Posted by anthonyberet on 10/24/05 19:45

-Angela- wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 04:34:08 GMT, "George Hester"
> <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Again I'm at a loss here. Are you saying that this RIAA threat has made you
>>so fearful that you are NOT going to share copyrighted material anymore?
>>Well you do know that when we beat the RIAA at this game you will share in
>>the proceeds if you choose to. You see it is interesting to see how the
>>RIAA is to be combated here. If you feel there is no reason to fight them
>>because the Politicians and People are in the back pocket of the RIAA then
>>that in itself is interesting. But I don't think so. I don't think they
>>are. I think a well reasoned argument could stop the RIAA. What that is
>>don't know but I'm sure it is out there. No one believed OJ Simpson was
>>innocent come on he was as guilty as the day is long. Trouble was the
>>prosecution was inept and his defense was superb. I believe that is also
>>possible here. Remember Michael Jackson? What about Baretta?
>>
>>
>>>tb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> George,
>
> A few questions,
>
> Does the RIAA have a copyright on my MP3 file? Not since last time I
> looked. I am not sharing anything that is theirs. If they (RIAA)
> distributed MP3 files, and I obtained one or more, and shared it,
> perhaps a case would exist.
>
> Are audio CD's digital or not? If so, why then when I rip a CD, I
> don't see their copyright in the first 512 characters of the digital
> file? (using a hex editor or 'debug')
>
> Do the numbers comprising an MP3 file match those of a digital rip of
> a CD so closely a claim can be made of sufficient similarity to be
> considered an infringemnet? I think not! They don't match at all !
>
> If an MP3 file can be qualified in court as being sufficiently similar
> to the original digital file [sic], then has the RIAA sued the makers
> of MP3 players for distributing a device or software capable of
> restoring otherwise nonsence numbers back into recognisable sounds
> that are perceptually similar to those they own a copyright on? Since
> the RIAA would like to believe all MP3's are illegal, they are missing
> an income opportunity there.
>
> Just wondering
>
While you are correct that MP3 files are not identical to the originals,
I don't think this helps sharers. They are derivative works, at the very
least, and thus subject to any copyright that might apply.
I believe for musical copyright to apply, a derivative work must have 4
or more bars of identical melody - It doesn't matter if you play
Stairway to Heaven on a Trombone, if you play 4 or more bars of the same
notes, and distribute a recording, then you owe a fee to the copyright
holder (whoever that is).

I don't think the 4 bars thing is specified in law, but there is an
agreement amongst record companies not to sue each other every time a
new hit sounds like something pre-existing.

The same applies for phone ringtones, sheet music, elevator musak and so on.

[Back to original message]