Legal trouble! I received a DMCA notice, what should I do? Do not download movies!!!

[jxyama]

my understanding is that owning a copyrighted work, such as a music CD or a movie DVD, entitles one to make backup copies or other copies for personal use. backing up falling under the fair use of the original media the copyrighted work came on. of course, i could be completely wrong.

i don't think it entitles one to replace it in case of misplacement of the said medium. that doesn't sound like a fair use because you misplaced the very medium that you have fair use rights over. i am not sure if the fair use covers the medium or the material on the medium. i think it's over the medium - because otherwise, what's to prevent us from asking a retail store for a duplicate copy of the cd?

in any case, whoever offering the copyrighted work for free is doing something illegal so you are aiding someone else break the law by downloading it.

when we purchase a CD/DVD, are we purchasing the right to play the copyrighted work from the medium we purchase or are we purchasing the right to play the copyrighted work, period? (IANAL, anyone know better?)

 

[FriarCrazy]

I did some research on this a while back (as I wanted to download new digital copies of some of my Mothers old LPs) and Jxyama is correct in saying that you can make a backup copy for yourself, but you cannot download another copy. It would be OK for me to import the audio of the LPs into my computer, but I could not simply go onto kaZaa (The HORROR) and download the mp3. Same goes for movies.

In this particular situation (the downloading of spiderman 2), the real kicker is that the movie wasn't released into theaters. MUCH Stricter rules and sentences are being placed on distributing/obtaining unreleased content (Movies, CDs, even TV shows I think). Generally speaking, if you MUST download a movie, DO NOT download one that has not been released yet. The feds are probably not going to care (all that much) if you download a copy of Milo and Otis, but they're gonna get in your face (as we have seen) if you download something that is in/is coming to theaters.

 

[Mord]

my understanding is that owning a copyrighted work, such as a music CD or a movie DVD, entitles one to make backup copies or other copies for personal use. backing up falling under the fair use of the original media the copyrighted work came on. of course, i could be completely wrong.

i don't think it entitles one to replace it in case of misplacement of the said medium. that doesn't sound like a fair use because you misplaced the very medium that you have fair use rights over. i am not sure if the fair use covers the medium or the material on the medium. i think it's over the medium - because otherwise, what's to prevent us from asking a retail store for a duplicate copy of the cd?

in any case, whoever offering the copyrighted work for free is doing something illegal so you are aiding someone else break the law by downloading it.

when we purchase a CD/DVD, are we purchasing the right to play the copyrighted work from the medium we purchase or are we purchasing the right to play the copyrighted work, period? (IANAL, anyone know better?)

so what your saying is that when i put my diablo 2 cd in my back pocket a while back, sat on it so the cd broke and downloaded the cd from bit torrent scaned the cd cover in printer off a cd lable plastered it onto the burnt cd and tryed to forget my stupid action i was beaking the law?

 

[jxyama]

so what your saying is that when i put my diablo 2 cd in my back pocket a while back, sat on it so the cd broke and downloaded the cd from bit torrent scaned the cd cover in printer off a cd lable plastered it onto the burnt cd and tryed to forget my stupid action i was beaking the law?

i am not sure if you yourself technically broke any law or not. BUT:
i don't think you had the right to a replacement and you certainly helped someone else illegally distribute a copyrighted work.

try not to sit after you put your CD in your backpocket. better yet, don't put a CD in your backpocket.

 

[Gelfin]

A couple of useful resources:
Chilling Effects
The Subpoena Defense Alliance

I don't want to sound non-supportive here, but your story isn't so good, for reasons including the fact that the trailer is also copyrighted material. Apple has to contract with the studios to host those trailers. Now ordinarily the studios won't care if end users pass the trailer around a bit -- it's free publicity -- but if they're already after you for the movie, you might find yourself copping to infringement anyway. It's kind of like how a cop won't stop you for doing 58 in a 55 zone, but if he stops you and says you were doing 70, you better not reply, "I was only doing 58!"

If this was just a proactive action taken by your ISP (and if you were cut off mid-download, that's probably the case -- the wheels of justice don't turn that fast) then the legal system hasn't been brought into it at all, and the MPAA probably doesn't even know about it. I'd say the best thing you can do in such a case is to simply, quietly switch ISPs. I wouldn't want my ISP monitoring me that closely anyway. The more you say to them about the subject, the more might be in some record somewhere that can be subpoenaed at some later time if you have further problems. On the other hand, after you quit their service, probably through some combination of legal and administrative policies, any records about you will evaporate after some period of time, and it's probably better to start that clock running as soon as possible.

If you actually received a subpoena, then you have a real problem and you need a lawyer. Get one now, because you only have a few days to respond, legally, to the subpoena.

I can't remember what they said at one time on ScreenSavers about receiving Digital millenium copyrights act notices from your ISP!?!?!?!

I was downloading Spiderman 2 off of a torrent site (thinking that it was just a trailer, I thought it said 70MB, but it is 700MB), and my ISP stopped my internet connection(this only affected my PB which I wasn't using to download anything, my pc's connection is fine, which I was using to download). They are investigating and they made me fill out a form and swear that I have removed the file.
I did fill out the form and swear, but I think that was not the recommended action....

Anyone know what is suppose to be done to prevent more legal problems?

BTW do not download Columbia/Tristar pictures, which Spiderman 2 was.

 

[MikeLaRiviere]

There are so many reasons why licensing is bogus, I thought I'd put a few examples down, just for discussion's sake. People have already written similar things, but it's an interesting topic.

My CD broke; luckily, I had ripped it onto the computer, so I still had the music. However, given that I had a "license" to the music, should I be able to legally demand the original PCM/WAV/AIFF uncompressed files from the record label?

Legally, I am not allowed to make a backup of a DVD (yes, I am positive that it is illegal). However, since I paid $20 for the license to the movie, I should be able to obtain a new DVD for the price of the disc (a few dollars at most).

Let's say that I am the owner of a company that has just dissolved. Assuming I bought on a one-payment basis, I should be able to sell all of the licenses to Windows that I own.

If I own a CD and rip the songs onto my computer, but decide I no longer like the album, I should be able to a) destroy the CD, b) distribute the songs via peer-to-peer once per song, and c) delete the songs I have ripped to my computer.

Same as the previous example, but for DVDs.

Same as the previous two examples, but for software.

I am very tempted to try the aforementioned ideas simply to establish precedents for licensing. Additionally, if I download anything off of peer-to-peer networks, there is no way to prove that I knew the distributor of the file was not engaging in any of the ideas I mentioned, thereby precluding me from any legal wrongdoing.

Mike LaRiviere

 

[jxyama]

Let's say that I am the owner of a company that has just dissolved. Assuming I bought on a one-payment basis, I should be able to sell all of the licenses to Windows that I own.

If I own a CD and rip the songs onto my computer, but decide I no longer like the album, I should be able to a) destroy the CD, b) distribute the songs via peer-to-peer once per song, and c) delete the songs I have ripped to my computer.

many software, you can sell the licenses provided you give the discs and erase the installations you have.

you don't have the copyright, so you can't distribute the songs. buying a CD doesn't mean you now own N songs on the disc to be distributed as you see fit. (including the example where you take N songs away from yourself but then offer them to others.) buying a CD, you own the right to listen to those N songs for your personal use. you may have more rights, but re-distributing them at your leisure certainly isn't one of them.

this is why i posed the question: when you buy a CD, do you own the license to listen to those songs, period, or do you own the license to listen to those songs from the medium you purchased and other manifestations, such as backups? i think it's the latter. when you buy things that can easily be duplicated (say, computer), you didn't buy the use of those computers (in such a case, you are entitled to a free replacement...), you bought the one computer in your hands.

 

[MikeLaRiviere]

you don't have the copyright, so you can't distribute the songs. buying a CD doesn't mean you now own N songs on the disc to be distributed as you see fit. (including the example where you take N songs away from yourself but then offer them to others.) buying a CD, you own the right to listen to those N songs for your personal use. you may have more rights, but re-distributing them at your leisure certainly isn't one of them.

Yes, but you see, this is not "distributing as you see fit." Rather, as it is legally established that I can sell a used CD at the used records shop, so too must I be able to distribute the songs once. When I buy a CD, I am paying a (very) small portion for the physical disc, while the rest of the money goes to the RIAA and a miniscule amount to the artist. Therefore, what I am purchasing is one license to a piece of intellectual property. Regardless of whether I give sell the CD, give away the CD, or rip the CD and desroy it and distribute each song/the entire album once and destroy my own ripped files, I should fall under the bounds of the law. Were I to distribute the songs more than once, i.e., give one song to multiple users or keep a copy for myself, then I would be violating copyright laws. However, if I distribute the song to one user and destroy my copy, logically I cannot assume responsibility for the license any longer. Now, there is a provision in either the DMCA or copyright law that has something to do with secondary ownership, and I cannot remember how it works. Logically, ethically, and morally, though, I commit no wrong by distributing a single copy (interchangeable with license, as I will destroy my own copy) of a song or album, provided I destroy my copy. I believe you said this principle applies to software licensing.

Mike LaRiviere

 

[Horrortaxi]

so what your saying is that when i put my diablo 2 cd in my back pocket a while back, sat on it so the cd broke and downloaded the cd from bit torrent scaned the cd cover in printer off a cd lable plastered it onto the burnt cd and tryed to forget my stupid action i was beaking the law?

Probably.

Look at it like this: The data on your computer can (should) be backed up so that if something goes wrong you still have your data. You can't back it up after your hard drive crashes--it's too late and you've lost your data.

So you can't back up a broken cd. You also can't buy insurance after you've crashed your car.

We're talking about some broad, badly written laws. It's going to be very interesting to see them get put to the test in court...once somebody has enough balls/cash to make the challenge.

 

[King Cobra]

If I own a CD and rip the songs onto my computer, but decide I no longer like the album, I should be able to a) destroy the CD, b) distribute the songs via peer-to-peer once per song, and c) delete the songs I have ripped to my computer.

Same as the previous two examples, but for software.

Actually, that is not true for software. It's as simple as this: It's illegal to have more than one purchased copy of the software running on more than one machine at a time. That would rule out step b. Hence, it's impossible to redistribute the software legally over P2P without special permissions, etc. Remember the whole 15-page multiple license debate going on with alex_ant and a few others in the Jaguar released thread a while back when 10.2 came out and before Apple put out the now recognized Family Pack 5-user license of their software? The 5-user license would allow you do run the exact same copy of the software on multiple machines while those machines are on at the same time.

Now that I've said that, the mind games begin.

 

[MikeLaRiviere]

Actually, that is not true for software. It's as simple as this: It's illegal to have more than one purchased copy of the software running on more than one machine at a time. That would rule out step b. Hence, it's impossible to redistribute the software legally over P2P without special permissions, etc. Remember the whole 15-page multiple license debate going on with alex_ant and a few others in the Jaguar released thread a while back when 10.2 came out and before Apple put out the now recognized Family Pack 5-user license of their software? The 5-user license would allow you do run the exact same copy of the software on multiple machines while those machines are on at the same time.

Now that I've said that, the mind games begin.

Alright Cobra. You're taking this pretty deep, but that's good. Let's ASSUME that I write a program that immediately deletes the portion of the program that has just been copied, bit for bit. By this I mean, if I have 50% of the program transferred over, I only have the remaining 50% left on my computer. However, I do not know how I would do that. But another "however": I am only transferring the setup.exe (or .app, or .*) file and the serial number. Having two non-running setup files does not violate copyright or the EULA, as the anti-pirating measure (asking for the serial number) engages within the setup file.

But back to the broader topic: it is my intent to point out these loopholes to indicate that a) it is impossible to prove that someone willingly illegally distributed or obtained copyrighted intellectual property and b) licensing and copyright are too far removed from logic, ethics, and morality.

Mike LaRiviere

 

[jxyama]

licensing and copyright are too far removed from logic, ethics, and morality.

i respectfully disagree. i think the copyright and licensing terms are getting complicated only because digital media represents a very unique category of property where perfect duplication is easy, speedy and robust.

when we didn't have CD-Rs, it was simple. there was no way to "back up" - you own the CD you own, you could "redistribute" by lending it or selling it to others, but doing so didn't carry the potential of reaching millions so it was tolerated. it's a fairly dangerous slippery slope argument to equate making tape copies of CDs to your friends to offering the mp3 for millions of "friends." so back then, it was logical, ethical and moral. nothing complicated - CDs were like other objects. you buy what you get. if you lose it or break it, tough luck - just like everything else.

special provisions are needed and we'll see how laws adapt. in my opinion, if there was perfect DRM, i'd welcome it. i don't feel the entitlement to duplication (for backing up) just because i can't do the same for 99% of things i own. i don't see any reason why i shouldn't lose my music on my CD if i lose the CD itself. if i lose my laptop, i don't get a free replacement - so why should CDs be any different? just because i can make duplicates doesn't mean that object is somehow "different", as far as i'm concerned. i'd just be glad i can duplicate, but i wouldn't demand it as a "right."

all my personal opinion - probably not a very popular one, i realize...

 

[wide]

I haven't ever used Bit Torrent (because it doesn't work for my computer). I use the iTMS for music, and a friend mine insults me for it because he says that you cannot be tracked if you use LimeWire or other such programs if you disable sharing. Is this at all true, and if so, why? I usually use MovieLink or CinemaNow when I want movies online, but neither of those websites have good selections. thanks for any replies

edit: i also have a question about www.mp3search.com. ISPs know that you are using that also, right? and how do they know that you are not coincidentally downloading a file that has the same name as a move or song that might not even be copyrighted at all?

 

[MikeLaRiviere]

Wide, you seem like a novice, so if you're going to engage in any file-sharing, have a friend who has done a great deal of it show you how to do so without getting caught.

Jxyama, you make a good point, but we are no longer paying for the CD as a physical entity. Rather, we are now paying for a license to the intellectual property, given that it is obtainable in analog, PCM/WAV/AIFF, AAC, and WMA formats. It's similar to getting news on a newspaper or by paying for it online; I can buy a physical newspaper and have the intellectual property of the news, or I can cut out the middle man (paper) and buy the intellectual property, the news, online. Once purchased, I should be able to access the information whenever I like, at my request, which, I believe, is currently in effect.

Mike LaRiviere

 

[jxyama]

Jxyama, you make a good point, but we are no longer paying for the CD as a physical entity.

since when? my attitude is that we are still paying for the CD. (with desired contents.) the CD happens to have the property of being encodable in other formats that are more convenient for me, yes, but i still feel we are buying the CD and the right to listen to the contents.

(btw, i know someone else may bring up the stupid point about CDs costing next to nothing. i find that argument very irrelevant. restaurants charge many times more for their meals when ingredients could cost next to nothing.)

right now, i feel fine the way things are: i buy CDs and rip them. but the files stay with me, as they should. but if CDs suddenly couldn't be ripped, i'd switch to iTMS because i make use of encoded music much more often. i think this is the way things are going. but i do like the fact i can encode it myself to my liking by buying a cd.

there are always idiots who has to ruin the good thing by taking advantage of it. i don't care if p2p does no harm to CD sales. i don't care if illegality of downloading is morally questionable. i am being inconvenienced because the companies who provide the music thinks there are problems. whether they are right or wrong, i don't care - what matters to me is that i may lose my personal convenience of encodable CD as a (direct or indirect) result of acts of other users who i feel are abusing the system.

if everyone kept the ripped files to themselves (the way i do), then illegal sharing/downloading wouldn't exist and record companies wouldn't have thought encodable CD is a problem.

 

[idkew]

home taping is killing the record industry.

 

[musicpyrite]

home taping is killing the record industry.

You mean like when people do that when they stick a microphone in front of the radio speaker?

I do that with iTunes.....

 

[radio893fm]

Let's complicate this a bit

So... let's say I want the Millie Vanilli's Blame it on the rain song (no jokes about my musical taste please, its just and example for the purpose of the point). Should I just dream about it or should I download it from a p2p? Should I never listen to it because nobody sells it anymore and because its illegal to download it?

And since no one sells it anymore and it is not available anywhere, would it be illegal to download? I guess it is... but, isn't it ironic?

One of the reasons of the Naspter boom was: very hard to find things, remixes, acapellas, live presentations, non-release stuff, stuff only in 8-track tapes that people put in mp3s, vinyl, etc.

The record labels droped the ball when they did not pay attention to what the demand was... thay wanted us to listen ONLY to something... but we wanted something else! MP3s came out and... you know the rest!

iTunes, besides being a good idea and good for 'standard, popular' stuff, for those of us that like electronic music, new wave and very-hard to find stuff is not good, neither is napster or any other music service now.

I do agree on not doing anything illegal... but please!!! Don't make us... fill iTunes with not a million songs... we want a TRILLION songs in there... everything that ever came out from the US, Indonesia, Colombia and any other country in the world... the day that happens no one will go on downloading music from P2Ps anymore.

 

[idkew]

high speed dubbing made it even worse.

will the record industry survive?

 

[jxyama]

One of the reasons of the Naspter boom was: very hard to find things, remixes, acapellas, live presentations, non-release stuff, stuff only in 8-track tapes that people put in mp3s, vinyl, etc.

again, i respectfully disagree. the reason for the napster boom was the fact you could get hands on music for free when it used to cost $18 a CD.

nothing more, nothing less.

free (as in beer) is a very strong driving force - you could say that people would become wanting of hard to find things or rare remixes if they are free.

btw: milli vanilli is readily available from amazon as used. and i'm sure your local used cd store would carry it. i know you pulled it as an example - but i don't think it's that easy to find things that aren't public domain but yet not available for sale. 2 min of searching online and concluding that it's not available isn't a justification for using p2p to get it, imo.

 

[radio893fm]

again, i respectfully disagree. the reason for the napster boom was the fact you could get hands on music for free when it used to cost $18 a CD.

nothing more, nothing less.

free (as in beer) is a very strong driving force - you could say that people would become wanting of hard to find things or rare remixes if they are free.

btw: milli vanilli is readily available from amazon as used. and i'm sure your local used cd store would carry it. i know you pulled it as an example - but i don't think it's that easy to find things that aren't public domain but yet not available for sale. 2 min of searching online and concluding that it's not available isn't a justification for using p2p to get it, imo.

I understand your point... but as I said: One of the reasons... not the reason... and we of course like free stuff... but if there is something we really want/like we pay for it... I have the option to download Sound Forge from any p2p but I buy it... why? because I like the product a lot (ignore right now the morality, the legality, etc)

And I do have a copy of Millie Vanilli... like I said: an example for the point... you could always go to eBay... but for a better example: let's say I want Jorge Cardenas - Abreme La Puerta (Remix), can you get me this one? I have been looking for it for 2 years now ...

 

[MikeLaRiviere]

If millions of people in the United States download music and don't feel bad about it, which is true? Are there millions of sociopaths roaming the streets, or is the law wrong? There's not really any in-between answer. The fact is, people who feel bad about downloading music don't download it. People who don't feel bad about it do download it. Worrying about getting caught to the extent where one will simply not file-share is simply a projection of guilt and falls under the category of feeling bad about downloading.

Note: I'll request that no religious/social conservatives/liberals/extremists (on either end) post the examples of abortion, contraception, capital punishment, etc. I'll also request that no one say things like "If I steal your wallet but don't feel bad about it, does that mean it should be legal?" or "Certain murderers kill and don't feel bad about it, but does that make it okay?" To say such things oversimplifies the issue and demonstrates a lack of knowledge and thought regarding the argument.

Mike LaRiviere

 

[jxyama]

I understand your point... but as I said: One of the reasons... not the reason... and we of course like free stuff... but if there is something we really want/like we pay for it... I have the option to download Sound Forge from any p2p but I buy it... why? because I like the product a lot (ignore right now the morality, the legality, etc)

i don't think so. the napster boom (boom by definition means massive popularity -> involves general masses) was driven almost exclusively because of it's free nature. those who were genuinely attracted by its ability to locate difficult to find things are a very small minority and made up for very small portion of the reasons napster took off. do you know why? because if the demand for those difficult to find things really were so strong to make napster a boom, then companies holding the copyrights for those hard to find things would make sure that they aren't so hard to find any more. there's demand then there's money to be made.

the problem with p2p is that while it may not kill the drive to legally purchase things, it definitely lowers the threashold. people will only buy things when they really, REALLY want them, where as before p2p, they would have bought things when they really want them. it lowers the perceived value of music CDs in general. and most will stop at the level of why pay when i can just get it for free for many more things than before.

i've been pissed about rising CD prices. my solution was to buy less CDs - to the point i only purchase new CDs by two or three artists and i basically ignore the rest of new stuff. once in a while, i hear good music or highly recommended musicians and give them a shot and buy their CD. otherwise, i've reverted to listening to new stuff by a few artists and also going back to older bands no longer making new music. but i've never used p2p to get my music.

 

[idkew]

...and vhs tapes... i love to record movies off the tv. i can even fast forward through commercials. home taping is killing the record industry.

will the movie industry survive?

surely the movie and record industry are doomed to fail becauser of these new technologies called cassette and vhs tapes.

 

[jxyama]

If millions of people in the United States download music and don't feel bad about it, which is true? Are there millions of sociopaths roaming the streets, or is the law wrong? There's not really any in-between answer. The fact is, people who feel bad about downloading music don't download it. People who don't feel bad about it do download it. Worrying about getting caught to the extent where one will simply not file-share is simply a projection of guilt and falls under the category of feeling bad about downloading.

i agree. the law must adapt. and things must change. i'm not going to tell everyone that the law is absolute on this matter and that them breaking it make them the criminal while excusing that the law is perfect.

i just resent the current (or recent past) attitude of it's free for all now!!! kind of attitude. and i also feel that i've been keeping myself away from the issue and somehow hurt or inconvenienced by actions of others just because there are millions of them and they don't feel it's wrong.

of course, most of them, i'd bet, don't feel bad or wrong about downloading/sharing until they get caught. and they tend to hide behind the privacy concerns or such and try to avoid accepting responsibilities for their actions.

if you think music sharing should be legal and the law needs to change, then stand up, share away and then fight the powers be and prove your point. until then, you are just a petty freerider, in my eye. what are you doing to change the law? what are you doing to remedy the situation so that the copyright holder is compensated and the music industry can't monopolize music distribution and charge outrageous fees? downloading/sharing music for one's own pleasure doesn't sound like accomplishing anything near those goals, imo. let's get one thing straight - most p2p users aren't as noble or well-thought as you are, mike. they just like free stuff because everyone likes free stuff.

as for myself, i stand far away. i think the law at hand is antiquated and it needs to change. but i'm not a willing and active advocate of it so i also stay away from taking advantage of the loopholes that exist under the current situation.