response 97 of 206:

Sep 15 15:11 UTC 2000

Re 96.  No, copyright infringement is copyright infringement.  "Theft" in
this context is merely spin.  Theft requires that you are depriving the
legal owner of the physical object that you are stealing.  Sorry, but that
is the law.

To repeat, I have never downloaded any unauthorized music, and I have
never used Napster or Gnutella.  However, I am *deeply* frightened by the
way RIAA, MPAA and others have twisted the copyright laws to their
benefit, very much in defiance of the public interest. 

Before 1976, you could be sure than anything which had been published at
least 56 years earlier was in the public domain.  By 1976, that would be
about 1920.  For the last quarter of a century, that date has been frozen,
as Congress and the entertainment industry have extended the length of
copyrights again and again.  Not only is this bad public policy and a
corruption of our political system, it is contrary to the U.S. 
Constitution, which gives Congress the power: 

     To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
     securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
     exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Congress has been acting, since 1976, as if the word "limited" were
"unlimited".  Moreover, the rights of "authors" have been largely
disregarded in favor of the rights of publishers, music companies, etc.

And the international copyright treaties (written by the entertainment
industry) provide that once the right of copyright owners are extended, we
are not allowed ever to take them back.  For example, the atrocity which
was passed under the cover of the impeachment hearings (transferring
copyrights from musicians to record companies, a huge grab of intellectual
property) CANNOT BE REPEALED unless the U.S. abrogates those treaties.

See the recent Atlantic Monthly article about this for many details.

response 99 of 206:

Sep 15 16:07 UTC 2000

Here's some more from the RIAA web site --
  riaa / copyright basics

   Digital Music Laws


   The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA)

   This 1992 legislation exempts consumers from lawsuits for copyright
   violations when they record music for private, noncommercial use; eases
   access to advanced digital audio recording technologies; provides for the
   payment of modest royalties to songwriters and recording artists and
   companies; and mandates the inclusion of serial copying management
   technology in all consumer digital audio recorders to limit
   multi-generation audio copying (i.e., making copies of copies).

   In general, the AHRA covers devices that are designed or marketed for the
   primary purpose of making digital musical recordings. Digital audio
   cassette players, minidiscs, and DAT players are devices covered by the
   AHRA. This law will also apply to all future digital audio recording
   technologies, so Congress will not be forced to revisit the issue as each
   new product becomes available.


   The AHRA provides that manufacturers (not consumers) of covered devices
   must: (1) register with the Copyright Office; (2) pay a statutory royalty
   on each device and piece of media sold; and (3) implement serial
   copyright management technology (such as SCMS) which prevents copies of
   copies. In exchange for this, the manufacturers of the devices receive
   statutory immunity from infringement based on the use of those devices by
   consumers. To learn more about the administration of the royalties paid
   on recording devices and media, see the section on AARC.

   Multipurpose devices, such as a general computer or a CD-ROM drive, are
   not covered by the AHRA. This means that they are not required to pay
   royalties or incorporate SCMS protections. It also means, however, that
   neither manufacturers of the devices, nor the consumers who use them,
   receive immunity from suit for copyright infringement.

   For additional information go to
   http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.text.html

   The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 (DPRA)

   For more nearly 30 years, the RIAA has been fighting to give copyright
   owners of sound recordings the right to authorize public performances of
   their work. Before the passage of the Digital Performance Right in Sound
   Recordings Act of 1995, sound recordings were the only U.S. copyrighted
   work denied the right of public performance. All that has now changed.


   This law allows copyright owners of sound recordings the right to
   authorize certain digital transmissions of their works, including
   interactive digital audio transmissions, and to be compensated for
   others. As amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, the
   right now covers cable and satellite digital audio services, webcasters,
   and future forms of digital transmission. Most non-interactive
   transmissions are subject to statutory licensing at rates to be
   negotiated or, if necessary, arbitrated. Exempt from this bill are
   traditional radio and television broadcasts and transmissions to business
   establishments.

   The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)

   This landmark legislation has its origins in the 1996 World Intellectual
   Property Organization's Diplomatic conference in Geneva, attended by more
   than 160 nations. There, two new treaties were negotiated (see
   International Law section) that represent the most important overhaul of
   international copyright law in the last quarter century. The treaties
   raise the minimum standards for copyright protection worldwide and make
   it easier to fight piracy of American products overseas.

   Although U.S. copyright law already met the treaties’ standards,
   legislation was needed to meet the treaties’ prohibition of devices
   used to undermine electronic "locks." The Digital Millennium Copyright
  Act (DMCA) (among other things) does just that, among other things, by
   prohibiting the manufacture and distribution of devices.

   The DMCA law also delineates the responsibilities of Internet service
   providers (ISPs) in cases of infringement online. For example, the law
   formalizes a notice and takedown procedure between ISPs and copyright
   owners. It is now clear that when an ISP is aware it is posting or
   transmitting infringing content, the ISP must act to remove the
   infringing works or it may be liable for any resulting damages.

   The DMCA also contains the key agreement reached between the RIAA and a
   coalition of webcasters and satellite audio delivery services. This
   section provides for a simplified licensing system for digital
   performances of sound recordings, such as those on the Internet and
   through satellite delivery. This part of the DMCA provides a statutory
   license for non-interactive non-subscription digital audio services with
   the primary purpose of entertainment, if terms of the license are met.
   Such a statutory licensing scheme guarantees webcasters and satellite
   services access to music without obtaining permission from each and every
   sound recording copyright owner individually and assures record companies
   an efficient means to receive compensation for sound recordings. For
   information on the specifics of offering DMCA-compliant digital
   broadcasts and the terms of the statutory license, see the Webcasting FAQ
   section. For information on obtaining a statutory license, see the
   Licensing section.

  The greatest gains from the DMCA will be realized internationally. This
   law is a model for ratification and implementation of the WIPO treaties
   in other countries, where protection of sound recordings online is not
   sufficient. Formal U.S. ratification of the treaty package moves the
   worldwide ratification effort closer to the 30 countries that must ratify
   the treaties for them to take legal effect.

   For additional information go to
   http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf

   No Electronic Theft Law (NET Act)

   The No Electronic Theft law (the NET Act) is significant because now
   sound recording infringements (including by digital means) can be
   criminally prosecuted even where no monetary profit or commercial gain is
   derived from the infringing activity. Punishment in such instances
   includes up to 3 years in prison and/or $250,000 fines. The NET Act also
   extends the criminal statute of limitations for copyright infringement
   from 3 to 5 years.

   Additionally, the NET Act amended the definition of "commercial advantage
   or private financial gain" to include the receipt (or expectation of
   receipt) of anything of value, including receipt of other copyrighted
   works (as in MP3 trading). Punishment in such instances includes up to 5
   years in prison and/or $250,000 fines. Individuals may also be civilly
   liable, regardless of whether the activity is for profit, for actual
   damages or lost profits, or for statutory damages up to $150,000 per work
   infringed.

   For additional information go to
   http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR02265:@@@L

response 101 of 206:

Sep 15 16:46 UTC 2000

Theft is theft, polygon. You're spinning in the other direction.
Or are you willing to come forward as a licenced lawyer giving free legal
advice?

response 103 of 206:

Sep 15 17:37 UTC 2000

Well, we have. I've never taped a CD from the library.

response 105 of 206:

Sep 15 17:55 UTC 2000

Never made an MD from a library copy either. (Don't have a CD burner, so 
can't say if I'd do that, but it's not likely.) With music, the whole thing
is that I prefer owning a "real" copy when at all possible. Hmmm. Same with
books... I mean, yeah, I *can* photocopy a book from the library (if I wanted
to, given the access at work and all) but most of the time, I'd prefer to just
go to the bookstore and *buy* it. (Notable exceptions being one textbook which
an editor here had as a photocopy from his medieval Welsh course at Harvard,
and which I am reasonably sure was unavailable for purchase even then, and
which he allowed me to copy... As I recall, it was most likely public domain,
given the pub. year.)

response 107 of 206:

Sep 15 20:25 UTC 2000

        It's a shame fewer artists haven't decided to sell MP3s.  There's
nothing inherently wrong with the technology;  it's like any other
recordable media, including Sony's MiniDisc and DAT, and has a plethora of
legal and legitimate uses.

response 109 of 206:

Sep 15 21:10 UTC 2000

#106> I answered that questionin the other item. And I don't honestly care
if you take my argument seriously. Theft is theft.

response 111 of 206:

Sep 15 22:12 UTC 2000

Speaking of the media royalty:  CNN.com ran a story which reports
that Germany is planning to put a similar tax, but a more whopping one, 
on computers, modems, CD burners, and presumably other items.
The article says they were thinking about a 30% levy.  This would be 
handed over to the copyright industry.

response 113 of 206:

Sep 15 22:36 UTC 2000

Let me clarify my position; I forget that these are linked items, and so not
everyone has read my posts on the subject already. Plus, I'm not sure I've
specifically addressed the law issue.

I rarely debate law. I debate ethics. As far as I'm concerned, the laws in
this country are so confusing and overbearingly anal-retentive  that it's
pointless to discuss them. Therefore, the "lega" definitions of words are not
the most relevant to me.

(er, legal)

Copyright infringement is theft, asthe term "theft" is defined in common
parlance; I provided that definition elsewhere. Napster encourages copyright
infringement. Actually, I have no particular opinion about whether Napster
and like companies should operate; my thesis has and will continue to be:

People who use Napster or any other system to infringe on legal copyrights
are committing an immoral act. I call this immoral act "theft", as do many
others.

I have no particular problem with copyright infringement per se; I personally
find it excessive that the RIAA would get so irate about it. As immoral acts
go, stealing from the rich is fairly low on the burn-in-hell scale, especially
if yo're taking a copy, and you wouldn't normally have purchased it anyway.
I also agree with the argument that distributing "samples" for free encourages
sales, and so in the long run the benefit to the company probably outweighs
theallegedly lost sales.

The crux of my thesis doesnt concern all that. It concerns the simple fact
that people who infringe on copyrights are committing an immoral act, and all
the justifying in the world isn't going to change that. It's a principle
issue: If your opinion is that it's all right to rip Lars off because Lars
and co are ripping you off, then say so. You're doing a bad thing in response
to a worse thing. Groovy. It's this sanctimonious "we have a right to this
music, and the RIAA is depriving us" attitude that I find distasteful.

I have home copies of things. Big whoop. It was inappropriate of me. Big
whoop. Ya know what else? I do 90 on the freeway. I'm rude to people now and
then. I yell at my cat when I'm in a bad mood. Those are all roughly the same
as macking some track from some superstar. And if I were scolded for any of
them, I'd say, yeah, I ain't perfect, but I try. I wouldn't say, "Hey, I have
a right because..." (well, maybe with the speeding, but that's because if you
do the speed limit in some areas, youre more of a danger..).

So whether you want to call it theft or infringement, polygon, the point is
the same -- there's no clear legal or moral justification for making illegal
copies of copyrighted materials.

response 115 of 206:

Sep 15 23:48 UTC 2000

  re #113:  When you say things like "I have no particular problem with 
  copyright infringement" and then turn around and talk about it being 
  "an immoral act" you send out some seriously mixed signals.  What, if
  anything, is the distinction in your mind between "immoral" and "illegal"?

  re #114:  The law on these matters is bizarre because it has essentially
  been written by the copyright holders.  There are only a few small groups
  who lobby against copyright extensions, additional restrictions, etc, and
  their resources are dwarfed by the movie studios, record companies, and
  book publishers whose interests all lie in the opposite direction.  
  If these laws seem strange compared to other laws, it's because other laws
  are usually written with some sort of consideration given to the public 
  interest..

response 117 of 206:

Sep 16 06:44 UTC 2000

An act which is illegal violates public law.
An act with is immoral violates moral law.

What is stolen is the creator's right to control the distribution of their
work. Copyright is temporary because, it is assumed, the creator's rights on
distribution end shortly after their death. Copyright expiration is generally
based on the life of the creator.

response 119 of 206:

Sep 16 12:06 UTC 2000

everyone should buy all their entertainment media in the far east, for pennies
on the dollar of u.s. prices.