U.S. Raids Net Song Swappers in Copyright Crackdown
Wed Aug 25, 2004 03:55 PM ET

By Peter Kaplan and Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. agents have raided the homes of five people who allegedly traded hundreds of thousands of songs, movies and other copyrighted material over the Internet, Attorney General John Ashcroft said on Wednesday.

Agents raided residences in Texas, New York and Wisconsin early on Wednesday and seized computers that they suspect were involved in a nationwide file-trading network.

The raids marked a sharp escalation of the years-long legal battle surrounding unauthorized copying over peer-to-peer, or P2P, networks.

Until now, the Justice Department has only pursued elite groups of hackers who steal and distribute movies, music and software before their official release dates.

Authorities made no arrests. But Ashcroft warned that those who copy music, movies and software over P2P networks without permission could face jail time.

"We do not believe it is appropriate for the Department of Justice to stand by while such theft is taking place," Ashcroft said at a press conference.

"P2P does not stand for 'permission to pilfer,"' Ashcroft said.

Targeted in the raids were people operating "hubs" in a file-sharing network based on Direct Connect software.

An official at Direct Connect parent NeoModus Inc. was not immediately available for comment.

In order to join the network, members had to promise to provide between one and 100 gigabytes of material to trade, or up to 250,000 songs, Ashcroft said.

"They are clearly directing and operating an enterprise which countenances illegal activity and makes as a condition of membership the willingness to make available material to be stolen," he said.

Each of the five hubs contained 40 petabytes of data, the equivalent of 60,000 movies or 10.5 million songs, Ashcroft said.

Among the files offered on the network were the movies "Kill Bill," "Lord of the Rings -- The Two Towers," and "The Last Samurai," according to an affidavit filed in connection with one of the search warrants.

Agents also searched an Internet service provider, but officials declined to specify which one and said it was not a target of the investigation.

Recording studios have waged an aggressive legal campaign against the networks and their users, but have also appealed to the Justice Department for help.

An appeals court in California affirmed last week that such networks can't be held responsible for illegal copying.

Record labels have brought more than 3,000 copyright lawsuits against individuals since last year, typically winning settlements of around $5,000.

The Recording Industry Association of America on Wednesday announced it had sued another 744 individuals and refiled suits against 152 others who had ignored or declined offers to settle.

So did they infiltrate the group or what?

Answering my own question:
Undercover FBI agents joined the network by loading two computers with copyrighted material and applying for membership with those machines. Like many other similar groups, the Underground Network required that members be able to provide copyright materials for download by other users instead of simply "leeching" on others.

Dammit, now the good people are being taken apart by Ashcroft? I thought he claimed to be a force for good.

This is another startling change in the battle of right versus RIAA.

""We do not believe it is appropriate for the Department of Justice to stand by while such theft is taking place," Ashcroft said at a press conference."

Theft? What theft? Is Ashcroft talking about a completely different subject? Because no matter how much you want it to be, or how wrong it may actually be, P2P does not amount to theft.

Tune into CNN right now. After the commercial break a "...message to file sharers."

Maybe it's an apology for raiding their houses because of "theft"

All I can say is "What a waste of taxpayers' money!" This is the worst use of resources since the "war on drugs". Meanwhile, our porous borders let in untold numbers of aliens wishing us harm. And many more are already here, visas expired, immigration enforcement nonexistent. And the DOJ (Department of Jackasses?) wastes resources hassling a buch of people trading copies of music?

I wonder what the RIAA has promised the RNC in return? They resort to buying politicians so they can pass laws to force consumers to buy the crap that was rejected by the open market. Who's their PR guru, Joe Stalin?

We, as citizens, must let our elected officials know that we do NOT condone this use of our money, when real crimes are going unpunished.

Two items of note in today's developments (covered both by CNBC and CNN):
1) The DOJ is, in fact, on the RIAA's side in terms of invasion of privacy and perversion of justice
2) Such networks, on which one may enter by "invitation only", represented the first of efforts to push p2p underground, undetectable to intrusion. They failed, but in the end events like these will push p2p behavior even further underground. It's like playing wack-a-mole.

Also it's funny how the RIAA used today's announcement to announce more lawsuits, and to further threaten the general public.

Record labels have brought more than 3,000 copyright lawsuits against individuals since last year, typically winning settlements of around $5,000.

Winning? How can you "win" if it never goes to court? They should say "extorting" here not "winning"

"They resort to buying politicians so they can pass laws to force consumers to buy the crap that was rejected by the open market."

Are there laws that force you to buy music and movies? I've never heard of these laws. I hope they don't force me to buy anything by Beenie Man.

"Undercover FBI agents joined the network by loading two computers with copyrighted material and applying for membership with those machines. Like many other similar groups, the Underground Network required that members be able to provide copyright materials for download by other users instead of simply "leeching" on others."

Larry, if any of your artists' Dmusic recordings were on the FBI computers then you can sue them for infringement.

Well...whadya expect since the FBI;'s NUMBER THREE PRIORITY is protection of intellectual property. I bet A$hcroft sez God TOLD him to do it.

"Authorities made no arrests. But Ashcroft warned that those who copy music, movies and software over P2P networks without permission could face jail time.

"We do not believe it is appropriate for the Department of Justice to stand by while such theft is taking place," Ashcroft said at a press conference."

It's not theft, even if they used the No Electronic Theft act.

Look...I don't care if you like Bush or Kerry or Nader or Badnarik...
can we at least agree we need this delusional "Let the Eagle Soar" singing, fundamentalist NUT out of office?

I think he sees his position somewhere between God and an evil Santa Claus...
and, isn't it clear to get this tick excised from under the skin of America,
that you have to get the Mother of All Ticks pulled out of office...i.e.
King George the Crazy/ aka President Queeg....

"can we at least agree we need this delusional "Let the Eagle Soar" singing, fundamentalist NUT out of office?"

LOL!!!

Remember this bit from the other day from R. Hewitt Pate of the DOJ?

"That idea is "something that people should take with a grain of salt," Pate said at a conference held by the Progress & Freedom Foundation. While "the Justice Department is there to enforce the law, there's something to be said for those who help themselves."

Pate said the Justice Department's formal position on the Pirate Act and other copyright legislation would appear in a task force's report that will be presented to Attorney General John Ashcroft this fall. Ashcroft created the intellectual property task force, headed by David Israelite, in March. "

Obviously, Ashcroft isn't interested on any recommendations from his own department full of officials who are infinitely more experienced than Ashcroft on REAL DOJ issues.

Well, Mr. Pate, that grain of salt weighs in at about 1 million tons from our viewpoint.

at what point will americans stop sitting by and start taking up arms, and getting rid of gov't corruption the way the Declaration of Independance said we could?
==>"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." - Tacitus, Roman historian
==>"The more restrictions and prohibitions in the world, the poorer people get." -- Lao Tzu
==>"The trouble today is that we have too many laws." --John Garner, US Vice-President, 1932

one more all. i really like this one!
==>"America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." --Claire Wolfe, 1995

mroop:
No, at present, there are no laws forcing you to buy RIAA product. However, this is their ultimate goal, to once again control music and its consumption completely. It may be a Quixotic quest, but it is theirs.

A fine start has been the number of laws passed that benefit the RIAA cartel, while trampling existing Federal laws that favored the consumer.

funny how this happened after the MGM V Grokster Ruling isn't it ?

As they slowly force the smaller distribution outlets out of business, The only places true independent music can be found, all that's left are the large "sheeple chains" ( Wal Mart, Best Buy ), etc. I have never seen a non-RIAA supported CD in those chains.
P2P and the internet are left as the only true indie outlets.
P2P and the internet is brought under "legal" control, true independents can be "locked out" the way they are locked out of radio and large volume chains.
While it is true no law "directly" forbidding the purchase of non-RIAA product has been created, non-RIAA product distribution is "legally" destroyed, leaving ONLY product produced by 4 large corporations, to price and control as they see fit.
True, no law that "forces" anyone to buy it.
Truth's a funny thing, only meaningful when the whole truth is allowed.

Half truth really IS the true sword of the corrupt.

I'll make my own music before I'll buy their horrible crap!! I'm going to get my guitar and play some tunes. Down with the man!

I so agree with CodeWarrior. No matter who you like, this FUCKEN SOB in John FASCIST ASS CROFT needs to get his ASS THROWN out as the attorney general!!!!!!!!!!

I wish you ASS CROFT MERE HELL and I fucken mean it if you want P2P file-sharers behind bars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Bush gets relected, does that mean that ASS CROFT for sure will still keep his position as the Attorney General??? But if Kerry gets elected, will he be any better. They both sound like jack asses. But maybe at least Kerry would have not as much of a power hungry FASCIST like Attorney General!!! What do you think???

deskyrider

They really can't afford the appearance of losing this war....thus their timing is essentialy telling poeple that no matter what rulings go against them, they are still in control. Hence bringing out the big guns quickly. This was undoubtedly in the works for awhile.

It seems though, that they have always managed to shoot themselves in the foot, through one fashion or another, and perhaps, this too, shall backfire on them. Perhaps by public outcry this time..... We can only hope.

I think if Bush gets elected Ashcroft stays. Powell's probably the only one that would leave.

do you realize that the claim of 40 petabytes means that they would need one hundred and sixty thousand two hundred and fifty gigabyte hard drives.

You can do the math your self a petabyte is 10 to the power of 15 bytes.

Now I don't know about you but I don't have that kind of space for extra hard drives.

Who would the Atornay General be if Kerry were elected?

Ralph Nader? Or maybe John Edwards can hold two jobs...
In all seriousness, though, Kerry will want someone who presents a stark contrast to Ashcroft but at the same time is credible in fighting terrorism. My guess is that he will want someone who is also African American or Hispanic, and I'd definitely put my money on Denise Majette, the Georgia Congresswoman who is on her way to losing her Senate race there.

Denise Majette bio:
http://www.house.gov/majette/bio.shtml

I didn't know file sharing was a criminal offense. I thought it was a civil crime

744 more. How much educatin' do ya think we need, folks? Before we really know in our hearts it's not educatin' at all? I don't know about you all, but I'll sleep better tonight just knowing that George, Ashcroft, and the DOJ are spending so much time worrying about bad actors who like to share (shhhh) music.

Even though the article doesn't say which p2p service they "infiltrated", I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say "hubs" = Direct Connect. DC hubs often have such elitist hubs and it's quite open. You can't trade if you can't see the other guy's listing, so this was a cakewalk for the DOJ folks.

The only theft I see from this is the seizure of personal equipment by a group of goverment thugs which are known for having total disregard for personal property. If any of these folks get back their PCs, you can darned well be sure that most will be in pieces.

""P2P does not stand for 'permission to pilfer,"' Ashcroft said."

HAHA... I wonder how long it took them to come up with this one. They probably spent all their wasted time on that one sentence...

from this moment on I will refer to him as john asscrack.

Let's see--Vietnam War had the war on drugs. That worked beautifully, didn't it? The war on terrorism--and I use the term loosely--has the war on P2P. Both times the target is the youth of America. I know a few old farts like to be rebellious, but the main ones who suffer in this kind of campaign are the young. Once again they are attempting to criminalize a really huge chunk of our young people. I may be missing something here, but what is the point of persecuting the future of our country in this way? Do you suppose this is some sort of prelude to bringing back the draft?

...or an 'alternative' to the draft:
"Johnny, since we caught you sharing files, we're gonna have to send you to the penitentiary for a few years... but, since you seem like a nice guy, we'll make you a deal, and not send you to prison if you agree to JOIN THE ARMY"

"Do you suppose this is some sort of prelude to bringing back the draft?"

The return of the draft is likely in the near future.

"P2P does not stand for 'permission to pilfer,"' Ashcroft said.""

Prepare to Pirate!

Seriously folks.. peer to peer. We already know that john boy. What's your point? If that is your sick twisted way of telling us that P2P isn't actually theft as you previously said, then point taken.

US DoJ searches homes of P2P evil doers

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/25/doj_goes_after_filetraders/

i hate dircect connect anyway
its a ggood thing i dont have it installed

Ok, some points to add:

1. No networks were infiltrated. Finding five major hub owners takes no more than half an hour. Just list hubs, arrange by share size, filter only those containing MP3s, pick the top five.

2. There are many more hubs where those game from. This appears to be an attempt to scare hub operators. Expect many of the US-based hubs, espicially those containing music, to shut down or at least go private.

3. This is the first time the RIAA has taken action against the users of a p2p network other than fasttract.

4. This is not the sue 'em all campaign, but something seperate.

5. Hubs and Direct Connect were mentioned, and NeoModus. Definately DC++ network.

6. No charges were pressed yet. This means the RIAA is still unsure if it can make charges work. However, I would expect them to take full legal action in the near future. Not just settleing as in the SeA cases, this time they will try to destroy the hub owners financially, professionally and personally and establish a new precident to strengthen future cases.

7. Formally, the Justice Department took this action. But they wouldn't be that intrested, this is definately an RIAA-instigated event. Still done using taxpayers money, but definately started by the RIAA.

The Department of Injustice and the RIAA share at least two common dispicable attributes: They both crave oppressive control over matters wthin their purview, and they both are tainted by benefits derived directly or indirectly from significant political contributions.

In other words, they can't be expected to serve the interests of citizens. And, no surprise, they don't!

Ashcroft needs to go after the REAL terrorists.

But then he would have to go after himself, too; for the real terrorists are those who opportunistically use pretexts to deprive citizens of their liberties -- constitutional sovereignty and individual freedoms stand in the way of the quest for a new world order (global government).

(BTW, in an earlier post...I mispelled "despicable" by typing "dispicable" instead.)

Hang on - This was DirectConnect? Damn, I'm lucky my HD's too small to carry enough data to be eligible for entry to half of the places there. At least, that's what I was told last time.

Was this against a specific group of rippers/etc, or are they going to join the jihad on p2p as well?

THIS WHOLE CASE IS A SHAM
dude what the fuck does the doj have to do with riaa and mpaa thats abuse of powers and posse comantauntus
(seperation of police and military)
and who the fuck is john ashcroft to fucking violate the constitution unlessthat asshole took a payment from the riaa to getths job done like some dirty ass mob hit to intimidate americans
sounds just like the shady ass tactics the riaa would fucking use
and hell yea ignore those supeas as long as you dont say your that person or sign anything they cant get to you and wait 1 year and they cant do shit
called stature of limitations
so they can kiss my ass
since when is copying stealing
what a shady bitch ass politician to make a profit on our tax dollars and use our money against us with out our permission

" 'Johnny, since we caught you sharing files, we're gonna have to send you to the penitentiary for a few years... but, since you seem like a nice guy, we'll make you a deal, and not send you to prison if you agree to JOIN THE ARMY' "

i may seem like an unpatriotic prick, but

"no sir, ill take 10 years in jail"

not under dubya OR kerry.

"not under dubya OR kerry"

DAMN!
A PRESIDENT SHOULD NEVER BE REFFERED AS "DUBYA"!!!!!!!!!!!

Shame on you USA



P.S. U can refer to bush as dubya. I only think Bush should never have reached the most powerful position in the world. When your IQ is lower than your shoe size, u shouldnt be president mouhahahaaha

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=john+asscroft&btnG=Google+Search

The same money,and effort they use to catch these so called "Theives" should be focus to search for terrorist like um Bin Landen. But I guess Baby Bush is waiting for another terrorist act to happen before he gets really mad. And start another war maybe against lets say um Saudi Arabia. Oh, please its funny how they find ways to track people who they cannot get any financial gain from, but then again if you have funds like Bin and his family you can get away with murder. As long as Baby Bush gets a cut from it.

The same money,and effort they use to catch these so called "Theives" should be focus to search for terrorist like um Bin Landen. But I guess Baby Bush is waiting for another terrorist act to happen before he gets really mad. And start another war maybe against lets say um Saudi Arabia. Oh, please its funny how they find ways to track people who they cannot get any financial gain from, but then again if you have funds like Bin and his family you can get away with murder. As long as Baby Bush gets a cut from it. Now I understand why other countries hate America its not because of the people, its because of the hiprocrits over in D.C.

As I always say, i believe sharing files amounts to fair use, so long as you don't profit from it.

"jail time?" Yeah, like we got plenty of room for innocent people in our jails, and plenty of tax dollars to fund these investigations, arrests, convictions, and prison terms. This guy needs a serious dose of financial reality, and I blame the press for not making this a screaming red flag.

The riaa is financing it remember they gave the F.B.I. all that money. After all it's # 3 on the list of things to do.

Pay attention kiddies, and learn this valuable lesson from your government:

What you are doing with P2P is theft.

What Halliburton does in Iraq with their no-bid government contract is not theft, it's an accounting discrepancy with our government.

Two sets of rules, one for us'n and one for them'n.

5 hubs contained 40 petabytes of data?!? Can it really be considered infringement if they never watched the movies or listened to the music? It sounds like these guys were too busy buying extra harddrives and uploading/downloading data to even have time to enjoy any of it.

I've got no problems with p2p, but these guys went a little too far for this to be just a hobby.

"Undercover FBI agents joined the network by loading two computers with copyrighted material and applying for membership with those machines. Like many other similar groups, the Underground Network required that members be able to provide copyright materials for download by other users instead of simply "leeching" on others."


Can we say entrapment!!

Soon, they will be setting up hubs to lure people in for the kill. Asscroft would sell out his own mother if the oppertunity arose.

They don't use that much money or manpower to look for kidnapped children. Priorities are obviously all messed up here.
Time for a major change in DC!

"A PRESIDENT SHOULD NEVER BE REFFERED AS "DUBYA"!!!!!!!!!!!"

Why not? Politicians are below us.

"U.S. agents have raided the homes of five people who allegedly traded hundreds of thousands of songs, movies and other copyrighted material over the Internet, Attorney General John Ashcroft said on Wednesday."

If each of the songs, movies, and other materials were purchased and these individuals were sharing them like a library, wouldn't that be legal?!?!?!

"Authorities made no arrests. But Ashcroft warned that those who copy music, movies and software over P2P networks without permission could face jail time."

If you made no arrests, then what the hell are you doing?!?!?!?!?! I don't think individuals need permission to share their CDs or DVDs with friends!!!!

And another thing, if they believe this activity was illegal, isn't it illegal for them to participate in an illegal activity to arrest someone for that same activity???? It's like selling drugs to arrest a drug buyer. The seller created the crime, the buyer got lured.

heh,
Thus no arrests.
They got their hands on the equipment.
That's what they wanted.

That stuff won't come back in anything remotely resembling working order.

Mafia Tactics ?
Extortion ????
No way.
Only a paranoid boob would think that

Notice how the mainstream media has
been either completely distorting the facts
surrounding this with half-truths and
innuendo, or at the very least only telling the
pro-industry side of it? They've been doing this
since day 1 when the lawsuits started. And
that's because they are the propaganda arm
of the government and the industry, which has
taken control.

Ashcroft is a shill for the media period just awhile back he was all over Porn for crying out loud the guy has to go, I can't believe I pay to have some high powered political police pundit waste my hard earn taxpaying money to go after a few filesharers I'm mad as hell we have real people on the other side of the world who want to hurt us and all he can do is pander to a few media corporations he's just as worst as a some shill of the media like Orrin Hatch.

Reminds me of the stupid raid at DeerValley high school in Arizona I still want some answers for that.

Yeah, has anyone read about any additional details regarding that? Just wondering...

"And another thing, if they believe this activity was illegal, isn't it illegal for them to participate in an illegal activity to arrest someone for that same activity???? It's like selling drugs to arrest a drug buyer. The seller created the crime, the buyer got lured."

There is nothing illegal about these busts. Do a little googling to read about entrapment. These defendants were clearly predisposed to breaking the law because they were already breaking the law when the feds got involved in their ring. That is not entrapment. Inducing someone to committ a crime who is not predisposed would constitute entrapment, but that was not the case here.

"If each of the songs, movies, and other materials were purchased and these individuals were sharing them like a library, wouldn't that be legal?!?!?!"

No that would not be legal. A library lends materials and you are free to lend your music and movies to your friends. However, you cannot distribute copies per section 106 of Title 17.

Mroop, a poster in another thread described what the hubs were, a connecting point only, they had no content on them. The equipment was confiscated, but no arrests were made. Can the DoJ just confiscate your belongings without charging you with criminal activity??

On the entrapment, I see your point, however, the way I originally looked at it is, if they had to join with a computer with x GB of content, they would be contributing to the activity, and not just monitoring it. Since they already believed some illegal activity was going on, they never needed the hub in the first place.

On the online library. Since a long distance friend may not be living nearby, the only way to lend a CD or DVD is through a digital copy of some sort. Typically, people will use Mp3s (for CDs) because the file size is small compared to 45MB raw data for a ripped song. How long would you have to know someone before they can be defined as a friend, and given any sharing rights that would come with that??

"On the online library. Since a long distance friend may not be living nearby, the only way to lend a CD or DVD is through a digital copy of some sort. Typically, people will use Mp3s (for CDs) because the file size is small compared to 45MB raw data for a ripped song. How long would you have to know someone before they can be defined as a friend, and given any sharing rights that would come with that??"

Unfortunately,
This would appear to fall under distribution, since you would still retain your original copy. The only way it would NOT be distribution ( in my opinion ) is if your friend had an original copy of his own, and you were merely helping him with an MP3 copy, ( two original copies, no true ditribution ).
Snail mail, UPS or FedX would appear to be the only "legal" options.
Of Course, what he does while he has the original you loaned him is he business

I couldn't help but take note of a couple of points



wtf?!

a loose translation ... 'what laws...we don't need no stinking laws!'

of all the problems that I could list now, but don't even need to, why does the doj decide that it needs to commit resources to the pursuit of people engaged in LEGAL activities?!

"Can the DoJ just confiscate your belongings without charging you with criminal activity??"

I don't know. But I guess they could seize items and wait up until the statute of limitations is about to run out before deciding whether or not to charge. Of course you could get a lawyer to try and get your stuff back, but chances are you are not going to do that if you know you broke the law and haven't been charged yet. You are probably going to keep your mouth shut and pray they don't charge you instead of rocking the boat by trying to get your stuff.

"the way I originally looked at it is, if they had to join with a computer with x GB of content, they would be contributing to the activity, and not just monitoring it. Since they already believed some illegal activity was going on, they never needed the hub in the first place."

From what I gather, they needed a hub to gain admittance to the ring.

"How long would you have to know someone before they can be defined as a friend, and given any sharing rights that would come with that??"

Giving someone your original is sharing. Distributing a copy is distributing a copy. And please with this "friends" stuff. These people know each other solely due to the fact that they engage in illegal distribution of copyrighted materials.

"The only way it would NOT be distribution ( in my opinion ) is if your friend had an original copy of his own, and you were merely helping him with an MP3 copy, ( two original copies, no true ditribution )."

You should ignore this opinion. There is no legal distinction between "distribution" and "true distribution". You can help a friend by making a copy of his original for him. But once you make a copy of your original and give it to him then you are engaging in distribution.

"You should ignore this opinion. There is no legal distinction between "distribution" and "true distribution". You can help a friend by making a copy of his original for him. But once you make a copy of your original and give it to him then you are engaging in distribution."

You should never "Ignore" an opinion, just because 1 person with a smooth sell tells you to. Neither should you take that opinion as gospel.
Talk to many. Read a lot.
Any opinion is simply a starting point for reasearch into creating your own opinion.

BTW,
since this "opinion" has never been tested in court ( a characteristic the industry counts on ), one opinion is as good as the next

At least while covering DRM deal, simply
reaching should not be in an order.

What if you gave someone a copy so that he/she could evalute it? Would that be fair use?

"Giving someone your original is sharing. Distributing a copy is distributing a copy. And please with this "friends" stuff. These people know each other solely due to the fact that they engage in illegal distribution of copyrighted materials."

You can look at sharing through many methods:

1. Sharing with friends locally (in physical or digital form).

2. Sharing with (real) friends nationwide (in physical or digital form).

3. Sharing in an online library (where random people contribute to an online library and users could review books, periodicals, or music, in a digital form). I'm only mentioning the digital form because that's the way the internet works as designed. And as such, people are using the technology provided them, as designed.

I don't believe blanket statements can be made regarding what is sharing vs. what is distribution. Typically, the way the internet works, a copy will be made on another users computer. There are mechanisms that would allow a stream to be provided without the digital copy to be made, nor could the digital stream be saved. In this sense a copy would never be created, therefore, that probably wouldn't be considered distribution, would it?? Today, I don't believe any P2P software works this way.

"What if you gave someone a copy so that he/she could evalute it? Would that be fair use?"

It seems to me you would still be violating the copyright holder's exclusive right to distribute copies per 106(3). There are no exceptions that depend on the purpose of the lending - i.e. an evaluation exception.

"I don't believe blanket statements can be made regarding what is sharing vs. what is distribution."

The law recognizes "distribution". When you use the word "sharing" you are simply using a word that has no meaning in the copyright law. Once you give away a copy you are engaging in distribution, regardless of whether you choose to use a different word to define the transaction - i.e. "sharing".

"In this sense a copy would never be created, therefore, that probably wouldn't be considered distribution, would it??"

Copyright law does take streaming into account, that is why amazon.com and other vendors have to pay license fees for the samples they provide that stream to your computer. Streaming radio also has to pay license fees. I believe that issue (amount of payment, etc.) is currently being fought over by webcasters and licensors.

Let me add that if someone is really your "friend" you can burn a copy and hand it to them personally or mail it to them or send it via email and you have no problem. It's been going on as long as their have been home recording devices and no one has ever been sued. So again I say, this "friend" idea is a crock.

I just thought I'd post a third time in tribute to my buddy awehr, the king of multiple consecutive posts. That is all. : )

I don't interpret the law that way (distribution and fair use). But then I went to Jesuit schools and we interpret Catholicism differently.

The CBO report said that making a copy for a friend/family member has not been recognized as fair use. But that doesn't mean it isn't fair use. The courts just haven't decided it yet.

"The courts just haven't decided it yet."

And they never will because no one is ever going to sue an individual for making a copy for a friend or family member. It's only when you go online with a ton of stuff in your share folder or start selling stuff at a flea market that you are going to get sued.

OK,
Lets examine 106 for a moment.

106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

Here is the section Mroop refers to, Verbatim, nothing added or subtracted.
While on the surface it would seem to support mroops assertion, there is no clear definition as what constitutes distribution.
Nothing.
If both parties have purchased copies .......
There is no transfer of ownership. They both own copies.
There is no sale, they both already purchased copies.
There is no rental lease or loan, there are purchased copies already at both locations.
This is it.
This is all it says.
The ONLY way this would be answered is if a case such as this gets past the extortion stage into court.
Now in Carla's case Mroop could be correct, since lending IS covered here at section (3)
However, 107 MAY cover it, while not specifically mentioning it, since there is no commercial gain.