So does this mean that every single video store ever opened....since the 80's in the pre-Blockbuster/Hollywood days..even the little local mom & pop video stores...should be sued by the movie industry for copyright infringement? Not only did they share copyrighted material...they charged for it.

Complaing about this is useless. All you got to do is quit buying music. That would fix everything.

thats the Idea stop buying it (online/middlemen stores )
go and support local bands when ever you can
allot of times they have thier own music on a web site and would like to be heard and let you download there content for free .

America sinks further into the tyranny as the corporations takes over.

Yeap. I love America. In 20 years or so, corporations will milk this country dry and the dollars will be worthless.

Right you are! Corps get a huge cut of profits. ie: Each member of a 4 man band most likely will only see $.50 from every CD sold. The record company sites overhead for the rest of the price of a CD. Yea, right. Now if CDs were only $4.99, where they should be, there probably wouldn't be as much P2P sharing. The tyranny here, sjc001, is the reversed socialism in this country.

What does it mean distribution without physical transfer? I asked a girlfriend of mine to share my bed. She told me no and left me alone. I wonder if I really made love...

"Distribution of copyrighted material need not involve a physical transfer."

This means:

Distribution of copyrighted material need not involve actually distributing any copyrighted material.

That means:

You do not have to commit a crime to be guilty of committing a crime.

No, I don't think it breaks down that directly, Bobb****in. The legal point here appears to be that availability = distribution. It fits an old legal definition of "publishing" whereby the publisher doesn't have to sell any copies to have published a work. If you're an author and you're frequently owed royalties (and I am), that's an important distinction.

There's no way to legally say that a publishing company that distributes a book that no one buys...didn't really publish the book. It did. By that same token, there's no way (in this case) to legally say that some guy who shares his MP3 collection over the Internet isn't really distributing the copies even if no one downloads them. If you mean to distinguish between the two entities, you'd have to supply some sort of legal justification for that distinction.

-SF3

Good point. I guess I need to go to the public library to listen to music now...

"3) those files had originally been in a non-shared folder, but some hacker probably found a way of moving them into the shared folder."

Ok, so someone steals my car, uses it to rob a bank and run-down a police officer, then I'm the one going to jail for owning the damn car? Riiiight.

Send this retarded judge back to school. Clearly a bloody primary school student would know more about computers than he does.

THIS JUST IN:
Idiotic conservative judge declares that merely listening to music is against the law. If you hear music, you must call the police and have yourself arrested. Don't worry, you can buy your liberty from the RIAA court-walk prison anywhere from $10k-$250k.

I hate Amerika.

From now on, whenever a Democrat does anything ridiculously stupid, I promise I will equate that one idiot with the entire party and post about it.

Ya know, just to make myself look like a complete moron.

I know you could use the company...

I just don't know if I can type that fast.

The way I see it, you guys will soon need to learn how to salute like they did in WWII in a certain European country if you don't reign in the RIAA.

Zie befel!

"Distribution of copyrighted material need not involve a physical transfer." .."'[T]he owner of a collection of works who makes them available to the public may be deemed to have distributed copies of the works' in violation of copyright law." "The question is not whether Howell owned legitimate copies of some of the sound recordings on CD" "but instead whether he distributed copies of the recordings without authorization."

So does this mean i cant stream my music to my xbox 360 and listen to it in the other room? Since its a ppublic folder in my network.. thats sharing.. or do i need to call the RIAA and say there is this feature of streaming my music from my pc to my xbox console.. is this ok daddy? Antoher reason to saty with Linux, copy protection does not work on linx..

No, this just means that it's illegal to install software that has the ability to share music over the internet even if you never touch the software after installing it. There is a lot of P2P file sharing software that sets up at least one shared folder during installation. Sharing music on your private home network is perfectly legal.

No, it doesn't mean it's illegal to install the software, just that it's illegal to have the files in a folder that is shared by that software. If he'd had kaazaa installed and was sharing say, his own home written poetry or family photos and the mp3s were in a different unshared folder there would not have even been a case.

However, if you install a sharing app with no intent to share music then you should double check that it hasn't automatically included your "My music" folder - just in case.

ok, given the judges ruling, all computer users with unsecured wireless networks could be guilty under this. There's at least 2 unsecured wireless networks I can reach from inside my living room. Yes, mine is fairly secure, as wireless networks go. ;-)

What should happen is Cox should notify its customer in advance of giving away their IP. Then, and only then, the computer should be SEIZED -- trying to worm your way in is a definite no-no. If the customer was warned, and didn't clean off the share, the computer should be booted up in the courtroom for all to see - that they did not have any intention of un-sharing. However, if the customer cleans off the computer, they should not be held liable.

Just my opinion, but I think it's lame that Cox (appropriately named) ratted them, and then this was all just a probe/attack.

Maybe Cox has changed their way of doing business, or it may vary from state to state, and probably the plaintiff; but I knew a customer of theirs a few years ago that got a notice from them (in NV) about sharing some episodes of a Showtime series. Cox basically just forwarded MGM's "cease" warning and added they would disconnect their internet connection if the material in question was not removed within a few days. They were really worried because the email was a few days old when they checked their cox email account.

I used to work in the abuse department for Cox.

Grazer is correct about the letter. When the Copyright Infringement letters are received by the abuse department, a copy is forwarded to the customer's email account(s). If there is no email account, the customer may be contacted by phone. If no customer contact can be made, their modem may be shut off to force a call in, at which time the CSR informs the customer of the violation by referencing the abuse ticket number left on the account notes. If the customer agrees to remove the content from the shared folder, their modem is reactivated, and they're informed of the abuse policies.

On the other hand, if a subpoena for customer records is received, the customer cannot be legally informed. Subpoenas always state that you are to not in any way notify the subscriber of the pending investigation.

So if it was a subpoena directly, does this mean they didn't get the standard form letter that everyone has been talking about? That would be the biggest strategic change so far, and that would be newsworthy...

I wasn't involved in any way with this case (as I do not work for Cox Communications anymore), so I can only speculate, but...

IF there was a subpoena issued on the records for this customer (meaning, "please identify the user of IP address x at date/time y"), _chances_ are that numerous complaint letters had already been sent from the copyright holder to Cox. In that case, the customer should have gotten those letters attached to the abuse form letter via email. If multiple warnings were ignored, the copyright holder might have decided to go after them legally.

I've talked to tons of customers about file sharing when complaint letters came in. Most of them were clueless (or pretended to be) about the whole thing. If I shut their modem off, some of them would say they didn't get the warning email, or that they got it but didn't read it. *shrug* Again, I don't know what happened here, I just know how other customers were when I dealt with them.

>>Mr. Howell has been fined $40,850 in penalties and court costs

>> There the firm found 2,329 MP3 tracks, many of which were later identified as works copyrighted by the plaintiffs

That's $17.54 per track. Ouch.

They were probably all just singles anyhow, so that's about what they get for a CD, and since most CDs only have one good song... ;)

Just picking a nit but most CDs have no good
songs. It's the ones I buy that....

judge took the side of one of the interest groups that run this country (and pay his sallary) and not with the individual. what a surprise.

I'm going to go to the library and photocopy some books. Let's see if the publishers sue the library.

For allowing you to photocopy them and not stopping or at least reporting you? They could be sued for that, yes.

Sharing implies you have intent, no?

Going by the existing law--whether you agree with it or not--this isn't stretching the line.

Oh, and RIAA didn't do this either. I hate their...methods just as much as everyone else, but I can't blame them here.

"3) those files had originally been in a non-shared folder, but some hacker probably found a way of moving them into the shared folder."

What intent, exactly? :P

While it's theoretically possible that a hacker could have moved them it's pretty damned unlikely. Looks to me like the court just didn't believe his defense was reasonable.

Disclaimer: I don't like what they're (RIAA) doing but attempting to share them is still wrong. The biggest thing I see as wrong is the extent of damages. If there were no proved downloads then it strikes me that the fine is very excessive. Although this is a legal case... it could be $5,000 penalties and $35,000 legal costs...

*nods*

"Distribution of copyrighted material need not involve a physical transfer". So involves magic? Albert Einstein proved that the distribution of anything involves the transfer of matter or energy (or both).

"Mr. Howell has been fined $40,850 in penalties and court costs (...)". Lucky you, Mr Howell. It could be worse - like public tortures or impalement. Expect the worst like witchhunts or burning at the stake because the judge proved that the Middle Ages has not finished yet. At least in Arizona.

Copyright laws suck. But they're not all evil. I wouldn't mind a fairer more unified law though. We can buy software and be told in the TOS that we're renting it (so that's why we can't use it on a new PC...) even when cases in the past went against accepting that kinda thing.

I just want open/fair copyright laws, without all the crap pile we have now - sometimes used for greed, sometimes used to try and diminish responsibility.

Hear, hear!

I agree:

"...Judge Wake concluded, "but instead whether he distributed copies of the recordings without authorization. Howell's right to use for personal enjoyment copyrighted works on CDs he purchased does not confer a right to distribute those works to others without Plaintiffs' authorization."...

Under the current laws, unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted material is tantamount to stealing, which is a crime. It's not the RIAA or corporate America which is the problem, but rather the antiquated and burdensome copyright statutes.

This is a very, very difficult issue because you have the interests of the original owners of the material on one side, and the fair-use rights of the commercial owners of the purchased product on the other side.

The statutes need to be amended for the digital age, something which the authors of the current copyright laws could not have imagined.

Also, as far as the "not having to be at home" argument is concerned; imagine if you had provided illegal photocopies of the latest Harry Potter book to anyone who wanted a copy, and they could come over and pick one up anytime they wanted even if you were not home. Do you suppose the "But I wasn't even home" argument would stand up in court when you were being sued for mass copyright infringement ?

But in any case, I agree that the laws need to be adjusted. It will be a very tricky affair.

Man,

I hate it when people agree with me.

...jerk.

Awwww...that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.

And to make matters worse, not only do I agree with you, but I'm a liberal too !!!

Hope you've had a good summer...fuzzball.

Awwww...that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.

No. It's not. This is: Go away.

And to make matters worse, not only do I agree with you, but I'm a liberal too !!!

My condolences. I hope the condition clears up before November. I'd seek treatment, if I were you.

Hope you've had a good summer...fuzzball.

I have. No thanks to you.

....ya balding ape.

Thing about it is, it's all in the wording. What I mean by that is has anyone (Reading this) ever read the "Small Print" on a CD / DVD / Software?

Basically what it says is that, even though you paid $10, $30, $50 or $500 for this item, it is not yours, you are just renting it and we (Maker) can take it back at any time.

That is why you hear all these things like Microsoft is going after the people that Modified their XBOX 360. As far as MS is concerned, you modified a piece of their equipment that they own the License to even though you shelled out $400 - $500 for it.

So if the RIAA wanted to really be a pain, they would go back 20 years when VHS first became available and CD's. Then every time you ever lended someone a Tape or let you buddy borrow that CD you were breaking a law in their mind.

To be honest, they would not care about that, but because of PC's, Available software and more or less the means to do it, the fact that we can make a Digital (PERFECT) Copy / Backup of Music / Games, Etc is why they come after us.

They really need to embrace technology, pretty soon we are not going to go to the stores anymore and buy CD's / DVD or Games. It will all at some point become a digital download what is cheaper to maintain (Replicated on many servers). It will take up no floor / stock space (Saves the stores area's for other items) and also won't have to worry about all that Packaging that just ends up in our back seat or trash anyway.

I know, I know there are some that want that CD / DVD in their hand and I understand that. The actual product in full view will still be available, just not in the volume you are used to seeing right now.

So if I copy a CD that I own, and accidentally leave it on the counter of the pizzeria...i'm guilty.

If the RIAA could prove that counter was used frequently for sharing CDs, probably so :)

And even if you didn't leave it on the counter, but instead it was stolen from your home by a 'hacker' then placed on said counter (that's used frequently for sharing CDs).

If you bring many copies of the CD and leave them on the counter for anyone to take, even after you have left the pizzeria, then yes...you're guilty under the judges ruling. And you would probably be guilty even if you left them there "by accident" .

"The recording companies had been trying to leverage an Arizona law called "marital community liability," under which the wife may be equally guilty for offenses committed by the husband which she did nothing to stop, but the judge stopped short of going down that road."

I can deal with the rest of the case because I suppose that's the way it goes.

That last paragraph just makes me shudder though.

I agree - that is a scary road. I'm glad the judge had the presence of mind not to open that one.

That's assuming the wife even knows how to use a computer. Not to be sexist, but most computer geeks are male and homes tend to only have one tech-savvy spouse. If the wife is tech-savvy though, they should subpoena her computer rather than chase some random law. The article did mention they only searched one of two computers.

"Mr. Howell has been fined $40,850 in penalties and court costs"

You know, I always imagined Gilligan would be the one to get busted!

First, it would have been The Professor, not poor Gilligan, who was sharing from the island ..

To be serious, does anyone have the actual court case citation? I have access to several law databases anbd I'd like to read the opinion in full before blasting anyone based on someone's excerpt.

Thanks.