RIAA confiscates DJ Mix CDs. No one notices.

[DaBarrister]

The whole concept of intellectual property is a recent idea - go back 300 years and people would look at you like you were an idiot if you mentioned the term. Thats not to say that there isn't a compelling case for it, I grant that. The issue, to me, is the continual extension of it. And that is where it gets bad - tangible property deteriorates and thus depreciates with the passage of time, but this is not necessarily so with intellectual property if you continually extend copyright terms. This assymmetry needs to be recognized.

Fair enough.

And even if you think that others do not understand the law to the same extent as yourself, that does not mean that your sense of fairness is any more developed. The US had legalized slavery - that did not make it fair or good or right. Just because its the law, doesn't make it right. Sometimes unfair and unjust laws need to be resisted.

First, it's not a matter of what I think - the other in question has demonstrated his own ignorance.

Second, I disagree with your comparison. I gave my opinion earlier on the issue of fairness and I stand by that. Is there room for change? Maybe. But don't equate stealing someone's property with a racial group's civil rights. Copyright infringement is stealing. Compared to civil rights, copyright is trivial, so don't play the race card to support your claim that copyright is unfair. It just doesn't work.

[lacywest]

I can kind of see what you're getting at, but it's still a pretty big leap. maybe not as much as "smoking pot = funding terrorists", but pretty high up there.

I resemble that remark!!

Or Clinton .... "I didn't inhale"

[lordsmurf]

You have a great deal of expertise in the use of many video products. No one here would dispute that, and I respect your expertise in those areas. But you're out of your league when it comes to issues of law, and your know-it-all ignorance is disrespectful of those of us who DO know the law. So please stop misleading people with your ignorance.

I don't think I'm misleading anybody. I don't know everything, never claimed to. I am not a lawyer. I am one person, giving his views and comments in a public forum of discussion.

I attribute the "infringement is theft" scenario to the "she said yes, then changed her mind the next day, so it became rape" scenario. Caridi. Kobe. Whatever. It's flawed logic, not how laws were intended.

Also understand that since I have no law background, I have no way to verify all the things you say. To me, you're just another guy on the Internet also speaking his mind, obviously from a different perspective.

I re-iterate: current implementation of copyright law is a way to legalize greed, and goes against the reason we have laws at all, which is to protect the people en mass, not the pocketbooks of a few people here and there.

If you want to disagree, that's fine. I expect it and I respect it. But don't call me ignorant. That's just going to piss me off.

[painkiller]

I find it amazing, and enlightening, that a lot of us still find the time to argue the finer points of legal issues we can't control (much).

Ok. I just hope the bulk of us can keep it civil in the long run.

[MikieV]

In time, Arnold movies and Metallica songs will be the same way.

That is my main beef with the current law - it will be at least what? 75-years before that is true? Of course, Congress can always extend it - again.

Keeping Mickey Mouse protected by copyright is helping Walt and his estate, or Michael Eisner's stock options? It sure as heck isn't helping the estates of the people who actually did the animation.

I get really steamed when I read about Frank Miller's experiences with the "work for hire" aspect of comics and copyright, when he worked for Marvel. History, for the non comic-fan: He created the Electra character when he was writing the Dare Devil comic - and killed her off when he moved to another comic. He was upset to find Marvel owned his creation, and had other writers bring her back into the series.
He learned a painful lesson, and is a vocal advocate of self-publishing now.

The RIAA seems to be just another organization looking to protect corporate profits (not, in itself a bad thing, in a capitalist society) at the expence of the artists who produce the copyrighted material.

heavy sigh..

Mike

[BJ_M]

Ub Iwerks was the creator of Mickey Mouse, not walt ... Along with most of the other major early 'disney" charactors ..

Walt Disney called Ub "the greatest animator in the world."

This is of great personal interist to me ..

[MikieV]

Ub Iwerks was the creator of Mickey Mouse, not walt ... Along with most of the other major early 'disney" charactors ..

Please, pardon my ignorance.

I grew-up with the idea of Mickey et al being the "property" of Disney (the corporation) - and had no clear idea of who created the characters, other than my years-ago reading of "Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life" - by a couple of the animators involed in the early movies - i.e. Fantasia and Pinochio (sp?). A great book, with first-person stories of working on the classics - and extensive artwork.

I am all for artists getting credit, profit, and appreciation for their works. Just as I want credit, profit, and appreciation for the (non-artistic) work that I do.

I am distressed by corporations making profit, over a seemingly ever-expanding period of time, from their ownership of artistic "property".

Mike

[Supreme2k]

Copyrighted works fall into the category of "intangible property." Property. Not ether, not waves, not air - property. It is property that can be bought, sold, given away, assigned, etc.

Okay, it's intangible. So refer to it that way from now on. Only in the very vaguest sense can it be "stolen" (ie. the owner is not deprived of his property). Don't play the Extremist and equate it to breaking into someone's house and robbimg them (thus depriving them of tangible property), or stealing a Rolex.

Second, I disagree with your comparison. I gave my opinion earlier on the issue of fairness and I stand by that. Is there room for change? Maybe. But don't equate stealing someone's property with a racial group's civil rights. Copyright infringement is stealing. Compared to civil rights, copyright is trivial, so don't play the race card to support your claim that copyright is unfair. It just doesn't work.

Kind of like how copyright infringement is trivial compared to murder? If you're going to use that argument, stop being a hypocrite and let others do so as well.

[triphop]

And even if you think that others do not understand the law to the same extent as yourself, that does not mean that your sense of fairness is any more developed. The US had legalized slavery - that did not make it fair or good or right. Just because its the law, doesn't make it right. Sometimes unfair and unjust laws need to be resisted.

...
Second, I disagree with your comparison. I gave my opinion earlier on the issue of fairness and I stand by that. Is there room for change? Maybe. But don't equate stealing someone's property with a racial group's civil rights. Copyright infringement is stealing. Compared to civil rights, copyright is trivial, so don't play the race card to support your claim that copyright is unfair. It just doesn't work.

The expression: Playing the race card is a trite little piece of nonsense - lets see how you feel after your forebears get pressed into 100 odd years of slavery and then subjected to 75 years of lynchings and systematic discrimination. The point I was/still trying to make that if it is possible to make such a ****-up of civil rights - then maybe we could also be making the same mistake today vis-a-vis intellectual property.

Look at the facts - who are the people most excluded from the extension of copyrights - poor people, people without the means to contest in the money driven "legal" system like we rich* take for granted. This means that information and the means for potential betterment is similarly withheld from the poor and disenfranchised. This is just a new twist on segregation - this time its segregation based on who can afford access to information. This could lead to an uninformed populace which in turn could lead to disinterest in the democratic politcal system. Oh, wait. Maybe its already happening?! <irony/>

* compare your annual salary with the the world average - you are most likely in the top 5%. It does not mean that we have to side with the goons and gangsters that have so much influence and so little humanity.

[painkiller]

(From one extreme to the other.)

Hhhmph. Okay, we seem to have forgotten another class here.

How about the employee?

Most of us, although professionals and don't punch a "clock" (maybe), have to sign agreements with management. They are predominantly conditions of employment. (no signee, no workee)

These range from nodisclosure terms, security issues, no-gifts, and oh-yes the ever infamous .... signing over rights to works by the employee which may be patentable, yada yada yada.

And sometimes, to the extreme, even if the employee leaves one company to work for another (competitor maybe?) there are within the contracts a non-competitive clause. This means, for those here unfamiliar, you might be disallowed from working in the same field with anyone else.

So, just like it was pointed out earlier who the originator of Mickey Mouse is/was.... also remember the couple of gents who created the Superman saga/mythos. Those two never got the credit they deserved until long after.

The whole issue here is money and control, folks.

And who gets there first doesn't always make the money.

[Rookie64]

Ub Iwerks was the creator of Mickey Mouse, not walt ... Along with most of the other major early 'disney" charactors ..

Please, pardon my ignorance.

I grew-up with the idea of Mickey et al being the "property" of Disney (the corporation) - and had no clear idea of who created the characters, other than my years-ago reading of "Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life" - by a couple of the animators involed in the early movies - i.e. Fantasia and Pinochio (sp?). A great book, with first-person stories of working on the classics - and extensive artwork.

I am all for artists getting credit, profit, and appreciation for their works. Just as I want credit, profit, and appreciation for the (non-artistic) work that I do.

I am distressed by corporations making profit, over a seemingly ever-expanding period of time, from their ownership of artistic "property".

Mike

FWIW, Walt Disney died in 1966.


Doesn't matter who created the charaters...the person who owns the copyright to the work has the creative control over the work/proterty and has the right to protect their property from infringement.

When you sell your work to a producer, or are working for hire, theyown your creatation(s) - not the original artist.

Same with screenwriters - once they sell their scripts to a film producer or company, the script is no longer the property of the writer.
The film company can make any changes to it that they want - and they do this all the time.
When the film is finally released, the writer might not even recognize his own work
...but is given writing credits for it.

Only if the writer *leases* the script, does he/she still maintain creative and legal control over their own work.

That's why it's impotant you read the contract before you sign it - once you've signed it, you have no say in the matter anymore.


You should always look into what is protected by copyright and what isn't.
You might be surprised by how many things aren't protected at all.

ABSOLUTELEY FREE! MUSIC, TEXT AND ART!! COPY ALL YOU WANT!!
If you saw an advertisement like this, you might wonder, "What's the catch?" When it comes to the public domain, there is no catch.
If a book, song, movie or artwork is in the public domain, then it is not protected by intellectual property laws (such as copyright, trademark or patent law)---which means it's free for you to use without permission.

As a general rule, most works enter the public domain because of old age.
This includes any work published in the United States before 1923.
Another large block of works are in the public domain because they were published before 1964 and copyright was not renewed. (Renewal was a requirement for works published before 1978.) A smaller group of works fell into the public domain because they were published without copyright notice (copyright notice was necessary for works published in the United States before March 1, 1989). Some works are in the public domain because the owner has indicated a desire to give them to the public without copyright protection. The rules establishing the public domain status for each of these types of works are different...

and more details are provided in
The Public Domain: How to Find and Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art and More by Stephen Fishman

Legal Info online - www.nolo.com

There are four common ways that works arrive in the public domain:

- expiration of copyright: the copyright has expired.

- failure to renew copyright: the owner failed to follow copyright renewal rules.

- dedication: the owner deliberately places it in the public domain.

- no copyright protection available: copyright law does not protect this type of work.

Things Copyright Does Not Protect:

- Short Phrases

- Facts and Theories

- Ideas

- U.S. Government Works



Public Domain can be protected in the following:

- Multi-Layered Works (such as movies, sound recordings, painted illustrations, etc)

- Public Domain Works That Are Modified (such as color being added to a black and white public domain film)

- Works Protected By Trademark Law

- Works Protected in Other Countries

- Compilations (such as an author creating a work selecting various public domain components and grouping them together)

- Works First Published Outside The U.S.

Fair Use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and
transformative purpose such as comment upon, criticize or parody.

Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner.

For more detailed info, check out
Getting Permission: How to License & Clear Copyrighted Materials Onine & Off by Attorney Richard Stim, author of Music Law.


www.nolo.com

[Gritz]

I wonder what the first manufacturers were thinking when they first came out with a cassette to cassette recorder, or a VCR with a record button, or a PVR? What else would most people use a cassette to cassette recorder for except to copy a purchased audio tape? Wasn't the purpose of the first VCRs to copy a movie, or a program that you would like to revisit? Why would copying the same movie to a DVD be any different? What's the difference if I copy it with my sat connection or from a DVD that I own? Same with a PVR. It seems the manufacturers are selling a product that's somehow illegal to use in most cases! I can see it would be wrong to produce 100s of copies and then sell them for a profit ..... but making copies to use in both the den and living room, or in your second home, or in your car, or at your friends house (and he can "borrow" it if he wants) is why most of us have these devices. Arguments with how "illegal" it is isn't going to make a hill of beans in most cases to most people, and they will continue to buy those products that fill these needs. If you think about it, they probably could have bought a second copy cheaper, and besides, how many times are you going to listen to the same music, or watch the same movie?? Most people just enjoy a new challenge. Just using a little common sense will go a long ways!

[bugster]

and your know-it-all ignorance is disrespectful of those of us who DO know the law. So please stop misleading people with your ignorance.

And your know-it-all attitude is disrespectful of others opinions.

I am no layer, nor do I calim to be, but what I do know is the law as enacted by parliament/congress or whatever means little until a case comes to court and the judge/jury determines what that particular law means and what was the intention when that law was written.

But don't equate stealing someone's property with a racial group's civil rights. Copyright infringement is stealing. Compared to civil rights, copyright is trivial, so don't play the race card to support your claim that copyright is unfair. It just doesn't work.

As I seem to recall my minimal knowledge of history, it was onec considered acceptable to discriminate against people because of their race. Over time 'society' decided that this was wrong and the law was changed to reflect the changing views of society. Who is to say the copyright issues of today won't go the same way. Maybe, by todays standards, these issues do not match each other in terms of their importance to individuals or society as a whole, but the way the big corporations and their government lackeys are handling this issue, this could soon change (soon being a relative thing).

[drewson99]

Copyrighted works fall into the category of "intangible property." Property. Not ether, not waves, not air - property. It is property that can be bought, sold, given away, assigned, etc.

Stealing is taking the property of another without right or permission. You said so yourself. That's the definition of "steal" that you quoted. Those are your words. What don't you understand?

.

please allow me to preface this with the statement that I am not a lawyer and I am assuming mr. dabarrister is? (due to his name here)

so I'm not arguing against anyone, but would like to point out this distinction, "air, and waves, ether." vs. the IP "written and recorded music." Tangible property, which can be stolen (I agree that the use of this term is intended for physical objects.) is the media itself, in my opinion (Cds, master tapes, etc.) while the ideas represended by the recorded sound are the "ether" upon which infringement can be claimed.

so in my opinion you are both probably on the same page?

[shutterbug]

I've been dealing with this issue & the RIAA for over a decade....I'm curious...Would anyone here invest their time and money (be it 100's or millions of dollars), to create a product, a song, piece of software, etc. and be willing to let everyone else take it and use it at no cost? You'd receive nothing in return, no rights to your creation, no recourse.

In most cases, when someone creates a Mixed cd, they are taking songs that they have no legal right to, assembling them on a cd and selling them for profit. This is infringement of the copyright law set forth in Title 17 of the U.S.C. and it =THEFT. If many indy labels condone this, then that's their business not to enforce the law, if they believe they benefit from the exposure. For those who say "I'd never buy the individual cd anyway" It doesn't freekin matter. You're justifiying the illegal act to suit yourself. On the other hand, if the RIAA is trying to collect damages for artists they don't represent, maybe the RIAA should be fined.

Fees are paid to organizations like the RIAA, ASCAP and BMI for venues that provide public performances of works created by the artists they represent. As an example, when a DJ plays a Madonna song in a nightclub, the club is responsible for paying a licensing fee to the organization that represents her and/or her label. It is Madonna or her label that owns the rights to the song--not the DJ, not the club. Music played at a private performance, not open to the public (such as a wedding) doesn't have to abide by these standards.

After reading many of the posts here, it seems only a few really understand copyright law. Others just don't seem to care because the Sonys and the Microsofts "make too much money". Use all the scenarios you want, the law isn't open to your own interpretation to use or dismiss as you see fit. I get a kick out of those who want only *Some copyright* protection. So just protect the stuff you Don't want to duplicate?? While I'm no fan of the RIAA, I do understand the law. Take a look for yourself http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

[lordsmurf]

I've been dealing with this issue & the RIAA for over a decade....I'm curious...Would anyone here invest their time and money (be it 100's or millions of dollars), to create a product, a song, piece of software, etc. and be willing to let everyone else take it and use it at no cost? You'd receive nothing in return, no rights to your creation, no recourse.

Typical RIAA argument...
... please, name me ONE artist or ONE company that has received NOTHING for his/here/its music because of downloads.

Let me help you out here: You can't, because that is another false argument. That has not happened. Nor should it.

Howver, there is a reasonable limit for gaining on your goods. Current laws are unreasonable. Culture is being lost in greed-whore's vaults... all because of "copyright". I ask, what about society-right?

[shutterbug]

Typical RIAA argument...
... please, name me ONE artist or ONE company that has received NOTHING for his/here/its music because of downloads.

Typical response.... So basically, you fall into the category of those that want artists to make *some profit* for their works, but only if the amount of profit is to your liking....Welcome to a free-market economy. READ what I wrote. I didn't touch on the subject of downloading music. Although, it's clearly been proven illegal as well.

If you don't like the law, lobby to change it.......But as it stands, it's still the law and copying music and selling it is still illegal.

[bugster]

If you don't like the law, lobby to change it.......But as it stands, it's still the law and copying music and selling it is still illegal.

Copying music that you do not own the copyright to is illegal. I think we can all agree on that. But what happens if the copyright holder (owner?) decides it is not in his/her interests to enforce their copyright in some or all situations. Does an umbrella organistion like the RIAA have the right to prosecute copyright infringement cases where the copyright holder is:
a) not a member and so not represented by the RIAA and
b) does not wish to enforce his rights under copyright legislation (as has been suggested in this case).

I think not.

[lordsmurf]

So basically, you fall into the category of those that want artists to make *some profit* for their works, but only if the amount of profit is to your liking....Welcome to a free-market economy.

YES! That's me! I want a reasonable time limit, not forever minus a day.

A free market economy does not justify the financial raping of society that copyright holders and umbrella organizations have done in past years. And we do not live in a free market economy, as the government still has say and can still set regulations. I wholly believe the government will intervene in this mess within the next 5 years.

[triphop]

I wholly believe the government will intervene in this mess within the next 5 years.

Dream on. The current lot of goons in charge (govt) are probably the worst in recent memory but do not think that if another bunch come into govt. the filthy rich will suddenly hand back their plunder and start paying their share of the taxes. Nope, the goons are in charge and will be for some time.

[DaBarrister]

and your know-it-all ignorance is disrespectful of those of us who DO know the law. So please stop misleading people with your ignorance.

And your know-it-all attitude is disrespectful of others opinions.

Taken out of context, yes it does appear disrespectful. But this was in response to being accused, on at least four occasions in three threads by this same person, of confusing basic copyright law issues. It so happens that I am an attorney and I work in this industry defending people and corporations who are alleged to have infringed copyrighted works. That is, I defend people AGAINST the RIAA accusations, so I DO know this law inside and out, I know what is and what is not a violation of the law, and I won't bow to someone ripping me by passing off their own opinion as to what they think the law should be, for the what the law really says. In that respect, he is misleading people and he should not be plying the boards offering legal advice.

Lordsmurf is entitled to his opinion. If his opinion is "the law sucks," then that's fine by me. But when he expresses his opinion that the law does not treat copyright violations as theft, then he's wrong, and I'm going to point it out. Period.

Or maybe I should let him continue to make his misleading statements, 'cause folks who listen to him will violate the law and then they'll come knocking on my door for representation. And, perhaps, we'll file a third party complaint against Lordsmurf for giving bad legal advice to the newbies looking for direction in this area of the law.

Like I said before, Lordsmurf is an expert in many areas of video production, and I respect that. However, I do not and will not respect his skewed, untrained interpretation of a very complicated law. I am an expert in that area, and he ought to respect that or be prepared to duke it out on the board if he chooses to attack my expertise.

[MikieV]

FWIW, Walt Disney died in 1966.

Doesn't matter who created the charaters...the person who owns the copyright to the work has the creative control over the work/proterty and has the right to protect their property from infringement.

When you sell your work to a producer, or are working for hire, theyown your creatation(s) - not the original artist.

FWIW, I was born in 1958.

I understand the need for Copywrite, Trademark, and Patent protections.

I am just upset that Congress keeps extending the period over which the protections apply.

The Constitution allows for limited protection, but also allows Congress to set the limits.

When does the limited-time become for-all-intents-and-puposes permanent? Two-lifetimes? Three?

Mike[/i]

[fritzi93]

DaBarrister, to put it in the nicest possible way, you should know better than to resort to ad hominems. Cracks about amateur lawyers cut no ice. Law shouldn't be an arcane art to be handed down to us morons by some sort of priesthood. It must be to the greatest extent possible understood in its essentials and consented to. And discussed.

But thanks for starting an interesting thread, and I can agree with some of what you say.

[SatStorm]

I enjoy reading Americans explaining all this madness, which force to us Europeans today to accept.

Well, l don't care for how things work to USA. I care for how things work here in Europe. And when I say Europe, I don't mean UK...

Europe never had the system US has in music, nor movies. Because it is a devided market (even as E.U. remains devided on this...), a market model like this you have in US for music can't be used.
The power here in Europe, was never the record sales of an artist, but the live and special events, and how many people an artist / group/ whatever gathers each time those take place. The power here are the open festivals, the parades and big club events. We call it "the german music model" and it is the only working model for Europe, after 30 years of experiance. This model succeed to support Eurodisco in the 70s, Italo-disco in the mid 80s, Alpen Rock in the German Speaking Europe for the last 30 years, Neu Deutche Welle in the early/ mid 80s and Techno/ Trance / Progressive in the 90s untill today.
In this model, you trade, copy or whatever is neccessary, so people learn this music, this band, this group, this music scene. With this model, the artists end up with more money for themselfs (because of the plenty live events, and the amount of the legal sales - and we all buy something we like, even if we have it copied one way or other before), and an industry can be supported beyond them but from them (Clubs for example, parties, raves, etc). People living from this and we talk for many people: Just imagine each city, town, village having at least one - two places involved one way or the other with this "system".
Internet can be a very good incame for the artists also in this model, expecially for sales like CDs and DVDs (which you can't buy on stores, only on the sites or special internet retailers).

The last 10 years, US force in Europe the model you are using there, in the other side of Atlantic. This system before was tested in the UK, with great reults. But the problem is that UK is simply a small part of Europe. And, for various reasons, it is not a good example to judge Europe on trading terms. And after all, the US music indestry is a trading greedy thing, right?
The results after this turn, are the opposite the big ones there in US expected: 10 years later, and in Europe the records don't sale, all the viacom music channels have economical problems and most of the local music indestry destroyed! In the 70s, 80s and the first half of the 90s, you could listen to Italian, French, German and Scandinavian Hits for example in Greece, beyond -the not so popular here...- UK hits. Today, you can't! It is all about US hits and UK hits, who noone like and noone buy. Same story on most european countries. Do you know how it is to control 20 music radio stations in Athens (from a possible of 30), airing the same music you import, and only few listens to you and buy your music?
Sure, it is easy to blame internet, mp3s, P2P networks, CD bootlegs, etc. But this is to blame to this distribution system. To this music indestry, the US one.
On the other model, the "German" one, or European if you like to call it, those same things are what keeps them alive and active.
The free distribution of copied CDs on raves, parties, festivals, club events, etc is what saves the day. And I know plenty artists, coping there own CDs and sell them real cheap or given them for free at those events, because this is the only way to have a voice on a Europe which is dominate by a US/ UK model-based music indestry.

So, IMHO, this RIAA movement is targeting this: The total kill of the local music markets, or to tell it different, the total distruction of the non US/UK international and mostly english speaking music market. In other words, RIAA is targeting to the only competator it has. The one which use to survive what RIAA fights!

And if you think widely, you gonna see that inside US, this underground distribution music system, hurts the US interests of the music indestry, not because of the copyright terms about copies. No.
The truth is that the US Youth, expecially the white boys, don't have today alternatives music feeds than the one the music system offers them. The only alternative they have, are those dj mix cds, it happens and gather from parties, raves, clubs, lives, etc. Those dj mix cds, acts as a presentation of a music scene/ alternative to them, about music styles, total foreigner mostly for US, which they can discover - online - easily. And since this music can't be controlled by the US big ones, is a great treat for the US/UK music indesty system.
Because who gonna listen to stupid pop, if Vocal Trance for example became mainstream?

If you study music history, you will notice that when a European with fresh music ideas starts touring US, soon or later a success follows, and the big ones don't understand why.
Some examples: The New Wave scene in the 80s (and the first MTV as a whole), or artists/ groups like Falco, Peter Schilling, Him, ATB, Paul Van Dyk. I can give countles examples and this is also true for US artists : Meat Lof, System of the dawn, Marilyn Manson (& the spooky kids), Moby... They tour all the time and they have success because of this alternative music model!

And the big ones fail to see the use of the bootleg CDs, mp3s and tapes for their benefits...

Meanwhile, I gonna listen to Schiller, a group I once discovered through some mp3s I downloaded (an ilegal action, right?) and now own all their official CDs, imported from Germany and their own site.

[at2ecw]

i agree that the companys should have copyrights on things like movies and music, etc. the problem i have is mp3's. has anyone including the riaa ever listened to what people have downloaded? my friends had some downloaded before all the "hoopla" started . the songs sounded like crap to me. can you say hollow sound? of course bootleg movies are horrible looking also. just imagine that in divx urghhhh. it's a shame people are being sued for something that doesn't compare to the original source at all. <that last part was bad...shame on me heheh.> i also agree with changing the time on copyrights. 5 yrs. sounds like a good time frame. especially if they keep re-releasing the movie in 10 different versions. that especially drives me NUTSSSSSS!!!!!

P.S. sorry for the rave..... i do feel better now though

[Zal42]

I'm not really picking on DaBarrister in particular, as I have a good deal of respect for his opinions. He does such a good job at pointing out some of the problems of the anti-copyright crowd that there's little of that left for me to do.

For the record, I am not anti-copyright at all. It has a place and a role. I do think the current copyright laws are too extreme, though, and I do think they harm society as they exist right now.

But overzealous prosecution of copyright is not a reason to abolish copyright, any more than overzealous use of the death penalty is a reason for doing away with the crime of murder.

Good point. Overzealous use of the death penalty is a pretty darned good reason to do away with the death penalty, though.

I posted this story to see whether someone would draw the distinction. I'm disappointed that no one else brought this up in any detail. Anyway...

Why should it be brought up? RIAA is enforcing things in the most extreme manner they can get away with, so it is reasonable to assume that however draconian the law allows the enforcement to be, that is exactly how draconian it will be. In this context, it's a distinction without a difference.

Without such protection no one would produce the movies and music that you love so much.

I couldn't disagree with that more. As proof I'll simply point to the thousands of hours of music that can be had at no cost, and copyright free (or with a Creative Commons license) right now. I stopped buying music from RIAA member labels a number of years ago, and I don't pirate music -- yet somehow I still manage to gather all the new, fresh, and excellent music I could ever want anyway.

Artists create because they are artists. They'd do it even if it never made them a dime. (Just to clarify: I'm not arguing that artists shouldn't be able to make money from their work.)

My personal belief is that RIAA's beef with casual copying is not because they fear a loss of revenue (casual copying does not cause a noticeable loss of revenue, as near as I can tell -- commercial piracy does.) I suspect that RIAA just wants to lock up a new method of distribution they don't currently control, to maintain their defacto monopoly on music distribution and continue to be the only option for musicians to get their work heard.


All that said, in the exchanges between DaBarrister and his opponents, I think that something has been unsaid that is leading to misunderstanding and it should be aired.

When DaBarrister talks about "theft" and "stealing", he is referring to the definitions as set forth by the legal code. When most of the other folks here use those terms, they are talking not about the law, but about their sense of what ethically constitues theft. I think everyone can agree that what the law says is right and wrong is often at odds with what many people consider to be right and wrong.

Combine this with the sentiment that I've seen expressed a number of times here, that "if you don't like the law, then work to change it", and I see that many of the disagreements run very much deeper than copyright issues per se.

It is the opinion of many people that, outside of rare and exceptional circumstances (or unless you're a corporation or fabulously wealthy), it is simply not possible to change the law.

And even when people have managed to change unethical laws, the changes always, and must, begin with people disobeying said laws. Otherwise, Congress will ignore you and the courts have no case to hear.

[Cornucopia]

Zal42--VERY WELL PUT!

Scott

[Zal42]

I'm curious...Would anyone here invest their time and money (be it 100's or millions of dollars), to create a product, a song, piece of software, etc. and be willing to let everyone else take it and use it at no cost? You'd receive nothing in return, no rights to your creation, no recourse.

I've been a computer programmer for over 25 years, and have written software that you've probably even used (maybe using right now!). A great deal of substantial work I have engaged in I have given over to the public domain, and have recieved nothing in return for (very often, not even credit). I'm not that unusual, either -- look at the entire open source movement for tons of examples.

One of my favorite bands puts every song they've ever made into the public domain. In fact, a handful of bands that I like very much put all of their music in the public domain -- and there's even more that I don't like

Remember that foregoing copyright protection (although I don't support eliminating copyright) in no way means that the author of the work cannot profit. My favorite band still seems to sell a lot of CDs (I've even purchased every CD they've produced), and even more importantly they sell out concerts. Do their albums go platinum? No, but they make more money than the vast majority of bands that have standard record contracts and sell far more CDs.

By the way, do you know how most bands (even the really huge successes) make their money? It's not from CD sales -- the labels keep just about every penny of those. It's from concerts. Ticket sales, memorabilia, etc. It's how there can be bands that support themselves with their music while at the same time giving their music away for free. It's also why even the biggest music stars have to tour constantly.

I get a kick out of those who want only *Some copyright* protection.

I'm not quite sure if you meant to imply that copyright should be everlasting and apply to all works here, but that was sort of how I read it. I apologize if I misunderstood.

My answer to this is to point out the reason that copyright law was brought into being in the first place. It was primarily to benefit society, not the authors of works. The fact that it was deemed a benefit to society to provide limited protection to authors was incidental.

The deal was: you get a legal monopoly to what you create for a limited time, and then everybody owns it. Modern corporations seem to be trying to renege on this deal by getting repeated extensions on this limited time.

[DaBarrister]

I'm not really picking on DaBarrister in particular, as I have a good deal of respect for his opinions. He does such a good job at pointing out some of the problems of the anti-copyright crowd that there's little of that left for me to do.

For the record, I am not anti-copyright at all. It has a place and a role. I do think the current copyright laws are too extreme, though, and I do think they harm society as they exist right now.

This is a fair response.

For the record, I'm not all that enamoured of the current state of copyright law, either. I agree that the length of copyright has exceeded its value to society and ought to change. But seeing the flaws in the law is different than calling for its eradication (or denying that it exists at all). All I'm looking to do is to set the story straight on what is and what is not the law. I would have more respect for some of my respondents if they would just say that they don't agree with the law and simply admit that what they are doing (or advocating) is illegal under that law.

Artists create because they are artists. They'd do it even if it never made them a dime. (Just to clarify: I'm not arguing that artists shouldn't be able to make money from their work.)

Fair enough for a number of artists. And there's probably something to be said for getting rid of the most "commercial" artists.

My personal belief is that RIAA's beef with casual copying is not because they fear a loss of revenue (casual copying does not cause a noticeable loss of revenue, as near as I can tell -- commercial piracy does.) I suspect that RIAA just wants to lock up a new method of distribution they don't currently control, to maintain their defacto monopoly on music distribution and continue to be the only option for musicians to get their work heard.

I don't disagree. It is still theft, though, irrespective of whether RIAA's members are making or losing money. I guess I'm looking to the moral issue in addition to the strictly legal issue.

All that said, in the exchanges between DaBarrister and his opponents, I think that something has been unsaid that is leading to misunderstanding and it should be aired.

When DaBarrister talks about "theft" and "stealing", he is referring to the definitions as set forth by the legal code. When most of the other folks here use those terms, they are talking not about the law, but about their sense of what ethically constitues theft. I think everyone can agree that what the law says is right and wrong is often at odds with what many people consider to be right and wrong.

I don't disagree at all. That's a point I tried to make, albeit not as compactly and elegantly as you just did. I am offended, though, by those who equate copyright law with Nazism or racial injustice. Putting them into the same category either shows an ignorance of history or a crass disrespect for Holocaust survivors and victims of racial injustice. For thos against copyright - fine, attack it all you want, but lay off the racial rhetoric.

Combine this with the sentiment that I've seen expressed a number of times here, that "if you don't like the law, then work to change it", and I see that many of the disagreements run very much deeper than copyright issues per se.

It is the opinion of many people that, outside of rare and exceptional circumstances (or unless you're a corporation or fabulously wealthy), it is simply not possible to change the law.

Not absolutely true, but it certainly helps to be fabulously wealthy.

And even when people have managed to change unethical laws, the changes always, and must, begin with people disobeying said laws. Otherwise, Congress will ignore you and the courts have no case to hear.

Here's where I break with you. It is absolutely not necessary to break this law in order to challenge it in court. All you need is a reasonable argument that this law causes harm - and that it harms you specifically - in order to have standing to qualify as a plaintiff. It's done all the time (see, e.g., Newdow v. U.S.).

I keep hearing how harmful this law is, but no one seems to be stepping up to the plate to present a legal challenge. If some on this board feel so aggrieved by the law, then they should challenge it. Maybe they'll win and be heroes to everyone else.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

[Zal42]

I would have more respect for some of my respondents if they would just say that they don't agree with the law and simply admit that what they are doing (or advocating) is illegal under that law.

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm of the opinion that if you decide to violate a law, for whatever reason, then you should do so with the full awareness of what you're doing, and acceptance that there may be consequences to pay for it. Denial gains nothing. This is as true for speeding as it is for copyright violations.

I am offended, though, by those who equate copyright law with Nazism or racial injustice. Putting them into the same category either shows an ignorance of history or a crass disrespect for Holocaust survivors and victims of racial injustice. For thos against copyright - fine, attack it all you want, but lay off the racial rhetoric.

Yes, although (unless I missed something) the context of those comments didn't seem to equate the level and type of injustices with copyright law, at least how I read them. Nonetheless, those comparisons have heavy emotional and intellectual baggage which make them a poor choice for use in any analogy. Rule 1 of rhetoric: as soon as you invoke Nazis, then you've lost the ear of those you are trying to convince.

Here's where I break with you. It is absolutely not necessary to break this law in order to challenge it in court. All you need is a reasonable argument that this law causes harm - and that it harms you specifically - in order to have standing to qualify as a plaintiff. It's done all the time (see, e.g., Newdow v. U.S.).

I don't disagree - I was stating a position I hear commonly, not one I necessarily subscribe to myself. However....

I keep hearing how harmful this law is, but no one seems to be stepping up to the plate to present a legal challenge. If some on this board feel so aggrieved by the law, then they should challenge it. Maybe they'll win and be heroes to everyone else.

With copyright in particular, here's the rub. Copyright law does not (in the context we're discussing it here) cause individuals legally recognized harm. It doesn't damage your property, steal your money, defame you, etc.

The harm I see in the law applies to the social body as a whole. No individual would have a legal standing to bring a case for this kind of problem. In our system, this is addressed by Congress, not the courts. However, Congress is not going to take up such an issue seriously unless there is serious public outcry. Often, that outcry only gets loud enough after there have been a few martyrs.