You've got lawsuit

[bsu legato]

(JsARCLIGHT closes fallout shelter door, puts a mag in the M16 and waits...)

*waits until the door is closed, then siphons gas out of JsARCLIGHT's Camaro to fuel his 600hp black on black interceptor *

[the white drew carey]

Seriously though, you have to admit that the media industries in the US have a severe stick stuck up their pooper... and this whole situation may bring it all to a head.

The media INDUSTRIES... yes.

But I don't buy their music. Most labels which would be considered part of the "industry" are part of the mainstream radio set. Labels that uber-promote their artist and create a "superstar". That's an aspect of the major-label's system which creates a self-perpetuating machine that needs to make lots of money off of CD's simply to promote their next big thing.

What's sad is when bands like Green Day or Blink 182 sign to a major label. These bands were doing just fine on smaller labels but felt the need to be bigger and hence, signed on to become part of the machine. The problem is that for every already-successful band that makes it big after signing to the majors, there is 10 other already-successful bands that signed to the majors and fell through simply because they weren't marketed and/or marketable to the mainstream radio set (ie- Samiam, Jawbreaker, Face to Face).

Most of the music (about 99%) are band son smaller labels who make an adequate living and want to stay that way. They're not making total bank, but are living comfortably with what they do make and are actually having fun doing it, instead of bruning out likfe most products of the "industry" do.

But the problem with file swapping is that 10,000 people can download Metallica's new album and Metallica won't even feel it. But if 10,000 people download Chixdiggit!'s new album (when it ever comes out), that's about half of the total pressing for that band, and Chixdiggit! will feel it in their wallets.

The point being that Chixdiggit! probably makes about $3-4 per CD sold, whereas Metallica probably makes about $.50.

So the argument that fileswapping doesn't hurt the artist isn't true at all. It probably doesn't hurt artists on major labels, but smaller bands who make a higher percentage from each CD will get slaughtered.

Edited September 10, 2003 by the white drew carey

[cwbrown]

That's bizarre, how can a 12-year-old settle, considering minors have no ability to enter into legally enforceable contracts (which a settlement is)?

Two easy possibilities. One, Mom signed as parent. Solves that problem. Two (as an and/or), the court signed off on it. That makes it a judgment, not just a settlement.

The analogy would be "homeowner gives permission for friend(s), or stranger(s), to take a look around in the garage. Without said permission anyone entering the garage is criminally "trespassing and "breaking and entering" even if they don't take or destroy anything.

It would make sense except for one problem. By having a public folder, the person opened up that part of the computer to the public, not "who I choose". That includes anyone, including law enforcement or any private entity. You don't want anyone in the public to look, don't have a public folder.

Which is illegal for law enforcement agencies without a warrent to track and monitor what a person does in person, on the phone or online.

Completely untrue. Again, once you have reached out to the public, in this case the internet, your info is fair game. Just so you know, the phone numbers that you call are not protected under any warrant requirement. The content of those calls is protected, but not where the calls went or the fact that you made those calls.

With the internet, all the information that is needed to get your identity can be had from your ISP, not by looking at your computer at all. The warrant or subpoena is laid on the ISP, not on you. So, that's how they can get it.

[JsARCLIGHT]

*waits until the door is closed, then siphons gas out of JsARCLIGHT's Camaro to fuel his 600hp black on black interceptor *

Gaah! My Gazzoline!

(Puts on football pads and runs after Bsu)

Oh and I agree with you WDC, I'm just being an ass as always!

[Khyron]

A)

If you remember, Napster (and other programs) allow users to view all the files someone has to share.  Once a downloaded song is not in the the person's directory that they gave viewing access to, then the songs are not able to be viewed.

The analogy would be "homeowner gives permission for friend(s), or stranger(s), to take a look around in the garage. Without said permission anyone entering the garage is criminally "trespassing and "breaking and entering" even if they don't take or destroy anything.

B)

Also, I'm sure programs have the ability to record how much activity a user has. Either downloading or people downloading from them.

Which is illegal for law enforcement agencies without a warrent to track and monitor what a person does in person, on the phone or online.

A) There is nothing to stop someone from viewing any files a person has in the shared folder. Why should the RCIAA be any different than some random person. The user made a choice to leave the files in it that were viewable by others. Move them to another folder if you don't want anyone to see what you have.

Also the RIAA is not probing through your folders. These songs are in 'plain sight'. In case you didn't know, anything 'in plain sight' does not require a court order or anything to catch illegal activities. Example: If a cop walks by your house and you have pot plants that he can see through the window, he doesn't need a search warrent to arrest you for something you have in your house. It would be illegal if he had to move or open something in order to see the plants.

B) Yes it would be illegal for a government agency to do this without a warrent. Nice that the RIAA is not a member of government. They can however file cases against companies to get records or threaten to file a suit, resulting in the company to give the records over to avoid the suit. With all the publicity these cases have gotten, if they were doing something illegal, somebody would have found out and reported it.

[tom64ss]

I am a musician, and I'm also a commercial artist so I understand copyright law pretty well. And although I am against copyright infringement, I just don't see the point in what the music industry is trying to accomplish with this lawsuit thing.

Being a musician you should understand more than the rest of us. The more people download your songs, the less CDs are sold and less money goes into your wallet. If your contract does not pay you beyond your initial check, then less sales of your music could result in less $$$ for your when you make another CD. If you fail to bring in a certain amount, why would a record company pay you the same fee?

THe suit is not just trying to make people pay fines. They are trying to stop people from downloading songs illegally. The simple threat of them possibly suing you will deter somepeople. They are going after the big offenders now since they have such a selection.

Also, people are complaining of them looking at people's computers. They are not actually going into people's computers. If you remember, Napster (and other programs) allow users to view all the files someone has to share. Once a downloaded song is not in the the person's directory that they gave viewing access to, then the songs are not able to be viewed. Also, I'm sure programs have the ability to record how much activity a user has. Either downloading or people downloading from them.

You're obviously NOT a musician.

1) Real music fans buy music regardless of whether they can get it for free. Hell, sometimes I buy records of CDs I already have. I've only downloaded a handful of songs ever (about 15), and all of those were either ones I knew were on an album that sucked, or a song or two off an album I was thinking about buying. People who have thousands of songs on their PC, obviously don't listen to all of them. They do it for bragging rights. Most bands could care less about people like that. I'll let them download my whole CD is they want, because I know they wouldn't buy it even if file sharing was never invented. I see it as a cost free way of getting my music out there. Ask any smaller label and they will tell you flat out that the difference in their sales before and after file sharing is minimal. For some labels like Side1/Dummy, sales actually went up.

2) My band and I (mostly me) did all the work, from begining to end, to put out our CD together. In the end, with a print run of less than 1,000 and no service contract with the CD pressing company, the recording studio, or the graphic designer (any of those would GREATLY reduce the overall cost of pressing a CD) we were still able to put it out at a cost of $2.05 per CD (that's with the cost of every aspect calculated in, except distribution, which we get for free). Major music companies press CD for pennies, literally. With all possible costs factored into making a CD with a 500,000-1,000,000 print run, it works out to costing less than $0.25 to make one. So why aren't Madonna or Britney's CD's cheaper?

Tapes are one and a half time as expensive to make and records are almost double, and yet they both cost you less at the record store, so why are CDs so expensive?

How is it that I can buy a CD from FAT records or Dischord with a embedded video file and a 12 page booklet for $8, but the new Metallica album will cost me $18?

Why? Because the RIAA and major labels are money grubbing scumbags.

3) Like I said in point one, I'm a musician, and I will gladly let anyone download our CD. Hell, I give away the CDs most of the time anyways. I give people boxes of 25 for them to give away too. No true musician honestly believes that making music will put food on the table or pay the bills. When it does, it's just a pleasent surprise. If you had any idea of how a major label contract worked, you'd realize the only people who make money of the actual CD is the company. The bands make less than $1 (edit: far less, it's around $0.10-$0.15 for a new band.) on each CD sold. The people who work on it only add up to a couple cents when dealing with that kind of volume. (you do the same amount of work for a CD with a 10,000 print run as you do for a CD with a print run in the millions). The retail store makes about 35%, though I can't figure out why, and the other 60 some odd percent goes back to a multi-national conglomerate's board of directors that turns around and uses it for child labor in foreign countries, paying off politicians so ridiculous lawsuit like this can happen without them batting an eye, and funding other ways to screw the masses out of their hard earned cash.

Think what you want, but I've had more than enough friends whove worked for companies like Sony and Geffen as well as those who have owned or worked for companies like Side1/Dummy and FAT. I've heard about the f*cked up things major labels have done to bands and how different it is when dealing with a label with an owner instead of a board of directors. Half those people couldn't tell you the difference between Billy Idol and Billie Holliday. For them, it's just about $$$$$. Screw over the bands, who cares? Screw over the fans, who cares? As long as they turn a bigger profit, that's all they care about.

The way I see it, sales for major labels have gone down because the buying public's tastes have changed. Maybe if bigger labels stop churning out crap, stop putting out albums that only have one good song, and stop slapping a big price tag on it, they would see sales go up again.

BOYCOTT all RIAA affiliated labels!!!!!

Edited September 10, 2003 by tom64ss

[the white drew carey]

Billie Holliday didn't sneer as much as Billie Idol does.

[do not disturb]

HURIN IS A FAG!

Edited June 13, 2005 by haterist

[tom64ss]

Billie Holliday didn't sneer as much as Billie Idol does.

Ahh, but she was twice the drug addict.

[SkullLeaderVF-X]

for the people who think its illegal or that someones breaking the law by downloading music.....

guess what????

YOU'RE NOT BREAKING THE LAW UNLESS YOU GET CAUGHT!

yeah. Everythings legal untill you get caught.

[do not disturb]

HURIN IS A FAG!

Edited June 13, 2005 by haterist

[one_klump]

Sheesh, I know I am late for the discussion, but I'm going to expel a small rant anyway

I download music for a few reasons.

The main one being I can't buy the album locally, as is the case with many Anime albums.

Second, I hate paying $15-$20 for a CD with only 1-2 good songs on it. If a group makes an album with more than 2 decent songs on it, instead of just one hit with 15 "filler" songs, then yes, I would buy it. However, I haven't bought a CD since I got Dream Theatre's newest CD.

Well, it seems that not all people like the same type of music, so to make #2 a little easier to deal with, I have come up with a solution: Have high-quality CD burners in stores. Have a digital jukebox set up so people could choose what songs they want on their CD. They pay per song, and a small amount for the actual disk, and BAMMO! Every song is to your liking. I would defintaly drop coins to get CD's that way.

[JsARCLIGHT]

Here's a weird question:

Does anyone remember that deal in the early early '90s on the internet that let you buy a CD for like $10 and fill it with like 7 songs from their database? I thought that was a neat idea... you could get 7 songs you really wanted and buy the CD (legitimately supporting the artists and their labels) and they mailed it to you. I guess Napster sort of killed them off (or finished them off if they were on the rocks).

I think as much as we are going round and round about this we are missing the obvious: song DLs and song sharing is going to go on and on no matter what happens. Any moves by the RIAA, no matter how draconian, cannot stem the avalanche.

[CAG]

Actually OneKlump, I used to work in an FYE and that was one of the things they were supposed to be bringing into the stores. Never happened though, as they were hemmoraging money.

But then when their CDs were ridiculously overpriced anyway, what did they expect?

[singtao]

it seems odd to me, people want a fast easy way to access music over the internet. so riaa decides to sue people in order to encourage everyone to buy cd's instead of downloading. am i missing something? i dont think it will do the music industry any good to force consumers to buy music the way they want to sell it. this is a matter of supply and demand. there is a demand for online music but not too much in the way of supply from record companies.

so why has the music industry been so reluctant to embrace music dowloading? as of now there are only a few sources to you can legaly download from online. instead of alienating their customers by suing 12 year old children why didnt they set a up and advertise an alternative to kazaa or winmx. they could have atleast pushed the current legal online music sources more.

i have downloaded in the past as many of my friends have. though most of the stuff i have download are just digital copies of tapes or albums i own. everyone i know that downloads music would be willing to pay a reasonable price for the music they download. in my opinion most people are honest and would pay money for quality music aswell. we dont need to be threatened or taken to court.

btw check out http://eff.net/ some good info

maybe im off on all this

i am usualy <_<

[bigkid24]

heres a case just settled in NY.......geesh louise, no mercy for kids.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/0...ment/index.html

That's bizarre, how can a 12-year-old settle, considering minors have no ability to enter into legally enforceable contracts (which a settlement is)?

I'm sure the mom had to sign something also.

I assume that this is a similar article to the one that was in the LA Times today.

[kensei]

Personally I like downloading to find out if a song is good or just plain sucked which is what most of the people are doing here. I agree it's a great way to save money.

Isn't there a rule for the song you download? Like you're allowed to keep it for a couple of days and then delete it? (obviously i know that pirates don't do this) or you can copy and burn compilations if u own the original CD? I do a bit of DJing now and then, and i find that you can save a shitload of weight and space when you're carrying all your music in the one box only. Not all of the songs on any one album are good.

Edited September 11, 2003 by kensei

[Damaramu]

Here's a headsup guys, in case you didn't know:

According to this comment made on the Slashdot website, it sounds like the RIAA doesn't have a leg to stand on:

Quote:

Contrary to what the RIAA wants you to believe, it appears that making a copy of an audio recording may be perfectly legal in the US, even if you don't own the original recording, as long as it is for noncommercial purposes. The reason for this is the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA).

Since 1992, the U.S. Government has collected a tax on all digital audio recorders and blank digital audio media manufactured in or imported into the US, and gives the money directly to the RIAA companies, which is distributed as royalties to recording artists, copyright owners, music publishers, and music writers:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html

[cornell.edu]

In exchange for those royalties, a special exemption to the copyright law was made for the specific case of audio recordings, and as a result *ALL* noncommercial copying of musical recordings by consumers is now legal in the US, regardless of media:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html

[cornell.edu]

"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

The intent of Congress was clear when this law was passed

http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1...93-01/0018.html

[cni.org]

From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992:

"In the case of home taping, the [section 1008] exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings."

From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992:

"In short, the reported legislation [section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."

Therefore, when you copy an MP3 the royalties have already been paid for with tax dollars in accordance with the law. If you are a musician whose recordings are publicly distributed, then you are entitled to your share of these royalties by filing a claim under Section 1006

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1006.html

[cornell.edu]

Napster tried to use this law to defend their case, and the court ruled this law did not apply to them because they are a commercial company. But as a consumer it seems to me you are perfectly within your rights when you make a copy for noncommercial private use.

[SkullLeaderVF-X]

[Ceralkiller]And the plot thickens.[/Ceralkiller]

[the white drew carey]

Here's a headsup guys, in case you didn't know:

According to this comment made on the Slashdot website, it sounds like the RIAA doesn't have a leg to stand on:

Quote:

Contrary to what the RIAA wants you to believe, it appears that making a copy of an audio recording may be perfectly legal in the US, even if you don't own the original recording, as long as it is for noncommercial purposes. The reason for this is the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA).

Since 1992, the U.S. Government has collected a tax on all digital audio recorders and blank digital audio media manufactured in or imported into the US, and gives the money directly to the RIAA companies, which is distributed as royalties to recording artists, copyright owners, music publishers, and music writers:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html

[cornell.edu]

In exchange for those royalties, a special exemption to the copyright law was made for the specific case of audio recordings, and as a result *ALL* noncommercial copying of musical recordings by consumers is now legal in the US, regardless of media:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html

[cornell.edu]

"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

The intent of Congress was clear when this law was passed

http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1...93-01/0018.html

[cni.org]

From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992:

"In the case of home taping, the [section 1008] exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings."

From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992:

"In short, the reported legislation [section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."

Therefore, when you copy an MP3 the royalties have already been paid for with tax dollars in accordance with the law. If you are a musician whose recordings are publicly distributed, then you are entitled to your share of these royalties by filing a claim under Section 1006

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1006.html

[cornell.edu]

Napster tried to use this law to defend their case, and the court ruled this law did not apply to them because they are a commercial company. But as a consumer it seems to me you are perfectly within your rights when you make a copy for noncommercial private use.

Two things I'm curious about that makes this kind of iffy-

1) The article states that this tax is paid to RIAA companies. Would that mean that congress has decided only to give this money to certain record companies, and yet make ALL music available under this law?

I think that would be kind of ripping off the hundreds, if not thousands of other record companies, both large and small, that are not part of the RIAA.

2) While I haven't perused the links themselves, it seems there's more behind the law than just what Slashdot has decided to report. Already the words "private noncommercial use" bring up questions as to what the intent of that statement. It could possibly be argued that "private noncommercial use" and "home taping" were not intended to endorse making said audio recordings publicly available.

Maybe this is the loophole everyone is looking for. Maybe it's not the skeleton key after all. Time will tell, but it does make things a bit more interesting.

[the white drew carey]

There's a new article on CNN about how ticked college students are: http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/09/10/la...reut/index.html

My personal favorite is:

"This is insane, they can't just hack into our systems and track our activities. It's our property," said Lucy Chen, a sociology student who thinks downloading free music is fair because compact discs are overpriced.

Sure... and I think gasoline is overpriced*, so I guess I'll just start stealing that, huh?

But this one's the runner-up:

Another student who refused to be identified said he uploads music and shares files, but is not concerned by the new lawsuits. "I consider myself technologically savvy, and I know how to erase my tracks," he said.

Any person who refers to themselves as "technologically savvy" should... well, you figure it out.

The last part of the article gets me as well. Now, I don't know where most people buy their music, but I've never spent more than $13 (before tax) on a CD before in my life, unless it was a double set. Maybe people should actually shop around instead of going to FYE, Tower or Best Buy. There's a lot of places that sell CDs for less than the big boys.

*seriously. OPEC and the oil companies are much bigger villains than the RIAA. isn't it amazing how the UN bombing in Iraq was such a precursor to further terrorist activity that they just HAD to raise the gas prices... just in case. lucky for them the price-hike came just in time for Labor Day weekend! isn't it more amazing that after labor day weekend, the threat must've gone away, because gas prices dropped?

[Zentrandude]

Here's a headsup guys, in case you didn't know:

According to this comment made on the Slashdot website, it sounds like the RIAA doesn't have a leg to stand on:

Quote:

Contrary to what the RIAA wants you to believe, it appears that making a copy of an audio recording may be perfectly legal in the US, even if you don't own the original recording, as long as it is for noncommercial purposes. The reason for this is the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA).

Since 1992, the U.S. Government has collected a tax on all digital audio recorders and blank digital audio media manufactured in or imported into the US, and gives the money directly to the RIAA companies, which is distributed as royalties to recording artists, copyright owners, music publishers, and music writers:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html

[cornell.edu]

In exchange for those royalties, a special exemption to the copyright law was made for the specific case of audio recordings, and as a result *ALL* noncommercial copying of musical recordings by consumers is now legal in the US, regardless of media:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html

[cornell.edu]

"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

The intent of Congress was clear when this law was passed

http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1...93-01/0018.html

[cni.org]

From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992:

"In the case of home taping, the [section 1008] exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings."

From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992:

"In short, the reported legislation [section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."

Therefore, when you copy an MP3 the royalties have already been paid for with tax dollars in accordance with the law. If you are a musician whose recordings are publicly distributed, then you are entitled to your share of these royalties by filing a claim under Section 1006

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1006.html

[cornell.edu]

Napster tried to use this law to defend their case, and the court ruled this law did not apply to them because they are a commercial company. But as a consumer it seems to me you are perfectly within your rights when you make a copy for noncommercial private use.

hmm then the RIAA would be double dipping. Hope everybody that got sued should counter sue and get atleast dbl the ammount they got sued for.

Edited September 11, 2003 by Zentrandude

[Capt Hungry]

Here's a further chapter to the 12 yr old:

update A peer-to-peer group says it will cover costs for a 12-year-old New York girl who agreed to pay record labels $2,000 to settle a file-swapping lawsuit.

[CAG]

Zentrandude Posted on Sep 11 2003, 07:17 AM

hmm then the RIAA would be double dipping. Hope everybody that got sued should counter sue and get atleast dbl the ammount they got sued for.

Not necessarily. See the key word there is private. Nobody is getting sued for having MP3's on their computer. Its people who share files or let people download from them that get sued. I think its pretty hard to argue that sharing MP3's among 60 million people is private, don't you?

Much like rebroadcasting MLB with implied oral consent, if you're gonna share MP3's you really should read the fine print.

[Nightbat]

"against the law to make music available online for others to download for free"

Get my cee-deee recordàr Mâh

I'ma gonna make MTV get sewed over allowing me to òbtain complete mah-usic-vidi-ohs

[muswp1]

It would be nice if the words "noncommercial purposes" was better defined. It seems kind of vague used in that context.

[Jolly Rogers]

There's commerce whenever you have an exchange of benefits, no money needs to be involved. When people are swapping MP3s, you've got a commercial activity right there, as both parties derived benefit from it.

[Beware of Blast]

There's commerce whenever you have an exchange of benefits, no money needs to be involved. When people are swapping MP3s, you've got a commercial activity right there, as both parties derived benefit from it.

If that's the case, I hope the RIAA will fail in their quest... because if they succeed, churches (or other religious establishments) will follow suit and gang up with the hotel industry and the catering service business, to sue casual sex couples for their lost of business cuz it obvious the couples in question are not going to get married.

Since there is no doubt alot of benefits are exchanged with no money needed to be involved as far as casual sex is concerned, you've got a commercial activity right there, as both parties derived LOTS of benefit from it.

[CAG]

Like I said before, commercial or noncommercial is irrelevant. Something shared among 60 million isnt private by any possible definition. So it doesn't matter if its commercial or not.

[Capt Hungry]

A few artists speak out against RIAA

Interesting read.

[0Coota0]

There's commerce whenever you have an exchange of benefits, no money needs to be involved.  When people are swapping MP3s, you've got a commercial activity right there, as both parties derived benefit from it.

If I share how am I benfitting by giving someone else a copy of my music?

Explain how sharing music isn't private especially with p2p.

There's a grey area here too, when is too much? If I burn a copy of a CD for a friend (Private use) or as a backup, it's not illegal, but now people are saying that it depends on the number of people that you allow to have a copy. It's the same as taping a ballgame on tv, and then wathcing it later with your buddies. Perhaps you shouldn't be allowed to listen to a cd owned by someone else, maybe only the owner of a cd should be allowed to listen to it in the car, everybody else can plug their ears.

Is it even legal to sue a 12 year old? She is a minor after all, how did they get around that problem to sue her?

Edited September 12, 2003 by 0Coota0

[JsARCLIGHT]

The point CAG is trying to make is that anytime there is an exchange or a transfer of "something" it is considered a transaction. What you are describing with the "listening to a CD" constitutes "private use".

I myself am not a lawyer, but being a gun owner in the United States I have had to become familiar with tons and tons of Federal legal mumbo jumbo, and these "acts" and "regulations" we all keep reading are actually very clear about what is and isn't "legal". The issue is that previously these illegal things have just not been enforced. The Federal government likes to use a lot of big words and order them in legaleze so common people don't know exaclty what is and isn't legal... but rule of thumb stands: if you got it for free, ask yourself who paid for it. There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you "give" someone a copy you are in essence denying the original maker the money they would have received from that potential sale, but if you let someone "borrow" or "use" your legitamate copy then you are excercizing your rights under the "fair use" conditions. Things taped off of TV or the radio are perfectly legal for you to do and watch/listen to as they are also within your rights under "fair use". But if you sell or distribute (meaning make more copies and give them away) you are now in all actuality breaking the law.

Edited September 12, 2003 by JsARCLIGHT

[JsARCLIGHT]

Is it even legal to sue a 12 year old? She is a minor after all, how did they get around that problem to sue her?

If you read the details behind the suit and the settlement you'd see that the RIAA is going after the people who pay for the internet connection that violated the laws, i.e. the kid's parents most likely. And it would also appear that another group stepped up to the plate and paid the girl's settlement for her anyway.

[0Coota0]

The point CAG is trying to make is that anytime there is an exchange or a transfer of "something" it is considered a transaction. What you are describing with the "listening to a CD" constitutes "private use".

An exchange by meaning is "To give in return for something received; trade" so if I allow you to download a piece of music from me, where is the exchange?

Transfer- "To convey or cause to pass from one place, person, or thing to another."

Transfer I'll give you, but I still want to see a ruling from a court on where the private use law begins and ends

[Nightbat]

Just a last comment

the excuse of denying upcoming talent their chance is BS

unless you're "Fad of the week" recordcompanies (and tv) won't give you the light of day