RIAA confiscates DJ Mix CDs. No one notices.

[Supreme2k]

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 beg to differ:
(from this thread)

No, charges were brought against him for knowingly and intentionally circumventing a copy protection scheme. Whether they could prove it in his case is beside the point. So your test of legality is that if they didn't make it too difficult to steal, you are therefore justified in stealing it? "That's right officer. He turned his back and I took the Rolex. Not my fault he didn't protect it better! That's not stealing." Hmm mmm. Right.

Then there's this:

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.

Wrong. That's like saying "murder" is not "killing." When you copy a DVD or intercept an encoded satellite signal you are not authorized to receive, that's theft. You have taken something that does not belong to you. If you sell it or use it in a derivative work, that's infringement. I ought to know since I have to defend people who do one or the other, or both.

Why not use something like "That's like saying 'shoplifting' is not 'theft' "?

[sybariten]

on the topic .... can someone elaborate on what kind of discs, exactly, they are discussing in the djmag article ? Surely Tiesto and similars make sure to have permission before he assembles a mixCD ?

[BJ_M]

3 types of mix cd's dj' s use / make primarily

1. remix and or compilation disk , in which all material is cleared and royalities paid.. then sold as a remix or compilation ..... 1000's of these of course .

2. a club or work for hire dj copies his fav. songs from cd's he owns onto a cd in which he can play at a event ...
afaik -- this is not legal ...

3. many many dj's tape or record onto cd or tape the nights performance , i know many that do this onto dat and cd ... this includes all music and effects (scratching / mix/ talk / overdubs and samples) .. this recorded piece is used for a number of things:
A review of the night by the dj and/or the club owner as to quality and also content -- to enable suggested content changes, refinement and timing changes (BPM changes throughout the night along w/ material).

The DJ may use some or all of it for a mix cd to be sold at a later date ....

[equinox137]

Is DaBarrister an RIAA lawyer or something? He seems rather zealous in his definition of "theft".

[proxyx99]

Hmm, DaBarrister is commenting on the legal matter using the proper and the only tool applicable here "language of law". A doctor use terms like "upper extremity" instead of "hand" (in case of human body). Since law resides (like patents) in the intellectual rather then physical world precision of expression is absolutely crucial in defining ideas. Some may not like parallels drawn here but this is how lawyers see the world. Improper, unintended interpretation may (and often does) make it or break it. Applying legal concepts to real life situations may be confusing and misleading (despite some similarities to the untrained eye) so the importance of the proper use of semantics cannot be underestimated. Law concepts are simply on a higher level of abstraction and this calls for better language tools to be applied here. Words that cross real life (common) understanding and law (like "theft") have much more subtle meaning in the domain of law. It is good to keep that in mind while embarking on a discussion about legal subjects.

[DVD Polizei]

Well, as a former DJ, and discussing this topic with a few DJs, the RIAA doesn't care about the DJ scene, because it's not making them money. Now, back in the 70's to early 90's, yes, it did make them some serious money. But today, it's more profitable if you only let the radio station play the mixes that can be found at a local retail store which carries the commercial 12" mix.

Another point I'd like to add, is that the term DJ is so widely twisted, anyone can be one. Which brings up the reason why the RIAA got involved. There were many DJs who distributed their work for profit to non-DJs. As a DJ back in the 90's, I saw this happen a lot. It was a quick way to make a buck. Many regulars of the danceclubs would purchase tapes from the DJs. Hell, some DJs were making more money selling tapes than drugs. The problem then began in the mid-90s where tapes were showing up outside of the dance scene way too often. We had several out of court civil compromises from DJs that never hit the news. But we knew this was not good, and that the new wave of DJs were making it very hard for veterans in the industry.

I never did this. I did record some live shows I did because some nights you're just so damn hot, you gotta listen to it again and take notes for future segments. But, I never sold any tapes to my friends.

And I have to agree that if you're going to argue the subject, you need to understand the legal terms of what theft and steal are. Everyone has their own interpretation.

Just as an FYI, the DJ scene has changed so much, and most of us veterans are out of this crap. The DJs today are young, full of rebellious spirit, and that's great, but after a few years (if you're good), you're history, and another young kid comes along. The music availability for DJs has also shrunk so much over the past decade, it's just not funny. Maybe one of these days I'll write a book on the subject and how it happened (because there are some really interesting stories), but for now, I'll just say I understand the position on DJ music issues--on both sides of the legal battle, because it's gotten so ridiculous over the years.

The RIAA is facing an inevitable loss of the music war. They've won a few battles, but the war is far from over, and they will lose.

It reminds me of US movie labels now selling their movies to China for $2.65 retail. They finally admitted the war on pirating is losing game, and so they simply reduced their DVD prices so low, they hope to sway some of the pirate sales to legitimate sales.

[AlecWest]

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.

I am not a lawyer nor have I ever pretended to be one. But since you brought it up, I just wanted to say something about "ignorance of history."

Hands up ... anyone who knows what the Statute Of Anne was and why it was necessary?

Prior to 1710, publishing in Britain was controlled by an oligarchy of sorts ... noblemen who, by the good graces of the reigning monarch, had the right to stifle any work they found offensive ... and claim ownership of other works they didn't, even if the works had long been part of antiquity (nowadays called "in the public domain"). This oligarchy called itself "The Stationer's Guild." Nothing got published unless this oligarchy approved of it and unless they got a piece of the pie.

The Statute of Anne is regarded by most people as the FIRST copyright act in the world. It marked the END of "rights kingdoms" and "rights oligarchies" and, for the first time in history, recognized rights of a work's "creator" as being paramount. But, these rights were narrow. A creator of a work was given rights to it ... rights he/she could profit from personally but could not sell, assign, or bequeath. Once a limited period of rights expired, the work became part of the public domain where it could be freely distributed by anyone. This 1710 British law is the foundation upon which America's founding fathers based Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution:

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Note the two important phrases - limited times and exclusive right. Those phrases were used for a reason ... limited times to ensure an eventual body of works in the public domain ... and exclusive right to guard against the creation of rights kingdoms or rights oligarchies in America. Later, this simple clause was interpreted and defined more fully in the Copyright Act of 1789.

The next Copyright Act (1909) is most remembered because it lengthened the limited period from 28 years (14 years plus optional 14 year extention) to 56 years (28 years plus optional 28 year extention). But, it did a lot more than that. I often refer to it as the Rape Of The Public Domain Act of 1909. For the first time, creator exclusivity to rights was tossed into the crapper. Creators could sell, assign, and bequeath rights to third parties ... laying a foundation for the creation of the rights kingdoms and oligarchies our founding fathers feared most - the same entities we now see today (the RIAA, MPAA, etc.). It was in direct violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 ... but was never officially challenged as being unconstitutional (which it was) ... and we've all been paying the price for it ever since.

Off pulpit.

[painkiller]

And, let us not forget about the Mickey Mouse job that extended the copyright duration for Walt Disney and Friends.....

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html

[AlecWest]

And, let us not forget about the Mickey Mouse job that extended the copyright duration for Walt Disney and Friends.....

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html

Prime example, painkiller. But in a way, that article "skews" the real issue. Let's face it ... Walt Disney did not sit down and create all of those lovable characters. He hired a bunch of creators who did most of that work for him. In a world where the "creator" was supposed to be the boss, hiring others to disseminate his/her work, the world has been turned topsy turvy with creators relegated to the status of contract employees for rights moguls/monarchs (like Walt Disney).

I doubt if any judge in any court would be interested in my opinion but, to me, the Copyright Act of 1909 was unconstitutional ... a violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 in that it ended forever the "exclusive" right given to creators by the Constitution. And, since all subsequent Copyright laws are merely extentions of the 1909 act, they are unconstitutional as well.

But, I can understand why courts would consider my opinions laughable. The Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.) has been revised to "He who has the gold makes the rules." The ghosts of the Stationer's Guild from merry old England must be proud of us here in the U.S. We've managed to turn back the clock to the 18th Century and re-institutionalize feudalism as a virtue.

[Wilbert]

Now, a "copyrighted work" is a subset of "intellectual property." "Infringement of copyright" is a subset of the larger category of "theft of intellectual property." So, you see, not all thefts of intellectual property are infringements of copyright, but every copyright infringement is a theft of intellectual property. When you copy or reproduce a copyrighted work (when you do not have the right to do so) you are guilty of the theft of another's intellectual property.

Perhaps our laywer could comment about the following

The notion of copyright infringement as theft was clearly addressed in the 1985 Supreme Court decision of Dowling v. United States. While this case involved hard goods (phonograph records), Justice Harry Blackmun was most certainly speaking of abstract property (copyrights) when he wrote these words in his majority decision overturning Dowling's conviction of interstate transport of stolen property: "(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11662

The No Electronic Theft Act conflicts with a Supreme Court decision?

[proxyx99]

Now, a "copyrighted work" is a subset of "intellectual property." "Infringement of copyright" is a subset of the larger category of "theft of intellectual property." So, you see, not all thefts of intellectual property are infringements of copyright, but every copyright infringement is a theft of intellectual property. When you copy or reproduce a copyrighted work (when you do not have the right to do so) you are guilty of the theft of another's intellectual property.

Post above indicates that it should be the other way around: all thefts are infringements but not not all infringements are thefts. Makes perfect sense in the light of depravation of the rightful owner of use of the intellectual property... Very smart Wilbert, indeed.