Quote:
Originally posted by Scyth
Jack, you're quite wrong about US copyright law.
|
The space provided in a post rarely leaves room for the subtle differences inherent in U.S. and international copyright law, which happens to have some of the most confusing and convoluted statutes ever committed to ink. When I said that the copying and sharing of analog files is legal and then compared it to the DMCA I didn’t mean to suggest that that the dmca covered analog copies. Quite obviously the dmca covers digital works, as it grew out of the infamous Lehman green and white papers that proceeded it and as you correctly mentioned the copying exemption specifically noted is in the AHRA. (even the ahra of course covers digital copies, for instance the following from 1992 -
(1) A "digital audio copied recording" is a reproduction in a digital recording format of a digital musical recording, whether that reproduction is made directly from another digital musical recording or indirectly from a transmission.)
As for the legality of file sharing in a digital domain, again, within limits, there is nothing illegal about sharing mp3s (as long as conditions are met). I wasn’t aware the dmca included a provision that specifically mentioned mp3 and oggs, but I’m not a copyright attorney of course and some of these statutes go on for miles. As for value, determining it for an unknown, homemade mp3 is difficult, but I value them between five and 10 cents per ripped file. The labels are selling validated ones for 10 times the amount but that’s absurd on the face of it as some compilations cost more than the full definition CDs they came from. Still at 99 cents one could upload 2000 mp3s per year and escape even a rigorous interpretation of the dmca while at 10 cents, you could share 20,000 files a year and not be in violation. 10,000 files in a six month period is probably more uploads than the vast majority of system users attain, it’s over 50 a day, 7 days a week after all, making file sharing essentially legal for all practical purposes. There remain issues to resolve concerning public performances for instance. My position is that transmitting a file from my house to yours is a “private” performance much like a phone call and not a public performance. Record companies may beg to differ if it gives them an advantage. Make no mistake; copyright owners will walk away with everything if allowed. They were arguing that putting a copyrighted work in ram violated recording statutes which led to their bizarre interpretation that simply reading an ebook, watching a dvd or listening to music – all of course legally acquired – was in fact illegal if done on a computer because it was
"recorded" into ram! It reminded me of the musicians union stories in the 1940s when stereo came out. They wanted to be paid twice, once for each speaker! No telling what they would have said about 5.1 Dolby surrounds...with farsighted guys like that in charge it's no wonder that union is all but gone. They did rethink their position after it was patiently pointed out home listeners would want to rehear their favorites in the new stereo medium, so the union orchestra members would indeed be working mightily re-recording new material.
Ultimately we're left with our own interpretations as no court has ruled on the copying provisions or even the basic constitutionality of the DMCA. I’m confident it will in time be struck down and today’s RIAA will come to be seen like yesterday's Musicians Union. At the end of the day the only court that counts is the U.S. Supreme court. The last word belongs squarely with them and pod that horse is very much alive. They weighed in once and clearly saying, “You can record, and you can share”. I find it difficult to foresee them overruling their own precedent. I got the message and so have millions of Americans.
- js.