response 114 of 206:

Sep 15 23:04 UTC 2000

Re #112: I'm curious about that, too.  The royalties are interesting because
they basically are saying, "we're assuming you'll pirate music using this
stuff, so we're going to make you pay us now."

The RIAA's position, then, is basically that audio burned on a CD-R data
blank is an act of piracy you can be sued over, even if the same audio would
be legal if you put it on a DAT tape.  Well, not 'legal', maybe, but you're
immune from suit.  This also means there is *no* legal way to listen to
copyrighted music on devices like the MP3Trip MP3 Discman; even if you own
the CD, the act of MP3'ing the songs on it and putting them on a CD-R is
illegal.  This is utterly bizarre law.

response 116 of 206:

Sep 16 05:30 UTC 2000

Re #96:  So, in this "theft", what was taken?

Look at the Constitution, Paul.  Copyright is a legal fiction which
is supposed to exist for the public good, as an incentive for authors
and publishers to reveal their creations to the public.  They are
allowed to exercise a limited monopoly over copying for the term of
the copyright, after which the work goes into the public domain and
may be copied and used freely by the public.

There are limits on copyright even during its term.  Fair use is a
label describing one set of limits.  If you copy a work or part of
a work, if that copying is done under fair use the copyright owner
has no grounds for action against you.  There are many non-infringing
uses for copies.

Distribution to strangers using Napster is probably an infringing use.
Regardless, it is not theft, as nothing is stolen.  Stealing a book
on which the copyright is expired is theft.  Copying a CD which is
under copyright is copyright violation.  Two very different things.

Given the way that copyright law has been twisted to forsake the public
good for the monied interests, I'd say that Napster isn't a bad thing
at all.  And I say this without having used or benefitted from it.

response 118 of 206:

Sep 16 11:38 UTC 2000

I like getting royalties everytime someone plays my songs in Europe.

response 120 of 206:

Sep 16 20:31 UTC 2000

  Napster Copyright Policy

  Napster is an integrated browser and
  communications system provided by Napster, Inc.,
  to enable musicians and music fans to locate
  bands and music available in the MP3 music
  format. The MP3 files that you locate using
  Napster are not stored on Napster's servers.
  Napster does not, and cannot, control what
  content is available to you using the Napster
  browser. Napster users decide what content to
  make available to others using the Napster
  browser, and what content to download. Users are
  responsible for complying with all applicable
  federal and state laws applicable to such
  content, including copyright laws.

  Napster respects copyright law and expects our
  users to do the same. Unauthorized copying,
  distribution, modification, public display, or
  public performance of copyrighted works is an
  infringement of the copyright holders' rights.
  You should be aware that some MP3 files may have
  been created or distributed without copyright
  owner authorization. As a condition to your
  account with Napster, you agree that you will not
  use the Napster service to infringe the
  intellectual property rights of others in any
  way. Napster will terminate the accounts of users
  who are repeat infringers of the copyrights, or
  other intellectual property rights, of others. In
  addition, Napster reserves the right to terminate
  the account of a user and to block use of the
  Napster service permanently upon any single
  infringement of the rights of others in
  conjunction with use of the Napster service, or
  if Napster believes that user conduct is harmful
  to the interests of Napster, its affiliates, or
  other users, or for any other reason in Napster's
  sole discretion, with or without cause.

  In accordance with the Digital Millennium
  Copyright Act of 1998 (the text of which may be
  found on the U.S. Copyright Office web site at
  http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/), Napster will
  respond expeditiously to claims of copyright
  infringement committed using the Napster service
  that are reported to Napster's "Designated
  Copyright Agent" identified below. If you are a
  copyright owner, or authorized to act on behalf
  of an owner of the copyright or of any exclusive
  right under the copyright, please report your
  notice of infringement by completing the
  following notice form and delivering it to the
  Designated Copyright Agent:

  NOTICE OF ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT

    1. Identity of the copyrighted work that you
       claim has been infringed, or, if multiple
       copyrighted works are covered by this
       Notice, a representative list of the
       copyrighted works that you claim have been
       infringed using the Napster service:

    2. Identification of the material that you
       claim is infringing (including at a minimum
       the user name under which such material is
       available through the Napster service, and
       the path and file name):

    3. Your street or mailing address, telephone
       number, and, if available, email address:

    4. I hereby state that I have a good faith
       belief that the disputed use of the
       copyrighted material is not authorized by
       the copyright owner, its agent, or the law
       (e.g. fair use).

    5. I hereby state that the above information in
       this Notice is accurate and, under penalty
       of perjury, that I am the copyright owner,
       or authorized to act on behalf of the owner
       of the copyright or of any exclusive right
       under the copyright.

    6. Electronic or physical signature of the
       copyright owner or of a person authorized to
       act on behalf of the owner of the copyright
       or of any exclusive right under the
       copyright:

  Full legal
  name:__________________________________

  Napster user
  name:__________________________________

  All claims of copyright infringement should be
  delivered to the following "Designated Copyright
  Agent" of Napster:

  Jonathan P. Earp
  Napster, Inc.
  1475 Veterans Boulevard
  Redwood City, CA 94063

  Voice: 650-482-9300 x8790
  Fax: 650-482-9301
  notice@napster.com

http://www.napster.com/terms/

response 122 of 206:

Sep 17 04:18 UTC 2000

Not true. Infringement still takes place if the copyright holder distributes
their work for free but does not release that work into the public domain.
Unless the work has been released, it's illegal to copy work regardless of
the compensation or lack thereof (except as it falls under "fair use").

response 124 of 206:

Sep 17 13:51 UTC 2000

Depends on MP3's release policy. It could be.

There are reasons why somebody would be willing to give something away for
free, but still insist that they be the only ones to distribute it. For one
thing, there may be elements of it that are necessary for the whole, that may
not be effectively communicated in copies. That's hard to see in the case of
music, but a short story may have been written with a specific font, links,
or page breaks that may be lost when passed along; or, more importantly, the
copier may decide to drop off the name of the author, either deliberately or
through oversight.

Also, companies may give something away as a promotion, taking the loss in
order to track interest in that product. A record label may be letting MP3
distribute so that the label can see who's interested in the music. The loss
in revenue is made up for a gain in market research. That benefit is lost if
people send copies to friends rather than having friends go to MP3 to
download.

I'm sure there are other reasons, too.

response 126 of 206:

Sep 19 03:06 UTC 2000

The second half of #124 makes sense to me, but not the first. I was
hypothesizing about making an exact copy of the original downloaded file, so
any elements necessary for the whole in the original would also be present
in the copy.

I'm not sure about the "loss of control" argument of #125 either, but I'll
refrain from commenting on that until I've thought about it a bit more.

response 128 of 206:

Sep 19 21:00 UTC 2000

You should have included abortion (in the first two trimesters, etc) in
your original list of killing that is not "murder". Your subsequent
qualification of that is probably correct.

response 130 of 206:

Sep 21 14:27 UTC 2000

        I'd thought that the chief purpose of Napster was to exchange MP3
format music.  Now MP3 format music doesn't have to be illegally acquired.
A number of artists legally give out their music for free.  And Napster was
more than willing to work with the RIAA on creating an encrypted standard to
ensure that people wouldn't steal copyrighted works.

response 132 of 206:

Sep 21 19:10 UTC 2000

So if I stole something and gave it away, the person I gave it to would be
a thief, Paul? No. They recieved stolen goods, yes, but unknowingly. Thus
may be the case with Napster, as well. In many cases, an artist may have given
the music away, in order to gain publicity or for whatever other reason...
In others, it has been recorded illegally. Should I have to check every single
song that I download to be sure it's okay? How would I do this? Is it my
responsibility to assume the worst with every gift I'm given (if I don't see
a receipt, you stole it, therefore this is stolen merchandise...) or every
song I might download? Now, I happen not to use Napster, and most of the songs
I have downloaded have been from legally and morally fine sources, which I
can verify as having the artists' imprimateur. How-so-ever, what about the
ones which I can't verify? Should I assume that they're pirates? Or what?
Seems a little cynical to me. 

response 138 of 206:

Sep 21 23:14 UTC 2000

Let me rephrase my point from 129. I spoke incorrectly.

When you take something that you know does not belong to you, your reason for
taking it is moot to the debate as to whether or not you've committed a theft.
It will probably be relevant to the legal system's decision about how, and
how much, to punish you. Likewise, if you return the object after you're done
using it, that will probably also be taken into account.

That doesn't change the fact that taking a rowboat which does not belong to
you is theft, both legally and morally.

In the vernacular, "theft" is not defined in terms of the intent that the
individual had when taking or copying an item; theft is defined solely in
terms of perceived rights to ownership and use ("perceived" only to the extent
that if I have no reason to believe that the person who's offering something
for exchange, sale, or gift doesn't have the legal right to do so, I'm not
party to the crime involved). The primarylegal distinction between theft and
infringement is whether a tangible object is being illegally obtained (thus
depriving the rightful owner of use), which is "theft", or whether a copy of
something is being illegally produced and/or distributed (thus depriving the
owner of the right to copy as he/she sees fit -- hency "copyright"), which
is "infringement."

While there are many vagaries in intellectual property law when it concerns
portions of a copyrighted work, ideas inspired by a copyrighted work, and so
forth, there are no substantial vagaries when it comes to copying whole
copyrighted works. It should be noted that "copyrighted creatve works" is a
redundancy by American law -- all works of creative origin created in the past
75 years or so are legally protected by copyright law, and it is up to the
creator to decide to what extent the rights to copy shall be made available
to the general public, and for what compensation. Copyright holders are free
to sell those rights, to release works into the public domain, to give away
copies of their work but retain control over them, and so forth.

With regard to stolen goods and the purchase thereof, there are settings in
which one might suppose that the grand majority of items for sale or
distribution are illegally obtained, and settings in which one might suppose
that the grand majority of items for sale are legally optioned. For instance,
I would be less surprised to learn that the pawn shop on the corner is fencing
stolen goods than to learn that the Wards at the mall was, and even less
surprised to find out that the man in the trenchcoat on the corner offering
me brand new in the box Trinitrons for $100/pop was fencing.

The same goes for Napster. Yes, it would be cynical to assume that all MP3s
available via Napster were illegal. But, given that there are in fact websites
that do have legitimate contracts with artists and record companies to
distribute MP3s free of charge, there are more reliable ways to get copies
of less suspicious legality.

I don't think it would be economically feasible to fence CDs through used
record stores. I would assume that used CD stores of any reputation would be
suspicious if someone showed up with more than one, and certainly more than
three, copies of the same title, or with more than a dozen or so total CDs
less than a year old. It wouldn't be worth the risk.

Radio stations do sometimes dum their promotional copies into the used music
system, and that's technically illegal. I have quite a few "promotional
copies," and I'm prepared to hand them back if the record companies ever come
calling. Which they won't.

At any rate, though, it goes back to the issue of scale. There's no real
difference, legally speaking, between somebody making a Metallica MP3
available via Napster or somebody making a CD copy of a Metallica song for
all his friends. It's an issue of scale, though... it's much easier to make
many more illegal copies via Napster than via the Friends' Network or via
shoplifting/fencing.