[IP] more on Ohio University announces changes in file-sharing policies]

[Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [IP] more on Ohio University announces changes in
file-sharing policies
Date: 	Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:06:46 -0400
From: 	Peter Wayner <pcw@flyzone.com>
To: 	David Farber <dave@farber.net>, acb@acb.net
CC: 	Ip <ip@v2.listbox.com>
References: 	<4632055C.8000305@acb.net>
<115A9495-C877-4514-A58E-6687B2B61DB3@farber.net>



This has changed. You don't need to profit to be found guilty of  
criminal charges for violating someone's copyright.

There's now a clause that offers criminal charges for those who :

    by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic  
means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords  
of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of  
more than $1,000,

At a party, I was told about a person who received a fully stocked  
iPod from a sibling as a gift. The 5000+ songs weren't bought from  
iTunes but gathered from CDs and other sources. Fair use? It sure  
seems to push the definition if there's so much material going to  
another person in another state. But it might be read as a violation  
of title 17,506 (a) (2).

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/ 
usc_sec_17_00000506----000-.html#a_2

Your mileage may vary.


On Apr 27, 2007, at 11:24 AM, David Farber wrote:

>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Andrew Burnette <acb@acb.net>
> Date: April 27, 2007 10:14:52 AM EDT
> To: dave@farber.net
> Subject: Re: [IP] more on Ohio University announces changes in file- 
> sharing policies
>
> With all due respect.
>
> Copyright violation is NOT a crime, unless in the pursuit of  
> profit. It is and always has been a civil matter at the end user  
> level. Of course, if you press 1000 DVD's with the motive to sell  
> the work, that is in fact a crime.
>
> When will informed people stop towing the MPAA/RIAA line of  
> misstatements around as gospel. Simply read the FBI warning on ANY  
> DVD word by word and you'll note the subtle distinction, as they  
> cannot call it a criminal offense, and do not, because simple  
> filesharing and personal violation of copyright is not a crime.   
> (Note: Rather than suing end users, do you not think it would be  
> easier for the RIAA/MPAA to simply swear before a magistrate for an  
> arrest warrant if they could?; they cannot, and therefore, are only  
> able to extort via threat of civil judgements)


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