Your prejudging that is illegal, there hasn't been a ruling yet. It is legal until it is not. The money for Napster came from somewhere if you read the site he states that there is no problem with getting financial monies to operate. Strange as it may seem some corporation is fronting monies for it. Somebody is making money off of it or as history shows it wouldn't exist long.
As it stands it is legal and can be done.

#090000695 Mk2 BLUE 12Gig

Oh man - this is absurd. Are there really guys out there who haven't got material on their empeg which they borrowed from a friend? Have you never read a borrowed book?

Of course I read borrowed books and listen to borrowed CDs (I just said I buy those I like - I simply like to have them on my shelf :) I agree that the situation with 'intellectual property protection' is absurd (more in USA than Europe: both practices you mention are legal in, say, Germany, AFAIK), but I don't see how we can help it.

Of course we don't want to drag empeg the company into the crap that's flying around about Napster, we just want to listen to music.

That's all I asked: let's not endanger Empeg. But really, as I said, we have already argued this to death when discussing copying from empeg issue, so let's just live it here. Those of us using Napster have 'bootstrap' address to their private ring, perhaps some more private mail on the topic will be exchanged, nobody will be sued even by most greedy RIAA lawyers (who don't give a damn that they are probably damaging their employer's profits by those insane suits), so all is well.

Cheers!

Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Zagreb, Croatia
Q#5196, MkII#80000376, 18GB green

[qoute]Making copies of your friends music (or movies) is not illegal.

I thought it was. I thought that's where the line was drawn. I'm going to have to go back and read the AHRA again and see what it says on that point.
[/quote]

Only if you charge money does it become illegal.


#090000695 Mk2 BLUE 12Gig

It's not so clear cut.

All your points are nicely made. A good post, xavyer.

Let's muddy the waters a bit more. Suppose I have an album called "Pass in Review", a recording of a parade in England in 1962. I got that album by haunting estate sales on the internet, and I can just about promise you that you cannot find a copy of it for sale anyplace in the world today.

Am I violating copyright law by making a CDR of that album and giving it to my 1963 high school band teacher (yeah, I really am that old!)? Probably I am. But under what conceivable circumstances am I causing harm to anybody or any entity by doing so?

This isn't really a "Suppose". It accurately describes what is to my knowledge the only music piracy I have ever done. Under the circumstances I don't feel the least bit remorseful, and in fact would be very pleased to pay serious money for a CD professionally remastered from the original tapes, but that simply is not an option.

Do you suppose RIAA is going to come after me now after this confession? :-)

Oops, I forgot -- I also sent tfabris a copy of one of the tracks from that album. I guess that makes me a double pirate. Tony, watch out that they don't come after you too!

tanstaafl.



"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"

While the copyright infringement arguments rage on (elsewhere); it may be energy well spent (on our part) to set our own policy. What do _we_ think should be the policy? Maybe (worthy of discussion) the best course of action is to add an entry in the FAQ delineating what is considered 'acceptable' regarding music trading. Spell out where 'the line' is drawn (as clearly as possible), and when it is crossed. It may be that, having and enforcing such a policy, would be the necessary and sufficient requirements to deflect any future claims of 'copyright infringement'. Then again, maybe not; but it's certainly worth discussing.

FWIW, there has been some excellent craftsmanship from the 'mix masters' of the board; and I, for one, would not want to be denied the fruits of their labor. Technically, though, a 'mix' skirts dangerously close (I think) to 'copyright infringement'; enough so, that it would be difficult to decide which side of 'the line' it lands on.

What do we decide?

What do _we_ think should be the policy? ... Spell out where 'the line' is drawn (as clearly as possible), and when it is crossed.

I can't presume to speak for other people, but to me the line is absolute and crystal clear: If I take somebody's copyrighted material, copy that material and give it to somebody else without compensating the owner; or if I accept copyrighted material without compensating the owner, then I am stealing.

This applies to music, software, art, printed materials -- you name it. Barring extraordinary circumstances (see my previoius post about "Pass in Review") I don't do it.

Others may see things differently but to my mind there is no doubt or ambiguity involved.

I'm sorry if I sound "holier than thou" but this topic does press one of my hot buttons. :-)

tanstaafl.

"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"

I think even RIAA (reluctantly) agrees that recording your LP of CD on cassete to listen in your car is OK (as long as somebody else is not listening to the original LP at the same time - presumably one should coordinate listening timetables with one's spouse and kids :) It is quite logical that digitizing it into MP3 format should also be OK. If so, it should also be OK to obtain the said MP3 encoding by other means, as long as one has paid the royalty originally (as xavyer describes). However, using some perversion of logic lawyers are prone to invent, MP3.com is barred to provide exactly that service, i.e. providing the users with MP3 encodings of CDs they can prove they own. The argument mentions computers not being recording devices (implying, presumably, the comparative ease with which computer files are copied en masse as opposed to, say, audio cassettes - never mind the fact that MP3.com was streaming your copyrighted music, not offering downloads).

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that logic does not apply, corporate financial strenght does (which does not invalidate Doug's definition of the line). I would really like to be able to pay to authors directly, but that has also been discussed to death.

Cheers!

Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Zagreb, Croatia
Q#5196, MkII#80000376, 18GB green

Am I violating copyright law by making a CDR of that album and giving it to my 1963 high school band teacher

Unforch, yes you would under copyright law as it (used?) to exist in the UK. The copyright is established at the point of creation of the work, and exists for a number of years (50? I forget) until it falls into the public domain, at which point it cannot be re-copyrighted, and may be used by all. During the period of cover, for you to copy this to a friend (and even though in this case you gave it away for no gain) means you made a copy without the explicit permission of the original holder, and you are therefore breaking the law.

Do you suppose RIAA is going to come after me now after this confession?

"Nee nar nee nar nee nar..." (blue and red flashing lights outside front door)



One of the few remaining Mk1 owners... #00015

(Loud, rousing round of applause from the audience)



One of the few remaining Mk1 owners... #00015

I don't really want to get into the argument but if you'd like to understand the Napster side of it I encourage you to read the interview with the Napster lawyer that was in Wired.

I'd be interested in a similar link that distills the RIAA side of the argument.

-Dylan

Indeed, the legal line is 'crystal clear'; what is not clear is the BBS' policy regarding posts of the calibre similar to the one which started this thread. Although, I didn't state this clearly; this was what I had intended with the 'What do _we_ think should be the policy? ... Spell out where 'the line' is drawn (as clearly as possible), and when it is crossed.' comment.

what is not clear is the BBS' policy regarding posts of the calibre similar to the one which started this thread. Although, I didn't state this clearly; this was what I had intended with the 'What do _we_ think should be the policy? ... Spell out where 'the line' is drawn (as clearly as possible), and when it is crossed.'

The important thing is: what does PaulH think? He owns and operates the BBS, so his decisions in the matter would be the final ones.

In the private moderators-only forum on the BBS, Paul stated that he would like to officially non-endorse posts of this nature. The plan is to create an official "terms of use" statement which includes this information. That document has not been created yet, so no further mention had been made of it so far. Dionysus and I have offered to help create this document, however it will not be made with our personal opinions of the BBS usage- it'll be Paul's policies only.

In my opinion, it hasn't been a problem on the BBS so far, and this thread was only a hint of it possibly becoming a problem. So there's really nothing to panic about, and it's not a big deal. But just a heads-up: It is possible that posts of this nature might not be allowed in the future.

Note that when I say "posts of this nature" I'm referring to posts describing exactly where/how to download copyrighted material. The other posts in this thread, discussing the various legal and moral implications of copyright, law, and MP3 technology, will of course continue to be encouraged and supported.

There's a fine line to be drawn, of course. What about PaulWay's mixes? And the test tracks by A.P.P.? Discuss...

___________
Tony Fabris

There's a fine line to be drawn, of course. What about PaulWay's mixes? And the test tracks by A.P.P.? Discuss...

Or don't... Personally, I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with this whole thread and would much rather see it die a quick death. The issues being discussed have been beaten to smithereens many many times before (elsewhere) and I think it's highly unlikely that we can add anything worthwhile to the debate. At the same time, every additional post is bringing more attention to the one mention of mp3 trading on this BBS (that I'm aware of).

I agree completely that the policy is entirely up to PaulH and I'm sure he can make his mind up without everybody else pontificating extensively on the matter.

Regards,
Borislav