Free the Lyrics

I just read an article published at Slyck by Nick Parker on January 12, 2006: Filesharing: The Facts and the Myths. If I had found it months ago, I could have joined in the conversation in their forums. But as it is, that thread was locked, so I’ll respond here.

It’s amazing how there can be such discrepancies on such a simple statement of fact (and I’m referring specifically to United States law) - Is copyright infringement via P2P a criminal offense or just civil? Nick from Slyck says it is just civil. (FYI: explanation of criminal vs. civil)

I am not a lawyer, but I disagree with Nick. In the forum thread I referenced earlier, there were a few voices that cried foul, but for the most part, everyone was left believing file sharing is only a civil offense when there is no financial gain since people share files for free in P2P. Here’s what I know about this, and hopefully someone can either back up or refute what I’m saying.

• So far the RIAA has been filing civil lawsuits, but it doesn’t mean criminal charges aren’t a possibility for other cases.
• Title 17 of the United States Code Chapter 5 Section 506 states how there can be criminal punishment for both commercial and non-commercial copyright infringement. In situations where there’s no personal gain, it’s still a crime as long as the retail value of the copyrighted works exceeds $1,000. Also refer to the change made in Chapter 1 Section 101, which states: “The term ‘financial gain’ includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.“
• It is because of the No Electronic Theft (”NET”) Act of 1997 that much of the verbiage was added to indicate non-commercial infringement was also a crime.
• That change in law was a direct response to the court decision in United States v. LaMacchia (1994), in which an MIT student won the case against him because the file sharing he was doing was non-commercial. The infringement in this case was computer software, but still can be relevant to all file sharing.

So, in conclusion, before the NET Act, you could argue that non-commercial copyright infringement was not a criminal act, but current law makes it so.

Edited to add:
News broke today at CNET News.com that U.S. Congress has drafted a bill to further tighten copyright law, and the federal government’s power to enforce it. Read more… Congress readies new digital copyright bill

An article that summerized the RIAA’s wrongdoings and explains how they choose to violate their customers.

read more | digg story

This digg link isn’t related to the lyrics/tab crackdown, but I wanted to comment about it.

I don’t automatically dismiss a digg submission just because it’s a blog. Some of them have useful information or opinions. This particular link at keyBlog() has neither, is overly long and incongruous, and even worse has some inaccuracies.

“allowed Sony to search through user’s hard-drives for any files”
Where is the proof of this claim? Mark Russinovich, who reported technical details about the rootkit, described how it phoned home with an ID to check for album art updates, but nothing about scanning the computer for files. Read here: Mark’s Sysinternals Blog

That’s just one example. I can nitpick about a bunch of other minor points.

“Eventually Napster was challenged by the RIAA and lost in court and in front of the Senate.”
How does one “lose” in front of the Senate? Shawn Fanning testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of an overall discussion of the “Future of Digital Music” Read here: Napster Goes to Washington

Notice what I’m doing. I’m citing references. Something the blog post at keyBlog() should do.

Overall, not worthy of a digg, but not bad enough to report as lame.