The ease of stealing mp3's off the net is equal to the difficulty in preventing it.

Fair use never included distribution of a work in whole of any sort, as far as I know. It allows the legitimate owner some latitude to making backup copies or to time shift. It allows for quotes and snippets in reportage or commentary about a work, etc... It never allowed you, AFAIK, to give away copies or gave you any right to hear before you buy or consume the product for free without the permission of the copyright owner.

and yet i can still borrow CDs and there's no problem. there are two differences between downloading and borrowing: the first is that no physical objects are involved in the "borrowing" and the second is that i probably do not know the person i'm downloading from.

The issue is duplication. The copyright owner most definitely has control over the duplication of his or her work. When you loan someone a CD, you do not create another copy of it. You cannot listen to it while the friend has it. That's the difference. When you create more copies than you payed for, and you distribute them, that's decidedly outside of any sort of fair use.

Yes. You are distributing a copy you did not legally purchase. That's not fair use. Fair use only allows you to make a backup copy in case of destruction of the original, it doesn't allow you to loan out the copy. Actually, as I understand it, the provision for making a backup copy only applies to software anyway, not to music and movies. The Fair Use thing was about time shifting with a VCR, not about making archival copies that you keep forever.

Your question doesn't make any sense to me. YOu never had a fair use right to make backup copies of your CDs, AFAIK. That ruling was related to software, not to CDs and DVDs. So there never was a right to make backups, unless I've misunderstood it.

Still, you are trying to find loopholes in the letter of the law, when the law is really just trying to prevent people from duplicating and distributing copies. That's a pretty simple rule, and there's a clear distinction between letting someone borrow a CD (even if you have made a backup copy which you keep in the backup file) and making copies and distributing them while keeping the original. That friend is going to give you your original CD back, but the folks who download a file are not. So the number of copies that were not paid for multiplies and multiplies. That's the problem and that's what copyright is supposed to protect against, but in effect copyright holders have lost their rights.

Don't believe what you read on the EFF web site. They are just as biased on their side as the RIAA is on its side. Clearly uploading songs for people to download violates copyright in the most obvious ways, which is why it's illegal. Even if it has not technically been settled because of some technicality in the language of the law, there's zero chance of it not being considered to be against copyright. How could it possibly not be? The whole point of the creator's side of copyright is to allow the creator to control distribution. If uploading to a web site for people to download isn't distribution then copyright is a meaningless concept. That's just not going to happen and it would be ludicrously unfair if it did.

ORIGINAL: jacktheexcynic
...you can't equate taking a physical object with duplicating information, it's not the same thing. taking someone's car is removing the car from their possession. listening to a song is not. ...

How about if I only take your car while you're out of town-- then you haven't lost anything, right?

These kinds of rationalizations just get more and more complicated and elaborate. If a person wants to prove that what they're doing is morally okay, they will find a way to do so and nobody can stop them.

...and copyright was designed to provide compensation for intellectual "works", not dictate the legal distribution of those works. that is what fair use is about...

Um, no. "Copy-right" was originally designed to recognize the "right" to control the "copying" of work, after the invention of the printing press made it very easy for anyone to publish copies of books that other people had written.

...since information is no longer tied to a physical object, it becomes a lot harder to determine exactly what fair use is. that is why i say intent is the moral issue here, and not simply the dictations of the copyright holder.

It is *not* hard to determine fair use-- it is fair to use someone else's intellectual property in the ways and to the degree that you have their permission, period. Easy.

It is not technology that makes the questions complicated, it is the elaborate and convoluted rationalizations that people come up with to justify their thievery.

The RIAA would have us believe that copyright was invented to protect middlemen who turn the cogs of industry. EFF would have us believe that copyright is to protect consumers from fraudulent commercial piracy (fake DVDs, etc).

They are both wrong. The real purpose of copyright is to protect the author's right to control his or her work-- the copying distribution, use, and publication, all of it.

Cheers.

There are several cases making their way through the discovery process right now that may help settle that particular issue. The defendants claim is that by 'making available' a particular copyrighted work does not constitute 'distribution' as it is outlined in the law.

That's like saying that driving the car to a robbery isn't part of the robbery. It's silly on the face of it.

Depending on the day of the week, I am fortunate/unfortunate to have 2 teenagers. Both have been computer/internet savvy for quite awhile. When the Napster issue started, we had one of those "sitdown at the table" discussions regarding downloading music. I was faced with the "all my friends do it" argument, and a few others. It took awhile for them to understand that it was "stealing" plain and simple. But they did "get it". I think that had I failed to make them understand that it was wrong, not to mention a crime to steal an artists works, the seeds would be sown. It would be alot easier and more enjoyable for me to have let it slide. It would be very sweet for me to gather all the music I have loved all these years, but no longer have copies of, for free. I just dont have it in me. I can take some satisfaction at this time, that my kids dont either. They earn downloads as part of thier allowance. I pay for them. They understand that just because someone appears to have all the money in the world, that does not give them the right to take something of thiers. Seems like a simple lesson, doesn't it?

Randy

There alot of things I did in the 80s I wouldnt want my kids to know about, let alone do.

Randy

ORIGINAL: yep

ORIGINAL: MandolinPicker
...One more thing about copyright. Had the current copyright laws been in existence during the time of Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, all of the music and photographs created at that time would still be copyrighted works. Does this seem right?

No, it does not seem right-- the American civil war ended in 1865. Current copyright law allows copyright ownership until the author's death plus 70 years. If a photograph was taken by an 18-year-old in 1865, AND the photographer lived to be 90, then the photograph's copyright would be due to expire this year (under current copyright law). I hardly think that extreme scenario counts as "all the photographs and music in existence during the time of the Civil War," but even if it does, so what? What does the time of Abraham Lincoln have to do with it?

In addition to being laden with actual factual errors, the arguments of piracy advocates are always built around bizzare anecdotes that have nothing to do with anything... as if Limewire is this bastion of historical preservation for civil war photographs or something...

Cheers.

Now Yep, think of all the classics of literature, all of the music, all of the pictures, all of the things that have entered the Public Domain since the time period of the Civil War. Think of all the things that we can use on a daily basis, freely and openly, thanks to the items being in the Public Domain. The public domain is not "bizzare anecdote" but a great source of music and literature, and opportunity,

The Public Domain is a crucial part of this discussion that is overlooked. I'll admit to being off by a few years in the example above, but in the overall view, look real hard at everything that would still be under copyright if the current copyright laws were enacted in the time of Lincoln. Think about how much different the world would be. The images of the civil war would just now be entering the public domain. So would the music. Imagine the folk singers who couldn't go to the Library of Congress and find the old folk songs and bring them back to life because of concern over copyright. My favorite genre of music (bluegrass) would be much different without listening to the old songs. Would we be able to have the computers of today if the original software created in the 40s was still under copyright?

Copyright is an artificial right, granted by Congress (in the US) to the original creator, but it is not an 'inalienable' right. DRM and Copyright and DMCA are forever linked together, and there is an upheaval of resentment against all three by the general public. Things they use to be able to do (like record their favorite shows on a VCR) is now restricted under DVDs. Recording songs off the radio to cassette which was legal may soon be illegal as the RIAA looks to plug the analog hole, and they are pressuring the web radio casters to add DRM to their audio streams to prevent recording over the web. You can talk technical all you want about the difference between cassette and CD and mp3. The general public only sees that what they were once able to do, now they are restricted from doing.

Lastly, let me make one thing clear. I don't download music over limewire, or any other file sharing program. Never have. Yet because I disagree with the current copyright laws, and the overbearing enforcement of the laws by a select group (RIAA and MPAA), I am automatically labeled a pirate. Look up the meaning sometime. It has nothing to do with music.

I think this is where we tend to disagree. I believe the heavy handed copyright issues, part of which is their tie to DRM as well as the DMCA, is in fact driving the illegal trade of software, including music.

As the copyright laws were intertwined with the DMCA, it began to take more fair use rights away. At first folks really didn't notice. But the DMCA takes many of your 'fair use' rights away, because it states you cannot circumvent copy protection. So what does this do to the legitimate customer who purchases computer software, movies and music (the most common items traded on file sharing sites). It makes them unable to use their purchases with the ease that they are accustomed to.

Take movies for example. When my kids were growing up, we would purchase VCR tapes of kids shows. As my kids could tear apart a tape in short order, we would always make a copy of the VCR tape (yes, we had two VCRs in the house). I had purchased a little box that went between the two VCRs so that the 'fade-in, fade-out' copy-protection would be by-passed (an item we purchased at K-Mart). When my kids watched their shows, they watched the tape copy, never the original. If they messed up a tape, we made another copy from the original. Today, however, that same activity is illegal with a DVD and the VCR. Both have copy-protection schemes. If I copy a DVD for my grandchildren under 'fair-use' afforded in the copyright laws, I have broken the law under DMCA when it comes to circumventing copyright (all commercial DVDs use CSS).

Let's look at music. When I purchased an LP when I was growing up, I could legally under fair use make a cassette tape of the album, mix and match it with other songs from other LPs, etc. However, if the CD has a form of copy-protection (which many today have), this activity becomes illegal. I can't make a copy for my iPod like I use to make for my walk-man. Both the cassette tape and the mp3 result in an inferior copy compared to the original, yet newer laws related to copyright have taken away my ability to do things I use to do. If I purchase a song through iTunes, it has copy-protection. To move it to another device, I have to perform the illegal act of circumventing the copy protection to listen o a song I legally purchased. (BTW, when shopping for CDs look for the Compact Disc logo - if it is there the CD meets Redbook standard - which also means it doesn't have any form of copy-protection. Without the logo you take a chance of having some form of software installed onto your computer that you may not want - like a root kit. It may also mean that your CD won't play in older CD players).

How about software? Fortunately, Cakewalk has not succumbed to the notion of using a dongle or other copy-protection scheme. Yet many companies do, and many have turned to the 'dongle' as a way of making sure their software is protected. Yet look at the number of folks who purchase a 'legitimate' copy of music production software, only to download a cracked version because the dongle causes problems. The dongle becomes even more of a problem as you add more and more of them. So for the legitimate purchaser of software, their life is made more difficult.

DRM, the DMCA and the heavy handed copyright laws have done nothing but make the legitimate users life harder. It also has done nothing to stop the folks who 'crack' the copy-protection schemes. They are doing better now than ever. In the end, all of the extensions to copyright, all of the DRM schemes, all of the DMCA penalties, have done nothing to slow down (let alone stop) the use of file sharing. That is why the music industry, the software industry and the movie industry need to rethink how they do business in the new age of the Internet. Open Source software sells services on a product they give away for free. Independent musicians are giving away music to create better demand for their live shows. They are learning using the Internet for progress in ways not thought of before.

In the end, whether it is 'right' or 'wrong' , legal or illegal, ethical or unethical, it really doesn't matter. Many are hoping that the big names in the music industry do not survive. Their public image of screwing artists for years doesn't help. CDs have been overpriced for years, and everyone knows it. Many folks see this as 'getting even' with the music industry for years of abuse of the music buying public. For decades the music industry held all of the cards. Many folks see 'file sharing' as the general user's trump card.

The technology is in place (and constantly improving) to move digital files of any kind anywhere. They had the opportunity to work with Napster - they didn't - the music industry chose to fight it. Now they are losing, and losing badly. If they don't change, they will not survive.

The DMCA and copyright length has nothing whatsoever to do with it. That's just a rationalization. As soon as electronic BB type systems came into being, there was copyrighted material up there. The only reason it wasn't music back in the 80's was because it wasn't practical, so it was all pictures. As soon as music became possible, music went up there also. There are zero restrictions on how you use CDs, the are not copy protected in any way, but the contents of CDs are the most shared files up there, so how could restrictions on usage be remotely to blame for file sharing of music?

People do it because they can do it and get away with it, not because of some political stance fighting for rights of the little people.

ORIGINAL: MandolinPicker

ORIGINAL: yep

But that's *really* not what we're talking about here. It's barely even tangential.

Cheers.

My apologizes. I see it as an entire picture, with the tangled web of laws and regulations and legal action as one of the main driving forces...

The whole tangled web of laws and regulations is one of the main driving forces of internet piracy?

Are you serious?

Like, if the DMCA were repealed and if copyrights were shortened back to life of the author or whatever, you think that that would cause a significant decrease in illegal file-sharing?

....?

Given that digital distribution didn't exist when that law was probably last updated, clearly it wouldn't specifically refer to the internet. But you'd have to stretch the interpretation beyond all reason to try to argue that it doesn't imply that uploading and downloading songs you don't own is illegal and falls under the right to control copying and distribution.