COURT: RIAA CAN'T HAVE NAMES OF DOWNLOADERS

Drudge Report ^

[rit]

Federal appeals court on Friday rejected efforts by recording industry to compel nation's Internet providers to identify subscribers accused of illegally distributing music online.

[Grit]

I guess you missed the legal part. If I had recorded it off the TV it would be "fair use" as well. There was no crime and the producers and distributers profited from me when I purchashed the item. How is this a crime? your accusation is weak.

What legal part? That is your opinion. There has been a ruling on the VCR-TV issues for quite a while now, and since the RIAA gets a cut of Blank Tapes (bad idea IMHO) it was settled. Still, I believe that the justification for the ruling was a "time shift" not "fair use".

[moehoward]

Who says. There are photocopiers there for the specific purpose of copying. How much is up to you.

Also Libraries offer Music CDs, Videos, DVDs, Games on CD, etc for check out.

Is this form of file-sharing acceptable because the government supplies it?

[Moby Grape]

A great victory for the art-welfare recipients.

[Grit]

I saved the episodes on my TiVo. Am I a thief?

I don't think so. :) Using the same "Time Shift" argument that worked for VCRs you are copying a temporary copy to watch at another time. Of course, if the RIAA begins to get a cut of every TiVo sold - then you'll be extra-legal.

[mylife]

What legal part? That is your opinion.

No, "fair use" is the law when dealing with broadcast media. It is perfectly legal to record broadcast media for home use.

[Grit]

This same arguement was made back in the 70's with VCR's. Right now, I have a copy of 'E.T.' on VHS form TBS. Am I the equivilent of a downloader? The industry got around this by reaping a % from black tape sales. I believe they have done this with CDR's too.

Private home recording from television that you have a right to view (broadcast, or cable you are paying for) is just fine.

[John Robertson]

"So I should be tied to an antiquated method of distribution which forces me to pay monopoly prices? No thanks. I believe the market will solve the problem. If you would prefer that the state and a handful of media conglomerates solve the problem for you, then have at it."

I will concede that you should win an award of some sort for having strung together a record number of cliches and tired arguments, above.

"You know, we're not all out here downloading Britney Spears and Metallica. There are actually folks (both artists and consumers) who thrive on this form of communication. Not all downloaders are criminals, so please get that idea out of your head."

Actually, all downloaders are criminals, per copyright law. The issues are methods of enforcement. You don't like them, try to change them without breaking the law. And just because you call stealing "communication" doesn't make it noble. Dude.

"Some of us are out here making music and listening to music that our peers make."

Artist power, yeah, that's it! How many ways can you say garage band, anyway?

Sidebet: If you were a musician of great success, and sat down with your accountant and he told you that you were losing $80 grand a month because of worldwide downloading, I think you'd drop your We Are The World of Music position in a hot nanosecond. (And don't go with, You don't care about "commercial success," because every musician who ever said that was a liar.)

"Who are you to tell us that we can't do that?"

I'm the guy who knows you're thief.

[Grit]

If downloading the episodes of Coupling was legal, then how did Mylife commit a crime?

That is the BIG IF. Isn't it? Is it legal? I don't think so and neither does the RIAA.

[jayef]

Why not?

[mylife]

Private home recording from television that you have a right to view (broadcast, or cable you are paying for) is just fine.

So you are trying to say that because I didnt record the program off the TV, then sought it out on the internet, downloaded it, and then purchased it I committed a crime?

[Grit]

Who says. There are photocopiers there for the specific purpose of copying. How much is up to you.

Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or arbitration. If it's not a fair use, then you are infringing upon the rights of the copyright owner and may be liable for damages. More...

Is this form of file-sharing acceptable because the government supplies it?

That is not file-sharing - that is file-borrowing. No copies made.

[jayef]

Like I said, we're not all stealing music. I don't give a damn about the mass media's product. Frankly, it sucks. Gen-Y music gives me a massive headache, therefore, I choose to create my own music and share it with others who do the same. Why should I be prohibited from doing that? Why should I have to get signed on a record label for others to hear what I have created?

[Grit]

No, "fair use" is the law when dealing with broadcast media. It is perfectly legal to record broadcast media for home use.

What is broadcast about P2P file sharing?

[Grit]

That would be a clear violation of copyright.

[jayef]

You know nothing about me, or what I do. Your myopia is astounding. I find it amazing that people who are members of a site called Free Republic actually fail to understand the concept. Garage band? Talk about antiquated thinking. Do you know anything about what is happening in music today? Do you have any concept of the doors that are being opened and how quickly new ideas are flowing . . . mainly because of the p2p concept that you excoriate? You're a troglodite . . . DUDE!

[Grit]

So you are trying to say that because I didnt record the program off the TV, then sought it out on the internet, downloaded it, and then purchased it I committed a crime?

According to the current state of copyright law - I would say that you violated the copyright. Will anyone come after you? No.

[jayef]

Not necessarily so.

[Grit]

The less you take, the more likely that your copying will be excused as a fair use. However, even if you take a small portion of a work, your copying will not be a fair use if the portion taken is the "heart" of the work. In other words, you are more likely to run into problems if you take the most memorable aspect of a work. For example, it would not probably not be a fair use to copy the opening guitar riff and the words "I can't get no satisfaction" from the song, "Satisfaction."

This rule--less is more--is not necessarily true in parody cases. In a parody, the parodist is borrowing in order to comment upon the original work. A parodist is permitted to borrow quite a bit, even the heart of the original work, in order to conjure up the original work. That's because, as the Supreme Court has acknowledged, "the heart is also what most readily conjures up the [original] for parody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim. " (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music , 510 U.S. 569 (1994).)

[mylife]

What is broadcast about P2P file sharing?

Oh I see your point but the program I got off P2P was a broadcast program and I did pay for cable that carries the program. and I did buy the program on DVD. It seems that some think Im a criminal because I also utilized P2P. I fail to see how recording a show off TV and giving the tape to a friend (real P2P) would be criminal.

As I said in an earlier post the RIAA is foolish to expect the general public to know the finer points of copyright law. And damn foolish to punish the public for it.

Lawyers are smiling!! :^)