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?
The truth of the matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The truth of the matter... (owned) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because you do not own the text. That is why you have to pay royalties to stage a play.
KFG
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whilst at this current time in the evolution of human society, the greed of the minority has abridged the rights of the majority, the assupmtion that this will be true for all time is patently false.
It is expected that human society will continue to evolve
Re: (Score:2)
Not when the copyright expires. And since there is no transfer of property going on at the expiration point, it becomes obvious that the owner of the particular book also owns the contents of the particular book, and is merely restricted in his property rights during the lifetime of the copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not quite. You do own the music in question, as far as you are the owner to any particular physical media they are incarnated on. The title is to the media. The legal construct of copyright is quite separate to the ownership of the incarnations, and the title to the copyright quite separate from them too. Despite the wishes of some lobbyists.
The simplest evidence of this is the border condition when the copyright of a certain work you own lapses. When it lapses, the restrictions
Re: (Score:2)
But those extra 75 cents go towards employing people and keeping an industry going, which is good for the economy, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot != legal advice (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're talking about the RIAA busting down your door and asking you to prove that you have a legally purchased copy of any of those CD-Rs with "their IP" on them, then I think you can be safe knowing they have to prove that it is more likely than not that those are the result of infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The RIAA will most likely be knocking at your door (not busting it down) because it traced hundreds of downloads or thousands of uploads to your account. Klamath Falls man downloads $4,500 music file fine [katu.com] (August 7
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is Proof of Music Ownership? (Score:5, Informative)
Copyright registration in your name.
Subconscious copying (Score:3, Interesting)
Even a copyright registration in your name is not conclusive proof of ownership, as George Harrison found out the hard way. Bright Tunes Music successfully sued Harrison and his publisher for subconsciously copying "He's So Fine" by Ronald Mack into "My Sweet Lord". Google1 [google.com] | Google2 [google.com] | Inevitability [slashdot.org]
Re:Subconscious copying (Score:5, Interesting)
Subconscious suppression techniques? (Score:2)
I'll quit repeating it as soon as somebody shows me how to prevent myself from making the same mistake that Harrison made.
Re: (Score:2)
Try Score:-5, Misinformative.
US copyright law (and pretty much everywhere else) is quite clear on the disiction between ownership of a copyright and ownership of particular copies, and on the distinction betwen transfer of ownership of copyrights and transfer of ownership of particular copies. When you buy a book, or music, or whatever, you receive no ownership of any copyright in those works, but you DO in fact become lawful owner of that particular copy of that work. The copyright h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What intangible things would you commonly characterise as "property" or "owned"*?
Also, I don't understand what rivalry has to do with whether something's property?
[*bearing in mind, as you claim to be a lawyer, that this is a discussion about the common (formal) not the legal usage of the words--which varies considerably between jurisdictions anyway]
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
This is not been true of any commercial society in the modern era. It wasn't true in ancient Samaria. The Origins of Value [oup.com]
Better Question: Does it Matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, I think that the RIAA would try to put a some spin on it (like that you're not allowed to use backups from another person's license or some shit). I don't think this would stop them.
Anyways, to answer the rest of your question: I'd guess you'd need the reciept; how else are they to know that you're the one who bought the cassette or that you didn't buy it after you were charged?
Re: (Score:2)
On a similar note, you can download all the music you want. If you could somehow modify the bittorrent client to not upload a single bit, you could use isohunt and mininova to max out your collection legally. No one would harass you.
But, the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or a pretty stiff jail sentence. From COPYRIGHT FELONY ACT [usdoj.gov]:
Re:Better Question: Does it Matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, this would fail in the case of gifts. I could always give you my copy of the music/movie/whatever and could claim that I purchased it as a gift for you (possibly true). This is a valid scenario where someone else is shown as the purchaser of the music. It gets even harder if you pay cash, or go to a store where they give a receipt with the amount on it, but not the item description (used music store, eBay, buy from a friend, etc.).
Re: (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.
Movable Criteria (Score:3, Insightful)
For a court of law? I don't think that it's ever gotten that far in court yet.
Winning (Score:2, Insightful)
catch-22 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not Something to Worry About (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes. It depends.
to rip it from your CDs
Sometimes. It depends.
to record it on a cassette tape from another cassette tape or CD or LP,
I'd say so, yes.
to download it from the Internet
Sometimes. It depends.
to stick a microphone out your window and record it from your neighbours stereo...
Sometimes. It depends.
the burden of proof is on the RIAA
Yes, but it's not much of a burden.
why do you think they go to such efforts to catch people actually using P2P soft
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes. It depends. [etc...]
Can you provide an example where any of these things are illegal, in the USA which is where the RIAA operates?
And without examples of someone who was also distributing the material: for example, using P2P software, or playing the music at an event.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is one of those absence-of-evidence, evidence-of-absence things. There are no examples of anyone being prosecuted solely for downloading (AFAIK), and common sense dictates that if the uploader is making a copy by sending the file to t
Re:The question should never come up. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume the UK copyright laws have exemptions for the "copies" your software (or your CD player with anti-skip buffer) makes as it plays a file (CD) you've legally purchased?
Re: (Score:2)
The other interesting issue here is, given case law interprets our vague copyright law to include copying into RAM, logically, the courts should also accept the copies you keep in your own memory as a violation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cite? I don't believe it is in the US.
Again, yes it is. Copyright is the right to make and distribute copies. Possession has nothing to do with it.
Gosh, you're right, it's a wonder I've managed to make a living as a programmer and network admin for nearly a decade.
The copies which copyright concerns
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not relevant, we're talking about the RIAA.
Re: (Score:2)
RAM counts in some jurisdictions and not in others. (I was under the impression it didn't count in the USA, but I haven't checked and I don't even live there.)
However, I disagree that the problem is merely the absurdity of such restrictions bringing the rationality of the entire copyright system into question. The danger of them being enforced most definitely is a problem (even if they haven't, so far, been enforced).
A fact well understood (and used), particularly by Bush and previous US regimes, is tha
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, at least, possession of illegally copied material is not illegal, except for the special case of US currency.
Depends on your goal - and the RIAAs (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Sue 'em all and God will know his own? Sounds more like Torquemada to me.
Thievery, title, and use right... (Score:5, Insightful)
(I am not a lawyer, etc.) There's no express right to make a backup of an audio recording, but leaving that aside, what's the point of a backup except to prolong access to the recording beyond the life of the original media? From the legal perspective, it's silly to even make a backup if one loses the right to use it in the event the original media is destroyed.
Now, the question of theft of the original media is slightly more interesting. A thief obtains no legal title to stolen goods, so if ones original media were stolen, one might retain constructive possession of the originals. That constructive possession would, if we assume the backups were themselves legal, permit the continued use of the backup media.
I wonder whether there's any precedent as to what would happen if the originals were later destroyed by the thief - would the use right terminate? If we assume that destruction of the originals in a house fire would terminate the right to use the backups, then I imagine no use right would be retained if the would-be thief hadn't stolen them but destroyed them and left the pieces in the possession of the owner. Wacky.
-Isaac
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thus making the thief guilty of copyright infringement.
Probably the only situation in which both "sides" can agree that copyright infringment is also theft!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh? Which exclusive right of the copyright holder would the thief have infringed upon? I know that you're not going to say it was distribution, because the distribution right is the right "to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending" and ordinary larceny isn't any of those.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's a couple of things that can be used for more or less the same thing: 17 USC 107 and 1008. (Do be sure to read the definitions in sections 101 and 1001 lest you misunderstand 1008 like most people do)
From the legal perspective, it's silly to even make a backup if one loses the right to use it in the event the original media is destroyed.
Why? The right to use a recording in general isn't the same as a right
Re: (Score:2)
Ten years ago this would have been dismissed as a silly question. But today -- how many people listen to the original CD vs. the same song ripped to an iPod or copied onto a disposable CD for the car? I think a substantial number of people take this to its logical extreme -- they play a CD once to rip it, then toss it into a box in case they ever need to re-rip it. If the original media isn't the 'backu
That's easy. (Score:2)
(Mass of Lawyer) x (Mass of Lawyer's Paralegal Team) x (Mass of Lawyer's Bill) x (Mass of Lawyer's Favourite Pick-Axe) / (Witnesses Brains Eaten) = (Righteousness of Lawyer's Case)
Whoever has the greatest righteousness owns the music. This is true even when there IS no music. A guy got sued in England for copying silence - and lost. On the other hand, there have been lawsuits over sampled music used by scratch and rap artists for years, and the copiers usu
A Good Lawyer (Score:3, Interesting)
Ummm... (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe the proper response for this is "mu".
Your question presupposes that there is a need for individuals to prove that they purchaced some music. I say that there is not. Should a group of the RIAA ilk take consumers to court for owning supposedly pirated music, then the RIAA or the group like them will need to prove to the court that the music is indeed illegitimate; "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases, and they must have sufficient evidence for strong suspicion for civil damages (IANAL, s
Re: (Score:2)
Well, only the government can prosecute a crime. If RIAA et al sue you, it'll be a civil suit.
Not a Likely Scenario (Score:2)
The first thing they do is offer to settle for some "low, low" rediculously inflated fee. If you actually _do_ pony up the legal fees to defend yourself, chances are they will drop the case and concentrate on their less financially motivated defendants.
You will never have to prove you bought music, simply because they will only call your bluff and take you to court i
Well ... (Score:2)
2) however, if you want to look at another industry that has had similar problems, look at the BSA [bsa.org], The Business Software Alliance. 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 h
Re: (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 oth
Re: (Score:2)
Citations, please. I'm not aware of any court rulings/opinions that stated that `downloading copyrighted music' was illegal, at least not in the US. I'm not quite ready to say it's legal (and I'm no lawyer), but I'm not aware of any cases where downloading by itself was found to be illegal.
And of course, even if you do produce these citations, that still doesn't mean tha
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: (Score:2)
Do you have any citations that don't involve P2P software, in which someone who merely recieved the copy was prosecuted successfully?
What happened with implied innocence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do -I- have to prove the mp3 in my mp3 player is legal? Why can't my word suffice? Shouldn't RIAA have to prove I obtained it illegally?
They say I got it from p2p. I say I ripped it off a legal CD I misplaced later. Until they -prove- I actually downloaded it from p2p I should be innocent, shouldn't I?
Re:What happened with implied innocence? (Score:4, Insightful)
While you are assumed innocent until proven guilty, there is already evidence against you if you make it to court. It is nearly impossible to prove a negative such as "prove I didn't buy a cd and rip this track off of it".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Erm. It's not exactly an opinion in the case you describe. He could swear under oath that he did not give you permission to take anything. The RIAA on the other hand could not swear anything relevant under oath, so unless they have any other substanstive evidence, they got nothing, just like the OP says.
Copyright violation is not analogous to RL theft. (Score:2)
Stop reading dirk's message after this point. Arguments about copyright based on physical objects, trespassing, adverse posession, or other scenarios that involve an act that deprives the victim of the use of the object, land, and so on... these arguments are all invalid, irrelevant, pointless, and simply nonsensical.
You'd be better off arguing that someone had stolen something from you by taking a photograph of your house and garden.
Re: (Score:2)
P2P not proof either (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
rip to ogg (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
An unlikely scenario (Score:4, Insightful)
When jackbooted thugs start yanking the iPods of folks walking down the street and demanding to know where the listener obtained the song, then we'll have this problem. Until then, you're only sued for unlawful distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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, s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, only one of them. They have to account for profits amongst themselves, and obviously couldn't transfer any interest other than their own (which means no unilateral transfer of exclusive rights), but otherwise they can do as they like.
I have no idea about the particulars of US law you mention as IANALOEAUSC (or even a US citizen).
Meh. I find that
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, for any given instance of a song, there's usually at least three copyrights on the whole of the song: the songwriter's copyright on the composition, the performer's copyright on the performance, and the recorder's copyright on the particular recording. The last one mainly comes up with bands that allow taping [wagnerone.com] at their live performances, especially when multiple people are recording the same show, but it exists, and it matters.
Not a lawyer and not sure if it relates but (Score:2)
Even better, the sale only "counts" as legit if you paid a reasonable price for it in ca
straw man question (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's assume some random person is hauled into court allegedly for having music that he has not legitimately bought.
The only scenario where that might happen is if you're caught shoplifting.
The RIAA has never brought suit against someone in the terms that you describe. They've brought suit against people for distributing music, not posession. In which case, your proof would be a contract/license of some sort that gives you the right to distribute the music.
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.
legal proceedings (Score:2)
If we're dealing with copyright infringement as a civil matter, then it comes down to the balance of probablilty. In a court, if there is a record of a house fire, you are probably ok to a collection of MP3s. If there's no record of a fire, and you can't produce a few hundred origial CDs, you're probably in trouble.
However, the industry seems to be treating piracy as a criminal matter, e.g. "piracy is a crime!
In the final analysis, only one form of proof: (Score:2)
Duh. :-)
It's about copying, not having (Score:2)
That's a ridiculous scenario and won't happen.
You don't get in trouble for having stuff that you're not supposed to have. You get in trouble for copying stuff in ways that are not permitted under Fair Use.
And the getting-in-trouble-for-copying can happen whether or not you already legally have the stuff. Don't ever forget the my.mp3.com case, where mp3.com was transmitting music (from CDs
Just know your rights & defend them (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's how my experience with the BSA wo
Doesn't Matter (Score:2)
Legality of backups. (Score:2)
This one is simple to answer: Of course not! However, when challenged in court, it might be difficult to prove.
This issue starts with: "What do you actually BUY when you pay for a CD in a shop?".
You surely buy a round item, a plastic case, and some paper.
You also get the right to put the round item into an electronic device, which can play the sounds encoded on said round item. This however, is a limited right: The copyright own
Re: (Score:2)
Possession is nine tenths of the law. If you have it, someone else has to prove it is theirs before it can be taken away from you.
In the case of DRM itunes files, your password to the account is your key. If you no longer want your music, you can give/sell your key and someone else can have your music.
Re: (Score:2)
The ITMS account is associated with a credit card, so that would have to be transferred to the new account also each time. I don't know if one credit card can be used for several accounts. maybe someone else here on
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they are selling a license, what are its terms, when did you agree to it and when was it explicitly stated that they were not selling you the CD when you handed over the cash?
The RIAA and its agents claim that they are selling you the CD (not a license to the music). The shop gives you the CD in exchange for money; they are, therefore, by definition selling you the CD. Even if they aren't, you have physical control over the CD so the assumption is that you own it.
If the claim you need a license to u
Re: (Score:2)
With regards to CDs, tapes, records, etc. where have they said this, actually? I've never noticed it, and I'm pretty certain that it's just believed by brainwashed computer geeks who not only unquestioningly accept the idea that licenses in ordinary consumer transactions are lawful or even a good idea, but that it's commonplace outside of computer software.
N.b. that mere restatements of t