|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.131.20.113
In Reply to: RE: Federal law? Have I missed something? posted by Sordidman on April 26, 2012 at 10:35:50
Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, rental or digital transmission of copyrighted sound recordings. (Title 17, United States Code, Sections 501 and 506).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Means copying and storing Music in a Cloud could have RIAA knocking at your door.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
Follow Ups:
"illegal." And, it does not constitute redistribution..
"In this land right now, some are insane and they're in charge. To hell with poverty, we'll get drunk on cheap wine."
Its Illegal to copy without permission, lucky for us the RIAA has bigger fish to fry.
But when the CD says "Unauthorized duplication is in violation of applical laws" it means unauthorized duplication 1 thru any amount.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
So...
And as the cases have demonstrated, "fair use" (1 or 2 copies) has not been deemed punishable, - and in that loose sense, - the term "unauthorized" is more applicable. Of course, - that's not even getting into the illegal practices of the recording industry.
And....
You have my permission to copy as many Sordid Humor CDs as you want.
And....
As far as the cloud, placing your file on a hard drive, at a data center, and giving someone share access to a facsimile of a recorded work, with a question of whether or not it will even be "usable" by that person: will be an even bigger stretch....Do you think that that will constitute "distribution?"
"In this land right now, some are insane and they're in charge. To hell with poverty, we'll get drunk on cheap wine."
From the RIAA's point of view,
than the 12 year old girls that they are trying to prosecute.
My point was that putting your music on a hard drive located at a data center, or through a service like Carbonite, or one by Google: isn't a worry for the individual at this point. The recording industry may try to stop the data-center, or the service, as they know that they are not going to be able to get a handle on what any individual puts there...
"In this land right now, some are insane and they're in charge. To hell with poverty, we'll get drunk on cheap wine."
dis·trib·ute
[dih-strib-yoot] Show IPA
verb (used with object), dis·trib·ut·ed, dis·trib·ut·ing.
1.
to divide and give out in shares; deal out; allot.
2.
to disperse through a space or over an area; spread; scatter.
3.
to promote, sell, and ship or deliver (an item or line of merchandise) to individual customers, especially in a specified region or area.
4.
to pass out or deliver (mail, newspapers, etc.) to intended recipients.
5.
to divide into distinct phases: The process was distributed into three stages.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't think so because the files actually never left the server...if I or someone else can stream the files directly from the server. It would be like letting you listen to my headphones but I still have the CD.
But
I think as far as RIAA is concerned, the phsical medium CD is yours, however the content is theirs so they could probably even protest me letting you listen to their content without their permission.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
We both know that I was talking about the distribution channel as applied to the recording industry, - consignment of CDs, - to stores, a business model for material that is (copywrited: sic). And, - on the other side, - fair use: and whether or not it is prosecuted.
We are not hearing stories of at least extreme prosecution of individual persons for fair use, - which has pretty much been let go of by the industry.
The industry now knows that the content of one CD purchased, or one MP3 album downloaded from Amazon is going to end up on likely, - 4 or 5 different devices. By that reasoning, they also know that it is unlikely that they can do anything at all about you doing the same with streaming music from some data center, or some data center + service, - like googlesync, icloud, sugarsync or Dropbox. They also know that you are very very unlikely to be sharing your streaming link and username and password to your data in the cloud with a friend.
So what they are doing is going after the providers, Megaupload, etc. But will they be able to touch icloud after being so deep in bed with Apple?
""they could probably even protest me letting you listen to their content without their permission.""
No, but they are going after "public performance" royalties where store clerks were bringing in their personal IPODS to work and playing it over a stereo.
"In this land right now, some are insane and they're in charge. To hell with poverty, we'll get drunk on cheap wine."
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: