ALASKAN AVIATOR
Republican balls kicker!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Posts
- 47
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
12 year old girl getting sued
- Thread starter Styles
- Start date
- Watchers 15
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
§ 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives39
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if —
(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
I don't think the Girl was seeking a commercial advantage and as such it will be a tuff case. There is an argument that hers was simply an archive. Now if she was selling the music (Napster was making money and as such was seeking a commercial advantage) it would be a different argument.
§ 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives39
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if —
(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
I don't think the Girl was seeking a commercial advantage and as such it will be a tuff case. There is an argument that hers was simply an archive. Now if she was selling the music (Napster was making money and as such was seeking a commercial advantage) it would be a different argument.
~~~^~~~
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 6,137
The case against the girl settled for $2,000.
Now if I were Counsel, I would stipulate the settlement be taken pro rata from her lunch money, or allowance, and paid at a quarter a week.
Yes, the Recording Industry is correct to enfore their property rights. But, the Recording Industry is not exactly the most law abiding citizen in the world of property law. For example they settled a anti trust case in the billions last year (I got a $20 settlement check) for conspiring with their industry peers to raise and set CD prices.
Not only are a lot of customers alienated and angry, many, like me now want to see the recording industry be turned on its ear for their lunacy. Suing 12 year olds is not justice.
Why not be smart and sell us the music we want at reasonable prices online ? I would pay $1.00 a song to get better quality and the selection of wierd stuff I like to listen to. Often I do not want a song list that was decided on to fill an album. I do like the convenience of downloading from the internet and the music industry could profit from adopting current technology to provide an efficient distribution system.
I don't spend much time in shopping malls - I would rather pay for broadband than pay to air condition a shopping mall.
~~~^~~~
Now if I were Counsel, I would stipulate the settlement be taken pro rata from her lunch money, or allowance, and paid at a quarter a week.
Yes, the Recording Industry is correct to enfore their property rights. But, the Recording Industry is not exactly the most law abiding citizen in the world of property law. For example they settled a anti trust case in the billions last year (I got a $20 settlement check) for conspiring with their industry peers to raise and set CD prices.
Not only are a lot of customers alienated and angry, many, like me now want to see the recording industry be turned on its ear for their lunacy. Suing 12 year olds is not justice.
Why not be smart and sell us the music we want at reasonable prices online ? I would pay $1.00 a song to get better quality and the selection of wierd stuff I like to listen to. Often I do not want a song list that was decided on to fill an album. I do like the convenience of downloading from the internet and the music industry could profit from adopting current technology to provide an efficient distribution system.
I don't spend much time in shopping malls - I would rather pay for broadband than pay to air condition a shopping mall.
~~~^~~~
~~~^~~~
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 6,137
Re: BigD
Actually he does! Well Disney and other media companies do. Much of Disney's early work was a reformat of European stories and music in the public domain. Children's fables like Cinderella are now "Disney Property." Never mind that Disney did not create the character, they now own it.jarhead said:
Styles
Guinness means Genius
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Posts
- 156
Morning all!
Disgusting. Totally and completely disgusting.
It would be one thing if the RIAA were to settle, such that $2,000 were donated to a charity. Even that would be a pretty low blow. But actually adding the cash from this girl and her mother to their corporate coffers?
Repeat after me, everyone: I will never buy another CD from the RIAA again.
Disgusting. Totally and completely disgusting.
It would be one thing if the RIAA were to settle, such that $2,000 were donated to a charity. Even that would be a pretty low blow. But actually adding the cash from this girl and her mother to their corporate coffers?
Repeat after me, everyone: I will never buy another CD from the RIAA again.
Dizel8
Douglas metal
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Posts
- 2,817
The Disney post is quite interesting and I always did wonder how Disney got away with it. Most of the early stories were indeed european fables and they are now presented as being Disney.
As far as Cinderella is concerned, does Disney actually have intellectual rights to the story or just the way they depicted it, ie the "look" of Cinderella.
As far as Cinderella is concerned, does Disney actually have intellectual rights to the story or just the way they depicted it, ie the "look" of Cinderella.
wingnutt
...recognize this?
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2002
- Posts
- 1,078
Foobar said:
so...how do all you hardliners interpret the above information?!? after reading that, it looks to me pretty legal. now, ive never done it (not that my dialup would alllow it anyways) but, according to the above, does that not shatter the "12 year old deserves to get sued" argument?!?
id also like to see the reference that the RIAA is using in order to sue, if anyone has that link.
...just curious
Dizel8
Douglas metal
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Posts
- 2,817
Well, just playing devils advocate here, but not sure you can consider her a Library or Archive, certainly not in the regular use of the word.
While I think RIAA sucks, defending the actions of this girl is akin to defending the fat people sueing McD. While downloading music is petty crime at worst, it is illegal and I think most will agree. One would however imagine, that RIAA could get better publicity.
Perhaps the real problem is not file sharing, but piracy, which is rampant in Asia, however, being outside the US, it is a uphill battle to win.
Oh well, apparently this case has been settled.
While I think RIAA sucks, defending the actions of this girl is akin to defending the fat people sueing McD. While downloading music is petty crime at worst, it is illegal and I think most will agree. One would however imagine, that RIAA could get better publicity.
Perhaps the real problem is not file sharing, but piracy, which is rampant in Asia, however, being outside the US, it is a uphill battle to win.
Oh well, apparently this case has been settled.
I think you miss a huge point in the section you cite, namely the part that says "Reproduction by Libraries and Archives." You cannot seriously think that a 12 year old girl (or anyone else named in the suit) are libraries or archives. Lets get our terms straight here, just because the file may be considered an 'archive' does not mean that the girl is considered an archive. The section you cite says only libraries and archives apply. An archive is an organization that stores items of significant hisorical value. That is different from an archive in the computer sense. Nice try, please continue to try to rationalize your thievery...
Styles
Guinness means Genius
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Posts
- 156
From slashdot...
Wired has a facinating article about a company called BigChampagne
which sells regional P2P download statistics to most of the major record labels. When the labels know what people are downloading, they know what to put on the radio, and sales in the area increase. The record industry's lawsuits against file- sharing companies hang on their assertion that the programs have no use other than to help infringe copyrights. If the labels acknowledge a legitimate use for P2P programs, it would undercut their case as well as their zero-tolerance stance.
Things that make you go hmmmmmm.....
Wired has a facinating article about a company called BigChampagne
which sells regional P2P download statistics to most of the major record labels. When the labels know what people are downloading, they know what to put on the radio, and sales in the area increase. The record industry's lawsuits against file- sharing companies hang on their assertion that the programs have no use other than to help infringe copyrights. If the labels acknowledge a legitimate use for P2P programs, it would undercut their case as well as their zero-tolerance stance.
Things that make you go hmmmmmm.....
~~~^~~~
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 6,137
And then there are people like me who download bands they have only heard about through word of mouth. Then if they like what they hear, they buy the CD.
MP3's loose some quality in the conversion process. The store bought CD's sound better - so if I like the Artist, then I buy better quality sound.
Again, the music industry is fighting its own consumers - they should be using their resources to market music online themselves. I've bought 4 CDs from MP3.com this year.
MP3's loose some quality in the conversion process. The store bought CD's sound better - so if I like the Artist, then I buy better quality sound.
Again, the music industry is fighting its own consumers - they should be using their resources to market music online themselves. I've bought 4 CDs from MP3.com this year.
A Squared
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 3,006
Foobar and Wingnutt,
Uhhhhh, first, as has already been pointed out, that exception is clearly and unambiguously intended for Libraries and Archives. It is amazing that you are so desperate to rationalize your behavior that you apparently refuse to see simple words which are right before your eyes. It is indeed an interesting insight into how powerful denial can be.
Second, the purpose of the referenced exception is to allow a library to make a copy of something it has purchased and legally owns, and put that copy on the shelves for lending, and save the original in a back room, out of circulation. When the copy is worn out by use, the library, may make another copy, and put the new copy in circulation. In this way the original itself is not destroyed by repeated use. It does *not* allow the library to make multiple copies and distribute them. Each time they are allowed to make a single copy only. You must have missed the "reproduce no more than one copy" part as that doesn't agree with what you want to believe either.
This exception in no way allows people, librarians or otherwise, to make copies of books or music which they did not purchase and do not legally own.
The fact that some of you have "interpreted" this regulation to mean something which it so obviously does not, is a measure of how desperately irrational you have become in your attempt to portray copyright infringement as something other than theft. The human mind is an amazing thing.
Uhhhhh, first, as has already been pointed out, that exception is clearly and unambiguously intended for Libraries and Archives. It is amazing that you are so desperate to rationalize your behavior that you apparently refuse to see simple words which are right before your eyes. It is indeed an interesting insight into how powerful denial can be.
Second, the purpose of the referenced exception is to allow a library to make a copy of something it has purchased and legally owns, and put that copy on the shelves for lending, and save the original in a back room, out of circulation. When the copy is worn out by use, the library, may make another copy, and put the new copy in circulation. In this way the original itself is not destroyed by repeated use. It does *not* allow the library to make multiple copies and distribute them. Each time they are allowed to make a single copy only. You must have missed the "reproduce no more than one copy" part as that doesn't agree with what you want to believe either.
This exception in no way allows people, librarians or otherwise, to make copies of books or music which they did not purchase and do not legally own.
The fact that some of you have "interpreted" this regulation to mean something which it so obviously does not, is a measure of how desperately irrational you have become in your attempt to portray copyright infringement as something other than theft. The human mind is an amazing thing.
There is an argument to be made that she was simply archiving music, and likewise there is an argument that she did not copy the music, rather those who downloaded it did. If I archive CD’s that I purchased at the store in an MP3 format on my computer, do I now have a LEAGAL or contractual obligation to insure that they are not accessible via the internet? I really think the issue here is the intent to profit and that is why Napster failed. Napster was making money off the sharing. The latest round of file sharing does not follow that model at all.
Copyright infringement is not theft. If it was theft the police would be arresting these people and RIAA would not be filing civil suits. I’m not saying it’s a-ok and good for society to infringe on another’s copy rights, but it’s not theft.
I see the RIAA could
1) Adapt their business model and attempt to stop the COMMERCIAL theft of music over the internet. Perhaps start by selling CD’s that are customizable, or at least not forcing the 11 crap songs and one good song on a 25.00 CD on the consumer.
This is the only viable option in my mind.
2) Attempt to force the public to respect copyright laws through threats of litigation. Without press coverage (which won’t last forever) this will not work. Can they really use this method on 4 million people? That is a whole lot of civil suits, even if on suit cost just $10.00, it would add up fast!
“If you're one of the 4 million people connected to the KaZaA network at any given time, you were about as likely to be hit by lightning today as by one of the 261 lawsuits from the record industry.” (http://slate.msn.com/id/2088066/)
Won’t the public just use technology to make the process anonymous?
Go see http://www.earthstation5.com/
I didn’t even know to steal music using Kazaa prior to the suits and ensuing publicity.
3) Attempt to use technology to thwart technology. The best case scenario is to shut down the swapping for a few weeks as the community develops the counter technology. Does RIAA have the resources to keep up this fight for years and years?
RIAA is in big trouble, just like ALPA is in big trouble. Big organizations don’t evolve over time, rather they stagnate to the point of crisis and then do a radical re-invention that is marginally successful at best. I would bet one million dollars we will see exactly that from RIAA and ALPA any day now.
Copyright infringement is not theft. If it was theft the police would be arresting these people and RIAA would not be filing civil suits. I’m not saying it’s a-ok and good for society to infringe on another’s copy rights, but it’s not theft.
I see the RIAA could
1) Adapt their business model and attempt to stop the COMMERCIAL theft of music over the internet. Perhaps start by selling CD’s that are customizable, or at least not forcing the 11 crap songs and one good song on a 25.00 CD on the consumer.
This is the only viable option in my mind.
2) Attempt to force the public to respect copyright laws through threats of litigation. Without press coverage (which won’t last forever) this will not work. Can they really use this method on 4 million people? That is a whole lot of civil suits, even if on suit cost just $10.00, it would add up fast!
“If you're one of the 4 million people connected to the KaZaA network at any given time, you were about as likely to be hit by lightning today as by one of the 261 lawsuits from the record industry.” (http://slate.msn.com/id/2088066/)
Won’t the public just use technology to make the process anonymous?
Go see http://www.earthstation5.com/
I didn’t even know to steal music using Kazaa prior to the suits and ensuing publicity.
3) Attempt to use technology to thwart technology. The best case scenario is to shut down the swapping for a few weeks as the community develops the counter technology. Does RIAA have the resources to keep up this fight for years and years?
RIAA is in big trouble, just like ALPA is in big trouble. Big organizations don’t evolve over time, rather they stagnate to the point of crisis and then do a radical re-invention that is marginally successful at best. I would bet one million dollars we will see exactly that from RIAA and ALPA any day now.
Interesting solution....
"The most obvious method would be the creation of a "blanket compulsory license" for digital media akin to those already used by radio and TV broadcasters. Compulsories, as they're called in the entertainment industry, would work like this: Music fans could download all the music they want for free online, but they'd pay a sort of "download tax" on computers, MP3 players, ISP accounts, and other transport mechanisms for digital music (the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 imposed such a fee on DAT tapes and players). The collected fees would be paid out to musicians and copyright holders based on their real or estimated share of downloads. If that sounds crazy, remember it's also the means by which radio stations and their listeners already share all the music they want, without fear of being sued."
"The most obvious method would be the creation of a "blanket compulsory license" for digital media akin to those already used by radio and TV broadcasters. Compulsories, as they're called in the entertainment industry, would work like this: Music fans could download all the music they want for free online, but they'd pay a sort of "download tax" on computers, MP3 players, ISP accounts, and other transport mechanisms for digital music (the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 imposed such a fee on DAT tapes and players). The collected fees would be paid out to musicians and copyright holders based on their real or estimated share of downloads. If that sounds crazy, remember it's also the means by which radio stations and their listeners already share all the music they want, without fear of being sued."
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2003
- Posts
- 1,178
A Squared
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 3,006
Foobar said:
Uhhh, no. Again this is another example of bizarre and convoluted rationalization. Copying music you don't own is not "archiving". An "archive" is something in a museum, or run by a historical preservation organization. A juvenile delinquiquent living in the projects is not an "archive"
Look, it's a very simple concept. If you do not understand it you are either incredibly stupid, or you are conciously choosing to not understand it. I favor the second explanation. If you purchace a recording, you can make a copy for your own use so you don't wear out the original. That's fair. If *I* make a copy of a CD that *YOU* bought, to avoid buying a copy myself, that is copyright infringement. It's that simple.
THe fact that the RIAA is pursuing this in civil court does not prove that copyright infringement is not a crime. It merely indicates that they have been unable to get the FBI to allocate resources for a criminal prosecution. We've all seen the "FBI warning" on videos, right? we all laugh, but in reality, there are criminal penalties for copyright infringement.
Sometime in the last few years, the person who was number one on the FBI's ten most wanted criminal list was a Russian programmer. His crime? Writing software that allegedly enabled de-encryption and copying of commercial software. Period, nothing else. No murder, no rape, no armed robbery, no interstate flight, just enabling copyright infringement. Number one on the FBI's most wanted list. The FBI arrested him. Charged him with federal offences. I'm not sure of the outcome of his trial, but don't ever think that violating copyright laws isn't a crime.
Styles
Guinness means Genius
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Posts
- 156
Good NEWS!!! From Slashdot.org
CNET News is reporting that the RIAA is being sued
because of 'Clean Slate' filesharing amnesty program that was announced on Monday. 'Clean Slate' allows people to (supposedly) avoid legal action by stepping forward and forfeiting any illegally traded songs. The suit, filed in the Marin Superior Court of California, charges that the RIAA's program is deceptive and fraudulent business practice." The suit claims that the amnesty is "designed to induce members of the general public... to incriminate themselves... while (receiving)... no legally binding release of claims"
CNET News is reporting that the RIAA is being sued
because of 'Clean Slate' filesharing amnesty program that was announced on Monday. 'Clean Slate' allows people to (supposedly) avoid legal action by stepping forward and forfeiting any illegally traded songs. The suit, filed in the Marin Superior Court of California, charges that the RIAA's program is deceptive and fraudulent business practice." The suit claims that the amnesty is "designed to induce members of the general public... to incriminate themselves... while (receiving)... no legally binding release of claims"
wingnutt
...recognize this?
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2002
- Posts
- 1,078
A Squared said:
whoa there killer...first off...i only asked a simple question. i do not have, nor have i yet made an opinion on this matter. i dont download music, havent ever, and dont forsee me doing so in the near future. i even asked for the other side of the "infringement" in order that i could form said opinion. as of this moment i am unaware as to what rules are being broken...or not being broken.
secondly...i gotta ask, who made you defender of the RIAA? you seem pretty vehemently opposed to anyone who thinks anything other than what you do. i can appreciate not backing down on an issue that one feels adamant about, but to what end? you almost sound like your personally involved in the matter in some way?
in that vein...its kinda weird how you criticize a guy for the way he understands a phrasing, then clarify for him how he "should" read it. i see nothing in the original that says anything about "putting a copy on the shelves, saving the original in back, and when its worn out make another copy, and put the new copy in circulation". it sounds to me like you sir, are the one who "made that part agree with what you want to believe".
and lastly...an archive, in its simplest definition, can indeed be defined as a storage place for records, documents, and yes, files. this does not have to mean that in order to "archive" one must be collecting the complete history of the third reich during the WWII years and be locking the papers away in an abandonded underground salt mine in a secret location only known the the highest level FBI agents. a personal archive for any other reason is a completely plausible occurrence.
relax dude...and smell the Jet A once in awhile
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
