[News] [SOT] RIAA Relies on Your Data Loss, Makes It the Law - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] [SOT] RIAA Relies on Your Data Loss, Makes It the Law - Linux ; Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use ,----[ Quote ] | The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed | earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from | ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: [News] [SOT] RIAA Relies on Your Data Loss, Makes It the Law

  1. [News] [SOT] RIAA Relies on Your Data Loss, Makes It the Law

    Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed
    | earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from
    | legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.
    |
    | "I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York
    | lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic
    | principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to
    | be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going
    | around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."
    `----

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122800693.html

    Funny. Bill Gates, co-founder of the company which openly says that it likes
    DRM, advised everyone to just rip their CDs. That makes him a 'criminal', as
    the MPAA/RIAA call it, with public advice for others to 'pirate' content
    (incitement of 'crime'). Well, he has already admitted watching 'illegal'
    movies on (Google's) YouTube and installing Firefox, so....


    Related:

    RIAA files supplemental brief in Atlantic v. Howell; argues personal copies
    ripped to computer are unauthorized

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The RIAA's brief makes the novel contention, contradicting its lawyers'
    | arguments at the Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster, that making personal
    | copies of songs from one's CD onto one's computer is an infringement. *
    `----

    http://recordingindustryvspeople.blo...-brief-in.html


    German Supreme Court rejects copyright fee for printers

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Printer manufacturer Hewlett-Packard has announced that the German Supreme
    | Court ruled in a hearing that the firm will not have to pay a flat fee to
    | German copyright collective VG Wort to cover copyrights.
    `----

    http://www.heise.de/english/newstick...227/from/rss09


    Overly-broad copyright law has made USA a "nation of infringers"

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Tehranian's paper points out just how pervasive copyright has become in our
    | lives. Simply checking one's e-mail and including the full text in response
    | could be a violation of copyright.
    `----

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...nfringers.html


    Western Digital DRM'd Hard Drive Won't Let You Share MP3, DivX ... Or Impulse
    Tracker

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The manual's appendix and online support site provide setup instructions for
    | SAMBA, allowing access over IP instead of with the DRM-infested and
    | poorly-reviewed client app, elsewhere claimed to be "required."
    |
    | MOAR! Samba not enough? Gut the firmware and install made-to-measure Linux:
    | An entire community of folks is here to help you hack your MyBook:
    | mybookworld.wikidot.com.
    `----

    http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/1...n-digital.html

  2. Re: [News] [SOT] RIAA Relies on Your Data Loss, Makes It the Law

    * Roy Schestowitz fired off this tart reply:

    > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122800693.html


    At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG's chief of litigation,
    Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of
    a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a
    song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' "
    she said.

    These people are ****ing idiots. No other word for it.

    But lawyers for consumers point to a series of court rulings over the
    last few decades that found no violation of copyright law in the use
    of VCRs and other devices to time-shift TV programs; that is, to make
    personal copies for the purpose of making portable a legally obtained
    recording.

    Hell, even the NFL lets one use their games "for the private use of our
    audience".

    --
    Tux rox!

  3. Re: [News] [SOT] RIAA Relies on Your Data Loss, Makes It the Law

    On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:22:28 -0500, Linonut wrote:

    > * Roy Schestowitz fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122800693.html

    >
    > At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG's chief of litigation,
    > Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of
    > a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a
    > song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' "
    > she said.
    >
    > These people are ****ing idiots. No other word for it.


    Agreed. There's a huge difference between copying a song you own on CD, or
    legitimately downloaded and bought, for your own personal use on another
    device, and downloading a song from someone else's server, that you never
    owned.

    If you upload the copy for others to rip off, that's wrong. But for your
    own use? Ridiculous.

    >
    > But lawyers for consumers point to a series of court rulings over the
    > last few decades that found no violation of copyright law in the use
    > of VCRs and other devices to time-shift TV programs; that is, to make
    > personal copies for the purpose of making portable a legally obtained
    > recording.
    >
    > Hell, even the NFL lets one use their games "for the private use of our
    > audience".


    They know they'd never get away with stopping recording of TV. People are
    too used to having videotape copies of their favourite shows/films. I've
    got videos that are fifteen or more years old, still playable.

    There should be a simple rule. Private use should be permitted.
    Distribution should not.

    --
    Kier


  4. Re: [News] [SOT] RIAA Relies on Your Data Loss, Makes It the Law


    "Kier" wrote in message
    newsan.2007.12.30.16.40.26.292042@tiscali.co.uk...
    >
    > There should be a simple rule. Private use should be permitted.
    > Distribution should not.
    >

    That used to be the rule in the USofA, which freely allowed non-commercial
    distribution of works by individuals. In 1997 the Clinton Administration
    approved the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act that made it a felony to copy
    large amounts of media even for personal, non-commercial distribution. The
    limit was set at $1000 of retail value per 180 days of calendar time. So,
    in effect, you can bag about a thousand tracks every 6 months, given that
    the going rate is about 99 cents or less via legal channels, without going
    to jail.

    That is not true, however, of the civil violation and liability. The civil
    rule allows essentially for no copying of any work that is "fixed in a
    medium" by anyone. The RIAA is using a tactic that may or may not
    eventually get banned by the courts, but it has been effective until now.
    First off, they accuse the defendant of lots of copying and offer a
    settlement for a few thousand bucks. If the defendant has any means at all
    and checks with a lawyer, they immediately see where a few thou is a
    tremendous bargain compared to the charges that the lawyer will make for his
    services, which are typically an order of magnitude more. Then the law
    allows the plaintiff, if he prevails, to collect his attorney's fees, which
    are just as high. Further, the plaintiff doesn't allow the circus to ever
    get to a jury, which would be loath to fine some poor soul tens of thousands
    of bucks for just pooching a few bucks worth of music tracks or even a few
    hundred bucks worth. The RIAA simply asks for the minium statutory award,
    $750 per work copied, as compensation and since they have usually managed to
    get the defendant to agree that they copied at least one work and usually
    more in return for dropping the charges that a large number of others were
    copied, the judge has little room to do anything. The facts are that you
    admittedly copied and the law is that they can collect $750 per work and so
    there is nothing for a jury to decide and the judge grants a preliminary
    motion and BANG! you are out a bundle.

    I understand that this is not so in Canada and perhaps in other countries as
    well.


  5. Re: [News] [SOT] RIAA Relies on Your Data Loss, Makes It the Law


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:5vPdj.55877$L%6.6940@bignews3.bellsouth.net.. .
    >* Roy Schestowitz fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122800693.html

    >
    > At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG's chief of litigation,
    > Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of
    > a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a
    > song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' "
    > she said.
    >
    > These people are ****ing idiots. No other word for it.
    >


    Who gives a rat's ass? By alienating their customers I doubt there will even
    BE a record industry in 30 years from now.

    For example, my nephews and nieces all have huge MP3 collections but they've
    *never* purchased a song, EVER. The RIAA has created an ENTIRE GENERATION
    which has NEVER bought music. Sure, some of it is due to piracy but a large
    part of it is also pure frustration about DRM and incompatible formats. It's
    simply easier to swap songs on the Internet in MP3 than it is to work with
    DRM-crippled music.

    The music industry is finally catching on, but I figure it's too little, too
    late. It's only thirty-something people like me who are still buying music,
    the real neckbreaker will come in a decade or so when the current teenagers
    need to take over that role....which will then fall flat on its face since
    they're simply not accustomed to buying music.




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  6. Re: [News] [SOT] RIAA Relies on Your Data Loss, Makes It the Law

    On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:40:34 +0000, Kier wrote:

    > If you upload the copy for others to rip off, that's wrong. But for your
    > own use? Ridiculous.



    However, what if a music CD were indestructible? That CD would
    eventually make it's way to many people, each of whom would make a legal
    copy before, eventually, passing the disc on.

    Of course, a CD isn't really indestructible, but it's far more resilient
    than tape or vinyl. I almost sympathize with the RIAA's point of view.



    -Thufir

  7. Re: [News] [SOT] RIAA Relies on Your Data Loss, Makes It the Law

    On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:41:53 +0000, Thufir wrote:

    > On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:40:34 +0000, Kier wrote:
    >
    >> If you upload the copy for others to rip off, that's wrong. But for your
    >> own use? Ridiculous.

    >
    >
    > However, what if a music CD were indestructible? That CD would
    > eventually make it's way to many people, each of whom would make a legal
    > copy before, eventually, passing the disc on.
    >
    > Of course, a CD isn't really indestructible, but it's far more resilient
    > than tape or vinyl. I almost sympathize with the RIAA's point of view.


    I don't. I do see *why* they have the view, but they're shutting the door
    on a long-bolted horse. And attempting to make criminals of people who've
    done nothing more than coy what they already own, for their own private
    use (not distribution to others) is deserving only of contempt.

    --
    Kier

    >
    >
    >
    > -Thufir



  8. Re: [News] [SOT] RIAA Relies on Your Data Loss, Makes It the Law

    Jim Relsh wrote:

    > For example, my nephews and nieces all have huge MP3 collections but
    > they've *never* purchased a song, EVER. The RIAA has created an ENTIRE
    > GENERATION which has NEVER bought music. Sure, some of it is due to
    > piracy


    The vast majority.

    > but a large part of it is also pure frustration about DRM and
    > incompatible formats. It's simply easier to swap songs on the Internet
    > in MP3 than it is to work with DRM-crippled music.


    DRM wouldn't be needed if people weren't such thieves by nature.

  9. Re: [News] [SOT] RIAA Relies on Your Data Loss, Makes It the Law

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz

    wrote
    on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:29:15 +0000
    <1541174.BFMSLNZ9bK@schestowitz.com>:
    > Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed
    > | earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from
    > | legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.
    > |
    > | "I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York
    > | lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic
    > | principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to
    > | be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going
    > | around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."
    > `----
    >
    > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122800693.html


    Pedant Point:

    A personal copy on one's computer is a physical copy,
    as it requires physical manifestation of one's data in
    order to record it. Depending on media, one has:

    - magnetic domains on standard disk drives
    - charge packets on FLASH units
    - aluminum pits on CD-ROM
    - various polarization methods on recordable CD media
    - other methods on DVD and recordable DVD; I'd have to look up the
    details

    All of these are physical copies. The RIAA's position
    is defensible, if a little ridiculous since intent to
    distribute is not a priori showable simply by having a
    ripped copy of a song, movie, or album on one's system,
    especially if that system has no running daemons (ftpd,
    sshd, apache, etc.) to allow for distribution.

    Hell, might as well argue that putting a CD into a PC
    and mounting it is intent to distribute, as a daemon can
    easily read it and give outsiders coming in on port 20,21
    (FTP), 22 (SSHD), 80 or 443 (HTTP/HTTPS), 2049 (NFS),
    or ??? (CIFS/SMB) access thereto!

    Then again, if it's on an unsecured Windows system, anyone
    can get at it with a little hacking, apparently. The RIAA
    will be most unhappy with an individual who gets hacked and
    allows his computer to become a bandwidth hog.

    And all PCs have code allowing access to the file system.
    Fortunately, this code is only accessible to local executables.
    Unfortunately, those include daemons.

    >
    > Funny. Bill Gates, co-founder of the company which openly says that it likes
    > DRM, advised everyone to just rip their CDs. That makes him a 'criminal', as
    > the MPAA/RIAA call it, with public advice for others to 'pirate' content
    > (incitement of 'crime'). Well, he has already admitted watching 'illegal'
    > movies on (Google's) YouTube and installing Firefox, so....


    It will be interesting to see if someone sues Mr. Gates on this.

    >
    >
    > Related:
    >
    > RIAA files supplemental brief in Atlantic v. Howell; argues personal copies
    > ripped to computer are unauthorized
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | The RIAA's brief makes the novel contention, contradicting its lawyers'
    > | arguments at the Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster, that making personal
    > | copies of songs from one's CD onto one's computer is an infringement. *
    > `----
    >
    > http://recordingindustryvspeople.blo...-brief-in.html


    This is correct; they *are* unauthorized. After all, if someone buys a
    CD or DVD, then rips it, the RIAA et al have no control over the
    process.

    Whether that's illegal or unreasonable is an interesting question.

    >
    >
    > German Supreme Court rejects copyright fee for printers
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | Printer manufacturer Hewlett-Packard has announced that the German Supreme
    > | Court ruled in a hearing that the firm will not have to pay a flat fee to
    > | German copyright collective VG Wort to cover copyrights.
    > `----
    >
    > http://www.heise.de/english/newstick...227/from/rss09


    Why HP announces this is far from clear to me. Shouldn't this have been
    announced by governmental media?

    Still, good for HP; they'll not have to pay that fee.

    >
    >
    > Overly-broad copyright law has made USA a "nation of infringers"
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | Tehranian's paper points out just how pervasive copyright has become in our
    > | lives. Simply checking one's e-mail and including the full text in response
    > | could be a violation of copyright.
    > `----
    >
    > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...nfringers.html
    >


    It's the law, duly passed; until someone goes in and
    repairs it -- and Congress is overloaded so I'm not holding
    my breath -- we'll have to live with it, assuming the
    Courts don't overthrow it in the meantime.

    (The Courts are also overloaded.)

    >
    > Western Digital DRM'd Hard Drive Won't Let You Share MP3, DivX ... Or Impulse
    > Tracker
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | The manual's appendix and online support site provide setup instructions for
    > | SAMBA, allowing access over IP instead of with the DRM-infested and
    > | poorly-reviewed client app, elsewhere claimed to be "required."
    > |
    > | MOAR! Samba not enough? Gut the firmware and install made-to-measure Linux:
    > | An entire community of folks is here to help you hack your MyBook:
    > | mybookworld.wikidot.com.
    > `----
    >
    > http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/1...n-digital.html


    Can't be too careful nowadays, I guess.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #992381111:
    while(bit&BITMASK) ;

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


+ Reply to Thread