RedNova on p2p fine points
p2p news / p2pnet: How’s this for unreal?
RedNova.com in Dallas,Texas, launched in May 2003 and which claims it’s since become, “the premier internet destination for science, space, and technology enthusiasts around the globe,” is telling you what’s legal with file sharing, and what’s not.
Obviously, the information comes from a team of highly credible experts. Right?
Not at all. Not even nearly, in fact. Rather, RedNova’s The Lowdown on What’s Legal was a straight lift from a San Jose Mercury News story written by a high-school student who, in turn, had used material from the Music United Coalition, owned by the Organized Music family, EMI, Vivendi Universal, Sony BMG and Warner Music.
Vested interests don’t come any more vested that that.
“File sharing is a broad term used to define the electronic transfer of information from one user to another. Online programs such as LimeWire and Kazaa enable users to transfer files free of charge to other users (known as peer-to-peer, or P2P, transfers),” says the RedNova.com/San Jose Mercury News piece.
“Depending on what you transfer, this procedure could be against the law. Legal download services, such as iTunes and iMesh, charge a fee.”
Etc, etc.
In September we posted, “We had an angry email from a p2pnet reader in Texas who’d seen a piece in the San Jose Mercury News on September 20 that made her blood boil.”
She’d been upset by an item which had appeared in the San Jose Mercury News and which, it said, had been created by one Justin DeRosa, a “local high school student,” stated the p2pnet reader.
p2pnet asked the EFF’s (Electronic Frontier Foundation) Jason Schultz for his views on DeRosa’s unequivocal pronouncements.
“The simplest thing to say is that this person is not a lawyer and appears to have no legal training,” said Schultz. “Nor has he identified any source for his information.
“Thus, believing his take on the law would be like trusting him to diagnose whether or not we have cancer or heart problems without a medical degree.”
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
what’s legal – The Lowdown on What’s Legal, October 27, 2005
angry email – RIAA lies and disinformation, September 27, 2005
October 27th, 2005 at 6:14 pm
God, what can you say? Its disgusting. MN and Red Nova should publish retractins.
October 27th, 2005 at 6:15 pm
I meant retractions =)
October 29th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
“Depending on what you transfer, this procedure could be against the law.”
I need to explain my interpretation of this phrase as the person who wrote the sentence was in a hurry.
The words “depending” and “could” when used ambiguously, as is done here (this is the hurry part) makes the sentence nonsense and confuses more that it clarifies.
There is no law against the transfer of digital files over the internet. This is not to say that copying works that some copyright protected works for profit is legal. However no act of transferring files can be against the law. Even if one country made the transfer of files an illegal act, the law could not work for the vast majority of people, who are never aware of existing laws and use the Internet to transfer files between different legal jurisdictions. Then there is the complexity of determining where the illegality was done, in country A or country B, when the transfer is between those countries. For example, under Spanish law, making copies of copyright protected works for friends is legal, as long as there is no sale involved.
And what about transferring a song from a jurisdiction where the song is in the public domain to a jurisdiction where the song is claimed by a real or a fake copyright holder? Is it legal? Waht if the Even if the file copied after making a payment. Is is legal?
And how about the transfering of a Chopin piano score with a fake copyright notice (these are very common on clearly public domain works). Is is legal?
And how about sending a copy of a public domain recording over the net? Is it legal? Note: pre 1972 American recordings were not given copyright protection and the underlying copyright status of the song is generally unknown, except to the copyright claimant who very possibly may be committing fraud in the claim. If in doubt check The biggest copyright scam (http://chocoweb.blogspot.com/). Is is legal?
And how about sending a copy of the Star Spangled Banner score with a fake copyright notice. Interesting, this is a public domain work which is claimed to be owned by over 275 publishers or persons. Check the ASCAP (http://www.ascap.com/) catalog if in doubt. Is is legal?
And how about copying one of the zillion works that were published before 1978 in the USA without a copyright registration or notice and lapsed into public domain but were later illegally copyright registered by music publisher that hoped no one would notice and made the legitimate copyright claims suspect too? Is is legal?
Sad to say, but it is a crime to place a burden on Internet users who typically have no legal knowledge of the applicable laws and which are unable to research the copyright status of musical or other works so as to determine what “depending” and “could” means in their specific situation.
Of course, transferring information from one place to another could always be a crime, if espionage is involve and the RIAA cartel wants to raise the transferring of files to the same level as espionage.
A note: At the Copyright Office there is a document (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.html), how to search a copyright status). It contains this statement:
“Searches of the Copyright Office catalogs and records are useful in helping to determine the copyright status of a work, but they cannot be regarded as conclusive in all cases. The complete absence of any information about a work in the Office records does not mean that the work is unprotected.”
This says it all, if a work is not found in the Copyright Office it is a meaningless fact, even for works published before 1978, when copyright registration was mandatory, else copyright protection was lost. But this is good for the objectives of the cartels. No one can risk copying any work thought to be in the public domain because it “could” be copyright protected, “depending” on who knows what.
Of course, the vast majority of works (musical, writte, etc) ever created are in the public domain and originated in countries other than the one anyone lives in. Clearly it is impossible to check the copyright status of a work that originated in another country. Are we then to be inhibited from copying these works? Says who? RIAA.
Actually, the more the “fine points” are explained the more confusing they become.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com