adam
21st April 2006, 02:55
But did you know that by the mere letter of the law, if somebody offers for download and another person downloads, it's technically not illegal? That's because copyright law defines distribution as distribution of physical objects only - and while we have electrons at work, it's hardly what the lawmakers intended.
This is incorrect. Since you are talking about the RIAA I assume you are referring to US law. Title 17 does not even define "distribution" at all. When you say "physical object" I think you really mean "tangible object or medium" which is a requirement of copryights generally not just to constitute distribution. But under Copyright Law something is tangible if it can be reproduced or if it can be perceived by any of the senses, not just that of touch. Those lawmakers themselves even state that something is "tangible" for purpsoses of Copyright eligability if it is stored on Hard drives, floppies, CDs, or DVDs and cases have held that even RAM is sufficient. About the only things considered unfixed or intangible are live performances or broadcasts that aren't recorded.
Sending a copyrighted work, without authorization or other exemption, from one hard drive to another over the internet would definitely violate the copyright holder's exclusive right to distribution.
To be more specific, here is the definition of a "fixed" tangible work:
A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.
And then the committee notes further expand on this:
Under the bill it makes no difference what the form, manner, or medium of fixation may be—whether it is in words, numbers, notes, sounds, pictures, or any other graphic or symbolic indicia, whether embodied in a physical object in written, printed, photographic, sculptural, punched, magnetic, or any other stable form, and whether it is capable of perception directly or by means of any machine or device “now known or later developed.
This is incorrect. Since you are talking about the RIAA I assume you are referring to US law. Title 17 does not even define "distribution" at all. When you say "physical object" I think you really mean "tangible object or medium" which is a requirement of copryights generally not just to constitute distribution. But under Copyright Law something is tangible if it can be reproduced or if it can be perceived by any of the senses, not just that of touch. Those lawmakers themselves even state that something is "tangible" for purpsoses of Copyright eligability if it is stored on Hard drives, floppies, CDs, or DVDs and cases have held that even RAM is sufficient. About the only things considered unfixed or intangible are live performances or broadcasts that aren't recorded.
Sending a copyrighted work, without authorization or other exemption, from one hard drive to another over the internet would definitely violate the copyright holder's exclusive right to distribution.
To be more specific, here is the definition of a "fixed" tangible work:
A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.
And then the committee notes further expand on this:
Under the bill it makes no difference what the form, manner, or medium of fixation may be—whether it is in words, numbers, notes, sounds, pictures, or any other graphic or symbolic indicia, whether embodied in a physical object in written, printed, photographic, sculptural, punched, magnetic, or any other stable form, and whether it is capable of perception directly or by means of any machine or device “now known or later developed.