Fools who download music

[elSicomoro]

Well, look at the other 2 people that suggested it--Slang and Griff. All in jest.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Does this mean you're NOT going to save us from the RIAA?

[elSicomoro]

I am merely one person--I would need an army of millions...or at the very least, an army of lawyers.

The EFF and the ACLU are going to be the crusaders on this one, but ultimately, it comes down to you and me. I will do my part by putting my upcoming CD out on my own or on an indie label (with me controlling the masters of course).

[xoxoxoBruce]

Go, Dude. I can't wait to steal it.

Well if you're not going to save us I'll have to try something else......Hmmm.
Hey Dave, the RIAA says you can't code, don't know how to retouch pictures and your Mom wears combat boots.

[elSicomoro]

Nah...you're using the wrong bait. Try this:

Israel is a mean ol' country that beats up on the poor defenseless Palestinians. Suicide bombers are true freedom fighters.

[elSicomoro]

Incidentally, when the Sycamore CD is finished, free mp3's will be posted. Maybe I'll create some web-only specials.

[Elspode]

Out of curiosity, how is the new recording coming along, Syc? Have you found that software you mentioned to be easy enough to use, or did you go another route?

Since we're talking about downloading music here, and because I can't remember if I ever mentioned the stuff I do, I thought I'd post a couple of links if anyone gives a damn.

Three tracks from the CD I did with my longtime collaborator a few years ago:
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/79/l...patrick_c.html

A couple of rough mixes from the current recording we're doing of WB Yeats songs set to my collaborator's original music:
www.lunalushede.org/The Harlot's Song.mp3
www.lunalushede.org/Who But an Idiot.mp3

Part of my attitude toward downloading music is based on the idea that, at this point in my life, I'd be thrilled if someone would *want* to download any music I'd been part of making...

[Cam]

Okay so I posted out of my rear again, the McDonalds case isn't like these cases at all. Anyways I completely agree with all your points, but I still think that anyone who offers up hundreds of mp3's of copyrighted music and then claims they didn't know it was illegal is full of crap.

[russotto]

Originally posted by richlevy


Actually, what that suit was about was should hot coffee be capable of delivering third degree burns. The case was more complex than can be conveyed in a one-line sound bite.

The simple answer is "Yes, coffee should be capable of delivering third degree burns. Hot tap water is capable of delivering third degree burns. Coffee should be hotter than hot tap water. Q.E.D"

Summary of facts in McDonalds Coffee Case

This is derived from a "fact sheet" put out by the American Trial Lawyers Association. I wouldn't take it as gospel truth, particularly where it diverges from the dry facts of the matter,

Similarly, the whole issue of copyright protection involves over 200 years of case law. For instance, when a band plays a song at a wedding, do they pay a royalty? When a professional DJ plays a song at a wedding, does he pay a royalty? Is he supposed to? If so, why hasn't the RIAA sued professional DJ's.

There are only a few decades of law involved here (sound recordings weren't even copyrightable for most of the 20th century). In the situations you describe, there is a royalty paid, but not to the RIAA; the copyright of the recording is not at issue, but the copyright of the song is. So ASCAP or BMI or some other group of Girl Scout threatening thugs gets paid. For webcasting, Congress concluded (at the behe$t of the RIAA) that both the copyright of the recording and of the song are implicated, so BOTH sets of thugs get paid.

Some of the issues relating to the RIAA and music are still in a gray area. The RIAA is trying to have it all their way and is attempting to treat music as both a license and piece of property, whichever suits them at the time.

The MPAA is a little more guilty of this; the RIAA still agrees you buy a CD, though they have an odd idea of the rights which come along with that purchase. The MPAA has asserted that you don't have permission to even play a DVD unless you buy both the disc and a licensed player. And they've gotten that to $tick in court.

[Elspode]

The MPAA and the RIAA should just make everyone stop putting out product. That'll teach us.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by russotto
There are only a few decades of law involved here (sound recordings weren't even copyrightable for most of the 20th century). In the situations you describe, there is a royalty paid, but not to the RIAA; the copyright of the recording is not at issue, but the copyright of the song is. So ASCAP or BMI or some other group of Girl Scout threatening thugs gets paid. For webcasting, Congress concluded (at the behe$t of the RIAA) that both the copyright of the recording and of the song are implicated, so BOTH sets of thugs get paid.
[/b]

But copyright goes back to the Constitution

"the Congress shall have 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."

and the Copyright Act of 1790.

The intended goal remains the same, whatever the item being copyrighted.

[BrianR]

story here

Wonder how THIS will play out?

Brian

[russotto]

Originally posted by richlevy
and the Copyright Act of 1790.

The intended goal remains the same, whatever the item being copyrighted.

That "limited times" thing seems to have been swept under the rug somewhere along the way.

Copyright as it originally existed had limited times and a limited scope. It didn't really impinge on the ordinary person's life. Now it's got effectively unlimited duration, nearly unlimited scope (and they're working on removing the limitations), and constantly impinges on people's lives. Yes, both modern and current copyright both derive from the same clause of Constitution, but they really aren't too similar.

[hot_pastrami]

Oh crap... taking a cue from the RIAA, now the USPS is suing Americans over loss of revenue due to "peer-to-peer electronic mail." (Satire)

[OnyxCougar]

Good thing you put (Satire) on the end of that. I'd have never known.