This'll evoke some Grrrrr's

You can't get away like that. If it says that pull the quote. You are implying that it says that.

 

Bye Mike,

HZ

 

I guess that means you can't pull the quote because it is not there. That is how the law works.

 

Mike,

Leaving an argument does not imply that I admit defeat. It means that I'm tired of the argument. Simple concept. Understand?

HZ

 

Sure I understand. But the fact remains you can't pull a quote from AHRA that says you are allowed to distribute because it doesn't say that.

 

Well, that wraps it up for another case here on the People's Court. Remember, if you find yourself in a dispute with somebody else, don't take the law into your own hands. Instead, humiliate yourself on TV in front of millions. Here, on the People's Court.

 

Nice Doug Llewellyn there, Robert. Spot on!

ED

 

I wuz channeling the spirit of ol' Doug 'cause I'm a heretic.

 

HZ - Please accept my apologies. AHRA does say this (sort of). A consumer using the correct machine (and therefore paying royalties) is immune from suit for making non-commercial copies. But, there is no immunity for distributing those copies. There is a big difference between making a copy and distributing it.

 

Thanks for being so thorough, Mike!

 

I sense a patronising tone. I just wanted to correct my misunderstanding of what HZ said. I'm done.

 

Mike, get your butt over into the Name That Tune thread - I'm testing the whole "distribution" thing there.



HZ

 

Oh no. (groan) OK lemme look, but I actually have something to do tonite other than internet research.

 

Seriously, I didn't mean to be patronizing! My apologies if you read it that way.

 

Oh, so sorry. I'm an idiot.

 

Not at all! I'm glad you confirmed rather than just make an incorrect assumption. No harm, no foul!

 

This has been a wonderful debate--I've learned a great deal. A few thoughts:

1. Thanks to Mike for being so thorough and patient. Thanks to HZ for "prodding" Mike such that so much information was discussed.

2. I've come away from this discussion concluding that as neither Fair Use nor AHRA mention "distribution," but rather grant the user permission to make a copy only when certain conditions are met, that giving a copy to someone is not granted and therefore, under the provisions of the law, illegal. As I understand how The Law works in practice, if something is not actually mentioned in the law itself--distribution in this case--it cannot be inferred.

3. In cases where the law is vague or contradictory, the courts will have to intervene and clarify. I don't know just how "vague" Fair Use is in this context, but it's possible that the courts will have to decide the legality of Jeff giving a copy of a CD to his wife [or brother!?!].

4. The RIAA shot itself in the foot in 1992 when it pushed for the passage of the AHRA. They were so worried about the threat to sales that stand-alone home recorders posed that, to get computer manufacturers to support the proposed law, the RIAA granted them a bye on proposed royalty payments for both burners and CD-R media. The RIAA failed to see that their biggest threat was that posed by computers, not stand-alone recorders.

5. The next move for the RIAA would be to amend AHRA to include computers and CD-R media. I don't know what the royalty rate is on media [though "For Music Recording" CD-R media is much more expensive --due to royalties alone??], but for hardware it's 2% or $8.00 max [so not much impact there]. The biggest impact would be that computers, like stand-alone recorders now, could make only first-generation copies--no copies could be made of second-generation CD-R media.

 

OK then.

I did a google search using the word “AHRA” and the exact phrase “right to distribute”.
Here’s what I found:

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2000/clinton.html

This is the US government’s position in the Napster case. Note Point 3 in the brief:

“ 3. The agencies said Section 1008 protects only non-commercial copying and not public distribution. Under the Copyright Act, they argued, a distinction is made between "reproduction" and "public distribution." Even if the owner of a CD is permitted by law to make a copy of that work, the act does not assign that person the right to distribute it "by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental lease, or lending."

Then I found this:

http://www.loc.gov/copyright/docs/napsteramicus.html

It is the United States Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) brief in the lawsuit against Napster. You can read the whole thing or just Point 3 which is titled:

3. Section 1008 Provides Immunity Only for Noncommercial Copying, Not for Public Distribution


I believe this is what I have been saying.

 

Hey! Bravo!

Ok... now we need to know the definition of "public distribution".

Is handing it to my wife "private distribution"?

 

Doing a quick search for "private distribution", here's a whole paper on private vs public... haven't read it all yet though...

http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue2/elkin.html

 

Well, I just found this in a pdf document on the web:


Right of public distribution:

General: Gives copyright owner right to distribute copies to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership. Right to control physical embodiment of copyright. Must show that an unlawful copy was disseminated to the public. However, can not prevent the transfer of a lawful copy.

Limitations - Internal: does not touch private distribution. Public distribution means outside family and circle of social acquaintances.

Limitations - External: First sale doctrine [definition removed]. Moral right exception [definition removed by me]. Compusory licenses.

 

The above was from the university of oregon - looks like some sort of report. Obviously not law.

So, I'm now off to the copyright.gov site to see if I can find anything in the law that talks about the definition of public/private distribution.

Looks like giving a copy to my wife or brother, heck - or friends! - ain't out of the question yet!



HZ

 

So the government's position in the Napster case says that under AHRA "non-commercial" copying is protected, not "public distribution." And because the words "public distribution" are used--not in the law, mind you, but in a government position paper--you now infer that if "public" distribution is verboten that somehow the law would permit "private" distribution? Hmmm. Seems like a stretch to me, especially as neither Fair Use nor AHRA discuss distribution at all. And if it ain't in the law, it can't be inferred to exist.

 

Huh? This whole thing is about distribution. If you don't distribute it, then where's the violation?

Besides, ask Mike - he's the one who brought up "public distribution" above.

 

The industry sold me this nice standalone CD Recorder that I bought and it records digitally in 4X mode when a true CD source is copied. The industry sold me the 50 pack spindle of CD-R's which work in my standalone player to specifically record CD audio. The industry sold me the source CD which I use to make a copy with in my commercial recorder on my commercial CD-Rs (which also has a royalty surcharge to the RIAA).

If I am breaking the law by copying CDs and doing with them as I wish then the industry is a damn accomplice to the crime! What hypocritical nonsense!

Then again...OJ is still on the streets...