Downloaders beware

[Sojourner]

A recent 7thCircuit decision in [url="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/OM0L4845.pdf"]BMG Music v. Gonzalez[/url] could have implications for those of us who like to sample before we buy. At least, that is, those of us who live in the 7th Circuit (which I think includes Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin). But the rest of you should take note as well so you don't end up in the same situation as poor Ms. Gonzalez.

In the decision, the court defines more clearly that downloading music is not "fair use." The judge writing the decision, Easterbrook, finds that downloading music for personal use costs the copyright owner money:

[quote]Music downloaded for free from the Internet is a close substitute for purchased music; many people are bound to keep the downloaded files without buying originals.[/quote]

Gonzalez had argued that her downloads were fair use because she was downloading in order to sample music. She might listen, like the music, and then buy the CD. The judge rejected that argument, saying that copyight holders themselves may want to offer sampling services, which could be a valuable (read: they could charge for it) service.

Perhaps more scarily, the judge refused to reduce statutory damage in instances where the accused infringer thought they were actually acting in the bounds of the law. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. The moral of this story: Pay for any full songs you listen to, or it may come back to bite you.

I am posting this in the debate table, so I suppose I should pose a question for debate. Is the judge right in his determination on this? There is definitely room for argument. Are copyright holders being too strict in their enforcement of copyright? Should ignorance of the law be a mitigating factor?

[philothea]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Dec 13 2005, 09:06 AM']I am posting this in the debate table, so I suppose I should pose a question for debate. Is the judge right in his determination on this? There is definitely room for argument. Are copyright holders being too strict in their enforcement of copyright? Should ignorance of the law be a mitigating factor?
[right][snapback]823207[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

While I loathe RIAA and most of the recording industry, I think this decision was correct. Downloading a good quality full song is pretty much just stealing it. I don't see that as "fair use." A 30-second sample, maybe. An icky high-compression mono version, maybe.

The artists and copyright holders should have the right to decide if they give free samples or not. If they're smart they [i]will[/i] but it's still up to them.

And of course, ignorance never can be allowed as a defense, or everyone is suddenly ignorant...

[jezic]

i think that i would agree with the judge. That doesn't really constitute fair use.

30 second samples are fine and i think are welcomed by a majority of labels/artists.

The only thing that annoys me about this whole thing is that the people on top, the executives of these companies with huge paychecks are the ones who are most adamant about the lawsuit stuff.

I have heard of a few artists but not nearly as many.

[Carrie]

It's all Metallica's fault.

[jezic]

i would also think that as a good Catholic one should not be downloading stuff unless it is in the public domain.

[philothea]

[quote name='jezic' date='Dec 13 2005, 01:56 PM']i would also think that as a good Catholic one should not be downloading stuff unless it is in the public domain.
[right][snapback]823824[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Right.

See, it's not just underage drinking! There are other controversial laws too...

[Sojourner]

The judge said:
[quote]Gonzalez's theme that she obtained "only 30" (or "only 1,300") copyrighted songs is no more relevant than a thief's contention that he shoplifted "only 30" compact discs planning to listen to them at home and pay later for any he liked.[/quote]

And I asked one of the lawyers I talked to about giving copies of CD compilations to friends at, say, weddings or other similar events, because I know this is a question that has come up before here on PM. The lawyer I spoke with said this is technically breaking the law, but it's unlikely that anyone will go after a low-level infringement like that. However, it is still making full-length copies of copyrighted works, and is therefore a theft of sorts.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Carrie' date='Dec 13 2005, 02:40 PM']It's all Metallica's fault.
[right][snapback]823802[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
in an interview w/ Wierd Al, he was asked how he felt about Napster (which was involved in that huge, and widely covered lawsuit at the time)
he commented something along the line of " i think it is wrong to take music from an artist with out paying for it...
but on the other hand - you can get all this free Metallica music! wow! "

[Aloysius]

yeah, I'm a goofball like that sometimes

-Wierd Al

[Iacobus]

I wish the RIAA would notice the new data coming out that says the people that they are chasing down for copywrite problems are the ones buying their music at a higher rate then before they started downloading.

Was she uploading? If so that is intresting, to my knowledge it would be the first time someone was busted for downloading. To the extent of my knowledge, the RIAA has yet to chase down downloaders, I think there is/was some techinally limit on it and have been getting at the large uploaders.

[scardella]

[quote name='jezic' date='Dec 13 2005, 01:56 PM']i would also think that as a good Catholic one should not be downloading stuff unless it is in the public domain.
[right][snapback]823824[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Or if they legally dowload it through a legal (read: for pay) service...

*cough*iTunes Music Store*cough* *cough*

[philothea]

[quote name='scardella' date='Dec 13 2005, 09:41 PM']Or if they legally dowload it through a legal (read: for pay) service...

*cough*iTunes Music Store*cough* *cough*
[right][snapback]824322[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
iTunes...

[Carrie]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='Dec 13 2005, 08:55 PM']in an interview w/ Wierd Al, he was asked how he felt about Napster (which was involved in that huge, and widely covered  lawsuit at the time)
he commented something along the line of " i think it is wrong to take music from an artist with out paying for it...
but on the other hand - you can get all this free Metallica music!  wow! "

[right][snapback]824149[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


(as if anyone was buying metallica's music after they cut their hair and starting putting out bad albums).

[Carrie]

[quote name='scardella' date='Dec 13 2005, 11:41 PM']Or if they legally dowload it through a legal (read: for pay) service...

*cough*iTunes Music Store*cough* *cough*
[right][snapback]824322[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I use iTunes. They let you hear a sample before buying as well.

[toledo_jesus]

the judge is absolutely 100% correct. If it was my money being taken from me because of illegal downloading, I'd be really T.O.'ed. I supported Metallica when they went up against Napster...


DOWN WITH DOWNLOADING

[Earthsea Annie]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Dec 13 2005, 06:35 PM']I wish the RIAA would notice the new data coming out that says the people that they are chasing down for copywrite problems are the ones buying their music at a higher rate then before they started downloading.
[right][snapback]824175[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I don't think that matters when it comes to infringement. If you steal something and then later buy lots of it, the fact remains that you initially stole it.

[bx_racer]

[quote name='Earthsea Annie' date='Dec 14 2005, 01:09 PM']I don't think that matters when it comes to infringement. If you steal something and then later buy lots of it, the fact remains that you initially stole it.
[right][snapback]825507[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

i dont download because of all the moral controversy but i read somewhere the artist isnt hurt that much, because most of their money comes from tours and other merchandise. its more the label. i think its pretty stupid and people should be allowed to do it. that way more people actually hear the music and the labels arent so greedy.

[Mrvoll]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Dec 13 2005, 09:06 AM'] The judge rejected that argument, saying that copyight holders themselves may want to offer sampling services, which could be a valuable (read: they could charge for it) service.

[right][snapback]823207[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is just plain studip. If the music indrusty choose to do it, I will record songs form the radio.

[lifescanticle]

The judge got this one correct. I believe that it is improper to download music without paying for it. It is no different than my providing a service in my profession and the individual walking out with paying for my time.

[xTrishaxLynnx]

Bringing back an old thread... I have a slight issue here.


It's not illegal to record things from the radio, is it? (i'm really not 100% sure...) If it isn't, why would it be such a bad thing to download those songs that you can already hear for free? And I know most of the time an artist's entire album is not played on the radio, only a song or two to hook you so you buy the album.. but if they offered a couple of songs (the radio played songs) for free, then you had the option to buy and download the album online, how would the artists OR labels be losing money?