quote:

---

Then Gabriel asked Pariser if it was okay if a consumer makes just one copy of a track they've legally purchased. She said no -- that's "a nice way of saying, 'steals just one copy.'"

Given that five people in the jury box own iPods or MP3 players, Pariser's statement has the ring of a strategic error -- indicting, as it does, anyone who made a mix tape in the 80s, or who loaded up their iPod from their CD collection. But it had no visible impact on the jury.

---

Of course, I don't take books or magazines from stores without paying for them, just as I don't take music CDs from stores without paying for them.

[ 03 October 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I take electronic newspapers and magazines all the time without paying for them. I even distribute them!

---

I do, too. Those sites are made available to the public without charge by the owners of the content (I think this is akin to a musician who posts her music on the web for public access without charge). The only way the vast majority of those sites survive is through online advertising (or, like rabble.ca, through advertising and voluntary contributions). Without some form of funding, very few of those sites would exist and the only remaining sites would be those where someone is willing to write and post information gratis.

the model the industry is fighting to preserve by prosecuting people who download music is dead. read the above press release. there was a line in the link above where the rep had to explain "touring" as in a band actually goes out and plays music in live venues for real people paying real money. hmmm. sounds like what performers are supposed to do, perform.

the brilliant thing about the Radiohead scheme, and i'm not even a fan, is that they don't have a label deal right now. the album is free to download, yet they are releasing a deluxe box set of the cd and double vinyl with a book and who knows what else. this will sell like hotcakes. their tour will sell out, not because it's radiohead, but because fans support bands and performers that are cool. and this project is cool without a doubt.

Trent Reznor did the same thing a few months ago with the new Nine Inch Nails album, slowly releasing each song online for free. but when the album was released on cd, the package was amazing. once again, i'm not even a fan but i would have bought it in a second if i was. people lined up for it in toronto.

my point is the ARA and CRIA are barking up the wrong IP address. they are yesterday's news. as soon as they shut down a particular way of filesharing, another will be created. give up.

Musicians deserve to get paid. they also should tour and actually perform to make money. if the traditional "album" release is a dead economic concept, don't use it any more. funny how the free marketers hate it when their idea gets trumped by the very principles of the free market and they turn to the State they abhor to intervene to guarantee thier cash cow.

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:
Musicians deserve to get paid. they also should tour and actually perform to make money. if the traditional "album" release is a dead economic concept, don't use it any more. funny how the free marketers hate it when their idea gets trumped by the very principles of the free market and they turn to the State they abhor to intervene to guarantee thier cash cow.

---

Making copies of music you've paid for? Not illegal, you own that copy and are entitled to make a backup should you want to as long as you're not giving it out.

But this radiohead announcement is HUGE. Prince has already done something similar as well, and as the big guys start to make internet traction, the small guys are going to start doing this as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:
But this radiohead announcement is HUGE. Prince has already done something similar as well, and as the big guys start to make internet traction, the small guys are going to start doing this as well.

I'm certainly not going to be shedding a tear if the big music companies close up shop and stop shoving shit music like Nickleback and Briyanna down our throats.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Yes, free economic choice is wonderful!!

---

a great example is the Greatful Dead. for over 30 years, with the exeption of one album in the early 80's i think, they had their own label, production, distribution, management, you name it, they did it all in house.

AND THEY ENCOURAGED AND FACILITATED PEOPLE TAPING AND TRADING THIER MUSIC FOR FREE. as a result, they "retired" when Garcia died in 1995 as the highest grossing touring band in North America, and refused to use Ticketmaster and the like for the whole time. (yes, locally sometimes you had to go through ticketmaster, but you could always book your tickets directly through the Dead).

Why did this work? because people liked their music and went to see them live. they made thier money on their live spectacle and merchandise sold at the concerts, almost exclusively. and they made money hand over fist. Even now, they are excluded from most retrospectives of the various musical 'eras' because they gave the finger to the music industry, so the industry tried to pretend they don't exist. well, look who's not having any fun now. the industry. why? they are greedy, and artist testimonials ad nauseum explain why.

fuck of RIAA and CRIA. your days are numbered.

edited for acronym accuracy.

[ 03 October 2007: Message edited by: farnival ]

Downloading legal in Canada

quote:

---

Downloading copyrighted music from peer-to-peer networks is legal in Canada, although uploading files is not, Canadian copyright regulators said in a ruling released Friday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
This is an American story. It may be the first case in Amerika but certainly not internationally and not in Canada. in Canada we already had this case years ago and the industry mostly lost.

Downloading legal in Canada

---

The decision was made by the Copyright Board of Canada, which is neither a lawmaking body nor a court. So it is not definitive. But it's the kind of a thing that a court would take very seriously when interpreting the Copyright Act.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It's worth checking the Copyright Act, in particular Part VIII, Section 80:

80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

The question is whether a computer hard drive is an "audio recording medium": this is defined in the Copyright Act as, "a recording medium, regardless of its material form, onto which a sound recording may be reproduced and that is of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose, excluding any prescribed kind of recording medium." (emphasis added) The question, then, is whether a computer hard drive is a recording medium "of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers" for the purpose of reproducing sound recordings.

No court has ruled on this question; indeed, the Copyright Board has not even ruled on this question. At the date of the cited article (2003), "Computer hard drives [had] never been reviewed under that provision" (i.e. Section 80).

I do remember one weird decision: an audio tape of longer than 45 minutes was deemed by the Copyright Board to be an "audio recording medium" under the given definition; a shorter audio tape was not. So, technically, you are breaking the law if you download a song and transfer it to a 25 minute audio tape, but not if you transfer it to a 46 minute audio tape. You are also breaking the law if you transfer a song to a DVD.

quote:

---

Originally posted by torontoprofessor:
The decision was made by the Copyright Board of Canada, which is neither a lawmaking body nor a court. So it is not definitive. But it's the kind of a thing that a court would take very seriously when interpreting the Copyright Act.

---

torontoprofessor, please take a look here.

I'm not as adept at researching the law in Canada as I am in the US. So, I had a devil of a time trying to find out of the CRIA ended up appealing that trial court's decision...I still don't know. I get the sense that they didn't appeal (or, if they appealed, that they lost) because their website does not unequivocally state downloading (or uploading) music files is prohibited.

[SIDEBAR]

I really wish that news reports would link to the actual written opinions of the courts. I hate having court (or administrative) opinions "explained" to me by a journalist when I'm perfectly capable of reading the actual opinions myself (sure, explain the opinion but give readers a link to the actual opinion so that, if they want, they can read it themselves). Finding Canadian opinions, however, seems a little tricky...and I haven't yet figured out how to do that outside of a for-fee service.

[/SIDEBAR]

[ 03 October 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
torontoprofessor, please take a look here.

---

I remember that case, but didn't know that the motions judge explicitly found that downloading was legal (the main thing I remember were his remarks about allowing others to download from you). The important thing is that the main question was not whether downloading or uploading is illegal, but whether the CRIA could compel ISP's to disclose the identity of various users, based on I.P. addresses.This is the judge's written decision.

The case was appealed. This is the decision in the appeal.

Though the appeals judge agreed with the motions judge's decision regarding whether the CRIA could compel ISP's to disclose various customers' identities, the appeals judge harshly criticized the motions judge's reasoning and findings concerning two aspects of Copyright Law: (1) downloading, and (2) uploading (or, more precisely, allowing others to download from a shared folder on your computer).

Regarding (1), we read,
"[46] As has been mentioned, the Motions Judge made a number of statements relating to what would or would not constitute infringement of copyright. (See para. 15(f)). Presumably he reached these conclusions because he felt that the plaintiff, in order to succeed in learning the identity of the users, must show a prima facie case of infringement.
[47] In my view, conclusions such as these should not have been made in the very preliminary stages of this action. They would require a consideration of the evidence as well as the law applicable to such evidence after it has been properly adduced. Such hard conclusions at a preliminary stage can be damaging to the parties if a trial takes place and should be avoided.
[48] The danger in reaching such conclusions at the preliminary stages of an action without the availability of evidence nor consideration of all applicable legal principles are obvious and I will give some examples."

The appeals judge goes on to explain what was wrong with the original judge's reasoning on this question.

The appeals judge also questions the motions judge's findings about uploading. After some criticism, the appeals judge states, "I
make no such findings here and wish to make it clear that if this case proceeds further, it should be done on the basis that no findings to date on the issue of infringement have been made."

So, I conclude that the question of the legality of downloading and uploading is still up in the air.

[ 05 October 2007: Message edited by: torontoprofessor ]

I am not really sure, though, why this activity is any different from taping a tv show or music which is being played on the radio.

In other words, it seems that it is making the downloading available to innumerable others which is the really new element here.

Technically, it ought to be possible to create a firewall so that what goes to your computer, stays there.

quote:

---

"DULUTH, Minnesota -- Jammie Thomas, a single mother of two, was found liable Thursday for copyright infringement in the nation's first file-sharing case to go before a jury.

Twelve jurors here said the Minnesota woman must pay $9,250 for each of 24 shared songs that were the subject of the lawsuit, amounting to $222,000 in penalties.

They could have dinged her for up to $3.6 million in damages, or awarded as little as $18,000. She was found liable for infringing songs from bands such as Journey, Green Day, AFI, Aerosmith and others."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
And here is a question: if I buy music on the internet, does it automatically go into a file which can be accessed by others for purposes of uploading? Or does one have to take special steps to make it available?

---

I think you have to do something proactive to make it available to others.

In the American case, the defendant made a decision to challenge the RIAA (and incur, as her attorney estimated, about $60,000 in attorney's fees) rather than pay a couple of thousand dollars and agree to not engage in any file sharing in the future. Now, unless she appeals (and wins the appeal), she's also saddled with an obligation to pay $220,000 in damages.

quote:

---

And here is a question: if I buy music on the internet, does it automatically go into a file which can be accessed by others for purposes of uploading? Or does one have to take special steps to make it available?

---

You'd have to use a file sharing program that allows people to download from you.

I know a lot of musicians, most of them independent or signed to independent labels and the vast majority of them have no issue with people sharing their songs. It gives them exposure and the fact is that people who listen to non-mainstream music are far more likely to buy the album because they enjoy the art and the entire package. Banning file sharing would kill many small bands who rely on file sharing for exposure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
I know a lot of musicians, most of them independent or signed to independent labels and the vast majority of them have no issue with people sharing their songs. It gives them exposure and the fact is that people who listen to non-mainstream music are far more likely to buy the album because they enjoy the art and the entire package. Banning file sharing would kill many small bands who rely on file sharing for exposure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
I am not really sure, though, why this activity is any different from taping a tv show or music which is being played on the radio.

---

Taping a television show, even for private use, is a violation of the Copyright Act. Given the Copyright Act's explicit exception for music, taping music being played on the radio is typically legal (depending on the exact medium you are storing your copy on) if it is for private use. Taping a non-musical radio show is, however, a violation of the Copyright Act.

quote:

---

In other words, it seems that it is making the downloading available to innumerable others which is the really new element here.

Technically, it ought to be possible to create a firewall so that what goes to your computer, stays there.

---

Yes, it is possible. File-sharing software like Limewire works on the principle that users have a special folder set aside, which they allow other users to access. If I remember correctly, when you install Limewire, the default is to install such a folder, make it publically accessible, and then to put all your downloaded songs into that folder. You can always move your songs out of that folder if you don't want anyone copying from you.

quote:

---

And here is a question: if I buy music on the internet, does it automatically go into a file which can be accessed by others for purposes of uploading? Or does one have to take special steps to make it available?

---

If you buy music from iTunes, then the answer is certainly not. The last thing that iTunes wants is to stick your music into a publicly accessible folder. If you download music with Limewire, and if you installed Limewire with default settings, then Limewire sticks your downloads into a publicly accessible folder. Of course you "took steps" to make the music available to others by installing Limewire in the first place. I am not certain whether others can download from you if you have Limewire installed, but are not running it. Certainly, if you are not online, then nobody can copy your files.

[ 05 October 2007: Message edited by: torontoprofessor ]