The article:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071016-riaa-shifts-legal-battle-to-a-new-front-sues-usenet-access-provider.html
I came across this developing story on Monday, and thought I might use it here. The story started off with this story, but I found this story (top link) yesterday, and thought it was more complete.
When I first found this, I read the title as "RIAA sues Usenet." I didn't know a lot about Usenet, but I do know that it is a newsgroup protocol, and I didn't quite understand how RIAA could sue a protocol. After reading the Slashdot comments, I realized that I was not alone in my lack of knowledge. I read that they were suing Usenet.com, a paid access portal to Usenet that offers anonymity. Thus, the RIAA is not suing the Usenet protocol, but a company that provides access. Also from the Slashdot comments, I gleaned the main complaint was access to alt.binaries, and the poster mentioned that any file could be split and put on different groups, so "trying to shut off alt.binaries isn't going to stop anything" (Slashdot comment)
On to the actual article, which begins by mentioning how the RIAA is moving on to attack Usenet, after they were successful in some of their other file-sharing cases. As I mentioned before, they are attacking Usenet through a paid provider. The RIAA claims that Usenet.com's offering is basically the same as a P2P network (some of which they previously sued), and that the site advertises itself as "'the hottest way of sharing MP3 files over the Internet' without getting caught."
The next section in the article begins with an "initiation" in Usenet, including how it is used for copyright violation. It talks about how Usenet.com (not Usenet) works, and the services they offer, including "blazing speeds and anonymous access." Those prospects, according to the article, "[have] the RIAA up in arms," and the article then talks about how the RIAA describes Usenet.com. After this, it talks about how the MPAA is also after Usenet, and how recent rulings (MGM v. Grokster) "[make] it easier for right-holders to extract damages from companies whose products promote copyright infringement." Then the article brings up the issue that there is a great deal of content on Usenet that is not copyrighted material, like discussions of religion. This section is finished by mentioning that Usenet.com had not commented yet, but, in disclaimers, they clearly state that they do not condone obtaining copyrighted material, but they do condone making copyrighted material available.
The last section covers possible protection of Usenet from the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It goes on to list some cases where "newsgroup provides [found] shelter in DMCA's Safe Harbor." Following this, it details how Usenet.com can avoid the RIAA by restricting (to the best of their abilities, anyway) access to "infringing content" and "by suspending the accounts of repeat offenders." The article finishes by saying that it is likely that the RIAA with never fully be able to "stamp out copyright infringement" on Usenet, because of its long life and "decentralized nature."
A lot of my opinion is at the top, so there isn't quite as much down here. As I implied at the beginning, I have never directly used Usenet. At least, I don't think I did. I have accessed Internet groups before, like Google Groups, but I did not use them for illicit downloading of copyrighted material, mainly because I didn't know that I could. I never really heard a lot about Usenet, and this could be caused by what I saw in another Slashdot comment (but I have seen it other places): "The first rule of Usenet is you don't talk about Usenet." This could also be why the RIAA hasn't attacked before now, since this is a very old technology, dating back to before the Internet.
Now, one may ask, "Do you agree with the RIAA's decision to attack Usenet?" I would be inclined to answer with a resounding "No." From what I understand, Usenet is a newsgroup system, with the key word here being "news." Its original intent, therefore is for news, and I imagine that it is still used for this purpose. In technical terms, it was the original "file-sharing" system, just the "files" were all text. Later (or at the beginning, I'm not sure), the text files became other types of files (the copyright infringing types), and the train began rolling to how it is (I assume, again) now. Networks like Napster were, on the other hand, designed from the ground up to be used for transferring music files, most of which were copyrighted. So, the RIAA was correct in attacking them. But, I think they err in attacking Usenet.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Task Force to Review File Sharing Policy
Link to the Article: http://www.kansan.com/stories/2007/oct/18/Downloading/?news
The article that I read talked about the University of Kansas's policy of illegal file sharing. The schools policy used to state that after three strikes students would face legal issues. The University just recently changed its policy to a zero tolerance policy where any student caught using any illegla file sharing system would be immediatly punished. The change was due to many complaints that students had faced legal troubles from the Record Industry Association of America and were never notified by the University. The students had not directly recieved the charges and therefore did not find out about the fines untill weeks later. Many students claimed that they would have taken immediate action as soon they recieved the charges, but since they were notified at a much later time the reprocussions were worse.
I think that the situation at the University has gotten better but was strange to begin with. Having a three strike system makes no since at such a large university. With thousands of students catching one in perticular three times seems very unlikely. This gives off the appearance that the University is too leneant on illegal file sharing, thus making it less of an issue to its students. Since many students figured that they had three chances they probably felt safe downloading untill their first or secong strike. The bad part is, is that the RIAA only gives you one chance, and once that is broken then you are faced with lawsuits and face massive fines. It does seem strange that the individuals were not directly notified of their lawsuits and that the RIAA would leave it up to the University to distribute the infactions. The fact that the students did not directly recieve notification does not excuse their actions, but I still feel the RIAA's punishments are far more stict than they should be.
-Brad
The article that I read talked about the University of Kansas's policy of illegal file sharing. The schools policy used to state that after three strikes students would face legal issues. The University just recently changed its policy to a zero tolerance policy where any student caught using any illegla file sharing system would be immediatly punished. The change was due to many complaints that students had faced legal troubles from the Record Industry Association of America and were never notified by the University. The students had not directly recieved the charges and therefore did not find out about the fines untill weeks later. Many students claimed that they would have taken immediate action as soon they recieved the charges, but since they were notified at a much later time the reprocussions were worse.
I think that the situation at the University has gotten better but was strange to begin with. Having a three strike system makes no since at such a large university. With thousands of students catching one in perticular three times seems very unlikely. This gives off the appearance that the University is too leneant on illegal file sharing, thus making it less of an issue to its students. Since many students figured that they had three chances they probably felt safe downloading untill their first or secong strike. The bad part is, is that the RIAA only gives you one chance, and once that is broken then you are faced with lawsuits and face massive fines. It does seem strange that the individuals were not directly notified of their lawsuits and that the RIAA would leave it up to the University to distribute the infactions. The fact that the students did not directly recieve notification does not excuse their actions, but I still feel the RIAA's punishments are far more stict than they should be.
-Brad
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Response to: Debate over "making available" jury instruction as Capitol v. Thomas wraps up (updated)
This is an extension and updated version of the article reviewed by Anna about a week ago.
Judge Davis gave instructions to the jury after the trial of Capitol vs. Thomas, this was instruction number 14, "The mere act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network without license from copyright owners does not violate the copyright owners' exclusive right to distribution," reads the proposed jury instruction. "An actual transfer must take place." Most judges agree with the label company saying making a file available on a peer-to-peer network is the same as infringement. When the question arose whether the songs were distributed or not the reply was, "That's the way the system works, I know that each one of the 25 songs was distributed." After weeks of the trial Judge Davis amended the instruction to say that the "act of making available for electronic distribution... violates the copyright owner's exclusive copyright." That decision should make it easier for the jury to find Thomas liable.
The beautiful part of our judicial system is that people need to be proven guilty, and to be proven guilty one need to be caught in the act or red-handed so to say. Although "that's the way the system works” (Kazaa), there is no hard evidence that other users have downloaded Thomas’ 24 songs, they could have been terrible. If you can own an assault rifle and not be accused of killing you be able to post illegal information and not be accused of distribution. The sum of damage that Capital Records is asking for is ridiculous besides, close to 10,000 per song allegedly distributed that amounts to over $220,000 to be paid by a private citizen to a cooperation that is ludicrous
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071004-debate-over-making-available-jury-instruction-as-capitol-v-thomas-wraps-up.html
Judge Davis gave instructions to the jury after the trial of Capitol vs. Thomas, this was instruction number 14, "The mere act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network without license from copyright owners does not violate the copyright owners' exclusive right to distribution," reads the proposed jury instruction. "An actual transfer must take place." Most judges agree with the label company saying making a file available on a peer-to-peer network is the same as infringement. When the question arose whether the songs were distributed or not the reply was, "That's the way the system works, I know that each one of the 25 songs was distributed." After weeks of the trial Judge Davis amended the instruction to say that the "act of making available for electronic distribution... violates the copyright owner's exclusive copyright." That decision should make it easier for the jury to find Thomas liable.
The beautiful part of our judicial system is that people need to be proven guilty, and to be proven guilty one need to be caught in the act or red-handed so to say. Although "that's the way the system works” (Kazaa), there is no hard evidence that other users have downloaded Thomas’ 24 songs, they could have been terrible. If you can own an assault rifle and not be accused of killing you be able to post illegal information and not be accused of distribution. The sum of damage that Capital Records is asking for is ridiculous besides, close to 10,000 per song allegedly distributed that amounts to over $220,000 to be paid by a private citizen to a cooperation that is ludicrous
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071004-debate-over-making-available-jury-instruction-as-capitol-v-thomas-wraps-up.html
Thursday, October 11, 2007
RIAA Hits a Sour Note With Its File-Sharing Witch Hunt
The article:
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/theluddite/2007/10/luddite_1011
For start, I would like to point out that this is a highly opinionated piece of writing. It is written about the RIAA's current state of affairs. It begins by talking about the latest case that has been covered numerous times on this blog. It talks about how the RIAA is trying to make this case a model for themselves, to show what they will do to illegal music downloaders. The author sarcastically comments on how easy it is to sympathize with the RIAA, and he makes it clear that he doesn't approve of their actions. He goes on to talk about the state of the industry, about how "bloated with executives and middlemen" it is, and how little profit is actually going to the artists, and he compares it to a Marxist system. After this, he looks on the metaphorical bright side, and talks about Radiohead's new method for selling its music. He then prophesies the future of music, and predicts that this "artist-to-audience business model" shows hope. After this, he concludes with a tie in to the beginning of the article.
In my opinion, he is exactly right. The RIAA is making cases with people like Jammie Thomas, and the countless others, including children. They think that this will make an impact on the people making illegal downloads. Instead of doing like Radiohead and others and responding to the public with better pricing models, they are using bully methods to try and get the copyright infringers to stop. In the process, they are beginning to eliminate other possible uses for file-sharing. How? By getting all of the file-sharing applications banned, like they did with Napster, KaZaa, and Morpheus. It is noted that Napster was originally only used for copyrighted music, but it could have been put to legal use. What they don't realize is that the more they bully the users, the more the users will turn against them. They do themselves no good in trying to scare everyone. Like the old proverb says, "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar." Is the RIAA thinking, "Why would we want to catch flies?"
Allen
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/theluddite/2007/10/luddite_1011
For start, I would like to point out that this is a highly opinionated piece of writing. It is written about the RIAA's current state of affairs. It begins by talking about the latest case that has been covered numerous times on this blog. It talks about how the RIAA is trying to make this case a model for themselves, to show what they will do to illegal music downloaders. The author sarcastically comments on how easy it is to sympathize with the RIAA, and he makes it clear that he doesn't approve of their actions. He goes on to talk about the state of the industry, about how "bloated with executives and middlemen" it is, and how little profit is actually going to the artists, and he compares it to a Marxist system. After this, he looks on the metaphorical bright side, and talks about Radiohead's new method for selling its music. He then prophesies the future of music, and predicts that this "artist-to-audience business model" shows hope. After this, he concludes with a tie in to the beginning of the article.
In my opinion, he is exactly right. The RIAA is making cases with people like Jammie Thomas, and the countless others, including children. They think that this will make an impact on the people making illegal downloads. Instead of doing like Radiohead and others and responding to the public with better pricing models, they are using bully methods to try and get the copyright infringers to stop. In the process, they are beginning to eliminate other possible uses for file-sharing. How? By getting all of the file-sharing applications banned, like they did with Napster, KaZaa, and Morpheus. It is noted that Napster was originally only used for copyrighted music, but it could have been put to legal use. What they don't realize is that the more they bully the users, the more the users will turn against them. They do themselves no good in trying to scare everyone. Like the old proverb says, "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar." Is the RIAA thinking, "Why would we want to catch flies?"
Allen
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
File-Sharing Students Fight Copyright Constraints
The Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/education/10students.html?_r=1&ref=education&oref=slogin
Brad Dunn
Wednesday, October 10th 2007
The article tells the story of a college student at the Brown University who was notified by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) via email that he was to be fined for files that he illegally downloaded through file-file sharing programs. He was told he could be charged anywhere between $750-$150,000 for each single song that he aquired. He was one of twelve students at Brown University that was fined for illegal file sharing. The student was a co-founder of the Students for Free Culture chapter at Brown University. The organization claims that the laws surrounding file-sharing are outdated and are not relavent to todays technology. They advocate that copyright laws are not relevant ever since the internet was created. They not only support the liberalization of music but also for film and visual arts. The organization is wide spread over the United States at over thrity five different universities and are wraped into all the controversy that stems from whether file sharing should be legal or not. The Brown student resolved the case by paying a $3000 fine.
I think that the charges, like those against Jamie Thomas, are rediculous. The fact that the fine per song can range over a $140,000 spread displays a great deal of leway that the RIAA may take advantage of. I am sure that they have a system of calculating the loses of a single file shared song, but the amounts of money seem as though they could be easily stretched. As far as the organization, Students for Free Culture, I believe that their philosophy of making the arts free for everyone to enjoy is a great concept. I also believe that such an organization would attract a massive draw at any local University. I support the progress that the students are making, and a definite court decision on file sharing seems to be imminent. Even though I am not active with file-sharing programs I feel that they could be very beneficial if legalized. The amounts of culture that could be shared would be vast, and the world could possibly be a much more open society. Important concepts expressed by the Students for Free Culture show how we could exprience music native to parts of asia, south america, and Africa with a few quick file transfers. We would not have to worry about if it is was good or not, it would be free! These ideas could spread very rapidly and also provide infinite educational opportunities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/education/10students.html?_r=1&ref=education&oref=slogin
Brad Dunn
Wednesday, October 10th 2007
The article tells the story of a college student at the Brown University who was notified by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) via email that he was to be fined for files that he illegally downloaded through file-file sharing programs. He was told he could be charged anywhere between $750-$150,000 for each single song that he aquired. He was one of twelve students at Brown University that was fined for illegal file sharing. The student was a co-founder of the Students for Free Culture chapter at Brown University. The organization claims that the laws surrounding file-sharing are outdated and are not relavent to todays technology. They advocate that copyright laws are not relevant ever since the internet was created. They not only support the liberalization of music but also for film and visual arts. The organization is wide spread over the United States at over thrity five different universities and are wraped into all the controversy that stems from whether file sharing should be legal or not. The Brown student resolved the case by paying a $3000 fine.
I think that the charges, like those against Jamie Thomas, are rediculous. The fact that the fine per song can range over a $140,000 spread displays a great deal of leway that the RIAA may take advantage of. I am sure that they have a system of calculating the loses of a single file shared song, but the amounts of money seem as though they could be easily stretched. As far as the organization, Students for Free Culture, I believe that their philosophy of making the arts free for everyone to enjoy is a great concept. I also believe that such an organization would attract a massive draw at any local University. I support the progress that the students are making, and a definite court decision on file sharing seems to be imminent. Even though I am not active with file-sharing programs I feel that they could be very beneficial if legalized. The amounts of culture that could be shared would be vast, and the world could possibly be a much more open society. Important concepts expressed by the Students for Free Culture show how we could exprience music native to parts of asia, south america, and Africa with a few quick file transfers. We would not have to worry about if it is was good or not, it would be free! These ideas could spread very rapidly and also provide infinite educational opportunities.
Second Monday Blog Entry
again same problem just got to a working computer so here is my blog for this week...
Second Blog Entry- Monday October 8, 2007
Labels Win Suit against Song Sharer
October 5, 2007
A Federal jury yesterday (October 4, 2007) found a Minnesota woman, Jammie Thomas, liable for copyright infringement for sharing music online and fined her a total of $222,000 in damages. This verdict brought the end to the first jury trial in the music industry’s effort to stop piracy with lawsuits against individual offenders.
This crucial victory for record labels and copyright owners has been apart of about 30,000 people since 2003, accused of trafficking copyrighted songs. These people accused and had legal action taken against them usually settle out of court for, on average about $4,000, according to the music industry’s trade association. Ms. Thomas decided instead to proceed with a trial instead, stating that she did not share files on the Kazaa network, as she was charged by the record labels. The jury reached a verdict after a short deliberation, which called for $9,250 in damages for each of the 24 songs involved in her case. This case brought not only attention to the industry’s fight against Internet piracy, but also reinforces the notion that computer users who become the target of lawsuits, a very small percentage of people using file-swapping networks, are better off simply settling out of court rather than proceeding with a trial.
The judge in the case, Michael J. Davis of the Federal District Court, ruled in the record labels favor when he stated that in order for Thomas to be charged with infringement, the record labels did not have to prove that the songs on her computer had actually been transmitted to others online, but rather the act of making them merely available to be viewed by others could constitute infringement. This ruling gave an answer to this hotly debated question of whether or not infringement simply meant making files accessible to others or if there needed to be proof of the transmitting of the files to other computers.
This court case represents at least a symbolic victory for the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade corporation that has been apart of the music labels’ expensive legal campaign against Internet piracy. The lead plaintiff in the case was capital Records, a label owned by the EMI Group. The three other major record companies associated with the case were: the Universal Music Group, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, and the Warner Music Group.
This court case is a difficult one to understand in terms of what is exactly right and what is wrong. Ms. Thomas was in fact in the wrong for violating copyright laws by sharing music online, but was the $222,000 really a fair penalty for the fact that she simply had music on her computer that could have been accessible to other computers. Yes, downloading music is a violation of copyright laws and illegal, but is it really that “bad” of a crime that it is worth $222,000? I don’t think so in this case.
I think that Ms. Thomas’ actions where pretty sketching in that she denied she had a Kazaa account and also replaced her hard drive, which the labels contended was in order to wipe out evidence of her file-sharing activities. I think if she would have honestly confessed that she in fact had been sharing music online, instead of trying to be sneaky about the whole thing, she would have gotten a lighter sentence. Why would you if presented with an offer to settle out of court would you instead chose to go through with a controversial court case that you were pretty sure that you would only lose?
The judge’s decision about the actual definition of infringement is one that I don’t agree with because, if you are being accused of file-sharing you should have actually have SHARED files. The decision instead states that if you have illegal music on your computer, which could be accessed by other computer users, that implies that you are infringing on copyright laws. So that would then mean if I borrowed my friend’s CD and placed the music on my computer that I would be infringing on copyright laws, which is like photocopying pages in a book that you got from the library. So would the person who photocopied pages from a borrowed book be charged with infringement and face the same penalty as Ms. Thomas?
This situation would never be brought to trial in the real world, and this decision about the definition of infringement of copyrighted materials simply showcase the need for reform of the copyright laws to accommodate the new way we share information over the Internet in the 21st century. Will this ridiculous ruling about infringement of copyright laws actually spark the reform of copyright laws by our government officials? Probably not, but we are getting slowly closer to the new way of copyrighting individuals information on the Internet.
Link to Article
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/business/media/05music.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Anna :)
Second Blog Entry- Monday October 8, 2007
Labels Win Suit against Song Sharer
October 5, 2007
A Federal jury yesterday (October 4, 2007) found a Minnesota woman, Jammie Thomas, liable for copyright infringement for sharing music online and fined her a total of $222,000 in damages. This verdict brought the end to the first jury trial in the music industry’s effort to stop piracy with lawsuits against individual offenders.
This crucial victory for record labels and copyright owners has been apart of about 30,000 people since 2003, accused of trafficking copyrighted songs. These people accused and had legal action taken against them usually settle out of court for, on average about $4,000, according to the music industry’s trade association. Ms. Thomas decided instead to proceed with a trial instead, stating that she did not share files on the Kazaa network, as she was charged by the record labels. The jury reached a verdict after a short deliberation, which called for $9,250 in damages for each of the 24 songs involved in her case. This case brought not only attention to the industry’s fight against Internet piracy, but also reinforces the notion that computer users who become the target of lawsuits, a very small percentage of people using file-swapping networks, are better off simply settling out of court rather than proceeding with a trial.
The judge in the case, Michael J. Davis of the Federal District Court, ruled in the record labels favor when he stated that in order for Thomas to be charged with infringement, the record labels did not have to prove that the songs on her computer had actually been transmitted to others online, but rather the act of making them merely available to be viewed by others could constitute infringement. This ruling gave an answer to this hotly debated question of whether or not infringement simply meant making files accessible to others or if there needed to be proof of the transmitting of the files to other computers.
This court case represents at least a symbolic victory for the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade corporation that has been apart of the music labels’ expensive legal campaign against Internet piracy. The lead plaintiff in the case was capital Records, a label owned by the EMI Group. The three other major record companies associated with the case were: the Universal Music Group, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, and the Warner Music Group.
This court case is a difficult one to understand in terms of what is exactly right and what is wrong. Ms. Thomas was in fact in the wrong for violating copyright laws by sharing music online, but was the $222,000 really a fair penalty for the fact that she simply had music on her computer that could have been accessible to other computers. Yes, downloading music is a violation of copyright laws and illegal, but is it really that “bad” of a crime that it is worth $222,000? I don’t think so in this case.
I think that Ms. Thomas’ actions where pretty sketching in that she denied she had a Kazaa account and also replaced her hard drive, which the labels contended was in order to wipe out evidence of her file-sharing activities. I think if she would have honestly confessed that she in fact had been sharing music online, instead of trying to be sneaky about the whole thing, she would have gotten a lighter sentence. Why would you if presented with an offer to settle out of court would you instead chose to go through with a controversial court case that you were pretty sure that you would only lose?
The judge’s decision about the actual definition of infringement is one that I don’t agree with because, if you are being accused of file-sharing you should have actually have SHARED files. The decision instead states that if you have illegal music on your computer, which could be accessed by other computer users, that implies that you are infringing on copyright laws. So that would then mean if I borrowed my friend’s CD and placed the music on my computer that I would be infringing on copyright laws, which is like photocopying pages in a book that you got from the library. So would the person who photocopied pages from a borrowed book be charged with infringement and face the same penalty as Ms. Thomas?
This situation would never be brought to trial in the real world, and this decision about the definition of infringement of copyrighted materials simply showcase the need for reform of the copyright laws to accommodate the new way we share information over the Internet in the 21st century. Will this ridiculous ruling about infringement of copyright laws actually spark the reform of copyright laws by our government officials? Probably not, but we are getting slowly closer to the new way of copyrighting individuals information on the Internet.
Link to Article
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/business/media/05music.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Anna :)
First Monday Blog Post
sorry this is soo late my friend's computer that i was using lost Microsoft Word so I couldn't post the blogs i had written on the articles. so here is the first one...
First Blog Entry
Monday October 1, 2007
Germany Outlaws Burning CDs Made From Illegally Obtained Music
This is an article about a recently approved copyright law in Germany’s upper house of Parliament. This new law makes it illegal for individuals who have obtained music and movies illegally to make copies of the movies and music onto CDs. The Bundersrat, upper house of Parliament, ignoring harsh criticism from consumer protection groups passed this law which outlaws private copies of content that has been downloaded from illegal sources such as P2P and file-sharing networks.
Although this law is not supposed to be taken into effect until 2008, both the Green Party and many consumer protection groups have been trying to add a stipulation that wouldn’t criminalize youths as well as other private users, but they has been little to no success in the way to pass this exemption. These groups wanted to ensure that there was a profit motive involved and not just a way to merely single out sources that have made the illegal information available to users and creating a possible crime scene.
Germany’s federal justice minister, Brigitte Zypris, states that this new law brings Germany in line with many other European Union codes, but many others believe that the law surpasses the previously proposed legislation and that this new law is simply a way to help out the entertainment industry in Germany.
I think that this law looks good in theory but will have problems actually implementing it in the real world. Does Germany actually believe that they will begin to bust people for making bootleg CDs? Music, whether illegally downloaded or not, ultimately looks the same on a CD so this is one of the problems with this new legislation. Either way Germany has taken a big step in the direction of intellectual property laws, that can possibly protect actors or artists work from being illegally distributed. Whether or not this law will necessarily stop this illegal distribution of other’s work or just instead halt the flow of free information from the web is still yet to be seen. Either way the road to the protection of individuals work’s while still maintaining the freeness of the internet has begun to be built. This new law may not really be a step in the right direction, but it will at least form some point of reference for other forms of legislation to get a jumping off point from in the future.
Link to article
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9013/Germany+Outlaws+Burning+CDs+Made+From+Illegally+Obtained+Music
Anna :)
First Blog Entry
Monday October 1, 2007
Germany Outlaws Burning CDs Made From Illegally Obtained Music
This is an article about a recently approved copyright law in Germany’s upper house of Parliament. This new law makes it illegal for individuals who have obtained music and movies illegally to make copies of the movies and music onto CDs. The Bundersrat, upper house of Parliament, ignoring harsh criticism from consumer protection groups passed this law which outlaws private copies of content that has been downloaded from illegal sources such as P2P and file-sharing networks.
Although this law is not supposed to be taken into effect until 2008, both the Green Party and many consumer protection groups have been trying to add a stipulation that wouldn’t criminalize youths as well as other private users, but they has been little to no success in the way to pass this exemption. These groups wanted to ensure that there was a profit motive involved and not just a way to merely single out sources that have made the illegal information available to users and creating a possible crime scene.
Germany’s federal justice minister, Brigitte Zypris, states that this new law brings Germany in line with many other European Union codes, but many others believe that the law surpasses the previously proposed legislation and that this new law is simply a way to help out the entertainment industry in Germany.
I think that this law looks good in theory but will have problems actually implementing it in the real world. Does Germany actually believe that they will begin to bust people for making bootleg CDs? Music, whether illegally downloaded or not, ultimately looks the same on a CD so this is one of the problems with this new legislation. Either way Germany has taken a big step in the direction of intellectual property laws, that can possibly protect actors or artists work from being illegally distributed. Whether or not this law will necessarily stop this illegal distribution of other’s work or just instead halt the flow of free information from the web is still yet to be seen. Either way the road to the protection of individuals work’s while still maintaining the freeness of the internet has begun to be built. This new law may not really be a step in the right direction, but it will at least form some point of reference for other forms of legislation to get a jumping off point from in the future.
Link to article
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9013/Germany+Outlaws+Burning+CDs+Made+From+Illegally+Obtained+Music
Anna :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)