 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)big ...and 260 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614069 Today 13 Topics 127541 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I know this has been done to death and back and death again, but I just realized something about this whole RIAA suing people that I haven't seen brought up yet. In most countries, when you buy an album there is a copywrite on it that states that the material cannot be distributed... yada yada. Now, when someone downloads an MP3, and plays it, or stores it on their harddrive for listening to later, they have not actually seen the copywrite, therefore anyone with mp3's on their hard drive without having a physical copy of that music can freely distribute that information because have not been privy to the copywrite that actually belongs to the artist of that music. Copywrite and write protection cannon be implied, it needs to be expressly shown to the listener so that you can say without a shadow of a doubt they understood that they were not allowed to copy or distribute that work. Therefore to actually prove that someone intended to distribute someone else's music, they would have to provide evidence that the person was able to see the copywrite on either the jewel case or cd, that they themselves ripped it onto the computer, and then moved the ripped copies of the mp3 into a folder that was accessible on a network. Just an FYI... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
interesting theory actually - the riaa catcher you and you say that your friend told you that music was free - perfect. i'm sure this is a thing that might help you in court - but this is so obvious the judge would propably laugh his ass off. i don't know if it's not a bit TOO obvious - aswell you could explain a police officer who caught you taking drugs that your friend told that those where "love pills" absolutely natural and legal. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
isnt it 'copyright'? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No... well, in a criminal trial it needs to be within a shadow of a doubt. In a civil trial, its less, more like 'highly likely'. Which is probably why the RIAA hasn't been pursuing criminal charges. Because then there entire case would have so many precidents set against it that they wouldn't have any ground to stand on (not that they have much as it is). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Er.. I'm not sure about the law where you're at, but over here, ignorance about the law is no excuse; it's not ok for you to just get in a car and start driving without a driver's license because you hadn't read the traffic law. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
im sure the law doesn't care (in most cases) if you know you're breaking it or not. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
OK everyone loves your pop vibe |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i like that theory really if you can't see it, it's not there ! simple as that. Got me thinking mate, thanks for bringing it up |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
legal in canada. : ] |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You're confusing copyright and license agreements. Copyright doesn't require a noticification. You automatically have copyright control of your work unless you explicitly assign it to someone else. If you went before a court and said that you thought Nelly Furtado's album that you pirated was licensed under Creative Commons licensing I think they would openly laugh at you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Downloading yes, uploading no. It's like they wanna turn us all into leechers, brah. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
They could start selling music as a 'license' like software. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
after they shoved it up your facaes-blank ass, you fucking royal immaturative prince harry arse lick retard champagne up your snooter lost watching bush voting ae shitting microsoft shafting piece of distended rectum from the worst kind of city ghetto coupled with winos, junkies and general all kind of fuck ups |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I suck. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I didn't submit a pop vibe. yeah i see i posted the same thing as you. only in poor english and redaction, sorry :( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, yes, insofar as copywriting is concerned, you cannot try to publish someone elses work as your own, that is implied. However, there are many bands who allow you to make copies of their music and distribute them. The gratefull dead being probably the most well known of them. How are you to know the difference between one and the other? You aren't. They cannot just assume that you know the specific album falls under one category and another album falls under another. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes, ignorance is not an excuse. But where I come from there is no umbrella law that governs every single album ever distributed in that country. That is why there is fine print on every single album that you see, because in order to prove someone had intended to pirate or distribute someone elses work, they have to have without a shadow of a doubt intended to copy and distribute the work. In court, the ownace is on the victim to prove the intent in issues such as this, and if the victim cannot do that, they have no case. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
just btw - there's plenty of labels that are NOT affiliated/affected by the RIAA and their policies (I forget the database url... I'm sure someone can come up with it). anyway, the majority of electronic music labels (including rephlex and mu) are not RIAA "endorsed". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I know this is not the discussion here, just thought I'd bring it up :P |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes, this is true. The reason why the RIAA would probably not target me aside from the fact that it would have little to no chance of success with Canadian law is the fact that I have one or two RIAA affiliated songs on my hard drive. They wouldn't have the legal grounds to act on behalf of the artists I listen to, and I doubt they will spend their time or money soliciting other labels (that aren't going to be able to afford their services) with victim impact statements, or authorizations to act. As well, I generally delete any albums on my hard drive from artists who openly state they do not want mp3's of theirs distributed as a sign of respect. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
DM: He's actually right you know. When I was studying copyright law, this was illustrated as one of the principle differences between America and here. Essentially, they have to put the (C) sign on it to show it's copywritten, whereas the UK (and lots of of other countries) don't require it. IE Here you automatically have copyright of anything you have created, unless you specifically say otherwise (like the GNU/open source licences). Because of things being available from here in america, it has become the norm to put the (c) on everything anyway. In america, their legal system is so entrenched in law (moreso than most western countries), rather than justice, I wouldn't actually be surprised if someone wrangled their way out of it with this. I'm sure the RIAA et al would be swift to get that particular loop hole closed though, once it had been exploited. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh yeah, the American way; you better write on the coffee-cups that "content may be hot!" or else you'll get sued. And the endless lists of "items you are not allowed to kill someone with." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I also think one of the main differences is that, over here, if someone assaults you or something, you don't sue.. you report them to the police, and the fines and punishments aren't grossly disproportionate to the crime committed (sometimes, though, they may be a bit too lenient). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, I am actually Canadian. However, the copyright still needs to be visible on the cd case here, similar to American law. Except here, people don't sue at the drop of a hat like they do down there. It is kind of similar in the American legal system in some ways, however there is so much suing happening down there, that there is a precedent set for everything, and Canadian judges are generally not ones to make case law so much as follow it. Their laws are much more modular where ours are more general, and the courts aren't one big over-dramatic show to impress the jury. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
In either country however, you really need to be able to prove intent. That said, in the US, there may be precedents set in previous cases that give the RIAA more leeway in how they can prove intent in a lot of these cases they are pursuing. I don't know, I know quite a bit about the laws in application, but don't know much case law. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm pretty sure Canada's like the UK - you have copyright by default, no symbols, notifications or lawyers necessary. The © goes on things out of habit and for the benefit of backwards places like the US. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes. I already agreed with that before. Someone cannot just put their name on something that another person made and call it theirs. The copyright in that manner is implied. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Under Canadian copyright law, no one can distribute your work without your explicit permission even if they give you full credit. And you don't have to have shown them a © on anything for those rights to be in effect. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
O Canada! Our home and native land! True patriot love in all thy sons command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free! From far and wide, O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
::stands and sheds a tear of quiet, confident pride:: |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes, but its the intent to distribute that nails that. They have to prove that you moved it into that folder that its contained in and gave people access to that folder to distribute that music. Its easy if they catch some money changing hands for a product, because there is no way you can't say I wasn't intending on distributing that if they have that evidence. It's stupid sounding, but its a workable loophole. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If that's a loophole, the first judge to try it will close it, effectively making it not a loophole. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, you don't understand. Canadian judges are so frightened to set precedents and change things in the legal system, that people get away with everything but murder daily because of little loopholes like that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hahah even got some rimmer in there. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, that's just silly. Go over there and tell them to sharpen up. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes. The legal system is very fucked up here. Luckily its so cold nobody ever does anything illegal because its better to stay indoors where its warm. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That is true. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
