No, you're correct, the Napster scenario is no different in principle
(although very different in nature and scale) to making a copy of a CD on
tape, CDR, CDRW, DAT or MD. Half of my own MD collection consists of copies
of CDs borrowed off friends which to be honest I still keep and enjoy but
have no intention of purchasing. In the same way, half my friends'
respective tape/MD collections consist of copies of CDs borrowed from me! I
daresay I'm not the only person on this list in this position. The thing is
I don't claim that my MD copies of my pal's CDs are legal recordings, but
morally speaking I'm comfortable enough with it (in the same way that I know
speeding is illegal, but I still do it occasionally anyway).
I'm no expert on US law, but the commentary I've heard on the AHRA suggests
that there are sections protecting consumers from criminal prosecution, but
not civil prosecution. Also I understood that "non-commercial" had acquired
a legal meaning consistent with making copies of CDs etc you own yourself
for your own use but not distributing them to others. I'll admit I'm not
certain of this however.
Certainly under NZ copyright law, which is consistent with the bulk of
international copyright law, the fact that you don't make money from an
illegal copy doesn't make it legal. The making of the copy is the
prohibited act so you could still be sued for the infringement. Practically
speaking of course, nobody bothers suing consumers. Of course the quantum
of damages that you could be liable for decreases if you haven't made any
money from the illegal copy.
richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Burger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, 31 July 2000 3:20 p.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: MD: Napster viewpoint
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Richard Lang wrote:
> Dan Frakes is just stating the legal position, pretty accurately as far as
I
> can see. Downloading stuff (old, new, available, unavailable) you don't
> already "own" [are licensed to use] legally is illegal. Even subsequently
> going out and buying the CD doesn't make it legal either,although it may
> well ease your conscience! Whether you personally think it's right or
wrong
> is up to you.
Is it any different than having your friend make you a tape recorded copy
of an album, or burning you a copy of the CD.
Recently, on a BBS, someone posted what I believe to be probably the most
relevant part of the US law (and after all, this case is being
based on US law, in the US court system) governing this case. The quote
is from the Audio Home Recording Act...Piracy is legally recognized as
unauthorized distribution for commercial use (ie...money changes hands).
Just be cause the record companies don't make money directly from the
trading of MP3 files doesn't necessarily classify it as piracy, because
it isn't being traded in commercial fashion:
"US Code, Title 17 - Copyrights
Sec. 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of
copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a
digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an
analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the
noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making
digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
