Making Files Available Breaking the Law? 538
lordhathor2001 writes "The RIAA has argued in one of their cases that simply "making files available for distribution" violates copyright laws. This means that regardless of the legality of a file somebody has on their computer, just putting it in a shared files folder that can be accessed by other people is illegal. Although it's asinine, it really shouldn't come as any surprise given the RIAA's legal campaign that's more about what it believes than what the law actually says."
Distinction (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Distinction (Score:2)
Re:Distinction (Score:3, Insightful)
None of what I'm going to say applies to bittorrent, but from what I've gathered of their tactics, all they do is list the files your P2P prog has shared & that they claim copyright to.
That should not and will not stand up in court. Even civil law has minimal standards of evidence and a list of files + your I.P. address doesn't prove anything.
All the files you're 'sharing' could be fak
So what tactics *should* they use? (Score:4, Interesting)
Whatever anyone here may think of them, the RIAA do have a legal right to protect their copyright. So, in our perfectly rational legal world, how should they go about this?
The last Slashdot discussion I saw on this subject was full of people ranting about how unfair it was for the RIAA to seek the identity of someone, in court, when that person's system was known to be actively advertising that it was sharing copyright material that would be illegal to download.
Moreover, even if RIAA staff download such a file themselves, many here will pop up and tell us that since they own the copyright, that's not illegal and doesn't prove anything.
However, we all know (and let's face it, I'm not just saying that and we really do all know) that copyright infringement via P2P is widespread. If the offer to download, including an advertisement that the material really is the copyright material that can't legally be downloaded, deliberately being made available on a file-sharing system, and demonstrated by the RIAA to be downloadable because they made a copy, isn't sufficient to bring a case before a judge and expect some legal recourse, then what is?
Congratulations: you just made a pretty solid case that in order to preserve the clear legal rights of the RIAA, it's necessary for law enforcement agencies to monitor and log all Internet traffic routinely, for governments to ban any anonymous access to the Internet and require ISPs to make a serious effort to confirm the identity of anyone they allow to use their systems, and for draconian penalties to be available when someone is successfully prosecuted for making an illegal copy via the Internet.
Personally, I'd rather the RIAA could sue the pants of someone who is blatantly breaking the law, and that person couldn't weasel their way out of their deserved punishment using legal chicanery, and the rest of us didn't have to put up with the sort of crap I mentioned above.
Re:So what tactics *should* they use? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or, of course, we could always reform copyright, limiting its term to 5 or 10 years, and making it a regulation on industrial, for-profit use of the material, rather than private, not-for-profit sharing. I think that'd solve it pretty nicely-anyone -selling- the stuff is going to leave an easily followed trail (the money's got to go to someone!), and we'd have -no- more reason to worry about what private individuals are doing with their stuff.
Re:So what tactics *should* they use? (Score:4, Insightful)
And the use you're stating (profit from ads) would be an industrial, for-profit motive, just as would be republication in a newspaper or magazine, and even -my- proposed restrictions would apply. On the other hand, if I think the article's interesting, and want to print it out to show a friend who doesn't have net access, or email it to a friend that accepts only text emails (no links), that shouldn't be illegal (even technically) for me to do-I'm not profiting. I'd also have no trouble with an attribution requirement, but that's not normally a problem on filesharing networks-the sharers aren't generally claiming that they filmed the movie or wrote the song.
Plagiarism is a different story, but you don't even need copyright to prevent that. Copying without citation is an implicit claim that that's your original work. If it's not, that's fraud, and defamation of the original writer-and we've got plenty of very good laws against fraud and defamation.
Re:So what tactics *should* they use? (Score:4, Insightful)
if you go dig around google for the "whitehead declaration", the guy describes what their investigative procedures are. They don't do anything that could result as evidence in a civil case, much less a criminal one.
Having files available is not a crime. Serving up fake files with popular names is not a crime. They don't know if they have the copyright, because they haven't actually listened to any of the files the claim are theirs.
As for the rest of your post, you took my words waaaaaaay off course.
Re:Distinction (Score:3, Interesting)
The funny part is this: if the RIAA isn't downloading the files to verify their contents, they are opening themselves up to counter-suit from the file sharer, but if the
Oh bloody hell (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh bloody hell (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.baen.com/library/defaultTitles.htm [baen.com]
Re:Oh bloody hell (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize the blog doesn't explicitly state that, but come on. You're just choosing the most outlandish interpretation of a vague statement so you can ridicule it. Or do you really think they're arguing copyright holders can't distribute their own files?
Re:Oh bloody hell (Score:5, Insightful)
Note: lawyers never, ever do this. Ever. Because that would just be unethical.
do you really think they're arguing copyright holders can't distribute their own files?
Let me explain this because you have apparently spent the last century in a cave... on Mars... with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears.
Yes. You see, thanks to the way our legal system is constructed, many things that most people would consider absurd or, at the very least, counterintuitive, are in fact true in a legal sense. For instance, you don't actually own any CDs or DVDs, you have, in fact, leased the content on them when you paid for them.
In other news, you can be legally innocent of a crime but still, somehow, civilly liable for it.
Somewhere in this country, at this very moment, a lawyer is arguing that black is, in fact, a shade of gray... that ketchup is a vegetable... that pulling your fingernails out with pliers isn't torture...
Now you think about what you said.
Re:Oh bloody hell (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think for one -minute- that if the RIAA had the power make it illegal for people to distribute their own music on their own, they wouldn't create those restrictions in a heartbeat without a second thought, you're nuts. Just watch. I figure it won't be long before they try to pass laws that say things like:
It's just a matter of time. Make no mistake. These suits were never about piracy. They were about control. They are losing control, and they are grasping at every last little bit of grass at the edge of the cliff trying to avoid falling over it. Won't help. The end is near.Re:Oh bloody hell (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a member of Teosto and Gramex. (First one is like RIAA, the second one is kinda like national evil publisher or something. You become a member of both when you register a recording.)
I have one registered demo tape from 1994 or something. I couldn't publish those songs from my server for free even if I wanted to. Gramex collects the radio and other presentation fees of music, and thus I'd have to pay them 20c or somethi
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, really. What did you expect them to argue? "Oh, yes, we can't prove that they ever actually distributed a copy, so let's let all the nasty pirates go and we'll stop our campaign of lawsuits. Cherrio!"
Let's be serious here.
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
Inna godda da vida baby!
What did you expect them to argue?Free music for the people of Earth... man.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Brilliant! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Brilliant! (Score:5, Insightful)
Thoughtcrime? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Thoughtcrime? (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. I mean, just look at the instant SlashThink(TM) reaction around here. From the venhemence, you'd think the judge had actually accepted the argument.
Re:Thoughtcrime? (Score:5, Insightful)
His work was a metaphor or a possiblity. We could already be living it, it just looks different.
Instead of the ominous TV screen, we have cable Sport, Xbox and DVDs.
Instead of a "father figure" telling our kids how to behave we have Britney(TM) or, more correctly, RIAA & MPAA?
Instead of factories where the poor go to work and large, souless offices for the rich we have....oh wait...
Re:Thoughtcrime? (Score:3, Interesting)
--Storm
Sue sthem for restraint of trade or interstate com (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Sue sthem for restraint of trade or interstate (Score:2)
Re:Sue sthem for restraint of trade or interstate (Score:3, Interesting)
And every knows that you don't strangle a litter of adorable puppies. You put them in a sack and drown them.
They aren't stopping any trade or interstate com (Score:3, Insightful)
If you author a file and the content within it, you can do anything you like with it.
If you make a fair use copy of a song, then put the song in a shared location, they are arguing it's the same as burning a whole stack of "fair use" copies of a CD to CD-R and then leaving them on your doorste
First Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:First Amendment (Score:2)
The summary is misleading. Clicking the
Given that, it will still be interesting to see how the courts
Re:First Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder about that because, after all, copyright's purpose is to prevent unauthorized transfer from one person to another. It would seem that by exposing a work to a network that is built soley for transferring information, you are reasonably breaking copyright law.
To put it another way, take away your dislike for copyright law itself, and imagine the work is something that you really would like to keep from being transferred without autho
Re:First Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
Norman Rockwell in illustrating FDR's Four Freedoms [nrm.org] chose a New England town meeting to symbolize "Freedom of Speech."
The primary meaning of free speech in the American mind has always been defined as open political debate without fear of governmental interference or retaliation.
You are responsible for the files you share. That goes beyond the law of copyright. Libel is not protected speech. Obscenity is not protected speech. The whole of the
Re:No it doesn't (Score:2)
I hate the "reason an amendment" was created line-of-logic. It's always used by the people who want to restrict said freedoms.
To the government: Stop trying to second guess the "intentions" of the founders (with your biases interpreting things in your favor) and just read what the Constitution says. If the intentions behind it were super-important, well guess what
Great sources, guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
Could Slashdot at least wait until there's actually some proof before posting this crap?
OMG Teh Google is GOD (Score:5, Informative)
Teh Google CacheL http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:www.lifeofal
They've said this type of thing before, in public and obviously have said it in court filings.
In Public: They aren't trying to make a nuanced argument. They just want to get the point across that sharing files = teh badness
In Court: Fucking n00bs. That's what they get for not trying to get across a nuanced idea to the public. The lawyers end up making the same argument they see over and over in the press releases.
I skimmed that affidavit and I wonder how that trial came out. It seems like the plaintiff (an RIAA company) filed a seriously defective lawsuit.
Re:OMG Teh Google is GOD (Score:2)
From the context of the rest of the paper, it is quite clear th
Re:OMG Teh Google is GOD (Score:2)
They can't. The claim in the story summary is obviously a miscommunication of what you quoted: that the RIAA thinks it's bad to make available for download content that they own the copyright to. This looked likely even before you so kindly posted the actual original source.
This game of "telephone" is really unfortunate, because the RIAA's claim in its original fo
Re:Great sources, guys. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Great sources, guys. (Score:2)
Re:Great sources, guys. (Score:2)
So I'd like to see a transcript or whatever of RIAA's actual argument. I'm no fan of RIAA, but I'm leary any time
of course it is a violation (Score:2)
Just like it is a violation for me to photocopy a book and attempt to distribute the photocopy.
gah.
Info (Score:5, Informative)
Complaint [digitalmusicnews.com]
Exhibit A [digitalmusicnews.com]
Exhibit B, Part 1 [digitalmusicnews.com]
Exhibit B, Part 2 [digitalmusicnews.com]
Slippery Slope (Score:2, Insightful)
You can probably guess what the answer is.
Does that include... (Score:5, Funny)
where is the context (Score:2)
I hahe a feeling that in context it means files that are violating copyrights.
Look... (Score:5, Funny)
Let me make this simple for you: I learned on Sesame Street that sharing is GOOD. It's going to be more difficult than you think to reprogram the inner-workings of my psyche that were molded by watching educational television as a child in the 80s.
Sincerely,
Me
Re:Look... (Score:2)
Re:Look... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Let me make this simple for you: I learned on Sesame Street that sharing is GOOD."
Looks like that took precedent over the Golden Rule in your household. For the uninformed, that's "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." It's in the Bible but it's a sentiment shared across lots of cultures and you don't need to be a Christian or even religious to understand its value.
The golden rule applies to music sharing thusly: if you know that the artist is cool with you sharing their stuff, and they h
Re:Look... (Score:3, Insightful)
Very well, now let's apply the Golden Rule to sharing of toys as per Sesame Street:
Cool Toy Co. would very much prefer it if every kid who wanted to play with Cool Toy bought their own. Therefore you shouldn't share your Cool Toy; only you are licensed to play with it, and your friends should buy
Re:Look... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm going to use UK law examples here as I live in the UK, however US and other laws are sufficiently similar for the same point to apply.
Theft: Dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive.
If you make a copy of something, then you are not depriving anybody of the original.
There is in fact a case, R v Lloyd, where a cinema projectionist took films to make pirate copies, then returned them. As the cinema had only been depriv
I'd better cover my windows (Score:2, Insightful)
So now here's one for you. Say I beak into someones car/house and I get busted with their cd collection. Can the record companies now sue me for stealing music? I didnt pay for it.
Re:I'd better cover my windows (Score:3, Interesting)
Poster didn't RTFA at all... (Score:5, Informative)
Putting _copyrighted_ files (for which you don't have a license to distribute) on the web or in a shared folder is under attack. The only "news" here is that they're arguing that you may have committed a crime before the first download of your pirated mp3 occurred.
You may all hate the RIAA, but you have to admit that putting Kelly Clarkson's new single in your shared folder is different than putting your own jpg's on the web.
Re:Poster didn't RTFA at all... (Score:4, Informative)
Assuming this is true, I don't think that intent is enough for a judgement. In a criminal case, intent to steal, intent to murder, intent to deal drugs, etc... are all crimes in and of themselves, and have penalties associated with them. I don't think that intent in this case is on the books as being against the law in any way, it's just the act itself.
Of course, I could have a misunderstanding of what is required for "intent" to be illegal, but it's just an idea. Feel free to poke holes in this argument, people.
Well, yeah (Score:2)
Of course they're going to argue any point concerning distribution, no matter how silly. The RIAA doesn't make anything. They distribute (at least, that's what they used to do anyways). And since that's their bread and butter, they're going to defend it. No matter how bizarre their argument. No matter how silly their logic. They're used to getting huge ungodly piles of money for doing nothing. And anything that could possibly be used to set a precedent would be a lot like the very first tiny hole pok
Speeding ticket? (Score:3, Funny)
A Polish-style revolt? (Score:4, Interesting)
Since many Polish workers were limited in what they could write, they couldn't necessarily make signs or posters. So what they did was launch mass verbal assaults. Not a protest, per se, since they were still working or going about their everyday lives. As they were building ships, or working in a factory, or while heading to work, they would sing chants.
The songs/chants were quite varied. One particular song basically translated to: "We are the people. United we stand." Over and over they would repeat those verses. Other times they were just overtly obscene. Chants which translate to "Penis, anus, defecation!" were commonplace.
Would such protests work in American record stores, for instance?
Re:A Polish-style revolt? (Score:2)
Re:A Polish-style revolt? (Score:3)
It is over powerful authorities that are being fought in both cases. Political ideology doesn't enter into it.
License To Sue More n00bs (Score:2)
Windows? (Score:4, Funny)
RIAA v. Gonzalez and RIAA v. Grokster (Score:2, Informative)
Calm down, you schmucks. (Score:5, Informative)
One of the links in the story post tells us [digitalmusicnews.com] that the cases is Elektra v. Barker. While we don't yet seem to have the argument referenced there in front of us, we do have the original complaint from about mid-2005, here [digitalmusicnews.com], thanks to one of the few people that's posted here whilst keeping there wits about them.
Basically RIAA is merely saying that Barker ran Kazaa, and was sharing some music with it. They're suing her for having done so.
Copyright does include an exclusive right of distribution (17 USC 106(3)) which has frequently been held to cover serving files. And just to preempt some people who will surely latch on to that, note that there are many different rights within copyright, and this is but one of them. Making copies of files, which necessarily happens when you download, is also covered under copyright, and can be infringing as well.
Obviously the RIAA is not saying -- as many people here assume -- that putting any file on a server is illegal. That's beyond even them. What they are saying is that where the files are copyrighted, and the copyright holder hasn't authorized it, and there's no applicable exception in copyright that would permit it, then it's illegal. Certainly as a civil offense, and possibly also as a criminal offense. (Compare 17 USC 501 with 506 and 18 USC 2319)
So if Alice writes a book and puts it on the Internet for anyone to download, that's fine. If she puts a public domain book on the Internet for people to download, that's fine too. But when she puts up Bob's book, without permission, she's got some trouble.
So far this seems to be an amazingly boring case. And, if the facts are as RIAA says, it's probably open-and-shut in their favor. Like it or lump it, copyright suits are generally pretty simple.
So what could be interesting about this? Well, and I'm just guessing here, since I have not seen anything recent about this from the plaintiff, I suspect that the plaintiff said that making the files available to be shared via Kazaa was unlawful distribution, even if no one ever downloaded the files.
This runs contrary to another case, where the court held that an offer to distribute (which is what placing a file in a share is) is not actual distribution, and that only the latter is unlawful. So RIAA or another plaintiff has to catch a defendant actually serving the file to someone. I would not expect that it matters who it is served to. If the copyright holder were to download it themselves, in order to gather evidence, that would probably suffice. (And before someone claims entrapment, let me remind you that that only applies where one is coerced into doing something that one would not have otherwise done. If you were going to share the file with anyone who requested to download it, then the fact that you did so with the wrong person is bad luck for you, but won't get you off the hook)
If the plaintiff never d/l'ed the file, then this also raises the question of whether the files were actually copies of the music in question, or if they were just labeled that way. Given that the plaintiff appears to have the file listings in hand, they'll probably win this. In a civil suit, which this is, the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. It is not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard reserved for criminal suits. In this case, reasonable doubts as to the facts will not save the defendant; instead whatever is felt to be most likely, even if only by a hair's breadth, is considered the truth. In my experience, when someone (other than RIAA et al) puts up a file claiming to be an mp3 of a song, it usually is.
All told, it seems like a humdrum case that is not worth getting worked up about (unless you think P2P of this sort should be legal, in which case lots of cases are worth getting worked up about). There
Re:Calm down, you schmucks. (Score:2)
The question is where exactly this ends.
Re:Calm down, you schmucks. (Score:2)
As an aside, does anyone know how to filter slashdot so that silly stuff like "OMG the RIAA tried to stop kazaa!! to the barricades!!" doesn't appear? This isn't news and it doesn't matter.
Public libraries.... (Score:2)
Re:Public libraries.... (Score:2)
Absolutely Not Illegal in Canada (Score:5, Informative)
Oh and don't forget! (Score:2)
So I can share GPLed binaries without source (Score:2)
It's in Their Nature (Score:2)
Mod story as troll (Score:4, Insightful)
The story makes it sound like if you put *any* files into a shared folder, you're breaking the law. This is not the case.
What the RIAA is really arguing is that if you place files into a shared folder that, if distributed, would constitute illegal distribution.. the act of making these files (which would be illegal if distributed) available for distribution by placing them in a shared folder is illegal.
Now, I don't see how they'd be able to actually prove the files were, in fact, files that would be illegal for the person to distribute unless the RIAA downloaded them (meaning the files were distributed).
Just remember kiddies,
if you distort something to make it more absurd than it really is..
OF COURSE it's going to sound absurd!
Suckers! (Score:3, Funny)
Suckers! I put my shared files into a directory!
The web is illegal! (Score:4, Funny)
- Web content is made by files.
- The web is a technology to share, distribute and access contents.
- Thus the web should be illegal.
Very good!
Does this mean? (Score:4, Insightful)
This article is hysteria (Score:5, Informative)
Below is some material quoted from it, by one of the attorneys for Ms. Barker.
Opposition Papers in Elektra v. Barker in Manhattan Argue for Expansion of Law
[Legal]
In opposition papers served yesterday in Elektra v. Barker in Manhattan federal court, the RIAA has argued that merely making files "available for distribution" is in and of itself a copyright violation.
Were the courts to accept this misguided view of copyright law, it could mean that anyone who has had a shared files folder, even for a moment, that contained copyrighted files in it, would be guilty of copyright infringement, even though the copies in the folder were legally obtained, and even though no illegal copies had ever been made of them.
Re:This article is hysteria (Score:3, Insightful)
By their logic wouldn't any website containing copyrighted material be breaking the law?
Bizarre.
Re:This article is hysteria (Score:5, Insightful)
Essentially, what the RIAA is trying to do is eliminate the line between making something available for distribution, and actually distributing it. That is, right now there's a distinction between offering something that's not yours, and actually going through with it and transferring the property-that's-not-yours to somebody else. At least as I understand it, currently no crime is committed until the transfer actually occurs. I could have ten million MP3s on an FTP site, and as long as all anyone does is browse the directories, no harm done. When somebody downloads one, I'm in trouble.
What's new is that they want to make putting a copyrighted file into a shared folder (or FTP site, whatever) an act of distribution, in and of itself, regardless of whether anyone actually takes you up on the offer and downloads/transfers the copyrighted file.
It makes a certain twisted kind of sense, since putting the file into the folder is the only action that the sharer actually takes -- therefore, it's demonstrative of their intent (to redistribute).
I'm not sure that I agree with this, but I'm willing to play along for a moment, because I think this line of thinking could lead to strange places. I tend to wonder, if this actually became accepted, whether it wouldn't move the liability for copyright infringement from the downloader, to the sharer/provider. I.e., if you downloaded something from somebody else's shared folder, you'd begin to have a bit of a defense that you thought it was legal, because it would be illegal for them to put anything in the shared folder that wasn't authorized. It's basically a movement of responsibility.
And this, I think, is why the RIAA is so interested. It's difficult to track down the myriad individuals that download content, but it's relatively easy to track down the people that are sharing or seeding content. By moving the legal burden onto them, rather than on the downloaders, it gives them a much stronger hand. It's no longer necessary for the RIAA to prove that somebody downloaded a particular file from your computer, just that you offered it up for that purpose.
Like I said, it makes a twisted kind of sense.
Re:This article is hysteria (Score:5, Insightful)
Such as the fact XP has default "admin shares" of the local drives, so that copying the music anyware on your hard drive could technically be construed as "making available for distribution". This leads to some really bad places if the interpretation is that general.
Re:This article is hysteria (Score:3)
Re:This article is hysteria (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This article is hysteria (Score:5, Interesting)
You were thinking pretty clearly right up until the last line there...
I still can't see how you are guilty of anything. Here is my thought experiment: I leave my front door open, someone walks in and steals my MP3 music server - so thousands of copies of songs just went out my door. Am I guilty of any wrong doing? Of course not, the thief is. If there is any positive act that the RIAA should be targeting it would be the specific act of downloading a song. And yes, they would have to prove it was you doing it, at a specific time and place, using certain tools, they would further have to be able to prove the file was genuine (in other words, they couldn't allege what the file was - they'd have to prove precisely what the file was), that they represent the specific copyright holders of that material, etc.
The act of putting something in a shared folder is sort of like putting a pie on a window sill to cool down - there is a potential for theft, but the positive act of theft is committed by the thief and not the victim. Let's just for a moment assume that millions of non-geeks are actually putting files in the default MS Windows "Shared Documents" directory - that's now a positive act of copyright infringement? I think not...
Let's look at it from the other direction: if the supposition were true that the mere act of allowing something to be available in a shared directory were the positive act of copyright infringement itself then by extension everyone would become responsible for the content over which they exert guardianship. Wouldn't you then be burdened with having to make sure that any possibly copyright infringing files were adequately secured against duplication? If not, the RIAA could then sue you for not practicing Due Diligence over the copyrighted materials in your possession. That's basically what they are trying to argue now: that ownership of certain kinds of files is now the equivalent of being some kind of security expert - so if you aren't familiar with the practices of securing your system against intrusions and the routine protocols of P2P software that someone might install on your systems, you are infringing upon their copyrights.
The burden really does have to be that the RIAA must prove upon the preponderance of evidence that you were actually distributing their materials by some kind of positive act.
What they are getting away with is suing people for making copyrighted materials potentially available to others - which is not the same thing at all. By such loose logic the advent of having your computer hacked would become a potential copyright violation - doesn't having your system hacked making all of the files on it potentially vulnerable?
Am I my brother's keeper? No, I am not. If the RIAA is worried about file distribution that's their lookout and not mine. I am not their agent working on their behalf to secure files from possible duplication - I just don't care.
Re:This article is hysteria (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no parallel to the digital world, because (that I know of) there's no protocol that provides for the transfer of information without a copy being made at the same time. So if there was some kind of "digital library" protocol, which simultaneously deleted the bits of a file from my hard drive, as those bits were being sent down the wire and written to your hard drive, then I think you'd have a defense that you were only "lending" the file. But since such a protocol doesn't exist, and because it's commonly known that computers make copies when they exchange data, the "library defense" doesn't fly.
Re:This article is hysteria (Score:3, Informative)
But if I make photocopies myself using the library's copy machine so that I can finish a paper I'm writing, then this is called fair use.
Re:This article is hysteria (Score:3)
Re:This article is hysteria (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically, any creative work is copyrighted. If I write some code, is it illegal for me to put it into a shared folder? What if I write it, like most employed coders, as work for hire, such that my employer owns it? Have I broken the law by putting in a shared folder? Have I broken the law by uploading it to a publicly read-able CVS repository?
Hey, my briefcase has a copyrighted book in it. I accidently left my briefcase open, next to copy machine, where anybody could have made copies of that book. Am I guilty of illegal negligence, or am I just a straight up "thief"?
I own a bunch of copyrighted books. There's a Kinkos down the street. Is it illegal for me to leave my front door open? Can I put my books on the porch? Can I lend one to my next door neighbor, or is any of that illegal too?
This is a bizarre criminalization of mundane, innocent, and customary activities, solely intended to create a climate of fear.
More and more, our every-day right to "pursue happiness" is being taken away by those who profit by making us fear.
Look, I agree, the record companies have a right to copyright. But Americans have a right not to live in fear. We've got thousands of people living in fear in order to provide fancy cars and three houses each for a few record company execs. It goes too far.
It's time for all of us to draw a line in the sand, and say we won't live in fear anymore. America's turning into Orwell's worst nightmare, the dirty drab gray life of a rat hiding in the shadows to avoid the stomping jackboots.
If this bullshit is "safety" from "the terrorists" I don't want to be safe anymore.
If living in fear is the cost of listing to the latest boy band from Sony, it's not worth it anymore.
It's time for Americans to get up on our hind legs like men and tell the fear-mongers that we've had it with them.
Re:This article is hysteria (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that this was the same idea that the founding father's had. They believed that only god could decide how long they lived, they could however decide how free they lived. If living in freedom means you are more likely to be killed then bring it on, im ready to die free. America is great not becuase we are an economic powerhouse although thats what most people associate with the "American way of life". Giving up your
Re:This article is hysteria (Score:5, Insightful)
It is very hard to tell the difference between works in the public domain and copyrighted works without a notice.
No, it isn't. Anything released after the first Micket Mouse movie = copyrighted.
I don't know if this is supposed to be funny or just sad, but that's more or less the essence of copyright these days.
Re:This article is hysteria (Score:5, Interesting)
CC is scaring the bejezus out of the movie,record,and writer industries. It empowers the creator to sidestep their largest source of expenses (The distributor/studio/publisher/record company) and coupled with the internet it makes them all useless.
The last 10 CD's I have purchased came from CDBaby, 2 have a Creative commons license that allows me to share the tracks on the CD.
And yes, The music from these indie artists is much better than the crap that BMG/ASCAP has been shoveling out lately.
Even my 14 year old daughter that is heavy into metal/punk preferrs the indie stuff or classic stuff.
Re:Lying assholes (Score:2)
Of course it would be easier to know for sure what the argument is if the edit
Re:Lying assholes (Score:5, Funny)
But understandable (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:But understandable (Score:3, Interesting)
since i got a quote for 1000 CDs pressed for a buck 25. after the recording ect.
and i could and will use p2p to advertize there scared very scared
my 2 watts
Re:But understandable (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is Slashdot turning into Digg? (Score:4, Insightful)
1a. There are plenty of people who give away their own copyrighted material, free of charge. As a matter of fact, they would encourage you to do the same. The same thing goes for Bootlegs of Bands.
2. Just because a directory is shared, does not mean the files are accessible. Even if they are accessible, there is no law against putting them somewhere 'shared'.
What is against civil law is distributing material without the copyright owners permission. Your argument is wacked, because you compare a bunch of criminal matters, with a civil one.
Re:Is Slashdot turning into Digg? (Score:3, Informative)
DUH.
You can quibble about the definition of shared/published/accessable, but the issue at hand is obviously PUBLISHING things you don't have a right to distribute.
If a file sits on a server, is its shared availability in some quantum uncertainty state unti
Re:Is Slashdot turning into Digg? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is Slashdot turning into Digg? (Score:2)
And what argument is there to support distributing content that is not yours to distribute? Is it hard to discern the difference between putting bootleg stuff in a shared folder, and having a shared folder? Or serving up stuff that is not bootleg? Jesus what idiocy!
Simply putting something in a shared folder is not distribution. Someone has to copy it first. Windows by default comes with all of your drives shared. Is it that inconceivable that someone could have a blank admin password and no firewall? D
Re:Is Slashdot turning into Digg? (Score:2)
A Windows box's C$ share with a blank admin password and Internet access... Bullshit. Such a machine would be committing so much crime in the area of spam/phishing/virus distribution that the RIAA probably won't be your biggest problem.
Copyright infringement does do harm. Is it okay to steal from Walmart? If so, then we can agree to disagree. I've copied stuff, I jaywalk, I speed, and I've defrauded Walmart before, but that does not make them not wrong or not p
Re:Is Slashdot turning into Digg? (Score:2)
If I copy a bunch of Metallica MP3s into an FTP pub directory, my webserver, or my P2P upload bin, I'm not enabling someone else to commit an infraction, I'm actively publishing materials I don't have the right to distribute.
It's similar to having a pound of weed found in your car's trunk. It would give
Re:Ownership (Score:2, Informative)
What you didn't get correct is that the song is from "Wish You Were Here", not "Dark Side of the Moon"