Note- apparently DeadMan2003 tried to submit this article on Sat at 8:36 PM , but a technical problem kept it going through, so, Submission credit given to Deadman2003. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIAA: Who are the pirates? Free and uncut!
Saturday May 08, 2004 (10:00 AM GMT)
Topics: Legal , News and Trends , News
By: Zeek Greko
It seems to me that every few days there is yet another article on the Web about the recording companies' attempts to bring rampant pirates to justice. I think the RIAA's idea of justice might be a little one-sided and a double standard. Fact is, the recording companies have been flying the Jolly Roger since Day One. They have been perpetrating an injustice on all consumers of their products for decades and I see no indication they are going to correct it.



There is a scene in the movie "Men in Black" where Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith are at the alien receiving center, in the alien technologies room. Tommy Lee Jones is showing Smith these new technologies and he picks up what looks like a one-inch-in-diameter CD-ROM for playing music and says, "I guess I'll have to buy the Beatles' White Album again."

Using this example, why is Tommy Lee Jones saying "I guess I'll have to buy the Beatles White Album again"? He obviously already owns it; the word "again" indicates that. What he is really saying is "I already have a full license to listen to and enjoy the music that is on the Beatles White Album that I now have on CD. But things being what they are with the greedy, pirate recording companies, in order to get the Beatles White Album on this new one-inch disk medium, I'll have to buy another license as well. Come to think of it, being as old as I am, I paid for a full license for the original 12" vinyl LP, the Eight-Track Tape, the cassette, and the CD. No, wait! I just remembered. I bought the eight-track twice and the cassette three times. Those old tape players ate a lot of good music." In this scenario, you might expect Will Smith to ask:

1) Isn't there a way to return the CDROM and pay for just upgrading to the new one inch medium ?

A) The record companies have at no time in the past nor are they likely in the future to (without buyers boycotting) implement any form of new media format exchange program.

2) What happens if the CD cracks or gets scratched (which is hard to avoid)? Can you get it replaced, or do you have to buy a full license every time?

A) You are out of luck, you have to buy a full license every time.

3) Is there any way to make a backup? That way you can store the original in a safe place and replace the backup when it becomes unplayable.

A) Currently (amid much pig squeeling in the background) you can make backups with your computer, but the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) using the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copright Act) is working furiously to plug that hole with DRM (Digital Rights Management) which if implemented, will cripple your computer so that you can't. Already Windows XP users are crippled to some degree. (Microsoft is leading the charge, trying to establish themselves as the de-facto DRM "Copy Cops").

4) What happened to all of those old legally licensed copies you bought?

A) The dollar value of legal, legitimate, licensed music on unusable media that has ended up in dumps and landfills over the years is undoubtedly huge and probably staggering. I don't have a figure, but ask yourself how many times you have had to replace a tape or a disk because it became unusable. If you're young, ask your folks how many trash cans they could fill up with LPs, 45s, eight-tracks, cassettes, DVD's, VHS cassettes, Betamax cassettes, and CD-ROMs that became unusable over the years. The generally universal answer would be "a lot"! Now multiply that times millions of homes in the U.S. alone. Yup, "a lot" fits quite well!

Conclusion:

We have to get out of the mindset that we are buying disks or tapes. We are purchasing licenses. The physical media that it is on is just a way of conveying it to you the purchaser. When you purchase dowloadable music online, you never see a CD-ROM because it is conveyed to you the purchaser by electronic media. Even Microsoft doesn't make you buy a new license for Windows because of unusable media. They are only interested in COA's and Product Keys. The recording companies like it just fine that we buy the same licenses over and over again. They are absolute zealots at trying to stop us from making backups of the media we purchase on flimsy, unprotected, easily damaged disks but have never once offered a remedy for the reason we need to make backups.

It is more than reasonable for us to expect to purchase only one license for any artist's particular work, and that sellers of recording licenses should be obligated to assist us purchasers in maintaining those licenses on current, usable media. Even more so if they're going to try to prevent us from making our own backups.

To end this injustice, the recording companies should consider changing its tactics and make available through their distributors:

1) Replacements for broken or unusable media for the cost of the media: If it got cracked, chipped, eaten, scatched, folded, melted, or just plain worn out, or like U.S. currency, anything over half is whole anything under half is zero.

2) Media format upgrades and updates: If it's on an LP, 45, eight-track or cassette, etc., bring in the original for an upgrade to the current media format for the cost of the media.

That would be justice!

The recording companies would actually make money on these exchanges. Even at an exchange rate of $1 or $2, they would make money because they are just replacing the media. They don't have to pay out royalties to artists. They are just repackaging a license on new, fresh media. They could even replace just the actual disk in a sleeve instead of shipping the jewel boxes. It would even help stop bootleggers because the purchasers would know they wouldn't ever be able to return or exchange the media when they became unusable.

Local brick and mortar recording stores could be revived from the slow death they are experiencing because it makes more sense to exchange media at a local shop (lower shipping costs) rather than having each individual packing up and shipping disks or tapes one at a time. They would become relevent again. They would become our backups. ("Oops! My Queen BR CD is fried, so I'll be on my way to my local recording Shop for a replacement. While I'm there, I'll have a look around for something else I might like to buy.")

Is it an assault on common sense to think that getting people into your store for exchanging broken media, could lead to the purchase of something ?

The recording company executives have been struck stupid by their greed. In this slow economy, why don't they institute the above media exchange policy? It's the right thing to do and it's a source of income. I personally have $500 to $600 worth of broken media or formats to upgrade. The RIAA might even experience a precipitous drop in their so-called "rampant piracy."

How much of this so-called rampant piracy is simply people upgrading or replacing media on licenses they already own? Maybe just downloading the contents of one of their muddy sounding, worn-out cassette tapes so they can enjoy that legally licensed music again. And who could really blame them for "taking some digital justice"? Just my humble opinion.

-- Zeek ...

If you feel this article has value, please make a contribution of any type to The Linux Box. Or join in and help with its GNU/Linux Home Desktop Kit PC initiative. Which, through their community supported kit PC, will help the push toward free as in freedom software. Open, royalty free document and media formats. And against the military style takeover of the hardware of computing that is called Digital Rights Management and Trusted Computing.

This complete article including this notice, may be reproduced freely by anyone or entity. Translations and corrections for spelling and/or grammar are acceptable. Email Zeek Greko.
SOURCE ARTICLE IS FOUND AT
http://trends.newsforge.com/trends/04/05/03/161237.shtml?tid=137&tid=138&tid=147

Looks like you will have to buy the White Album again...

There it is again.
A point I have been making time and time again, on forum after forum. A point that has repeatedly,deliberately been ignored or glossed over by "legal" folks like Mroop. They simply refuse to address this, preferring to assume that all that upload or download are simply filling their pockets with "free" tunes. Do not hold out hope that this very real, valid, LEGAL way of "recording" media that you already have purchased will be in any way looked at by the RIAA.
Better for them to have us all labeled crooks.

good luck putting us all in jail. I know my mom would seriously either laugh at me in jail after gettin me out or she'd be the first one to go straight to the mayor of GA saying "LET MY BOY OUT!!!! YOU THINK DOWNLOADING MUSIC IS BAD?! WAIT UNTIL YOU SEE MY RIGHT HOOK!"

I want my credit for posting this news item a couple of days ago

I'm sorry...I didn't see your earlier posting....will add credit as well...

Deadman...in the article q, we have that a title by this name was submitted
Sat at 8:36 PM . But, there was not story nor name associated with it...just the title, and by the time I was editing, I never even saw this submission.

So, when articles only have a title, and no story or name associated with them, they just get left usually, without anything further. So...sorry for that.

Clearly when we purchase a CD today we are NOT just purchansing a license to listen to the music. It is very important that everyone understand that you are purchasing a particular copy. Once you have purchased a copy, you OWN that particular and with that purchase come many consumer rights.

You may play the copy anytime you want with out monitoring by the copyright holder.
You may keep that copy for as long as you want.
You may loan that copy to others.

It is very important to realize that these copies, that YOU own, are assets just like your car. You can recover actual tangable value from these copies if you choose.

With DVDs and video tapes, you are permitted to rent them out.
In all cases you may resell the copy for cash.
If you hold on to it for a while, it may even become a classic. That may even allow you to sell it for much more than you paid for it. (Antiques roadshow anyone?)
You may barter the copy if necessary.
And you may even give the copy away if you are feeling magnamous.

All of these rights are protected by 17 USC § 109.

If you purchase a "license" you have nothing. Nada. No rights at all, except as granted by the license written by the RIAA.

At the moment only music purchased through online services falls under a licensing agreement. You should read the Napster and iTunes licenses to see how may of the above LEGAL rights are preserved for you.

You will be disappointed, but you should not be surprised.

Licenses clearly STEAL a consumer's tangible value. They also HIJACK a consumer's traditional rights.

If you didn't write the license, assume you are being screwed. Caveat Emptor.

By the way, it is absolutely unambigously legal for you to copy your CDs for personal use and backups. Even the Recording Academy (the Grammy Awards people) acknowledges this in their FAQ.

"If I buy a song or album on a CD, can I legally copy it? What are the legal ways I can make copies?

"As noted above, it is generally permissible to make copies of a lawfully purchased CD for personal use. This means we can copy that CD onto another CD for our car, for example, or onto a tape for our Walkman. Or, we can make a copy of the CD on our hard drive to play the file via our computer. Burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player won’t usually raise concerns so long as the copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own and the copy is just for your personal use. Giving away the copy or lending it to others for copying is not a personal use and is not legal."

http://www.whatsthedownload.com/whats_the_controversy/faq/index.aspx#12

"A point that has repeatedly,deliberately been ignored or glossed over by "legal" folks like Mroop."

Sorry for ignoring this point. I will address it now. I think the idea is stupid. If a buy a product and it breaks then I have to buy another. End of story.

This idea that cd's are easy to render unplayable is ridiculous. I have thousands of cd's and I handle them with care. I have never had to replace due to one being damaged by me. If you treat your cd's badly then you will have to replace them. Take care of your stuff fer chrissake. This goes for any consumer product. Do you get a free replacement when drop a dish on the floor and it breaks? Of course not.

Next, where is it written that you have to "upgrade" your media when another format comes out? There are plenty of people that are perfectly happy with their lp's that are still in mint condition because they take care of them. You can make a cassette or burn a cdr if you want to play them in the car.

If you are unable to resist the lure of shiny new objects and feel compelled to buy the latest format simply because it has been put on the market and then you blame the seller you are just like the guy who sues McDonald's because he ate too many Big Mac's and now he is fat.

mroop, I think the "upgrade" part may be referring to licensing similiar to the method that software people use. Depending on who you buy it from, you get various choices. You can subscribe to an upgrade/update service to keep your purchased product up to date or you are offered an upgraded product at a discount price etc. Normally the "license" that you buy will spell out the terms of such and normally licensing will allow such things. The beef I think most have here with this is that the music industry wants to do the licensing method, but wants to not give any rights and/or deals with it like software many software companies do. Normally, software people also allow you to make one backup copy of your purchase in the event of such tragedies listed in above article and posts, the music industry doesn't want you to do that. Thus another "beef". Like I have said before, if they don't want to give you any rights, then they shouldn't charge the big bucks for it. I personally don't buy anything I feel is too high priced for what I would get. The problem with a lot of this DRM, is that it can infringe upon fair use of product and in a lot of cases renders the use of such product useless for the "legal" application that you want to use it for. Windows XP is an example of DRM loaded software. If something happens with the installed software and you use the tools given you and still can't fix it because of the DRM, then you must take it someplace and pay big bucks to get it fixed. Seen it happen. I will in no way purchase anything with XP on it, cuz from what I've seen, it is problems and frustration just waiting to happen.

I hope that some of the lawyers will reenforce with me that given a licensing agreement, there simply are no fair-use rights. If you agree to a license that dictates how you may use the media, then that is it. You agreed in advance, you cannot change your mind later. Once you have done this, your fair-use as defined by copyright law are trumped by the contract you agreed to.

"The only way to win is not to play"
Joshua

...your fair-use *rights* as defined...

----------------------------
Mroop wrote:

"If a buy a product and it breaks then I have to buy another. End of story."

"You can make a cassette or burn a cdr if you want to play them in the car."

In general I agree Mroop. There is however an interesting ambiguous side effect of these two true statements.

Say I purchase a CD and make another copy for my car and an MP3 copy for my iPod. We both agree that this is generally legal behavior. And the copies were legally made under title 17. There is absolutely no reason that I cannot possess such copies.

Now say an unfortunate thing happens and I step on and break the original CD or it is physically stolen from me. Now I possess legally made copies, but I do not own an original.

Am I still entitled to possess these copies? Are they still legal copies?

I remember a discussion I had quite a while back about the licensing agreement.

I had picked up one of my LEGALLY PURCHASED CDs and was reading the legal jargon on the insert.

Basically, it was declaring that this was the EULA...the End User License Agreement, and went about spelling out your rights, or the lack thereof, to do certain things with that product.

One included that you were forbidden to lend this CD to anyone else.

I think the RIAA really wants the music their labels sell to be "licensed data/software, which happens to be supplied to you on a Compact Disc media"...

After all, you buy one of the CDs excreted onto the public marketplace by one of their members...and what do you own?

You don't own the music...you can't do with it as you please (can't legally make many copies and give to your friends)...you own that physical media, and you are "licensed" to personally listen to the songs on the CD as much as you want, but I bet you, if the RIAA had it's way, the would say you cannot even have a friend sitting there listening to it with you, because they have not bought the right to listen.

The RIAA wants to enforce a software like EULA on music buyers, and that right there is reason enough for them to be boycotted to the poorhouse.

Back to the vulnerability of the physical media on which the tunes are recorded...in more than one article of late on dmusic and boycott, it has been pointed out that, even if a CD is not physically scratched or broken, the data on it, and the disk itself, appears to be degrading far quicker than all of us were originally told. CDs and DVDs apparently are not as hearty and durable as the puffery of the CD producers originally portrayed.

In a year or two, these round shiny things may be useless for the purpose for which they were originally sold (e.g. fitness for merhantability ). This is in direct contrast to most china plates, which continue to function as plates for years, unless they are dropped.

If plates started disintegrating within a year or two, I think I would uphold that people should be able to make legal copies of them as well.

I have rewritable CDs that were good around two years ago, that were kept in a dark place, in climate controlled conditions, and the data on them is already unreadable.

By the way...how many Big Macs must one consume before they are "fat"...

The latest figures I had was that from 66 to 70 percent of the population is overweight.

Not really sure if "fat" means obese or overweight.

I do remember Mroop said he likes calling Ruben Studdard "the fat guy" instead of by his real name, but doesn't call Clay Aiken "that screwed up hair guy"

All that being said...I think the apparent instability of data on those discs is far more convincing as a reason to be able to back up a CD than the other...

I think mroop has a good point on the breaking part...but, if something just decomposes before it was supposed to, that is a good reason for allowing backup.

"Sorry for ignoring this point. I will address it now. I think the idea is stupid. If a buy a product and it breaks then I have to buy another. End of story. "

Not really, you still haven't addressed my issue, let me clarify ....

From Captain Morgan ...
"By the way, it is absolutely unambigously legal for you to copy your CDs for personal use and backups. Even the Recording Academy (the Grammy Awards people) acknowledges this in their FAQ. "

I know how to make MP3's out of my CD's, but don't have the hardware.
I have no idea how to make an even "decent" copy of my vinyls or 8-tracks.
Downloading an MP3 from a p2p of a title
that you own, is simply a different way of "recording" a backup, which you HAVE A RIGHT to. This gives those without the tech expertise a way make their own Mp3's of their existing collection.
This is what continually gets ignored.
again.
Rights not stupidity.
Rights are not stupid.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have a right to make a backup copy for yourself. I'm saying you don't have the right to download mp3's or get a free cd from the manufacturer because you bought the lp or cassette or 8 track sometime in the past. You purchased the product, not the right to have the music in the format of your choice for free for the rest of your life.

"Am I still entitled to possess these copies? Are they still legal copies?"

You got me. I think it's a question that doesn't really need an answer. The intellectual property industries have never gone after individuals for such activities. It is the free for all that is occuring on the internet that is their concern.

There is no clause that I am aware of that states what can or cannot be used as the backup medium.
There is no time limit that I am aware of for making a backup ( still entitled to it ).
Ths PC is the backup medium of choice for many.

"Downloading an MP3 from a p2p of a titlr that you own, is simply a different way of "recording" a backup, which you HAVE A RIGHT to. "

No it isn't. It is making a copy of someone else's copy. It is not making a copy of your copy.

" know how to make MP3's out of my CD's, but don't have the hardware.
I have no idea how to make an even "decent" copy of my vinyls or 8-tracks."

So what? Buy the hardware. Learn how to make a decent copy. Just because you bought vinyl or 8 tracks does not entitle you to format upgrades in perpetuity. I bought a Model T Ford. I guess Ford owes me a brand new Mustang. I bought a laserdisc of Star Wars, that doesn't entitle me to a free DVD.

I can't site anything right now, but the last definition of lease vs sale explained that if it looks and acts like a sale, it is probably a sale not a lease.

For example, a lease implies that the leasor retains ownership to the item. If "leasor" doesn't intend to reclaim ownership at the end of a lease, (like with a car) or maintain contact with the "leasee" and provide maintence and support for the item, (like software) it is likely a sale not a lease.

If a vendor simply assigns a product to you in perpetuity and never expects to have contact with you again, it is legally a sale not a lease. It doesn't much matter what the small print on the front says.

(any real lawyer want to chime in with a citation?)

And if I have a scratched LP, my pal has the CD of the same title, I make a copy of my pals CD ( I own the Album ) ?

I own the Album I have a right to it. regardless of the recording method used.
Digital recording is a stream of 1's and 0's from one media to another. Recording.
P2P is a stream of 1's and 0's from one media to another.
The difference is in semantics, poitical advantage, and profit gain.
If I bought it, I have that right, regardless of the media I currently have it on, no matter how long I have it.

"And if I have a scratched LP, my pal has the CD of the same title, I make a copy of my pals CD ( I own the Album ) ?

I own the Album I have a right to it. regardless of the recording method used."

No you don't. It seems that you don't grasp the meaning of the term "backup copy". It means making a copy of something you already own from that copy. It does not mean making a copy of something you own from someone elses copy.

I suppose I had better clarify the " Political Advantage, Profit Gain " part of my statement.

So far, in all of the articles, forums, political sites etc, that I have visited, EVERYONE that supports the RIAA has political ties to it. Some of those ties are clear, some of those have to be searched for.
Many have gotten monetary gains from the RIAA, either directly or indirectly. Sometimes the cash trail is obvious, sometimes it must be hunted for.
The "Musicians" that tout the "company line" are tainted, because the know that if they dissent openly, they can be HURT by their leash/contract holder.
I would be very interested in seeing true pro RIAA commentary from individuals that ..
a. ) have no ties to RIAA or the legal industry.
b. ) really know ALL of the facts behind the lawsuits.
c.) know about all of the bills that are currently in consideration.
d.) have NO ties to the RIAA ( yes I reapeated that )

I would be happy to hear from folks like that. If you can direct me to a forum like that, I'd love to visit.

I do grasp the term "backup copy"

Do you grasp the term "Rights"

"Do you grasp the term "Rights""

Absolutely. You have the right to make backup copies of music you own - sourced from copies you own. Hence the term - backup copy. You do not have the right to make copies of someone else's copyrighted material and then try to claim it is a backup copy because you bought the 8 track 30 years ago and let it melt on your dashboard.

I never saw the "sourced from your own" clause.

Is that like Orwell's "Animal Farm" ??
You know, dripping housepaint, more equal than others .. etc ..

This is why I would like to PRO RIAA input from someone a bit less ... compromised.

"I never saw the "sourced from your own" clause."

Like I said, you don't grasp the definition of "backup copy".

"You got me. I think it's a question that doesn't really need an answer. The intellectual property industries have never gone after individuals for such activities."

Golly gee. So compliance with the law is only important in some circumstances?

It seems pointless to note that the IP industries had never gone after individuals for making personal recordings, UNTIL THEY DID! By that time is was too late for 60 million people to find out that congress may have screwed up in making its 1008 wording match their intention.

But that was not the reason I brought this up originally...

You have already asserted that if you make copies and then sell your original, you must transmit all the copies with the original.

This is specified explicitly in the case of computer software [§ 117(a)(2)], but I have not found this to be a requirement for music.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

If you are correct, it implies that if you don't transmit a copy with the original, then that copy and your possession of it becomes illegal.

It is a possibly illegal situation that indistinguishable (to outsiders) from the case I described. These examples are often used as reasons to supress the more reasonable cases as well.

When most people talk about backup copies, they are usually refering incorrectly to 17 USC § 17 and it's discussion of archival copies.

I haven't found any other references authorizing backup copies or any other media types. In order to justify backing up music you have to fall back on either 1008 or general fair-use exclusions.

Interestingly, SCMS devices can't be used as archival devices as there is no "restore from archive" possibility

===================

§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

Going back to the lease ideal, there should be something clearly marked on the outside of the CD case explaining that you are purchasing a lease and not a copy of the CD. Its seems there would be issues of false advertising or fraud if this was not marked on the outside packaging, basically requiring you to "buy" the CD before finding out you are only buying a lease.

"Golly gee. So compliance with the law is only important in some circumstances?"

Get real, dude. It is illegal for underage people to drink alcohol. But if you give your kid a beer in your home then you don't have a problem. The same goes for making a copy of a cd for your friend. But when you go on the internet you are going to have a problem. The rule here - act like an idiot and you might get in trouble.

If congress authorizes local police to enter and search said homes, without a warrant or due process, to find adults providing teens alchohol in their home, there will be trouble for those parents.
What the RIAA is doing, and what proposed legislation is attempting to strengthen is the "virtual" version of THAT situation.
The law is making idiots ( criminals ) out of anyone they can.

amen mroop. Everyone should refresh themselves with the valuable information available about the current US Copyright Laws: http://www.copyright.gov/

"Get real, dude. It is illegal for underage people to drink alcohol. But if you give your kid a beer in your home then you don't have a problem."

It is because of logic like this that lawyers have a bad reputation.

Actually in my state (TX) it is expressly legal for a parent to give their child alcohol as long as the parent is present. It can be done in public. Sane laws that proscribe legal behaviors are good. Regularly breaking any law weakens all laws.

"The same goes for making a copy of a cd for your friend."

Unless of course apologists convince everyone to assume that having a music CD-R is defacto evidence of "piracy". That is the general drum beat for MP3s. If I have 200 CDs in my car, I'm a target for criminals. If I have 200 CD-Rs in my car, I'm presumed to be a bootlegger. If I have 2000 MP3s on my computer, I'm presumed a pirate. It was for these repeated types of allegations that congress created 1008.

"But when you go on the internet you are going to have a problem."

The farsighted realise that all devices are becoming networked.

The naive assume that if you leave exploits in the law, as you suggest, no legal hackers will exploit them. The hackers among us know better.

"The rule here - act like an idiot and you might get in trouble."

Quite frankly the rule here is - if I have enough money to pay lawyers, you are in trouble.

If we are being pragmatic. Let's also be honest.

What type of lawyer are you, Mroop?

My gut says a corporate lawyer. You don't seem to have the attitude of a prosecutor and you are definitely not a defense lawyer.

I'm guessing you still think OJ is guilty too.

OK mroop....On a similar note, I was watching one of my (many) DVDs which contains the never ending stream of commercials for other movies in there catalog, when I realized that they all had a single common message....

"OWN it today on DVD"

This same message has been delivered in television ads as well. The record industry also preaches the same tune. It seems to me that this constitutes ownership not a limited license to use. Now since I bought many of these movies, does the original statement of ownership not constitute a transfer of ownership? If so, why is it an issue for me to put what I bought and paid for into any format I choose? Why would DVDXCOPY be illegal?

To borrow the car analogy, If I say I am selling you the Model A, but put a small label under the seat that said you were only paying to ride in it. You then order replacement parts for it on the Internet to make it look like a Mustang does this mean I could then sue you for illegally tampering with it? After all, I did put the label inside the car.

I'm a simple person....When you tell me that I am BUYING something, I expect just that. I have no problem with buying the media. I am also one of those that has converted my massive tape library to DVD ( and keeping the originals in a safe place). I also make backups of the CDs that I BOUGHT. In addition, I use a virtual drive program as well as keeping my favorite tracks on my PC. I'm also one of those unfortunate people who had a CD stolen (along with the player it was in), and even though I have my backup, I'll replace the CD because I like having the original.

What I don't like is some group of greedy, self-centered individuals who generally have the creativity of the useless lawyers they hire, planting spyware on the PC that I paid for while chewing up the bandwidth that I pay for launching mini DDOS attacks agains my p2p software free system simply because I happen to have broadband access or frequent this site.

Not all of us are traffiking in Copyright material, and frankly it pisses me off when someone wants to treat me like I'm some kind of criminal simply because I chose not buy the lip-sync canned noise that they spew out.

Now that my rant is almost over, let me point out, once again that I am a simple person....I only want what I pay for. At the time I purchased my very large collection of media, there was no contracts (written or otherwise) that limited my fair use of the products. Just because a handful of questionable politicians decided to grant these changes well after the deal does not make it valid.

I'm not a lawyer, but correct me if I'm wrong in stating that a contract consumated cannot be altered without the agreement of all parties involved. If you think that the current trend is valid, then I'll be back to get my Model A (after I spend your payment).

FYI - I always get your point...I understood where you were going with the "Backup Copy" statements and I agree with you on that....I simply don't agree that the copyright itself is legal since all these guys shout the same message "Own it today..." and make it clear that they are not responsible for non-working media (other than an even exchange). They seem to change the terms of the deal with each passing day. When you attempt to exercise your right to use under a license, they tell you that you have to BUY new media. When the media itself is at fault they tell you that you are only LICENSED to use...Add DRM that locks it to a particular spot on my harddrive or prevents my current hardware from even playing it and stop putting it on media that I can play (you can't get LPs anymore), and its time to say goodbye.

This is what brought me to this site and it is what makes me continue to preach to all I know nad meet about this evil....

Oh, yeah, before I forget....Code - Not only did I write my Congresspersons, I also contacted a few hundred people I know in VA and got commitments to support Boucher for re-election.

"like i said you dont grasp the definition of "backup copy"

to make a copy from that witch is the original. ONE MAJOR PROBLEM, they never specify witch original copy. yes i went to the store bought the cd it broke, but my friend has the same cd. it is still the same original copy NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT. therefor u can use their cd to make a copy. the difference in orginal stance would be for exapmle i go out buy a 10 year anniversary revised cd. my friend has the orginal copy of that same cd witch has different casing and print on the front of that disc.

I believe if Mroop ever mentioned who he really works for, any credibility he has here would speedily vaporize.

as for my views on p2p software &/or items go to the artical about the japanese p2p founder that was arrested

From Mroop ..
"Absolutely. You have the right to make backup copies of music you own - sourced from copies you own. Hence the term - backup "

From Ilikethissite
"amen mroop. Everyone should refresh themselves with the valuable information available about the current US Copyright "

Including Mroop.
I'd like to know what document "sourced from the copies you own" came from, really. If that is in those laws, somewhere , I honestly would love to know where.

amen to that dreddsnik

I don't want to cast aspersions against Mroop. He makes perfectly valid points, clearly and rationally. I think it is very important to have those to balance some of the pie in the sky statements that are made here.

The thinks Mroop says are perfectly legal are definetly legal. If you absolutely want to be sure you are not even in the grey area, his advise is perfect to follow.

But like the middle manager who said, "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM," his views are as conservative as they could be. In some cases, his views are even more conservative than the published views of the recording industry.

My gut tells me that if a jury trial was ever held, the actual interpretation of written law and fair-use would be slightly more liberal. Make no mistake, laws are created in such cases. In these RIAA cases we need Johnny Cochran to help create the law, not Marsha Clark.

he must be a Cary Sherman aide.....anyways he is right in certain aspects...but lets stop beating around the bush...most not all of us have made copyright violations concerning proper use of CD's...I have done it I have used P2P and I knew I ran a risk of getting sued if I was offering files..thats distribution for which u have no authorization to do so. I seldom use p2p cause there is nothing noteworthy and plus im not bout to hand over my hard earned money to those phucks..so I just play it cool and stay outta the cooking oil for now its not worth it........But if ya gonna use p2p make sure u are on guard!

"What type of lawyer are you, Mroop?

My gut says a corporate lawyer. You don't seem to have the attitude of a prosecutor and you are definitely not a defense lawyer."

I no longer practice law. However, for awhile I worked in criminal defense. Definitely not a defense lawyer? Ha!

"I'm guessing you still think OJ is guilty too. "

A civil court found OJ guilty. Of course I think he committed murder. Only someone with an agenda would think otherwise.

"I believe if Mroop ever mentioned who he really works for, any credibility he has here would speedily vaporize."

I own my own business and it is not in the legal field. So there! : )

"I'd like to know what document "sourced from the copies you own" came from, really. If that is in those laws, somewhere , I honestly would love to know where."

Technically speaking, downloading does not appear to be illegal. So what are you bitching about? I would like to know! However, if someone else makes you a copy of a copyrighted work and gives it to you then they are engaging in distribution and violating section 106 of Title 17. So now you know that you technically can download whatever you want. So please stop bitching. : )

"he must be a Cary Sherman aide"

Heh. The funny thing is that if you are against illegal distribution of copyrighted works, then people on this site think you are in favor of the major labels. As if the only reason to be against the majors is to preserve your right to break the copyright laws and get free music. Gimme a freaking break. People with this attitude are not really anti-major label - they just want free music!

"Definitely not a defense lawyer? Ha!"

LOL! Doh!

"A civil court found OJ guilty. Of course I think he committed murder. Only someone with an agenda would think otherwise."

I'm not a lawyer, but I have been a juror on several occasions. From my experience as a juror I can say with absolute certanty that law is based upon one principle. The best lawyer wins.

OJ is a prime example of this. Big money, clever lawyers = win. Low budget, mediocre lawyers = lose. In all other aspects, the legal system should be considered orthogonal to truth, morality or fairness.

The jury is the least knowledgable people in the room about what the truth is. They are expected to decide the truth, but are not allowed to ask questions. Witnesses are sworn to tell the truth, but only to the questions asked. Not really the "whole truth". A good lawyer's job is to make sure that there are contorted procedural reasons for only presenting the part of the truth favorable to their cause. These lawyers are worth every penny they are paid by their clients.

It is a fundamental right that every citizen is entitled to the best defense that they can provide. To not be allowed to present the best defense you can is absurd.

However, every citizen cannot be entitled to the best possible defense. If that were the case then all murderers would go free, because surely for every case there is at lease one brilliant convincing lawyer who could get the defendant off.

So pragmatically we are stuck with a compromise. Justice for those with the most resources to bring to bear is different from justice for the rest. Morally this is bankrupt.

But I guess it is fair. After all as Monty Python said, "It's every man's right to have babies. Even if they can't have babies." The same can be said of justice.

I think the "legal system" is sub-optimal from a systems point of view. A computer system that bad would not be tolerated in the marketplace. Unfortunately, the legal system marketplace is a government monopoly. Innovation in such circumstances are few and far between.

Yup ...
OJ = one guilty fucker

BTW,
I am not the one "bitchin"
The RIAA is.

As for the "distribution" thing ...
If a person downloads an mp3 from me for a tune they OWN ..

( "Absolutely. You have the right to make backup copies of music you own - sourced from copies you own. Hence the term - backup " )

.. I have not "distributed" ANYTHING.
They already OWN it. I already OWN it.
The "Illegal Distribution" the RIAA bitches about hinges on the ASSUMPTION OF GUILT. All of their actions, and all of the legislation they are buying is based on the assumption that everyone downloading, or making files available, are doing so illegally, or for nefarious ( muahaahaaaahaaa ) purposes.
The RIAA is one .. big .. bitch.

dreddsnik is right... the propoganda that the RIAA has made publicly is that downloading music is illegal. But, they know, and we know, that the real issues of their lawsuits is to prevent illegal distribution of copyrighted material.

I just took a short survey at work: 8 out of 15 people download music from p2p sources; of those 8, they download music that they never owned. Why do they do it? the #1 answer was No Money. So, most people, not everyone, try to get free music by downloading copyrighted music off of p2p networks.

"But, they know, and we know, that the real issues of their lawsuits is to prevent illegal distribution of copyrighted material."

The RIAA's issue is, "Pay toll to the troll." Whether or not such copying is legal is not an issue to them. Just the fee that they want to collect.

Mroop pointed out, "Technically speaking, downloading does not appear to be illegal."

I maintain that both downloading and uploading are currently legal. Neither represent distribution.

You are welcome to join us in the Steel Cage in the forum if you'd like.

I should have posted my points in the steel cage thread as well.
I didn't mainly because when Mroop and I go toe to toe, it sometimes becomes ugly ( both of us equally "passionate" in our stances ). I didn't want flames from either of us to invade the "Flame Free" zone.
Since the exchanges here are ( mostly ) civil, and have proven somewhat productive, I would like to transfer them to the Steel Cage Forum.
Won't do it without Mroops approval , of course.

um mroop,

even when i am old and gray I will never ever be in support of any of the major labels sorry! Some people are anti major label for other reasons than just free music...i dont feel like naming them right now. Face it mroop, people are always gonna get free music anyways we slice the cake....even under the threat of legal action people continue to do it. You as a proactive believer in legitimate music theres not much you can do about it just hope that peoples conscience gets the better of them and convinces them its wrong.....Im not trying to prove u wrong u are right in what u say.....but if you can bring almost 80 million people using p2p to a halt then go for it.

I dont blame u mroop for speaking out, but with 60 million people out there it will take a while...p2p can be slowed but in all reality it will never cease its like those stubborn mushrooms that grow in ur lawn....u pull them out but a couple more grow it its place