Hi all, I feel this is interesting and just want to hear from you regarding it.

I watched Geraldo Rivera Tonite, seems a famous rock group Metallica is suing napsite ( I think thats the name, anyways, you go there to download music) for allowing their music to be downloaded and copied.

Metallica states it "isnt about money" but they want the right to distribute their music and resent it being 'pirated'.

A few lawyers were on and one being a civil right lawyer. Petrucelli, the one lawyer says it is wrong, we be getting music for free.

Heres my thoughts: My son downloads alot of music off off websites.

It has encouraged him to go and buy the cd, after having had a chance to view it.

What are your thoughts?

BTW, another point I want to discuss/debate, American Greetings offers free downloads of nice / funny greeting cards for free to send to friends.

How long do you think all the NET FREEBIES will last?

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 05, 2000

Answers

Hey Consumer,

The freebies won't be freebies forever,before ya know it they'll be chargin'big bucks by the minuite for each pound of pressure it takes to power the ol' whirlpool,now that's gonna cost ya!!! ; )

The people from companys' like American Greetings want us to go postal(pardon the pun,send me to the punitentary) so they can start chargin' too,per piece of email.Although now it's just an urban legend.

Oh,I did hear Pat Boone and Box Car Willie were thinkin' of a class action lawsuit against that nappin' site ; )

Just enjoyin' the sweet,soultry southern nights with a little Buffett to get me by : )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 05, 2000.

Consumer:

It is a tenet of copyright law that if you do not file an action against an infringer(s) you stand a chance of losing that right; your work may become part of the public domain.

CapnFun:

You parrothead, you. enjoy.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 05, 2000.

Well-said, FutureShock. You are absolutely correct. Since the RIAA has met with, at best, mixed results in its legal attempts to restrict audio- and video-copying technology, this suit by Metallica is the next phase in the home recording wars.

IMO, it is a wise strategy, and probably has a good chance of success. I don't mean to imply that the court will require _everyone_ who traded Metallica songs to pay up, but I do think that the court will find for Metallica. I also think that the company that owns the Napster software will face a harsh judgment.

Personally, I think it is unfortunate that kids can't trade songs they like. After all, I used to record friends' albums to tape (and they recorded mine) back in college. But then again, technology has now come to the point where trading and swapping favorite songs has become so fast and easy that there's not really any reason to _buy_ albums, CDs or tapes any more. If you've got the right technology, you can just load up your Rio (or whatever you have) with MP3 files and never have to see a disc or tape player -- or a disc or tape, for that matter -- again.

But in short, you're right. If you fail to defend a copyright, then you risk losing it. Metallica's choices in the matter are simple; do nothing and risk losing their valuable copyrights, or defend their copyrights in a court of law.

I wish them luck.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), May 05, 2000.

Hey sal, where have you been? I last saw you on the Vermont law thread.

I was involved in a copyright infringement suit in the early 1990's. My friend was sued by the World Service Office of Narcotics Anonymous for printing copies of their basic text(we were both members of the fellowship)-he was one of several people who were making copies of an older version of that text, and handing them out for free to indigent addicts.

The interesting thing about this case was that said office was holding the copyright in a fiduciary capacity for the fellowship, with the fellowship having always been defined as the members. The actual text was written in committe, by thousands of addicts, with all levels of recovery. Here we have a collaborative work, and one of the collaborators was printing the book. One more note, there was a transfer of copyright in 1982 from the committe to the office, but the wording was such that the relationship was clearly defined as fiduciary-The fellowship as a whole, or in part, could not register the copyright because of certain guidelines that were agreed upon in 1953 when it was started(That Na has no opinion on outside issues, and is non-affiliated).

Anyway, my friend was one of three, but he was the only one served by federal marshalls-and he was in the late stages of aids, totally destitute, and the World Service office knew this; knew he could not afford to defend himself.

Here, however, is the point of my story. The World Service office wrote cease and desist letters prior to service. In them they mentioned how they had to protect the copyright, lest it be diluted beyond relief. The interesting question, then, was could a fiduciary sue a beneficiary for copyright infringement?

Although not a lawyer, I devoured title 17, and in a moment of insight, found how I could apply limited public domain to this case- The people printing and distributing the text were not making a profit, and they were benefitting society as a whole by bringing a way up and out of drug addiction through the words in the book.

Apparently the judge in Philadelphia District Court(This was 1992) decided that we were right; Today, because of this, any NA group has the right to print literature and distribute it, as long as it is not for profit! This was an interesting case, and was unprecedented at the time. It certainly raised interesting legal questions, and it taught me a lot about copyright law.

One more thing, Sal, what do you think about the questions Decker has raised about this forum being a public space where free speech right should be protected?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 05, 2000.

CAPN:

Roflmao, are you doing the 'margarita' thang again??

4 shame 4 fame?

I resemble that whirlpool remark. :-}

Damn, bets its gonna getz costly before it is over.

BTW, I asked my 16 yr old last nite what he thought (are you ready for this, I couldnt believe his answer)

He said "Hey mom they should sue, its not right we get their stuff for free".

go figure, out of da mouth of babes.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 05, 2000.

Get it while you can still enjoy it! I love Napster..I don't consider downloading mp3's any different than when we used to tape each others albums. No one had a problem with the cassette tape, right? I actually bought a CD by a group I liked after hearing some of their other songs on Napster. Really, who has an MP3 player for their car?

Napster

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), May 05, 2000.

I've only used MY.MP3.com [which I guess is associated with Napster.} On MY.MP3.com, the artists send the music. It's much like getting a free plug on a radio station when you have a new tune. My kids are into alternative music, so I E-mail them tunes I enjoy from MY.MP3.com.

It's my understanding that the latest suit [and it's not like MP3.com hasn't been sued before] is regarding MY.MP3.COM. That would be the latest from the recording industry. Metallica's suit is separate, and I suspect it's aimed toward MP3.com because Metallica would NEVER stoop to providing a sample. [grin]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 05, 2000.

My son and I were discussing this just this morning. He has participated in MP3 through Napster, and set me up on Macster. (I love it; listening to a little Pavarotti as I type). His point of view:

-----

"We kids spent our nickles and dimes from mowing lawns and babysitting to make these guys millionaires. Now they're gonna tell us they can't afford for us to trade their songs?

"The guy who started Napster is 19 years old. He doesn't sell songs, software or even advertising space. He has made it free for people to use and enjoy. If they put him out of business, someone will just start up another server in Bangladesh or somewhere untouchable. You can't stop innovation; that's the nature of the net.

"When they came to serve the papers on Napster, members of TWO fan clubs were there. One was Metallica fans and the other was Napster fans. Both supported Napster, and broke their Metallica CDs in protest. I will never again buy a Metallica song!

"As far as new tehnology is conserned, anybody with a radio and a tape recorder can do the very same thing (pirate music).

-----

As I said those were his views and comments. But Macster has definately made me want to increase my CD library by purchasing artists that I had not heard much from, or had forgotten over the years. The net is changing the way business is handled all over the world. And I think he is right about one thing; you can't stop innovation. Metallica is foolish to try.

----------------

-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), May 05, 2000.

Lon:

I think Wrapster has already come to the rescue. You're right...someone WILL fill the gap. How many of us taped music from the radio? [Raise of hands.]

MP3 discusses these suits on their website for those of you who want more information.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 05, 2000.

FutureShock --

Wonderful story! Good for your friend! I'd like to read the legal decision; can you point me to the citation?

Regarding freedom of speech on this forum . . . I personally think that the Net is one of the most powerful mediums for maintaining that freedom yet devised. With the Net, one can amplify one's voice without the need for a radio station, TV station, newspaper or magazine behind oneself.

At the same time, however, some restrictions have been found acceptable by the Supreme Court, even though the Constitution quite plainly says "Congress shall make no law . . . " Time, manner and place restrictions are probably the most familiar to all of us -- IOW, you can't shout "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre, among other examples.

Still, a forum like this is certainly a small place in a small corner of the Internet. Views here are freely and heartily debated, and that's part of the core of First Amendment free speech guarantees. People OUGHT to be able to freely debate issues of mutual interest.

I've always said that the greatest test of free speech is not when your own speech is protected by it, but when the speech of someone else -- speech that you object to -- is protected. The First Amendment doesn't protect only the things one likes -- it usually protects things we hate, too.

On a personal basis, I follow the activities of the Church of Scientology very closely. It is, in my opinion, a dangerous cult that is adept at using the courts to batter its critics into submission and silence; members are fond of exercising their free speech rights to the point of defamation and terroristic threats, but aren't so fond of free speech aimed at them in a critical manner. I detest the tactics of the CofS, but I find it hard to square my personal belief in free speech with my personal impulse to try to shut the Scientologists up. In the end, I think it is best to let the Scientologists talk, and then exercise my own free speech in order to let potential CofS members make up their own minds.

In short, place me firmly on the anti-censorship side. Free posting for all, with exceptions only for "outing" of other posters. Anonymity should be preserved as well, IMO.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), May 07, 2000.

Sal-

I will find the case number and get back to you.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 07, 2000.