FBI Anti-Piracy Warning

[Back]

Picked up Beck’s Guero today. Noticed this little symbol on the backs of a few CDs while browsing.

http://www.zendada.com/images/antipiracy.jpg

Here is what the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ipr/) says about it.


"Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000."

So, the Federal government has teamed up with the major corporations against the people because loss of profits is a National security issue now?

Jesus, I can't believe I agree with Backlash on something.

- Arkans

[Farquar]

The law of copyright has its origins in the U.S. Constitution. Copyright law itself is entrely within Title 17 of the United States Code, which is essentially the "Big Book of Federal Laws".

The FBI invesitgates federal crimes. Thus, they have, and have always had, jurisdicton over copyright violations.

[Bobmuhthol]

It's a good thing downloading isn't illegal.

[Back]

Isn’t the “infringement without monetary gain” new?

This wouldn't be a problem if the mark-up on CDs wasn't so ludicrous. Well, off to download more songs.

- Arkans

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
It's a good thing downloading isn't illegal.

It's illegal. I can elaborate, if needed.


Originally posted by Backlash
Isn’t the “infringement without monetary gain” new?

Sounds new, probably to deter people from making the music available on P2P. Most laypeople are under the impression that copying with no profit is legal.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I can elaborate, if needed.>>

It's needed.

[CrystalTears]

Yeah heaven forbid we deprive these poor record companies and marketing people their money. Artists make most of their money from tours and such. CD's, unless they sell a lot, don't really pay out much.

http://stuffo.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties6.htm
http://www.taxi.com/faq/copyright/royalties.html


[Edited on 3/30/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Farquar]

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) etc,etc,etc.

Technically the act of downloading is not illegal. What happens when you download a song, however, is you make a copy of a copyrighted song on your hard drive. But is this a copy for the purposes of the copyright code?

Section 101 of the copyright code defines copy as "material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."

The case of MAI v. Peak says sheds more light on computer copes. The court had to decide whether the act of turning on a computer system and having the computer load a copy of the software into RAM counted as making a "copy" under Section 101. To quote from the case: "However, since we find that the copy created in the RAM can be “perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated,” we hold that the loading of software into the RAM creates a copy under the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. Section 101." Basically, that court held that a copy made in RAM (which is generally unusable and temporary) is a copy for the purposes of the copyright code. By logical extension, a copy made on a hard drive would also be included, because a hard drive copy is more permanent and more easily manipulated than a RAM copy of a particular program.

So, when you download, you make an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work and you violate the first exclusive right of the copyright holder: the right to make copies.

[Back]

I know the Supreme court is going to hear cases against P2P software companies in the next few weeks.

Surprised they haven't gone after companies that make ripware.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Backlash
I know the Supreme court is going to hear cases against P2P software companies in the next few weeks.

Surprised they haven't gone after companies that make ripware.

Actually, it happened this morning. People were camped outside the Supreme Court on Monday night, and people(lawyers) were paying other folks to stand in line for them for the night. It was the Supreme Court "hot ticket" for the decade.

[Back]

Thats corporate/state controlled media for you. One would think something on this scale would headline. But things like this and the breakdown of the Iraqi Parliament is barely newsworthy in this media-blackout.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Backlash
Thats corporate/state controlled media for you. One would think something on this scale would headline. But things like this and the breakdown of the Iraqi Parliament is barely newsworthy in this media-blackout.

As of right now, it's the third line lead on Cnn.com, 2nd lower lead on MSNBC.com. It's what I would have expected.

What happened with the Iraqi Parliament now?

[Back]

My CNN is set for international so I don’t see it. MSNBC though does have it. But they are a liberal rag.

Acrimony dominates Iraqi Assembly session (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/03/29/iraq.main/index.html).

[Back]

MSNBC article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7327495/).


The entertainment industry’s lawyer, Donald Verrilli Jr., said his clients have no interest in suing inventors who take steps to block customers from stealing. But Grokster and other file-sharing services actively encourage consumers to steal, Verrilli said.

Yeah, and what about all that ripware out there? Grokster wouldn’t have anything to share without them! Unbelievable.

[Artha]

MSNBC though does have it. But they are a liberal rag.
Fox is pretty liberal, but they have a story about it too (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151769,00.html) - I'm just surprised it isn't extolling the virtues of World Socialism.

[Edited on 3-30-2005 by Artha]

[Anebriated]

Sharing music is what they mostly bust people for, not downloading. Just download and move the songs to a new folder so they are not in your shared folder.

edit: read it a little more carefully

[Edited on 3-30-2005 by Elrodin]

[Hulkein]

I see no problem with the FBI upholding federal laws.

[ElanthianSiren]

Same debate, different day. If you were alive for the 80s and 90s, you'll remember the vast outcry against CD to casette and casette to casette recording. Early 2k computer to cd was the culperit. Oh my god, now it's p2p, and it's absolutely the end of the world!

The government can't stop people from sharing music. All you need is a network of 5 friends, who alternately buy cds. Share amongst yourselves. Keep it private. I can't believe the number of times crap like this has to get recycled before the government realizes they can't win.

-Melissa

[CrystalTears]

How about the outcry when LP's went to cassette? Ssame debate, different time. It will blow over when they notice it will change nothing in the long run.

[Nieninque]

LP's... :lol:

You are oooooooooooooooooold

[CrystalTears]

Goddamnit! :cry:

[Warriorbird]

"Fox is pretty liberal"

Ha ha ha. Damn. I'm scared of what you'll be when you're 40, Artha.

I've said it before.. if record companies stopped upping the price on CDs so badly then they would not really have this problem.

The worst part is is that they are busting college kids that just want some songs on their computer. You think they can pay that fine? Please, this short of shit actually makes me angry.

- Arkans

[Kyra]

This whole "People are stealing music by downloading it." crap makes me sick.

If the artists are REALLY so worried about free copies of their music being out there then they need to quit letting their music be played on FM radio.

I could either record a song from the radio & listen to it or I can download to my pc and listen to it...wtf is the difference besides going the radio route is more of a p.i.t.a.?

K.

[Artha]

"Fox is pretty liberal"

Ha ha ha. Damn. I'm scared of what you'll be when you're 40, Artha.
Fox is so liberal it makes my heart bleed.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Kyra
This whole "People are stealing music by downloading it." crap makes me sick.

If the artists are REALLY so worried about free copies of their music being out there then they need to quit letting their music be played on FM radio.

I could either record a song from the radio & listen to it or I can download to my pc and listen to it...wtf is the difference besides going the radio route is more of a p.i.t.a.?

K.

Luckily, I have the MGM Brief in my hand to help answer this question.

The distinction between a song copied from the airwaves and that downloaded from the internet arises from digital technology. Music copied from radio is in analog format, which means it's inherently imperfect, and much is lost in the translation. The onset of casettes and tape decks never supplanted the market for records. There is empirical data to support this: record sales remained relatively constant, and even increased during the period that casettes were in wide usage.

Mp3 copies, however, are near CD quality, and they act as a perfect substitute to purchasing the album. Moreover, each perfect copy created can "multiply" into even more of these perfect copies (MGM affectionately refers to these copies as "viral copies), effectively destroying the commercial market for any record. Empirical data also exists that supports this phenomenon.

BOO HOO for them. Less gouging and more fair prices. Until then, I'll download entire CDs just "because I can"

- Arkans

[Kyra]

Originally posted by Farquar
Luckily, I have the MGM Brief in my hand to help answer this question.

Are you serious?? For some reason that struck me as just frigging hilarious! I need to go check if you voted for "geek" in the "what were you in high school thread.

Either way you can get a free copy of the song...quality from downloads can suck big time so please don't try feed me the "near perfect quality" line. It's all about the extra $$ they want in their pocket.

If CD prices weren't outrageous they wouldn't have such a problem.

K.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Same debate, different day. If you were alive for the 80s and 90s, you'll remember the vast outcry against CD to casette and casette to casette recording. Early 2k computer to cd was the culperit. Oh my god, now it's p2p, and it's absolutely the end of the world!

It actually goes back a bit farther than that. When Gutenberg invented the printing press, people complained that it would lead to the end of great literature. When Edison invented the phonograph, people complained that the music industry would die out. When the movie projector came out, people complained that Broadway would "go dark". The same happened for casettes, VHS tape recorders, etc.

Eventually, business models just have to change and accomodate to new technology, and I'm sure it will happen here (if it isnt already happening with itunes and new napster, etc.). The industry is just unwilling to let this particular mode go because, at its peak, it was so damn profitable for everyone.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Kyra

Originally posted by Farquar
Luckily, I have the MGM Brief in my hand to help answer this question.

Are you serious?? For some reason that struck me as just frigging hilarious! I need to go check if you voted for "geek" in the "what were you in high school thread.

Either way you can get a free copy of the song...quality from downloads can suck big time so please don't try feed me the "near perfect quality" line. It's all about the extra $$ they want in their pocket.

If CD prices weren't outrageous they wouldn't have such a problem.

K.

I'm a lawyer. :smilegrin:

[Artha]

Empirical data also exists that supports this phenomenon.
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2004-09-30-music_x.htm) reports a 5.5% jump in 4Q of 2003, and 3.9% in the first half of 2004. Obviously, P2P isn't hurting them that badly.

[Edited on 3-30-2005 by Artha]

[CrystalTears]

It seems the artists that are against downloading/sharing music are those that aren't in the limelight and the money they make is from sales.

You don't see David Bowie or Mojo bitching about downloadable music. Hell they give their stuff away because they know that exposure is what makes them money. New people hear their stuff, they go purchase more and then go to their concert. The more you tell people they can't do it, the more they will.

[Wezas]

Most popular artists make a most of their money from touring.

Downloading is wrong - but in most cases I think it hurts the record company more than the artist.

[CrystalTears]

Maybe if the singles didn't cost almost as much as the whole CD, things would be different.

Like Kyra, I would copy songs off the radio because usually the whole CD, for lack of a better phrase, sucks. I just want the one song. If I have to get it from another source to enjoy it rather than spend the $17+ for it, I certainly will.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Artha

Empirical data also exists that supports this phenomenon.
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2004-09-30-music_x.htm) reports a 5.5% jump in 4Q of 2003, and 3.9% in the first half of 2004. Obviously, P2P isn't hurting them that badly.


The only thing that shows is that recent efforts to litigate against file sharers is paying off. Look at the data from 1994 up to the present. Sales have decreased overall, and even the article you cited states that this upward trend is opposite that of the last four years, during which record sales declined.

[Artha]

The only thing that shows is that recent efforts to litigate against file sharers is paying off.
What it shows is that P2P is not going to be the death of the recording industry.

[Bobmuhthol]

I have downloaded more songs in the last couple of months than any other time in my life.

It sure pays off that they're trying to stop me!

[Sean]

Originally posted by Farquar
The only thing that shows is that recent efforts to litigate against file sharers is paying off. Look at the data from 1994 up to the present. Sales have decreased overall, and even the article you cited states that this upward trend is opposite that of the last four years, during which record sales declined.

You can blame that on P2P software or tapes or CDs .. I'll blame it on crappier music being mass produced.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<quality from downloads can suck big time>>

If you're downloading something that was on a CD and the file is bad quality, you should just end your life for being so dumb.

<<Like Kyra, I would copy songs off the radio>>

I'm interested in the process of recording radio feed. The idea sounds like it sucks a lot and is a huge waste of time for a shitty music file.

[Hulkein]

By copying songs off the radio, I'm pretty sure they mean get a radio that has a tape deck and hit record when a song they want is on.

[Kyra]

Originally posted by Hulkein
By copying songs off the radio, I'm pretty sure they mean get a radio that has a tape deck and hit record when a song they want is on.

:yeahthat:

[ElanthianSiren]

You can get almost any song you want off of newsgroups.


-Melissa

[African American]

Originally posted by Tijay
[quote]You can blame that on P2P software or tapes or CDs .. I'll blame it on crappier music being mass produced.

:yeahthat:

99% of the bands out there today suck yaknowhasayin? They sing the same crybaby pussy shit with the same whiny voice, the same shitty guitar riffs that are worse than what 5th graders warm up on at school lessons, and boring ass drummers yaknowhasayin?

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by African American]

[Drew]

Originally posted by Farquar
The law of copyright has its origins in the U.S. Constitution. Copyright law itself is entrely within Title 17 of the United States Code, which is essentially the "Big Book of Federal Laws".



What you fail to mention is that the original copyright laws enshrined in the Constitution were, essentially, fair use laws in that copyrights were allowed to expire and fell into the public domain. Now with the current "Micky Mouse" copyrights it's possible to keep something copyrighted forever, instead of the original 18 years enshrined in the Constitution.




Originally posted by Farquar

Originally posted by Backlash
Isn’t the “infringement without monetary gain” new?

Sounds new, probably to deter people from making the music available on P2P. Most laypeople are under the impression that copying with no profit is legal.


It was a law passed in 1997 that was dredged up recently, as of 2004 no one has ever been charged under it, but I think that has changed.




Originally posted by Farquar


Luckily, I have the MGM Brief in my hand to help answer this question.

The distinction between a song copied from the airwaves and that downloaded from the internet arises from digital technology. Music copied from radio is in analog format, which means it's inherently imperfect, and much is lost in the translation.


Sound waves are analog. Anytime you convert something into a digital form you lose quality, so their basic premise is wrong. However, radio quality is, in general, lower than MP3 quality. But in an audio sense MP3s are nothing like a perfect copy of a CD.





Originally posted by Farquar

Originally posted by Artha

Empirical data also exists that supports this phenomenon.
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2004-09-30-music_x.htm) reports a 5.5% jump in 4Q of 2003, and 3.9% in the first half of 2004. Obviously, P2P isn't hurting them that badly.


The only thing that shows is that recent efforts to litigate against file sharers is paying off. Look at the data from 1994 up to the present. Sales have decreased overall, and even the article you cited states that this upward trend is opposite that of the last four years, during which record sales declined.



Infact, you are incorrect here. I challenge you to produce a non-RIAA/record industry funded study that show any empirical evidence of file-sharing damaging record sales. In actuality, the largest and most comprehensive study of file-sharing found that those who downloaded the most music purchased the most music, and that downloaders drove up the sales of albums.


(Link in PDF format: http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf )


The truth of the matter is that CDs are a 25 year old format and are nearing the end of their lifespan. As products reach their twilight years, sales taper off, as demonstrated with 78s, LP and EPs, and cassette tapes.

Unfortunately, bickering and infighting between technology and content companies seems to have led to them shooting themselves in the foot with the succesor formats. DVD-audio (DVD-A) and Super Audio CDs (SACD) were set to inherit the CD throne like DVD took over from VHS. However, their greed and inability to settle on a single format led to a fractured market and confused public. This was unfortunate for the record industry, because at a time when low quality MP3s abound (but sound little worse than CDs) a high quality, surround sound music format would have been a powerful selling point. (Remember, for years UPS and Fed-EX charged nearly 5x as much as the USPS but people still used them. Conclusion: People will pay for quality even when there is a low-cost or free alternative availible.).



Does that mean the end of recorded music in a physical format? Well, in this Ipod culture it certainly seems possible, but I doubt we will see the total elimination of the "record store' in our lifetimes. But the CD is effectively done, we'll have to see what replaces it.






Please note: I didn't even touch on the increase of entertainment spending outside the music industry. Support of an aging format plus an apparent lack of quality content might work in an arena with no alternatives. That said, discretionary spending on video games, DVDs (including music DVDs featuring band performances), and movie theaters have skyrocketed in the last 10 years. So, in the search for scarce spending dollars, what is the music industry doing wrong?

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Arkans
This wouldn't be a problem if the mark-up on CDs wasn't so ludicrous. Well, off to download more songs.

- Arkans


what do you use?

I may or may not use Imesh:saint:

I may or may not use Bear Share. :D

- Arkans

[Artha]

LimeWire is totally better. But only for perfectly legal, non-copyrighted files :saint:

[CrystalTears]

I'm a good girl and use iTunes and buy my songs.

::coughliarcoughWinMXcough::

[Apotheosis]

i'm not saying that poisoned is a good way to access the bearshare, kazaa, fasttrack, openft and gnutella networks.....it's mac based

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Drew

Originally posted by Farquar
The law of copyright has its origins in the U.S. Constitution. Copyright law itself is entrely within Title 17 of the United States Code, which is essentially the "Big Book of Federal Laws".



What you fail to mention is that the original copyright laws enshrined in the Constitution were, essentially, fair use laws in that copyrights were allowed to expire and fell into the public domain. Now with the current "Micky Mouse" copyrights it's possible to keep something copyrighted forever, instead of the original 18 years enshrined in the Constitution.

I didn't neglect to mention anything. The Copyright Code does have its origins in the U.S. Constitution, and it is codified within the United States code. I was merely indicating why the FBI would have jurisdiction over Copyright, because it is federal law based in federal text. At that point, I wasn't addressing anything that dealt with the justification or mechanics of the law.

You're blatantly wrong that copyrights last forever. For works created today, the copyright duration is the life of the author + 70 years. For a corporation its 95 years from publication and 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

"Fair Use" is a separately codified doctrine within the copyright code.


Originally posted by Farquar

Originally posted by Backlash
Isn’t the “infringement without monetary gain” new?

Sounds new, probably to deter people from making the music available on P2P. Most laypeople are under the impression that copying with no profit is legal.


It was a law passed in 1997 that was dredged up recently, as of 2004 no one has ever been charged under it, but I think that has changed. [/quote]

Nope, I don't see any laws passed in 1997 that address this issue. Making a stright up copy is and always has been a violation of a copyright holder's exclusive right, unless it falls within the Section 106 "fair use" exceptions.




Originally posted by Farquar


Luckily, I have the MGM Brief in my hand to help answer this question.

The distinction between a song copied from the airwaves and that downloaded from the internet arises from digital technology. Music copied from radio is in analog format, which means it's inherently imperfect, and much is lost in the translation.


Sound waves are analog. Anytime you convert something into a digital form you lose quality, so their basic premise is wrong. However, radio quality is, in general, lower than MP3 quality. But in an audio sense MP3s are nothing like a perfect copy of a CD.[/quote]

You're looking too far outside the scope of the record company's argument. Its not relevant that all sound is analog. They're speaking strictly about the sources of the copying. As sources to make an MP3 copy, radio is analog and is worse, CD is digital and will be better in every respect. The CD is their finished market product, so all judgments about quality must begin from there.

It also doesn't matter that Mp3's aren't exactly CD quality, just that they are close enough that the record companies feel that mp3's could unbalance the market. I could make a photocopy of the Davinci Code by Dan Brown and it wouldn't be exactly the same as what you'd buy in a bookstore, but if I made millions of these photocopies it certainly would screw up the market for the real thing.





Originally posted by Farquar

Originally posted by Artha

Empirical data also exists that supports this phenomenon.
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2004-09-30-music_x.htm) reports a 5.5% jump in 4Q of 2003, and 3.9% in the first half of 2004. Obviously, P2P isn't hurting them that badly.


The only thing that shows is that recent efforts to litigate against file sharers is paying off. Look at the data from 1994 up to the present. Sales have decreased overall, and even the article you cited states that this upward trend is opposite that of the last four years, during which record sales declined.



Infact, you are incorrect here.[/quote]

I just pulled that statement from the USA today article that the other guy cited, take it up with them.

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by Farquar]