A Silly Argument . . .

Ed said:

Let's say some people started taking all the current Anandtech articles, reformat them, and put them on their website as their own. The Anandtech people find out about this, and just to make sure all the legal requirements are met, hire some company to copy the guilty files and properly document the infringements for court.

Click to expand...

Sorry Ed but that's a silly thing to say, the analogy is just plain wrong....... It's not against the law to view a webpage which has been ripped off whereas stealing an mp3 is - there is more than one party involved in stealing music however much the RIAA would like to bury that little fact, yes there's been a sucky precedent set but the argument below has not been used to test it.

There's a legal argument to be had that unless the item in question has been downloaded by someone who should not have downloaded it then it isn't against the law.

For example when I downloaded the RiscOS 3.7 rom images which are within the RiscPC I own (in my living room) I did not break the law. Why you ask - because I hold the actual physical roms and replacements are not readily available, Fair use states that I have the right of a backup (in the USA anyway). Now if I were to use those roms in an emulator then I would be breaking the law.......but I'm not doing that Please ignore the fact that I live in the UK, yes it's illegal here but the CPS would never take it court since we are on the verge of making CD rips fully legal.

So now onto music, well if I own a CD I could pop it into my mac and rip it into itunes..... the RIAA say that's illegal but the 'Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc' set a precedent that it's not illegal but simply 'fair use'.

If I can pop my CD into my computer and rip it why can't I just download a copy from the internet? It's digital - I have not stolen - no theft has occured, instead I have merely committed copyright infringement..... ohhh hang on the 'Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc' says it's ok for me to have a backup of my tunes - the method simply isn't covered by law because it wasn't an issue back in 84'.

So now we get to the crux of the appeal - if Jammie uses this kind of legal argument then one of two things is going to happen.......

1. She wins as there was not enough 'burden of proof' that someone downloaded the tunes illegally.

2. Even ripping your own CD for your mp3 player becomes illegal - that's not going to go down well with 99% of Joe Public - hell even the judge would have a brown trousers moment if he had to make cd ripping illegal and there would be mass revolt.

Now I don't claim to know loads much about American law (I only know a bit) but I did study law in the UK - the attorney is trying to create a kobayashi maru for the RIAA

thingi

Music and movies can't possibly be held under any sort of ownership laws since they are by nature public domain.

All this illegal music, hasn't it been played on the radio millions of times worldwide? Movies and TV series have been aired on TV all over the world. How can anyone still claim ownership?

If a song has been played on radio, it is public domain, you can freely record it under fair usage laws. How you got your copy of the song is irelevant, the only thing that is relevant is that there are perfectly legal methods for aquiring the song without paying anyone anything. How can possessing said song then be illegal?

OK first...thanks so much for the link.


Second, isn't that plagiarism though?

Plagarism is passing someone elses work as your own


eg;


Here listen to this (Plays eminem song) that's me you like it?

AFAIK they are going after radios now, honestly it's not different than 20 years ago you called the radio asked your song and recorded it, and no artist starved now it costs 220K for you if you do it by todays tech.

Kuroimaho said:

AFAIK they are going after radios now, honestly it's not different than 20 years ago you called the radio asked your song and recorded it, and no artist starved now it costs 220K for you if you do it by todays tech.

Click to expand...

I agree, nobody cared when we were dubbing tapes, now that we can make high quality copies suddenly the industry cares.

Kuroimaho said:

AFAIK they are going after radios now, honestly it's not different than 20 years ago you called the radio asked your song and recorded it, and no artist starved now it costs 220K for you if you do it by todays tech.

Click to expand...

No artists have starved at all.

Things you never hear in the music industry:
1. Sorry fans, we love the rock and roll thing, but there's just no money in it anymore.

2. Did you read the headlines? Kid Rock starved to death... yep, piracy. Terrible thing. I just saw Usher holding a cardboard sign on the freeway overpass... I gave him a buck because I felt sorry for him.

It's a giant NON-ISSUE. Piracy does exist of course... in China. But in the States large bootlegging operations are largely non-existant. The so called 'criminals' are students for the most part. The RIAA touts "Lost sales" as though the student really would have shelled out 18.99 per album to get the one good song...

The music industry has actively positioned itself as the mortal enemy of it's customers, and now whines that it's losing marketshare.

The RIAA has done for music what Jonestown did for Koolaid.