Comments on: Living with Napster regret http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/12/napster_repenta.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:51:16 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: RIAA http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/12/napster_repenta.html/comment-page-1#comment-50904 RIAA Tue, 01 Jan 2008 19:49:30 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/12/living-with-napster-regret.html#comment-50904 Too late. Too late.

]]> By: Kaimi http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/12/napster_repenta.html/comment-page-1#comment-50903 Kaimi Tue, 01 Jan 2008 01:53:35 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/12/living-with-napster-regret.html#comment-50903 Good point, TJ. Note to RIAA sleuths: My friend is wholly fictional. I talk to imaginary friends all the time! Let me introduce you to my friends Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Hamlet. We play checkers every weekend. In fact, I just made the whole thing up in order to come up with an interesting post! Hmm. Don't know if that'll throw em off the trail. Good point, TJ.

Note to RIAA sleuths: My friend is wholly fictional. I talk to imaginary friends all the time! Let me introduce you to my friends Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Hamlet. We play checkers every weekend.

In fact, I just made the whole thing up in order to come up with an interesting post!

Hmm. Don’t know if that’ll throw em off the trail.

]]> By: TJ http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/12/napster_repenta.html/comment-page-1#comment-50902 TJ Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:59:19 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/12/living-with-napster-regret.html#comment-50902 I believe your friend is sitting quite pretty, both from a SOL perspective and from the 1-in-20-million perspective. But the RIAA can now very easily find him. Instead of subpoenaing the ISP (long dead trail), just subpoena Kaimi! I believe your friend is sitting quite pretty, both from a SOL perspective and from the 1-in-20-million perspective. But the RIAA can now very easily find him. Instead of subpoenaing the ISP (long dead trail), just subpoena Kaimi!

]]> By: Bruce Boyden http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/12/napster_repenta.html/comment-page-1#comment-50901 Bruce Boyden Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:28:14 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/12/living-with-napster-regret.html#comment-50901 In addition to the 3-year statute of limitations, the ISP records necessary to connect particular users to particular IP addresses (which is likely all Napster had) have probably long since been erased. That's one reason why the RIAA and other plaintiffs suing anonymous defendants need to act quickly in serving ISPs with subpoenas. In addition to the 3-year statute of limitations, the ISP records necessary to connect particular users to particular IP addresses (which is likely all Napster had) have probably long since been erased. That’s one reason why the RIAA and other plaintiffs suing anonymous defendants need to act quickly in serving ISPs with subpoenas.

]]> By: Michael Risch http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/12/napster_repenta.html/comment-page-1#comment-50900 Michael Risch Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:18:32 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/12/living-with-napster-regret.html#comment-50900 I think the answer was quite good. A couple things to add: 1. They are going after sharers, not downloaders, so the risk is decreased there. 2. Downloaders don't leave the same trail as sharers, because the presence is more ephemeral 3. The SOL in most circuits (maybe all) is 3 years "rolling" to the extent that there are continuing infringing acts. So, the download 10 years ago is barred. 4. Even so, playing a CD may not actually violate any of the 112 acts - no copying, no public performance, etc. BUT, under Peak v. MAI, loading it into RAM might be considered making a copy and thus infringing (moving music to another computer certainly would be infringing). 5. If your friend truly bought all (or most) of the downloaded songs, then I wouldn't be so quick to give up the fair use argument as a "try before you buy" thing. Then again, holding the songs for so long before buying weighs against that. 6. I also wouldn't recommend contacting the RIAA, but I think that you might get more credit than you think. The SBA routinely gives "better" deals to those that voluntarily comply (they still extract a bunch). Someone who feels guilty and went clean might get off pretty light if it was coupled with mea culpa press releases, etc. I think the answer was quite good. A couple things to add:

1. They are going after sharers, not downloaders, so the risk is decreased there.

2. Downloaders don’t leave the same trail as sharers, because the presence is more ephemeral

3. The SOL in most circuits (maybe all) is 3 years “rolling” to the extent that there are continuing infringing acts. So, the download 10 years ago is barred.

4. Even so, playing a CD may not actually violate any of the 112 acts – no copying, no public performance, etc. BUT, under Peak v. MAI, loading it into RAM might be considered making a copy and thus infringing (moving music to another computer certainly would be infringing).

5. If your friend truly bought all (or most) of the downloaded songs, then I wouldn’t be so quick to give up the fair use argument as a “try before you buy” thing. Then again, holding the songs for so long before buying weighs against that.

6. I also wouldn’t recommend contacting the RIAA, but I think that you might get more credit than you think. The SBA routinely gives “better” deals to those that voluntarily comply (they still extract a bunch). Someone who feels guilty and went clean might get off pretty light if it was coupled with mea culpa press releases, etc.

]]>