Ripping a CD you own is STEALING... [Archive]

HappyMartin

10-03-2007, 03:44 AM

Buying 45's! We must be about the same age then. What I mean by angering existing clients is a reference to people that would not pirate software, music etc but are still then subjected to onerous procedures to be able to enjoy their purchases. I will give an example of software. We run 5 copies of Adobe Photoshop at my studio. Installing upgrades is made complicated by having to prove we have the previous copy we are updating from and being online in order to activate the product. You may transfer the software from one machine to another but need to do the transfer from the machine currently activated. Should that machine die unexpectedly you then have to get on the phone and answer a bunch of questions. People cracking the software are subjected to none of this. In Adobes defense I would also be fed up with the piracy and their system does work pretty well.

I have a 4X4 vehicle with an mp3 enabled cd player and stick 6 or 7 discs on one cd. This protects my original discs and cuts down on what I carry about when heading off to the wilds of Lesotho or Namibia. My music is almost as important to me as my books. I would never pirate either but now it seems that I am breaking the law by ripping my own discs to use on a holiday where a lot of CD's are awkward to manage. This does irritate me as I do my best not to break the law. It does cut down on my enthusiasm. I am sure that my practise of copying my CD's to use while on holiday or on a photo shoot was not the primary target of Sony's copyright position. I see this as me being collateral damage.

Now I will really show my age.:oops2: I think the problem is a fundamental lack of a basis for morality other than being caught and punished. This applies equally to corporates and individuals.

rlauzon

10-03-2007, 04:01 AM

This doublespeak is old news, really.

Here's what the EFF said back in 2006:
"It is no secret that the entertainment oligopolists are not happy about space-shifting and format-shifting. But surely ripping your own CDs to your own iPod passes muster, right? In fact, didn't they admit as much in front of the Supreme Court during the MGM v. Grokster argument last year?"

Full article (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004409.php)

The RIAA claimed in 2005 that it was perfectly legal to rip CDs.

Not to mention that ripping CDs for personal use is very clearly fair use.

HarryT

10-03-2007, 04:13 AM

The RIAA claimed in 2005 that it was perfectly legal to rip CDs.

Not to mention that ripping CDs for personal use is very clearly fair use.

This case is not about downloading music, but about offering it for upload by others. Whatever one may believe about the legality, or even the morality of ripping your own CDs, it's clearly not acceptable to make music tracks available for other people to download from you, is it?

HarryT

10-03-2007, 04:17 AM

I will give an example of software. We run 5 copies of Adobe Photoshop at my studio. Installing upgrades is made complicated by having to prove we have the previous copy we are updating from and being online in order to activate the product. You may transfer the software from one machine to another but need to do the transfer from the machine currently activated. Should that machine die unexpectedly you then have to get on the phone and answer a bunch of questions. People cracking the software are subjected to none of this. In Adobes defense I would also be fed up with the piracy and their system does work pretty well.

I agree with you; many of the "activation" procedures required by modern PC software (especially games) are onerous in the extreme. I guess that's perhaps why the games industry is shifting towards "closed" games consoles like the Sony Playstation and Microsoft XBox which can be "locked down" and hence effectively eliminate piracy.

I have a 4X4 vehicle with an mp3 enabled cd player and stick 6 or 7 discs on one cd. This protects my original discs and cuts down on what I carry about when heading off to the wilds of Lesotho or Namibia. My music is almost as important to me as my books. I would never pirate either but now it seems that I am breaking the law by ripping my own discs to use on a holiday where a lot of CD's are awkward to manage.

I do the same thing myself, but at least in the UK it's not legal to do so. I don't believe it's wrong to do it, but technically it's not legal.

rlauzon

10-03-2007, 04:58 AM

This case is not about downloading music, but about offering it for upload by others. Whatever one may believe about the legality, or even the morality of ripping your own CDs, it's clearly not acceptable to make music tracks available for other people to download from you, is it?

Legally, no. It's not acceptable.

Morally, yes. Because the current copyright laws are unfair to the general public (there's no excuse whatsoever for copyright to go beyond the author's death) and laws like the DMCA attempt to take away the rights of consumers.

HarryT

10-03-2007, 05:09 AM

But most of the music being "shared" is "current" stuff. That surely deserves copyright protection, don't you think? The number of artists who remain popular past their death is relatively small.

This case has nothing to do with the DMCA. It's straightforward copyright violation - illegal distribution of copyrighted material - nothing to do with DRM or anything like that.

TadW

10-03-2007, 05:10 AM

HarryT

10-03-2007, 05:14 AM

Please allow me to clarify. While ripping your own CDs is unquestionably illegal in the UK, I don't believe that it's immoral to do so for personal use. This case is about making copyrighted material available for download on the internet, not about copying something you've bought for personal use.

Yes, I use iTunes to manage my own collection of digitised music and audiobooks. Superb software. I've never used the iTunes store, however; I prefer to buy CDs and digitize them myself (and yes, I freely admit that I am breaking UK law by doing so).

TadW

10-03-2007, 05:18 AM

Please allow me to clarify. While ripping your own CDs is unquestionably illegal in the UK, I don't believe that it's immoral to do so for personal use.

How can it be moral to break the law?

HarryT

10-03-2007, 05:27 AM

That's a decision that we have to make individually. Was it moral not to denounce Jews in Nazi Germany? Some might consider it to be so, even though it was illegal.

CommanderROR

10-03-2007, 05:32 AM

I think this whole copyright and DRM stuff is really shooting your own foot.
While I am all for buying your own software, music and books, I don't see any reason why this should be more time-consuming than just downloading them illegally and for free.
Ripping your own CDs so you can use them on your mp3 Player or iPod should however always be allowed, no matter what, just like creating mp3 CDs. Not allowing that is simply stupid and more or less forces people into illegality...and once you have gone one step into illeality then you can go all the way right...?

There are ways to fight piracy. I can speak from my own experience.

I used to download music from time to time...I'm a musician and sometimes needed a certain piece that I had to prepare and wanted to listen to. Now, CD stores in town usually have lots of crap(Pop)music CDs, but very little in the ways of classical music. So getting what I wanted was quite difficult usually. Also, I often neede a certain piece, not a whole collection of tracks, and getting that in a CD shop was of course out of the question.
Illegal sources usually had what I needed, they also had it immediately (no need to order and wait, pay shipping...) and for free.
So, of course the temptation to sownload illegal stuff is huge...

Today, I have iTunes. Ever since I installed this software I have been down to alsomst 0 illegal downloads.

Why "almost"?

Well, sometimes I just can't find what I'm looking for on iTunes. I then go to town. If I don't find it there (which is almost 100% sure since iTunes has quite a lot of music available) I download it where I CAN find it. But it hardly ever happens. And this is exactly the way to reduce piracy.
Of course iTunes has DRM, they force you to use an iPod if you want to take your music with you (or burn it on a CD and use any CD-Man so that's Ok) but the only problems I have with their current system are:

1) My girlfriend can't use my music and vice versa
2) I can't redownload tracks for free if I lose my iTunes folder
3) Soemtimes I have to buy the whole CD if a track is longer than a certain, set time

Apart from 2) these are not big issues, so this system works, and someting similar for books, movies, games and software would help a lot of people and of course also keep music sales high.

But if the RIAA and their friends continue the way they are going at the moment, making life difficult and still doing nothing about piracy, then more and more people will move to the pirate bay and just take what they want for free without the hassle...and I would understand and even support them!
Piracy should be discouraged, but it's the "how" that matters!
Stop making legally purchasing and using stuff more difficult. A certain amount of protection is needed to discourage "casual" pirates, but that's it. You can't stop the real hardcore hackers. That's a waste of time and money.

HarryT

10-03-2007, 05:38 AM

But if the RIAA and their friends continue the way they are going at the moment, making life difficult and still doing nothing about piracy, then more and more people will move to the pirate bay and just take what they want for free without the hassle...and I would understand and even support them!

To repeat yet again, this court case is not about casual downloaders, but someone who appears to have systematically and intentionally uploaded a large number of tunes. One may accept that "casual piracy" cannot be prevented, but systematic uploaders can - and IMHO should - be prosecuted with the full force of the law.

CommanderROR

10-03-2007, 05:42 AM

@HarryT

casual piracy CAN be prevented or at least reduced, but real, professional piracy in any area, be it hackers or uploaders can't.
All you can hope to do is offer people a legal method that they like more than the illegal method.
That way, the person on trial can upload all she wants...if nobody downloads it's pretty much irrelevant.

HappyMartin

10-03-2007, 05:48 AM

Thats my point ComanderROR. certain practices make it more difficult to be legal than a pirate.

CommanderROR

10-03-2007, 05:53 AM

HarryT

10-03-2007, 06:25 AM

I'd like to give an example from a different area...

Smoking and Alcohol...

Both are forms of drugs, dangerous to individuals and their environment.

Now, you could make a law that says "Smoking is illegal". What would happen is, that the whole deal would go underground. It has happened with Alcohol (Prohibition?)
Now, if you start to teach people that smoking is dangerous, raise prices for cigarettes and make smoking "more difficult" by not allowing it in public places and things like that you won't get immediate effects, but you will see a slowly diminishing number of smokers. We're having this "slow change" in Europe at the moment, and it is working It's slow because the addicts don't die quickly and there is still far too much "Media-induced coolness-factor connected with smoking", but give it another 10-20 years and we might have quite considerably reduced our number of smokers.
This is of course a process that works the other way round, but in principle it's the same
story.

I agree with you and that takes us back to what we were saying earlier, that it needs a change in culture. 30 years ago it was socially acceptable to smoke, and virtually everybody did it. Today, in the UK, if you smoke you are treated virtually as though you had leprosy :). The same change in attitude needs to take place with downloading material from the internet, and people (especially children) need to be taught that simply because it's not a "material object", that doesn't make it acceptable to use it without paying for it.

CommanderROR

10-03-2007, 07:01 AM

agreed.

HappyMartin

10-03-2007, 07:02 AM

Amen to that

JSWolf

10-03-2007, 07:51 AM

What I really find objectionable is protected CDs. I see nothing wrong with downloading music from a CD that you are unable to rip due to it being protected.

Steve Jordan

10-03-2007, 07:53 AM

Azayzel

10-03-2007, 07:56 AM

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Martin; the basic problem is a fundamental lack of respect for intellectual property rights among many people today. When I was a teenager (in the mid 70s), me and virtually all my friends used to buy "45" records every week with our pocket money. These days, teenagers generally steal music by illegally downloading it. Is it any wonder that the record companies are trying to do something about these criminals?

I agree, but also disagree simply because we also recorded what we wanted to off of the radio when we wanted the song. You can still do this today with any FM recording device, that's not stealing in my book or the millions of others who did so either.

JSWolf

10-03-2007, 07:59 AM

Without due process, it's unconstitutional. If the RIAA says I've been stealing music, then they need to show evidence of this other then just tell everyone I have been.

HarryT

10-03-2007, 08:02 AM

I agree, but also disagree simply because we also recorded what we wanted to off of the radio when we wanted the song. You can still do this today with any FM recording device, that's not stealing in my book or the millions of others who did so either.

Perhaps you see nothing wrong in it, but it sure ain't legal, at least not here in the UK. Might be different in the US, but I rather doubt it. That's the reason that, in the UK, a tax levy was imposed on blank cassette tapes back in the 1970s or 80s which was subsequently distributed to the music industry specifically because they successfully argued that virtually all cassette tapes were being used to illegally record copyrighted material. We still have such a levy imposed on "CDR-Audio" CDs, which are used in HiFi CD recorders.

jasonkchapman

10-03-2007, 09:50 AM

This is the state of U.S. laws on digital file protection today. Unlike other copyright protection laws, digital laws allow the accuser to take unilateral steps against the accused before due process, and that's what needs to be fixed.

This is probably going to sound like I disagree with you, but I don't. The DMCA is bad law. Period. It violates fails every test for clarity and objective standards and it's seriously misguided at its core.

In fairness, though, it's not entirely the law that is the problem. The law doesn't compel an ISP to pull a user's account on the basis of an unsupported accusation. ISPs who are unwilling to risk testing the cases in civil court are just rolling over. In part, I believe, this is because they're caught in a no-man's land between common carrier and content producer. No one has absolved them of responsibility for what travels through their servers, but the culture is resistant to ISPs that pry too closely.

Also, and this is more a technicality, but when it comes to civil court anyone can drag anyone into court at any time with little or no evidence. The only risk to the one who brings suit is that bringing frivolous lawsuits can often end in successful counter-suits when they're tossed out.

HarryT

10-03-2007, 10:34 AM

Also, and this is more a technicality, but when it comes to civil court anyone can drag anyone into court at any time with little or no evidence. The only risk to the one who brings suit is that bringing frivolous lawsuits can often end in successful counter-suits when they're tossed out.

The main discouragement to frivolous lawsuits here in the UK is that, in almost all circumstances, the loser has to pay both sides' legal costs. Is that not the case in the US?

delphidb96

10-03-2007, 11:19 AM

The main discouragement to frivolous lawsuits here in the UK is that, in almost all circumstances, the loser has to pay both sides' legal costs. Is that not the case in the US?

HarryT,

I will grant you that this woman *clearly* had every intent of stealing the music. I will grant that she had clear intent of sharing her ill-gotten goods with others - denying the music publishers' of their rightful profits. I will grant that even under the most liberal theft and intellectual property rights laws, this was criminal behavior.

HOWEVER! There's one fact you're wilfully ignoring about this. The lawyer made a statement - for the court record - that *ANY* attempt by a person to rip a CD from downloaded music - and she clearly chose to *NOT* narrow that down to illegally downloaded music - was a criminal act. There are websites which will legally sell a customer music to download. By her words, even though the customer bought the music legally, if they choose to rip a CD, for whatever purpose - even such as making a backup storage disc - they are committing a 'crime'.

Now here's the problem with that statement. As her words are part of the trial, if the judge decides the plaintiff is right *AND* does not clarify, as part of his ruling, that the act of ripping a CD for personal use/music backup is not covered by the ruling, under such a scenario other cases can be brought against those who *are* trying to legally back up their legally-purchased music. In essence, we could, by crass manipulation on the part of the plaintiff's lawyer and oversight by the judge, find ourselves 'made criminal' after the fact -ex post facto is, I think, the term. And that's wrong, morally wrong!

Derek

Steve Jordan

10-03-2007, 11:53 AM

Without due process, it's unconstitutional. If the RIAA says I've been stealing music, then they need to show evidence of this other then just tell everyone I have been.

Sure it is. But that doesn't stop them from manipulating your ISP and taking you to court.

You may not be convicted, but once it's over, it can do damage to your rep that you might never overturn, while the RIAA will not be liable for such damage.

Alisa

10-03-2007, 12:07 PM

The question isn't whether or not file "stealers" should be prosecuted. The issue here is whether the companies and authorities are stacking the deck unfairly by writing laws that essentially make us all criminals, and therefore liable for prosecution if we just happen to be the one somebody else names.

That's not particularly unusual here. Technically I can be cited any time I drive over the speed limit by 1 MPH or walk across an empty street without a light. Am I? No. Selective enforcement. It gives the justice system leeway to prosecute and can work pretty well a lot of the time as long as they're being reasonable. Technically those mix tapes I made in the 80s were illegal, but no one was interested in busting me. They're interested in busting the people who are really costing them money, like the lady who had over a thousand songs available for download to whoever wanted them. Is this an ideal situation? No. Can it be abused? Yes. Do I have a better suggestion? No. I wish I did.

Right now, that is the situation (in the U.S.). If Apple, for instance, decides I have been stealing from iTunes by disseminating their files for free, whether they have proof or not, they can take me to court. They do not have to present their proof first, in order to drag me into court. They can unilaterally tell my ISP to cut me off, without informing me first, and without proof that I've done anything wrong, my ISP will (in most cases) comply without question. I am considered guilty until proven innocent, at least initially.

This is the state of U.S. laws on digital file protection today. Unlike other copyright protection laws, digital laws allow the accuser to take unilateral steps against the accused before due process, and that's what needs to be fixed.

This to me is one of the most heinous things in the whole mess and something that could be easily fixed if ISPs were given protection against being held liable for their customers' behavior. They should still need to respond to court orders but another corporation shouldn't be able to lean on them privately.

jamesdmanley

10-03-2007, 12:55 PM

sounds like all those people coping their cds onto their ipods are illegal too. in fact, it sounds like itunes is illegal for facilitating cd copying.

jasonkchapman

10-03-2007, 12:55 PM

The main discouragement to frivolous lawsuits here in the UK is that, in almost all circumstances, the loser has to pay both sides' legal costs. Is that not the case in the US?

It hasn't been, but there is some push to make it so. Historically, the argument against making a failed plaintiff pay the defendant's legal fees is that it would restrict access to civil redress based on wealth. The point put forward is that the poor would fear going to court even with valid cases because losing would ruin them, whereas the wealthy could afford to sue on even the most trivial grounds.

NatCh

10-03-2007, 01:04 PM

The tactic that fills that niche here is to counter-sue for legal costs, which would effectively have the plaintiff pay in the event that he loses, and if the judge (or jury, as applicable) agrees that the plaintiff should pay them. It's effective, and a bit more discretionary. :shrug:

mocelet

10-03-2007, 01:24 PM

What I really find objectionable is protected CDs. I see nothing wrong with downloading music from a CD that you are unable to rip due to it being protected.

Ironically, I had a BMG protected CD a few years ago that refused to play cleanly in my portable CD player (not an MP3 CD player, not a car player, just a 2AA battery Panasonic CD player), it woudl skip, double play and hangup peridoically. The only way I could listen to that album on that player was to rip a copy on my PC (well that anti-rip protection worked well - didn't it!) and burn a copy to a CD-R, and listen to that version.

I even wrote to BMG telling them this, and they offered to replace my original CD provided I could produce the original receipt - which I didn't have, so I still have that CD-R tucked in the box with the original gathering dust.

RWood

10-03-2007, 01:51 PM

Years ago I followed John Lennon's advice and made cassettes of my albums and kept the albums to make another cassette when the first one wore out. It worked great. Today I have a music server with boxes and boxes of CDs in the basement. Offered to others? Never.

A recent US court ruling said it was legal to rip DVDs to a media server and play them back without the original DVD being in the system. They refused to issue an injunction against the company making the hardware and software to do this.

It seems that some members of the court are more far sighted than the US Congress that passed the DMCA under pressure from well funded special interest groups.

Lemurion

10-03-2007, 02:20 PM

Different countries have different laws regarding the legality of ripping CDs for personal use; however for the purposes of this case the only laws that matter are those of the United States. It's not legal in the UK, but in the US it has historically been considered legal under the doctrine of Fair Use, which is recognized in the US.

No one is denying that content owners and their agents have a legitimate right (and in the agents one could say duty) to act against copyright violations. However, they also have an obligation to obey the law and follow established legal procedures when seeking redress.

Thus there are two main issues in play in this and most other such cases. One issue is the guilt of the person charged, while the other has to do with the legality of the methods used to gather information and bring the charges. There are strong concerns in the US that the methods used by the RIAA to investigate and prosecute copyright violators are dangerously close to extortion. It's also seen as part of a trend of adjusting copyright law in favor of content providers at the expense of consumers. In a very real way, both sides are on trial here. Regardless of the rightness of their cause, if the RIAA is (as is widely believed) using investigative methods that violate US law and the rights of the accused then they need to stop if only to avoid tainting their evidence and further tarnishing their reputation. This is the first case to go to a jury trial in the four years that the RIAA has been filing such cases. Everyone is watching very carefully.

Nate the great

10-03-2007, 02:53 PM

Perhaps you see nothing wrong in it, but it sure ain't legal, at least not here in the UK. Might be different in the US, but I rather doubt it. That's the reason that, in the UK, a tax levy was imposed on blank cassette tapes back in the 1970s or 80s which was subsequently distributed to the music industry specifically because they successfully argued that virtually all cassette tapes were being used to illegally record copyrighted material. We still have such a levy imposed on "CDR-Audio" CDs, which are used in HiFi CD recorders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios

The BetaMax case. It is completely legal in the USA to record broadcasts, tv or radio.

Nate the great

10-03-2007, 03:07 PM

HarryT,

Now here's the problem with that statement. As her words are part of the trial, if the judge decides the plaintiff is right *AND* does not clarify, as part of his ruling, that the act of ripping a CD for personal use/music backup is not covered by the ruling, under such a scenario other cases can be brought against those who *are* trying to legally back up their legally-purchased music. In essence, we could, by crass manipulation on the part of the plaintiff's lawyer and oversight by the judge, find ourselves 'made criminal' after the fact -ex post facto is, I think, the term. And that's wrong, morally wrong!

Derek

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. First of all, this is not a criminal case and cannot establish criminal law. Second, for this to establish civil law the case would have to go before an Appeals court judge, and possible the Supreme Court. This case is currently before a District judge.

Here is a fact that many seem to have forgotten: She is not a criminal. What she did was not a crime. If it was a crime, then the case would read US v..., not Music companies v... What she did is called copyright infringement.

slayda

10-03-2007, 03:11 PM

The RIAA are not the ones breaking the law.

You are right Harry. The RIAA are not the ones breaking the law. They are the ones making the law, or at least lobbying to have them made.

HarryT

10-03-2007, 03:36 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios

The BetaMax case. It is completely legal in the USA to record broadcasts, tv or radio.

Nate - the case that you quote established that it was legal to tape for the purpose of time shifting (my emphasis). ie, what is legal is to record, watch/listen to the tape, and then erase it.

Taping with the intent of permanently keeping it, or watching it multiple times, is not legal. Granted, it's something it's clearly impossible to enforce, but I believe that I am right in saying that, strictly speaking, it's not legal.

Nate the great

10-03-2007, 03:42 PM

Nate - the case that you quote established that it was legal to tape for the purpose of time shifting (my emphasis). ie, what is legal is to record, watch/listen to the tape, and then erase it.

Taping with the intent of permanently keeping it, or watching it multiple times, is not legal. Granted, it's something it's clearly impossible to enforce, but I believe that I am right in saying that, strictly speaking, it's not legal.

The Wikipedia article is not accurate. Trust me, I studied this case in an ethics and law class.

HarryT

10-03-2007, 03:55 PM

I've studied it too, Nate. It is precisely that fact that video recorders were deemed to be (quote) "capable of substantial non-infringing uses" (ie time shifting) which led to the court giving its 5-4 decision in favour of Sony. Time shifting was deemed to be fair use and since the video recorder was capable of this, it was ruled not to be a device which existed solely to infringe copyright.

The important thing, however, is that although the actual recorder was ruled not to be a "copyright infringing device" that does not mean that all uses of it are so. Clearly, for example, using a video recorder to make a duplicate of a commercial videotape is a use which infringes copyright, as is (perhaps less clearly) taping an LP which you haven't bought (although taping your own LPs was, I believe, ruled to fall into the "fair use" clause of copyright law).

It all boils down to "intent". Taping off the radio for strictly personal use may indeed be deemed fair use, but selling that cassette commercially, or even giving it to a friend almost certainly is not.

These issues are never "black and white".

slayda

10-03-2007, 04:18 PM

Wonder how many MP3 players Sony sells to "criminals" who rip their (Sony produced & sold) CDs to their (their own Sony) Mp3 player!!:smack::smash:

nekokami

10-03-2007, 05:15 PM

It's all too easy to make "big business" out to be the "bad guys", but the truth is that record company profits are falling through the floor primarily due to a generation of teenagers today who seem to feel that they have some "God-given right" to download free of charge any music track that they wish, rather than going out and buying records as we did when we were that age. All these companies are doing is trying to protect their own commercial existance, and I think personally that we should support them in that, rather than supporting the criminals.
I know the record companies like to make this claim, but is there any independent evidence to back it up? Last I heard, a Harvard study had suggested that file-sharers are actually buying more content, not less. I don't know what other (industry-independent) studies have been done in this area, though.

I do have to say that it seems to me a big problem in the entertainment industry today is lousy content at silly prices. I'm not saying that justifies stealing from the corporations, I just wonder how much filesharing has become a scapegoat for other industry problems.

sea2stars

10-03-2007, 06:04 PM

Hey. Why innovate when you can litigate instead?

I'm sure many corporate types are thrilled with Radiohead's new online album release.

Lemurion

10-03-2007, 06:15 PM

Most independent studies I've seen seem to support the idea that the downturn in the music industry is structural rather than being the result of file sharing. As Harry pointed out, the general consensus has been that taping an LP you already own is fair use. It is this same principle that has led by extension to the consensus that ripping the songs on a CD one owns to mp3 so they can be enjoyed on a computer or mp3 player is also fair use.

Currently, in the US it's not spelled out explicitly by statute either way. It's considered legal under fair use but no one has specifically ruled whether it is or not. The music industry would obviously prefer that it be ruled illegal, citing the precedent that people had to re-buy music when they converted their collections from LP to CD. However, the counter-argument to that is that people were able to convert from LP or CD to tape without re-buying their music and that home copying to tape has been historically considered non-infringing.

Personally, I consider that ruling it infringement would be disastrous for the RIAA. In one stroke they would alienate most of the few supporters they have left. Their big problem right now is that they are treating their customers as enemies, which is not a way to build support. Many people see the RIAA as an essentially parasitic body that does nothing but sue people and artificially inflate the price of CDs. Among other things they have never let anyone be exonerated, not even those people sued by mistake who neither owned nor had ever used a computer. They would only drop the charges with prejudice.

This is an extremely important case for a number of reasons. As I said earlier both the defendant and the plaintiff are on trial and precedent will be set.

bingle

10-03-2007, 06:25 PM

The same change in attitude needs to take place with downloading material from the internet, and people (especially children) need to be taught that simply because it's not a "material object", that doesn't make it acceptable to use it without paying for it.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. We are entering an era as a human race - the end of scarcity. Previously, knowledge and information were precious commodities, available only to those with money or power. Copies were expensive to make, and thus distribution was much like that of physical objects - you sold a book just like an apple.

Now, however, it's as if we invented a way to give everyone on earth apples, for free. It'll destroy the apple-sellers' business, but what it will gain us a society is much, much more precious.

Business models will need to change. Someone still needs to grow that first apple. Will they do it for a salary? Will they do it because they love growing things? Will they do it based on a huge lump sum given to them by all the apple-lovers of the world, or by a government? I don't know. It will happen, though, because it's a niche that needs to be filled.

And the faster we get to that point, the better off the world will be. We're one step closer to Utopia (or maybe Star Trek).

nekokami

10-03-2007, 06:25 PM

I didn't so much mind paying for CDs when I already owned the vinyl LP, because the sound quality was higher and the recordings were more durable. I honestly don't think the music and book cases are equivalent, because anyone who could download a music file from the internet could just as easily rip the CD to MP3 themselves, at this point, whereas books are still time-consuming to scan and OCR, so people tend to want to distribute the effort. And unlike the vinyl to CD move, there aren't strong value-adds to digital books yet. If the publishers would start adding extra content to digital versions of books (author essays, scans of author notes or sketches, a short story, chapters of other books, whatever), I'd be a lot more willing to pay for ebooks when I already own the pbook. (I've bought DVDs of content I owned on VHS tapes for the same reason.)

nekokami

10-03-2007, 06:27 PM

I couldn't disagree more strongly. We are entering an era as a human race - the end of scarcity.... it's as if we invented a way to give everyone on earth apples, for free.
Unfortunately, the apples themselves aren't free, and writers still need to eat. Until we have replicators and unlimited energy to power them, we aren't living entirely in an information economy.

bingle

10-03-2007, 06:33 PM

Unfortunately, the apples themselves aren't free, and writers still need to eat. Until we have replicators and unlimited energy to power them, we aren't living entirely in an information economy.

Well, as I said, someone needs to grow the first apple - write the first book, etc. :-) That will still happen, because there's still demand for it. How will it work? I have no idea. Honestly, I think people might do it for free... Look at the amazing amount of content people produce for love. They don't get paid for it, and in certain cases (like independent film) they lose tons of money.

But in any case, I think we are living in the information economy. We just haven't all realized it yet :-)

jasonkchapman

10-03-2007, 06:34 PM

(I've bought DVDs of content I owned on VHS tapes for the same reason.)

I'll go you one step further. I've bought some movies on VHS, LaserDisc, and DVD. LaserDisc, while physically awkward, is still superior to DVD.

Other than that, a rousing "me too" to the rest of your post.

Liviu_5

10-03-2007, 11:11 PM

More updates on the trial here:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-music-industry-exec-p2p-litigation-is-a-money-pit.html

Great quote:

"One of the biggest bombshells from the cross-examination was Pariser's admission that the RIAA's legal campaign isn't making the labels any money, and that, furthermore, the industry has no idea of the actual damages it suffers due to file-sharing."

JSWolf

10-03-2007, 11:22 PM

When Napster first came out, it was big. And CD sales were up 6%. The RIAA went after Napster and got it shut down. Goodbye sales. Plus, raising prices also killed off a lot of sales. I remember when you could purchase CDs for $9.99. Now you pay $12.99-$16.99. That's stupid. You don't raise prices higher then the national average and expect to sell more.

mocelet

10-04-2007, 02:18 AM

Last I heard, a Harvard study had suggested that file-sharers are actually buying more content, not less. I don't know what other (industry-independent) studies have been done in this area, though.

I suspect that this is one of those quirks of statistics - if you look at how many CDs a randomly selected file-sharer buys vs a randomly selected non-file-sharer you may find that the file-sharer buys more, but that may be because a file-sharer is more into music than a non-file-sharer.

However, if you look at a group who are all into music - say the attendees of a music concert - and then compare the number of CDs bought between the file-sharers and non-file-sharers in that group then you might find that the file-sharers buy fewer CDs.

Oh the joys of statistics, you can make them say whatever you want them to.

HappyMartin

10-04-2007, 02:25 AM

Lies, damn lies and statistics

nekokami

10-04-2007, 07:31 AM

Believe me, I'm well aware of the ways in which statistics can be misleading. (I'm taking an advanced research design class right now, and we're reviewing selection and sampling design flaws.)

The Harvard study results were more clear than I made them sound in my original post. See the details here:

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/04.15/09-filesharing.html

Quotes:
Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf's study used statistical models to compare downloads of songs from 680 popular albums in a variety of styles with the actual sales of those albums, as reported to Nielsen SoundScan, the industry's leading sales tracker. The researchers statistically analyzed whether the sale of an album declined more strongly in relation to the frequency and volume of downloaded songs from that album. In one week, for instance, they saw a spike in downloads of songs from the soundtrack to the film "Eight Mile." They would chart sales data for that CD in the following weeks to see if the download activity caused sales to decline.

It didn't, they were stunned to find. "This is where we cannot document any relationship between file sharing and subsequent sales," says Oberholzer-Gee, calling the effect "statistically indistinguishable from zero."

In fact, the study found that for the most popular albums - the top 25 percent that had more than 600,000 sales - file sharing actually boosts sales. For every 150 songs downloaded, the study showed, sales jumped by one CD.

I would be quite interested to know whether this 2004 study gets cited by the defense.

Dan23

10-04-2007, 07:33 AM

balok

10-04-2007, 08:01 AM

It is a little-known fact that ripping CDs is perfectly legal for private use in Canada.

Copyright Act
PART VIII: PRIVATE COPYING
Copying for Private Use
Where no infringement of copyright
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

(b) a performer’s performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer’s performance of a musical work, is embodied

onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer’s performance or the sound recording.

Limitation
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;

(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or

(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.

1997, c. 24, s. 50.

And this is what the law has to say about computer programs:

Copyright Act
PART III: INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT AND MORAL RIGHTS AND EXCEPTIONS TO INFRINGEMENT
Exceptions
Computer Programs
Permitted acts
30.6 It is not an infringement of copyright in a computer program for a person who owns a copy of the computer program that is authorized by the owner of the copyright to

(a) make a single reproduction of the copy by adapting, modifying or converting the computer program or translating it into another computer language if the person proves that the reproduced copy is

(i) essential for the compatibility of the computer program with a particular computer,

(ii) solely for the person’s own use, and

(iii) destroyed immediately after the person ceases to be the owner of the copy; or

(b) make a single reproduction for backup purposes of the copy or of a reproduced copy referred to in paragraph (a) if the person proves that the reproduction for backup purposes is destroyed immediately when the person ceases to be the owner of the copy of the computer program.

1997, c. 24, s. 18.

HarryT

10-04-2007, 08:18 AM

To all those bringing up Betamax. The DMCA makes it illegal to break any sort of encryption that protects copyright pretty much regardless of your reason for doing so. So if there is encryption, even trivial encryption, on your CD and you crack the encryption as part of the ripping process, it is a violation under the DMCA. This is true for ebooks with encryption as well.

That's what I thought too, Dan, but several people have claimed here (http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14060&page=7) that the act of removing copy protection is not illegal, merely the distribution or development of tools which do so.

balok

10-04-2007, 08:32 AM

"Ripping" your own CDs has never been legal in the UK, and downloading copyrighted material is most definitely a crime regardless of whether you "own" the CD or not. This is like the very silly argument some people make saying that it's "OK" to download an illegal eBook simply because you've bought the paperback.

I'm 110% on Sony's side in this. These "filesharing" criminals need to be taught a lesson. The RIAA are most definitely the "good guys" here.

Spoken like a true reactionary.

To legal theorists, custom often has precedence on positive law. In a case where custom permits a certain act, and where the law forbids it, we have to ask ourselves which of the two take precedence. For all intents, what really matters is which of the two will end up punishing or acquitting an individual who commits the act. Positive law has the courts at its disposal, but that doesn't at all mean we'll be prosecuted if the Crown attorney doesn't think it's appropriate to pursue the matter. "Dura lex sed lex" only applies when the courts are willing to hear the case. Highway rules are a good example. In Canada, the limit is generally 100km/h, but the cops won't stop you unless you're doing about 120. We could safely say that according to custom, driving at, say 105, is perfectly acceptable, and that positive law will not sanction this violation.

In the case of copying CDs at home, we can conclude that custom overides positive law. I've never heard of a case in the USA where a person was prosecuted for copying CDs at home. So I would tend to disagree with Sony's lawyer when she says it's stealing. It may be contrary to the law, but it's not stealing.

Only a narrow-minded minority of people would say that something is wrong because the law says so. There are, and have always been, discrepancies between the written law and the social reality.

Xenophon

10-04-2007, 08:35 AM

That's what I thought too, Dan, but several people have claimed here (http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14060&page=7) that the act of removing copy protection is not illegal, merely the distribution or development of tools which do so.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV... so this is certainly not legal advice on which you can place any sort of reliance whatsoever.

That said... I have followed this subject very carefully, including a full semester graduate seminar on Copyright issues in the digital world (at CMU, led by Dr. Dave Farber). In the course of that seminar, we were told by a fair variety of quite eminent lawyers that the situation is as summarized above by HarryT (who is referring back to other posts including one of mine). Those eminent lawyers also said that this is their legal interpretation, that it seems like a good interpretation of the law, and that this interpretation has not yet been tested in court.

Translating from legal-speak: "We think this is a solid interpretation of the law. So do lots of other eminent lawyers. It seems to be the general consensus of the legal community. One never knows what'll happen in front of a judge and jury."

Xenophon

P.S. Of course this is all based on U.S. law. Your mileage may vary, especially in other countries.

Dan23

10-04-2007, 09:12 AM

slayda

10-04-2007, 08:02 PM

I made a mistake. I think you are right. That still makes providing tools that allow ripping that circumvents any sort of DRM a violation though.

But always keep in mind, "That which is illegal for the individual is often common practice for nations." In fact the very nations in which the act is illegal.

SteffenH

10-05-2007, 04:25 AM

Harry, I recommend you to read this free book about Intellectual Monopoly: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm
Maybe it changes your mind.

Best Steffen

Azayzel

10-05-2007, 08:37 AM

Ughh, such a touchy subject... I already know where my moral ground stands, yet it's always interesting to see where everybody elses are. Many people quote what lawsa they know of regarding the legality/illegality of what they do, yet therein lies the problem; they only know the laws to support their claims and not the laws that may exist which rufute those laws, hence all the litigation. While many claim it's black and white, I'd have to argue there for various reasons, a) different countries have different laws, b) ambiguous wording in many laws (typically placed their to future-proof the ruling), c) there are many other laws/rulings around that you can have no way of knowing unless you spent the time researching the piles or rulings and judgments previously passed, and finally, d) if it is so black and white, why is there such arguement over it?

I still stick by my earlier statement regarding taping form the radio, I have never known it to be illegal to record from the radio for personal use the entire time I was growing up. Nobody in any of the 15 states I lived in within the U.S. ever complained or got arrested for recording a song off the radio. Why else would the darn boomboxes have the capability to record from off-the-air? I never heard of any companies bringing any litigation regarding this, it wasn't until the Internet & MP3's made it possible to spread CD-quality music so rapidly that things got so hairy and so many gray areas began to crop up.

Oh yeah, a quick update... the RIAA recently won a claim against an individual for the spreading/sharing of 24 songs via Kazaa to the tune of $222,000! Not that they'll ever see that kind of action from a private citizen. Who knows, the ruling may be overturned when it goes back for appeal due to lack of proof. :thumbsdow Link to Wired (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/)

HarryT

10-05-2007, 08:51 AM

Oh yeah, a quick update... the RIAA recently won a claim against an individual for the spreading/sharing of 24 songs via Kazaa to the tune of $222,000! Not that they'll ever see that kind of action from a private citizen. Who knows, the ruling may be overturned when it goes back for appeal due to lack of proof. :thumbsdow Link to Wired (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/)

She was offering 1,702 tracks for download. The RIAA representative had downloaded 24 of them as the proof for the court case. There appears to be absolutely no doubt whatsoever of her guilt.

Azayzel

10-05-2007, 08:56 AM

She was offering 1,702 tracks for download. The RIAA representative had downloaded 24 of them as the proof for the court case. There appears to be absolutely no doubt whatsoever of her guilt.

Thanks for the update, that's quite a large library she had up. :smack: I also just finished reading the other thread you guys had going regarding this same court case, quite interesting. Regarding the suppliers, I wonder why they don't go after all the file sharing companies out there as well? I know they took down Napster, but now there's quite a few other pay-as-you-go file sharing services that are legitimate.

Steve Jordan

10-05-2007, 09:52 AM

Chiefly because file-sharing itself isn't illegal... you can create something entirely original, and share it with the world. It's when you share someone else's property, against their wishes, that you get in trouble. So the file-sharing software manufacturers aren't held responsible, any more than a gun manufacturer is held responsible for your shooting someone.

The situation really is similar to the broadcast taping situation: Sure, it's legal to tape broadcast music and/or programs for personal use. It's when you try to repackage and sell them that has always been the legality-breaker. The only difference is, the software used to break DRM is considered illegal to use (though no one is called on it until they make a DRM-broken file available to others, costing the rights owner money). So, the law now has a tool to declare you in violation, even if you haven't physically given the file to anyone.

Mambo

10-06-2007, 10:22 AM

Unfortunately, I strongly disagree with most of you in the matter of stealing and crime. I think the biggest crime is preventing people from free access to INFORMATION. In the 21th century!

We are not in the medieval any more. Did you know that a few hundred years ago owning a Bible was crime? This is the exact same thing and they should be ashamed of themselves not us.

Just a few examples:

-- If they have the right to intellectual property, why do they publish it at all? Why don't they keep it in secret for centuries, if it is theirs? Reason: they want your money and take all of it if possible every time you want to listen to it. Now this is not making public something so they should not call it publishing. They are lying. This is intellectual slavery. Why can't they understand the fact that once you published something it is not a secret anymore and you lost your control over it?

-- They want you to buy what they tell you. What is in the news, what is on the top list what is in the commercials. Buy what they want to sell you not what you need. Again this is manipulation and serious crime. Every time you try to find your own identity and find the stuff you can identify yourself with they look at you and say: what? Are you crazy? You listen to Betty Wright or Fontella Bass instead of Madonna or R.E.M.?

Yes I am listening to what is good music and not the big names and very sorry but what I listen to can not be purchased in store because publishers are not interested. If they are not interested in me, the customer, why should I be interested in their rights for intellectual property?

-- They always package CDs like 2 nice songs with 10 junk and sell it to you for 10-20 usd. Now this is stealing because you actually don't need the junk 10 songs only the 2 nice songs, but you can not buy it separately. If I want to buy 20 good songs I have to invest in 10 junk CDs and compared to my %age share of overall income this is rather stealing from me than what I am stealing from them.

-- Last time I bought a song online after listening to 20 seconds and it was good, but I just realised later that the full length of the song was only 1.5 minutes and only the 20 seconds part of it was any good, and I can not return it and they don't give me back my money!

-- I'm also a big fan of Veggie tales and you will never find out where did I learned about it that this series exists? Of course it was on the torrent sites and not the good guys the publishers who are totally uninterested of selling this stuff because it is not 18+ stuff and they can not manipulate you for buying more of other things. Again if you want quality contents easily accessible, it is only on the torrent sites.

-- How many times I went to the cinema after reading reviews or watching commercials and the movie was complete junk. Who will return that money to me?

I know these are small things for you, but if we would aggregate it with the experience of millions I believe we are ripped of more than the so called "publishers" are ripped of by us. These things that are happening should not happen in the 21st century, we are still in medieval, the human kind is still not enlighted and we are all kept in intellectual slavery, where you should have money first before you are allowed to learn anything in school and live a life that a human being deserves. Even there are copyrights on my thoughts, because I am sure somebody already wrote and published the same thing I am writing to you and I am not sure when they will sue me because of stealing it :(

Sorry guys I'm not a lawyer and I'm just a simple man with not very high IQ, but my conclusion is that they have the right to do the bulls..t marketing and offer their crap stuff whereas we also have the right to either buy from them or download from the internet and search if we can find any quality! material out there if exists at all. And we have the right to be out of their reach, the constant flow of commericals, marketing, emotional pressure, manipulation with sex they try to impose on us.

I'm not hurting their market because I was never their customer in the first place, I have never seen a shopkeeper who treated me as a customer by tsaying: what are you interested in? What are you looking for when buying music? Good melody with fast tempo? Double-bass with gospel choir in it? Ska-like rhythm is what you want? Ok, I will show you a few things and I'm sure it will drive you crazy. They are not very famous, but they are the best in what they're doing. Now this is what never gonna happen to me, so all I can do is download everything from torrent sites and hope one day I find the holy grail of music (and thanks God it already happened a few times).

One more thing: I'm the type of guy that I want to OWN what I have beacuse I'm a collector. If they don't give me the right to actually OWN what they offer for sale than I AM NOT INTERESTED IN BEING "MORAL" AND ADHERE TO THE LAW. (and by owning I mean to enjoy every aspect of it by putting it to all my devices, sharing with my family, friends and enjoy together, keeping it forever and listen to it every time I want without worrying that I will loose it or it will be impossible to play due to the fact that the format is not supported any more.) I buy only if I get support, I get upgrades, they provide quick access, comparison to other staff, try before buy, value for money, otherwise I'm just downloading.

CCDMan

10-06-2007, 10:42 AM

The real problem here is clearly the laws. They have been made consumer unfriendly for two reasons:

1) The industry sees that it is to their advantage to have such laws and push hard for them.

2) Too small a portion of the voting public understands or cares about these issues to force the congress critters to pass more sensible laws.

It will take quite some time but as increasingly larger percentages of the voters become digital savvy - and almost all of the under 25 crowd is now - we can expect this to change. Then, and only then, will congress have to respond to the will of the people instead of the will of a few greedy buttholes in Nashville and Hollywood.

Steve Jordan

10-07-2007, 07:04 PM

Unfortunately, I strongly disagree with most of you in the matter of stealing and crime. I think the biggest crime is preventing people from free access to INFORMATION. In the 21th century!

Information may want to be free, but this case is about entertainment, and whether someone has a right to take for free what some entertainer should get paid for. Say what you will about the trial and its punishment, but the point of it is to protect the people who should be making money off of their work.

If you (and a lot of other people) want to just have everything for free, that's fine, but you'll find that without any monetary compensation, a lot of entertainers aren't going to be entertaining you any longer. And remember, if you don't like what they're selling, you don't have to buy... not even the one good song. It's not oxygen... it's a frivolous purchase. It's pointless to complain about the unfairness of a service or industry, if you continue to buy from them, and don't tell them what you don't like. Don't buy the CD at all, and tell the record companies why. Let them figure it out, if they want your money.

Easy for me to say? Yes, it is. I buy no more than 1-2 CDs a year, and chiefly because I research the album until I know it's worth my money.

paulkbiba

10-08-2007, 12:28 AM

It seems to me that Harry has some sort of visceral dislike of teenagers. Surely they aren't the evil monsters he seems to portray them to be.

The stupidity of this whole thing is that the record industry persists in pricing their product at a level that encourages the behavior of all these evil youngsters. In any other industry, and I've been in corporate America for over 40 years, the company would look at the demographics and adjust pricing to account for the lack of sales. But not the record industry.

What continually amazes me is that the record, and video, industry persists in refusing to set a price level that will adjust to the behavior of the evil teenage crowd. It seems better for them to sue their potential consumers, rather then to price their product in such a manner as to make it available to them.

I guess because they are teenagers, even though they are the industry's best customers, the industry, like Harry, considers them beneath contempt.

Sad. The industry has nobody to blame but themselves for their problems.

HarryT

10-08-2007, 06:56 AM

Paul,

Please read:

http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showpost.php?p=103564&postcount=228

and then you'll understand the reason for my "visceral dislike" - not of teenagers, but of so-called "pirates" in general.

Steve Jordan

10-08-2007, 07:01 AM

Okay, I must have missed a posting, because I don't know what you're talking about. If you're referring to HarryT, I haven't seen anything in this thread that would suggest he has a dislike of teenagers. And Thomas is a single mother of 30. There is no doubt regarding her guilt in this case, a mark of her own bad judgement, at best.

The fact that Harry has no sympathy for people who steal from other people doesn't indicate a dislike for teenagers, only a dislike of dishonest people, whatever their age.

Granted, the music industry has serious issues that they need to deal with, many of which surely encourage people to share songs against their wishes. Yes, the public and the legal system has allowed them to get away with a lot. But there's no reason to talk as if the music industry is destroying this country, and all the file sharers are young Robin Hoods defending the weak and feeding the poor.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Music is entertainment. It's not a requirement, it's not a nourishment, and it's not a God-given right. It's just entertainment. File-sharers aren't saving the world, they're just swapping bits of entertainment that some entertainer isn't getting paid for.

If you don't like the way music companies do business, don't buy from them... it won't kill you. There are other sources of music available, including directly from the bands. And the lack of sales will clue the industry into the fact that they need to change with the times, a lot faster than stealing from them will. (Remember: They can continue to make money off you if you steal their music, and they sue you. If you don't buy it OR steal it, they're screwed.)

And remember, it's the job of taxpayers to force the government to change its laws. We as taxpayers have allowed the government to listen to lobbyists and vote according to their bribes, while we've spent our time worrying about whether our TVs are listening to us. Don't like the laws? Convince your congressperson that they will be out of office if we catch them making bad ones.

Too many people are cursing the music (and publishing) industries, then doing nothing constructive to change things. In fact, stealing, file sharing and DRM-cracking aren't doing anything to change things for the better, they're just allowing the industries to legally tighten DRM and sue customers. That's not helping. Boycotting. Writing your government leaders. Petitions. Voting. That's helping.

Let's face it: Thomas was foolish, and now she's screwed. But there's no good reason to create more Thomases out there. Nor to beat up on forum members because they don't sympathize with criminals.

Lemurion

10-08-2007, 07:27 AM

As I've said repeatedly the best way to force a change on the industry is through positive actions. If you don't like DRM or the RIAA, don't spend money on DRM products or RIAA label CDs. Spend money on non-DRM products and independent labels. The trick is to show that you are spending money, but not on certain things.

One reason why I like Fictionwise as a tool to help sway the publishing industry is because they have both DRM encrypted and non-encrypted ebooks. By spending money on the non-encrypted books and not spending any on the encrypted and restricted books I'm making a point that adding DRM is bad for business. If more people followed that example there would be less DRM.

Yes I think Ms. Thomas was fined too much, but she did infringe copyright and the RIAA is supposed to work toward stopping that. I may disagree with their methods, and think their interpretation of the effect of file sharing is out of line, but I have no problem with their goals.

wgrimm

10-08-2007, 08:48 AM

"Ripping" your own CDs has never been legal in the UK, and downloading copyrighted material is most definitely a crime regardless of whether you "own" the CD or not. This is like the very silly argument some people make saying that it's "OK" to download an illegal eBook simply because you've bought the paperback.

I'm 110% on Sony's side in this. These "filesharing" criminals need to be taught a lesson. The RIAA are most definitely the "good guys" here.

Well, ripping cd's IS legal in the US of A. Had this not been legal, the Ipod would never have been the hit it was. Now, let's have some truth in advertising. If you buy a cd, you buy a tangible object. If you "buy" an MP3, what are you buying? The right to use that music in ONLY an MP3 format? Or, say you want to convert it to a more compressed format for a nano. Can you do that legally? What happens if that MP3 is DRM'd, and you switch brands of music players?

Seems to me this can be carried to absurd lengths. What will happen in this case is that the digital markets- for ebooks, movies, or whatever- will come to a grinding halt. Not many people want to line corporate coffers by paying for the same content 2 or 3 times over.

If you pay for the content 1 time, you should be able to use that content in whatever player you want.

wgrimm

10-08-2007, 08:56 AM

I agree with you; many of the "activation" procedures required by modern PC software (especially games) are onerous in the extreme. I guess that's perhaps why the games industry is shifting towards "closed" games consoles like the Sony Playstation and Microsoft XBox which can be "locked down" and hence effectively eliminate piracy.

Effectively eliminate piracy? That's laughable- do you know how easy it is to chip a Playstation so that one can use "backup games?' Very easy. You don't even need to chip the Playstation to hack its game protection- buy a boot disk and put one of the top-loading covers on it. Even a 10-year-old can do this.

Sony has had years and years of experience developing copy protection schemes- and none of them are effective. Even their foray into rootkits was a dismal failure.

HarryT

10-08-2007, 09:16 AM

Effectively eliminate piracy? That's laughable- do you know how easy it is to chip a Playstation so that one can use "backup games?' Very easy. You don't even need to chip the Playstation to hack its game protection- buy a boot disk and put one of the top-loading covers on it. Even a 10-year-old can do this.

My point is not that it defeats the serious pirate, but that it prevents the type of "casual piracy" that's all too easy, even for the person who would probably regard themselves as basically honest, that you get with CDs, say. It's so easy to run off a copy of a CD these days.

In order to "chip" a Playstation, OTOH, you have to deliberately set out with the intent to break the law; it's not something anyone does "accidentally".

wgrimm

10-08-2007, 09:28 AM

Morally, yes. Because the current copyright laws are unfair to the general public (there's no excuse whatsoever for copyright to go beyond the author's death) and laws like the DMCA attempt to take away the rights of consumers.

I would have to disagree with that- I think it is fair that an author can leave something for his family. Take US Grant, for example- he passed away right after finishing his memoirs, but his family was able to benefit from them- which is a big part of the reason he wrote the memoirs.

wgrimm

10-08-2007, 10:13 AM

Unfortunately, the apples themselves aren't free, and writers still need to eat. Until we have replicators and unlimited energy to power them, we aren't living entirely in an information economy.

Well, from what I am hearing and seeing, it doesn't have as much to do with author's/musicians still needing to eat as with the care and feeding of the "under-assistant West Coast promo man" and all of the other industry employees who can't seem to understand that they can no longer control distribution as was possible in the days of the LP. they need to expand their horizons and develop a new business model.

nekokami

10-08-2007, 10:19 AM

Well, from what I am hearing and seeing, it doesn't have as much to do with author's/musicians still needing to eat as with the care and feeding of the "under-assistant West Coast promo man" and all of the other industry employees who can't seem to understand that they can no longer control distribution as was possible in the days of the LP. they need to expand their horizons and develop a new business model.
I'm not defending the current record industry business model, simply saying that paying for content is reasonable. My statement was in response to someone earlier saying that since content can now be copied at low or zero cost to the creator, it ought to be free. I don't buy that. It may be the case that bands will start making more on live performances than studio albums, but I don't agree that the bands, sound engineers, cover artists, etc. who put work into creating a nice product shouldn't get paid for their work by those who enjoy the product.

wgrimm

10-08-2007, 10:21 AM

HarryT

10-08-2007, 10:55 AM

Well, putting a top-loading case onto a playstation is just about as easy as copying a cd. If you can use a screwdriver, you can replace the cover. a 6-year-old can do it.

Yes, I completely accept that what you say is true, but the issue is that you still have to take the conscious decision to do it.

One might similarly say that there's nothing technically difficult about stealing cars - 10 year olds can (and do) do it. The fact that it's not difficult to do doesn't mean that everyone goes around doing it; you have to make a deliberate decision to do it, knowing full well that you're breaking the law by doing so.

The fundamental problem, as I've said before, is that stealing intellectual property (computer software, CDs, DVDs, etc) appears to have somehow become "socially acceptable", even "admired" perhaps, among at least a portion of the younger generation today. When I was a kid, me and all my friends used to go out and buy "45" RPM records virtually every week, and use a significant part of our "pocket money" to do so. Many kids today seem to think that they have some "God-given right" to download for free whatever music they wish, rather than paying for it. And that's despite the fact that stores such as iTunes make it very easy to buy music legally, and it prices which are far lower in real terms than we used to pay for our records back in the '70s.

slayda

10-08-2007, 11:02 AM

My point is not that it defeats the serious pirate, but that it prevents the type of "casual piracy" that's all too easy, even for the person who would probably regard themselves as basically honest, that you get with CDs, say. It's so easy to run off a copy of a CD these days.

In order to "chip" a Playstation, OTOH, you have to deliberately set out with the intent to break the law; it's not something anyone does "accidentally".

Harry, based on this statement, I suppose you would not replace your own Sony Reader's battery but would pay Sony to do it since, 1) it is not easy to do and 2) you'd be cheating Sony out of their fair profit.

Personally I do not hold with piracy (of any kind). This includes the "legal" piracy that industries do when they restrict my rights to do with property I purchased any thing I want to.

Some here have said that if we didn't want to put up with DRM we could just not purchase anything with DRM. Using that paradigm, if the entertainment didn't want to put up with piracy, they could just not sell entertainment. I'm sure you'd agree that does not make any sense.

IMO it is immoral for industry to sell me a crippled product that they have purposely crippled, especially when they either hide the fact in the small print or don't even bother to tell me like Sony's rootkit which was illegal. Sauce for the goose/sauce for the gander.:unafraid:

Lemurion

10-08-2007, 11:12 AM

It's not enough to simply refuse to purchase products with DRM, one also has to purchase products without it.

HarryT

10-08-2007, 11:15 AM

It's not enough to simply refuse to purchase products with DRM, one also has to purchase products without it.

That's a decision that we all have to take individually. As I've said before, DRM doesn't particularly bother me one way or another. Obviously I'd prefer that it didn't exist, but I fully understand why many publishers feel it necessary to use it.

HarryT

10-08-2007, 11:22 AM

Harry, based on this statement, I suppose you would not replace your own Sony Reader's battery but would pay Sony to do it since, 1) it is not easy to do and 2) you'd be cheating Sony out of their fair profit.

That's not the same thing at all. Sony don't give two hoots if I choose to change the battery myself. All they say is "your warranty is void if you open the case", and leave it up to you to decide whether or not to do so.

Personally I do not hold with piracy (of any kind). This includes the "legal" piracy that industries do when they restrict my rights to do with property I purchased any thing I want to.

There have to be restrictions on what one is or is not allowed to do with intellectual property. You talk about "restricting your rights to do with property I purchased anything I want". Do you think that you should have the right to make 100 copies of a CD and sell those on eBay? Surely that type of "right" has to be restricted, doesn't it? You are buying the physical medium, not any kind of "ownership" of its contents.

bingle

10-08-2007, 12:58 PM

There have to be restrictions on what one is or is not allowed to do with intellectual property.

But why? I don't think you've given a good reason for this statement. It's obviously something you believe very strongly. I'm not convinced, however.

Copyright protection exists for one reason only - to encourage the production of art for the good of society. There is no other reason to have the law - there is no universal right to have your creation protected from copying.

So if copyright protection is not needed in order to encourage production, or it is not effective, or if it harms society more than it aids, then it is not fulfilling its purpose, and should be abandoned or reworked.

I would argue that all three of these things are true, and that copyright (for the most part) is an outdated concept that is meaningless in an age of digital plenty. For the good of society, copyright law should be reworked to reflect the lack of scarcity and the unbinding of creative works from physical media.

slayda

10-08-2007, 01:14 PM

There have to be restrictions on what one is or is not allowed to do with intellectual property. You talk about "restricting your rights to do with property I purchased anything I want". Do you think that you should have the right to make 100 copies of a CD and sell those on eBay? Surely that type of "right" has to be restricted, doesn't it? You are buying the physical medium, not any kind of "ownership" of its contents.

No but that gets into another arena. I do have the moral right to use the intellectual property that I have purchased the right to use. OK, I don't own the intellectual property, but telling me that I can not change it so that it is useful to me is morally wrong. And that is what DRM laws are saying. I do have the moral right to read the written intellectual property that I was sold the right to read whatever format it is in.

Looked at realistically, you could say that writing something in a language that I don't understand is a form of encryption and therefore to translate it would be a violation of copyright. But no one is suing Babblefish (yet!).

NatCh

10-08-2007, 01:25 PM

For the good of society, copyright law should be reworked to reflect the lack of scarcity and the unbinding of creative works from physical media.Sorry, bingle, but you've hit a hot-button for me, so now you must endure a rant. :grin:

The originals are just as scarce as they ever were -- only one person can create each original, the fact that copying and distribution is cheap and easy hasn't changed that.

Very few folks are wealthy enough to do something like writing for free -- if they depend on it for their bread and cheese then they need some safe-guard on the income (I'm not arguing for any particular approach, only pointing out the issue). In the absence of such a safe-guard, most will have to find some other way to put food on the table.

The next point is usually something like "true writers have to write, and will do so regardless." That's generally true. But it's extremely low, petty, greedy, and several other unprintable things, to take advantage of that fact to leave true writers in poverty because we, as a society, refuse to acknowledge that they should have some way to secure a living from their labors, just because it's cheap and easy to rip them off.

If they can't reliably sell what they write, then they can't afford to write -- and they can't sell it if the filthy so and so down the way is giving away copies or selling them for pennies. If the impact is severe enough then they'll have to choose to either stop writing, or starve to death, and either way, nothing much gets written.

Okay, end of rant.

I'd agree, however, that copyright law is seriously overdue for a total rebuild from the ground up, and the non-physical nature of modern media needs to be addressed ... among many other issues, but protecting the concept of protecting the creators of them from shameless exploitation, and balancing it against the good of society at large should be heart and soul of that re-build.

It's not in anybody's best interest for work to be unprotected just because it's easy to copy.

nekokami

10-08-2007, 02:02 PM

And just to head off another possible argument-- many writers, musicians, etc. will still create, even if they aren't paid. But the best writers and musicians I know all acknowledge that it takes a lot of time, effort, and attention to really become good at their art. If they have to hold down a "day job" because their art can't support them, they are unlikely to become as good as they could if they could devote themselves to their art full-time.

I want my favorite writers to spend their time writing, not flipping burgers or building websites. I want my favorite musicians to be able to spend as much time as possible actually playing and composing, not sweeping floors or balancing spreadsheets. And for that to happen, their work needs to be protected so that they get paid when they create something that many people like enough to want to read, listen to, watch, etc.

Now, should the cost to the consumer still reflect physical media and production costs? Of course not. Should the sale price have to include restrictive software that keeps the purchaser from enjoying their purchase wherever or whenever they like? Heck no! There's a lot wrong with the content industries today, and their business models and the laws that protect them need review and revision.

But I stand firm on my position that the creators (and those who help them, like editors and sound engineers) need to be paid-- and deserve to be paid-- for their honest work.

slayda

10-08-2007, 02:07 PM

The originals are just as scarce as they ever were -- only one person can create each original, the fact that copying and distribution is cheap and easy hasn't changed that.

I only say this, NatCh, because you got so serious on us.:grin2: But this is not completely accurate, else there would be no books with two or more credited authors. Unless you get picky & break the book into the individual author's parts.:2thumbsup

RWood

10-08-2007, 02:21 PM

Spoken like a true reactionary.

To legal theorists, custom often has precedence on positive law. In a case where custom permits a certain act, and where the law forbids it, we have to ask ourselves which of the two take precedence. For all intents, what really matters is which of the two will end up punishing or acquitting an individual who commits the act. Positive law has the courts at its disposal, but that doesn't at all mean we'll be prosecuted if the Crown attorney doesn't think it's appropriate to pursue the matter. "Dura lex sed lex" only applies when the courts are willing to hear the case. Highway rules are a good example. In Canada, the limit is generally 100km/h, but the cops won't stop you unless you're doing about 120. We could safely say that according to custom, driving at, say 105, is perfectly acceptable, and that positive law will not sanction this violation.

In the case of copying CDs at home, we can conclude that custom overides positive law. I've never heard of a case in the USA where a person was prosecuted for copying CDs at home. So I would tend to disagree with Sony's lawyer when she says it's stealing. It may be contrary to the law, but it's not stealing.

Only a narrow-minded minority of people would say that something is wrong because the law says so. There are, and have always been, discrepancies between the written law and the social reality.
Custom in the US was once that any drug was legal. Then they passed laws saying certain drugs were illegal. The custom part breaks down very quickly.

NatCh

10-08-2007, 02:32 PM

I only say this, NatCh, because you got so serious on us.:grin2: But this is not completely accurate, else there would be no books with two or more credited authors. Unless you get picky & break the book into the individual author's parts.:2thumbsupYes, in those situations, I'd insist on getting picky, just to support my point. :grin:

rlauzon

10-08-2007, 03:50 PM

If you don't like the way music companies do business, don't buy from them... it won't kill you.

And we are branded as pirates when we don't buy from them.

And remember, it's the job of taxpayers to force the government to change its laws.

Yes, we all know how well that system works (i.e. it doesn't).

Too many people are cursing the music (and publishing) industries, then doing nothing constructive to change things. In fact, stealing, file sharing and DRM-cracking aren't doing anything to change things for the better, they're just allowing the industries to legally tighten DRM and sue customers. That's not helping.

Actually it is. It's opening up doors for people who get their content out there legally. It's forcing the content dinosaurs to rethink their business models.

rlauzon

10-08-2007, 03:53 PM

rlauzon

10-08-2007, 03:55 PM

Many kids today seem to think that they have some "God-given right" to download for free whatever music they wish, rather than paying for it.

That's because DRM has made downloading free easier than buying.

And I'll point out that when the cassette came out, many kids (who usually have little money) pirated many songs. The music industry didn't die then either.

Nate the great

10-08-2007, 03:58 PM

Lemurion

10-08-2007, 04:07 PM

That's a decision that we all have to take individually. As I've said before, DRM doesn't particularly bother me one way or another. Obviously I'd prefer that it didn't exist, but I fully understand why many publishers feel it necessary to use it.

Harry, I agree that it's a matter of individual choice, the point I was making is that for those of us who want to take a more active stance against DRM it's important not only to refuse to buy DRM products but also to buy those which do not have DRM. Content providers will not release DRM-free content unless it can be proven successful in the marketplace.

rlauzon

10-08-2007, 04:49 PM

I think this sums up DRM pretty good:

Prohibition is an awful flop.
We like it.
It can't stop what it's meant to stop.
We like it.
It's left a trail of graft and slime,
It don't prohibit worth a dime,
It's filled our land with vice and crime.
Nevertheless, we're for it.
-Frankin P. Adams

The fifth and seventh lines don't apply, but the sentiment is the same.

"It's left a trail of graft and slime,"
- Backroom deals between content creators and device makers that prohibit use of the content on anything other than the device.
- FCC being paid to create the Content Flag to enforce control that the broadcasters don't legally have.

"It's filled our land with vice and crime."
- HarryT would probably agree with this one. 8-)

bingle

10-08-2007, 05:32 PM

Sorry, bingle, but you've hit a hot-button for me, so now you must endure a rant. :grin:

Excellent! I ranted a bit myself, so I only expect the same in return. And of course, you always write well-thought-out comments that provoke thought - and you do it politely ;-)

The originals are just as scarce as they ever were -- only one person can create each original, the fact that copying and distribution is cheap and easy hasn't changed that.

This is absolutely true. Originals still need to be created. BUT, in the past, those originals were paid for through the sales of copies. (That is, the current business model: close to nothing for the original work, then a percentage for each copy sold).

Very few folks are wealthy enough to do something like writing for free -- if they depend on it for their bread and cheese then they need some safe-guard on the income (I'm not arguing for any particular approach, only pointing out the issue). In the absence of such a safe-guard, most will have to find some other way to put food on the table.

Yes, I also agree. We, as a society, want to encourage writers to write, singers to sing, and artists to create art. In order to do that, they need to have some income, and time in which to create their works.

The next point is usually something like "true writers have to write, and will do so regardless." That's generally true. But it's extremely low, petty, greedy, and several other unprintable things, to take advantage of that fact to leave true writers in poverty because we, as a society, refuse to acknowledge that they should have some way to secure a living from their labors, just because it's cheap and easy to rip them off.

I agree, mostly. Society should absolutely fund writers and artists as much as possible. That's where our culture comes from, which is the definition of a society - few things should be more important!

However, you do have to recognize the growing importance and presence of "amateur" creators - YouTube, the Open Source Movement, the Creative Commons, blog posts like this one (hey, I could get paid $0.005 a word for this stuff! ;-)). Obviously, only a small fraction of content is created this way, but it's growing. There are even full-length, fan-made movies these days. However, I don't think this sort of content will be the only type people want. We will certainly want professional, full-time content creators still working away.

If they can't reliably sell what they write, then they can't afford to write -- and they can't sell it if the filthy so and so down the way is giving away copies or selling them for pennies. If the impact is severe enough then they'll have to choose to either stop writing, or starve to death, and either way, nothing much gets written.

OK, this is where most of my disagreement rests, I think. You have in your mind a particular business model for writers getting paid - and it's one that's been in force for a while now. But I think there are other ways of doing things. I realized the other day that I get paid for creating copyrighted works - and I get a salary for doing so. Many people are in a similar situation. I see no royalties from my work, I've traded royalties for a steady paycheck. So that's one model, possibly - writers in cubicles, getting paid per annum rather than per librum ;-)

Another is a transition back to the patronage model. Writers would be supported either by a single wealthy individual or corporation, or a group of fans, contributing money held in escrow. A few authors and musicians have tried something like this... Another is the sort of multi-talented, hybrid model of writer like Cory Doctorow - he sells some books, but he gives his writing away for free and makes his living on a mishmash of speaker's fees, University posts, donations, advertising, and who knows what else.

Yet another is the National Endowment for the Arts model - grants given from the government (or private entities) to writers and artists to enable them to work for the benefit of society.

Honestly, I don't know what the best way to promote authorship is. However, I don't think we get to pick (we being society). We can try different things, like the NEA, but eventually the market will sort the whole thing out.

We also can't continue to hold on to the current model. We can try desperately, but it's like trying to make a religion illegal. A government can try to stomp out the practice, but they're only going to come close to succeeding if they use totalitarian methods. (This is why I think it's important to recognize that the *goal* of copyright is the public benefit, and to try and contrast that with the harm caused by copyright laws - fairly minimal so far, but we're approaching a future where we have more and more draconian laws in order to stop something that's as easy as breathing. I'm not sure we'll ever get to levels like "The Right to Read" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html), but it's looking more and more like Prohibition, or the War on Some Drugs...)

Anyway, water flows downhill, and the market takes the path of least resistance. People won't stop copying information for free, just as they didn't keep riding horses after the advent of the automobile, or copying books by hand after the advent of the printing press. Trying to make sure the saddle-makers and copyists don't go out of business is the wrong battle to be fighting - and it's bound to be a losing one, in the end.

Okay, end of rant.

I'd agree, however, that copyright law is seriously overdue for a total rebuild from the ground up, and the non-physical nature of modern media needs to be addressed ... among many other issues, but protecting the concept of protecting the creators of them from shameless exploitation, and balancing it against the good of society at large should be heart and soul of that re-build.

Ahh, see, copyright law is *all about* the good of society at large. It actually doesn't give a fig for the creators of content, except as a means to that end. And I do feel sorry for the writers who will have to stumble and fail in the search for the next business model - there will be some who deserve to succeed, but choose the wrong way to do it. But in the end, society will be better off for having made the transition.

Steve Jordan

10-08-2007, 06:50 PM

Another is a transition back to the patronage model. Writers would be supported either by a single wealthy individual or corporation, or a group of fans, contributing money held in escrow. A few authors and musicians have tried something like this...

Yeah, someone please be sure and tell me when this model comes back into fashion... :pray:

NatCh

10-08-2007, 09:06 PM

Excellent! I ranted a bit myself, so I only expect the same in return. And of course, you always write well-thought-out comments that provoke thought - and you do it politely ;-)I ... think that's one of the highest compliments I've ever received, bingle. Thank you.

However, you do have to recognize the growing importance and presence of "amateur" creators - YouTube, the Open Source Movement, the Creative Commons, blog posts like this one (hey, I could get paid $0.005 a word for this stuff! ;-)). Obviously, only a small fraction of content is created this way, but it's growing. There are even full-length, fan-made movies these days. However, I don't think this sort of content will be the only type people want. We will certainly want professional, full-time content creators still working away.That's a good point, bingle, but how much of that content would you consider paying for? Would the average person consider paying for? I know there's some worth it, but the vast majority, while interesting/entertaining, simply isn't of a grade that most folks would pay for. And that little bit that is, is kind of viewed as not worth paying for because it's all mixed in with the other. Ad revenue is about the only way to make an approach like that pay, and no one's developed an approach on that that works very well for books. :shrug:

You have in your mind a particular business model for writers getting paid - and it's one that's been in force for a while now.I couldn't honestly say whether I do or not, but your point is very well taken regardless. :yes:

But I think there are other ways of doing things.Indubitably.

I realized the other day that I get paid for creating copyrighted works - and I get a salary for doing so. Many people are in a similar situation. I see no royalties from my work, I've traded royalties for a steady paycheck. So that's one model, possibly - writers in cubicles, getting paid per annum rather than per librum ;-)Trouble with that is that at some point revenue for the work still has to be collected, so that doesn't really change things much, just shifts it so that this notional "employer" would be more in control of the process, they'd still want their purchased rights to the content protected.

Another is a transition back to the patronage model. Writers would be supported either by a single wealthy individual or corporation, or a group of fans, contributing money held in escrow. A few authors and musicians have tried something like this....The first thing that comes to mind on this idea is that there's a reason that the patronage model passed out of common practice. Most likely a lack of patrons, at a guess. :grin: The multi-patronage model may work, but there are some serious challenges to overcome, and again, I think it just rearranges the paradigm, rather than shifting it -- instead of the readers paying royalties through the pubs, they're doing it directly, presumably things like copy-editing turn into a contract service that the authors use or don't as they choose.

Another is the sort of multi-talented, hybrid model of writer like Cory Doctorow - he sells some books, but he gives his writing away for free and makes his living on a mishmash of speaker's fees, University posts, donations, advertising, and who knows what else.Yes, well Mr. Doctorow is a very unusual animal, I should thing that very few individuals (out of many quite good writers) could make that approach work for them.

Yet another is the National Endowment for the Arts model - grants given from the government (or private entities) to writers and artists to enable them to work for the benefit of society.I'm afraid that both my first and most considered response to this is the sound made by sticking out one's tongue and blowing forcefully. That's kinda my reaction to most suggestions that the gubmint should solve things for us. I just don't see that there are too many things that are worth the bloat, waste and corruption that come from letting the gubmint "help" us. But that's another kettle of fish for another type of forum (the type I generally stay far away from, actually), so I'll leave it at that. :grin:

Honestly, I don't know what the best way to promote authorship is. However, I don't think we get to pick (we being society). We can try different things, like the NEA, but eventually the market will sort the whole thing out.I suppose that the market will likely sort it out, but I'd love to come up with the magic bullet that gets th