Hollywood steps up piracy fight

[adam]

Since the "war on drugs" started numbers have fluctuated. For some drugs, the use is down right now and for others it is up. This is not the point. The point of the war is to create a deterrent. Anyone who uses or traffics drugs does so knowing full well that IF they are caught they will be prosecuted. Depending on the jurisdiction, possession above a certain amount requires a mandatory sentence of 10 years.

The "war on piracy" is intended to create a similar deterrent. Look at the statistics. A substantial percentage of teens and pre-teens literally do not know that it is illegal to download a copyrighted song off the internet. They literally have no idea that the copyright holder can sue them for infringement, and that they can actually be put in jail for what they are doing. These MPAA and RIAA suits are largely just intended to combat this ignorance on the part of the downloaders and promote self regulation.

[samuraijack]

Since the "war on drugs" started numbers have fluctuated. For some drugs, the use is down right now and for others it is up. This is not the point. The point of the war is to create a deterrent. Anyone who uses or trafficks drugs does so knowing full well that IF they are caught they will be prosecuted. Depending on the jurisdiction, possession above a certain amount requires a mandatory sentence of 10 years.

The "war on piracy" is intended to create a similar deterrent. Look at the statistics. A substantial percentage of teens and pre-teens literally do not know that it is illegal to download a copyrighted song off the internet. They literally have no idea that the copyright holder can sue them for infringement, and that they can actually be put in jail for what they are doing. These MPAA and RIAA suits are largely just intended to combat this ignorance on the part of the downloaders.

The way to combat ignorance is through education. If a child is misbehaving and you whip him, he will eventually stop..or he will turn on you. These bully tactics are not the AA twins trying to educate the people, but the corporate tactics of a empire built on control. They know that the time is coming where they will no longer be a central point of profit and its scareing them. They have thrown huge amounts of money at this only to come up dry. And who gets hurt in the process? The middle man who just wants to make a mix cd for his car and ends up getting screwed.

Things are changing and they simply dont want to give up their nice cushy fat salaries and easily lauded groups of consumers for a savier, smarter clientele. This is the real reason behind why they are so rampant. We have seen the numbers and we know that sales profits from music have increased, so why are they doing this?

Greed Greed Greed


This isnt about copyright infringement or digital rights, its about money. How easy it is to make it and how easy we are to take it from. The change is coming. They can sense it and they are afraid that they might actually have to put some effort into keeping us entertained instead just shoveling a us a new pop diva, with more caps than talent, every two months.
and the absolute worst part about it?
They actually have lobbyists who spend millions of dollars wooing congress and senators to do their bidding. You dont make investments like that unless you are getting something in return. It doesnt fit with the business model.
So you tell me. Is it really a problem with our rights or is it just a problem with somebody not making an extra billion dollars in a year?

or is it just time to change?

[adam]

Well, assuming Adam is correct, it really wont make a difference in the end, will it? Whats happened with music "sharing"?
Oh yeah. It's still going strong.

And so are the lawsuits. That's the point, nothing is going to be accomplished overnight. These organizations have decided that they are willing to commit public relations suicide in an effort to maintain the market share that they are used to. So that's what they are doing now as we speak. How many years have these suits been going on to any substantial degree? Maybe 2 or 3 years? That isn't even a drop in the bucket. I think these suits are accomplishing exactly what they are intended to, but you will have to wait for the numbers to catch up.

In the meantime, I don't know about anybody else, but if I ever had the inclination to download a copyrighted work in the past, I most certainly will not do it now. I have seen first hand what happens to someone who gets caught down/uploading copyrighted files and it is not pretty.

[lenti_75]

this is just BS

there are so many ways of downloading a file.....this is just DUST IN THE WIND

it's totally different from drug war, this is a "virtual" war, which will never end

[painkiller]

The reason that filesharing is becoming the "in thing" for the front pages is that the media groups don't really have a lot of extra leg-work, or external labor forces, to reap the benefits of their lawsuits.

If you look at the quantities that EvilWizardGlick posted above, I would be willing to bet that the MPAA and RIAA simply see these as "easy marks."

One simple reason. They can be identified simply by getting ISP records and tracking IP's to their geographical locations. SO, handles be damned. They can find you.

So looking at those numbers above again also tells me that if you multiply each by so many thousands of dollars (cause the defendants would rather pay up than fight it) then the MPAA and RIAA get so much moolah.

And they essentially never "left the house."


Easy money - makes you wonder who the smart ones are, eh?

[Nilfennasion]

A point I keep bringing up, which seems to get resoundingly ignored, is that the RIAA has a whole other reason to be scared my MP3. Labels like Sony who, as samuraijack puts it, are "just shoveling a us a new pop diva, with more caps than talent, every two months", have seen a sales slump ever since the early 1980s, when cassette tape trading took off. Ironically, the labels and artists that really do "put some effort into keeping us entertained" have increased sales by as much as a thousand percent in the wake of MP3 trading. It is just as easy for the average user to find out about a bunch of real artists like My DyING BRIDE by downloading through Limewire as it is to find out about empty-headed crap like N-Sync from watching your television. And the worst part for the RIAA is that because the only other advertising the former has is by word of mouth, people can listen without preconceived notions, and not be so utterly disappointed when they do not live up to expectations.

While it is true that the slump in record sales has hurt labels like Peaceville or Moonfog, they have shifted to selling online as well as through the usual channels. They know that a new business model is coming, and they need to adapt. In fact, many have adapted already just in order to survive. Sony seems to think it can survive by buying out record labels that are unaffected by the losses they claim to experience (Roadrunner Records is a famous example), but their habit of trying to mould artists into making more crap just doesn't work with this tactic.

A similar hissy fit was thrown at the beginning of the twentieth century, when radio was being introduced to the people. Record labels were complaining that people were not going to buy records if they could just listen to the songs for free over the air. Many labels refused to permit their recordings to be transmitted over the air. Those that did allow their recordings to be played on air, however, gained a massive publicity advantage, and found radio to be the best thing that happened to them since they started their business. The majority of those who continued to oppose radio, on the other hand, went out of business.

I think there is a lesson or two in that history for both the RIAA and MPAA. The first would be to stop shovelling crap at us. They might be able to fool a bunch of teenage girls with Boy Band 666,666, but if the number of twenty-somethings who I've attended small gigs with is any indication, they are thoroughly losing the young adult audience. Once you do that, any attempts to create a nostalgia market in twenty years time become null and void. This market is already very net-literate, so setting up a web site to buy N-Sync's Greatest Hits for them to buy and remember is not going to make a lick of difference. Through Roadrunner, Sony basically has one very popular example of underground/indie superiority in Type O Negative, and they continue to neglect it. As was said in a Grisham novel, they must be stupid, stupid, stupid.

Funny thing is, if the same companies that produced albums like Turn Loose The Swans or films like Zwartboek did their business in the same way, they would be out of business. Yet the RIAA and MPAA are allowed to terrorise their clientele for years on end. Tell me that is not seriously corrupt.

[Gurm]

I think that the real victim here is due process, and the rights of the individual.

These lawsuits are filed with reckless frivolity. For law enforcement, filing a lawsuit is time-consuming, and hard work. Warrants must be obtained, which involves convincing a judge that there is probable cause.

What the AA Twins are doing is just horrifying from a legal standpoint. They're filing suits against individuals who haven't been proven to have actually done anything wrong. My suspicion is that a lot of these suits are probably civil, but I could of course be wrong and they might just have a lot of judges in their pockets.

They're filing suits, knowing full well that Johnny and Suzy Q. Public don't have the money or wherewithal to fight the suits and will settle. That's terrorist law, and it shocks and offends me.

A federal judge just this past week declared a disabled fellow (who was making a great living suing restaurants for not complying with one of a thousand different handicapped access laws) to be a "vexatious litigant", which essentially means that he is prevented from filing a lawsuit unless he can prove to a federal judiciary that he has actually suffered damages from a particular defendant's actions.

I'm waiting for the AA Twins to be declared vexatious. It's only a matter of time before some federal judge has the cojones to actually come right out and say "PROVE IT" instead of just letting them terrorize the general public. It's already happened in a limited sense - all the "terrorized ISP subpoenas" have been declared null and void. I wonder if the people who settled based on those subpoenas have gotten their money back? I doubt it.

[EvilWizardGlick]

There should be a definite distinction between pirates and filesharers. Filesharers make no profit. They seem to do it because they can and are proud of their skills.
Most of the RIAA catches have been teeny boppers sharing Britany Spears, or some such garbage. Kids scare easily.
RIAA and associates have taken down some servers, these maintain only links and not files themselves, but more and more pop up.
There also seems to be very many means of distribution. Not like ten years ago when you could arrest someone for housing files on their ftp server and put a dent in the sharing.
If you think this is interesting wait until the FABLAB boom. 20k now will get you a FABLAB to produce basic products. Prices will drop and templates will start hitting the net.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/view.html?pg=4?tw=wn_tophead_2
I admit there is a touch of the scifi about this particular article. But the basics are there, just like the roots of modern filesharing exist in newsgroups or ftp.

[EvilWizardGlick]

Well, assuming Adam is correct, it really wont make a difference in the end, will it? Whats happened with music "sharing"?
Oh yeah. It's still going strong.

And so are the lawsuits. That's the point, nothing is going to be accomplished overnight. These organizations have decided that they are willing to commit public relations suicide in an effort to maintain the market share that they are used to. So that's what they are doing now as we speak. How many years have these suits been going on to any substantial degree? Maybe 2 or 3 years? That isn't even a drop in the bucket. I think these suits are accomplishing exactly what they are intended to, but you will have to wait for the numbers to catch up.

In the meantime, I don't know about anybody else, but if I ever had the inclination to download a copyrighted work in the past, I most certainly will not do it now. I have seen first hand what happens to someone who gets caught down/uploading copyrighted files and it is not pretty.

Bulldookey!
People dld copyrighted material everyday. Millions of people. The people getting the letters are the teeny boppers sharing B Spears crap.
Downloaders RARELY get a letter or arrested. People who share with lots of other people get the letter. People who share UNSECURELY get letters. Servers get legal action taken against them. Servers asking for donations usually.
It is ABSOLUTELY impossible to stop downloaders who do NOT upload.
Once again you spew the Republican corporate koolaid, and once again you are wrong.
Stop listening to the pillhead, and get in the real world.
MILLIONS of people fileshare everything they can get their hands on. They share in tens of different ways. Those ways are evolving and becoming more complex.
More and more things are being fileshared everyday, NOT less and less.
And very, very, few are scared.

Offhand are you one of those government or RIAA moles here to test the water? Your points are naive and unrealistic. You create false success stories in everything from the war on drugs to the RIAA. The only thing you skipped over is the war on poverty.
No one can be that simplistic in their outlook.
We all know those moles, agitators, whatever you want to call them penetrate everything from politics to file sharing.
So, why not here?

[EvilWizardGlick]

A point I keep bringing up, which seems to get resoundingly ignored, is that the RIAA has a whole other reason to be scared my MP3. Labels like Sony who, as samuraijack puts it, are "just shoveling a us a new pop diva, with more caps than talent, every two months", have seen a sales slump ever since the early 1980s, when cassette tape trading took off. Ironically, the labels and artists that really do "put some effort into keeping us entertained" have increased sales by as much as a thousand percent in the wake of MP3 trading. It is just as easy for the average user to find out about a bunch of real artists like My DyING BRIDE by downloading through Limewire as it is to find out about empty-headed crap like N-Sync from watching your television. And the worst part for the RIAA is that because the only other advertising the former has is by word of mouth, people can listen without preconceived notions, and not be so utterly disappointed when they do not live up to expectations.

Actually cd sales have been up. Many claim it is due to filesharing.
What they are scared of is more and more people encounter much more interesting music then they are promoting. So people buy Tom Waits instead of B Spears. Of course the bubble gum chewers still buy the B Spears in record numbers, because they watch drivel like MTV.
http://stereophile.com/news/10776/
"The industry’s biggest unprovable assumption is that people would buy music if they couldn’t get it free. That may or may not be the case. A new poll released by the Digital Media Association (DiMA) offers a different interpretation of the situation than has previously been put forth: that people who download music from the Internet are more likely to buy CDs later than they would be if they had not heard the music via their computers. The survey says that 66% of all computer-using consumers reported that listening to a song online has at least once prompted them to later buy a CD or cassette featuring the song. Listening habits: 92% listen via desktop computers, 10% use a portable device such as an MP3 player, and 14% use home stereo systems. More than 60% of them say they use the Internet to get to music they can't find on radio. 33% of those who have downloaded music said it made them more likely to buy. 57% said their buying patterns weren't affected, and only 6% of those interviewed said the availability of downloadable music made them less inclined to buy CDs. "Internet music is creating new markets," said Jonathan Potter, the DiMA’s executive director."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/27/1043534002352.html?oneclick=true
"Music piracy certainly warranted a mention, but ARIA cited economic conditions and increased competition for the consumer's entertainment spend as culprits. And the proof was more conclusive.

ARIA chief executive Stephen Peach conceded that the industry had recorded a decline as recently as 1996, followed by some flat years since. On top of that, mobile phones and gaming systems have become expensive rivals to the music industry's crucial teenage market.

"I think it's important to recognise that there are other legitimate commercial pressures [on music sales]," Mr Peach said."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34300-2004Mar29?language=printer
" Internet music piracy has no negative effect on legitimate music sales, according to a study released today by two university researchers that contradicts the music industry's assertion that the illegal downloading of music online is taking a big bite out of its bottom line.

Songs that were heavily downloaded showed no measurable drop in sales, the researchers found after tracking sales of 680 albums over the course of 17 weeks in the second half of 2002. Matching that data with activity on the OpenNap file-sharing network, they concluded that file sharing actually increases CD sales for hot albums that sell more than 600,000 copies. For every 150 downloads of a song from those albums, sales increase by a copy, the researchers found.

"Consumption of music increases dramatically with the introduction of file sharing, but not everybody who likes to listen to music was a music customer before, so it's very important to separate the two," said Felix Oberholzer-Gee, an associate professor at Harvard Business School and one of the authors of the study."
http://www.grammy.com/news/newswatch/2004/1208.aspx
"Study: Most Artists Not Hurt By File Sharing
According to a study of 809 self-identified artists released by the nonprofit Pew Internet and American Life Project, most musicians and artists say the Internet has helped them make more money despite free file-sharing services. Two-thirds of the artists surveyed said file sharing posed little threat to them and less than one-third of those surveyed said file sharing was a major threat to the industry. The artists were split on the merits of peer-to-peer networks, though, with 47 percent saying they prevent artists from earning royalties and 43 percent saying they helped promote material. (12/6)"
"CD Sales Rise In Britain
Countering fears that illegal music downloading would kill record sales, the British Phonographic Industry reported that about 237 million CDs were sold in Britain during the past year, with 11 of the top 20 sellers signed to British labels or recorded by UK artists. Single CD sales have also risen 9.4 percent from last year and music DVD sales have increased 52 percent during the past year. (11/30)"

[BJ_M]

very well said EvilWizardGlick

[EvilWizardGlick]

very well said EvilWizardGlick

I get so sick of people who argue against the facts.
Much like the Evolution vs Creationism debate.
Sometimes you just want to beat people with a hammer when they ignore the facts.

CM Kornbluth had these short stories where in the future there were more stupid people than smart people. In one someone from the fifties, contemporary for the story ( The Marching Morons), woke up in the future and the smart person he was talking to blamed his era for allowing the stupid to breed.
Obviously we aren't talking handicapped, just dumb as a box of rocks people.
One of the solutions was to give the stupid people a free trip to Venus. The trip was actually a trip to the sun.
This idea was later echoed in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

[adam]

EvilWizardGlick as I am entitled to my opinions, so are you but please keep it civil. You have already attacked me enough that I would be more then warranted in giving you a formal warning...and this is all after I completely ignored your blindsided attack on me. I happen to be basing my opinions on personal experience so, while my point of view is not necessarily correct, and of course may be competely incorrect, it is surely coming from a different perspective then yours so please keep an open mind. I work in an intellectual property firm. I am currently in my last year of law school after having specialized in intellectual property with a core study of copyright and trademark law. I work with clients everyday who have recieved cease and desist letters, and notice of suit for YES DOWNLOADING copyrighted files. As I have explained in numerous other threads, uploaders are of course targeted since you can claim statutory damages for each infringement, and its much eaiser to tack up infringements for all the people you have uploaded to rather then to have to show each individual file the person downloaded. But from my personal experience, I see people running scared from these suits and that is exactly what the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA want. Once again, I say these suits are doing exactly what they are intended to do. But contrary to what you keep arguing, that does not mean I support or condone them.

By the way please don't attack me for words that I didn't write. I did not say filesharing is decreasing. I expressly said that it is increasing. Like I just explained above, these suits are still in their infancy and its going to take time before you see quantifiable results. That does not mean people aren't still scared of downloading copyrighted material. One of the most frequent questions I get asked by clients is, "can they really sue me for that?" I also never limited my opinion to only those who download, on secure lines, blah blah. As I have stated at least 3 or 4 times already, these are suits for infringement of copyright aimed at deterring individuals...anyone....from infringing on copyrights. This includes downloading and uploading, committed by individuals or with the knowledge and aid of servers, trackers, or even isps.

If you think you cannot be sued for downloading even a single mp3 file then you are very wrong.

[dvdguy4]

Im with adam on this

[adam]

My suspicion is that a lot of these suits are probably civil, but I could of course be wrong and they might just have a lot of judges in their pockets.

They are all civil. Only the goverment can initiate a criminal proceeding. The suits are filed pursuant to copyright law and seek injunction and statutory damages ($$$). But copyright law does impose criminal penalty for certain types of aggregious infringements, but all the MPAA/RIAA/BSA can do is file a complaint and hope the government prosecutes. Its no different than any other criminal proceeding. To make the arrest a warrant would still have to be issued on probable cause.

I'm waiting for the AA Twins to be declared vexatious. It's only a matter of time before some federal judge has the cojones to actually come right out and say "PROVE IT" instead of just letting them terrorize the general public. It's already happened in a limited sense - all the "terrorized ISP subpoenas" have been declared null and void. I wonder if the people who settled based on those subpoenas have gotten their money back? I doubt it.

Prove it? I don't see how these entities can even file suit UNLESS they have all the proof they need. They get online and find a copyrighted file. Anyone who downloads or uploads that file to another has per se violated its copyright. They log all the ip's who have done just that. That right there is a direct link showing the exact consumer's online account which was used to commit the infringement. At this point they have absolute evidence that someone has violated the copyright using this specific account. So they subpoena the isp and get the name on the account. Now they know, as a matter of fact, that "insert name here's" account was used to violate a copyright. This is actually considered res ipsa loquiter which basically puts the burden entirely on the defendant as a matter or law, but without even going into that, any defense that this individual would even have would be an affirmative defense which must be plead. In other words, the burden is on the defendant to explain why their account was used to violate the copyright. As far as I can see, the only possible defense is that it is an unsecure network and someone else used their account to violate the copyright without their knowledge. If they can sufficiently show evidence of this then they should be able to avoid liability.

As far as the prior allowances for the subpoena of isp records, and the subsequent ruling against that, none of those cases and/or settlement agreements can be overturned or challenged. No one settled as a result of improper joinder because no one was ever joined after having been served with suit. The joinder was merely an administrative shortcut. They file one suit against, say 25 John Doe's, and subpoena the isp once. They find out who these individuals are and then they sue each of them individually. Under current rulings now they just have to file all these separate suits first, and subpoena the isp individually for each one. The end result is the same either way. 25 individuals each get sued separately.

There is no doubt that their practice of suing multiple John Doe's was a violation of the joinder rule, but only because the suit was completely and totally fictional. Once the claims actually reached the defendant there was no due process violation.

[EvilWizardGlick]

Fact we know that both the government and RIAA have anonymous agents infiltrating various internet web sites.
Fact, by the very nature of this web site it has the potential to be investigated.
Fact, some opinions by some people happen to fall into line with what a RIAA or government agent would post.
Call me paranoid, but with those facts in mind it is only reasonable to assume that some poster may be an agent of some organization and not just merely an interested individual.
At no point was I either abusive or insulting. I did point out that one party line political philosophy was being espoused.
This is a forum, where information is exchanged freely. Unless something was rude or offensive, calling someone an obscene name for example, everything else is mere discussion.
Shall we start screening every post for disagreements? Should everyone agree with everyone else? Should I post examples of truly rude comments posted in other threads that are ignored?
I think my point is still valid. And it in no way crossed any line regarding decency or discourse.
If I'm wrong I apologize. If I'm right and some RIAA agents are cruising around, how would we ever know?
But the odds are good that they may be.

[adam]

Once again you spew the Republican corporate koolaid, and once again you are wrong.
Stop listening to the pillhead, and get in the real world.

Offhand are you one of those government or RIAA moles here to test the water? Your points are naive and unrealistic.

Somebody is parroting the Republican talking points.

I find some of that offensive and inflammatory personally, but maybe I'm just overly sensitive. There is definitely enough political material in that to warrant a warning though, IMO. Nevertheless, please just stick to the topic and stop worrying about who I am, why I'm here, or what my political affiliations are.

Basically you are saying that anyone who doesn't completely disagree with everything these organizations do must therefore be working for them, and a mole to boot. Come on, lighten up.

[EvilWizardGlick]

Once again you spew the Republican corporate koolaid, and once again you are wrong.
Stop listening to the pillhead, and get in the real world.

Offhand are you one of those government or RIAA moles here to test the water? Your points are naive and unrealistic.

Somebody is parroting the Republican talking points.

I find some of that offensive and inflammatory personally, but maybe I'm just overly sensitive. There is definitely enough political material in that to warrant a warning though, IMO. Nevertheless, please just stick to the topic and stop worrying about who I am, why I'm here, or what my political affiliations are.

Basically you are saying that anyone who doesn't completely disagree with everything these organizations do must therefore be working for them, and a mole to boot. Come on, lighten up.

Successful drug war, successful RIAA, how are those not Republican pro-corporate talking points? Everyone else but YOU said the same things. Things that were opposite to your stance.
I'm not going to search through EVERYTHING you EVER posted to check for consistency, political affiliation, abuse, rudeness, innuendo, yadda yadda.
But I could.
I could play gotcha with you all day long.
But I'm not going to run to admins over every tiny little perceived insult just to narc you, or anybody, out. I don't need the brownie points.
As I said before if I am wrong I'm sorry.
But obviously this site would fall into the monitored category.
Odds are if it is not being monitored now it will be sometime.

[tekkieman]

EvilWizard - Since you have a hard time taking subtle hints, let me spell it out for you. This forum has rules. You agreed to those rules when you registered, and they are listed everywhere.

NO POLITICS!

how are those not Republican pro-corporate talking points?

...and to a mod no less! adam has shown great restraint, but you have violated forum rules at least three times. All three times could have been formal warnings. Also, don't forget, that you can be banned without ever getting a formal warning.

You've made your point. Move on.

[adam]

Note to EvilWizardGlick: if you're going to threaten to run to the admins to accuse someone of conspiring against the forum, make sure that the person you are accusing isn't one of the admins.

Unbelievable.

[canadateck]

Still trying to stay quiet on this one.

[MrMoody]

IMO a sufficiently skilled and motivated lawyer could successfully defend a music downloader in the US under section 1008:

"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

IMO you could easily argue that a PC is a digital audio recording device (the most common one in fact), and that downloading is making a recording.

I also think that if the RIAA thought this was going to happen, they would drop the suit like a hot potato, because they don't want a precedent that specifically legalizes downloading.

As far as being sued for it, you can ask any lawyer in the US, "Can I be sued for doing X?" and he will ALWAYS say "yes." You can be sued for anything. Then you have to defend yourself or pay up. That's part of the problem in this country.

[EvilWizardGlick]

"Note to EvilWizardGlick: if you're going to threaten to run to the admins to accuse someone of conspiring against the forum, make sure that the person you are accusing isn't one of the admins."

You missed my use of sarcasm as well. Touche.

As far as politics, if something so miniscule is "Political" discussion, then I will not do it again.
After all it was relatively trivial within the pantheon of comments which could have been made. I am certain I have read far more abusive and insulting remarks.
But I guess they are tolerated.
My point still remains that this site, due to the video orientation, falls within the monitoring arena.
That at some point, if not already, some agent will post or join.
One can not fault me for anticipating the inevitable.
Or interpretting certain incorrect statements the way I did.
Either way I have already admitted that if I were wrong I am sorry.
No need to do it again.

[adam]

IMO a sufficiently skilled and motivated lawyer could successfully defend a music downloader in the US under section 1008:

"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

IMO you could easily argue that a PC is a digital audio recording device (the most common one in fact), and that downloading is making a recording.

Except for the fact that,

17 USCS § 1008 does not cover downloading of MP3 files to computer hard drives. A&M Records, Inc. v Napster, Inc. (2001, CA9 Cal) 2001 CDOS 1255, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 1611, 57 USPQ2d 1729, amd, reprinted as amd (2001, CA9 Cal) 239 F3d 1004, 2001 CDOS 1255, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 1611, 57 USPQ2d 1729, injunction gr (2001, ND Cal) 2001 US Dist LEXIS 2186, affd (2002, CA9 Cal) 284 F3d 1091, 2002 CDOS 2635, 2002 Daily Journal DAR 3223, 62 USPQ2d 1221, 52 FR Serv 3d 5

and

computers and their hard drives are not "digital audio recording devices" because their primary purpose was not to make digital audio copied recordings, and computers do not make digital audio recordings as defined by 17 USCS § 1008. A&M Records, Inc. v Napster, Inc. (2001, CA9 Cal)

[BobK]

> The war on drugs HAS been a success. Obviously you cannot prevent drug trafficking entirely. So you enforce drug related crimes to enough of visible extent that the public at large understand the ramifications of being convicted for those crimes. This serves as a reaonable deterrent for the vast majority of individuals. Yes, an uncontrollable amount of people still use drugs and distribute those drugs in small amounts. But the heavy traffickers are limited to those people who are willing to take that huge risk. This creates visible targets for law enforcement to concentrate on, such that when they eventually do get caught it actually has an impact on the drug exchange.

That's one of the funniest posts I've ever read here.

Back in the 1920's prohibition was a success too. Obviously they couldn't prevent moon-shining and drinking entirely. So they enforced alcohol related crimes to enough of a visible exthat the public at large understood the ramifications of being convicted for those crimes. This served as a reaonable deterrent for the vast majority of individuals. Yes, an uncontrollable amount of people were still drinking and distributing alcohol in small amounts. But the heavy moonshiners were limited to those people who are willing to take that huge risk (and make a huge profit). That created visible targets for law enforcement to concentrate on, such that when they eventually did get caught it actually had an impact on the alcohol exchange.

It was such a success that you have to wonder it was ever repealed?

[adam]

It was repealed because there was no logical reason to prohibit alcohol use. The law was flawed, not just the enforcement of it. Is there anyone who really thinks that cocaine or copyright infringement will be legalized?

Let me ask you this, if the government hadn't spent so many millions of dollars cracking down on drugs that means drug use would have declined or at worse stayed the same? How does that work? Is it not possible that drug use has risen despite the "war on drugs" but nevertheless the efforts have still been worthwhile? If the government cannot guarantee that the percentage of drugs used will decline each year, that means they should just forget about enforcement? If you can't stop drug use you should just legalize everything? (Capmaster don't answer that.)

I think some of you are missing my point. Yes people will continue to use drugs. Yes people will continue to upload/download copyrighted files. But the government in the first instance, and the copyright holder in the second, are obviously entitled to try to prevent this and I don't see what is wrong about trying to make this threat known to the public in an effort to promote self regulation. People its an analogy. The two "wars" are not similar because they can solve the problems they target, they are similar because they specifically aren't trying to solve the problems, but rather create a general deterrence. If you have a problem with prosecution based primiarily on general deterrence then good luck finding a sympathetic forum because all criminal justice systems are based on deterrence, for obvious reason. If everyone up and decided they wanted to break the same law there would be nothing the goverment could do about it. But if you know that X number of people will be prosecuted for doing it, then you think twice because you don't want to end up being one of those unlucky few. The more people that get punished the greater chance it could be you and the more likely you are to think twice before taking the risk. THAT is what these lawsuits are trying to do.

Why do so many of you find this stuff funny?

[MrMoody]

computers do not make digital audio recordings as defined by 17 USCS § 1008.

So they've already succeeded in circumventing this law. The above is a patently absurd statement of course. Proof that this judge was completely divorced from reality and interested only in protecting the content owners. "As defined by", I don't even see a definition there, maybe I missed it. I don't see "primary purpose," either. A car burns fuel. Burning fuel is not its primary purpose. But is it a fuel burning device? Of course it is.

My computer makes digital audio recordings, and I don't mean by downloading them. I can talk into it for an hour and put it right onto a CD. But this judge says I didn't make a digital audio recording? Come on. Napster's lawyers were lazy and/or stupid. This is not to say Napster weren't wrong for publicly distributing without permission, which of course gave the plaintiffs an opportunity to extend by association to downloading. The courts are giving the content owners an unfair advantage because they're buying into all the crying about losing zillions of dollars to personal piracy.

Wake up and smell reality, blind (and gullible) justices, the entertainment industry are almost the ONLY ONES in this country NOT going broke!

It's really sad the way individual rights, written into law, are completely ignored now.

Here's a rhetorical question. How is downloading (not uploading!) music any different from recording from the radio? The only way IMO is because the uploader is making copies available to the public without permission. But how do you know whether they have permission? You can ASSUME they don't, but you don't KNOW. Some songs have been permitted to be shared by their owners. How about if a radio station wasn't paying it's royalties, and therefore broadcasting music illegally? If I tape it, am I breaking the law, or am I still protected by this section?

Here's an idea. Someone should make a CD recorder that connects to the internet. It would have a panel on the front you could put names into, then it would search the net for that song and record it for you. PVRs like TiVo have a nearly identical function. It wouldn't be a computer, and its primary purpose would be digital audio recording device.

I bet the big money could still get it outlawed. 20 years ago they wouldn't have had a chance.

[BobK]

It was repealed because there was no logical reason to prohibit alcohol use. The law was flawed, not just the enforcement of it.

It was repealed because there was no logical reason to prohibit alcohol use. The law was flawed, not just the enforcement of it.

Prohibition was a very similar law (similarily enforced). What makes it more flawed than most drug laws?

Is there anyone who really thinks that cocaine or copyright infringement will be legalized?

Whether or not is *will* be legalized is irrevelant when the question is whether or not it *should*.

What's the logical reason to prohibit marijuana or cocaine? Does it kill people (like alcohol)? Could people be high on drugs and kill someone else (like alcohol)? Does it destroy your liver (like alcohol.. oh, wait- drugs don't do that). Why do you think alcohol should be legal and marijuana shouldn't?

Let me ask you this- when the government quit spending millions of dollars cracking down on alcohol did that mean that alcohol use declined or at worst stayed the same? How does that work?

Is it not possible that drug use has risen despite the "war on drugs" but nevertheless the efforts have still been worthwhile?

I give up- is it possible? What makes it worthwhile if it's not working?

If the government cannot guarantee that the percentage of drugs used will decline each year, that means they should just forget about enforcement? If you can't stop drug use you should just legalize everything?

No, you should keep things illegal if there's a valid reason for keeping them illegal. If you have reasons for keeping drugs illegal that don't apply to alcohol then go ahead and tell us what those reason are. If there aren't any then there's no reason to spend billions keeping one illegal while letting the other run rampant.

Yes people will continue to use drugs. Yes people will continue to upload/download copyrighted files. But the government in the first instance, and the copyright holder in the second, are obviously entitled to try to prevent this

Why? You're partly right- if the government makes something illegal then the government has the right (and an obligation) to try to enforce that law. So does that mean you're willing to accept any law the government makes? How about if they make masturbation illegal- think they should have the right to stop you from doing it?

The two "wars" are not similar because they can solve the problems they target

Glad to hear those billions haven't been wasted. I'm surprised that the drug problem has been solved without seeing a single headline on it.

more people that get punished the greater chance it could be you and the more likely you are to think twice before taking the risk. THAT is what these lawsuits are trying to do.

There's one of your bigger problems- you spent all that time talking about the "government", then bring up lawsuits that are brought by an industry and not the government. Guess you wouldn't have any problem if Ford Motor Co went out and started arresting people speeding in Fords either. But maybe that's different because the copyright holders have a vested interest and Ford doesn't appear to. Guess that should give me rights to go around the law if somebody steals something from me- much like the movie industry tried (and did for a while) to grab some legal powers for themselves that no other industry has.

Why do so many of you find this stuff funny?

Just a guess, but could be because of your ridiculous claims like the ones that the war on drugs has been won and the problem is solved, not to mention your apparent belief that the government can seemingly do whatever it wants.

And while I can't quote a source because it's been several years, I do remember reading that a study showed that drug dealers were among the biggest opponents to repealing drug laws. Legalization would severely cripple their income.

So what 'vices' do you have? Think smoking should be illegal? How about farting? We'll send the stink police to monitor your bathroom- don't worry about your right to privacy. I'm sure you're happy to give that up to help the government enforce whatever laws it wants to pass.[/quote]

[adam]

MrMoody the definition of "digital audio recording device" is contained in section 1001 of that very statute. The definition is:

(3) A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use

Its not enough that it can be used for that purpose, it has to be the primary purpose and be marketed as such. Personally I don't think pc's qualify but its something to argue about.

MrMoody I still haven't had time to thoroughly read the H.R. Reports on this statute but I do think you were right about something we discussed earlier. The last part of 1008 does grant consumers the right to make non-commerical copies of audio cds. Wherever it was that I said this wasn't true, I was wrong and I retract that statement.

But...just to pre-empt any bright arguments , the definitions section and the H.R. reports expressly say the right does not include the right to copy DVDs, VHS, or any audio/visual work. Its solely for music cds.

And rightly so. This statute is the copyright counterpart to the Audio Home Recording Act. The DAT manufacturers basically compromised with the recording industry, and the government made it so. Manufacturers now have to implement certain copy controls, and they have to pay a 2% royalty on...pretty much everything they make to the recording industry. In exchange, they can't be held liable for contributory infringement. The section adding the right to copy for non-commmercial is a COMPLETE add-on. The act has nothing to do with consumers at all, but one very bright legislature pushed to have that language tacked on. Its like adding an obscure education finance bill onto the Patriat Act...you KNOW its going to pass so tack on some things that otherwise wouldn't be popular or prevelant enough to pass on their own. Works for me.

But, if it worked for the recording industry and the DAT manufacturers, there's no reason it wouldn't work for the MPAA and the burner/media manufacturers. Some of them are already probably paying royalties to the recording industry. As things like dual layer gets more feasible, this could definitely happen. They will never stop prosecuting people for downloading content though.

[adam]

BobK I don't mean to be rude but I can't make heads or tales of that post. Could you please use the quote function so I can tell who is saying what?

You can just edit your message and highlight my text and then hit the quote button on the top right of your message window.