[Abomonog]

If you have kept up on the Copyright issues, knows that last week the Federal courts threw out hundreds of lawsuits filed against movie shares.
The official reason was that the MPAA was using ip addys in place of defendant names and attempting to make ISP's give up the account info behind the addys. The same court ruled identically when the RIAA did it last spring. IT may seem cut and clean, you can't sue a number, but the situation is much stickier than that. After researching a bit I've found that most people (including I) have absolutely no idea about what Copyright laws really says.

Here's what I have found out.

First it should be said that in the US, there is a federal law that say if any contract has a clause that violates the law, or requires a participant to violate the law to fullfill it, that contract is automatically null and void.

That being said we get into Copyright law. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

Digging around the files you will find a clause that allows you to archive a single copy of any media you have paid for. That means you have the right to make a single copy of anything you have paid for to stash away somewhere. This clause allows for the existance of Tape recorders and VCR's, among other things.

But the clause does NOT specify how that copy to be obtained. Stickier still, that clause renders copy protection like secure rom, Safedisk, or even Steam, illegal, because they prevent you from exersizing your right to archive the media. In fact, they require you to break the law by forcing you to download a copy to get your archive, the rendering any attached EULA void (as per the above federal law).

But wait!!! With the exception of Kiddie Porn and Bestiality flicks, there is no law in America preventing you from downloading anything. That's right folks, even if you haven't purchased whatever you download, there is no criminal law in America saying you can't download it. This is why the RIAA and MPAA have been filing civil lawsuits instead of criminal charges against file sharers. Only a handfull of people worldwide have been criminally charged and they were all massively distributing copyrighted materials.

Now here is the users problem. Users have the right to make backups of whatever they have, even if it requires downloading to create that backup, but nearly all p2p apps forcefully share whatever is currently being downloaded, thus turning a reletively innocent user into a distributer, and he has no choice in the matter.

Distributing Copyrighted material is a federal offence that can be punished with 20 years in prison and up to a $200,000 fine.

So what happens if a user is forced to download something he has already paid for and gets threatened with a lawsuit?

I got to find out several months ago.

My case was with a cult flick called Cool World. This rotoscoped cartoon was released in 1992 and barely made enough to justify its budget. A VHS version was released in 1996 (Which I bought) but as far as I can tell, there has never been a DVD release. Several months ago the bought and paid for tape got eaten by the just as old VCR. After searching Walmart and other outlets for a DVD copy and finding none (not even avaliable to order). I did the research you saw above and decided that I had every right to download a copy. Apparently Paramount had other ideas. They found out and contact my ISP with demands that they give them my address so they could file a lawsuit.

My ISP (Cox Cable) contacted me and I told them to give Paramount anything they wanted, and that I and my trashed Cool World VHS cassete would be happy to see them in court. 2 days later I got a call from a Paramount rep saying that the company has decided against filing a lawsuit due to the circumstances (I still have that tape though). It may have been the "Hell yes, I'll take them on" attitude that shook Paramount, or they may have decided that a B-rate movie was not worth fighting over, or the fact that I had only the one download, or the fact that I can prove my previous purchase, but something told Paramount that I was not a good person to sue and they backed off. Funny thing is that I cannot afford a lawyer and could have easily lost despite my proven purchase.

Now with the exception of the RIAA (because they are a bunch or theives who rob the artists just as much as they rob the listener) I am pretty much against piracy. However, I have learned that the situation isn't as black and white as I once thought.

I hope I have provided some good debate here.

P.S. I have been watching HL2 and steam. Listening to user feedback on both the legal versions and the Pirated ones. Get this: The pirates patched the AI bugs before they released their version, while the legal version has 2 fatal AI bugs in it. I really worry when it takes a software pirate to fix the buggy software.

Note that I do not have any copies of HL2, legal or otherwise, so all of this is user feedback from various forums, but I do get paid today.

[linskyjack]

If you can sit there and tell us that this is the only time you got copyrighted material via P2P then you do have some ground to stand on. My feeling is that when I make a video, no one should be copying it and distributing it to anyone without my permission. I own my creations, just as you own yours. I have no concern about the RIAA rips off artist---because that's a myth and yet another excuse for stealing.

[Abomonog]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

If you can sit there and tell us that this is the only time you got copyrighted material via P2P then you do have some ground to stand on. My feeling is that when I make a video, no one should be copying it and distributing it to anyone without my permission. I own my creations, just as you own yours. I have no concern about the RIAA rips off artist---because that's a myth and yet another excuse for stealing.

Actually I rarely use p2p. But you have a good point, except archiving is not distribution.

Everyone who has used P2P has undoubtely downloaded something illegal, even if it a single tune from an album that has one good song.

About the RIAA. If your in a 5 member band and your album goes platinum in a year, and you are an RIAA member, you take in approx $8500 in royalties.

The same band, being a member of the British Music Industry (or is it British Recording Industry?) would take in over a 500,000 pounds (well over 1,000,000 American dollars) per person in the band. You see, I too am a small time recording artist that sells to a very cult market. I am an RIAA member too, I have to be or I can't sell my music.
Now I'm such a small artist that I only sell maybe a thousand copies in a year, mostly to Rave DJ's and such (I do electronica as "The Test")
Under the RIAA I make $0.50 per CD sold, even though that cd is sold for $15.99 retail. I have NO SAY in pricing either. I'm not even allowed to sell online. I must sell under THEIR chosen distributer AND I must conform to a certain standard or I get no Airplay. (since I do all instrumentals I get NO American airplay) Under BMI I would make nearly $5 for the same sale, get to choose how I distribute my work, and my airplay would be decided by only the popularity of my music, not by wheather it had words or not.

Now I'm just some dude who uses Cubase to spin out computer generated tunes and then generally does some guitar solos over the tracks, so I'm definately not going to get rich, or famous, but as far as I'm concerned the RIAA is ripping me off. Real Artists like Peter Gabriel and Limp Bizcuit(sp?) also share my feelings about the RIAA. This is why Gabriel no longer records in America and Limp bizcuit released their last album to the net before it got released in the stores. (the album still made millions,proving Fred Dursts point that the free release would not affect his sales).

Give me some upload space somewhere and I'll send you a tune or 2. I'm certainly not going to worry about 10 cents in potentially lost royalties, but beware, my union my want to sue you, and it's the largest, most cutthroat private orginization in America.

BTW I'm joking about the lawsuit, but not about the upload space. I always send free tunes to anyone who wants to hear.

[RSM123]

Abomonog,

There was a rather protracted thread on the ethics (or lack thereof) of downloading music via P2P networks.

Having read elsewhere, I understand that a group like the Rolling Stones have one of the best royalty deals owing to their fame / ability to shift products - be it the CDs or other merchandise relating to a particular album / tour , etc.

Are you saying that the RIAA only pays them $5000 for a platinum selling album ? I find that hard to believe ... there are artists who are 'big' here in UK who have not established themselves beyond Europe ... but if they only stood to make $5 - 20,000 in the US - why would they bother? The US is THE biggest market for record sales (though the EU is probably close behind.)

[linskyjack]

About the RIAA. If your in a 5 member band and your album goes platinum in a year, and you are an RIAA member, you take in approx $8500 in royalties.

Okay--lets be clear hear--I'm not a musician so correct me if I am wrong. I can only assume that you are referring to a new band--on the make? If so, how many bands actually go platinum in their first year--?????? Are you telling us that if a band does go platinum, then the next record they cut will only yield them 8500 bucks???? I dont think so but you know more then me.

[RSM123]

linskyjack,

I posted in this thread as I read extensively on the subject of royalty payments - There was a newpaper article published here in the UK which stated the The Rolling Stones were on a 14% royalty (split between the members - though Jagger got the lion's share owing to him writing the bulk of the lyrics.)

Not sure if you have the same phenomenon there - but record producers here are promoting 'manufactured' groups - from things like 'Pop Idol' ... they come forward, sing lyrics that are written for them, mime / lipsync - then adios.

Those groups are on token payments (One girl group - Girls Aloud was paid £80 per day each member - even though the label was raking in thousands per day.)