response 113 of 219:

Mar 12 21:51 UTC 2002

Definitely price fixing. I make no claims, and never have, that the RIAA and
its associates are moral.

response 117 of 219:

Mar 14 00:40 UTC 2002

Re #110:  But huge numbers of people are NOT shoplifting.  They
are using the Internet as a labor-saving device, a radio station,
or a sampling service.  When Napster was a going concern, people
bought MORE music.  Now that they cannot find new things or
sample ones they've heard about to see if they like them (or at
least not with the former ease), they are buying less.  People
downloading music they already own are just substituting connect
time for their own time.

Greene's speech at the Grammys specifically addressed Apple's "Rip,
Mix, Burn" ads as "promoting piracy".  That's WRONG.  Burning your
own mix CDs is FAIR USE.  You have EVERY RIGHT to make mix CDs,
backups of CDs, and other copies of music you own for your own use,
just like cassette tapes.  The language used by the RIAA is over
the top, contemptible, and deserves nothing but scorn.

And I'm astonished to see you buying their party line, Paul.

response 119 of 219:

Mar 14 05:27 UTC 2002

#117> I see. Anyone who feels that illegally downloading music is, well,
illegal is "buying the party line." Your arguments in paragraph one sound like
someone, say, trying one candy out of every bin at the candy shop before
buying any, and then acting surprised when the candy store owner accuses them
of shoplifting.
 
I won't repeat my entire stance, because I have in the past in such detail
that if you're still not clear on what it is, it's because you're being obtuse
and attributing to me a perspective which I do not hold.

response 123 of 219:

Mar 14 14:30 UTC 2002

#121, 122> Twila's mashing a bunch of concepts together:
1. Making copies of music recorded from the radio
2. Making copies of music illegally available on the Internet
3. Making copies of music you have purchased, for your own use
4. Making copies of music obtained through 1-3 for distribution to friends
 
(No, Jack didn't mention all of those cases, but they're all part of the
dialog.)
 
4 is illegal. I have a copy of The Fixx's "Shuttered Room" which has a
cassette-and-cross-bones in the corner of the back, and the words "Home taping
is killing music" (or something to that effect). It's not the only album I
have with that logo, but it's the first time I saw it. 1982. WAY before CDs.
So much for Twila's claim that nobody made an issue of (4).
 
As for nobody condoning (4), Twila, read through all the archives of the
Napster items. You'll find there are PLENTY of people condoning illegally
copying music.
 
(1) is ok for your own use, IMHO. It's publicly transmitted. Indeed, HBO used
to promote the concept of taping movies off of HBO for your own library. The
Internet equivalent is copying any file that's legally available on the
Internet, for your own usage.
 
(2) is not ok.
 
(3) is obviously ok.

response 125 of 219:

Mar 14 15:05 UTC 2002

        And the RIAA, and it's constituents, have been taking action over the
last few years to prevent you from doing (3), which they don't like at all,
even though it's perfectly legal.  In fact they seem to be quite happy with
the solution even if it means you can't play it on a computer at all, or
certain CD and DVD players.

response 127 of 219:

Mar 14 16:03 UTC 2002

        While it does work out that way (napster has not had a negative effect
on the RIAA's profits, nor have any of the napster clones), it's like asking
why you can't steal records from a record store to see if they're an artist
you might like to buy copies of.

response 129 of 219:

Mar 14 16:32 UTC 2002

#126, #124> *WHY* should it be legal for you to make copies for your friends?
Do you also think it should be legal to photocopy your favorite short stories
and gave them as chapbooks to your friends?
 
Mick could hear the song in question the same way he could read a short story
that you're fond of -- you could loan him the CD, just as you could loan him
the book.
 
There *IS* a legal option. Artists who agree with your reasoning can release
their work into the public domain, or they can make it available online with
conditions specified, or they can put notes on their CDs permitting you to
make copies for not-for-profit purposes, or whatever. Almost all artists are
aware of this option, very few artists take advantage of it.
 
#128> No, they want to halt theft. I don't blame them, with all the people
justifying their theft with commentary.
 
Once again: I am not condemning anyone for violating copyright law and illegal
copying music. I've done it myself, I'll probably do it again. I'm condemning
people for acting as if they're completely in the clear, and that it's the
RIAA that's all evil 'n' stuff. It's wrong. So is swiping a grape when you've
got the munchies in the grocery store. So is doing 74 in a 70 zone. Life goes
on.

response 133 of 219:

Mar 14 17:37 UTC 2002

#130> By all means, post the relevant portion of intellectual property law
that indicates that copying must be for profit, or for strangers, for it to
be illegal.
 
#132> Then make illegal copies, and say it doesn't matter to you that it's
illegal. Don't pretend it's legal, though. That's all I'm saying. (Truth is,
it doesn't matter that much to RIAA when people are doing it just for their
friends and acquiantances... they know it goes on, it annoys them, but it
would be worth more trouble and be more of a PR nightmare to try seriously
to stop it than it's worth.)

response 135 of 219:

Mar 14 17:51 UTC 2002

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html
Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title
has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: 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;
 
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords
or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for
classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html)
 
The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under
clause (1) of section 106 is limited to the right to duplicate the sound
recording in the form of phonorecords or copies that directly or indirectly
recapture the actual sounds fixed in the recording.
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/114.html)
 
So, Ken, do point me to where in the law it says, "... except for friends and
family." Maybe Twila would argue that it falls under "comment" as "fair use,"
but remember that fair use does not allow reproduction of an *entire* work,
only a portion:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair
use the factors to be considered shall include the amount and substantiality
of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html)
 
[Code edited for ease of reading, but not altered. Original code available
at the links provided.]

response 137 of 219:

Mar 14 17:56 UTC 2002

Sorry, but if you have decided to ignore the existance of the 
Audio Home Recording Act there is no point in continuing a discussion.