If a private party post all of his music on an internet sight in such a manner that it could only be played and not downloaded would that be legal if there was no charge for access?

I think it would still be illegal. That's why there was such an issue with streaming music awhile back. You might be running a risk since it seems the justice system tends to side on the side of the music industry.

Let's not forget that Imbibe (I do believe) recently got served with papers from ASCAP because a band played 2-3 cover songs that were Stevie Wonder originals. Imbibe didn't want to pay the license fee (2000$, it's based on square footage) and now they're going to court.

It's just risky.

Waiting for someone to blast me on the header typo....man I wish I could spell.

Anyway thanks for that. You are probably right as you do not see that anywhere on the net. What if the entire page was password protected and for your use only with access logs to support it? So you can access your tunes from any computer anywhere.

"That's why there was such an issue with streaming music awhile back."

it still is. check out live365 boards. legal streaming could end at any time as a result of a judge's decision in this legal quagmire.

if you stream today, to be legal, you have to pay higher royalties than terrestrial broadcasters. and yes, ascap and friends actively sue those that don't comply.

bummer.

So can I secure it on the net for my own personal use?

There is no way to put music on the net such that it can only be played. You can make it difficult to capture, but that's it. Just FYI, no protected content released to the net to date has remained protected. (and that's a good thing)

If it's on the net, then people have copies of it period. This is exactly why the music companies are in such a tizzy about streaming. If you do get to stream, they put a lot of restrictions on what you can and cannot do with a stream. Major bummer.

If you put it behind a password protected site, such that you are streaming to yourself, that's no biggie. It's done all the time. Don't know if it's legal or not, but the point is moot because you are the only one consuming the tunes.

I know a fair number of people that do this and have done personally it from time to time. What actually works the best is just a directory of mp3 files you can just point your player to, once you've authenticated. However, copies are left on the machine, depending on the player.

Streaming is better in that you don't have to worry about cleanup, but the setup is more difficult.

If you do all of this with an ssl protected page (https), nobody will even know just what it is you are transferring. This does require getting a certificate for your site (pain in the arse), or using a service that provides this as part of the hosting deal.

Lots of people see this as completely fair use, provided one does not share the password with others. I'm one of those people. However, the law however does not see it the same way, but it's pretty much impossible to get caught.

Just be double damn sure your access denies everybody, but the authenticated user, or you risk your filenames being exposed on the net. Burden is on you to prove nobody downloaded anything.

If you do this, don't do it from the house if you have any doubts. If you happen to get into any sort of trouble, getting a hosted service cut off is a lot better than your home Internet access.

These days I find it one heck of a lot easier to just carry my tunes on high density portable media. Get a 2-4Gb USB key and you are basically set on all but the oldest computers. Include your favorite player software on the key and you are good to go. Put the whole works on your key chain and you've got the equilivent of a decent radio station playlist at your beck and call.

Ya...thats a good idea. You just gave me a most excellent (Bill & Ted) idea. Getting a new digital camera next month with a 4gb mem card. Can create a folder on it and store my tunes there for traveling and then just load them onto whatever PC I can access via its USB cable. 2gb still plenty for a month of photo's!

I dabble a little in the IT field and you would not beleive how many Petabytes of free unprotected web space is out there you can put stuff in.

Heck I can just slam it in my neighbors PC through his wireless network named "linksys" which is unsecured and wouldn't you know it the password to it is admin. Remote control his box, load music to it, webshare the folder, open port from internet to PC and presto...internet jukebox....pretty soon no more neighbor though. Man that would be mean......would never do that....I only hack my own systems to attempt to find security problems.

Drive through a neighborhood sometime with a wireless laptop and you would not beleive how many people use these things plug and play out of the box and open to the world to hack freely.

Yeah I can do that stuff too.

You do know you would be in a heap of trouble for any of those things right? Additionally, you would be leaving nice footprints back to identify you as well.

Near my house there are 200 networks, 80 percent of which are unprotected. It's messy.

"You do know you would be in a heap of trouble for any of those things right?"

no doubt the bush admin will use "national security concerns" to take you away in the middle of the night to an disclosed location just to punish left thinking smarty pants.

OH ..ya

"would never do that....I only hack my own systems to attempt to find security problems."

For people I know I let let know 5 basics to secure their home networks from most drive by pirates. Do not ever cross that line without the owners permission into their systems. But free air is free air...I use the bandwidth of others all of the time. Have laptop will use it when I need to and can. No hacks involved....just works.

Even if someone leaves his/her systemopen, it is still a crime to access it, jsut as if they leave their bcakdoor open, you cant stroll in and do whatever you want.

That said, I've been tempted to drive around looking for open networks, and offer to secure them for them, for a fee.

........By Joamon4sure on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 9:42 pm:
So can I secure it on the net for my own personal use?........

If it is for your own personal use, then why do you need to put it on the 'net?

Before inexpensive mass storage media, having a repository on the net was pretty handy.

Actually it still is pretty handy, depending on what you are doing and where.



Nwokie is right actually. Open or not, unauthorized use of computer networks is a crime.

Yes it is. Meant that I used to do it before I got an air-card. They have software to cover your tracks though...ghost surf, silent surf, etc. Never did it other than to lookup a quick mapquest, address, or phone number. I do not think you would be prosecuted for that. What about when a person living in an appartment was a wireless router and sells service to 5 of his buddies living next to him....or college campus dorms? What about those people with unsecured networks and virus infected PC's connecting to their neighbors network if there access point goes down and gives a virus to them and causes file damage? Can they be prosecuted for illegal access? The line on the sand on this one is as crooked as a rattler. Yes it is illegal and with an aircard no longer do it as it is a risk to you as well for doing it......how do you know it is not open on purpose with a packet capture system to get your CC numbers and passwords? Just like a public computer....I never log into any password protected sights.....to much risk that there are key loggers or other tracking taking place. Microsoft autocomplete is bad enough as a security threat when enabled as well as remember my passwords.......why even have one.

Oooops...got rambling....sorry
WIFI would be a good thread for debate.

I was told that one could use songs for your IPOD as long as its for personal use and you don't make a dime.

I think I get what everyone is saying....even if you think it is secure if one person downloads it you are busted and liable for copyright violations. It aint worth the effort as people have stated about the reduced costs of mobile mass storage media available today.

Thanks for all the input....

At least half of the home wi fi networks are open, they come that way, to make it easy to set up, and give you a warning, you should secure them, but most people havent a clue.

There are a couple of companies that sell maps of open wi fi connections, although its illegal to actually connect to one. As a practicle matter, its awfully hard to trace who used it, unless they catch you parked outside.

The city of portland is in the process of installing a free wi fi network downtown.

Free through their proxy server! Ok if you don't mind the ad's!

I believe that you could legally post music on Web space managed by a Canadian ISP, because Canada (socan.ca) does not yet have royalties for music on the Internet. e-mail me if you would like my comments on some Canadian ISPs.

I don't know why people can't understand that downloading is stealing. Man, if I walk into a store and take loaf of bread without paying for it, and then give it to someone else, I committed a crime for stealing it, and he committed a crime for receiving stolen property.

Recorded music is intellectual property, and must be protected. And people have to quit being moral contortionists to justify what is clearly stealing.

It's not quite that simple.

When you steal bread, someone has less than they did before.

When you download music, nobody is missing anything.

This difference is called infringement. It's a crime, but it's not theft.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for IP protection, but I'm also for the balance that returns art to the public domain for the creation of new art. I'm also for fair use and for the rights of the content creators to do what they want with their works.

There are people who produce creative works under a creative commons license that is very permissive where derivitave works and copies of works are concerned. The same technological means being used increasingly to enforce IP, in favor of the big media houses, are also harming those that are trying to develop new business models that leverage the digital domain.

Things are really out of balance right now.

I've a ton more to say on this, but I'm not gonna right now.

Suffice it to say downloading music is not theft. It is infringement. If we are to work toward solid solutions that work for everyones best interests, we need to keep this difference clear. Otherwise, we run the risk of more really bad laws that try to treat information (and recorded music is information) like material goods. They are not one and the same and the law needs to be crafted accordingly.


Soap box mode = 0

It could only be stealing music if you took the riffs/lyrics and claimed them as your own. Intellectual property is different than gathering MP3's and burning a CD.

Missing, thank you for so aptly describing the difference.

CONSUMING intellectual property is different than STEALING it. Don't ever forget that.

As a creator of intellectual property, I can tell you if you take what I write and use it without permission and without payment, you are stealing from me as sure as if you stuck a gun in my ribs and stole my wallet.

Missing and Copernicus you are both full of shit. You can use a big word like infringement but the botttom line is it is still theft.

No its not! Someone wrote and recorded that song, and they are entitled to receive compesation for its use. I used to write computer programs for a living, and if someone stole my work and didnt pay me, I have suffered a loss. Just like if you steal the plans for your house without paying.

People that steal, and the word is steal, music without paying, or somputer programs without paying, are thieves , just like someone that walks into a grocery store and steals bread.
Or someone htat rides Max without paying.

Actually, I would be more inclined to givce the bread thief a pass, if he was actually hungry, or had a family that was hungry.

So if I record a song off of the radio...they aren't receiving compensation for it there. Is that stealing?

The angst of some people on here always amazes me. It's the internet kids! No need to get angry and curse, nor attempt to insult me. I'm entitled to my bs opinion just like you're entitled to your bs opinion.

How about the person who takes an idea from a show across the country and uses it as his own? It happens all the time, but yet, it's not considered "stealing."

I could understand how it would be stealing if the artist actually made most of their money from selling songs. That's not the case however, and your belief that it is somehow makes me think that you really don't know much about the industry.

ASCAP and BMI and all of those little wonderful organizations are pushing THEIR agenda. They don't care about the artists as much as they do about their cut. Nor do record companies.

The way an album comes to be, especially for newer groups is that the record company gives them X dollar amount to record. That is a loan. If they don't make it back through record sales, they still are wrapped up in a contract to pay X sum back to said record company.

The way that artists truly make their money is through touring and merchandise (lovingly referred to as "merch" by the wonderful roadies).

And if you knew anything about the recording industry, you would know that most artists earn less than 25% of their income from selling songs.

Full of shit am I?

Read "So you want to be a rockstar." Google ASCAP and BMI news articles. There is a greater evil than the 15 year old surfing Kazaa to listen to their favorite CKY tune. Or even the 30 year old surfing Lime Wire for their favorite Queen tune.

They freak out at clubs that book bands who play cover songs. They close down coffee shops through lawsuits. And you want to support an agenda PUSHED by these companies (where the artist sees little of the cash received) and these guys are closing down local places all the time! All because the businesses want to play a little bit of music to create an ambiance.

I think not. I will support my favorite bands by giving the money to them directly...through shows and merchandise. Albums are hardly their cash cow. Want to support the artist? Buy their other crap and go to their shows.

Yeah. I'm so full of shit.

Record a song off the radio, yes technically its stealing.

No. It's infringement. Go read the Home Recording act of 1978. We pay a tax on blank media to cover the opertunity costs for this kind of infringement.

Go read your copyright law and see the definition of infringement for yourself. It is a different thing than theft, which is by definition a loss of property.

What you suffer is an opertunity cost. For each case of infringement, you may or may not have had an actual sale. I author software too and did my homework.

In the case of software, the actual loss is quite small as the number of potential sales is small. If people actually paid the retail cost of each piece of software they use, the amount of software in use would be a lot less. The majority of people cannot afford to actually pay for all the software as it is priced today.

Why? Most software is overvalued for the benefit it provides. I'm not even sure it's the fault of the companies trying to profit from it. The rapid advancement of open systems demonstrates nicely that the majority of software, that everyone needs daily for basic computing needs, is easily written by those who need it! Word processors and the like are things that high school students can write. Why are we paying so much for them?

Does this make it right? No.

After doing my homework, I realized the true value of open software and systems. Decided to start learning instead of infringing. There is nothing worse than having ones skill set tied to software one does not have a license to use. Today I am 100 percent legal. I am probably 1 in 1000 where people and software go. (BTW, I am nearly leagel where music is concerned too --used media is a steal. Why not benefit from somebody elses bad call?)

By the way, the difference between licensing and ownership is another wrinkle where music is concerned. Both music and software are information. With software, one purchases a right to use, in the form of a license. We get a copy of the software, but also get a license as well. It's a two piece deal.

This is why we permit backups. It is also why so many companies are authorizing their software online today too. --to prevent infringement from backups.

Anyway, music is actually not licensed but sold as a copy. This too is why we permit backups, but the legal differences between a license to use and a copy make for troublesome times with music.

When we purchase a piece of recorded music, we have purchased that copy of music. The right of first sale demands we be able to resell it to others. This is different from a license where the ability to transfer can be restricted on a case by case basis. Music is a one piece deal. It is very different from software in this regard, but still shares infringement in common with software where matters of unauthorized copies and or use are concerned.

We also have the right to be able to backup our investment. Where software is concerned, our license permits the use of backup media or other peoples copies of media. With music, we are actually sold the copy, so other copies are permitted by way of personal protection against loss.

There is currently no legal requirement to destroying backups if the original piece of music is sold! This wrinkle is currently working it's way through the courts now. Will be very interesting to see how that shakes out.

At the present time, it is perfectly legal (though clearly not ethical) for groups of people to purchase music, make their backups and exchange titles through a token sale.

In the mid 90's Jack Valenti did a stellar job equating downloads with theft. He did all of us a great disservice in this, because the message to everyone is murky, thus making the law murky. The way things stand today, the rights of the average citizen are being infringed upon big time, thus putting the whole matter out of balance.

A license requires a contract. Music comes with no contracts. Music companies are trying to get the benefits of a license without the contracts. Essentially this is DRM, increasingly seen today in the form of downloadable licenses for one's music, even if it's music produced by the owner of the system themselves!

On some systems today, you could easily find yourself not able to play your own music you authored because too many assumptions are made about where it came from. In this our own rights are being infringed --there are costs for that too, so it's not exactly a one sided issue.

To digress once again: This is exactly why no content creator in their right mind would encode their works into non-open formats. Let me pose to you a simple thought exercise: If you make a movie recorded into a format owned by Bill Gates and his player is the only software legally able to play back your movie, who really owns the movie? (The answer to this is pretty ugly)

Getting back to open systems for a moment. In the late 90's I quit buying software, choosing to run open source programs for everything I could. Today, I own the following:

(1) copy of XP home that came with a deep discount computer

(1) copy of Microsoft Office 97

(2) copies of Windows 2000 that also came with computers.

(1) copy of Lview pro, written by a great guy who makes really good image processing software.

That's it.

My employer pays for expensive software I need to run for their reasons, and it runs on their machine. I won't ever work any other way.

For me personally, the rest is open source and I can do everything I did before, plus a bunch with no annual fees, no pesky per user right to use licenses, no forced upgrades, no hassles period. My ability to compute is not restricted by software licenses that I may or may not be able to upgrade and or transfer on their schedule.

I do 3D modeling, rip mix burn on a number of media types, programming, content creation, writing, web production, gaming, etc...

My hard dollar cost?

Zero, other than bandwidth to download and time to install and learn if necessary.

You tell me if that fancy Microsoft package is really worth $400 or not. I'm actually inclined to pay the small author for some windows thing than I am for anything produced by a large software house. The value transfer is more in line with reality, and I know I'm helping somebody put food on the table. Their infringement costs are higher because they don't have the legal means to defend their investment, nor do they have the man hours required to make use of and support the many software protection schemes out there.

Want to know one of the best poor man's copy protection? Encode the buyers name into the program and display it large on the splash screen along with a phone number to call if the name does not match! Price the software well and simple guilt will very nicely check the temptation for infringement while not infringing on the peoples rights at the same time!

Most everything I author today is open, because contributing to the growing pool of open software brings me far more use value than does selling my software does. When I did sell software, the name bit worked fantastic. I still get calls from people wanting a valid copy and I know the names of a lot of the users that infringed on my work. (Called some of them too!)

Hate to break it to you, but theft is quite different from infringement. You are being harmed when others download and run with your stuff, but at least call it what it is.

I dont know about you, but my parents taught me, that taking something that doesnt belong to you, is stealing.

Doesnt matter if you wont get caught, its still wrong!

And while legally you dont have to destroy those backup copies, its illegal to use them, after you've sold the original software.

With software, you are correct. It's perfectly legal with music because it is sold, not licensed.

Again, mommy being uninformed aside, the crime of theft is roughly defined as denying another of their property without permission or compensation.

When you aquire a piece of music, without permission or compensation, you have not denied another of their property. They still have their music, in fact they still have the oppertunity to sell it --even to the infringer. Maybe guilt would still merit a purchase!

Mommy wouldn't know this subtle distinction, but an adult author really should before commenting on matters related.

Theft or infringement. Really it's a distinction without a difference.

Some of what I write...news releases for instance...are pretty much one time use. But I also write fund raising letters and I have had those stolen. Change the recipient name and a couple of facts and voila a free fund raising letter instead of the $1000 to $1500 I would charge. I may not be deprived of the letter but I sure as Hell am deprived of the money I would normally earn for writing it.

I've also seen bald face thievery of brochures I have designed and written, despite clearly claimed copyrights. Again I'm not deprived of any physical property, but you know, it still feels like I've been ripped-off.

There are so many excuses, the software maker charges too much anyway, the radio performer will never miss the amount. It should be free!
Oh we're not stealing, we're just taking without paying. I dont have any money budgeted for that.

Theft \Theft, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.]

1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
---

The act of copying takes one tangible item and makes it two. Just because I now have one doesn't mean that you don't have yours anymore, and just because I didn't pay for mine doesn't mean that the creator of the item has lost the opportunity to be paid.

For example- when the BSA or MPAA claims that they have lost billions due to piracy, it is a *lie*, because many/most of those lost "potential purchases" would *never* have been made.

Whether or not I'm entitled to possess or use my copy(and whether the author is entitled to be paid for it), on the other hand, is a seperate question.

Hey, it's all wrong. I don't think infringers are in the right at all and it should stop as much as is possible.

None of those things are valid excuses for infringement. After learning about this whole mess, I decided to keep things legal. The result being that I nearly always choose the open alternatives as well as those direct to content creator alternatives as much as is possible.

Big media is over valued in many cases. Where entities like the RIAA and MPAA are concerned, their relevance today is far less then 15 years ago. It's now completely possible, and growing increasingly viable, to bypass the traditional distribution channels and sell direct to one's audience.

Many of these new and upcoming artists leveraging the Internet to promote and distribute their works release some of their music for free, or for limited times, or in combination with an ad or other product oriented thing.

There is also a quickly growing body of creative works licensed under the creative commons license, which is very permissive where derivitave works are concerned.

I want the existing media players to strongly enforce their copyrights because that will get the message to more people about the alternatives that provide much more value per dollar. I strongly encourage closed software vendors to lock their stuff down tight for the same reasons.

Given a forced choice, a lot of people are either going to consume less, or do what I did and start favoring the more open alternatives and get more value that is in line with it's actual worth for their dollar.

Interesting about the fund raising letters.

You may have made that amount of money and you may not have. If it were somehow not possible to infringe on your existing body of letters, you may well find new options being made avaliable.

In such an environment, a group of people could form a co-op, pay to get a nice variety of letters written, then release them under a creative commons for all to use. *Bam*, suddenly writing letters becomes a lot less valuable. Several schemes come to mind:

An intial seed body of content is written for the purpose of starting the co-op. Anyone wanting to make use of the co-op, either contributes dollars for letters to be written --perhaps the one they need, for example. Or, they could contribute an actual letter of their own, thus growing the pool for all contributors. Another option would be to exchange promotional services, documentation or some other supporting service in return for access to the pool. Finally, a small subscription could be used to support the maintainers of the pool.

All of these things are perfectly viable where information is concerned and not so viable where property is concerned. This difference is significant in that pools of information, with open licensing terms attached provide for the strong potential for each contributor to get more use value than they invest.

Existing business models, for information distribution are based on the information being tied to physical goods ie: media. In this interconnected digital time, many of these models are now obsolete and those still dependant on them are trying to get legislation passed and expectations set that artifically inflate the value.

Sorry, but if you are going to call infringement theft, than I'm on really solid ground calling said laws and expectations theft as well in that I'm denied my right to encourage and use open alternatives and support those trying to evolve better business models.

Now I don't mean to devalue your work. I'm just pointing out how things are really beginning to change where information products and their distribution are concerned. I'm also pointing out the difference between theft and infringement because it's important past the "I feel ripped off" bit all of us feel when it happens.

(And it's happened to me as well.)

By implying that infringement is theft, also implies ownership of things, many of which really are not, property. Ideas, creative works, movies, music, etc... all are dervied from a commons of ideas and expression called the public domain.

In reality, anything you have ever produced is actually a permitted infringement on the works of others past. The media environment of today is growing very imbalanced toward the interests of content creators and their durable ownership of their works. (Nothing new has entered the public domain since 1929 or so)

Open alternatives that leverage the current law depend on an environment that respects the interests of individual content creators as well as it does the larger corporate ones.

The problem is the use of the word theft. It mis directs legislative efforts and encourages information to be treated in the same way that material goods are treated.

This is not reality.

The result of that being open means and methods being discouraged. Without these, there is no market pressure to keep the costs of closed works in line with their actual use value.

That's why I make the distinction between theft and infringement. It's not to diminish the act, but to encourage the right legislative environment and to encourage the kinds of protections that will enable the existing players to do what they do and encourage new players to evolve new models.

Your missing the point, as a software programmer, I dont want my services to be less valuable. If people dont want to pay me, what I charge, then they shouldnt use my product!

Same with an author, be it a letter writter or a novelist. Or an entertainer.

People that take without paying, and then use legalistic arguments, well its not theft, but it is illegal, are fooling no one!

If you make a backup of an album, its just that a backup, in case you damage the original, you are not to use it unless the original is damaged, if you sell the original, you are not to use it!

You may make personal copies, for your own use, not everone in your little group!

We've got two topics going here:

software and music.

The two are different.

Music:

Where music is concerned, some amount of copying is acceptable. It's acceptable to trade mix CD's with a loved one, or a friend. It's acceptable to record songs off the radio and it's acceptable to trade recordings.

Music parties where people play music, mix recordings together, trade tracks, etc... are all fair use and are all acceptable.

I can e-mail you a track I like and you can do the same. It's no biggie. That's not distribution that substantially infringes on the distribution right of the content creator.

See how the word infringe works? The word theft does not work the same way.

The word theft does not permit fair use, the word infringe does.

That's important no matter what one thinks about sharing music.

If I e-mail a track to 1000 friends, that I like, that's a substantial infringement on the distribution right of the content creator. I haven't stolen anything, but I have infringed on their right to control distribution.

If I borrow a CD from someone and burn a track I like, that's essentially no different than what we have been doing with analog systems for years. It's acceptable behavior. Same for making a custom mix CD for a loved one.

There is exactly zero theft in these things, but there is infringement. The amount and nature of the infringement is the point of discussion, not theft. Substantial infringement is wrong, insubstantial infringement is still wrong, but found acceptable, if fair, with fair being loosely defined as time goes on.

Again, I'm not trying to say it's ok to share a ton of music with a lot of people, because it's not. I am also saying it's wrong because it is an infringement not a theft and that matters where crafting new law and setting proper social norms are concerned. (definition of what is and what is not fair)

If the language we use does not properly describe what is happening then the law thus crafted to regulate it won't make any sense and will probably do more harm than good. Additionally, people will not respect poor laws, leaving us with a bigger mess than we would have otherwise had.

We agree about taking without paying, but it's not a black and white affair.



On the software end of things, you are a creator of software right?

The open systems I describe above, only add to your value in that you have a growing pool of open software you can use to craft new programs for your customers. The more open code there is, the more your services can net you in your pocket.

You can also use closed softare to do the same thing.

There is also a big difference between selling packaged software and writing software for people on a fairly specific basis.

If you are writing software to be sold to people, you are essentially competing with open software. Lots of people selling software, that is not that difficult to create, are worried about open software diminishing their business.

In the US, we have allowed software patents to cover entire ideas, not just specific implementationhs of them. This is to prevent open software from gaining ground on closed software. This is artifical value in that we are forced to pay because those creators want us to continue paying for something that a majority of people would not otherwise choose to pay for.

We are currently trying to get this same kind of patent legislation passed in Europe so our big software companies can sell more there too, even though the people, by and large can create and support their own basic software.

IMHO, this is nuts. It's like saying the people that make drip coffee makers own the idea of drip coffee makers. All of them. If you drip to make coffee, you are violating their patent.

The result: Only one company making drip coffee makers and we all pay the max for one and it's quality might be poor because there is no incentive for new innovations to occur because the entire idea is owned.

You however are selling the service of writing software. In your case, open software is as good as closed software so long as you are permitted to write what you want.

The patents being the way they are, threaten your ability to do that and it's getting worse. Again, entire ideas are owned. So many of them are owned, that you have probably not written a single program that does not contain some idea owned by somebody.

My only point here is that a legal environment that permits open software to exist will devalue closed software that is no longer innovative. This is how it really should be. This puts the incentive on the big closed software houses to actually make new and innovative software instead of making us pay year after year for the same crappy software with new shiny buttons on it.

This same environment will also insure that you are able to deliver your services as well.

Again, the concept of theft is tied to the notion of property. This notion is harmful to all software creators in that too much ownership of ideas denies people the ability to actually create. This is the situation right now in the US and it's getting worse.

If we call it infringement, then we end up with the same kinds of balance we have always had. This will allow both open and closed creations to exist together, thus putting the incentive on our closed software houses to actually deliver new value in return for dollars instead of repackaged value over and over again for our dollars.

Don't know how we got the two intermingled, but there it is...

sorry to be a buttinski but perhaps the term "fair use" should be looked at closely. It actually means fair use of a "portion of" a work. One can use a small portion of someone else's (copyrighted) work in a new body of work written (created) by someone else (EVEN IF THE INTENT IS TO MAKE A PROFIT) provided that the new work deal with research on the subject or academic review and a few other such narrow allowances.

clear copyright violation occurs when either the thief tries to make money with the stolen work or the stolen work deprives the copyright holder of income.

making a cassette copy for yourself or a friend is not a copyright violation, but playing that same cassette in a restaurant IS a copyright violation.

Clear as mud eh?

Making a cassette for a friend, is illegal.
You only purchase the CD, for your own use.

http://broadcastengineering.com/newsletters/scm/copy_cd_crime_20060818/

Making a cassette for a friend????

Heck why not do him a real favor and make him an 8-Track.

LOL!

I don't like the headline of the article. They should include the distribution, or is misleading.

The home recording act of 1978 makes the infringement that happens when a copy of a cassette is made, permissible. There is a tax paid for that permission.

As for the CD, several options are avaliable.

A CD purchase does not come with any license. It is a property sale like any other. That means:

it's for personal* use, but only so long as the person possesses the CD

*not the purchaser specifically, but anyone in possession of the media at the time it's being played

any number of people can use the CD as that particular copy of music was paid for, so long as they are in possession of the media at the time.

it may be sold or given as any other property (this means you can find a CD and just play it as the compensation has been paid)

a backup copy can be made to protect against loss (theft, wear, etc...).

Copying a CD is not a crime. One can make as many copies of a given CD as they feel like making. Legal alternatives include:

-keeping master media copies safe at home to prevent loss, wear, theft, etc...

(nobody wants their CD's stolen from their car)

-transcoding the music for use on another type of player (mp3, cassette, etc...)

-compilation CD's for artistic reasons

etc....

Again we have language issues. The copy is not the problem, but infringement is. Infringement happens when distribution happens. That's where the headline misleads, but the article copy is spot on.

Making a copy of media you own, is perfectly legal no matter how badly big companies want you to believe this is not the case.

Using those copies is not illegal, no matter how badly media companies want this to not be the case.

Distributing those copies is illegal and that's infringement, not theft.

The amount of infringement is where it all gets fuzzy, which is what the home recording act of 1978 addressed.

If I want to make a custom CD for a loved one they can play to enjoy an artistic expression of my emotion for them, I can do that.

It's infringement, but it's minor. De minimius is the legal term, I believe. That's why the federal crime does not kick in until the $1000 mark. Below that it's a civil matter, not a criminal one, unless state law overrides that.

This is all the same as making tapes was back in the days of tapes. A tax is attached to the sale of blank tapes and music CD's to compensate for this.

Interestingly, it's not legal to use data CD's for this purpose as no tax has been paid to compensate the copyright holder. Never use data CD's for this purpose.

BTW: Ever really consider the word COPYright? It's about copies and distribution. If it were about theft, it would not be a COPYright, but a PROPERTYright. --Just FYI.

The truth is, the copyright holder gets some value out of casual copies for expression, commentary, etc...

Without some sharing happening, the overall value of their media offerings is sharply reduced, particularly when alternative media that is more permissive about this is avaliable. That's why the occasional copy is largely a civil matter and is largely ignored.

I'm not going to deny the abuse that's happening among teens and others, but the matter is not as black and white as some here present it.

That's the battle today, frankly. The Grateful Dead understood this long ago when they made the trading of live session recordings permissible. There is a growing body of creative artists today who recognize the value sharing has for their offerings as a whole.

No sharing, no word of mouth marketing. That hurts.

Some artists are also learning about competing with free. Getting music downloads today for free is a hassle. iTunes clearly shows people will pay. Also, rather than get nothing from a casual copy, some artists are releasing tracks for free. Book authors are doing this too.

The end result is that they get an ad impression, chance to find out who their audience is and other things of value by offering offical copies via the Internet.

In the case of books, more often than not, digital copies end up selling books as the book is a far better value overall. People sample the online text, then purchase the book. (Cory Doctorow does this and I've purchased a fair number of his books after having downloaded one for free reading on my iPod.)

Skep: Yep. That's fair use. I was really only trying to illustrate how the different words used (theft -vs- infringement) are affecting social norms, the law and our future direction, that's all.

Here's a nasty one:

I got my CD stolen. Am now playing my backup copy as I wanted to be completely technically legal by carrying my master around in the car with me.

I paid my dues, the thief didn't. Both of us are within our rights to enjoy the media, as far as playing the media is concerned. (The thief did steal, but the crime is stealing, not the actual playing of the stolen media, as that was paid for.)

There are two other legal-related issues with copyright violation:
(1) in a court of law, a copyright holder could be challenged if the infringer's lawyer could prove that the copyright holder was him/herself violating other copyrights;
(2) I can lose my job were someone to complain, and be able to prove, that I was violating any copyright law. Here is how it works. My current job requires that everyone hired within the last six years, which includes me, be working towards or already have a particular profession designation, which I have. The code of ethics for that designation requires that I honour all copyright laws. Were someone to complain to the licensing body, I would lose my designation, with no way to be reinstated, and I could be fired because I could not argue that I was pursuing a designation that I was banned from life from.