RIAA lawsuits against 745 students
 

http://www.dailyfreepress.com/media/...html&mkey=3295

Quote:

Quote Z... If I were a lawyer, I'd question the validity of the RIAA's method of trying to nail students to "illegal" downloading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Why? I think it's been to court already and the RIAA has the right..

Seems to me that the people who *upload* this stuff are more at fault than those who download it. Downloading is a bit like picking up something you find on the ground. Except when you pick it up, it's still there!

I think you are missing a salient point, Zen---

Going to a bookstore and browsing books/CD's/Tapes/whatever is one thing... you are "sampling" to determine whether or not to "buy"... right? If you decide NOT to buy, the "seller" is restored to his original condition-- he has his merchandise. Should you decide to buy, you trade money for that same merchandise, and it's yours.

D/L'ing those very same CD's/books/etc. from the internet renders them into YOUR POSSESSION, and you have, essentially, "right, title, and interest" [although the legitimacy of such R/T/I is the crux of the issue here] with no payment on your part.

See the difference? :question

I also have issues with your "only the poor students should be allowed to steal" attitude.

Isn't that a bit back to front, Sin? If I copy someone's CD, the owner still has their own copy. It's people who steal from shops that leave the owner bereft.

This seems to me to be the heart of the problem - the CD, DVD, etc. business was set up on the assumption that they would be trading in tangible pieces of stuff. Now the world has changed, they're trading collections of 1 and 0s, and the industry (and the law) is struggling to cope.

Federal

U.S. Copyright Law

The Federal Anti-Bootleg Statute
• Contributory infringement
• Vicarious liability

Fair Use Doctrine

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

U.S. Copyright Law {Title 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq., Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2319} Federal law protects copyright owners from the unauthorized reproduction, adaptation, performance, display or distribution of copyright protected works.

Penalties for copyright infringement differ in civil and criminal cases. Civil remedies are generally available for any act of infringement without regard to the intention or knowledge of the defendant, or harm to the copyright owner. Criminal penalties are available for intentional acts undertaken for purposes of "commercial advantage" or "private financial gain." "Private financial gain" includes the possibility of financial loss to the copyright holder as well as traditional "gain" by the defendant.

Where the infringing activity is for commercial advantage or private financial gain, sound recording infringements can be punishable by up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Repeat offenders can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. Violators can also be held civilly liable for actual damages, lost profits, or statutory damages up to $150,000 per work.

Quote:

Question for Sin: what I've seen online is just one song off an album, Google is doing only the first chapter for each book.

Isn't that the same thing as sampling?

If you like the song, you'll buy the album. If you like the first chapter of the book, you'll buy the book.

As I can tell you, I've never downloaded music from online sources (my fiance and my sister have) so I'm not sure if you could download ENTIRE CDs on Kazaa. They only downloaded certain songs they heard were good, and my sister, in fact, went out and bought a CD of an artist after she listened to a downloaded song of his album.

My only valid point has to do with Barnes and Noble, I do read only the first chapter of a book I've heard about, and if I don't like it, I don't buy it. Google is doing pretty much the same thing I'm doing in the bookstores. "Sampling" a book before I buy it.

Sorry to but in here but here is my uninvited opinion about downloading copyrighted material.

It is wrong and it is theft.

Someone or some company invested a lot of effort to create the song, software, movie, or picture to make a living/profit for their effort.

If you download and keep their works, you are stealing.

MY 2 cents....

Quote:

DB, hey butt in all you like. I think your point is valid. My response is this: it may be a theft of some kind. But it's not the same kind of theft as when I take your car and you don't have it any more. Whether you have lost money if I copy your CD/whatever rather depends on whether I would have bought it if copying were not an option. If I wouldn't, you haven't lost a thing.

Sin, I am doubtful that the law as it stands is really satisfactory. Nowadays we're heading into stuff like making it illegal for people to back up their own media for their personal security. That's just foolish, IMO. If I pay a lot of money for some software, I want to be able to lay my hand on another copy if the first CD set gets scratched. I do *not* want to have to write to the company explaining what happened, and wait for them to send me another set.

Quote:

Quote Z... So, if I decide to buy my CD used at a music store, I'm paying the music store for the used CD, not the artists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Z you need to just drop this & move on. You're not smart enough to carry on with this conversation.. There are so many problems with your above post but I only have one question.. Would pay a dollar for a blank CD?

why are u so nasty? shes only askin a question.

MJ

Quote:

MJ I like Z and I just hate it when she post something like this.. "I go to a music store and buy a used CD but I didn't buy the artists." Using elementary thinking one would know you're buying the work of the artists because of the artists and not because you just want the CD because it's a CD. If you go to the store & buy a bottle of water because you need a drink. Would you buy a bottle because of the bottle or because the bottle had water in it?

There are other things in Z's above post that could be addressed but I will let others do that...

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote: