RIAA probably deserves some money, but instead of paying lawyers, howabout coming up with a distribution method that works? I'd pay $10-15 a month to be able to access a near limitless catalog of music.

Ah, so it seems in the end, the only people who will win this are the lawyers.

Goooood bless Americaaaaa
land that I loooooove...

Nabb1: Ah, so it seems in the end, the only people who will win this are the lawyers.

Goooood bless Americaaaaa
land that I loooooove...

Aren't you a lawyer?

John Paul Jones: Aren't you a lawyer?

Uh... I play piano in a New Orleans cat house.

At least, that's what I tell my mother. She'd die if she knew I was really a lawyer.

The strategies proposed by these lawyers may win them a few cases and get them some good headlines, but in the overall picture they amount to little more than the exploitation of very minor technicalities that the RIAA will tweak in the future.

The article reminds me of the foreclosure defense tactics we discussed a few months ago. (I think that was on Fark.) Homeowners would deny that they owed the foreclosing bank anything and demand the bank prove it. The mortgages had been sold and resold. Often the paperwork would not be in order and the case would be delayed if not lost. But there was no question that the defendants weren't paying their bills. The question was whether the plaintiff could prove they held the mortgage and that the bills weren't paid, etc. If Bank of Fred really owns the mortgage, Bank of Barney is not entitled to foreclose.

Mistakes in paperwork do not equal bad faith and fraud on the part of the banks. Likewise, mistakes in copyright registration (if there were any) do not mean bad faith and fraud on the part of RIAA.

If I were to bet on the work for hire and related legal aspects, I would have to bet that the entertainment industry's legal team did it right. Maybe the trial lawyers screwed up in one case or another. I doubt that the standard process used to register copyrights in audio works has been invalid for decades. (The copyright office and legal system will make every effort to avoid setting precedent to that effect -- when I bet, I'm betting with the house.)

If all of these arguments weren't enough, the Nesson/Camara tag team have a couple more eyepoppers to make: P2P file-sharing of copyrighted material is fair use, and huge statutory damage awards against noncommercial users are unconstitutional.

The first is clearly a loser, if not frivolous, and the second looks like an as-applied challenge which needs to be in a case in which there is actually a huge statutory damage award. That big case from a year or two ago might have been a candidate, but it is headed for a new trial. (That's the one where the woman pleaded ignorance but erased the evidence to cover her tracks.)

ZAZ: Mistakes in paperwork do not equal bad faith and fraud on the part of the banks.

Offtopic, but trying to collect on a debt you do not own is fraud.

Offtopic, but trying to collect on a debt you do not own is fraud.

Fraud requires intent to deceive. If RIAA mistakenly believes it owns the rights, trying to collect is not fraud.

Didn't the RIAA stop going after P2P users directly? I thought they stopped that and instead send letters to ISPs.

Ingaba: The strategies proposed by these lawyers may win them a few cases and get them some good headlines, but in the overall picture they amount to little more than the exploitation of very minor technicalities that the RIAA will tweak in the future.

Well if the case can invalidate recording company claims to the music then the copyright would default back to the artist. I would imagine there are many artists that have "made it big" who'd love to get the full rights back for their catalog of music.

Sure going forward the RIAA could follow the clarified process of proper copyright registration but that would not help them with their existing claims. Artists who may be against file sharing may side against the RIAA if they see the opportunity to get full access to their music back and the possible money that comes with it.

In any case the professor mentioned in the article is correct. The entire situation of copyright and the digital age MUST come to discussion in a court for the benefit of everybody involved. The existing laws DID NOT include proper examination of digital media and NEED to have a full review in a legally binding setting.

Well if the case can invalidate recording company claims to the music then the copyright would default back to the artist. I would imagine there are many artists that have "made it big" who'd love to get the full rights back for their catalog of music.

The copyright ownership issue is a technicality. There is a written contract giving rights to the industry. If Record Company owns the copyright outright, or Arist owns copyright with exclusive rights granted to Record Company, Record Company can sue either way. Only the copyright paperwork needs to change.

IIRC, you can't sue for statutory damages for infringement prior to registration. If Record Company has to file a new registration form naming Artist as copyright owner and Record Company as assignee, that would terminate the current round of suits against casual infringers because RIAA is not trying to prove actual damages.

But that's just a bump in the road.

(BTW, the contracts I sign for software work require me to aid my employer in intellectual property paperwork. So I have half a patent, but it's worth nothing to me personally because my ex-employer owns it as agreed in our contract. If the recorded assignment of rights is flawed I have to help them correct it. They have to pay me a reasonable rate to assist them. I don't win a free half-patent just because they screwed up. I assume entertainment contracts have similar rules; I don't know for sure.)

Isn't it clawback, not claw back? I've seen it in many proxies and such and it's always been clawback.

ZAZ: Well if the case can invalidate recording company claims to the music then the copyright would default back to the artist. I would imagine there are many artists that have "made it big" who'd love to get the full rights back for their catalog of music.

The copyright ownership issue is a technicality. There is a written contract giving rights to the industry. If Record Company owns the copyright outright, or Arist owns copyright with exclusive rights granted to Record Company, Record Company can sue either way. Only the copyright paperwork needs to change.

IIRC, you can't sue for statutory damages for infringement prior to registration. If Record Company has to file a new registration form naming Artist as copyright owner and Record Company as assignee, that would terminate the current round of suits against casual infringers because RIAA is not trying to prove actual damages.

But that's just a bump in the road.

(BTW, the contracts I sign for software work require me to aid my employer in intellectual property paperwork. So I have half a patent, but it's worth nothing to me personally because my ex-employer owns it as agreed in our contract. If the recorded assignment of rights is flawed I have to help them correct it. They have to pay me a reasonable rate to assist them. I don't win a free half-patent just because they screwed up. I assume entertainment contracts have similar rules; I don't know for sure.)



Yes I can see your point, it does really depend on the other contracts and clauses. I am thinking of contracts for written work that give rights to the publisher that have clauses that give the publication rights back to the author if the publisher has not "published" the work in a certain time frame. The cases I'd read about involve some works that were submitted but never ultimately used and there was basically a use it or lose it clause that after 5 years without a "printing" of the work the rights returned to the author.

As for patents I have dealt with one case where a technology existed and was registered but the rights reverted to the inventor listed on the patent after the registrar failed to pay the renewal/extension fee to the government on time due to a bankruptcy. I only got involved because my company wanted my to engineer a piece of equipment that utilized this patented component and out patent attorney eventually had to track down the inventor for us.

I thought most individuals that were forced to pay the RIAA were settled out of court. Doesn't that mean that they admitted guilt to the charges? If so, how can anyone get that money back?

This is an interesting case. I hope this does force the courts to bring things up to the digital age law-wise. I also hope the RIAA gets farked up the ass with sand as lube. The old model for music has died and they need to move on. Maintaining a strangle hold on the music industry to keep their profits is hurting musicians.

If downloading MP3 copies is stealing,
shouldnt giving a copy back make everything OK again?
You know, replace what was stolen and all that.

Bukharin: You know, replace what was stolen and all that

From your above statement I can deduce that you've never been charged with stealing anything.

hazeleyedwolff: Bukharin: You know, replace what was stolen and all that

From your above statement I can deduce that you've never been charged with stealing anything.

Isn't he right as far as civil suits go?

I'm looking at the liner notes of an EMI album (The Aliens - Astronomy for Dogs) and they stuck this in:

"Thank you for buying this music and for supporting the artists, songwriters, musicians, and others who've created it and made it possible. Please remember that this recording and artwork are protected by copyright law. Since you don't own the copyright, it's not yours to distribute. Please don't use internet services that promote the illegal distribution of copyrighted music, give away illegal copies of discs, or lend discs to other for copying. It's hurting the artists who created the disc. It has the same effect as stealing a disc from a store without paying for it Applicable laws provide severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorised reproduction, distribution, and digital transmission of copyrighted sound recordings."

Album is from '07. Interesting attempt, written in casual style so everyone can understand.

I thought most individuals that were forced to pay the RIAA were settled out of court. Doesn't that mean that they admitted guilt to the charges?

Effectively, yes.

Technically the payments were probably not a confession of guilt but a settlement of a disputed case. The legal system likes settlements. RIAA might have won seven figures, or the defendant might have won and received attorney's fees. So the parties compromised on a four figure payment to RIAA.

A settlement is a contract. You can cancel a contract for fraud, but not because you realized later you could get a better deal.

SpaceyCat: This is an interesting case. I hope this does force the courts to bring things up to the digital age law-wise. I also hope the RIAA gets farked up the ass with sand as lube. The old model for music has died and they need to move on. Maintaining a strangle hold on the music industry to keep their profits is hurting musicians.

Every thread about the RIAA includes a post like this one. I'm not sure I buy it. People claim they copy and "illegally" down load music for all sorts of reasons. I think it's because they can. If people could walk in Wal-Mart and walk out with CD's with zero chance of getting caught, they would. People who claim it's a "failed business model" really mean they found a way to get something for nothing and don't like any push back. If iTunes lowered the cost of songs to a penny tomorrow, people would still try and find a way to get songs for free. I really think a lot of people think any system the includes them paying any amount of money is a failed business model

NightOwl2255: Every thread about the RIAA includes a post like this one. I'm not sure I buy it. People claim they copy and "illegally" down load music for all sorts of reasons. I think it's because they can. If people could walk in Wal-Mart and walk out with CD's with zero chance of getting caught, they would. People who claim it's a "failed business model" really mean they found a way to get something for nothing and don't like any push back. If iTunes lowered the cost of songs to a penny tomorrow, people would still try and find a way to get songs for free. I really think a lot of people think any system the includes them paying any amount of money is a failed business model

They have to go to a monthly charge for unlimited songs and until that happens they will have a failed business model. The thing is, people will pay for what they can afford and, as far as music goes, they will steal what they cannot because there is 0 chance they will get caught.

hazeleyedwolff: Doesn't that mean that they admitted guilt to the charges?

100% wrong. Absolutely incorrect.

Seeing as how there will always be ways around the DRM's included with MP3's, I think the only realistic way of cracking down on piracy is to hold the websites liable that provide people with the means to do it.

I really hoped the golden age of piracy would kill the abuse of artists by the record companies, but it looks as if they will ride it out and thrive, same as it ever was. Metallica did more for the major labels than they did for any artists, but hey, they got theirs, so I guess that's all that matters.

I think the future of digital music is the structure that eMusic is going to. No DRM's, you own the mp3, but you only get a certain number per month. Since they landed the deal with Sony, I think the other three big labels will adopt similar business structures.

ZunePass is an interesting idea (you get unlimited downloads for $15 per month), but I don't like the idea of them expiring if you cancel your membership, and that you cannot burn a CD copy.

MmmCrime: RIAA probably deserves some money, but instead of paying lawyers, howabout coming up with a distribution method that works? I'd pay $10-15 a month to be able to access a near limitless catalog of music.

Rhapsody allows that.

Orgasmatron138: Seeing as how there will always be ways around the DRM's included with MP3's, I think the only realistic way of cracking down on piracy is to hold the websites liable that provide people with the means to do it.

So... in that case Sony is liable because they made dual tape deck systems that allowed me to copy music for friends? They provided me "with the means to do it" after all.

FTFA: The recording industry has spent (and continues to spend) millions of dollars on its litigation campaign against accused file-swappers, but if two lawyers have their way, the RIAA will have to pay all the money back

The RIAA will have to 'pay all of the money back' that they have spent? To whom do they pay it back?

It's a policy question whether dual head cassette decks are allowed, banned, or taxed. Likewise music web sites. The answer does not have to be the same for both.

There was a time and place, and may still be, where if you bought certain types of blank tape you were guilty of copyright infringement and had to pay a fee to the groups you were most likely to be stealing from. Of course that was bundled into the price. Functionally the fee was a tax.

If the DMCA were being written today it would not be nearly so generous to file hosting web sites.

timujin: Orgasmatron138: Seeing as how there will always be ways around the DRM's included with MP3's, I think the only realistic way of cracking down on piracy is to hold the websites liable that provide people with the means to do it.

So... in that case Sony is liable because they made dual tape deck systems that allowed me to copy music for friends? They provided me "with the means to do it" after all.

Two different things: tape deck recordings are inferior with each generation of copying, it takes much longer to do (thus almost guaranteeing that you can't make a lot of money reproducing a tape), and tapes obviously cannot be instantly transported around the world. With digital files, you are copying at the same level of quality, you could theoretically burn CD after CD quickly and sell them, and you can distribute to a worldwide audience in a matter of seconds.

I'm not saying I agree with the record labels, I'm just trying to analyze things from their perspective. They will never be able to keep people from cracking the music files. Someone will always find a way. The only other option is to go after the websites, thus making them police themselves.

What I think is this: piracy is stealing, but the record companies are the last people I feel sorry for. They continually push crap instead of good music, screw the artists out of all the money, but they are the first people to cry when someone else cuts in on their action.

I'd love to see a one-on-one scenario of music downloading, where every band could have their own website, and you could go to it and buy their music and pay them directly. Let people burn CD's off the MP3's (or FLAK, or whatever), but crack down on piracy websites. Sure, I might make a copy of the CD for my brother, but I won't be placing it on the internet for eveyone to download without giving the artist theirs.

Does that make any sense or am I just talking crazy?

Digital music has no physical presence so it doesn't feel like stealing the same way taking a CD out of a store would.

Nabb1: John Paul Jones: Aren't you a lawyer?

Uh... I play piano in a New Orleans cat house.

At least, that's what I tell my mother. She'd die if she knew I was really a lawyer.

Good thing you are. Otherwise I would sue in the case "Beer v Keyboard" +1

ZAZ: Digital music has no physical presence so it doesn't feel like stealing the same way taking a CD out of a store would.

I still felt like I was stealing, but you're right - it's not the same. I think it has a little to do with the act of stealing over the internet being so much easier than stealing from a store.

Orgasmatron138: Does that make any sense or am I just talking crazy?

I don't know what a viable model would be, and by that I mean one in which the people who want the music can find it and take it with them somehow and the people who make the music get paid. But I think that going after the ISPs is akin to going after the tape manufacturers (or CD manufacturers or PC manufacturers...) I used tapes as a quick example because it's something I did as a kid, but here's a more appropriate example:

available on Amazon for a low, low price!

ZAZ: If RIAA mistakenly believes it owns the rights,

That's the thing, the RIAA doesn't own any rights at all.

timujin: Orgasmatron138: Does that make any sense or am I just talking crazy?

I don't know what a viable model would be, and by that I mean one in which the people who want the music can find it and take it with them somehow and the people who make the music get paid. But I think that going after the ISPs is akin to going after the tape manufacturers (or CD manufacturers or PC manufacturers...) I used tapes as a quick example because it's something I did as a kid, but here's a more appropriate example:

available on Amazon for a low, low price!

I get ya, but even that is somewhat limited by selling locally or shipping. I don't know if there is a solution to all this, but if someone is making unauthorized copies and selling them, they deserve to get busted, whether they are doing it online or physically.

Also, devices like the ones you mentioned have a legitimate purpose - the company I work for (among other things) produces CD's, and we have a copier (albeit a more sophisticted one). Websites like The Pirate Bay have no real legitimate reason to exist other than file sharing.


All I'm saying is that I hope a reasonable compromise can be found, because otherwise the major record labels will just find a way to screw the artists and the consumers like they always have.

Ingaba: The strategies proposed by these lawyers may win them a few cases and get them some good headlines, but in the overall picture they amount to little more than the exploitation of very minor technicalities that the RIAA will tweak in the future.

Except that these minor technicalities are called "laws" and the RIAA has no way of directly changing them.

hazeleyedwolff: I thought most individuals that were forced to pay the RIAA were settled out of court. Doesn't that mean that they admitted guilt to the charges? If so, how can anyone get that money back?

Settling out of court =/= Admission of guilt

What would be fun, find someone the RIAA has gone after and said that among the infringed works are some Stephen Stills songs. Then show the video, or read the transcript, of Stephen Stills telling a Congressional committee, he doesn't care if people share his music.

WhyteRaven74: What would be fun, find someone the RIAA has gone after and said that among the infringed works are some Stephen Stills songs. Then show the video, or read the transcript, of Stephen Stills telling a Congressional committee, he doesn't care if people share his music.

I would assume that his record label would have an interest in the distribution of his music, and that he couldn't just waive that away.

/lots of facets
//lot of in and outs
///lot of interested parties

They already get $8 for every recording device made and 3% of the sale price for every blank tape, blank CD, etc. paid to them by the companies that manufacture them. They are suppose to give this to the artist that they claim to be looking out for, but, since there is no way of proving which artists are being copied onto the blanks, they never have to pay out the money they take in. I see no reason to believe that the RIAA has the artist's rights as their top priority. If they did, then they would find a way to divide the money they have already taken in among those they claim to be protecting.

hellbilly: They already get $8 for every recording device made and 3% of the sale price for every blank tape, blank CD, etc. paid to them by the companies that manufacture them. They are suppose to give this to the artist that they claim to be looking out for, but, since there is no way of proving which artists are being copied onto the blanks, they never have to pay out the money they take in. I see no reason to believe that the RIAA has the artist's rights as their top priority. If they did, then they would find a way to divide the money they have already taken in among those they claim to be protecting.

I agree that the record labels, and their enforcer, the RIAA, do not have the rights of the artists as a priority at all. I guess my question is this: is there a viable business model where the consumer isn't paying inflated prices, the artists make money, and the middle man is either cut out or has a reduced role?

I would think the Internet would be the perfect technology for this, but so far, no one seems to have come up with the right idea...

Except that these minor technicalities are called "laws" and the RIAA has no way of directly changing them.

For some reason I'm remembering James Bond and "strict rules of golf." Copyright and its statutory damages provisions are also laws. In that case that's headed for retrial next week the plaintiff already proved to the satisfaction of a jury that it had the rights. The Ars Technica blog about the case doesn't list ownership of rights among the major facts in dispute. (Defendant's lawyers are disputing everything for the sake of disputing everything. Defendant will be bankrupt anyway if she loses, so the incentive to narrow the case to the real issue in dispute is gone.)

Orgasmatron138: I would assume that his record label would have an interest in the distribution of his music, and that he couldn't just waive that away.

He owns the copyrights to the songs, it's his copyrights that would be infringed by online file sharing. He not the record label is the one getting the royalty money for radio and public performance of his songs. The record label may own the master tapes and get to say how the songs are released in a physical format, but no one is pressing CD's of his materials for sale.

WhyteRaven74: Orgasmatron138: I would assume that his record label would have an interest in the distribution of his music, and that he couldn't just waive that away.

He owns the copyrights to the songs, it's his copyrights that would be infringed by online file sharing. He not the record label is the one getting the royalty money for radio and public performance of his songs. The record label may own the master tapes and get to say how the songs are released in a physical format, but no one is pressing CD's of his materials for sale.

I think this leads right to the heart of the debate. The record company could claim that the downloading of these files undermines the sale of the physical cd's that they do have the distribution rights to. Even if they are not right, I bet they would still make a case of it in court. I', not sure, though - I only understand law in a purely layman's sense.

Orgasmatron138: Websites like The Pirate Bay have no real legitimate reason to exist other than file sharing.

File sharing isn't illegal any more than copying discs is. Sharing copyrighted material is, of course, but there is a significant amount of legal file sharing taking place. You can't just shut down torrents because someone uses them to do something illegal.

Which brings me back to my original argument that if you go after the ISPs to ascertain that their product is only being used legally, you'd need to go after the manufacturers of DVD recording towers to make sure that their product is only being used legally.

I'm sorry your Honor, I have no recollection of that. When I ripped those CD's to my computer, how was I to know my friends would access those songs and make their own recording copies. They were saved to my computer to protect my initial investment.

JC

timujin: Orgasmatron138: Websites like The Pirate Bay have no real legitimate reason to exist other than file sharing.

File sharing isn't illegal any more than copying discs is. Sharing copyrighted material is, of course, but there is a significant amount of legal file sharing taking place. You can't just shut down torrents because someone uses them to do something illegal.

Which brings me back to my original argument that if you go after the ISPs to ascertain that their product is only being used legally, you'd need to go after the manufacturers of DVD recording towers to make sure that their product is only being used legally.

I don't think they are equivalent - the DVD recorders would be more akin to the computer software that actually duplicates the mp3, basically your good old friend, ctl+c, or, I guess, the torrent downloader you use.

The Pirate bay is the equivalent of the stores that sell illegal copies in the back - whether or not they make a profit is irrelevant, they are the providers the stolen material.

MmmCrime: RIAA probably deserves some money, but instead of paying lawyers, howabout coming up with a distribution method that works? I'd pay $10-15 a month to be able to access a near limitless catalog of music.

Zune Pass

/Get a DRM stripper and it's yours forever

Orgasmatron138: The Pirate bay is the equivalent of the stores that sell illegal copies in the back - whether or not they make a profit is irrelevant, they are the providers the stolen material.

Don't they just list the trackers? I mean the files are shared by users right? Wouldn't The Pirate Bay be more like the guy who told you where the store that sells illegal copies are?

He owns the copyrights to the songs, it's his copyrights that would be infringed by online file sharing.

If he sold exclusive rights to a label, he granted the label the right to enforce those rights unless and until the rights reverted back under the contract. This is why John Fogerty could be sued for copying from himself. (He won, but not because copying from himself was legally nonsensical.)