch of "filler songs" we can now get only the songs we want.

Walt

Gotta disagree with you again, Walt. 99% of the songs I love the most have not been the crappy teen slobber singles heard on the radio. The albums released by the artists that really qualify to be called artists are more than just a single with "filler". They are cohesive compilations of creatively arranged songs.

--
Jason
--
Some people never go crazy. What truly boring lives they must lead.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Quote

Instead of having to buy CDs that have one or two songs we like and a bunch of "filler songs" we can now get only the songs we want.

Walt

Gotta disagree with you again, Walt. 99% of the songs I love the most have not been the crappy teen slobber singles heard on the radio. The albums released by the artists that really qualify to be called artists are more than just a single with "filler". They are cohesive compilations of creatively arranged songs.

No disagreement at all but I don't think most albums are in that realm.

Walt

[champu 1]

I'm familiar with rapid prototyping, and many of the advances in the field, but that has nothing to do with creating digital copies of things that are complex enough to even resemble the situation you originally suggested as a comparison to the current IP state of affairs.

Regarding my other statement, I wasn't comparing the number of times the RIAA has been reprimanded to the number of settlements the RIAA has managed to obtain, I was making an underhanded comment about how the RIAA doesn't like to actually use courts, preferring instead to do their own searching of people's computers, sequestering of information from 3rd parties, and threatening of people into paying them. There have even been situations where the RIAA went after someone, that person was forced to put a defense together, and when the RIAA realized they were going to lose, they tried to weasel out of having to reimburse the defendent for the legal fees.

I don't want to go 'round and 'round over this. I think the protection of intellectual property is a serious issue, and I don't argue that copying music/software/etc. is "okay." What I am arguing is that companies like Microsoft and organizations like the RIAA are employing pig-headed and draconian measures to try and provide this protection, and in some cases they give as little regard to law in pursuit of their personal interests as those who are doing the infringing.

[Guest]

Music has existed for thousands of years.

It's only been recently that technology allowed it to be recorded and distributed.

RIAA was very happy when they controlled the entire revenue stream and was able to screw both musicians and consumers.

They've lost the war but they won't admit defeat.

Musicians should be in front of a paying audience, performing live music.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[DSE 5]

Quote

They've lost the war but they won't admit defeat.

Musicians should be in front of a paying audience, performing live music.

mh
.

Should the industry wish to, it could easily go back to only live music (that would suck/EVERYONE loses), or restrictive DRM schemes could be placed on media that would prevent people from enjoying their music when/how they want it. Or subscription-based services could take over. But musicians want to sell music, consumers want to listen to it. So, musicians record. Therefore, there will always exist a Recording Industry Association in some form or another.
RIAA controls nothing. It's an association, nothing more.

[billvon 3,121]

>Imagine the uproar if you could create a digital copy of a physical object
>such as a rig, candybar, or vehicle, and pass it along to a friend. Can't be
>done, but the exact same principles and laws do, and should apply.

That CAN be done to an extent now. We have a 3D printer in our department that can create a physical copy of most anything. These will improve with time. I can download the files for a sculpture, or a kid's toy, or a model car body and print it.

Technology changes laws. Our concept of privacy changed radically with the advent of electronic communications, and our concept of ownership has changed radically with intangibles that can be owned (like airtime, or bandwidth, or web site names.)

Artists can and should be compensated for their work. This was traditionally done by charging a certain amount of $$ for a concert. If the artist was more popular, he garnered more fans and made more money.

Then recording came onto the scene. This wasn't too much of a change; now they just charged a certain $$ per copy, assuming that people would want to buy a copy of their song so they could play it back later.

Then transmission came onto the scene. Now this got a little more muddied. A _corporation_ bought the right to rebroadcast it to a lot of people so they could sell X (ads, airtime, a product, whatever.) People could listen to the song - and not pay for it! That was odd. But still, someone was paying the artist.

Then easy recording came onto the scene. A user could record off FM to reel-to-reel and have a permanent record of what was sent to their house. This was more complex. Did making a recording of something sent freely to a user violate anything? This was largely decided in 1984, where the courts decided that making a copy of a broadcast for the purposes of time-shifting (i.e. watching or listening to it at another time) was a fair use of the material.

We've been operating under that paradigm for a long time now. You can record near-CD quality from XM radio onto a PC and store it under fair use laws. You can do the same with Tivo-like devices for broadcast TV. You can legally share files on your PC with other users. The conjunction of these two technologies is what is creating all the fuss lately.

This problem isn't an easily solvable one. Technology will never go away, and people will continue to be more, rather than less, connected. The solution, I suspect, will come not from new laws that enable the police to observe your every move, but rather from new models of commerce that do not rely on exclusive ownership of electronic copies of source material.

Technology inevitably changes things. I think we are seeing the end of one era (big record companies that sell recordings) and the beginning of a new era (smaller music companies that manage artists, place their recordings in the public domain, then charge for concerts and commercial uses of the material.) Will that be better or worse? Worse for lawyers, certainly - there will be far fewer lawsuits and whatnot. Worse for record company executives. Better for musicians, I think, in the long run. By removing the steep entry barriers (music company support of acceptably successful musicians) more artists will have the opportunity to get their material out there.

[DSE 5]

I'm not exactly sure why you responded to me, as your post supports everything I've previously posted, including fabrication printers (although some felt it's not a relevant concern, I do feel it is relevant). I'm sure we'll soon start seeing sculpture, for example, being scanned and pirated for home fabricators.

We discussed satellite radio over here.
The issue will soon reach far, far beyond the music industry. RIAA is Gestapo? Then so is MPAA, and so is PPA, and AAPS. And any other representative group.

I also agree (and posted as much) that the days of the large labels as we know them, are just about over. I'll be signing with a web-based label when my time with Virgin is done. Madonna signed with LiveNation, Paul McCartney signed with Hear/Starbucks, and many other artists are bucking tradition as well. I think it's a good thing.

What I don't feel is a good thing, is that some folks seem to think theft of any kind, whether it's music, video, photographs, or any other digital object is acceptable, or that thieves of those objects shouldn't be punished.

That said, I can't help but wonder what moron(s) at the decided to go after (and win) against a woman that they'll never, ever collect from. Unless that was the objective, win against someone who they couldn't collect from, who also has no chance in hell on appeal. Nice coincidence is that her attorney is a skydiver.

Quote

You can legally share files on your PC with other users

If in this, you mean you can have a music file on your PC and send a copy of that file to someone else, no, you cannot. You *can* in a home environment, have a music server or shared files on a computer that your children or spouse can access over a home network, and listen to at the same time.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

You can legally share files on your PC with other users

If in this, you mean you can have a music file on your PC and send a copy of that file to someone else, no, you cannot. You *can* in a home environment, have a music server or shared files on a computer that your children or spouse can access over a home network, and listen to at the same time.

He was very clear.

1) music is easily converted to digital files now
2) it is legal to share files you own. Your own videos, pictures, etc. There is no question about this.

The combination of the two leads to the crisis faced by the music industry now. The MPAA is gestapo too, but the reality is that it's not (yet) easy to share/download movies. Because of the great difference in size (1000x), people are mostly exchanging low quality copies. People are copying DVDs, but at the physical level, rather than across the net.

The DRM hope is a false one - consumers won't put up with the hassle of effective ones. Sony guaranteed this with their root kit fiasco.

[DSE 5]

No, it is not legal to share music you've ripped from CD's, which is why I ask for the clarification. You can share it on a network within your home, but you may not copy it to another mechanical device.
you do not "own" the contents of a CD or DVD. You "own" a shiny piece of plastic. You can use it for target practice, frisbee, or as a coaster if you don't want to listen to it, but you may not rip music from it and share it outside of a home network server system.
If the RIAA and MPAA are the Gestapo, then every person who has a lock on their home/car and would prosecute a thief also is Gestapo.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

That CAN be done to an extent now. We have a 3D printer in our department that can create a physical copy of most anything. These will improve with time. I can download the files for a sculpture, or a kid's toy, or a model car body and print it.

Do you mean Z Corp & Dimension Printing? Or something else?

What's it printing with? A polymeric epoxy or something else?

From a nerd/geek perspective, the 3-D printers of which I am aware are *very* cool, but they're replicating a CAD design in a single material (sometimes w/dyes).

I've been debunking folks who assert that those are prototype for a 'Drexlerian' nano-assemblers for a number of years now.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[ExAFO 0]

http://tinyurl.com/3cuaj8<-I think this kinda sums it up.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[billvon 3,121]

> No, it is not legal to share music you've ripped from CD's . . .

It is legal to share files from your computer to another computer. If the files contain copyrighted material, that may well be illegal - but the basic act of sharing files is not illegal.

In other words, the argument that "torrents/FTP/sharing sites should be shut down because it's illegal" has no merit.

> but you may not rip music from it and share it outside of a
>home network server system.

Sure you can. I can load it onto an MP3 player and let my wife listen to it. I can buy a karaoke CD, rip it to an MP3 player and use it to perform a song at the Cock Chorus at Lost Prairie (which I've done.) I can make up a CD with the music on my hard drive and play it at the company picnic.

The biggest prohibition is commercial usage, and that's the place where it's pretty clear. If I make a compilation of 90's music and sell the CD's, that's clearly a violation. If I make a compilation of 90's music and give it to someone to play at a DZ party, strictly speaking it's not. If he keeps the CD and then plays it for his own amusement? Or if I get known for this and invited to swanky parties because I make good CD's, and thus avoid the cover charge? And they get played when I'm not there to attract business? That's where it gets murky.

All of which is why the future will likely involve less wrassling over what's a legal copy and what's not, and more emphasis on free and open sharing of material with the money being made on live performances.

I liken copying MP3's onto a mix CD and giving them to your girlfriend's roommate (technically illegal) as akin to going to a speakeasy and drinking beer during Prohibition. Yes, it is, strictly speaking, illegal. But it's also pretty clear that change is in the air.

[billvon 3,121]

>Do you mean Z Corp & Dimension Printing?

Currently using a 3D Systems InVision printer, but they may be replacing that due to some problems we've seen (fragility and problems with the matrix removal.)

>but they're replicating a CAD design in a single material (sometimes w/dyes

Basically yes. We use them to manufacture cellphone case parts for prototype runs.

>I've been debunking folks who assert that those are prototype for a
>'Drexlerian' nano-assemblers for a number of years now.

Well, we're pretty far from that, but we can now copy gross mechanical things (like statues and keys) and are close to being able to copy detailed mechanical objects (like locks.)

[champu 1]

Quote

(although some felt it's not a relevant concern, I do feel it is relevant)

I simply don't feel that within the foreseeable evolution of 3d printing (barring a seriously non-trivial revolution in the technology rendering it all but incomparable to today's technology) a threat is posed to physical object producers that compares to the threat the proliferation of medium to high-bandwidth internet connections has posed to copyright holders.

As I said from my first reply, by the time we reach a point where a machine can reproduce something as complicated as a candy bar (which is much more complicated than a mere skydiving rig from a "how do you print it?" stand point) for less than the cost of a candy bar, we will be a society that probably doesn't care much about how anyone is monetarily compensated for anything they do.

[DSE 5]

Quote

It is legal to share files from your computer to another computer. If the files contain copyrighted material, that may well be illegal

You may not legally share copyrighted works over a network outside of your home.
You cannot legally play a DVD on a small or big screen in your church (unless you've got a license from MPLC) or at a block party if the DVD is copyrighted, whether you charge for the viewing or not.
You cannot legally copy copyrighted media to another physical device for another person to use, view, or manipulate while maintaining your own copy. Why do you think UGC sites are being sued right and left? Aside from the mechanical infringement, they are also duplication and sync infringements (in the case of video synced to music). YouTube is attempting (badly) to address this through AudioSwap).

Quote

The biggest prohibition is commercial usage,

Wrong. Copyright law applies equally to whether you're making 1 copy or 100 copies. The difference is in the size of fine you'll pay. Statutory damages are $750 for each violation/infringement. Starting at one.

You're arguing semantics; just because one *can*/has the ability to rip a CD and share it with their friends doesn't mean it's legal. I can drive 100mph in a school zone, too.
You can legally rip a CD or DVD (assuming it's not encrypted) to *any* personal listening/viewing device or media for your own use.

Something is really wrong when grownups are of a mind that it's acceptable to copy music from a CD to pass out to their friends, whether on another CD or over a network. It's theft. It may be theft akin to stealing a piece of candy from the Brach's bin a the supermarket, but it's still theft.
And no...change isn't in the air on this particular aspect of the issue. No one has proposed amending Berne, TEACH, UCITA, Fair Use, or any other aspect of the copyright code to allow you to make duplicates of copyrighted works for distribution among friends, relatives, or coworkers (or tandem students). Quite the opposite, actually. The NET Act for example, targets noncommercial piracy including posting copyrighted photos, videos or news articles on a Web site if the value exceeds $1,000 and the Net Act is possibly going to be amended to lower that value to $500. DCMA is likely going to be made more stringent in 2008.
US Copyright Code: 18 U.S.C. § 2319A

17 U.S.C. § 506. Criminal offenses

(a) Criminal Infringement.--Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
(b) Forfeiture and Destruction.--When any person is convicted of any violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of conviction shall, in addition to the penalty therein prescribed, order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all infringing copies or phonorecords and all implements, devices, or equipment used in the manufacture of such infringing copies or phonorecords.

***What is "private financial gain?"
H.R. 2265 (The NET Act) clarifies that the “private financial gain” element of criminal infringement includes barter — that is, situations where the illegal copies are traded for items of value such as other copyrighted works, not only where they are sold for money. Second, it redefines criminal infringement to include willful infringement by reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, that lacks a commercial motive but has a substantial commercial effect.

[billvon 3,121]

>You cannot legally play a DVD on a small or big screen in your
>church (unless you've got a license from MPLC) or at a block party if the
>DVD is copyrighted, whether you charge for the viewing or not.

Nope. You can play it at any private assembly of people, even if you do not buy a license for everyone who sees it, provided you do not charge for it. Doesn't matter if it's you and your wife, or you, your wife and 300 other people. (Provided there is no compensation for it, of course.) As an example, I can play the HD "Planet Earth" series of DVD's at a barbecue I have at my house.

If, of course, you have a "Warren Miller block party" and charge people to get in to see Warren Miller films - then you have to pay royalties.

>You cannot legally copy copyrighted media to another physical device for
>another person to use, view, or manipulate while maintaining your own
>copy.

Again, I can copy it to my MP3 device and give it to my wife (or loan it to a friend) so they can listen to it as well. Indeed, the earliest cassette players were intended specifically for this purpose. They all came with two headphone jacks, because Sony could not imagine people would want to listen to it by themselves.

And again, you can't sell or rent the device, or allow other copies to be made.

>It may be theft akin to stealing a piece of candy from the Brach's bin a the supermarket . . .

More akin to taking a picture of the Statue of Liberty or the Cherry Spoon in Minneapolis and giving it to your friend as a present. After all, YOU didn't take the time and effort to build the thing, but are getting benefit from its reproduction.

>And no...change isn't in the air on this particular aspect of the issue.

It is indeed. And the companies/groups/organizations that capitalize on this new means of doing business will win out in the end, while the people who try to hang on to the older business models will go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers.

[DSE 5]

Quote

Nope. You can play it at any private assembly of people, even if you do not buy a license for everyone who sees it, provided you do not charge for it. Doesn't matter if it's you and your wife, or you, your wife and 300 other people. (Provided there is no compensation for it, of course.) As an example, I can play the HD "Planet Earth" series of DVD's at a barbecue I have at my house.

No Bill, you cannot legally do so. Not within the scenario which you describe. A Public Performance License is required. Theatrically released titles have either been shown in theaters or, in some cases, been released straight to video consumer market. These DVD/videos are sold and/or rented as Home Use Only titles. Says so right on the front of the DVD when you play it. Many DVDs specifically say that there is no Public Performance License granted, although law does not require the license to be displayed. Check out Title 17 of US Copyright law. In the event you don't wish to read it, here is a summary:
Neither the rental nor the purchase of a movie carries with it the right to show the movie outside the home. In some instances no license is required to view a movie, such as inside the home by family or social acquaintances and in certain narrowly defined face-to-face teaching activities. Taverns, restaurants, private clubs, prisons, lodges, factories, summer camps, public libraries, daycare facilities, parks and recreation departments, churches and non-classroom use at schools and universities are all examples of situations where a public performance license must be obtained. This legal requirement applies regardless of whether an admission fee is charged, whether the institution or organization is commercial or non-profit, or whether a federal or state agency is involved.


You want to keep playing semantics and what-if's, that's fine, but you're wrong until you prove otherwise.

[Unstable 9]

Whether or not you agree with the cases filed against the RIAA, I was cruising some of the related websites and found the site www.p2plawsuits.com where people who are caught are directed to to settle before any law suits begin. They have a FAQ section which I found very interesting. I thought the answers to all of the questions were IMHO intimidation and condescending, but that's just me. I guess in their mind, they are talking down to someone just as you would talk down to an ordinary thief. Some seemed overly dramatic....

Quote

If I promise never to do this again, do I still have to pay?

Yes. The settlements are designed to recoup a very small piece of the massive damage inflicted on the music community as a result of piracy.

Quote

Why are the record companies filing these lawsuits?

The unauthorized uploading or downloading of music is illegal. It is just as wrong as shoplifting from a local record store – and the impact on those who create music and bring it to fans is equally devastating.

These just seem dramatic.....

=========Shaun ==========

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

They've lost the war but they won't admit defeat.

Musicians should be in front of a paying audience, performing live music.

mh
.

Should the industry wish to, it could easily go back to only live music (that would suck/EVERYONE loses), or restrictive DRM schemes could be placed on media that would prevent people from enjoying their music when/how they want it. Or subscription-based services could take over. But musicians want to sell music, consumers want to listen to it. So, musicians record. Therefore, there will always exist a Recording Industry Association in some form or another.
RIAA controls nothing. It's an association, nothing more.

Bah. Imagine if OPEC (an "association" like RIAA) no longer controlled the price of a barrel of oil.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[DSE 5]

Quote

Bah. Imagine if OPEC (an "association" like RIAA) no longer controlled the price of a barrel of oil.

mh
.

No kidding. If the RIAA were run by the US government like OPEC is run by its respective governments, we'd be paying 100.00 for a CD/DVD.

[billvon 3,121]

> A Public Performance License is required.

I think you may have missed the "private" part of my example. As another example, I once carried along the 300 way DVD to Oregon and showed it to Amy's parents, and to a bunch of skydivers we met there. Also OK. (Not surprising since your list of legal unlicensed usage uses includes all the examples I gave.)

I agree with you that commercial uses of such material must be additionally licensed - but most private usage (whether for one person or 100) does not require such additional licensing. Again, per your list.

>Please cite where "change is in the air."

It is in fact happening. It is next to impossible to enforce limitations on distribution of copyrighted material, and most of the DRM schemes attempted have either not been very resistant to attempts to get around them, or have not caught on. As a result, widescale distribution of copyrighted material has become pretty common.

Providers are down on DRM as well. Apple is pressuring its labels to remove DRM from their content, and they are beginning to comply. (EMI has already removed it.) Sony is removing it as well.

The EFF has helped defend a large number of people accused of copyright theft, and they are quite often successful. They advocate for "open source" models of distribution.

The Copyleft concept has caught on, and peer-to-peer superdistribution now makes distribution of material nearly free, highly efficient and automatic. Copyleft is applied primarily to software, but some musicians release copylefted material for free dissemination.

Copyleft schemes support their artists by having a free portal that provides music. it contains the search tools needed to easily find materials that the customer wants. While that's happening the system is showing ads about Nike, ads about another artist and requests for contributions.

The user then has one new song. He might look on an FTP site for another song he likes, but why? The search features of the copyleft site make it easier to use than an FTP client.

At the end of the transaction the system asks for a $1 a song copying fee, which they get voluntarily half the time (for example.) You get the ad click-through income and the voluntary money. The money thus made supports the site and a percentage is given to the artist. Far less money in but FAR less money out - no trucks, stores, shrink-wrapped CD's etc.

That's nothing new, though. The Grateful Dead were allowing (actually encouraging) bootleg recordings for a long time before DRM was even an idea.

>You're not going to find Congress taking away the rights of recording
>artists, not now, and not for a long, long time to come, if ever.

For now I agree. The change won't come from Congress, it will come from the musicians themselves. Once more and more musicians put free music on their website, the laws won't initially change but public perception will, and _that_ will drive changes to the laws.

Consider the old laws on the telephone system. You were not allowed - by law - to maintain the telephone system within your house. The Phone Company had to do that. There were a lot of cited reasons - controlling the all-important national communications system, preventing damage, ensuring quality service, consumer safety etc. Once Ma Bell was broken up, these laws stayed on the books. People, though, faced with cheaper off-the-shelf phones and long waits while a baby Bell got a technician out there, started doing their own wiring. After a while the laws just plain dropped off the books. (They still exist in some municipalities but are ignored.)

Why? Is the 105 volt ring signal any less deadly? Have people gotten smarter? Nope. It was just ignored so often that people stopped heeding it.