[deepsand]

Simply put, those who have no ownership rights in the materials being duplicated have no standing in the matter.

[Boomshadow]

If only you had typed that very sentence around, say, June 21, I would be a much happier carbon-based lifeform.



Oh, and I respectfully disagree, and you can't change my mind. See, since the RIAA labels often do technically own anywhere from first North American serial rights to full and complete intellectual property rights for their artists' works, you're suggesting that one of the groups of people whom we must ask if the RIAA has gone too far is...um...the RIAA.



I'm going way out on a limb here, but I'm going to guess they'd say "No."

[deepsand]

Very well, let's play "what if."



What if there were no recording industry rights, such that any and all rights accrued solely to the artists? Who here believes that they would allow that any and all should be allowed to freely duplicate their works?

[Boomshadow]

That has nothing to do with my reply, and you know it. The whole idea should be to protect content creators, content owners, and the audience equally. If you don't believe that, then we're just never going to agree on anything. The idea of copyright owners uber alles is an idea whose time should never have come.



Good day, sir.

[deepsand]

Nice job of evading the question.



Audience? By what stretch of the imagination should the audience be granted any rights to a creator's work?



If I create it, it's mine to do with as I please, including destroying it, if I so choose. You perceive such by my grace, and no more.

[quackadilly]

"Additionally, you might study the entire history of this case, rather than relying on the greatly truncated and deliberately biased version here presented by PC World. "



The link I provided was from cnet......

[backbuster]

To address the question in the title has the RIAA gone to far, my answer Absolutely. This is just the last of a long list of Questionable tactics. The RIAA in the past has sued a 12 year old, they sued a 19 year old for allegedly downloading 10 songs, they have sued dead people, and families without a computer. The RIAA also has sent out letters to internet users accusing them of sharing files and then directing them to a website where they could make a discounted settlement by credit card. The tactics of the RIAA are definitely questionable; they may be legal but are morally wrong. Everyone needs to push to have copyright laws changed so that the RIAA can be stopped.

[Boomshadow]

You have the gall, after spending the long-winded drafts of text above evading the very question this discussion asks, to the point of my even offering to reframe the question to get you to either hush or say something useful, to ping me for evasion?

Very well: There are quite a few artist-owners who do allow unfettered duplication of their work:

Trent Reznor

The artists of the Funny Music Project (TheFuMP.com)

Jonathan Coulton

Janis Ian



And I said good day, sir.

[quackadilly]

"Simply put, those who have no ownership rights in the materials being duplicated have no standing in the matter."



Sure......but is RIAA exercising excessive punishment?

[Boomshadow]

Additionally, the courts, who do not own the products in question, have quite a lot of standing in the matter. The rest of us are stuck with that pesky free speech thing, which does accord us the right to express our opinions, whether we created, own, or merely consume. I've done a little of all three, and the creator in me is a big fan of the audience in me, and insists on equal protection for him under the law.



The owner in me is a little bit of a "Type A," but the other two keep him in line.

[quackadilly]

If I understood that correctly I think I agree.



Yes, the courts and RIAA have way too much weight in these matters. If artists don't want their songs to be acquired", they need to fight for it.



Interesting story:

While in my 1st semester in college in Golden, CO, my roommate downloaded an unreleased song from Incubus.....he promptly had his IP address banned from using the network and was asked to remove it from his computer. This was not RIAA's doing. I believe it was actually Incubus that had talked to school IT members and gotten them to keep a lookout for illegal downloads of their songs.



All they have to do is ask (and make quality music worth buying), you don't need to slap a 2 million dollar fine on someone that makes minimal wages a year.....

Personally, I think they should fine people something more like $10 per song, even $100......you can download them legally for $1......

[Boomshadow]

I agree, although my point was more that the courts are required to arbitrate and therefore should have some standing in the matter--but overall, yes, the original artist hasn't been getting a fair shake in a long time.

[drklassen]

"Audience? By what stretch of the imagination should the audience be granted any rights to a creator's work?"

The fact you don't understand this shows your ignorance about a) the creative process, and b) the original intent of copyright.



"If I create it, it's
mine to do with as I please, including destroying it, if I so choose.
You perceive such by my grace, and no more."

But you have no such control over copies you already sold; the owners of those copies get to do whatever they want with them short of distributing unauthorized copies or creating deriviative works from them. All of this was supposed to be for only a limited time (14 years originally, if I recall correctly) after which time, there are to be no more exclusive rights to the work.

[deepsand]

Exceptions that prove the rule?



And, no answer re. duplicators paying the artists? Now, why am I not surprised?

[deepsand]

How, then, to explain your mis-characterization of the case as being about a few songs only?

[deepsand]

What you chose to do with that which is yours is irrelevant.



The question is, by what right do you presume to tell others what they can and cannot do with that which is their's?

[deepsand]

"the owners of those copies get to do whatever they want with them short of distributing unauthorized copies"



Which is precisely what the defendent here was engaged in!



Thank you for making my point.

[drklassen]

The jury was eventually convinced that the mere act of putting a file on a network folder was the same as "distributing unauthorized copies" despite the fact that there was absolutely NO evidence against her to show that unauthorized copies of those files were EVER made. Her copies on that folder are covered under Fair Use, just as if I rip my CD's and put them on my mahcine and/or my laptop and/or anthing else I own. The test was, is leaving them on a publicly available sever fair use, or distribution.



That the jury thinks this is distribution is a very scary prospect. It could imply that anytime someone borrows a CD from anyone (library?) and makes unauthroized copies from that borrowed copy, the owner of the original copy is now liable for "distribution".

[deepsand]

This matter has already been more than adequately here addressed, and your point logically rebutted; to repeat :

Physical content, such as that contained in a book, or on a CD, can be read or listened to without the making of a copy. Therefore, the lender is not* aiding and abetting the making of unlawful copies.

Logical content stored on a publicly accessible media can only be used by making a copy of such. The defendant made her files publicly accessible via Kazaa; doing so does* constitutes said aiding and abetting.

[quackadilly]

Maybe because cnet said it was only for 24 songs.....same as EVERY other article I've seen.