3 ms·

How could he be guilty of copyright infringement when courts have ruled it is legal to have a digital backup of your media? If he copied the mp3s from a friend

How could he be guilty of copyright infringement when courts have ruled it is legal to have a digital backup of your media? If he copied the mp3s from a friend who ripped the CD as a short-cut, would you still see him as guilty of piracy? I'm sorry, but that viewpoint is ludicrous, but I'm sure the RIAA loves that they've wired people to feel that way. Makes their extortion much easier. (And, yes, I do believe in paying for the music I listen to.)

jerf 16y ago
Because the law believes that bits have colour: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 I'm not sure if this exact issue has been litigated, probably because the copyright holders would really rather not even discuss the issue, and it isn't the problem anyhow. A strict reading of the laws involved definitely show it's copyright infringement, but one could reasonably argue the appropriate damages for the act should be a flat $0. One can reasonably counterargue too, though. Something along the line of "Well, then they should have bought a second copy", though the problem with that is then you have to defend how when it is disadvantageous to the customer for it to be considered a strictly physical product, we consider it that way, but when it is disadvantageous to the customer to treat it as an abstract intellectual good, we treat it that way too. However, that's only a logical contradiction, not a legal one. This is probably why this has (to the best of my knowledge) never been litigated, even a victory of the case could set a precedent they wouldn't want. Best for them to just keep this out of court.
- wildjim 16y ago
  I kind-of agree with the idea of no damages -- where I assume you mean compensation to the aggrieved party -- and instead a fine (or other punishment) for illegal activity, collected and kept by the government.
byoung2 16y ago
* it is legal to have a digital backup of your media* I was referring to the act of downloading the mp3 from a website vs ripping the cd directly to your computer. Similar to the situation of growing your own pot for personal use vs buying it from a drug dealer.

jerf 16y ago

Because the law believes that bits have colour: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 I'm not sure if this exact issue has been litigated, probably because the copyright holders would really rather not even discuss the issue, and it isn't the problem anyhow. A strict reading of the laws involved definitely show it's copyright infringement, but one could reasonably argue the appropriate damages for the act should be a flat $0. One can reasonably counterargue too, though. Something along the line of "Well, then they should have bought a second copy", though the problem with that is then you have to defend how when it is disadvantageous to the customer for it to be considered a strictly physical product, we consider it that way, but when it is disadvantageous to the customer to treat it as an abstract intellectual good, we treat it that way too. However, that's only a logical contradiction, not a legal one. This is probably why this has (to the best of my knowledge) never been litigated, even a victory of the case could set a precedent they wouldn't want. Best for them to just keep this out of court.

wildjim 16y ago
I kind-of agree with the idea of no damages -- where I assume you mean compensation to the aggrieved party -- and instead a fine (or other punishment) for illegal activity, collected and kept by the government.

byoung2 16y ago

* it is legal to have a digital backup of your media* I was referring to the act of downloading the mp3 from a website vs ripping the cd directly to your computer. Similar to the situation of growing your own pot for personal use vs buying it from a drug dealer.