AfterDawn: Tech news

Judge shuts down RIAA in music piracy case

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 30 Apr 2008 18:49 User comments (48)

Judge shuts down RIAA in music piracy case The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has suffered another legal setback after a judge denied a ruling in a music piracy case this week. The judge ruled that "the sole act of making a music file available in a "shared folder" does not violate copyright laws."
In the case Atlantic v. Howell, the RIAA asserted that a "sound recording" that is legally ripped to a PC and then stored in any type of shared folder is unauthorized and illegal. The assertion was not really clear however, as a shared folder is a very broad category.

The RIAA saw some backlash for its assertion when the rumor was spread around the Internet that the RIAA believed that ripping CD music was illegal. The group cleared up the situation by saying that it doesn't consider ripping illegal but that adding music recordings to a shared folder that can be accessed by others in a P2P file sharing program is illegal and should be stopped.

The ruling this week has shut those theories down however. U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake tossed out all the RIAA's motions including the "making available" and "offer to distribute" theories that pertained to "shared folders."

The judgment could have long lasting effects in all of the RIAA's music piracy cases as it is now harder for the group to prove that "a copyrighted file actually changed hands given the anonymous nature of file-sharing programs and the lack of cooperation from Internet service providers with these lawsuits."

Previous Next  

48 user comments

130.4.2008 18:55

Awesome, the law is one our side!

230.4.2008 18:59

The Law is on our side ? Jesus ! The 60's were good to you !!!

330.4.2008 19:08

This is an awesome blow against the RIAA - and a most welcome, drearily-long-overdue boost for fair-use rights & consumers everywhere.

Maybe the US legal system is now getting just a little weary of the RIAA and it's Dictatorial, brutal attitude towards consumers and getting fed-up with it's constant whining, bitching and clogging up the judicial system.

A VERY GOOD DAY INDEED! :-)

430.4.2008 19:29
tripplite
Inactive

@klingon yes this time we got away!!!

what a moral boost!

btw how ya been old mikey,,,,,,,

530.4.2008 19:45

its about time that the government stands up against the real pirates... the illegal downloaders aren't stealing from the artist's, the record labels are, its a shame that the labels find it nessacery to screw over bands so much that they need to tour 7-8 months out of the year to make a decent penny for themselves... not that i'm complaining, i love going to see live bands, just wished they'd see more of the money that THEY earned. people pay to go to shows to see the bands play and make their money that they've earned, not to pay to go see a band and see some record exec get rich...

630.4.2008 19:47

ok, i dont understand. they always have rulings going both ways so how is this bad and what effects does it have? what is stopping a judge a week from know ruling in the favor of the RIAA?

730.4.2008 19:48

a mixed zippy quote

Quote:
Because of the cluster fck that happens to the individual, individual CP crime should be minimized to nothing unless a profit motive can be substantiated; heavy fines need to be placed on the corporations and business that steal others works, I am talking 100K+ to millions, they wonít play fair unless the government says this is the fine you pay for breaking the rules and contracts.

A individual, even if in the thousands cannot do financial damage to a corporation, thus unless they can show profit was made corporation cannot go after individuals.

Also it would be nice if CP/IP lasted only for about 5 years before private individuals can store and trade that data in personal nonprofit setups, let the corporations fight over monetary and profit based distribution rights they will always have the majority of the populace to sell crap too, those of who know better want wiggle room to not be forced to drink piss flavored kool aid the rest of the herd are givenÖ should be given a break.

830.4.2008 20:02
varnull
Inactive

Stomped.... quality stampings from a judge who has obvilosly better things to do that protecting profits for millionaires.. does he have kids, or is he a music "thief" who likes listening to mp3's when crackhead muggers are pleading their innocence... hahahahaha..

Rock on dude. You can have my support any day.

930.4.2008 20:35

i have a feeling that the RIAA won't just sit down and watch, they are definitely going to come back with a counter attack

1030.4.2008 20:35

Find anything they "think" is distributing music and they thought ripping a cd is illegal? What a joke.

1130.4.2008 22:27

Amazing that they want to control where you can place files on your own personal computer. What is this Iran?

1230.4.2008 22:29

to the people


to the greedy

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 30 Apr 2008 @ 22:36

1330.4.2008 23:10

Originally posted by engage16:
its about time that the government stands up against the real pirates... the illegal downloaders aren't stealing from the artist's, the record labels are, its a shame that the labels find it nessacery to screw over bands so much that they need to tour 7-8 months out of the year to make a decent penny for themselves... not that i'm complaining, i love going to see live bands, just wished they'd see more of the money that THEY earned. people pay to go to shows to see the bands play and make their money that they've earned, not to pay to go see a band and see some record exec get rich...

funny i work 12 months a year to make a buck.i for one would love to make what some of these artists make and sit on my ass 6 months a year.

1430.4.2008 23:17

I think that makes Neil Wake hero of the day. All it took was a common sense ruling. Thank you Mr. Wake.

1530.4.2008 23:22

i never said that i wouldn't like to make a fraction of what they make (ever see mtv cribs?)... it just that alot of the bands out there don't get the money they deserve. of course i'm being biased here cause i see all these rappers with all thier bling and crap, what did they do other than talk in a rythem on stage? i mean real bands, who sit and write their lyrics, music, etc....

1630.4.2008 23:35
duckNrun
Inactive

Originally posted by B33rdrnkr:
to the people




ok... i know the movie this is from but can't recall the title.

any help please?

thx

171.5.2008 0:21

My congratulations to Mr. Wake on his ruling. It's about time started using SOME common sense when it comes to law.

Quote:
The ruling this week has shut those theories down however. U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake tossed out all the RIAA's motions including the "making available" and "offer to distribute" theories that pertained to "shared folders."



It's NOT a crime to leave your car unlocked with all your cd's in plain sight. It's a CRIME when someone takes your cd's without your permission. The riaa analogy of the situation is you are more of a criminal than the actual criminal for being ignorant/dumb. Why? Because you "shared" your music with someone you didn't know by NOT locking your doors of your car.

Oh and another thought....
There are so many laws on the books in the US that you are breaking at least one law every day. Don't believe me... ever hear or read a story about some prosecutor somewhere using a 100 year old law to prosecute someone?!

181.5.2008 2:10

hummm lets see there is 200 million people on the internet what are they going to do locks us all up lol

191.5.2008 2:28
nobrainer
Inactive

Originally posted by B33rdrnkr:
to the people

to the greedy

the problem is that ppl only hear RIAA or MPAA while the companies doing this hide behind the name that fronts their greedy side, name and shame them. see my signature!

BREAKING NEWS: sony are going to sue themselves for facilitating copywrite infringement by making available the tools to enable this: dvd,cd,blu-ray burners, dvd,cd blu-ray blank media, vcr, mp3, flash drives, mini discs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by story:
The RIAA saw some backlash for its assertion when the rumor was spread around the Internet that the RIAA believed that ripping CD music was illegal. The group cleared up the situation by saying that it doesn't consider ripping illegal but that adding music recordings to a shared folder that can be accessed by others in a P2P file sharing program is illegal and should be stopped.
well what i can remember is that sony's top copywrite lawyer stated:

Sony BMG's chief anti-piracy lawyer: "Copying" music you own is "stealing"
Originally posted by hyperlink:
Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said.

BTW ripping is illegal in the uk because of the lack of "fair use" which americans have to protect their consumer rights that the MPAA/RIAA wish to destroy. In the UK the BPI (riaa) are not going to allow format shifting unless they get paid every time you move an item. what was that quote again?

"the rumor was spread around the Internet that the RIAA believed that ripping CD music was illegal."

and now the anti-consumer assault on format shifting is in the UK and because the industry still believes that you don't own their content they want to get paid for ever cd ripped.

iPod tax: UK music biz open to format shifting... for a fee
Originally posted by ars link:
April 14, 2008
And then came hints that this apple might come with a serious worm. Early this year, the BPI again said all the right things about format shifting, but we noted that the Association of Independent Music was making noises; apparently, the group wanted to get paid whenever music was transferred from a CD to a portable device.





and now look what the MPAA/RIAA lobby/trade groups are doing, if the DMCA wasn't anti consumer enough, now SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP & EMI want your home for copywrite infringement offences.

Controversial Pro-IP Act sails through Judiciary Committee
Originally posted by ars hyper:
The bill would create a new position for a federal copyright enforcement czar, establish a new copyright enforcement division within the Department of Justice, and would also permit law enforcement agents to seize property from perpetrators of copyright infringement.



is DRM to stop piracy, or to allow price fixing and stop format shifting to new media because if they can continue to sell you the same media over and over again £$£$£$£$?


This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 01 May 2008 @ 4:56

201.5.2008 13:39
llongtheD
Inactive

@duckNrun

Taxi driver

About article...
Maybe the legal system, and judges in general, are getting tired of these blackmail tactics.

211.5.2008 14:12

The one thing I don't get about all these lawsuits is how they come up with the monetary damages... I've seen cases where they've sought over $600,000 for sharing 2000 songs... At .99 cents a song thats less than $2000, and yet they're askng for 300 times that much???

221.5.2008 18:46

Originally posted by tripplite:
@klingon yes this time we got away!!!

what a moral boost!

btw how ya been old mikey,,,,,,,
HiYa Trip!!!! :-D

Oh..... I'm being a "good" lil' Klingon these days. (Working & sleeping; working & sleeping; working and .........., Geeze - There Is No God! - 12-hour shifts; 16-hour shifts! I ain't kidding!)

MAN! Am I *ever* due for a half-dozen 8-packs of beer soon! (Hic!)


231.5.2008 18:58

Originally posted by A_Klingon:
This is an awesome blow against the RIAA - and a most welcome, drearily-long-overdue boost for fair-use rights & consumers everywhere.

Maybe the US legal system is now getting just a little weary of the RIAA and it's Dictatorial, brutal attitude towards consumers and getting fed-up with it's constant whining, bitching and clogging up the judicial system.

Quote:
A VERY GOOD DAY INDEED
! :-)

Agreed,and that's the Klingon I know talking TRUTH !

"The flimsier the product,the higher the price"
Ferengi 82nd rule of aqusition


241.5.2008 19:00

Originally posted by B33rdrnkr:
to the people


to the greedy



Way to go B33, way to go !!!!!!!!!

"The flimsier the product,the higher the price"
Ferengi 82nd rule of aqusition


251.5.2008 22:24
fgamer
Inactive

Originally posted by engage16:
i never said that i wouldn't like to make a fraction of what they make (ever see mtv cribs?)... it just that alot of the bands out there don't get the money they deserve. of course i'm being biased here cause i see all these rappers with all thier bling and crap, what did they do other than talk in a rythem on stage? i mean real bands, who sit and write their lyrics, music, etc....
Oh give me a break, there are some rappers out there that really write their own stuff and rap from the heart. I'm sure you can't relate to that because you live in a suburbian KKK town! I don't listen to rap much either but to just make a statement like that is plain silly. Mostly all those rockbands out their are a bunch of coke heads who blow all their money on pot and cocaine. And the rappers seem to blow their money on cars,"bling" and pot. Hell you only live once so if people prefer to spend their money on cars and jewelry how bad is that? Anyways, HAHAHA screw the RIAA..good news for all of us who acidently put music in our shared folder..

261.5.2008 22:38

Quote:
i never said that i wouldn't like to make a fraction of what they make (ever see mtv cribs?)...

Would not we all brother.

Quote:
it just that alot of the bands out there don't get the money they deserve.

This is true.

Quote:
of course i'm being biased here cause i see all these rappers with all thier bling and crap, what did they do other than talk in a rythem on stage? i mean real bands, who sit and write their lyrics, music, etc....

Any style of of music can be questioned and dismissed, I like rap(but not mindless cussing and fussing)I like rock, I like metal, I like alt,(as long as they are not crap) I like country(loath the new country pop thats turning country into slop, "nevo" country has the balls to diss singers of 20 years ago, this is more offensive than anything rap can dish out IMO ).

Speaking of rap anyone listen to class country (pre 80s) so much boozing,whoring,cheating really....I do not see what the fuss over rap is, if yuo dislike the version of word and song they tell then by all means dis it, but just remember most if not all music revolves around love, sex, hate and angst.

greed is lust,lust is sex,cheating is sex/love, talking big is angst, anger is hate tinted with rage formed from matured angst...

fgamer
Dude...sruisly..take a tout,relax and step off, nothign the brother said crossed the line.


Oh dear god I am lucid...the walls needz licking....sanity is not zippy!
TALLY HO!

271.5.2008 23:01
cousinkix
Inactive

Quote:
There are so many laws on the books in the US that you are breaking at least one law every day. Don't believe me... ever hear or read a story about some prosecutor somewhere using a 100 year old law to prosecute someone?!
There is a book called the 100 Most Ridiculous Laws in the Nation, or something like that in circulation. Don't get caught with one of those penile strap-ons in Arizona. UGLY guns are illegal in other places just because they aren't works of art. Its against the law to call somebody names on the internet if you live in one Missouri town.

You guys wouldn't believe some of the ridiculous stuff in that book. Its a belly full of laughs...

281.5.2008 23:17

Quote:
Quote:
There are so many laws on the books in the US that you are breaking at least one law every day. Don't believe me... ever hear or read a story about some prosecutor somewhere using a 100 year old law to prosecute someone?!
There is a book called the 100 Most Ridiculous Laws in the Nation, or something like that in circulation. Don't get caught with one of those penile strap-ons in Arizona. UGLY guns are illegal in other places just because they aren't works of art. Its against the law to call somebody names on the internet if you live in one Missouri town.

You guys wouldn't believe some of the ridiculous stuff in that book. Its a belly full of laughs...
the anti coven(anti pagan varint) laws are fun(preventing women from running a safe house to protect girls and women from hateful men), or house about that vibrator law making it a crime to have more than 2 vibrators.

I am sure moralists will keep creating backassword laws as time goes on.

292.5.2008 8:38

This is not a set back, it is an ass kicking!

The bastards thought they were smart beating up on the innocent. Stretching the law to make parent pay fines for their kidís activities, screwing people to the wall that had unsecured networks. They were putting the fear of god into the community. What those heartless bastards failed to realize is they were proving who they really were and making an army of enemies who are upstanding taxpayers and citizens. Last Sept the media mafia flunkies in the justice committee make an announcement of a new killer anti Ė piracy bill they were going to propose. It was one of their action items on their web site. That was they last they talked to the media about the law. It was taken off the site within 2 weeks of the announcement.

I am sure this will not stop the media mafia but I bet they did take notice.

navi1199, I think not. I suspect they will move with more caution. They will try to preserve what powers they have. I suspect they had something to do with the ISPs coming down on P2P. They are getting more covert in their attacks. This way the ISPs are catching the flack instead of them. That is just starting to heat up. The FCC ruled ISPs canít stop P2P activity since some of it is legal. However, it may not be legal for them to check the P2P activity. Even if they can check it will be a huge task to figure out if the file is legal. It will become a huge mess for them. I expect the lawyers will have a hay-day suing the big fat ISPs.

302.5.2008 9:38

Originally posted by engage16:
i never said that i wouldn't like to make a fraction of what they make (ever see mtv cribs?)... it just that alot of the bands out there don't get the money they deserve. of course i'm being biased here cause i see all these rappers with all thier bling and crap, what did they do other than talk in a rythem on stage? i mean real bands, who sit and write their lyrics, music, etc....
I know, I know, they have stole, killed, robbed, gang rapped, they need big groups of people to fight, and are just generally scummy punks. This is the difference from those Old Country singers that Zippy doesn't understand.

Why the cRappers do so well is their audience is brain dead. Just like a Evangelist minister they thrive on the less intelligent who will send monies they don't have or in the case of the crappers buy their bling, bling. Just the term bling, bling proves how stupid they morons are. I personally don't care what foul language anyone uses as long as it is concise and makes a *valid* point. Crappers do not fall into this category, not even close. It doesn't take much talent to rap, talk / rhyme to music, Karaoke people have more talent even bad ones. But that isn't really the issue because there is a lot of music out there that makes top 40 that is pretty stupid or simplistic, we don't always need complexity to relax and enjoy something.

At the end of the day all of the rappers will be gone but bands from the 60ís, 70ís and even part of the 80ís will still be going and there is a very good reason for that, they have talent they are not just some pissed-off moron! I like some of Kid Rocks stuff, but he actually sings some but 50 cent and Eminem you can have worthless trash.

Itís nice to see the justice department making a good decision for once in a long time, which is rare these days.

312.5.2008 10:24
susieqbbb
Inactive

ALL RIGHT!!!!

At least this is one judge that won't be taken for a ride by the riaa

This also proves how desperate the riaa is getting if you want to stop piracy then continue to print older albums and even make newer albums cheaper i am sorry to say i was at a music store a few days ago looking at soundtracks from movies i found the cd i wanted at 30.00 i thought what a rip off so i went online and purchased it from amazon for only $5.00 this is do mostly to the facts that the riaa isn't trying to change it's high prices in stores so why should we as consumers get ripped off by a company that decides for use what we can and cannot do with are music we purchased it it is are music and if you dont like it go jump of a freaking cliff Riaa.

322.5.2008 14:28

It's from the film "Taxi Driver"

Quote:
Originally posted by B33rdrnkr:
to the people




ok... i know the movie this is from but can't recall the title.

any help please?

thx

332.5.2008 16:31

susieqbbb, depending on how old. Really old stuff 60s sold for $3 an album. The same one may cost almost 10 times that today. Making vinyl is far more difficult than CDs. They have been making money on it for almost half a century and just want to up their prices. Back then they either had a lump sum or a fixed price per album. Or remember the writers strike. The other media mafia needed to protect the artists so that they could get paid for every time their show was viewed on the net. Then when the writers wanted there fair share. They said the process is way too complex you can't get a percentage of the take. We had to watch re-runs. You can't get more slimy than that.

342.5.2008 18:34

All I can say is "it is about time the pendulum is swinging the other way. The Honorable Judge Wake is my hero today.

353.5.2008 0:25

The clapping man with the funny haircut is the then-upcoming young actor Robert DeNero in the disturbing, psychological-thriller, "Taxi-Driver", co-starring a very under-age Jodie Foster.


363.5.2008 1:10

Question; If I copy and burn a cd does the burned cd become a pirate copy? I then give this cd to a friend and he decides to share it online. If it is a pirate copy, does it have any copyright attached to it? Is he therefore not sharing copyrighted material?

Anyway great news god bless that judge!One up for sanity and common sense!

373.5.2008 3:15
nobrainer
Inactive

Originally posted by whatname:
Question; If I copy and burn a cd does the burned cd become a pirate copy? I then give this cd to a friend and he decides to share it online. If it is a pirate copy, does it have any copyright attached to it? Is he therefore not sharing copyrighted material?

Anyway great news god bless that judge!One up for sanity and common sense!
according to sony's top lawyer , YES but the riaa PR quickely tried to lie their way around this statement as if they actually appeared to be anti-consumer it wouldn't bode well for their lobbying for new laws like the Pro IP Act.

Sony BMG's chief anti-piracy lawyer: "Copying" music you own is "stealing"
Originally posted by hyperlink:
Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said.

383.5.2008 14:22

Originally posted by whatname:
Question; If I copy and burn a cd does the burned cd become a pirate copy? I then give this cd to a friend and he decides to share it online. If it is a pirate copy, does it have any copyright attached to it? Is he therefore not sharing copyrighted material?

Anyway great news god bless that judge!One up for sanity and common sense!
You are still sharing copyrighted material just because you copy it to different media, change or modify it in anyway the body of the material is still under copyright. There have been many law suites by publishers of similar content that claim a artist / writer has stolen their work some times substantiated and some times not.

They say people donít buy CDís like they did when albums were being produced but they donít get why and of course blame the internet and piracy for that but as one has mentioned they were a lot cheaper even though it cost more to produce them. The RIAA and recording industry has got way too greedy and this is the prime problem with current CD/DVD music sales. I love the quality of a good DVD PCM or Dolby Digital recording and you get video too, but at $15 to $17 USD for a music CD/DVD is insane. Bring the price down to $7 to $10 USD and you see an increase of music sales. I bought tons of albums in the 70ís & 80ís for $4 to $6 USD unless they were Master recordings then it was a little more spendy around $15 but well worth it for the higher quality.

It seems these days we point the finger at everything but where it should really be pointed.

393.5.2008 16:08

Originally posted by aldan:
Originally posted by engage16:
its about time that the government stands up against the real pirates... the illegal downloaders aren't stealing from the artist's, the record labels are, its a shame that the labels find it nessacery to screw over bands so much that they need to tour 7-8 months out of the year to make a decent penny for themselves... not that i'm complaining, i love going to see live bands, just wished they'd see more of the money that THEY earned. people pay to go to shows to see the bands play and make their money that they've earned, not to pay to go see a band and see some record exec get rich...

funny i work 12 months a year to make a buck.i for one would love to make what some of these artists make and sit on my ass 6 months a year.

Where do you come up with the sitting on your ass idea? Not only are they on the road half the year, the other half is spent in the studio every day recording tracks for a new album, and in some cases writing lyrics for those tracks.


Originally posted by engage16:
The one thing I don't get about all these lawsuits is how they come up with the monetary damages... I've seen cases where they've sought over $600,000 for sharing 2000 songs... At .99 cents a song thats less than $2000, and yet they're asking for 300 times that much???

Just guessing here but you take your figures and add them up times 300 and your coming up just short of that $600K mark, but your truly looking at more then .99 cents a track if you look at the price you pay at the store. Anyways my point is maybe they suspect these people shared the data about 300 times, and dont forget there probably figuring in wages for there lawyer and court costs to.

403.5.2008 16:22

Quote:
Xplorer4
Where do you come up with the sitting on your ass idea? Not only are they on the road half the year, the other half is spent in the studio every day recording tracks for a new album, and in some cases writing lyrics for those tracks.

As someone who is creative,creating stuff is a almost maddening process, He has a minor point of some of the more.... pooy music thats just puke that the media industry regurgitates to young sheeple...but for the most part its hell to create and even worse to get the indutry to to share.
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
(yes I know I suck :P)


Quote:
Just guessing here but you take your figures and add them up times 300 and your coming up just short of that $600K mark, but your truly looking at more then .99 cents a track if you look at the price you pay at the store. Anyways my point is maybe they suspect these people shared the data about 300 times, and dont forget there probably figuring in wages for there lawyer and court costs to.
So copies equate lost sales equally? gee I can't wait for the thought police to taken in the media family dues because if they could they would and thats what they are doing with downloads....

You can not equate downloads with lost sales you can barely equate them to piracy in general.

The majority of the population will buy what they are selling you can nto blame your bad business pratcites on a persentange of people that will never buy into the herd!

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

414.5.2008 10:07

Quote:
Originally posted by engage16:
i never said that i wouldn't like to make a fraction of what they make (ever see mtv cribs?)... it just that alot of the bands out there don't get the money they deserve. of course i'm being biased here cause i see all these rappers with all thier bling and crap, what did they do other than talk in a rythem on stage? i mean real bands, who sit and write their lyrics, music, etc....
Oh give me a break, there are some rappers out there that really write their own stuff and rap from the heart. I'm sure you can't relate to that because you live in a suburbian KKK town! I don't listen to rap much either but to just make a statement like that is plain silly. Mostly all those rockbands out their are a bunch of coke heads who blow all their money on pot and cocaine. And the rappers seem to blow their money on cars,"bling" and pot. Hell you only live once so if people prefer to spend their money on cars and jewelry how bad is that? Anyways, HAHAHA screw the RIAA..good news for all of us who acidently put music in our shared folder..
What they should do is sue M$ for placing your music in the default "shared" location.

424.5.2008 12:20
duckNrun
Inactive

thanks to everyone for 'taxi driver'

good movie, bad brain fart.

lol

434.5.2008 17:15

Hi guys,

Please bare with me as this might be a bit of a long post, but I am really looking to understand your thoughts here:

I live in a country now where the law kicked out these music copyright claims against users from the beginning. Copyright here protects against commercial abuse, or basically against the chinese dvd runners and the companies ripping off artists and making money without royalty, license, or permission.

The law that protected consumers in that case is called the "lion clause" which basically renders illegal any agreement clause or condition in which it seems unreasonable or predatorial to attempt to enforce it (hence "lion"). An example would be an employment contract with a non-compete clause that is set against an accountant in an auditing firm from working as an accountant ANYWHERE for a whole yearif he leaves, which is clearly unjustified as this guy went to university for 4 years and will always be an accountant. Or if someone sells you a car and sticks in a stupid clause that you can't use the trunk!

So from the beginning when foreign music companies came here and started demonising people for simply being what we used to do as teenagers (you know, press record on a cassette player when the good song comes on the radio, or make a mix tape for the girlfriend!), the "lion clause" canceled them out from the start making a very basic argument as a ground rule: If you buy a copy of music, it's YOURS. It's none of the record company's business if you make a backup copy, give it to a friend, or put it on your answer machine. Copyright should only protect if one attempts to make money off of that music. this makes sense, right? You don't exactly buy a car with a contract that says "this is a COPY of our car design AND can ONLY be intended for personal use. You are not allowed to carry any passengers!".

The same stupid "lost revenue" argument that record companies make can similarly be: "Sharing rides with friends produce losses for the car business as they should have otherwise had to buy cars for themselves." and are equally squashed by "it's none of the car company's business who uses the product and the revenue they would have generated from the additional cars they believe would have been sold is neither realistic as no one buys a car just for a ride, and even if it is such revenue is not rightful for them to claim to begin with. It would be like trolling bridges. Friends who take a copy from a shared folder to listen to the latest single is not necessarily going to buy the CD had he no access to that, and even if, it seems to be like audio bridge trolling (you want across, pay me).

Anyways there's no need to argue the ethics, but certainly my question and thought is: How come there is no such law in the US when you have such laws like the lemon law and other consumer protection rights? And if there isn't yet, how come no public lawyers have used the argument and pushed for legislation?

Just a thought.

Sam

444.5.2008 17:19

Originally posted by sampharo:
Hi guys,

Please bare with me as this might be a bit of a long post, but I am really looking to understand your thoughts here:

I live in a country now where the law kicked out these music copyright claims against users from the beginning. Copyright here protects against commercial abuse, or basically against the chinese dvd runners and the companies ripping off artists and making money without royalty, license, or permission.

The law that protected consumers in that case is called the "lion clause" which basically renders illegal any agreement clause or condition in which it seems unreasonable or predatorial to attempt to enforce it (hence "lion"). An example would be an employment contract with a non-compete clause that is set against an accountant in an auditing firm from working as an accountant ANYWHERE for a whole yearif he leaves, which is clearly unjustified as this guy went to university for 4 years and will always be an accountant. Or if someone sells you a car and sticks in a stupid clause that you can't use the trunk!

So from the beginning when foreign music companies came here and started demonising people for simply being what we used to do as teenagers (you know, press record on a cassette player when the good song comes on the radio, or make a mix tape for the girlfriend!), the "lion clause" canceled them out from the start making a very basic argument as a ground rule: If you buy a copy of music, it's YOURS. It's none of the record company's business if you make a backup copy, give it to a friend, or put it on your answer machine. Copyright should only protect if one attempts to make money off of that music. this makes sense, right? You don't exactly buy a car with a contract that says "this is a COPY of our car design AND can ONLY be intended for personal use. You are not allowed to carry any passengers!".

The same stupid "lost revenue" argument that record companies make can similarly be: "Sharing rides with friends produce losses for the car business as they should have otherwise had to buy cars for themselves." and are equally squashed by "it's none of the car company's business who uses the product and the revenue they would have generated from the additional cars they believe would have been sold is neither realistic as no one buys a car just for a ride, and even if it is such revenue is not rightful for them to claim to begin with. It would be like trolling bridges. Friends who take a copy from a shared folder to listen to the latest single is not necessarily going to buy the CD had he no access to that, and even if, it seems to be like audio bridge trolling (you want across, pay me).

Anyways there's no need to argue the ethics, but certainly my question and thought is: How come there is no such law in the US when you have such laws like the lemon law and other consumer protection rights? And if there isn't yet, how come no public lawyers have used the argument and pushed for legislation?

Just a thought.

Sam

*applause*
what country is this? I am betting is small and the media families have lil influence there,the trouble with bigger countries is more often than not they get bought off to protect industry from ultimately itself.

454.5.2008 18:03

Quote:

*applause*
what country is this? I am betting is small and the media families have lil influence there,the trouble with bigger countries is more often than not they get bought off to protect industry from ultimately itself.
Not really small, Egypt has 70 million people. But I think honestly there were too factors:

(1) Egypt is more of a justice society rather than law for the sake of law (Has disadvantages as well as advantages honestly). Police does not even enforce basic copyright like bootleggers and such unless it's too blatant and the company complains repeatedly. They simply take a "when we're done monitoring for possible terrorism cells, and solving murders and drug rings, we'll get to your stupid music if we have remaining resources" kind of position.

(2) Egyptian community gave Microsoft and its BSA (Business Software Alliance or whatever anti-piracy group) hell when it launched its anti-piracy campaign there a few years back, and included tactics like University student demonstrations and computer malls removing original microsoft products from shelves, and deliberately giving buyers a paper to pick up pirate copies from the cigarette kiosk outside (cigarette kiosks in Egypt are mostly licensed as staple income for poor families or disabled war veterans, and so due to public opinion outrage if they are touched, they became practically above the law). Microsoft was having a hate wave against it that they backed off, focused only on small computer businesses selling computers preloaded with pirated software, and gave all universities and training centers student licenses at like $10 a copy or something to make peace. I guess it really deterred the music industry and made it understand that it's practically hopeless to lobby. Even if they got the law passed in their favour, it would have been impossible to implement.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 04 May 2008 @ 18:05

465.5.2008 8:51

The media mafia, Microsoft and Apple have the same greedy tactics. They are all scum of the earth. All are way past their prime and put out mostly garbage. They all blame the public for not wanted to buy their garbage.

As for long posts, that is not a crime in this forum. You even had something to say in your long post other than ranting a raving. No one has ever complained about the length of my posts nor that I was ranting. When I do get a complaint it is about something specific not ranting a raving.

The Lion Law would never go over in the US. Our laws tend to make more work for lawyers not less. It is good to hear some countries are looking out for the voters. That is another thing you will not see much in the US.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 05 May 2008 @ 8:59

475.5.2008 14:38

Quote:
What they should do is sue M$ for placing your music in the default "shared" location.
That's actually a very good point. It's illegal to share music, yet the largest sofware company in the world defaults all of your music to a shared folder.

This would make an excellent legal argument in court.

486.5.2008 7:25

ChiefBrdy, although I am thrilled with the outcome,

Quote:
the largest sofware company in the world defaults all of your music to a shared folder

they did not figure that you would share your shared folder on a P2P network. That is truely stupid! You are invertantly sharing all your personel data to the world.

I suspect media mafia pushed the ripping was illegal too hard for the judge to stomach so he hurt them.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive