Online Newshour Tackling Digital Copyright 173
dmabram writes "The online version of the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer is tackling copyright in the digital age. They are sponsoring a forum where Lawrence Lessig will square off against RIAA executive Matt Oppenheim. Anyone can submit questions, and the best questions or comments will be posted to Lessig and Oppenheim for debate and discussion. I know that the producers understand the importance of this debate, and would love insightful questions." Looks worth tuning in for.
Re:my questions (Score:1, Informative)
No. It's not okay for the same reason that walking out of a store with a CD is not okay. Buying one instance of a thing does not entitle you to a second instance of that thing. (Unless your agreement with the seller so stipulates, of course.)
Is it all right for me to make and distribute, to my friends and non-commercially, "mix CDs" that consist of compilations of music from my collection?
First of all, you have a misunderstanding of the term "non-commercially." It doesn't mean "not for money." Commerce is a broader notion than simply transactions in which money is one side of the equation. Commerce means trade in the broadest terms, and trade includes gifts and loans.
So basically the AHRA prohibits commercial uses of home recordings. Which means you can make a home recording and use it yourself, but you CANNOT legally transfer that recording to another person, either by sale, barter, or gift.
The answer, therefore, is no. It is lawful to make "mix" recordings, but it is not lawful to distribute them to anybody under any circumstances.
Hypothetically, if your friend brought you six CD's and asked you to make a "mix" recording for him from selections from those CD's, that would be lawful. But you wouldn't be allowed to keep a copy of the "mix" recording after you're done.
Under current law, is online file-sharing both illegal and punishable?
The details depend on the circumstances, but the answer is generally yes. The copying of copyrighted materials without express permission from the copyright holder is unlawful, and can be remedied either through civil action or (under certain circumstances) by criminal prosecution. So yes, online file-sharing (as it pertains to copyrighted works) is both illegal and punishable.
If so, then why is the RIAA lobbying Congress for legislation allowing them to, for example, commit cybercrimes against suspected file-sharers?
Because there are those in the RIAA who believe that current statutory remedies are insufficient. For example--and I'm not advocating their reasoning here; I happen to disagree with it--it is lawful for a person to act to stop a violent crime in progress. If you see somebody with a gun behaving in a threatening or intimidating manner, it's lawful for you to commit an act that would under other circumstances be considered felonious assault. There are those who believe it should be lawful for copyright holders to take action to stop acts of copyright infringement while they're in progress. The rationale is that once an act of infringement as occurred, it's often darned near impossible to put the genie back in the bottle, so to speak. Once a pirated copy of a work has made it out into one of the various computer networks whose purpose it is to facilitate such things, essentially no post hoc remedy can restore the situation to the status quo ante. Just like a murder, once committed, can't be undone by any civil or criminal action. Yes, comparing copyright infringement to violence is melodramatic and deceptive, but in a very narrow context the comparison is valid: acts of piracy can, with the advent of new technologies, be essentially irrevocable, just as acts of violence can be. So there's an argument to be made that acts of piracy should be lawfully preventable, just like acts of violence are.
Hope that clears a few things up for you, Renard.