10-03-2007, 08:56 AM | #31 | |
Cache Ninja!
Posts: 643
Karma: 1002300
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Device: PRS-500, HTC Shift, iPod Touch, iPaq 4150, TC1100, Panasonic WordsGear
|
Quote:
|
|
10-03-2007, 08:59 AM | #32 |
Resident Curmudgeon
Posts: 74,027
Karma: 129333114
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts
Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3
|
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.
|
Advert | |
|
10-03-2007, 09:02 AM | #33 |
eBook Enthusiast
Posts: 85,544
Karma: 93383043
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6
|
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.
|
10-03-2007, 10:50 AM | #34 | |
Guru
Posts: 767
Karma: 2347
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC
Device: Sony Reader, nook, Droid, nookColor, nookTablet
|
Quote:
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. |
|
10-03-2007, 11:34 AM | #35 | |
eBook Enthusiast
Posts: 85,544
Karma: 93383043
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6
|
Quote:
|
|
Advert | |
|
10-03-2007, 12:19 PM | #36 | |
Wizard
Posts: 2,999
Karma: 300001
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Citrus Heights, California
Device: TWO Kindle 2s, one each Bookeen Cybook Gen3, Sony PRS-500, Axim X51V
|
Quote:
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 |
|
10-03-2007, 12:53 PM | #37 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 8,478
Karma: 5171130
Join Date: Jan 2006
Device: none
|
Quote:
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. |
|
10-03-2007, 01:07 PM | #38 | ||
Gadget Geek
Posts: 2,324
Karma: 22221
Join Date: Aug 2007
Device: Paperwhite, Kindle 3 (retired), Skindle 1.2 (retired)
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
10-03-2007, 01:55 PM | #39 |
Groupie
Posts: 156
Karma: 817
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: houston
Device: prs-500
|
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.
|
10-03-2007, 01:55 PM | #40 |
Guru
Posts: 767
Karma: 2347
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC
Device: Sony Reader, nook, Droid, nookColor, nookTablet
|
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.
|
10-03-2007, 02:04 PM | #41 |
Gizmologist
Posts: 11,615
Karma: 929550
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Republic of Texas Embassy at Jackson, TN
Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3
|
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.
|
10-03-2007, 02:24 PM | #42 | |
Connoisseur
Posts: 56
Karma: 11
Join Date: Aug 2007
Device: iLiad / Palm Vx / Nokia E65
|
Quote:
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. |
|
10-03-2007, 02:51 PM | #43 |
Technogeezer
Posts: 7,233
Karma: 1601464
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Virginia, USA
Device: Sony PRS-500
|
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. |
10-03-2007, 03:20 PM | #44 |
eReader
Posts: 2,750
Karma: 4968470
Join Date: Aug 2007
Device: Note 5; PW3; Nook HD+; ChuWi Hi12; iPad
|
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. |
10-03-2007, 03:53 PM | #45 | |
Sir Penguin of Edinburgh
Posts: 12,375
Karma: 23555235
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: DC Metro area
Device: Shake a stick plus 1
|
Quote:
The BetaMax case. It is completely legal in the USA to record broadcasts, tv or radio. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Editorial: Are Too Many E-books Stealing the Pleasure of Reading? | Bob Russell | General Discussions | 75 | 05-24-2010 12:11 PM |
Stealing Light by Gary Gibson | tech_au | Reading Recommendations | 5 | 01-18-2009 01:21 PM |
More on ripping CDs | Nate the great | News | 10 | 12-13-2007 12:03 PM |
Ripping a CD... UPDATE | Nate the great | Lounge | 66 | 10-18-2007 03:32 PM |