Supreme Court won't hear Internet case -- for now

It'll be interesting if the Supreme Court does deal with this and if it considers what happened in Canada. Now granted the Copyright laws in Canada are still rather backwards but their decision may be enough for a precendence elsewhere.

For those unfamilar with what happened in Canada, a little synopsis: the CRIA attempted to get ISPs to hand over client/user lists that would match up with identified downloaders (based on IP/handle IIRC). The ISPs went to court, saying they wouldn't do it, they wanted a court opinion as to whether they were required or not. Court said that the whole copying issue was similar to "going to a library, taking a book, photocopying it and walking out with the photocopy". It sent a fair amount of reverations to the cyberlaw industry to say the least and the CRIA, who went in with an arrogant attitude, believing they'd never lose, came out rather humbled. This link has some of the details of the case and the appeal that CRIA has applied for.

Quote:

---

Source: CNN

Supreme Court won't hear Internet case -- for now

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 Posted: 10:44 AM EDT (1444 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday sidestepped a dispute about whether Internet providers can be forced to identify subscribers illegally swapping music and movies online.

The subject, however, may be back at the court soon.

The Bush administration agrees with recording and movie companies which want to use a 1998 law to get information about Internet users, but the administration also had encouraged the Supreme Court to wait to settle the issue.

The recording industry had sought court intervention now, arguing that more than 2.6 billion music files are illegally downloaded each month and that the law is needed to identify culprits.

The copyright law was written before file-swapping was common, and an appeals court said it could not be used to get information about people who share copyrighted files.

"That is crippling the private copyright enforcement that Congress envisioned as a bulwark against Internet lawlessness, and allowing Internet piracy to metastasize," justices were told in a filing by Washington attorney Donald Verrilli, who represents the Recording Industry Association of America.

"Copyright owners cannot fight back unless they know who the infringers are," he said.

Lawyers for Verizon Communications Inc., which tried to keep private names and addresses of subscribers, disputed that that the industry has been deterred in going after people who trade copyrighted works by computer.

More than 3,000 alleged infringers have been sued since the appeals court's decision 10 months ago, Verizon lawyer John Thorne said. Those civil suits identify defendants as "John Doe," then seek court permission to get their names.

He warned justices that courts could be swamped with tens of thousands of disputed subpoena enforcement proceedings if it sided with the recording industry.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act compels Internet providers to turn over the names of people suspected of operating pirate Web sites upon subpoena from any federal court clerk's office.

The appeals court had said it was up to Congress, not courts, to expand the 1998 law to cover popular file-sharing networks.

Movie studios and music labels have been aggressively pursuing copyright infringers. Last week, they filed a Supreme Court appeal that seeks to hold two Internet file-sharing services -- Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. -- responsible for their customers' online swapping of copyrighted songs and movies.

Other cases are pending in lower courts that could give the Supreme Court an opportunity to look at the copyright law, including a dispute involving St. Louis-based cable provider Charter Communications.

The cases are Verizon Internet Services v. Recording Industry Association of America, 03-1722, and Recording Industry Association of America v. Verizon Internet Services, 03-1579.

---

While you know my position on privacy versus copywrite; I don't agree with the photocopy from a library analogy. It more like you copy every book in the library in a matter of minutes and never walk into it. Then you copy every book in the next library until you have about a billion copies. ;)

This thing will eventually have to be heard at the supreme court level. I hope some balance can be achieved in a common sense scenario, there must be some protection to both copywrite material and personal privacy. Chances are privacy will come out ahead of any enforcement ability unless an extreme criminal case can be proved. In either case, untethered copying could mean very little promoted music in the future. Good or bad?

The final result could be copywrited disks wich totally suck so there is a desire for balance somewhere. Perhaps the answer lies in modifying the industry and how it approaches customers versus trying to detect and block packets on a file sharing network of PRIVATE computers.

as long as you're using the photocopy for private use, isn't that allowed? i know if you're doing a research paper, and you photocopy the book, the FBI doesn't come knocking on your door. and what about replay tv, or tivo? can't you rip the files from those and put them onto dvd? this whole copyright persecution sucks anyways. Its like me trying to sue someone for eating at burgerking if i work for wendy's. they're not getting their burgers from my business, so i can sue them for getting them somewhere else! hey, that could be a good racket!

-=[t]P=-

Copywrite for personal use never was a big issue, until you shared items out to 13 billion other computers. :D If Wendy's suddenly started marketing "Whoppers" then I would definitely be confused as to which is the "real" Whopper and which is the "copy". To my knowledge no one has copywrite on the "beef patty" and cows. ;) That is until they genetically engineer a rasberry flavored bovine.

Quote:

---

Copywrite for personal use never was a big issue, until you shared items out to 13 billion other computers

---

And since when do libraries limit how many people can see their books or photocopy their books? The analogy is a rather good one in a lot of ways. For instance, the Ottawa Public library had over 4 million visitors in 2003 with over 9 million items in circulation for the same year (apparently this is an increase of 28% over 2001-2003). Now, Ottawa as a population is around 250,000 (last time I checked -- I think the Regional Municipality might be around a million total).

Quote:

---

f Wendy's suddenly started marketing "Whoppers" then I would definitely be confused as to which is the "real" Whopper and which is the "copy".

---

That'd be like the Rolling Stones laying claim to Let it Be. Those that share out music, from what I've seen, haven't made claims to being original nor to making a profit so I don't know if that works with this situation as an analogy.

Quote:

---

can't you rip the files from those and put them onto dvd?

---

Yes. The idea is that you can do whatever you want for personal use. Now, that said, Canadian Copyright Law and the decision made earlier this year seems to suggest that if I decide that for my personal use it will be there for others to see and copy, then I'm doing no different than if I gave a student a text book to copy, to which they passed it on to friends to copy (this is actually a common practise amongst cash-strapped students -- and I've seen some near starving students, some who've gotten free lunches from me).

One thing that is different here. It is illegal in the US to photocopy and then distribute those copies from a library. So if I photo copy Stephen King's "IT" then give away copies I violate copywrite. That is not true in Canada? If not then we are talking apples and oranges. It appears that canadien copywrite law is very different and it seems that there is no ability for someone who makes a recording to keep it as his or her own property?

The law about photocopying books is similar, AFAIK. Technically, you're not allowed to copy more than 10% of the book. But I don't think it's ever been truly challenged in court or enforced which makes me wonder how strong it actually is. That said, it has been recognized that copyright laws in regards to digital media is definately behind in Canada compared to the US.

The issue of individual privacy is sorta shot in the US but is a bit stronger in Canada (partially due to the recent use of PIPEDA).

I really can't say how the supreme court would act on this. In the past the generally weigh heavy on constitutional right to privacy with a window for law enforcement in "Criminal" circumstances. If they use the same methodology as they do in conventional "wire tapping" then we may have some protection a citizens. If not then technology will present "other" methods to bypass the law. :D Doesn't it always?

the thing that really ticks me off is that canads gets a bad rap in shows like South Park, but yet they have all of these cool things like copyright laws that noone (authority) cares about, and mounties, and the digital media laws are less "evolved" than the us. that's it! i'm moving! and what happened to the music being about the fans? oh that's right it was taken away around the same time that they saw the hot shot record labels weren't making four kazillion dollars a week. i'm so sick of all of the RIAA bullsh*t. either the laws need to evolve or the music industry needs to evolve. don't charge people for the music, charge for the software, that'll end the battle real quick. i'll admit that i enjoy downloading songs every now and then, but if i find one i really, really like (rare occasion, because music sucks nowadays) i'll go buy the cd. what's wrong with a little preview, especially with bands you can't hear on the radio.

and doesn't the computer have to piece together the song once you've downloaded it, which diminishes some of the parts, creates "holes" where you get some static? cause a lot of the music that i've downloaded, even at high bitrates has static. wouldn't that or the fact that the compression throws out parts to the song, make the copyright viod, since technically it's not the same song? just wondering.

-=[t]P=-

The "static" you get is from a bad rip - not downloading the file. ;)

Terrance and Phillip don't actually represent Canada? OMG!

i actually thought the canuk court decision was a right one (for a change!). the fact that the logistics of pcopying a billion books is unfeasable but pcopying a billion music files is feasable has nothing to do with it. they look at the process, and the process seem the same, and they made their decision based on it.

the bottom line: (and here is my anarchist side talking away) the music industy was run my greedy f&*kwits that knew they were milking consumers for all they were worth and laughing all the way to the bank. technology advanced. consumers found a way to not get milked dry and took advantage of it. the music industry tried and couldn't for the life of it find a way to make any money from this new technology (that they helped invent and push out to consumers in the first place because they were trying to find yet more ways to milk more money out of consumers!!!) - so now the music industry is crying shenanigans. as blob dylan once wrote, "the first one now shall later be last!".

let me time warp your memories. do you remember in the 80's when CD's were coming out and they were charging you $40 to $50 per CD? a CD that cost them under $1 to manufacture at the time!! later on it cost them under $0.10 to manufacture. and they were still charging $20 10 yrs later. find my one industry that has that sort fo markup! do you remember how many times you blew $20 on a CD just to realize the the whole thing was crap and the only good song was the one that they played on the radio?

and that brings me to e-books. in particular, tech geek e-books. i am pretty sure i got at least $2,000 worth of geek e-books by syngress, wiley, microsoft et la in my possession that i d/l'ed and didn't pay a cent for. why? because they sell the books for around $100 in the store and less that 6 months later, the book is in a bargain bin for $5.00! i got sick & tired of blowing so much cash on "door stopper" books that lost all value in such a short time!. an ebook is a "copy" of a book. it's not the same quality as a printed & bound paper book. not as conventient to read it - you usually have to user your own printer to print it. you are not getting the same service as you would when youo pay wiley for a book. yet it's a book. and it's relatively feasable to copy a billion on them in a short period of time - just like music files.

I don't know if it's logical to compare today's production cost to "back then" I would wager it's a much slower process and more expensive for robotic and computing equipment in 1982 then 2004 and huge costs went into researching and building facilites. But that's a guess. BTW I am very anti RIAA and you can search for my RIAA hating rants posted from time to time. I just don't see how copying a few books is the same as ripping a billion songs that are exact copies (depending on the ripping measure) versus a decent analog of a book. It's not the same process, ink on a paper is not digital. If the library consisted of nothing but e-books I would view it different, and I bet - so would the court. The digital copies will never degrade (again depending on the mechanism they were ripped) and to make it similar you would need a box that spits out the book stabled and binded to an exact duplicate minuse the cover, not just a few pages. Then if people started going to "other" sources outside book stores and libraries to get the digital copies versus the original then you could arguably have the same problem. The book companies will say, "hey no one is buying our books anymore because you can get them ALL on Kazza. So to my critical thinking they are not the same at all.

Is it cool to sample, hell yeah. Is it cool to burn a cd of samples, I say so with a limited guilty concience. Is it cool to copy your own stuff? Yes and it's legal. Is it cool to take an article written by someone else and post it as your own in a forum or web page? I don't think so. Is it cool to rip a song the artist has stated he doesn't want distributed and copy it a billion times for 2 billion people to download (including me). Not really; and if he sent off 2 million copies of Biology 101 then I would agree on the ruling. ;) I say in a free society where thought and opinion are valued, then the wishes of an author to keep his work should be valued, along with the the RIGHT AND FREEDOM of privacy. Thus balance - It's a Two Edged Sword but privacy should be upheld unless some person tries to pawn off a fake as real.

Alternatively if balance cannot be achieved the idea of copywrite is non-existent. Buying a CD you think was made by and distributed by "Static-X" could be a clone you see. When you pull out the stops then everything goes. Sometimes you want a copy and sometimes you want the real deal, without copywrite there is no way to measure it and music isn't the only place law changes will be applied. When copywrite violations are manageable no one cares, when they reach extreme proportions then people take notice and Britney Spears goes on TV to say stupid things for the RIAA Nazi camp. When I see a rare copy of a Misfits special release I would really like it to be an original, but some wouldn't care. This sounds a little offtrack from digital copies versus anolog copies and then distribution, but it also involves the substance of copywrite.

When I start seeing entire libraries from leading publishers avaiable on bit torrent I'll say, yep that's just like copying a book there is no difference. There are alot available online already in various book warez locations. I am quilty of enjoying them as well, in fact I have sucked entire warez sites clean of their offerings. :) Saving or stealing Thousands in the process. The canuks didn't mention e-books they compared it to copying a book with a photocopier at the local library. Or that is how a took it? Would I like to see our courts come to the same conclusion. It would be nice. We probably won't see bands driving around in Limos getting rich but they will still play, it's in their blood. :D And it might make hard copy CDs hard to get without massive distribution systems but most people don't care about that anyway, they want the latest trash to toss out the next week when it gets played too much or a new angle on the sample sequence makes it a better beat of the week.

Then again, I have too much time today. Peace secure_lockdown we are in the same choir. RIAA claims they represent musicians, I see it as endentured servitude.

My whole take on the "copyright infringement" :

I'm pissed off that the RIAA decided to rip off the entire music industry for over a decade when CDs became the hot topic... Production costs, manufacturing, etc...all were used by them as an excuse for them to cost $20~$25 per CD. Just last year, you saw prices come down to the $12~$20 range, which is still astronomical in comparison to spending $24.99 for a stack of Fuji or Memorex 50-count 800mb CDRs. Going on the math that a $25 stack of 50 CDRs makes them 0.50 apiece and applying that cost to a $20.00 "latest hit", let's just say on volume costs for the company doing the mastering, would be 0.50, and say $3.00 goes to the band (which is high)...where does the rest go? You guessed it! That's 80% of the total cost of that CD going to line the pockets of the very same organization that's now pissed off over that loss. Oh, they didn't make their billions, only millions and they're pissed off?

Now, I don't condone some 15 year old on mommy and daddy's store-bought PC and cable modem downloading HUNDREDS of songs either...but the RIAA suing a 12 year old girl and settling out of court for a few grand isn't setting a good precedence. They're the FIRST company to actively SUE THEIR CUSTOMER BASE. Great way to win the hearts and minds, eh?

Here's an idea...let the RIAA make a program that allows anyone to create a username and whatnot, just like a mb system, and for all the songs they have "under copyright law", have them available for purchase for a measly $0.50 to $1.00 apiece, depending on rank, etc... Then, they could have the 10, 20, 30 songs or whatever burned to the CD that's then sold BY the RIAA TO a client who's PAID THEM THEIR MONEY...imagine that! Then I could have a CD that I put together with songs I want, in the format I want (after all, I'm paying for the whole thing so it could be wav or mp3 or ogg-vorbis or PCM whatever), and I don't have to worry about dumbass albums like Bon Jovi's last one with "It's My Life"... I buy the whole CD, $24.95 for the piece of **** that it was, and when I listened to the whole thing, I realized that the only song I liked was the song that was on the radio (It's My Life) AND later, I found out that the song producer for that album had just gotten through doing Brittany Spears latest album!!!!! WTF x100000?!?!

So yeah, I can get a CD of what I want, when I want, bypassing stores and cheap advertising ploys alike and be legal at the same time... Sounds good to me, but wait, I see resistance! Why would the RIAA never do that? Because A: Best Buy and all over music stores with a dozen plus aisles of CDs would have a lot of floor space (or unsold product) and B: the one-hit wonders would never make **** because all they have is one or two songs to their name and they disappear off the charts in a few weeks. Probably other reasons too but the RIAA isn't going to put at risk the business they provide all these stores, etc...they've got to make money somewhere!

Bah, I don't think there's a medium, honestly... You can copyright the disk and it will be broken. You can enforce laws and sue 12 year old girls and songs will still be downloaded. You can put a bunch of idiotic singers on the radio pleading that downloading is bad and we're hurting someone else's dream and I'll still point out what kind of money they make when some kid buys a $20.00 album only to find out it ****ING SUCKS while the singer is out back in rehab after paying a $250,000.00 fine or so after being busted doing crack lines in the local movie theater or whatever...yeah, tell me again about bad things?

Work with these agents like Kazaa, Morpheus, etc...but do not impede my privacy on the internet. I'm fully aware that everything can be watched, regardless, but guess what; giving up the freedom of some anonymity when the FBI can just come in and subpoena an ISP for random information with some bogus reason (we all know that happens plenty...cop pulls you over and realizes he/she/it ****ed up, guess what, you're getting a ticket on SOMETHING), well, then it's all over. And I hope the Supreme Court rejects it plain as day. That's a direct violation of the constitution.

Sorry for the rant!

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by MsMittens
The law about photocopying books is similar, AFAIK. Technically, you're not allowed to copy more than 10% of the book. But I don't think it's ever been truly challenged in court or enforced which makes me wonder how strong it actually is. That said, it has been recognized that copyright laws in regards to digital media is definately behind in Canada compared to the US.

---

I personally don't get why people view us as behind the times. We simply have yet to make vast redefinitions to how we view software, and do retarded things like allow businesses to patent business processes, in addition to attempting to maintain laws that really shouldn't be applied to books or videos the same way they are to software -- which is, in my view, one of the largest failings of the law in general when it comes to software.

Consider all the silly things being done in the name of copyright violation in the US:
- DMCA, possibly the lengthiest, vaguest law related to software
- The various witch hunts for children who are trading files, and the consistent stance of the government to side with the corporations over the citizens -- to the point of blatant violations of civil rights.
- A patent office overloaded with patent applications because of some genius' idea to allow the patenting of 'business processes' and setting things up so vaguely that it somehow applies to software. Everything from look and feel down to database design can be patented, or at least can be submitted for consideration.
- Consider the SCO case, where a company has essentially abused the public trust without actually ever presenting evidence, to the point of extorting money out of companies.

Personally I prefer our "arcane" view of things. It lets us get a bit of perspective and draw on the experiences of other nations before developing the laws appropriately.

EDIT:
Oh, and Vorlin, I can get a stack of 100CD-Rs for $15, which works out to $0.15/CD, so you can bet the RIAA pays PENNIES for a CD. ;)

You know I really wanted to write something about this but every time I do my emotions tend to take the best of me, So I guess Ill leave this one well enough alone.

One thing I will say is when something new comes out it doesnt take long for someone to find something to bitch about, Keep this up and we will have the Goverment developing a stadard for just about everything. Freedom is a privlage not a right in the goverments eyes.

Here is a way that the RIAA can stop music piracy

1. Make an .exe file that must be installed before music can be played or transferred onto a computer (im not talking about a player im talking more like a type of spyware), next encrypt music using a new format so that it cannot be manipulated or so the format cannot be changed into another format. require other software company to conform to the new format.
2. Make the .exe file require internet access before any transferring of music from CD to computer is allowed. this way the .exe file can collect data about music that is loaded on the computer and other traceable information such as IP and MAC address so if illegally downloaded music is found you can track it.
3. Require a CD key to be entered before music can be transfered to the computer.
4. Program the exe file to block any ripping software so that it won’t be able to rip music. Also block any unauthorized shareware software from downloading music.
5. Design the exe file similar to the way the Kernel is built in the Microsoft XP Operating system. Meaning make it where it can’t be manipulated by other software. That way other software won’t be able to override the exe file and allow illegal downloading. This technology can be used for movies also.

Now I know this wont last for ever because there will always be a way around this problem but it would take a long time to get around this.

I have two problems with that:

RIAA would be forcing people to use windows to be able to play music.. That's a mix of interests no one wants (Monopoly/Anti-Trust) !!

It wouldn't stop music.. People will allways find a way to rip it to an accepted format (ogg mp3 etc.)

The exe you described cannot be made.. There are hundreds/thousands of ripping and downloading programs, you can stop a few.. you can't stop them all..
Also your point 5 is quite flawd.. the Windows Kernel CAN be manipulated by other software !!

Forgive me if I am missing the point here.

As I see it this case is not about copyright or file sharing, it is about ENFORCEMENT, and of commercial/civil law at that?.

The RIAA want the courts to force ISPs to do their dirty work for them. The ISPs don't want to because it will cost them money and customers; with absolutely no benefit to themselves.

Obviously the RIAA is NOT a law enforcement agency, they just think that they are :rolleyes: so there is a major privacy issue here, as well.

Unless file sharing is made a criminal offence, I do not see the RIAA having much success, and I really don't see that happening.

They really should concentrate on PIRACY, as that is really what is costing them money, and is pretty clear cut.

I have yet to be convinced that the people who share entertainment files would actually go and buy the product. The ones I know personally certainly would not.

The Twelve year old girl had thousands upon thousands of files. She was not going to sample them and go buy the CD. :) Having said that, I have defended her right to privacy in the past. BUT when you openly share a "public" folder, why is that privacy?

I'll tell you why, because her address is not public knowledge and that has to be forced from ISPs we trust to keep our IP address and Real address seperate. If you are hosting the IP yourself then, well privacy probably is out the window. You OPENLY submitted your credentials for public consumption. So in that situation it's a goofy argument. But when going through layers of protected access privacy will prevail.

Nihil it is about copywrite, because the Canadian government in their defence for Enforcement says, File sharing copywrited material NOT a violation of copywrite, it's the same as going to a library and photcopying a couple of pages in a text book, there fore it's not enforcable. Hmmm I guess it's a little of both and it made me go HUh??

I've lived in a country where there is NO copywrite outside of Thugs coming to shoot you. For instance on my street I had a JC. Penny (carpet shop) same logo and everything. And a little Chai stand that read StarBucks only at the time I didn't know what the hell Starbucks is until I came home and found one every 1000 feet. Same logo. You don't know what the hell you get. :)

//EDIT Off_Topic BTW the US Supreme court is going to hear another controversial issue plaquing America. Public locations and the display of religious artifacts, how it applies to the constitution and what context makes it legal or illegal or all the above. Should be very interesting if not devastating.

i can't remember where i heard it, but for some reason, i heard that the government is going to create an agency to police the file sharing scene, finding out who's downloading what, and then making an arrest. as for the 12 yr old girl, why couldn't they just charge her for the songs she downloaded? take the amt of time is is on the cd (song time)/(album time) and the make that a rate of the (song price)/(album price) and just use the msrp as the standard albim price? because settling for about 50k for d/l a few cd's worth of music is insane. someone needs to create a cap for how much the industry can sue for.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by [the]Punisher
i can't remember where i heard it, but for some reason, i heard that the government is going to create an agency to police the file sharing scene, finding out who's downloading what, and then making an arrest.

---

i have a partial view of North America laws, but i cant see how this can be done, since it requires a break of privacy with NO EVIDENCE of a crime being commited. So They will be allowed to monitor what they want without a Court order? That will be funny to see.

RoadClosed:

Quote:

---

Nihil it is about copywrite, because the Canadian government in their defence for Enforcement says, File sharing copywrited material NOT a violation of copywrite

---

Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to the USA and the RIAA's activities. File sharing is a violation of copyright in the USA as far as I know, so the issue is the RIAA trying to get someone else to pay for the enforcement.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by [the]Punisher

---

Quote:

---

i can't remember where i heard it, but for some reason, i heard that the government is going to create an agency to police the file sharing scene, finding out who's downloading what, and then making an arrest

---

Well, that implies that the activity would have to be criminalised first? At the moment it is a civil matter.

Over here there hasn't been much controversy about file sharing, but piracy and counterfeiting is the main issue. A local guy just got 24 months for it.

Enforcement is by the Trading Standards Office, the Customs and Excise and the Police. It is a criminal offence.

I guess that if anything is done about it, it will be against UPLOADING files for sharing, not downloading. Much easier to police, I would have thought, unless people store their files offshore.

i thought that copyright infringment was a criminal act? i just d/l anyways so hopefully i'm ok. if not oh well, i'm broke anyways so if they want to sue me they can, they won't get much.

Quote:

---

i thought that copyright infringment was a criminal act?

---

I cannot speak authoritatively for the USA, but if it were criminal, then the RIAA would not have to sue people in a civil court for civil damages?

They would just set the cops and the FEDs on them.

Counterfeiting and piracy are certainly criminal offences over here, and probably with you as well. They come under theft, fraud and deception. Over here we have a general sales ("value added") tax which is why our Customs & Excise people get involved, as it is tax evasion as well.

On top of that they could potentially be charged with Social Security benefits fraud , and the Inland Revenue might want to have a word about evading income tax (hey your IRS put Capone in Joliet......the FEDs never managed that :eek: ) the proceeds of crime ARE taxable , as are the wages of sin ( although not legal, prostitutes are actually taxable over here........they usually describe themselves as "models")

:D

Quote:

---

i'm broke anyways so if they want to sue me they can, they won't get much.

---

Please be careful, they would almost certainly go after your computer?

Or is the case of the 12 yr. old girl (minor children) they go after your parents.

Ever heard of Project Gutenberg (www.gutenberg.org)!? as a thumb rule any book published/copyrighted before 1923 is in the public domain (more info about copyright time period at http://promo.net/pg/vol/pd.html), so many such books are available there to download.... same applies to music and lyrics also (http://www.pdinfo.com check out the songs list, they don't offer them for free though) ....

now can't we make this time period to be reduced to one year or so for music!?.....logic is that most of the CD sales would be done in first few months of its release and after that nobody bothers..... except the tv/music channels and they too will buy out the right immediately after the release :).....

bottomline: just follow the least resistance path.... just an idea!

if they go after my computer i'll hide it, they can't find it if i do that, and if they watch my house. i'll bug proof it! i'll box all of my phone lines, arm myself with the Anarchist's Cookbook, and be like mel gibson in "conspiracy theory." ;)
yeah right, i just d/l anyways and they're in the uploader phase of their battle. so thus far i'm still good. besides i use the cool firewall thingy that can block some gov't and riaa ip's. hopefully, i'm safe, but if they want me, they can come and get me. file sharing is the least of my worries. if they only knew what i've REALLY been up to lately, then they'd be a little angry. well ttfn

-=[t]P=-

I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned the levy imposed on blank CD's in Canada. The levy was introduced as an amendment to the copyright laws in Canada, legalizing the copying of music for personal use.

The idea was supposed to be that the monies collected by the levy would go to the people and companies in the music industry as compensation for illegal copying. Of course, the law was considered by most to be very heavy handed as it did not target only the people who copied music, but instead anyone who simply bought blank CD's. Not surprisingly, it was the music industry who lobbied heavily for the law and ultimately recommended/decided what that compensation would be.

When the decision came down that this addition to the copyright law protected online music sharing, many people in Canada who had been paying the levy for years without copying music thought it was a just reward for the corrupt and greedy corporate engine that is the music industry.

It's not so much that the laws are behind the times in Canada, it's more that the music industry lobbied for a bad law and got what they asked for -- but not what they wanted.

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c20032004fs-e.html

Some hope for the Americans in the discussion: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/101204.ZOR.html