Bobrek If I buy a book @ Barnes and Knobles, and while at home, make a copy of it for myself (again, for myself, not for distribution to someone else) and then sell the original to a used book store, then that is STILL illegal??? I am not making money off the copy, I am not distributing the copy to anyone and I am not even making money off the original (since I bought it new and am selling it used).
DT, Technically, there is a way to make our idea work. Make no mention of copying and treat it like a privately owned library (i.e. you can buy used CDs for a $1.00 or whatever, sell it for $2.00, then take it back for $1.00). Store makes a profit of $1.00 on every transaction Basically, it would be like Blockbuster Video, except call the transactions, a buy and not a rental. That way, technically, ownership has been transfered, and you are not providing the copying for them (i.e. what they buyer does with the newly bought used CD after they buy it is out of your control). I guess this idea really already exists though (Wherehouse Music, etc.).
Yes it is still illegal. You bought the book for yourself. Once you sell it back to the store, it will wind up in someone else's hands. You also benefited somewhat by getting some money back from the used book store. Also, even if you give it away to charity while keeping a copy for yourself, it is still illegal. Again, there are two versions of the book floating around (assuming you made one copy) but only one was paid for.
Copyright, again is to prevent public use, and to make money off of someone else's work. If you download mp3s to play at a party, you haven't made money off of it , and it's still private use, therefore it's not copyright infringement. Now I agree, if you download songs, and sell bootleg copies, that is copyright infringement, but downloading songs for private use is perfectly legal, at least within US copyright laws, but these are big companies, the laws don't apply to them.
I see your point Bobrek. In essence, it seems that any copying is illegal (except in a few instances). However, my 2nd idea would still work. Providing a service where CDs are bought and sold and then re-bought has to be legal (as long as copying is not promoted) and it would be impossible for the RIAA to track down anyone that bought a CD from there and proved that they made a copy.
I have a question and a comment. first, my question: Has all of this craziness caused you to use KaZaA or LimeWire or whatever less than you used to? Comment: I want to authorize any of you guys that have any of my music to share it. If you want to buy that's cool, too. I would naturally prefer that but I am cool with ya'll file sharing it. This is my official authorization for the cc.netters to share Pulltab or Chance McClain Production music. Except for my Be Big song. Chance
You are correct. There are many used CD stores as well as used book stores. It is legal for you to buy a CD, listen to it and then resell it to anyone. It becomes illegal when you make or retain a copy prior to reselling it. It would be next to imposible for anyone to track you down and prove the copyright infringement in that scenario.
If anyone wants a copy of Pulltab's latest CD, just email me through the BBS. Only $3.99. Get your copy today.
I don't use any of the file sharing software but I have recently helped friends rid themselvs of computer problems (IE crashing, pop ups appearing for no reason, etc.). The main culprit seemed to be copies of Kazaa that had created spyware on their machines. Each of the friends had teenage kids that were using Kazaa. None of the parents were familiar with what their kids were doing with Kazaa. The computer industry would love my suggestion that they all get their kids their own computer so they don't hose up theirs. These examples would tend to preclude me from using any type of file sharing software. From what I have seen, they seem to cause a lot of problems. Based on what I have read about the crackdown, I would feel confident with downloading songs but not confident in making them available for others to download.
Nice to know that Congress feels that suing children is "great" Senators Back RIAA; First Suit Is Settled http://www.billboard.com/bb/daily/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1973124 Senate lawmakers yesterday (Sept. 9) expressed support for the Recording Industry Association of America's legal tactics during a hearing on peer-to-peer networks, saying the music industry has the right to initiate lawsuits against egregious infringers. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said "it's great" that the first slate of lawsuits, initiated this week, was widely reported on TV and in daily papers, because "it lets parents know what their kids are doing when they're downloading." Hatch's comments followed front-page coverage in New York newspapers yesterday that one defendant in an RIAA suit was local 12-year-old Brianna Lahara, who allegedly offered more than 1,000 illegal music files through KaZaA. The trade group yesterday said it had settled the suit for $2,000. "We understand now that file-sharing the music was illegal," the girl's mother told the RIAA.
Yes it is. I know theft is theft, but what this girl did ($0.02) is nothing compared to what others are doing ($20,000). She is not a major violator costing the RIAA thousands of dollars. If the RIAA was smart, they would go after those people. Instead the RIAA chose to look like morons by taking money from a 12 year old living in the projects. I'm sure stopping her is going to help stop the RIAA's problems.
I think that making personal copies of audio is legal. But you must get rid of them if you sell the original to be legit. I think the time has come for CD rental stores to pop up. They would have the same business model as movie rental stores. Popular music CDs could be rented for $4 a day. When rentals decline, the music CDs could be sold as used. I have a fairly large music collection, ~1000 CDs. I do not have a large movie collection, <10 video tapes/DVDs. I think the reason is that movies have a much better distribution system. I can see mvoies at the theater, on cable, and from rentals. I really don't need the burden of ownership. For music CDs, my only legal access is through ownership. Radio stations don't play music I like, so legal sampling is hard. 30 second samples available at online music stores are too short and too few. Before the internet arrived, I bought a ton of LPs and CDs, each being a crap shoot. As a customer, I feel really screwed. After the internet and P2P music sharing arrived, I am now able to completely sample a CD before I decide to buy. This has actually led me to buying more not less. It also has made me a happier customer. RIAA should see the positive and embrace the new P2P paradigm. Now that the RIAA has dropped the legal gantlet I am now afraid to either share or d/l. In a way, I am capitulating. They have won. Thankfully, there is still the usenet music groups. I think the time has come to dump all of my major label CDs at ebay/half (after making a personal copy ). I just need to do my part in seeing that RIAA gets from me what they deserve.
Didn't know she had that many songs The only people being sued by the RIAA right now are the biggest violators. These are NOT the people taking a few songs here and there, but the ones building collections of hundreds or thousands of songs. The RIAA is going after the big fish first. That's why it doesn't matter what the demographics of these people are - young, old, rich, or poor, they are committing massive scale crimes. BTW, the girl may be living in the projects ... but keep in mind that she apparently has high-speed internet access and a pretty decent computer to be offering that kind of stuff. I'm guessing this is being blown out of proportion a bit to further demonize the RIAA.
Isn't there also a difference between how people generally consume movies and how they generally consume music. If I buy a CD, I will end up listening to it at least dozens of times before I get tired of it. When most people watch a movie, though, they're done with it. They've seen it. They may come back and watch it a second or third time, but watching a single movie dozens of times is pretty rare. Even the movies I've purchased on DVD don't get anywhere near the play as the CDs I have. Heck, even movies I've made don't get as much play with me as music I've purchased.
Downloader "Doe" Fights RIAA Kazaa user invokes her right to privacy in face of lawsuit http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=18658 Her lawyer calls her Jane Doe. The music business calls her nycfashiongirl, which is her Kazaa screen name. She's fighting to keep her real name a secret, becoming the first individual to take a stand against the recording industry's latest attack on file traders. In August, Jane Doe filed a legal challenge to block the Recording Industry Association of America from obtaining her identity, because it violates her right to privacy. Since June, the RIAA has run computer searches of hard drives in order to single out at least 1,075 people swapping songs on peer-to-peer services such as Kazaa. The RIAA then subpoenas the person's Internet service provider to obtain his name and address so that he can potentially be sued for copyright infringement. The RIAA says it has been targeting those with a substantial amount of files on their hard drives. And the association claims that Jane Doe's hard drive contained more than 900 MP3s from such major-label artists as Madonna, Tori Amos and Eminem. The RIAA sent her two instant messages on Kazaa with a warning: "Don't steal music." In July, when Verizon let Jane Doe know she was a target, she began calling lawyers. "She was terrified," says Daniel N. Ballard, an attorney at the Sacramento, California, law firm McDonough Holland and Allen. "She wanted to figure out how to protect herself." Ballard says his client has refused all interview requests, and he won't reveal any personal details about her. In addition to privacy rights, her complaint offers up a legal laundry list of defenses. For instance, Jane Doe claims that making files available on a peer-to-peer network is not the same as uploading them to the Internet as is originally inferred in the law. "The law was created before peer-to-peer file sharing existed," says Ballard. "In our case, someone unknowingly put music on the Internet, but the RIAA is saying that's equivalent to distribution." The RIAA scoffs at this claim, saying that of the hundreds of songs on Jane Doe's hard drive, many had identifying computer "fingerprints" that indicate they were originally swapped on Napster. It's a high-stakes tactic for Jane Doe. While not all those subpoenaed by the RIAA will be sued, she probably will be. As RIAA court documents note, she "will be able to raise whatever arguments she wants in the copyright-infringement action that is sure to follow."
this is the last straw for me. i will never ever buy another cd again as long as the current RIAA attitude exist. this is disgraceful. capitalist society at it's best, i don't think so. f**k the RIAA. and for the argument of taking money away from the artist. that is bullsh*t. everyone knows artits make ther money from tours and endorsements. and in that case the artists would want exposure. the fact is if money is being lost, it is the record companies losing not the artists. the record companies have been screwing the artist since music has been put down. RIAA argue your point, fine. but not on behalf of the artists. weak!
Urgh... My point is, artists get very little out of record deals. One of my friends who is in the music industry says his band make more money from live performance. In fact, they get better return on selling their CDs at concerts directly.
