Burn your MP3's. The RIAA is coming to get ya.

[Jim DeVito]

Yet another example of the RIAA villainizing is consumer base. As if DRM was not bad enough.

[Jim DeVito]

Ah the Grey area of the law.

From the governments own
copyright.gov

Section 109 permits "the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made" under title 17 to distribute that copy without the copyright owner's permission. To the extent that section 107 permits a user to make a backup copy of a work stored on a hard drive, that copy is lawfully made and the user owns it. Section 109, on its face, appears to permit the user to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that backup copy. The legislative history can be read to support either view.

[David Lay]

Yet another example of the RIAA villainizing is consumer base. As if DRM was not bad enough.

Sounds like they forgot about Fair Use. Cassettes, anyone?

[ryan costa]

there would be competing lobbyists in this issue. the recording industry is standing up for the right of people to profit from intellectual property they create.

The primary appeal of personal computers to most people has been their ability to quickly copy, download, or transfer intellectual property. This is often music and videos. It can also be blue prints, patents, licensing information, photographs, scientific studies, ph.d thesis, pharmaceutical information, ROM files of old video games, scanned copies of books, etc.

Without this appeal far fewer personal computers and high speed internet connections would have been purchased over the last 13 years. There would lobbyists from the PC and internet backbone hardware lobbying against copyright protection, whether directly or indirectly.

[Ivor Karabatkovic]

David,

Fair use?

Fair use is only good when the artist OK's the material for fair use. Back in the day musicians used to send themselves a cassette of their song when it was recorded. The envelope would naturally be stamped by the post office with the date that it was recorded/sent out and who sent it.

Think of your photos.

I don't post them on my site and say "well, it's fair use as long as I don't make profit and credit the artist." There's more to it. You'd actually have to sign off and say that the photo is available for fair use.

If you choose creative commons, or fair use, anyone can go in and take that photo and use it for any ad or in any way, shape or form. They're protected legally because YOU said that this is protected under a CC license. Many companies have done that. They don't even need a model release...

I HIGHLY doubt that every artist in the world is licensing their work as fair use nowadays. All rights have to be reserved, which means don't take my work even if you're not making profit.

I've stopped downloading music because as an Artist I've experienced first hand what it feels like to have my work stolen. It's a kick in the..

If I have a craving for music, I listen to online radios, my cd's or the radio. I can still get all the music I want for free but I'm not stealing from another artist.

[Jim DeVito]

David,

Fair use?

Fair use is only good when the artist OK's the material for fair use.

Ivor,

While I am not a copyright lawyer, with all due respect I have to disagree. I do not think that the artist has to explicitly ok his/her work for fair use. I believe by default the copyrighted work falls under the fair use act when it is used under cretin circumstances.

Title 17 Chap. 1 Section 107 u.s. Copyright Law

From the above URL

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

[Ivor Karabatkovic]

Jim,

Read that quote that you sent me over again.

Are you reviewing the work? Are you using it in the classroom? Are you using it for educational purposes? Are you doing some research? Are you writing an editorial with it? Are you doing a segment on the nightly news with the song in it maybe?

if you're not doing one of those things, you're breaking the copyright law.

Read carefully.

I've spent many nights and days reading about this stuff for my own benefit.

[Ivor Karabatkovic]

And the artist has every right to sign off on his work.

He is the original owner and creator. His copyright lasts his lifetime plus extra years (I think 70) after his death.

If he's not the owner, maybe the record company is. Regardless, someone owns the copyright to music files, and if that's not you, and you're not using it in the classroom or news, you're breaking copyright.

[Ivor Karabatkovic]

and you're right Jim, those are special circumstances where fair use is OK.

that's why the RIAA isn't coming after teachers and news reporters/news stations.

They're coming after the average citizen who, even if he tried to, wouldn't be able to put 1,000 or more songs into a school report to get out of it.

and what teacher is going to use 1,000+ songs in a classroom setting for educational purposes?

[Jim DeVito]

That may be true. I should have prefaced my point with the fact that I do not think David was using fair use in the right context above. However I still think the point you made about an artist having to sing off on a piece in order for it to be protected under the fair use act is false.

[Jim DeVito]

To David's point. I think what he was getting at is that this person who started this thread had the right to make a “backupâ€Â

[Ivor Karabatkovic]

Jim,

Then why would copyright exist?

If I, as an artist, can't say you can or cannot use my work that I created, why would I even bother to register it under copyright?

Ask any one of my clients that have licensed my photographs for use for prints, ads, or on websites. I hand them a 12 page contract.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Translation: The artist can distribute his work by a transfer of ownership/copyright, a lease (license), meaning you pay me X and I'll let you make Y copies only, and he can lend or rent the work out. Meaning pay me X and you can use it on Y for Z time.

So that means that if he can execute the above, then he can also decline and say "I won't let you use my work."

I've done it many times.

[Ivor Karabatkovic]

[quote="Jim DeVito"]To David's point. I think what he was getting at is that this person who started this thread had the right to make a “backupâ€Â

[Jim DeVito]

Ivor,

I echo most of what you are saying. I am still hung up on the fact that I do not think I need the copyright owners permission to use his/her work so long as I am abiding by the 4 statements outlined within the fair use act. Also I need to be using said work in the above context. Oh well better do some more googleing (if you take the 'e' out then is it a word?)

Take Care

[David Lay]

This is what I was getting at with cassettes and fair use:

http://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/007486.html

Hollywood also freaked out when VCRs hit the market. Eventually they got over it.

Ivor, read the copyright laws. The warnings on CDs, DVDs, etc mean that you cannot copy for distribution, nor distribute for a profit. The law does make provisions for making copies of music you own for your own personal use:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act

As far as my photos go... If someone downloads a low-res copy of one of my photos for their own personal, non-commercial use and not for distribution (they are in the photo, etc), I don't have a problem with that. When someone uses one of my photos without my permission with the intent for publication or profit, that is blatant copyright infringement.