Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, But descrambling a broadcast illegally only to watch it on the screen and hear it over the speaker(s) is like playing a stolen CD: the infraction is not against copyright law. But you watch something for free, what other people pay for, because they SUBSCRIBED the service! And it's only for them! You're doing it illegaly this way too! But if I'm wrong and it's not illegal, it's immoral though. BTW: Is this a MD List? ;) Regards, I think David meant that you're not breaking any copyright laws when watching an illegally descrambled movie. It's indeed stealing and not copying. (copyright law applies to copying!) Cheers, Ralph -- === Ralph SmeetsFunctional Verification Centre Of Competence - CMG Voice: (+33) (0)4 76 58 44 46 STMicroelectronics Fax:(+33) (0)4 76 58 40 11 5, chem de la Dhuy Mobile: (+33) (0)6 82 66 62 70 38240 MEYLAN E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] FRANCE === "For many years, mankind lived just like the animals. And then something happened that unleashed the powers of our imagination: We learned to talk." -- Stephen Hawking, later used by Pink Floyd -- === - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] had written, Nope, not here. It's legal to copy shows on your VCR or other recording device hear. It's not legal to unscramble the shows. Federal Copyright law, case law, time shifting. Sounds silly I know. The untarnished rodent rejoined, | I think the technical issue is not the decoding but the theft of service. | If you steal cable or satellite, with a decoder box or otherwise, it falls | under theft of service and the carriers hit you with that, not copyright | infringement. That makes sense: copyright law would not apply because descrambling does not in itself make a replayable copy. Descrambling and recording the descrambled signal on a VCR might involve copyright law, because the timeshifting exemp- tion applies, I believe, only to broadcasts that one could have lawfully viewed when they were aired. But descrambling a broadcast illegally only to watch it on the screen and hear it over the speaker(s) is like playing a stolen CD: the infraction is not against copyright law. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
From: Maciej Rutkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 9:12 PM Subject: Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD BTW: Is this a MD List? ;) Md... as in Minidisc? No! It's MD as in Massive Debate! ;o) Magic -- "Creativity is more a birthright than an acquisition, and the power of sound is wisdom and understanding applied to the power of vibration." Location : Portsmouth, England, UK Homepage : http://www.mattnet.freeserve.co.uk EMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 13:52:30 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:38:25 -0800 (PST), Neil wrote: Why does the constitution define copyright? It doesn't. Automatic F. See ya! Steve - how ironic! You just flunked yourself... You should have posted the context of this question, it is in response to comments *you* yourself made, I find it extremely poignant that you didn't include the previous dialogue which relates to this question? :- (You actually said this bit...) Anytime copyright law is mitigated in the U.S., it is mitigated due to a competing Constitutional value. It has to be, because copyright itself derives from the Constitution. (I said this bit...) I would imagine that in reality, copyright is derived from peoples' intellectual property, and the rights *they* have to protect this. (You said this bit...) No, it derives from the Constitution. (And finally I said this bit...) Why does the constitution define copyright? Now Steve, rather than just trying to snipe, and then have it back-fire, why waste time with something like this, when you could answer the simple question I posted, which would rather put this discussion in context. Why are you still avoiding these questions, yet still prepared to respond like this? You are making no sense whatsoever. You cannot claim it to be the time or the effort if you're prepared to make a reply like this, so come on Steve why won't you answer the three questions? What are you avoiding and why? Neil ___ Visit Excite Shopping at http://shopping.excite.com The fastest way to find your Holiday gift this season - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 30 Dec 1999 | Nope, not here. It's legal to copy shows on your VCR or other | recording device hear. It's not legal to unscramble the shows. | Federal Copyright law, case law, time shifting. Sounds silly I know. I think the technical issue is not the decoding but the theft of service. If you steal cable or satellite, with a decoder box or otherwise, it falls under theft of service and the carriers hit you with that, not copyright infringement. [...] | It's legal to copy someone else's CD for noncommercial use here. | AHRA. Federal Constitutional law. Neither the AHRA nor the Constitution of the United States say anything about making copies of someone else's media. The Copyright Act of 1976 says you may *NOT* copy something you do not legally own or have explicit right to copy. There is no conflict between the three statues. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE4b+XTgl+vIlSVSNkRAuz+AKD3xl/JnPf5HQTbknFwpP1uxhaWmwCfSEqd S8r1DGYrsNT1RwxSDf6jCb4= =VMLO -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
Hi all (or those who have yet to adjust their email filters g), First off I'm not a lawyer so don't know the ins and outs of the AHRA, hell I don't even live in the states so its irrelevant to me in the EU. However I do have a rough idea on what is and isn't legal, a good idea on what would generally be considered ehical, and a perfect idea on what I believe. Seems Neil and Steve are going at it hammer and tongs, and while I personally prefer the way Steve views things, I doubt from a legal position that he has a leg to stand on. As Neil keeps on asking... If what you say is true, when would somebody ever need buy an original CD? So long as somebody always had an original copy, and no money changed hands, given your perspective nobody would ever need buy a copy. Don't music and video libraries do a bomb in your neck of the woods? ;-) ... it's hard to argue with that. Of course since I bought into minidisc, the number of CDs I buy has dropped somewhat. The number of CDs I borrow, be it from friends or a library more than compensates. And yes, the library (it's a public library with books mainly which claims to have one of the largest, if not the largest selection of CDs in the UK) seems to do a good turnover of music and videos. If there were more guys like me, far from needing funding from the local council I bet they would make a very healthy profit, be able to buy more books for free borrowing, provide more computers for free internet access to those who cannot afford a computer, and still be able to provide funds to support other local services. It would be a win-win situation for everyone except the evil greedy capitalist record companies and high-street stores which rip you off. Perhaps a grant for artists could be provided from the libraries profits. BTW in case you still havent realised, I would love some sort of utopian socialist society where everything is freely available to everyone and knowledge is the driving force. And I don't just mean music, software is fair game and the internet is a real positive force for the sharing of all forms of media. Why not get a copy of a game from the 'net for free if the copyright owner chooses not to publish any more legal copies. This happened with "Elite III - First Encounters" and the result was at least one site sticking it online as a free download. And why not? Before downloading it, I rang around half a dozen large software retailers, dug through bargain buckets of old games first and couldn't find it so I trawled 'round the net until I found a site where a like minded guy knew of its rarity and decided that was wrong. Yes, of course Neil, what he did was legally wrong- no doubt whatsoever about that but no-one lost money by what he did, instead many peeps will have gained much enjoyment from it so in my opinion thats fine in my book. *Please Note* -- all of the above is presented as hypothetical views and actions and I am not stating I have carried out any of the above actions, or would condone doing so. So there :-) Cheers, PirateGaz -- "hoist the sails and fly the Jolly Roger, there be treasure out there!" - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:38:25 -0800 (PST), Neil wrote: Why does the constitution define copyright? It doesn't. Automatic F. See ya! - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 11:42:36 -0800, Dan Frakes wrote an excellent and someone intimidating post, which included: I hope everyone can take a deep breath and realize that these discussions aren't supposed to be personal. Some of the personal attacks have been disappointing (I'm not directing that comment at Steve, BTW). It's possible for people to disagree without insulting each other. Thanks. I strongly disagree on a couple of issues. I'll try to keep it short and hit them real fast. Today, the sole source of income, and hence the sole method of sustenance, for most musical artists is through the sales of individual copies of their works. This is *why* copyright law was invented. Copyright law was not established to provide sustenance for musical artists. It was established to "promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." (Actually patent law covers inventors and discoveries). See the text of the Constitution. The two are related yes, and it seems a fine distinction, but I think it's a very important one. By the way, I am assuming that the people arguing for the copying of CDs you don't own are consistent in your views, and that you also feel that copying software that a friend bought, without paying for it, is also completely OK and covered by your interpretations of our constitutional freedoms? Because there is really no difference between the two. Neil keeps alluding to this, too. I think the law does and should treat different media differently, and it must, because the media can be so different from one another that abstract analogies accross media don't hold up. Music and books and computer programs are all very different from one another. For example, how do you implement "fair use" with a computer program or musical recording? It seems to me to be conceptually and practically impossible. Do you honestly believe that "our freedom" includes the "right" to copy the work of an artist who's only source of income is the per-unit royalties they get from the sales of that album? In some very limited cases, yes. As a general rule, no. I agree with you about the greed and overzealousness of the record companies. But that doesn't mean I want to see recording artists and their careers fail just because I'm trying to strike a blow against corporate greed. Me either. MD trading rings seem like commercial activity to me. The intent of the copier is important, I think. There are many examples where the *avoidance* of commercial activity has been successfully prosecuted as "commercial activity." While I agree that it isn't commercial in the sense of a retail business, I disagree when people claim that copying a friend's CD is not in any way "commercial." I'd love to read the cases. But I still say copying a friend's CD once for listening pleasure on an MD recorder is not commercial. I think it's inevitable that the term "non-commercial" in hte AHRA will be strictly construed against the government, and for the consumer, in a ciminal prosecution. I believe many of us *have* read that text, and it's not that clear, and (as you so clearly pointed out later in your message) probably won't be clarified until a case is tried and a court decides the meaning. Boy, I just think the text is awfully, awfully clear, and if a statute is too vague to tell what's illegal, it's unconstitutional to prosecute someone under it, so interpretation of what's legal and what isn't is going to benefit the "consumer." The drafters were acutely aware of this when they drafted the statute, it's very basic constitutional law. Also, the fact that "consumer" and "non-commercial" are mentioned in the same sentence seems to imply a narrow definition of the term commercial to me, such that one acting as a consumer could indeed be engaged in non-commercial activity. Otherwise, the term non-commercial would have no meaning. But we could argue that all day. Your position is well thought-out. Web sites and individuals have been prosecuted/sued for placing copyrighted work on a web site. Most of the time the case doesn't go to court because the offending parties remove the content to avoid a trial. There was a famous case where the college kid won, wasn't there? Do you know of other cases which actually reached adjudication? That's where the law is made. Most people just don't want to take the heat and test their rights. They don't have the emotional stamina, the time, the motivation or the money. Many of us have a firm grip of the big picture. Many of us actually have some degree of legal experience and/or knowledge. We just don't agree with you, and we just don't interpret the law the same as you. That does't make us wrong. That doesn't make us stupid. That doesn't make us bad people. You certainly do. I think you're an intelligent, good person with a
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
It's legal to copy someone else's CD for noncommercial use here. AHRA. Federal Constitutional law. My guess is that you didn't do well in Copyright Law in law school. You keep saying it's legal; who knows -- maybe if you say it often enough, it'll *become* legal. Hint: it's not legal -- because if you're copying someone else's CD, your assets are being increased. . .and, legally, that's commercial. = Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg = - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:38:25 -0800 (PST), Neil wrote: I always thought cable and satellite TV companies would prosecute you for copyright theft, or perhaps just simply theft or fraud for this, both over there across the pond, and here in England. Nope, not here. It's legal to copy shows on your VCR or other recording device hear. It's not legal to unscramble the shows. Federal Copyright law, case law, time shifting. Sounds silly I know. I don't think it's likely they would get prosecuted, either. But I would still contend it's technically illegal, which I think is the point in debate. It's legal to copy someone else's CD for noncommercial use here. AHRA. Federal Constitutional law. Again read the terms of the copyright agreement for clarification. Copyright law is Federal Constitutional Criminal and Civil law. You don't make the terms, Federal law does. Contract law is state civil law. Guess which one trumps? But does it say you are allowed to breach copyright, and not actually have a copy yourself? In that it's OK simply to pirate somebody else's copy? When does the commercial aspect kick in? Surely you would have been a commercial customer if you'd actually had to buy the CD? All of your barbed language aside, it's legal to copy a friend's CD to MD in the U.S. If you interpreted the term commercial in the AHRA the way you want, the term non-commercial would have no meaning, a big no-no in statutory interpretation. Could the language of the statute be any clearer? If the AHRA term non-commercial is too vague for a particalur case, then prosecution would be unconstitutional. That's how it works here. Want to copy some pages from a copyrighted book? Hm. That seems fair. We'll call that fair use. See ya Mr. Author, see ya Mr. Book publisher. See the copyright notice. No autopsy, no foul - copyright owner agrees. Copyright owner explicitly doesn't agree, or decides to disallow - I would imagine they have perfect grounds. Wrong, where there is a conflict, copyright law trumps contract law. Copyright law is Federal law. You don't make the terms. The copyright terms are Federal Constitutional law, no matter what drivel you read on the back of the CD etc. Fair use doctrine is Federal Constitutional law, case law. College kid puts copyrighted information available for download on the internet. Don't care where he got it. Was he selling it? No? See ya Mr. Prosecutor. Does he *own* it, or the copyright? No. See the copyright agreement - let the courts decide. The Courts have decided on this one. Of course I had to simplify it to get it down to 3 lines. Think I'd just make something like that up? The terms of Copyright are Federal Constitutional law. They have nothing to do with state contract law. You want the FBI to get a warrant to search your home because they have probable cause to believe you have been recording minidiscs of other people's CD's? Really? No, not at all. I think the debate is on the legality of the situation, not necessarily the practicality or the risk. It's legal to record someone else's CD for noncommercial use in the U.S. AHRA. Federal Constitutional law. You want CD's with controversial political speech (and that's a lot of pop music these days) to be available only to people who buy them? Quite simply, poignantly and plainly - depends on who owns the copyright and the restrictions, or lack of, that they permit their material to be distributed with. Not in the U.S. it doesn't. Federal Constitutional law. Bottom line, do you want the government in a position to restrict and decide what can or cannot be copied in your home? No, so long as you actually have complied with whatever copyright restrictions apply. Copyright does not trump personal liberty in the U.S. Not even close. I'm not sure I'd want to live in a country where the highest moral value was copyright law. Would you? I mean if you own a CD, I don't think anybody is gonna come breaking down your door telling you what you can and can't do with it. That would be illegal and, if done by a government, unconstitutional, in the U.S. If you don't, and are pirating it offa friend, I don't think anybody is gonna come breaking down your door, either. But I still don't believe it's legal, unless the copyright agreement allows it. It's legal. The AHRA allows it. It's Federal Constitutional law. Don't you think that's getting a little dangerous? Don't you think your liberty is at stake a little bit here? This is a little of a strawman really. No, it's the heart of the matter. Anytime copyright law is mitigated in the U.S., it is mitigated due to a competing Constitutional value. It has to be, because copyright itself derives from the Constitution. I would imagine that in reality, copyright is derived from peoples' intellectual property, and the rights *they* have to protect this. No, it derives from the Constitution. The
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
Sorry this one is a bit long, but now I think I'm done with this dead horse... ;-) I hope everyone can take a deep breath and realize that these discussions aren't supposed to be personal. Some of the personal attacks have been disappointing (I'm not directing that comment at Steve, BTW). It's possible for people to disagree without insulting each other. Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Copyright law wilts in the face of your most fundamental Constitutional freedoms. A better way to say this would be "Copyright law is binding unless it infringes on your Constitutional freedoms." The most important part of that being the definition of "Constitutional freedoms." You appear to have an ultra-purist interpretation of such freedoms which leads you to hold the personal belief that anything you do in your own home is OK (although you make an exception for child pornography). That's fine; that's your philosophy. However... We want every citizen to have access to what is going on in this culture, to freely associate with one another, to share ideas As Neil has pointed out, saying that the theory of "free exchange of information" applies to copying CDs you didn't buy is an extremely specious argument. If the law prevents you from copying an artist's CD that you didn't pay for, your rights aren't being infringed upon, nor are you being denied access to that music. We have free radio, etc. You can go to your friend's house whenever you want to listen to it. You can go to a record store and listen whenever you want. The thing that really bothers me about these views on intellectual property is that the argument is entirely ideological and, consequently, oversimplified. I am personally a big supporter of constitutional rights. I agree with you that too much restriction of the spread of ideas is a dangerous thing. However, in *our* economic system, the other extreme is just as dangerous. Contrary to your argument -- that restrictions on copying works of intellectual property stifle the spread of ideas -- in our system it is also the *stealing* of such works that will truly stifle the spread of ideas. If you don't want to stop stealing artists' work because of legal or ethical reasons, then stop it for practical reasons: People in our society and our economy have to survive. They have to make money. And "idea people" -- authors, artists, musicians, software programmers -- make money by selling copies of their ideas and their works. For every copy of an album you buy, they make money, which allows them to continue producing their art. For every copy you don't buy but instead copy from someone, they lose money. [And forget the argument that "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" for the moment, because that, again, is specious and merely convenient.] If people copy albums without paying for them, if people use software they didn't pay for, if people photocopy books... these things take away the economic incentive for people to pursue a career in those areas. Sure, a few people will try those fields anyway out of pure desire, but there are many enormously talented people that want to do something they're good at *and* make a decent living, and those people will eventually choose to do something else with their life than pursue a career where people steal the fruits of their labor on a daily basis. In older societies (and to a limited extent today, through agencies like the NEA), the government sponsored painters, authors, musicians, sculptors, etc., because of their importance to society as a whole. Today, the sole source of income, and hence the sole method of sustenance, for most musical artists is through the sales of individual copies of their works. This is *why* copyright law was invented. By stealing albums, while you're of course denying the megacorporate record companies some small amount of profit, you're also denying the artists their income, and that, more than anything else, will lead to a narrower spectrum of expression and ideas because only those people who can afford, in one way or another, to not make as much income will still make music. By the way, I am assuming that the people arguing for the copying of CDs you don't own are consistent in your views, and that you also feel that copying software that a friend bought, without paying for it, is also completely OK and covered by your interpretations of our constitutional freedoms? Because there is really no difference between the two. Our freedom is more important than worrying about if a few poor souls didn't get their theoretical, speculative $1.50. Do you honestly believe that "our freedom" includes the "right" to copy the work of an artist who's only source of income is the per-unit royalties they get from the sales of that album? If so, that's the fundamental difference between both sides of this debate and no one will ever agree. 'Nuff said ;-) I agree with you about the greed and
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 18:40:49 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:38:25 -0800 (PST), Neil wrote: I always thought cable and satellite TV companies would prosecute you for copyright theft, or perhaps just simply theft or fraud for this, both over there across the pond, and here in England. Nope, not here. It's legal to copy shows on your VCR or other recording device hear. It's not legal to unscramble the shows. Federal Copyright law, case law, time shifting. Sounds silly I know. Sorry, I should have been more clear, here, what I was still discussing was the obtaining / viewing of encrypted subscription or pay events, not general copying of publicly viewable, broadcast material. I don't think it's likely they would get prosecuted, either. But I would still contend it's technically illegal, which I think is the point in debate. It's legal to copy someone else's CD for noncommercial use here. AHRA. Federal Constitutional law. I've read this, as no doubt you have - but it doesn't state explicitly what you state. Yours is simply an interpretation. If what you say is true, when would somebody ever need buy an original CD? So long as somebody always had an original copy, and no money changed hands, given your perspective nobody would ever need buy a copy. Don't music and video libraries do a bomb in your neck of the woods? ;-) But does it say you are allowed to breach copyright, and not actually have a copy yourself? In that it's OK simply to pirate somebody else's copy? When does the commercial aspect kick in? Surely you would have been a commercial customer if you'd actually had to buy the CD? All of your barbed language aside, it's legal to copy a friend's CD to MD in the U.S. If you interpreted the term commercial in the AHRA the way you want, the term non-commercial would have no meaning, *No* it would not. If I have a copy of the original CD, and copy this to MD in order to listen to it, perhaps on the move, or for whatever personal reason, then this is almost certainly a non-commercial activity - as I'm extremely unlikely to purchase another original copy on the MD format. So long as you don't subscribe to the belief that it would be valid for the copyright owner to impose the format or the platform with which I could use the copyright material. This is, I believe, the type of thing the AHRA appears to address, IMO, and give the vagueness of the language used, I believe this opinion to be as tenable as any other. However if I don't own a copy of the original, copyright CD, I'd have no option than a commercial one with which to use the material. It's legal to record someone else's CD for noncommercial use in the U.S. AHRA. Federal Constitutional law. What is non-commercial use? Surely if I didn't own a copy I'd have no option than a commercial one with which to use the material. Given this dubious argument, where do you draw the line? Not in the U.S. it doesn't. Federal Constitutional law. You seem to be equating the aspect of the constitution that advocates the free passage of ideas and knowledge, to the free-for-all ignorance of copyright for intellectual property such as music. Quite simply you are arguing a specific from a generality, here, and there doesn't seem to be any firm details to support this supposition. Don't you think that's getting a little dangerous? Don't you think your liberty is at stake a little bit here? This is a little of a strawman really. No, it's the heart of the matter. Hardly - I simply don't define liberty and the freedom of exchange in ideas, to be the same as being free to pirate the intellectual copyright property of those that worked to produce it. What's the tangible difference between this and copying say copyright computer games software? Why won't you answer this type of question? Anytime copyright law is mitigated in the U.S., it is mitigated due to a competing Constitutional value. It has to be, because copyright itself derives from the Constitution. I would imagine that in reality, copyright is derived from peoples' intellectual property, and the rights *they* have to protect this. No, it derives from the Constitution. Why does the constitution define copyright? What about trademarks, patents, with your argument how can you ever class an idea or information, or material as ever being copyright restricted, if you can simply copy it in your own home even when not owning a legitimate copy. Your restrictions so to speak are a matter of contract law, and may or may not be legally binding. Copyright law is Federal Constitutional law and has nothing to do with your restrictions. Whether certain contract terms are binding is a matter of state law and varies greatly from state to state. Fairness can be a major consideration. Unreasonable terms in little print drafted by the person bringing the lawsuit
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
On Sat, 01 Jan 2000 15:43:52 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I strongly disagree on a couple of issues. I'll try to keep it short and hit them real fast. Today, the sole source of income, and hence the sole method of sustenance, for most musical artists is through the sales of individual copies of their works. This is *why* copyright law was invented. Copyright law was not established to provide sustenance for musical artists. Why and how do you make the distinction. Surely the music a musician writes / produces is just as much his intellectual property as say software a computer software (games or business) programmer / company produces. It was established to "promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Aaah - see "respective writings and discoveries", "useful arts", "authors", who's drawing the line here for music and other copyright material, here, you? And don't say the AHRA - it's simply not as specific as you would claim. By the way, I am assuming that the people arguing for the copying of CDs you don't own are consistent in your views, and that you also feel that copying software that a friend bought, without paying for it, is also completely OK and covered by your interpretations of our constitutional freedoms? Because there is really no difference between the two. Neil keeps alluding to this, too. I think the law does and should treat different media differently, Where and why? And more importantly why should it? Just simply because you or others may want to copy music? Why shouldn't a musician have just as much protection and rights for his / her intellectual property as say a software writer, or a video production company, or a cable or satelite vendor? What's this difference you're alluding to that me and others aren't getting? Simply the desire that some may have to copy some music they're not prepared to pay for? What makes this any different than being not prepared to pay for a video tape, or DVD, or computer game, or business software, or encrypted / pay cable / satelite productions? Explain, please. and it must, Why? Simply the desire for some that they don't want to pay for it? because the media can be so different from one another that abstract analogies accross media don't hold up. Sorry, Steve, you're really gonna have to explain that one. What so different from music on a CD, to say a computer game on a CD? Or a video on tape, or on DVD? An encrypted, pay, musical event on cable / satelite? *What* is the *tangible* difference? Music and books and computer programs are all very different from one another. For example, how do you implement "fair use" with a computer program or musical recording? It seems to me to be conceptually and practically impossible. Hardly - what *is* the *tangible* difference? Do you honestly believe that "our freedom" includes the "right" to copy the work of an artist who's only source of income is the per-unit royalties they get from the sales of that album? In some very limited cases, yes. What *limited* cases, and where do you draw the line? Is there a ratio between pirated copies (done simply for home use, honest! ;-)) and the legal ones? Is it completely legal to record copies of say CDs from a music library? Why would you ever by an original - I mean after all - just copy the original (probably copyright, too!) artwork. As a general rule, no. Explain. And then explain the difference. There are many examples where the *avoidance* of commercial activity has been successfully prosecuted as "commercial activity." While I agree that it isn't commercial in the sense of a retail business, I disagree when people claim that copying a friend's CD is not in any way "commercial." I'd love to read the cases. But I still say copying a friend's CD once for listening pleasure on an MD recorder is not commercial. Of course it's commercial, because otherwise you'd have no option than to commercially procure a legal copy yourself. What you're suggesting is that so long as you can access and original legal copy, people would never need buy it themselves. Where would you draw the line with this? Neil ___ Visit Excite Shopping at http://shopping.excite.com The fastest way to find your Holiday gift this season - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 28 Dec 1999 | I'm a lawyer. Magic's definition of "commercial" is silly. It is not | commercial activity if I find a penny on the sidewalk. But really, | that's just common sense isn't it? If you trade enough MDs for the | wrong reasons it would be commercial activity. God only know how many | it would take. It's like asking how many angels dance on the head of | a pin. In the US, copyright infringement falls under civil law, which means a lot of stuff but the most relevant aspect at the moment is that it is the responsibility of the infringed party to pursue action against the infringer. But if the damages resulting from infringement or repeated infringement of registered copyright or copyrights exceeds $2,500 it becomes federal felony and the FBI will probably become involved. Now, calculating "damages" is not strictly tied to dollar cost. But if you do oversimplify and figure that the estimated value of an illegally distributed copy of an audio CD is about half its street price, all it takes is a few hundred such copies for the record company to slap you with a criminal suit. Put another way, say you are part of a "trading ring" of about 30 people, and the deal is, you buy an audio CD, everyone else provides media, and you make copies. If each of you does that 10 times, your ring will probably have easilly exceeded the $2,500 threshold by a fair margin, making the lot of you federal criminals. Fun, huh? :) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE4aZW3gl+vIlSVSNkRAtAcAKCNq2dnj4y2LLk0gnFIfTZNekO0dACg+8MD EwlHl6906euAcTUQupUjyxU= =JWV2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete. Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 20:59:43 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my humble opinion (and this is not legal advice), with a few dramatic and severe exceptions (for example, child pornography) if you are an American citizen, you can record just about any damn thing you want in your home, at least once. What gives you this specific "right"? You don't need the AHRA to do this. Copyright law won't hold you back. Really? What, legally, prevents you from watching, recording, or whatever else, encrypted, copyright, cable or satellite broadcasts, without paying the appropriate subscription or fee, or is this simply allowed? Copyright law wilts in the face of your most fundamental Constitutional freedoms. 'scuse me, but where does your constitution *specifically* overrule copyright? We want every citizen to have access to what is going on in this culture, to freely associate with one another, to share ideas, to be able to act with autonomy and privacy. Surely this is just interpretation and speculation. I would suggest none of this is written in stone, to allow individuals to ignore copyright as and when they see fit, whilst singing the star-spangled banner, waving a flag... AIUI you are using generalisms to validate specifics. That's the way it is and the way it's always been. Our freedom is more important than worrying about if a few poor souls didn't get their theoretical, speculative $1.50. Whether they did, or didn't, isn't your call. People who bought copyright material are bound by the conditions under which they bought it. If they didn't want to be thus bound, they didn't have to buy it - they *chose*. Why do you think they had to make a law called the American Home Recording Act in the first place? Because the copyright laws, if not interpreted in full view of the Constitution, left open the possibility of serious violations of your Constitutional rights. Look at the name, it says it all, in America, you are free to make home recordings. Period. You are, you were, you will be. It's THE AMERICAN HOME RECORDING ACT, PEOPLE. Which presumably doesn't outlaw the abliilty to make home recordings, and purchase home recording equipment. But nowhere have I seen anything that specifically revokes copyright restrictions. Feel free to specifically point out where copyright restrictions on prerecorded media are now unconstitutional, illegal and now irrelevant. Neil ___ Visit Excite Shopping at http://shopping.excite.com The fastest way to find your Holiday gift this season - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
Syd -- just commending you... this is perhaps the most lucid e-mail I've seen on this thread so far. =) Also, this e-mail contains a lot of opinion and personal belief. If you're prone to flaming replies, just delete this right now. Read only with an open mind. Sydtech said: C'mon - if you copy a commercially released CD from a friend, you're pirating it. It was put out on the market for the record company and (hopefully) the artists to get compensated for their work, i.e. entertaining you. Exactly. This is the core of the argument. When discussing legality of copying music which you do not own, people get so caught up in the lingo that it's hard to keep a sense of what's right/wrong and what's legal/not. [small disclaimer: I'm a US citizen and have been for all of my life. My comments will therefore likely show a knowledge of law and ethics confined to the US. ] My opinions (and interpretations) come down to this: 1) Copying a work to which you do not have a license (that is, have never officially purchased it from an artist or someone licensed by that artist for distribution purposes) is illegal. 2) Copying that work for your own personal uses is not likely to get you caught by any police force. 3) Regardless of whether you get caught/charged/sued, copying a work that you do not already own at least one legitimate copy of is theft from the artist, their label, techs, roadies, and distributors. 4) Being theft, it is unethical (and personally deplorable) to copy a work in this manner. Admittedly, I have one or two minidiscs which have been copied from CD's that friends have let me borrow (rat: read jer). At the same time, these are works which I feel a personal obligation to purchase in the near future, as I feel dirty whenever I listen to them. Perhaps I suffer from moral compunctions that others simply don't feel... that's my problem. However, I believe that most interpretations of the law, in the context of legal action brought by an artist or label against an individual in the United States, will end up defending the same opinions which I hold. This is why I get so pissed off when people confuse the trading of boots with pirating. It ain't the same thing. Yep. I trade concert boots and unreleased/limited pressings of my favorite groups all the time. It's a great way for true fanatics to expand their collections while meeting new people with similar interests. Burning copies of your CD's and trading them with others, or doing the same with MD, for the sole purpose of pooling your music collection is a disgusting thing to do, as it raises prices for the rest of us. Furthermore, pirates are often confused with bootleggers in the media, much like the common media confusion between "crackers" and "hackers" ... one group is committing blatantly illegal acts with no regard for the consequences, while the other group seeks to expand certain fields, letting the legal lines grey a bit if they get in the way. Don't get me wrong - I don't feel that bad for the record companies; I think they rip the artists off far more than a home pirate doesthis is why MP3 scares the shit out of record companies - it makes them obsolete. Agreed... but physically trading discs with other folks for the sole purpose of expanding your collection with top-40 hits is stupid, illegal, and wrong. My $0.02, /Andrew - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
In my humble opinion (and this is not legal advice), with a few dramatic and severe exceptions (for example, child pornography) if you are an American citizen, you can record just about any damn thing you want in your home, at least once. You don't need the AHRA to do this. Copyright law won't hold you back. Copyright law wilts in the face of your most fundamental Constitutional freedoms I don't necessarily disagree with this, but please explain how this is guaranteed by the constitution. = Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg = - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
You're a sharp cookie Neil. I'm not going to fulfill all the requests for legal memoranda because it would take me several days and I'm on vacation, and to be honest I'd have a lot of learning to do. Your point about scrambled TV programs is an excellent one that I hadn't considered. Cable TV companies will kick your behind in the U.S. if they catch you and it's very enforceable. The point about scrambled TV broadcasts was a sharp left uppercut to my jaw!!! I'm woozy!!! You have me reeling!!! I had to THINK!!! Okay, try this, it wasn't the act of recording that was illegal, it was descrambling the signal that was illegal. Otherwise, it's just time-shifting (see below). I win!!! (shift to screen and music between pac-man levels two and three.) I don't know how it works in England, but cases and controversies are settled under the facts of a specific case only in the U.S. and exactly how a court will get from point A to point B is quite unpredictable. They often try to avoid the big issue in the back of everyone's mind and cut the whole thing off at the pass. As far as I know, no one's been prosecuted or sued for copying a friend's CD to MD or trading MDs with a friend. That's the big argument here isn't it? So, sort of a case here a case there a statute there, here, to my rudimentary understanding, is what happens in the U.S: Want to make recordings of your own or someone else's CD for non-commercial use in the home? Read the clear text of the AHRA. Hmm, Mr. Artist, Mr. Recording Industry, bring that one before a court and you could be in trouble for bringing a frivolous law suit. Want to sell an MP3 recorder to people for very foreseeable copyright infringement in someone's home? Oh dear, MP3 isn't specifically listed in the AHRA. Well that's okay, no one's broken the law yet. Mr. Recording Industry, that's prior restraint. See ya. Want to copy some pages from a copyrighted book? Hm. That seems fair. We'll call that fair use. See ya Mr. Author, see ya Mr. Book publisher. Want to record obviously copyrighted information from the radio or TV and play it over and over in your home? Hmmm... that's shifted in time isn't it? We'll call that time shifting. Nothing's stolen. See ya. College kid puts copyrighted information available for download on the internet. Don't care where he got it. Was he selling it? No? See ya Mr. Prosecutor. It's all a little goofed in the head, don't you think? Very creative, but a little lame. Come on, put two and two together, who's being protected? You want the FBI to get a warrant to search your home because they have probable cause to believe you have been recording minidiscs of other people's CD's? Really? You want CD's with controversial political speech (and that's a lot of pop music these days) to be available only to people who buy them? Bottom line, do you want the government in a position to restrict and decide what can or cannot be copied in your home? Don't you think that's getting a little dangerous? Don't you think your liberty is at stake a little bit here? Anytime copyright law is mitigated in the U.S., it is mitigated due to a competing Constitutional value. It has to be, because copyright itself derives from the Constitution. Much of our law is not written in statutes (so many people say quote the exact provision that.), but rather is developed in an evolving manner by the courts on a case by case basis. It's called case law. It causes uncertainty. It makes fellows go nutty. You have to get a grip of the big picture. The bottom line is, once someone gets in their home in the U.S , your copyright grip over them loosens a lot. Put it all together and someone can record just about anything in their own home once and they will be okay. That's the way it is, the way it was, and the way it's gonna be Maybe we can thank the British a little for that. ; ) Seriously, though, you're a sharp cookie. Okay, consider this: On the back of my Kid Rock CD (yes, I have warped musical taste, and yes I have the actual CD) it says: "Unauthorized reproduction of this recording is Prohibited by Federal law and subject to criminal prosecution and a good way to get your ass kicked then sued." Taking the humorous intent aside for a moment, does that mean I agree to get my ass kicked if I copy his CD? You don't think lawyers get a big chuckle as they're writing that shrink-wrap crap? It's not an enforceable contract just because it says so. And breech of contract is never, ever a crime in the U.S. That's against our Constitution, too. There are huge ugly books in tiny print about this. Oh yea, Stainless Steel Rat says that copyright infringement is a civil matter but you could be found a felon. That's odd, felons are criminals. Actually, if I remember correctly (and I'm going by memory) you can be either sued in civil court or prosecuted criminally for copyright violation. Of course, the standards
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:58:18 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're a sharp cookie Neil. H...not really sure how to take that! ;-) Your point about scrambled TV programs is an excellent one that I hadn't considered. Cable TV companies will kick your behind in the U.S. if they catch you and it's very enforceable. The point about scrambled TV broadcasts was a sharp left uppercut to my jaw!!! I'm woozy!!! You have me reeling!!! I had to THINK!!! Okay, try this, it wasn't the act of recording that was illegal, it was descrambling the signal that was illegal. Otherwise, it's just time-shifting (see below). I win!!! I always thought cable and satellite TV companies would prosecute you for copyright theft, or perhaps just simply theft or fraud for this, both over there across the pond, and here in England. Again, I can't see much tangible difference between this, and copying somebody else's CD to MD. (shift to screen and music between pac-man levels two and three.) Nice ;-) I don't know how it works in England, but cases and controversies are settled under the facts of a specific case only in the U.S. and exactly how a court will get from point A to point B is quite unpredictable. They often try to avoid the big issue in the back of everyone's mind and cut the whole thing off at the pass. As far as I know, no one's been prosecuted or sued for copying a friend's CD to MD or trading MDs with a friend. That's the big argument here isn't it? I don't think it's likely they would get prosecuted, either. But I would still contend it's technically illegal, which I think is the point in debate. Again read the terms of the copyright agreement for clarification. So, sort of a case here a case there a statute there, here, to my rudimentary understanding, is what happens in the U.S: Want to make recordings of your own or someone else's CD for non-commercial use in the home? Read the clear text of the AHRA. Hmm, Mr. Artist, Mr. Recording Industry, bring that one before a court and you could be in trouble for bringing a frivolous law suit. But does it say you are allowed to breach copyright, and not actually have a copy yourself? In that it's OK simply to pirate somebody else's copy? When does the commercial aspect kick in? Surely you would have been a commercial customer if you'd actually had to buy the CD? Want to sell an MP3 recorder to people for very foreseeable copyright infringement in someone's home? Oh dear, MP3 isn't specifically listed in the AHRA. Well that's okay, no one's broken the law yet. Mr. Recording Industry, that's prior restraint. See ya. Which is completely valid. I don't believe you could simply outlaw certain devices with the idea that they could be used, potentially, for small-scale piracy. Want to copy some pages from a copyrighted book? Hm. That seems fair. We'll call that fair use. See ya Mr. Author, see ya Mr. Book publisher. See the copyright notice. No autopsy, no foul - copyright owner agrees. Copyright owner explicitly doesn't agree, or decides to disallow - I would imagine they have perfect grounds. College kid puts copyrighted information available for download on the internet. Don't care where he got it. Was he selling it? No? See ya Mr. Prosecutor. Does he *own* it, or the copyright? See the copyright agreement - let the courts decide. You want the FBI to get a warrant to search your home because they have probable cause to believe you have been recording minidiscs of other people's CD's? Really? No, not at all. I think the debate is on the legality of the situation, not necessarily the practicality or the risk. You want CD's with controversial political speech (and that's a lot of pop music these days) to be available only to people who buy them? Quite simply, poignantly and plainly - depends on who owns the copyright and the restrictions, or lack of, that they permit their material to be distributed with. Bottom line, do you want the government in a position to restrict and decide what can or cannot be copied in your home? No, so long as you actually have complied with whatever copyright restrictions apply. I mean if you own a CD, I don't think anybody is gonna come breaking down your door telling you what you can and can't do with it. If you don't, and are pirating it offa friend, I don't think anybody is gonna come breaking down your door, either. But I still don't believe it's legal, unless the copyright agreement allows it. Don't you think that's getting a little dangerous? Don't you think your liberty is at stake a little bit here? This is a little of a strawman really. Anytime copyright law is mitigated in the U.S., it is mitigated due to a competing Constitutional value. It has to be, because copyright itself derives from the Constitution. I would imagine that in reality, copyright is derived from peoples'
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
From: "Steve" [EMAIL PROTECTED] (...snip) (shift to screen and music between pac-man levels two and three.) I trust you have bought Pacman, or if downloaded from my website as a ROM image that you also have the appropriate arcade console or permission from the copyright owner :-) Of course since no-one would put 10p or whatever in the slot to play it anyway, there is no commercial gain... ummm! Cheers, PrinceGaz -- "if it harms none, do what you will" Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://website.lineone.net/~princegaz/ ICQ: 36892193 - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === Eric Woudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree though that web based MD trading groups stretch the definition of private (though the actual trade might still be a personal, private exchange). So I am willing to concede that Congress probably wasn't considering the publicly noticed, private recording opportunities that the web allows when the AHRA was written. Very true ;-) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
Isn't it about time to let this pirate discussion walk the plank? Recently viewed "True Lies" starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jamie Lee Curtis on 20th Century Fox Widescreen 2.35:1 DVD Recently recorded "Ends" by C.J. Mac Featuring W.C. Finale on Hoo Bangin'/Priority/TM Century Compact Disc to MiniDisc - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
From: "Dan Frakes" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Legal issues aside, you're wrong about this. People *are* losing money. If you record a friend's CD onto an MD, you're getting the album for free. Forget about the record company for a minute: the *artist* is losing money. The "fine" you keep ranting about is completely irrelevant because even when a fee is included in the cost of a MiniDisc, the artist whose album you just copied will never see the money. So people *are* clearly losing. No, no, no, no, no. Nobody is losing any money if I copy a CD that I had absolutely no intention whatsoever of buying. If I buy the CD the artist makes money. If I copy someone elses the atist makes *no* money. If I don't copy someone elses but don't buy the CD myself-- the artist makes *no* money. So the artist loses nothing. Thats what I was talking about originally. Congress has done studies that are at worst inconclusive, but more realisticly seem to indicate that casual copying of music helps CD sales rather than hurting it. I agree with that. I never for one minute said doing so was legal, just that theres nothing wrong in my opinion. It's not impossible that I might, having played my MD copy a few times decide that I do actually like it enough to buy it (but honestly, I'd more likely buy a different CD by that artist and return the favor to my friend :) I agree with the guy who suggested copying each others discs may well increase overall sales, instead of buying 1CD and having 1 album, you buy 2 instead and have 4, 6 or however many including the copies. In effect, copying makes 'em cheaper so you buy more... Thats how I like to justify it to myself anyway. As to why other people feel differently than you, I know I personally make income from computer software. When people copy it they are stealing my hard work. If I made music instead of computer software, the situation would be much the same: whenever someone copied my album without paying for it, they would be stealing from me and my hard work. It doesn't appear that you have ever created a product that is license-based and that people can easily copy/pirate/steal. If you had, you might feel differently (and I promise none of us would call you an "idiot" ;-) ). Well I have written software and made money personally from it, not a lot but enough to make it worth releasing and peeps will doubtless have hacked through all the protection I put in the registration and other bits of code. If they're prepared to go to all that trouble, they obviously have no intention of buying it, so I haven't lost any money. Of course I still hope they'll burn in hell but thats another story :-) Good to see the old topics still "light up the list"! PrinceGaz -- "anyone fancy chatting about En..." [joke, guys, Joke!] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on SNIP the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. Right. The use of the device is covered. What we're discussing is what happens to the recording *after* it's made. = Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg = - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
No, no, no, no, no. Nobody is losing any money if I copy a CD that I had absolutely no intention whatsoever of buying. You don't know that you wouldn't have eventually decided to buy it; I know that many times, I'm bought music several years after first hearing it. = Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg = - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
- Original Message - From: J. Coon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 5:18 AM Subject: Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD somebody didn't read section 1008 correctly. Here it is again. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html Sec. 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. Read this for MD and tape and you get: No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a Minidisc recorder, a blank Minidisc, a cassette recorder, or a blank cassette, or based on the non-commercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analogue musical recordings. So, you can't prosecute me for owning or using a minidisc recorder or blank discs for non-commercial actions. As a commercial action is one where assets increase, any action with the device which increases my assets can be taken as "commercial". If I copy your CD, I now own a copy of music I did not previously own. This has increased my assets. It is therefore a commercial action. The fact that it is such a small increase in assets it would probably be counted as "insignificant" doesn't change the fact that it is a commercial action. Even arguing that it may have benefits to other people does not discount it as a commercial action. The only reasons I would not get prosecuted for this is that the people who are effected by it either consider it "not worth pursuing" because of the insignificance of my action, or that they see my action may have a beneficial impact to them. There's also the public impact to consider. If a band prosecuted an individual for making a copy of their album, they would probably be seen as being "petty" and their reputation would be damaged, which would in turn do more damage to their album sales than if they had just turned a blind eye to the copying. Another point: Think of the cost involved in a prosecution over a few dollars (or pounds)? Would you prosecute somebody if they swiped a couple of dollars from your pocket? I doubt it. If it were lots of people you would need to recoup the losses, but unfortunately you can't do that unless you get everybody together that would have to be one super-size court room... how about hiring a stadium or three? All you can realistically do is try to come to some agreement over a way to recoup those losses, which is why the AHRA was conceived. The AHRA does not say it is legal to pirate CDs, it is a method which in some small way compensates the industry for it's loss. To me the AHRA is very flawed because not only does it seem to give the wrong impression that you can pirate music as much as you like, but that the artist is in no way compensated for their loss of revenue. If the AHRA paid out direct to the artist rather than the record companies then this would probably not be such a hot topic! In reality all it does is reduce the "fine" an artist ends up suffering due to pirate copies being made of their work. Regardless of whether you conclude that pirating a CD is made legal by the AHRA providing you don't sell it is really almost irrelevant. The real issue is that by copying the CD, you are depriving the artist of money they have worked hard to earn through sales of their music. This damages the future of their work because if they are really depending on those sales, they may decide it is not worth producing more music. You can take this a stage further, and this is only my theory: The reason so much mass-produced rubbish is released nowadays is that there are very few artists to pay. The record companies can produce most of the stuff themselves, and as they are compensated by the AHRA, they don't worry too much about pirating - they're interested in the sale of one single and nothing else - unless it's really popular in which case they may re-release it with slightly different backing and new words. With that type of music, pirate it as much as you like, nobody will care. No longevity, no career to consider, no artist! No artist means nobody gets really hurt by the pirating, so no problem. The real musicians become uncommon because they are not "economically viable" - the music gets pirated so much (the industry becoming more starved of "real music") they can't afford to release another album, so the record company has no vested interest in them. Piracy results in the removal of the real musician who's only
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
"PrinceGaz" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, no, no, no, no. Nobody is losing any money if I copy a CD that I had absolutely no intention whatsoever of buying. If I buy the CD the artist makes money. If I copy someone elses the atist makes *no* money. If I don't copy someone elses but don't buy the CD myself-- the artist makes *no* money. So the artist loses nothing. Thats what I was talking about originally. I understand the argument, but I've never bought it ;-) For two reasons: 1) If you want to copy an album, song, etc., you must like it. There must be some desire to have it. If recording devices did not exist, who knows if you might eventually have bought it in some form. While I agree that there are some albums we might never buy, there are also those we don't think we'll ever buy but we end up buying later. It's difficult for us to objectively differentiate between the two. 2) Every time someone copies an album, book, software program, they are eliminating a part of the market for that work. Just because you can't point to physical money doesn't mean no one has lost anything. Our legal and economic systems are full of examples of this type of "loss." Congress has done studies that are at worst inconclusive, but more realisticly seem to indicate that casual copying of music helps CD sales rather than hurting it. I agree with that. I've never seen such a study, but I doubt that "Congress' studies" actually show that. I would like to see the text of those "studies." I would buy the assertion that people recording music off the radio might help album sales, but I doubt that people copying whole albums helps album sales. I agree with the guy who suggested copying each others discs may well increase overall sales, instead of buying 1CD and having 1 album, you buy 2 instead and have 4, 6 or however many including the copies. In effect, copying makes 'em cheaper so you buy more... Thats how I like to justify it to myself anyway. But Gaz, think about what you just wrote mathematically ;-) Copying makes them cheaper, so you buy more? It doesn't make them cheaper -- CDs cost the same. If you and your friends buy CDs and then exchange copies, you're each getting more albums, but between all of you you're actually buying fewer albums. If there are four of you, and you each buy two CDs and copy everyone else's, you've bought a total of 8 CDs but each of you has copies of all 8. (I know, I know, that sounds great... grin) Now, if you didn't copy each others' CDs, you'd still have purchased 8 CDs, but you'd each only have two CDs. You might all go out and buy another one that one of your friends' bought that you really wanted. So if anything copying them provides a disincentive to both buying CDs in the first place, and buying more later. Well I have written software and made money personally from it, not a lot but enough to make it worth releasing You might have a different view if it was your livelihood ;-) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
C'mon - if you copy a commercially released CD from a friend, you're pirating it. It was put out on the market for the record company and (hopefully) the artists to get compensated for their work, i.e. entertaining you. This is why I get so pissed off when people confuse the trading of boots with pirating. It ain't the same thing. Don't get me wrong - I don't feel that bad for the record companies; I think they rip the artists off far more than a home pirate doesthis is why MP3 scares the shit out of record companies - it makes them obsolete. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
Eric Woudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately I can only point you to the HRRC's summary of the OTA (Office of Technology Assesment) study being referred to. This study was commisioned by Congress during the AHRA legislation process. In introducing their summary the HRRC writes: The OTA determined that "evidence" that home audio taping displaced sales of prerecorded material was, at best, inconclusive, and that home taping practices actually stimulated sales. The summary is here: http://www.hrrc.org/otasum.html . It makes good reading actually. Rick: The problem I have with that, and the reason I would like to see the original text, is that this summary is prepared by the "Home Recording Rights Coalition" -- not exactly a neutral party. Having a career in public policy, I frequently see such "summaries" by advocacy groups, and often their summary conclusions are completely the opposite of the original conclusions. So it's nothing against you or the HRRC; I'd just like to see the original study. Call me a skeptic ;-) In fact, after reading the entire summmary at the above URL, nowhere does it explicity summarize a section of the OTA study that comes to the conclusion that home taping practices actually stimulate sales. And as a statistician I found no conclusive evidence that supports that assertion. In fact, several times the summary states that the most frequently recorded material is the user's own CDs or LPs. I did find the following in that summary, though: Congress explicitly stated that it did not intend to restrain home recording of broadcasts or prerecorded records or tapes for private use. It seems to me that the pro-copying people here are trying to claim that copying a CD and giving that copy to a friend (or vice versa) is therefore not "restrained" because it is "private." But let's be honest about what "private" really means. Private is in your own home. Private means not accessible to other people. Private isn't "with your friends." You have sex in private, and that doesn't involve your friends (OK, it does for some people, but I don't think we'd call it "private" ;-) ). - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
I'm a lawyer. Magic's definition of "commercial" is silly. It is not commercial activity if I find a penny on the sidewalk. But really, that's just common sense isn't it? If you trade enough MDs for the wrong reasons it would be commercial activity. God only know how many it would take. It's like asking how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Otherwise, though, this has been an utterly fascinating thread. I was wondering why Eric The Man Woudenburg (honestly I do admire you) was holding back for so long. You've been scoring major blows to the opposition with your recent posts It's a delight to see you enter the frey, and on the right side too. Regards to the list, Steve On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 15:56:35 -0500, in you wrote: "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, you can't prosecute me for owning or using a minidisc recorder or blank discs for non-commercial actions. As a commercial action is one where assets increase, any action with the device which increases my assets can be taken as "commercial". If I copy your CD, I now own a copy of music I did not previously own. This has increased my assets. I'm not a lawyer and I try not to play one on the 'net, so I could really use the help of a lawyer for a moment. Matt, I fear you have stretched the definition of "commercial" way beyond reasonable bounds. We all know what "commercial" means, and home recording is not a commercial endeavor no matter how many MDs I record from friends, so long as I do not start selling them. Please don't start stretching terms, or the whole discussion will break down. We owe it to each other to stick with canonical definitions. Thanks, Rick - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
In my humble opinion (and this is not legal advice), with a few dramatic and severe exceptions (for example, child pornography) if you are an American citizen, you can record just about any damn thing you want in your home, at least once. You don't need the AHRA to do this. Copyright law won't hold you back. Copyright law wilts in the face of your most fundamental Constitutional freedoms. We want every citizen to have access to what is going on in this culture, to freely associate with one another, to share ideas, to be able to act with autonomy and privacy. That's the way it is and the way it's always been. Our freedom is more important than worrying about if a few poor souls didn't get their theoretical, speculative $1.50. And yes, that $1.50 is very speculative. Come on, use some common sense. You can copy your mom's old mickey mouse club record or your niece's spice girls album in your home. That's the way it was before the AHRA, the way it is now, and the way it will always be. And no, recording someone else's CD in your own home is not in and of itself commercial activity. Receiving a gift is not commercial activity. Inheriting money from your rich uncle is not commercial activity. There are TONS of things which increase you assets which are not commercial activity. Why do you think they had to make a law called the American Home Recording Act in the first place? Because the copyright laws, if not interpreted in full view of the Constitution, left open the possibility of serious violations of your Constitutional rights. Look at the name, it says it all, in America, you are free to make home recordings. Period. You are, you were, you will be. It's THE AMERICAN HOME RECORDING ACT, PEOPLE. Congress could not have passed the AHRA if you weren't always allowed to make such recordings under the Constitution in the first place, because the Constitution didn't change, and the ultimate source of copyright law is the Constitution. The AHRA is not a Godsend, it's a ripoff. Your right to make such recordings (including those of other people's CDs) for your listening pleasure in your own home trumps copyright law. It ain't a close call, folks. Yet now the recording industry gets more of your money for some reason. Isn't anybody mad about that? Damn. Regards to the list, Steve On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 15:56:35 -0500, in you wrote: "Magic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, you can't prosecute me for owning or using a minidisc recorder or blank discs for non-commercial actions. As a commercial action is one where assets increase, any action with the device which increases my assets can be taken as "commercial". If I copy your CD, I now own a copy of music I did not previously own. This has increased my assets. I'm not a lawyer and I try not to play one on the 'net, so I could really use the help of a lawyer for a moment. Matt, I fear you have stretched the definition of "commercial" way beyond reasonable bounds. We all know what "commercial" means, and home recording is not a commercial endeavor no matter how many MDs I record from friends, so long as I do not start selling them. Please don't start stretching terms, or the whole discussion will break down. We owe it to each other to stick with canonical definitions. Thanks, Rick - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
somebody didn't read section 1008 correctly. Here it is again. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html Sec. 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. LET ME REPEAT THAT LAST PART FOR PEOPLE THAT CAN'T SEEM TO READ. No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on SNIP the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. That seems to cover it. -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways/ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
Seth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An ignorant list member wrote: and If I were to interpret the law as you and the other idiots on the list suggest and The AHRA protects the consumers and the manufacters from the legal idiots like yourself and Perhaps some of you need to grow up The rest of the list seems to be able to discuss this like adults. You're acting like a real jerk to people who happen to disagree with you. As Eric pointed out, we're never going to all agree on the ethics of this matter. We can discuss the legalities involved, but even then it is open to interpretation. So to start calling people who disagree with you "idiots" and "ignorant" is simply childish and will never convince anyone that you're more "right" than them. In fact, it most likely has the opposite effect. Now, back to our regularly-scheduled civil discussion: What I really don't understand here is why some of the people on the list are near militant over preventing me and other people from using stuff they bought... You're not losing money over this, heck no one is losing money over this. Legal issues aside, you're wrong about this. People *are* losing money. If you record a friend's CD onto an MD, you're getting the album for free. Forget about the record company for a minute: the *artist* is losing money. The "fine" you keep ranting about is completely irrelevant because even when a fee is included in the cost of a MiniDisc, the artist whose album you just copied will never see the money. So people *are* clearly losing. As to why other people feel differently than you, I know I personally make income from computer software. When people copy it they are stealing my hard work. If I made music instead of computer software, the situation would be much the same: whenever someone copied my album without paying for it, they would be stealing from me and my hard work. It doesn't appear that you have ever created a product that is license-based and that people can easily copy/pirate/steal. If you had, you might feel differently (and I promise none of us would call you an "idiot" ;-) ). Congress has done studies that are at worst inconclusive, but more realisticly seem to indicate that casual copying of music helps CD sales rather than hurting it. I'd be very interested in seeing the text of these "studies." I bet not one of you has a vested interest in the copying of music, but yet you will defend the record company's bottom line as if it were your very own. Not a single person on this list has bemoaned the money the record companies are losing. Everyone who has taken a position opposite of yours has cited the *artists* who make the music. I don't give a damn if the record companies lose money, but I do care if the people actually making the music aren't paid. Perhaps some of you need to grow up and accept that reguardless of whether what I do is legal or not (and believe me it is legal) it isn't your place to try to make hold to your beliefs or your job to enforce them on me. That is the job of our government, not you. Perhaps you should leave the enforcement of the laws to the government. No one started this discussion to tell you how to live your life. This whole issue came up because someone asked if recording CDs owned by someone else is illegal. People have been discussing that. If you don't want to take part in that discussion, or if you think that you're so utterly superiour and the rest of are "idiots," than maybe you don't really want to be part of this list, because healthy (and *civil*) debate of recording laws and ethics are central to the whole idea of digital recording. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
