Since we've had discussions not long ago about file-swapping and downloading ethics, etc. I thought some of you KaZaa and Morpheus users may find this article from last week of interest:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/12/04/file.sharers.ap/index.html

It seems that anti-piracy groups might be able to force ISP's to give up records pertaining to their client's file uploading and downloading habits. This would be one way to hold the users of file-swapping services accountable both for the files they get from other users and for the ones they allow to be redistributed from their hard drives.

That's one small step forward for copyright protection and one giant leap backwards for KaZaa users, both past and present.

I guess that's being TESTED in Demark or Amsterdam ...

I think if they try it in USA ... the Major Cable companies will FIGHT to the DEATH!
40-50 percent of cable users get cable for Downloading Files! It would seriously set back cable companies if this happens in USA! In addition... many kids are on kazaa, ect... do we arrest them or sue them! Do we spy on them! ...and hold their parents responsible! ...senetors's kids, Music industry kids! ...

also that article said 75 people paided! out of 30 million users! considering 3 or 4 million are on kazaa at any one time!
Those sound like lottery odds to me!

It's still not clear if it's illegal to swap files on line either, right? I know all about the "ethics" debate, but I don't think congress has made a firm ruling to the property status of "cyber" stuff yet. Am I wrong? Is there a concrete, solid way to determine the nature and ownership of an element that exists only in silicone and space?

This whole issue has been in debate since recording gear became affordable. I challange anyone to tell me thay NEVER taped a record, CD, TV show or other media. I admit - the law may be written to SAY it's wrong, but enforcing such a law is virtually impossible at this time. At least here in the states.

It's just as hard as stopping drug traffic or tobaco sales to minors. Who sells the cigarettes to these kids that all smoke under 18????????? This issue will be settled LONG after we find out the truth about JFK.(yeah, right ...... )

Maybe a Charles Bronson or a Clint Eastwood type character will come along someday and get rid of all the "Drug Dealears" and then he could move on to all of the "Copyright" people. He! He!

Here is an easy solution..The average market life of a song is what 1 or 2 years? Put blocks on the current releases[or fees], the rest , treat as public domain for file swapping..

Swap this ............

UD: I think you mis-spoke about "congress making a ruling" as Congress makes legislation and courts make rulings over constitutionality and legality. The courts have made several rulings in favor of copyright protection over the internet, such as in regards to the Napster case. While no copy protection system seems foolproof today, now that big-budget movie studio have gotten into the fray to protect their products, I believe we'll see some tougher intellectual property standards and laws in the coming year.

As to your example about taping TV shows and broadcasts - the broadcasters themselves pay for the royalties to the copyright holders in such cases. Even if you tape it, the fees were paid by somebody before it got to you. No such broadcaster fees exist on the web (yet).

Interestingly, I loaded KaZaa on a test computer to check out several aspects. There is a long and detailed user agreement you have to acknowledge to load this software agreeing not to allow copyrighted material to be distributed from your computer with it. So unless you are allowing only your own original music/images/software etc. to be transfered with this program, then you are using it illegally. KaZaa loaded eight different "spyware" programs when it installed - when I used Ad-Aware to remove the spyware, KaZaa was disabled. There isn't much doubt that KaZaa has been built specifically to monitor and track your usage of it and send that information somewhere. That may be only for marketing today but certainly could be used for billing/collection purposes tomorrow.

I believe the article I provided proves that intellectual property laws are enforcable and test cases are under way. Now the real question is whether or not you want to become one of those test cases...

This is a pretty straight up thing to me.....

What is not mine or is not given to me by the owner of the property, the artists themselves, I do not take, otherwise it is stealing and my parents taught me better than that.

Pro is right here too...taping TV shows is a different deal for private usage. Tape a TV show and start selling copies, then you have a problem.
Terry

Even comercially produced midi files are not allowed to be played in public without a specific liscence, and we all know THAT isn't happening, right? No one uses midi files at work. No one plays CD's on breaks, or Taped copies of same, right?

I do not believe the line is as clear as we would like to belive where coryrights are concerned. It is certainly a flawed system, and there is no way it is jutified at the expense that it is charged for.

If I play a 4 hour job in a club in Philly for 85 people having dinner and dancing, he royalty police will make sure that the publishers get their few cents per seat in the house. Billy Idol, and Frank Zappa will get their 12 cents or so, and I will never play one of their songs, so THAT's wrong too.

Pro- I respect the tasteful, educated way you responded to my last post, and these are not fightin' words at all. I just get peeved at the way the system of royalties works and how they make it almost impossible to make a decent living in the arts without sharing some aspect of other's performances.

I'm gonna let this topic pass me by ..... it's way too controvercial for my limited tolerance with the rock & roll mentality that seems to rule the worlds' art programs. I just want to sing and be happy.

Actually Dave, I am interested in your thoughts and how I can help convince artists like yourself that copyrights are in their best interests. And I agree to no fighting. I find it curious that musicians like yourself could feel threatened by copyright laws that are designed for our benefit as artists. The copyright laws and royalty systems I've reviewed and used are both fair and easy to follow, and my feeling is that a lot of rumors and bad information are making musicians too afraid to even check into them.

I don't know what "special license" is needed for commercial midi files since I never use them and only use my own files, but I suspect this is wrong. I believe that live performance fees covered in the BMI/ASCAP licensing that the lounges pay apply whether you used midi or not (in fact, I think this is the most appropriate and legal use for MIDI files no matter the source). The same fees cover the incidental music that is played on breaks. I'll look into any source you have that says otherwise.

The people who work as BMI/ASCAP agents are freelancers basically. They keep a record of the music that they hear as they bounce around from place to place and that is a big factor is how the royalties are distributed. Jimmy Buffett probably gets more royalty fees from bar surveys than Frank Zappa because his music is played more often in lounges, while the reverse may be true for alternative rock radio station royalties. So the system may not as out of touch with reality as you might think.

I suspect that the only time you might get a visit from BMI/ASCAP reps would be:
* if you produced and distributed cover albums
* if you are a concert promoter
* if you own a lounge or restaraunt
* if you distribute cover music from a website

I've never met a musician who has had a run-in with BMI/ASCAP reps otherwise. But I'm willing to.