Subject:
|
Music Downloads and RIAA
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:17:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
83 times
|
| |
|
|
Q&A: Will I be sued for music-swapping?
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3022170.stm
Yikes! That article seems full of misleading and possibly false information.
Now, I’m not the expert on these cases but it is my understanding that the
student that was sued was actually running only a search type service of the
university’s local files. That others used this search utility to find illicit
files is not his fault.
Then there’s this bit:
“If you download songs from a site that is not sanctioned - whether it is one
song or a million - you are infringing copyright and breaking the law.”
Gee - that statement seems pointedly false to me. I can think of any number of
alternatives to contradict the assertion that the specific scenario as described
is one involving copyright infringement.
I have previously stated an obvious scenario in which the issue is less clear: I
download something I already own. Why would I do that? Maybe I’m at work,
maybe I’d rather lazily download something than to take the time to rip it to
mp3 format myself. Etc, Etc, Etc...
So why does this scenario occur to me? Because I have done this very thing
numerous times. I have a rather large collection of mp3s of stuff I already own
either on vinyl or on CD, and sometimes on both!!!
Unless you are running on a very speedy system, or multiple systems at once (I
now own 6 computers. Can you say KVM switch? Can you say MAME Console?), it’s a
hassle to rip your own mp3s when so much stuff is already out there. You have to
type in all the names and album info, you have to rip it, takes time, etc.
Downloading files is as easy as point and click and waiting while something
downloads intermittently until it’s finished. A single file is ready to go once
downloaded, a whole album of files might have to be uncompressed from their
sigular archive file -- then they are ready to play. So much easier.
I hope people don’t just walk into court and roll over on this one. IANAL, but
I think the RIAA also has to make at least a prima facia case even in a civil
suit -- this means that they would have to overcome the burden of proving you
don’t own something you downloaded. Otherwise it’s an obvious defense: you walk
into court with a CD, or several, that they claim you infringed upon online.
Slashdot covered this under the assumption that the RIAA would go after
uploaders -- which is to say, going after the persons sharing out the infringing
files, and not necessarily downloading them. This is kind of weird because I
actually think most of the uploading is going on overseas, although I could be
wrong. We americans are just leeches -- but we all knew that already, right?
Why MAME? Because Sinistar is my god, Baby!
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Music Downloads and RIAA
|
| "richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message news:HH43D4.C71@lugnet.com... (...) infringing (...) because I (...) could be (...) right? (...) I just put two things together: Kazaa was sued by the RIAA and found to be not liable for the (...) (21 years ago, 27-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
