> I also wonder about data vs music CDR disks.. are only the music ones taxed, because I don't think I've ever bought them.

Yeah, only the music ones are taxed. And you only need them if you have a consumer audio device that records music CDs (there are a couple out there, I know Philips makes a couple). No computer burner would ever require one.

You know, I wouldn't mind increasing the price of data-CDR's by a few cents if it would just shut the RIAA up for another five years or so.

I'm waiting for the fallout of that one senator's investigation over copy-protection being illegal. If consumers pay a tax to reimburse the RIAA, then preventing copies is a violation of the Home recording act..

> No one got busted for the non-commercial use of Napster.

But it is still illegal. And people have gotten busted for having non-commerical ftp and web sites with music on them.

I think my original point still stands. Unless it is specifically allowed by the fair use exemptions, any copying of music, even between friends, is illegal I'm afraid. Whether it is ever enforced or not is a different question.

Hmm, or I could be wrong...

http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cti351.htm

Thanks, Ninti, that's a fun link. I especially like this quote, something I hadn't realized:

For years lawyers on both sides of copyright law have fought their battle over narrowly defined legal ground. (...) The earliest rulings gave book buyers and libraries the right to lend their books to others, overruling publishers' opposition.

Heh.. And at time, they proabaly had a BIAA (Bookbinder Industry Association of Artists) claiming they deserved a royalty whenever someone else looked at the book other than the original owner. Of corse, there are books nowadays that you can't show anyone else.. mostly college texbooks, and city building code laws..

EDIT- I would like to mention in regard of the poll discussion that 63.2% of all statistics are fictitious.
---------------------------------------

Say you buy a new Segway (you know, that 2-wheeled scooter- "Ginger"). Would it be against the law for you to build one for your use or your friend's use, if you figured out how? I don't think so.

What if you built it exactly the same with the same type parts? I still don't think so.

What if you got bored with it and sold it on ebay? It probably is, but I don't think it should be, and even if it is nobody would care.

What if you built several and started a business out of it? Yes, that would be illegal.

What if you built several and gave them away for free? I don't think it should be illegal. Patents are there to protect businesses. Say Microsoft invents some state of the art computer and patents it. Now say IBM figures out how to make it, too. IBM shouldn't be able to sell it; Microsoft beat them to it, but they should be able to use it for their own personal business use and use it in all of their DC's, stores, or whatever. The government can't/shouldn't stop you from learning and using "intellectual property". BUT, selling it is different. The government can't stop you from figuring out how to play a Red Hot Chili Pepper's song on your guitar. They can't stop you from playing it. They can't stop you from reproducing it in any way. They CAN stop you from selling it. Now keep in mind, patents/intellectual property isn't all that necessarry; it's only an incentive to promote development. Now if you haven't made the connection yet, all this can be related back to mp3's and piracy and etc.

Now, can you can you give it away for free, yet profit off of it indirectly, such as through advertising? Well think about this- All over the country, and I'm guessing all over the world, bands goto clubs/bars/whatnot and play unoriginal/copyrighted music (essentially giving it away for free) and profit off of it. I don't think that's wrong.

That's my analysis.

Would it be against the law for you to build one for your use or your friend's use, if you figured out how? I don't think so.

Now, it depends on the product, but in the case of the "Ginger", it would be illegal to manufacture and distribute a copy of the product. It's called a PATENT, and I'm sure the Ginger is so loaded with patents that you can't even talk about copying it without a team of lawyers descending upon you.

The thing is that Patents are different than copyrights. And copyrights are different than trademarks. It's probably a good idea for you to research the difference between these three things before discussing them.

But the same idea is behind all of them, right?

Well think about this- All over the country, and I'm guessing all over the world, bands goto clubs/bars/whatnot and play unoriginal/copyrighted music (essentially giving it away for free) and profit off of it. I don't think that's wrong.

And those of us who have actually worked in those kinds of bands will recall that there are stories of the RIAA trying to extort money from the bands and the bar owners. There were also stories of the RIAA trying to extort money from retail stores that played local radio stations over their PA systems. I don't know if these stories were true or not, they might have been urban legends.

But the same idea is behind all of them, right?

No, the same idea is not behind all of them. They are three completely different and separate things.

In fact a given product may have all three associated with it in different ways. The "ginger", to use your example, probably has all three associated with it, but each for a completely different reason.

Research the difference between Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, and get back to us.

Well yeah, and I've heard of people being robbed. Doesn't mean it's right or legal.

Research, my friend, research.

Alright, look. I know what a patent is. I know what copyright is. And I know what a trademark is. Yes they are different, but they are related. Why don't you try explaining how I misused them in my post?

If you really need convincing that the patent system is screwed up, just take a look at this

The patent (and copyright etc...) systems around the world are getting so over used and used incorectly that it makes me sick. Most of the 'government officials' that create some of the new copyright laws have no understanding of the technology that the laws are 'protecting'.

//matt

Copyrights and patents are totally different issues. Patents were created to give the inventor of a machine the right to control it's creation in commerce. So, the owner of the patents behind the Segway has the right to prevent companies from taking their product, figureing out how it works, and selling it for a cheaper price. This "right" is given to patent owners so they will invest their time and energy into making something new. No patents, not much research being done because it's not cost effective.

Copyrights on the other hand try to achieve the same goal for things that have no physical use. IE, they are meant only to be read/heard and interpreted in our minds. They also serve the same purpose of encouraging production of writing/art/musc/etc by creating an artificial right.

The issue that MP3's bring up, is that in the creation of those rights, the legislature has given normal people (Through the AHRA of 1992) exclusions so that the products they buy can be used by the owner. So that just because you bought an audio cd, you can still listen to it on your old magentic tapes, or whatever new technology comes out. This means that people have a right given by this law to convert CD's into MP3's, and that they can't be prosecuted for doing so.

The fundamental difference between patents and copyrights, is that patents don't prohibit you from making a copy of the thing covered by the patent, and giving one to a friend. Copyrights on the other hand, do. Sure I think it's stupid, but with the technology sector producing new products as it has in the past 10 years, I'm pretty sure that the war against MP3's was lost 5 years ago, they just haven't figured it out yet. I know I said that fair use lets you give copies to friends, but after looking into it, I was mistaken. Fair use is to allow for research/comment on copyrighted works, not for the use of those works. What I was thinking about was the mix-tape/bootleg issue that came up in the AHRA.. The thought then, was that copies of tapes degraded after each copy, so the spread of illegal copies would be self limited. They just now realized that MP3's are easy, exact copies and there's no stoping their acceptance by the public.

What I have a problem with, is that they are attempting to prohibit the spread of illegal copies of music by dissalowing technology that can be used for legal copies. So, the courts find themselves in the situation where they can only stop things that are blatently used only for illegal purposes (napster/etc), but can't exactly prohibit mp3 technology.

I'm a realist, I know that music sharing programs/websites are going to get killed as long as the RIAA thinks they can win. But I also know that annother will sprout up to fill the gap, so as a user, I have no worries. What I worry about is that the CD companies will start prohibit me from making MP3 copies of music that I own, and have a right to copy, simply because they don't want me to have the _chance_ of giving it away. To remove a right because it might be used for ill-purpose, is wrong. (So argues the NRA..)

Fabris, maybe it caused you confusion because I was trying to create an analogy between patented machines and copyrighted material.

There is a common idea behind trademarks, patents, and copyrights.. The protection of an individual/company of an idea/product/name so that they can make money off of their own work for a reasonable period of time without someone else taking that work and making money off of it.

"Protection" as an idea, yes. But they're very different forms of protection. To protect different things in different ways.

Tony was very gentle with his reply. Your message was full of holes. And intellectual property should be protected vigorously. If a company were to let another company copy their IP and distribute some like-product for FREE, then how could that first company survive? Stupid patents are granted all the time. That doesn't negate the need for the patent office.

BTW, I was successful at getting a number of auctions pulled from eBay. The ones selling MP3s are toast.

Bruno

If a company were to let another company copy their IP and distribute some like-product for FREE, then how could that first company survive?

You mean like how Microsoft destroyed Netscape by taking their technology and then distributing Internet Explorer free of charge? Yet they are allowed to do so...hmmm...

//matt

You mean how Netscape was based on all the work in Mosaic? You mean how Netscape was, is and always will be a pile of crap, so much so that a first generation browser could come on the scene and slap it silly?

MS licensed Mosaic from Spyglass as far as I recall. Netscape was the first popular commercial browser, but people were running NCSA's Mosaic (or ports) before that. Hey, Andreesen made plenty of money.

Bruno

There is one very important point about intellectual property law that I think some people are missing, or maybe have never heard (I hadn't until recently). The fundamental purpose of copyrights and patents is not to protect the holders of those copyrights and patents. That is the secondary purpose. The primary reason that intellectual property laws were created were to benefit the consumer. They achieve this goal is by protecting the intellectual property of inventors, thus giving inventors incentives(ie making money) to continue developing new products.

Here's a hypothetical to illustrate the distinction - let's say that it was somehow possible to guarantee that no matter what, the same number of new inventions/music would be produced. In this highly improbable world, intellctual property laws could and should be thrown out because they would no longer do what they were created to do (that is, benifit the consumer). Why does this matter? Well, it helps to correctly frame discussions about intellectual property. What everyone (including law makers) should be asking themselves about each piece of IP law is NOT "is this law fair to patent/copyright holders", it should be "does this law, in the grand scheme, benefit the consumer."

One last comment -- having said all this, I realize that the power of corporations has probably been strong enough to shift the interpretation of IP law in the courts to the side of protecting inventors, even if this wasn't its original intent.

-Adam

I should have filed a patent on the principles of this thread. Protecting my rights to all derivative works while I was at it.

All you guys are still using my recently trademarked "eBay Losers" slogan in each message too. Though it is currently not a Reg'd trademark.

Maybe now would be a good time to test that thread moving command of the BBS?

Bruno

> I hope you aren't trying to say the courts have weighed in to expand the fair use provisions?

Here's another interesting site relevant to this. It's a history of copyright law in the U.S., with a listing of quite a few cases that helped shape it and were important. Mostly focusing on printed documents, but still interesting.

http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html

I just looked through some of the ebay postings, and I realized that I wrote some of that product info! All I got out of it was a lousy tshirt. I wouldn't feel guilty posting it for an ebay auction if I decided to do one.

Fabris, maybe it caused you confusion because I was trying to create an analogy between patented machines and copyrighted material.

Yes, that is what caused me confusion. Because the patents protecting a machine are not germane to our discussions of what's legal and what's not in this particular thread (in my opinion). I thought you misunderstood the difference between a patent and a copyright. Instead, it was simply a bad analogy.

Yes, YES!!! I love the arguments! Whatever you do, keep posting. Don't stop just because the discussion is pointless, or doesn't belong here. Fill your mind with vengeance, fill your heart with hate, and fill your empeg with illegal mp3s!!!!!

The Prince of Darkness

Actually I believe there is a time limit on what is considered a fair use preview. I.E. A 30 sec clip that gives you the jist of the song is totally legal to distribute, but the whole song is not o.k. I've read the DMCA, buy to be honest, I fell asleep. It is all legal speak about something that the authors know nothing about.

There were also stories of the RIAA trying to extort money from retail stores that played local radio stations over their PA systems. I don't know if these stories were true or not, they might have been urban legends.

Not urban legend, and not RIAA.

ASCAP and BMI are the people you refer to here, and it is a little bit more complex than you state it.

It is perfectly legal for a store owner to play a radio in his store for the entertainment of his customers. It is not legal for him to play his radio into his intercom system and distribute the signal throughout the store. It is legal for him to place a radio next to each of his intercom speakers and play all of the radios at once, thus achieving exactly the same effect as if he had played one radio through his intercom system.

Please do not ask me to explain the logic behind this incomprehensible law -- I don't believe there is any. And please believe me when I tell you that the ASCAP and BMI music police are out there in force, intimidating retailers into compliance and starting legal actions against those who refuse.

tanstaafl.