What is Proof of Music Ownership? 160
scottsk asks: "What is proof of music ownership? I can't find a good answer anywhere. Let's assume some random person is hauled into court allegedly for having music that he has not legitimately bought. What must that person produce to prove the music was purchased legitimately? Is producing an original commercially sold CD with the music acceptable, or is some further proof of purchase needed (cash register receipt, cancelled check, etc.)? What if a person has digitized a commercial cassette, like digitizing a photo? Must the person carry the cassette around forever, or is just the cassette insert sufficient? (What about an LP record that has been digitized?)" Now, what happens if you've lost all of your property in a fire, but still had an off-site digital backup of your legally purchased music somewhere? Does the loss of the original property invalidate the legality of the backups?
What is Proof of Music Ownership? (Score:5, Informative)
Copyright registration in your name.
catch-22 (Score:5, Informative)
Not Something to Worry About (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The truth of the matter... (Score:1, Informative)
The reason he can't find a good answer is because you don't own them. You possess them. You own a car, or a CD. If if the music is your original work you own the rights legally associated. These all have a legally definable title.
A digital file does not, so you cannot prove you have one.
I do wonder, however, why he thinks anyone actually would be hauled into court, or, having been so, feel he would be compelled to demonstrate legal possession. The accuser must present evidence that you do not legally possess them, and you only need argue to refute the evidence. Proof of legal possession is certainly an affirmative defense, but hardly the only one, especially if the claim is weak to nonexistant.
If found liable the damages would be on the order of a buck a CDs worth. The huge claims for damages by the RIAA in their p2p cases are for distribution, per copy per song, which could be many thousands of instances per song, not just one, plus whatever criminal fines apply to exceeding certain limits of ditribution value.
A hundred songs would run you less than ten bucks in actual damages. Who do you figure is taking you to small claims court over that?
KFG
The question should never come up. (Score:5, Informative)
So, given that, the burden of proof is on the RIAA. And they know it, why do you think they go to such efforts to catch people actually using P2P software to get their music fix?
Two Thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
First Response:
Criminal court? He doesn't have to prove shit, innocent until proven guilty, right?
Civil court? The accuser still needs a preponderance of evidence. Just about anything from physical media, to a receipt, to testimony by a friend that he saw the guy make the purchase ought to be enough reduce the accuser to less than a preponderance.
Second Response:
If this is about one of the MAFIAA's [mafiaa.org] "sue 'em all and let God sort it out" lawsuits then chances are it doesn't matter if he has legal ownership or not. Those suits are about distribution and not simply possesion of a copy.
No way I'm going to double-check and go dig through USC Title 17 [cornell.edu] on a Friday night while under the influence of tequila, but I don't think it's illegal to receive an unauthorized copy, just to make the copy or to distribute the copy. Feel free to dig through the spaghetti code on the other end of that link to find something that says otherwise.
PS, all typos and poor logic are the sole property of Padron's Resposada.
Re:Better Question: Does it Matter? (Score:3, Informative)
Or a pretty stiff jail sentence. From COPYRIGHT FELONY ACT [usdoj.gov]:
Re:Thievery, title, and use right... (Score:2, Informative)
In the case of fire or theft ... (Score:2, Informative)
A friend of mine was in that position recently. They managed to find a recent photograph of their living room, clearly showing their CD collection sitting in some stand alone CD racks. That was enough to keep the insurance company happy.
Re:Well ... (Score:3, Informative)
Well, downloading can certainly be illegal, and there have been numerous opinions to that effect by district and circuit courts. Really, no one even seriously argues otherwise.
But downloaders are somewhat harder to track down, and less worthwhile in terms of the effect on other infringers if they're shut down, so they're probably the lowest priority of RIAA et al. Uploaders and network providers are better targets and a more efficient use of resources.
I'm not sure where they get the authority, but they do occasionally do raids on business and require that the business prove that it has legal licenses for all the software they use.
Offhand, I'd guess that they either 1) get an ex parte seizure order as part of an infringement suit, using 17 USC 503, or 2) show up at the business and threaten to get such an order if they aren't allowed in to poke around.
Re:An unlikely scenario (Score:3, Informative)
Sure they can. There are two circumstances in which this can occur:
1) The work is a joint work, in which case copyright vests in all the authors under 17 USC 201(a)
2) The copyright can be transferred in toto to multiple people under 201(d)(1).
The result is a copyright that is treated like a tenancy in common, with the copyright holders having undivided ownership in the entire copyright. They can then exploit the copyright however they like, so long as they account for profits with the other co-tenants, and don't transfer or grant exclusive interests in the work to others without complying with section 204.
Re: What is Proof of Music Ownership? (Score:3, Informative)
Debts, easements, stock in a company, etc.
Copies are property, and works are not. Copyrights could easily be considered to be property, but I think that this would be a bad idea.
Also, I don't understand what rivalry has to do with whether something's property?
A DVD -- the tangible disc -- is rivalrous in that either you can have it, or I can have it, but we can't both have it simultaneously. If I want to watch the DVD in Boston, and you want to watch the DVD in LA, we can't do both without tediously shipping the DVD from one of us to the other. A movie -- the information on the disc -- is nonrivalrous in that we can both use the movie simultaneously, simply by making another DVD with the same movie on it, transmitting it to one of us, etc.
More simply, rivalry means that in order for one person to gain a thing, another person has to lose it. Nonrivalry means that everyone can gain a thing without anyone losing it.
Generally, something is property if it meets three criteria: 1) the owner can use and enjoy it; 2) the owner can lend it to others and demand its return, and; 3) the owner can dispose of it, either by conveying it to someone else, or destroying it.
Creative works don't really meet numbers 2 and 3. Copyright is an attempt to simulate -- somewhat -- what it would be like if works were property. We don't do this just because we can, but rather for some public policy goals that I won't get into here, but which are not intended to help artists other than coincidentally. It's meant to benefit the public first and foremost.
Re:What happened with implied innocence? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well ... (Score:4, Informative)
A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004, 1014 (9th Cir. 2001).
CoStar Group v. LoopNet, 373 F.3d 544, 551 (4th Cir. 2004).
BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888, 889 (7th Cir. 2005)
I guess it depends on how you define `seriously', because I see people arguing otherwise all the time.
Actually, I think it depends on how I define 'people,' because I have yet to see anyone who knows anything about US copyright law argue otherwise. Plenty of knowledgable people, including myself, will argue that it shouldn't be illegal, but everyone will accept that it is at least prima facie illegal.
Re:Better Question: Does it Matter? (Score:3, Informative)
You don't need anything.
>
> that you didn't buy it after you were charged?
You've got it backwards. They are the ones who have to do the proving.