Jump to content

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules P2P legal


Peachy

Recommended Posts

We need a better name for downloading music illegally. It is not "stealing" in any sense of the word. From dictionary.com:

1.  To take (the property of another) without right or permission. 2. To get or effect surreptitiously or artfully: steal a kiss; stole the ball from an opponent. 3. To move, carry, or place surreptitiously. 4. To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer: The magician's assistant stole the show with her comic antics. 5. Baseball. To advance safely to (another base) during the delivery of a pitch, without the aid of a base hit, walk, passed ball, or wild pitch.
Since when I download a song, the other person doesn't lose it, it isn't "stealing" by that definition.(Note that I don't think it makes it legal just because people use the wrong word to define it. I'm just sayin'. :thumbsup: )Neil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still does not make stealing legal...
That is not even the point.There is nothing illegal about sharing files or creating software that allows people to share files.I suppose you are one of the people who want to make guns illegal because people commit crimes with them. What the ****, lets throw in cars. People commit crimes with cars. And knives, computers, ink pens...people break the law with ink pens every day. Lets get rid of them too......*shakes head in disgust*Edit: The stealing, trading, swapping...what ever you want to call it... of intellectual property is wrong. Period. At one time I was a pirate of a magnitude that would startle everyone on this forum. And I truly mean startle. I ran with the big boys of the piracy "scene". I left that hobby behind a couple of years ago. For the longest time I never really considered it stealing. As I grew older I began to truly see it for what it was. Stealing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stryder is correct, in my opinion. If companies have a beef, they should go after the infringers, not the service. As to whether its theft... I'll leave it up to the courts, but property doesn't have to be real to be stolen. You can steal intellectual property and in many cases the owner isn't missing something physical.My question is if I already own media in the form of a record or cassette, am I stealing or infringing if I download the same media from another source in the form of an mp3 for my own use? I say no. In any case, I have refused to purchase new wrapped CD's until the RIAA stops suing its customers. I buy used instead. They aren't going to make a nickle off me anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Stryder (on several of his statements, but let's not go there ;) ) that just because a thing is used illegally by some people the thing itself is not responsible for the criminal act. As he says, cars, string, computers...all have been used to commit crimes. There are legitimate uses of file sharing, and to make the entire activity illegal because of illegal use of the means to share files is simply illogical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was a good ruling. As Jeber pointed out, there are many legal uses of file sharing. It is a good way to share open source files that are legal and free to share. Linux users are well aware of this. The critical element of what I read in the newspapers is that the P2P folks in question here were not providing a central repository of files but rather a way to connect with each other which is different than what napster used to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nlinecomputers

Well personally I've witnessed very little legitimate uses for P2P. Most people use it to swap(re:not pay for) music. I personally think it is theft so I don't do it but I also think that most IP laws are too broad and too long. Even if technically p2p is copyright infringement I think the industry would be better served to allow it or adopt a system similar to what happened with Radio. Radio stations pay fees to play music to compensate for the fact that somebody somewhere out there is recording it. (With P2P so popular who the heck records off the airwaves anymore? Maybe the radio industry should demand it's money back!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or institute a recordable media tax on blank CDs/DVDs/tapes/memory sticks, like in Canada. Filesharing is not illegal in Canada: http://forums.scotsnewsletter.com/index.ph...&hl=filesharing
Hmm!!! And just how does this work? I don't do any d/ling of IP but I still have to pay the govt a tax so I can back up my HD? And just how do they "pay" the artist? Does someone who recorded one song, that barely sold anything, get a much as a top recording artist? Do the hiers of the two ladies that wrote "Happy Birthday" nearly a hundred years ago, still get paid?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Even if technically p2p is copyright infringement I think the industry would be better served to allow it or adopt a system similar to what happened with Radio.  Radio stations pay fees to play music to compensate for the fact that somebody somewhere out there is recording it. (With P2P so popular who the heck records off the airwaves anymore?  Maybe the radio industry should demand it's money back!)
BTW, radio stations don't pay royalties for playing music. Jukeboxes do, but not broadcasters. In fact, that was what the "payola" scandals were about. Music co.s paid to have their records played.Diskjockeys could make or break a recording artist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Blank CD-R Tax FAQCopyright Board Canada FactsheetSee, we have a bureaucracy to do everything! :whistling:
BureaucracyFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.In sociological theories, bureaucracy is an organizational structure characterized by regularized procedure, division of responsibility, hierarchy, and impersonal relationships. The term can characterize either governmental or nongovernmental organizations.In modern usage, bureaucracy often equates with inefficiency, laziness, and waste. It is oftentimes characterized in the popular imagination as existing solely for itself and only achieving results which end up in enlarging the size of the bureaucracy. It is thus generally used as a pejorative word. See also: red tape. A stereotypical bureaucracy would consist of many levels of management which require many signature approvals to make any decision.Examples of everyday bureaucracies could include the corporation, hospital, court, ministry, or school.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, radio stations don't pay royalties for playing music.  Jukeboxes do, but not broadcasters.  In fact, that was what the "payola" scandals were about.  Music co.s paid to have their records played.Diskjockeys could make or break a recording artist.
So, while over-the-air radio broadcasts are exempt from this licence, web broadcasting is not:
Copyright for Radio WebcastersNational College Media ConventionJoel R. WillerOctober 31, 20021. Composition Performance Royalties:· Broadcasters have traditionally acquired blanket copyright licenses from three domestic royalty organizations – ASCAP,BMI, and SESAC – to compensate composers, songwriters and publishers for the public performance of their musicalcompositions. Such blanket licenses do not provide royalties for performers or recording companies, only for theunderlying musical composition.· A broadcaster must obtain a license from each royalty organization representing composers’, songwriters’ and publishers’works performed by that station. Stations normally obtain licenses from all three royalty organizations.· A blanket license for a broadcast station’s over-the-air performance of a copyrighted work might not also include the right toperform protected works via the station’s web stream, even if the programming is identical. No court or Copyright Officeproceeding has ruled whether additional composer copyright fees are due for extending a broadcast station’s servicethrough Internet retransmission. Internet-only stations certainly need to acquire composition performance licenses.· All three royalty organizations presently offer experimental licenses to cover webcasting. These licenses are termed“experimental†to reflect the uncertain legal environment surrounding copyright law and the Internet. These licenses arenot specifically provided for under any existing statute. By awarding an experimental license, the royalty organization ismerely agreeing to not sue for damages under the protections broadly allowed under current law.· 37 CFR § 253.5 provides a special rate for blanket licenses covering the over-the-air performance of a protected work on aNoncommercial Educational (“NCEâ€) broadcast station. No special rate has been established for noncommercial websites, although SESAC offers a special fee for educational institutions. A web site operated advertising-free is charged a“Minimum License Fee,†listed in the table below. Note that in each instance the minimum webcast rate exceeds the feecharged NCE stations for over-the-air broadcasts – although the station’s audience is likely much smaller on the Internet.Broadcast* Webcast**ASCAP: $244 $264BMI: $244 $259SESAC: $66 $104* 2002 annual fee for non-NPR NCE stations licensed to colleges and universities.** Current annual minimum license fee for streaming from one site via the Internet. Additional feesare charged for commercial sites, based on traffic and/or revenue.· Additional fees might be charged for high traffic sites (e.g., more than 550,000 annual “Web Site Sessions†for ASCAP,more than 10,000 monthly page requests for SESAC).· ASCAP and BMI both charge additional fees based on revenue for sites with advertising. SESAC applies a multiplier tosites with advertising.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nlinecomputers
BTW, radio stations don't pay royalties for playing music.  Jukeboxes do, but not broadcasters.  In fact, that was what the "payola" scandals were about.  Music co.s paid to have their records played.Diskjockeys could make or break a recording artist.
Peachy beat me to it but the system he quotes is what I was referring to. Artists do get paid, indirectly, via this. (Or more correctly the record industry does....)
Do the hiers of the two ladies that wrote "Happy Birthday" nearly a hundred years ago, still get paid?
Have you ever been to a restaurant and witnessed the staff wish a patron happy birthday? Notice that they NEVER sing "Happy Birthday" but some other song. That's because the owners of the Copyright long ago tried to enforce it and sued several restaurant chains.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever been to a restaurant and witnessed the staff wish a patron happy birthday? Notice that they NEVER sing "Happy Birthday" but some other song. That's because the owners of the Copyright long ago tried to enforce it and sued several restaurant chains.
Interesting! I've never though about that before... doesn't copy right eventually expire or something though?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nlinecomputers
Interesting! I've never though about that before... doesn't copy right eventually expire or something though?
Man what hole have you been living in? :lol:It ought to but they keep passing laws changing and extenting it. Micky Mouse is a famous example was supposed to recently go to Public Domain but they extended the laws and now it has something like 30 more years on it. Someone have the correct numbers on this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

....)Have you ever been to a restaurant and witnessed the staff wish a patron happy birthday?  Notice that they NEVER sing "Happy Birthday" but some other song.  That's because the owners of the Copyright long ago tried to enforce it and sued several restaurant chains.
There was a big fight a few years ago when ASCAP wanted to charge any nightclub or lounge that had live bands. Owner protested, saying that thier bands only played BMI music. ASCAP took many of them to court and won because Happy Birthday was played from the *jukebox* WHILE THE BAND WAS ON BREAK!!! Normally, the jukebox is covered by the fees the paid on it. But NOT if there is live music also. (And, yes, that does include waiter and waitresses.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally create something of value. I sign a deal with a record company to distribute my songs. Someone buys my alblum and rips it and shares it on some P2P service. You come along and download my creation... you are stealing my creation because you did not compensate the RC who then pays me. You download it, you stole it, you are a thief. EVERYTHING you say is just simple justification to mask your lack of a moral sense of right and wrong... because you are going to give me excuse after excuse of why it is ok and blah blah blah...If I, the creator of the content, choose to give it away for free, that is one thing, but if I created it with the intent to sell it to make a living... you downloading it without compensation, are robbing me of earning that living...Everyone wants this in some grey area... it is just simple black and white...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you even bothered to read the decision that heads this topic?The legality of downloading works you don't own was not the focus. The focus is if services can be held liable for the infringements of its users. If they can, is an ISP be liable for allowing users access? or for providing the connection that allows the infringement to take place.And I ask again, If I have paid for the work in the form of an LP, cassette or CD am I a thief for downloading it as an MP3 from a P2P network?I have found very little in life that is black & white as you stated. Thats why a legal system exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I ask again, If I have paid for the work in the form of an LP, cassette or CD am I a thief for downloading it as an MP3 off a P2P network?
By Marsden11's definition, you are! :o ;) :thumbsup:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's to turn to the good ol' Internet Dictionary, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

CopyrightFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.A copyright is a form of intellectual property that grants its holder the legal right to restrict the copying and use of an original, creative expression, such as a literary work, movie, musical work or sound recording, painting, computer program, or industrial design. The rights enforceable under copyright protection cover the use only of intangible creations—the story told within a book is protected from misuse as opposed to the printed copy itself, or the form of a sculpture as opposed to the actual carved rock. Copyrights do not protect ideas, however, which are the domain of patents (if at all), but only the particular expression of an idea. A copyright on the cartoon character Mickey Mouse, for example, would not prevent others from creating talking mice, but only from too closely copying the character and traits of that talking mouse in particular.Copyrights function similarly to patents, in that both grant exclusive rights over their respective subject matter that are enforceable against everyone (with some exceptions, discussed below). This is in contrast to trademark protection, which is almost always only enforceable against competitors in the same product market, and only against certain limited commercial uses. Also in contrast to trademarks, copyright (and patent) protection is set for a limited, statutorily-defined number of years, during which the copyright owner does not actually have to make use of his work in order to keep others from doing so. After the term is up, the copyrighted work enters the public domain and is available
You know, after reading through this whole definition, it's still not black and white. There is a whole shade of grey that is open to interpretation. Could be whoever wrote this wasn't precise enough. I would interpret this as saying you can't declare someone else's expression of an idea as your own but that doesn't stop you from duplicating the physical form of that expression. The two examples are inconsistent in this sentence: The rights enforceable under copyright protection cover the use only of intangible creations—the story told within a book is protected from misuse as opposed to the printed copy itself, or the form of a sculpture as opposed to the actual carved rock. :thumbsup:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nlinecomputers
The rights enforceable under copyright protection cover the use only of intangible creations—the story told within a book is protected from misuse as opposed to the printed copy itself, or the form of a sculpture as opposed to the actual carved rock
If I photocopy a book and give it to you then I'd say that I've misused the story as it deprives the author of a chance to earn money because you could have bought the book and have not. To me that is as clear cut as the downloading of a song.But here is the true gray area. You make a sculpture of a unique image. I take a photograph of it. Who owns the copyright of the photo? You or me? If I make a plaster cast of the sculpture it would be more obvious who is at fault but this is a bit vague.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting point because at where I work (a college) we pay a blanket copyright fee for photocopying. In other words, our library each year has to pay some body a sum of money so that students and faculty can make copies of pages from a textbook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if you re-type the book your friend currently owns in larger fon't, because he can't read his current copy? Is that a violation?The home recording act allows you to copy media for personal use...does that extend to digital copies? I don't know..which is why this isn't black and white but very grey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...