RIAA Sues More Music Lovers 626
DominoTree writes "The RIAA, a trade group representing the U.S. music industry has filed a new round of lawsuits against 744 people it alleges used online file-sharing networks to illegally trade in copyrighted songs, it said on Wednesday."
This is why... (Score:5, Informative)
(This is not a plug, I don't work for them or get paid by them)
Basically, you catalog your collection of stuff using their amazon-like lookup functions, and then other people can search your collections (they find you by Groups, by Zip Code, etc) and then you trade with them any way you want (in person, by mail, etc).
This service is excellent because the RIAA and MPAA and FBI and whomever else cannot I repeat CANNOT get you on law breaking. As the 'swapping' happens offline, they have no way to find out about it.
Please give it a shot, if this website takes off the world be a happier place.
Re:Has there ever been an actual court case (Score:5, Informative)
The EFF is helpful
Re:Circumvent the RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Canada (Score:4, Informative)
The argument that 'sharing music online was like a photocopier' was in favour of treating the technology as a neutral medium, and that it was the activities of the users that needed to be questioned. ~Another~ A+ for common sense...
However...
I'm glad that our courts are more prudent and careful with judgements, but I'm less confident that our government will pass laws that are more open than the US. Just take a look at the joke called CRTC...
Screw the RIAA. Support Artists Directly (Score:3, Informative)
It's a good way to boycott the RIAA while still being able to buy CDs.
Re:Boycott? (Score:3, Informative)
RIAA alternatives - iRATE radio (Score:1, Informative)
Free, open source iRate radio [sourceforge.net]
Re:Canada (Score:3, Informative)
Note that Parliament will be stengthening Canada's copyright laws as soon as the MP's return from summer break. So enjoy it while you can, because it will be made explicitly illegal in Canada shortly.
Re:Burden of proof (Score:1, Informative)
They're suing people for sharing songs, not downloading them.
Re:This is why... (Score:3, Informative)
There is a rather old case about reselling books that setup this precedent. Basically the onwer of the book can resell it for any price they want. Of course, this is why computer software is LICENSED and you don't actually own it.
Re:A chilling effect on sales? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A chilling effect on sales? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. 17 USC 106 sets forth the exclusive right to reproduce like so:
17 USC 101 provides us with numerous definitions:
Furthermore MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993), and the cases that are based on it, such as Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999), hold very plainly that due to the fact that most computers necessarily infringe even when displaying information because their architecture is such that the copyrighted work is unauthorizedly and illegally reproduced in RAM, which constitutes a new copy of the work, being a tangible object in which a work may be perceived.
Reproducing bits WITHIN the NIC, as well as to the hard drive, RAM, cache, procesor, etc. are all reproductions capable of infringment. It's a bizarre result, but that's what the law is right now. Please read through those cases and you'll see this.
And, incidentally, provided your DVD player has no memory onboard -- which it almost certainly does, being more complicated than an ancient record player -- while it is not illegal to buy such a DVD, it is illegal to make incidental reproductions in the act of watching it.