It's enough to give the law-abiding citizen a big fat headache - all the more reason the rules need to be simplified and clarified.

I have an on-subject question for you related to one of Juian Bond's scenarios: What would be the ramifications of a person such as myself making available a shared folder that contains only music I purchased and ripped (no downloads). I could be up and "active" but not downloading a damn thing....1) would that get me prosecuted? 2) could I win that one?

Curious.

No, the RIAA isn't terribly concerned about downloading, it is uploading - making copyrighted material available without permission - they are suing people for. By making music available, even if you lawfully obtained it, you would likely be in violation.

If I understand the protocols correctly, tracking downloads is actually technically very difficult as well, while tracking songs made available for download, as in Greg's scenario, is trivially easy, and definitely illegal.

Don't do it, Greg, nobody wants to see you sued!

Doesnt the logic seemed twisted then?!

The RIAA is suing "downloaders" 'cause they are "stealing music" but they are only able to isolate the file sharers that are uploading, a passive activity at most. Oh-Kay. This whole issue is fun because of the whole desperate incompetence of the industry, though they have definitely put a chill into the worldwide bazaar of p2p.

I think you missed my point, Greg. The RIAA is suing uploaders, not downloaders. It just so happens that most uploaders also download, which just makes it easy.

They do seem to be focusing on the supply side of the curve, hoping that the demand will dwindle as a result.

Anybody catch the TechTV special Music Wars segment on the RIAA and filesharing that aired last Friday? I have TiVO poised to grab it when it reairs. A friend of mine said it had some good information on this mess.

The easiest way to apply copyright law is this: when you buy a CD/tape/record/8-track/reel-to-reel/mp3/name-your-delivery-method, you do not OWN anything but the media it's delivered on. You don't own the music contained on it. You are granted a license to playback the music for your own use - one license, and that is all. US copyright law allows you to backup your purchase, but it is for backup purposes only. You still have one license that allows for your usage only. You can't listen to your copy while a friend listens to the real thing you lent him. Your backup copy is for the unfortunate time when you lose the media somehow - you paid for it, you inadvertently lost possession of the original, so you have a backup you can use in its place. The same copyright laws apply to this as well. If you want to be strict about it, you can't even lend either the original or your copy out - your license covers you and that one unit (plus backup) only. And if you sell or give away your purchased unit, you also have to remove from your possession the copy - destroy it or give it to the new owner of the legit CD. You've passed your license on to someone else and have no rights to the music anymore.

That's it. That's pretty much the copyright law in a quick, simple summary. You can extend it in some rare circumstances to cover weird things, but anything beyond the above is most likely illegal, technically. I'm not saying it's realistic, because who hasn't borrowed or lent a CD - and certainly no one has ever been prosecuted for it. But beyond this, you're stretching the law to make something illegal feel less so. Yes, technically, copying out-of-print music is illegal - it's still covered by copyright. It's unlikely that it would be prosecuted too. But it *is* technically illegal. Live recordings present a different situation: in most cases, the band doesn't make live recordings available of what you record, and what the record company owns is the specific song that was recorded for them in their studio on their dime, while the band owns the lyrics and music they created (which is why remakes of popular songs are often used in low-budget movies and TV shows - they couldn't afford the rights to the song, but could afford the right to the structure and lyrics of the song.) Since the live recording you make contains the lyrics and music of the band - but not the *original* recording owned by the record company - the industry really can't do much about it (they try, however, as the music is still copyrighted by the band and they claim to represent the band's interest. Essentially, however, it's up to the band if it's okay for fans to tape and trade. It's never okay to sell this stuff, ever!))

Well yes, but then there is fair use.

Thanks Phil I do understand whats going on I just like how the industry and media portray it as "downloaders", while the lawsuits effectively target uploaders (or the supply side as it was termed here).
This mornings NY Times reports that SBC has steadfastly refused to release the names of their customers to RIAA supoenas--whatever their motives, a bravo to them for protecting the privacy of their customers.

Greg et al, if you are interested in the topic, we have a roundup of all the day's digital wars/copyright news here. Thanks

Here's a scenario for you: How about some podmunch breaks in your car and steals your cds? So you go online and download replacement until you can buy all those discs back. Who's the bigger criminal?

Damn, Damn, Damn! My new outkast was in that case.

Dew, this is why the first thing I do with any new CD is rip it to my computer. I used to listen to them on the way from the CD store, but I'm paranoid now.

I'm very sorry about the theft, but the stickler in me wants to point out that which of you is the bigger criminal isn't really the issue at hand. Both acts are illegal, though the penalties are different.

Your choice shouldn't be illegal, but sadly right now it is.

Backup everything!

Thanks Phil! I have always been apprehensive about backing up my cds on my comp because it seems to take up so much space (my comp only holds 20gigs). Even if I lower the 'rate' it stills gets extensive. I am researching getting an iPod, not sure yet.

Who's the bigger criminal really doesn't matter, I'm just pissed right now.

Dew, I do feel your pain. I started a project a number of years ago to rip all of my CDs. When I started, I had about 1600, so it took quite a while. While I still had a few hundred to go, someone rear-ended my car. With my 50-disc trunk CD changer. And of course, not all of the 50 discs (now shards of useless plastic) had been ripped.

In fact, it was a select of my very favorites that hadn't been ripped. That's why they were in the trunk, after all — they were the best.

Similar frustration, I'm sure. WIshing a pox on the person who destroyed the discs (or stole them, in your case), but also lamenting that I hadn't just ripped those discs first. Sigh.

In fact, a couple of those had been indie releases that I couldn't find online and aren't very easy to find at the used CD stores in my area, either. Double-sigh.

#11 is cool. The Dead supports downloading as long as the music is traded or shared freely, not sold.

Dew- What you need isn't an iPod, but simply a CD burner, which you can probably get for under $100 at this point if you don't have one. Blank discs are dirt cheap, and if you're reducing things to mp3, one disc will hold a buttload of stuff- typically a dozen or more albums. For example, the entire original Beatles catalog will fit easily on one CD- including the Christmas records.

Plus, those mp3 discs can then be played on your dvd player out of the television, or on some of the newer boom boxes. I note that Walmart has been selling a boom box for around $33 that will recognize the mp3 format.

Dew, you can probably find a decent CD burner dirt-cheap nowadays. I see them in the weekly Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA, etc. ads for $20-40 after a rebate (be sure and send it in!) Then go buy yourself a spindle of whatever discs are on sale (do not buy the "audio" discs - these are meant for CD burners that are part of a home stereo and cost MUCH higher.) I just picked up 100 Fujifilm discs at Best Buy for $9.99 after a $15 rebate.

I will beg you, however, to not get sucked into the pit that is mp3-compression. Copy your discs to your harddrive as wav-files, then burn them right back onto CDRs. mp3s are crap and are certainly not suited to archiving, as you're basically doing. Burn the wavs to disc, and then make mp3s of whatever you want. If you keep your original wav-based audio discs, you will not regret it someday when we all look back at the time we fell for the BS that about mp3s. They suck, plain and simple.