NationStates Jolt Archive

The P2P Resolution

This resolution hereby makes file-sharing of music files over the internet illegal.

Article I: Music of file sharing is illegal; the act of downloading a music file for free is equal to going into a music store and shoplifting a CD. If you have a want for music, you must buy it.

Article II: Music file sharing hurts the music industry as citizens no longer have to pay; they simply get the music they desire for free by downloading it from free-music providers. It hurts the lives of musicians, song writer, performers, and anyone else who makes a living selling music to the general public.

Article III: Music file sharing, put simply, SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. Unless you own the music copyright,or have permission from the copyright owner, you do not have the right to distribute the music over the internet.

Article IV: Most of the people employed by the music industry are not pop stars, rather, they are people looking for a living, and they won't make a living if people continue to illegally download music files.

Article V: If you want music to continue to be made, do not illegally download music files.
Over 26 billion files are downloaded each month.

Article VI : All file sharing software shall immediately shut down, if this resolution is to be approved.

-Please post your comments and/or criticism :o

So I can't download programs over the internet?

And learn to spell better. :roll:

Yes, that's why I made the resolution.


Sorry lol, should have checked it on Word, but oh well.....

Ah wait, not programs, MUSIC files.

Yes, that's why I made the resolution.


Sorry lol, should have checked it on Word, but oh well.....

So then you couldn't be playing nationstates right now, and this would basically illegalize the internet all together. All the internet is is filesharing.

besides a few editing mistakes, I completely see where you're coming from, and agree with you.

Yes, that's why I made the resolution.


Sorry lol, should have checked it on Word, but oh well.....

So then you couldn't be playing nationstates right now, and this would basically illegalize the internet all together. All the internet is is filesharing.

Stupid spelling errors...... I meant music files, sorry for the confusion. Lol I see your point... :roll:

"Article III: File sharing, put simply, SHOULD BE ILLEGLE."

And since there is no international copywriting agency, nor is there any standard set to define if it is the same music that the person who made it (you could just scatter around some of the data and it would still sound the same).

"Unless you own the music copyright, you do not have the right to distribute the music."

Since you don't specify a form, this bans all performance too. Even singing songs in the privacy of your home.

Anyway, I'm pro file sharing.

Ya I should change that, maybe I'll re-submit the resolution? :lol:

"Unless you own the music copyright, you do not have the right to distribute the music."

Since you don't specify a form, this bans all performance too. Even singing songs in the privacy of your home.

Anyway, I'm pro file sharing.
Unless permission from the legal owner of the music, or if you bought the music, you don't have the right to distribute or listen to it for free.

Ya I should change that, maybe I'll re-submit the resolution? :lol:

You could but keep in mind the things I said about international patenting and it being impossible to define what is and is not the same music.

"Unless you own the music copyright, you do not have the right to distribute the music."

Since you don't specify a form, this bans all performance too. Even singing songs in the privacy of your home.

Anyway, I'm pro file sharing.
Unless permission from the legal owner of the music, or if you bought the music, you don't have the right to distribute or listen to it for free.

Wouldn't this mean you couldn't hum the toon? Or that you could charge people to recieve Mp3's of music you do not have the copywrite of?

I agree with your intent, but what if the copyright holder has no problem with people distributing copies online without him receiving any royalties or payment of any sort?

I agree with your intent, but what if the copyright holder has no problem with people distributing copies online without him receiving any royalties or payment of any sort?

In that case it is perfactly fine, but if you don't have permission from the owner, then thats a different story

"Unless you own the music copyright, you do not have the right to distribute the music."

Since you don't specify a form, this bans all performance too. Even singing songs in the privacy of your home.

Anyway, I'm pro file sharing.
Unless permission from the legal owner of the music, or if you bought the music, you don't have the right to distribute or listen to it for free.

Wouldn't this mean you couldn't hum the toon? Or that you could charge people to recieve Mp3's of music you do not have the copywrite of?

I mean over the internet, of course you have hum the toon.

I've re-submited the resolution under the name "The P2P Resolution", and have re-written it, fixing the spelling errors and re-wording some articles. But I now see that it will most likely not get voted on by all the U.N. mebers, it was worth a try. But hey, there's still time! :P

I'll guess I'll see how this turns out...

I'll guess I'll see how this turns out...

It should be interesting :wink:

P2P in your BVD?

Oh well, what about generic music sharing? Back in my day, we called it borrowing. Back when I had "friends," we used to borrow each other's CDs, tapes, records, and 8 tracks.

This won't go very far. The music industry will lose this war. Must keep up with technology or perish.

"All file sharing software shall immediately shut down, if this resolution is to be approved."


Soooo you can't share non-copyrighted files? Let's ban VCRs and tape recorders too.

Lord... you people really need to learn how to use the "edit" button instead of posting pointless double posts. Also, post deletion might be a good idea as well.


In fact, the same goes for the resolution. Been there, done that. Be enlightening for a change.

"All file sharing software shall immediately shut down, if this resolution is to be approved."


Soooo you can't share non-copyrighted files? Let's ban VCRs and tape recorders too.

Ban radios, TV, and computers and their various devices such as scanners, printers, CD-writers, hard drives, sound cards, and video cards...

The P2P Resolution

This resolution hereby makes file-sharing of music files over the internet illegal.

Article I: Music of file sharing is illegal; the act of downloading a music file for free is equal to going into a music store and shoplifting a CD. If you have a want for music, you must buy it.

Article II: Music file sharing hurts the music industry as citizens no longer have to pay; they simply get the music they desire for free by downloading it from free-music providers. It hurts the lives of musicians, song writer, performers, and anyone else who makes a living selling music to the general public.

Article III: Music file sharing, put simply, SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. Unless you own the music copyright,or have permission from the copyright owner, you do not have the right to distribute the music over the internet.

Article IV: Most of the people employed by the music industry are not pop stars, rather, they are people looking for a living, and they won't make a living if people continue to illegally download music files.

Article V: If you want music to continue to be made, do not illegally download music files.
Over 26 billion files are downloaded each month.

Article VI : All file sharing software shall immediately shut down, if this resolution is to be approved.

-Please post your comments and/or criticism :o

Of course I agree, but why should we need to make a resolution to reaffirm existing copyright laws?

In any case, extreme cases can call for exteme measures. It wouldn't be BAD to support strengthening of laws. You have my vote.

This won't go very far. The music industry will lose this war. Must keep up with technology or perish.

Keep up with your unlawful bending to the temptation of stealing? Never. Let's make ALL theft legal if theft of music is legal!

This won't go very far. The music industry will lose this war. Must keep up with technology or perish.

Keep up with your unlawful bending to the temptation of stealing? Never. Let's make ALL theft legal if theft of music is legal!

The trick is to make it to where it is little to no benefit for piracy. Cost is a major concern. CDs are nearly a joke because it doesn't cost much to produce that next CD or the next CD after that. If they produce enough, the per unit price will be extremely small and they could even sell CDs for $5 instead of $20.

That's more of an issue of quality of music over quantity then. Some CDs are worth paying $20 while some aren't even worth $5 but at $5 it's not worth worrying about whether you like it or not.

Our nation would support this proposal iff (if and only if) the following conditions were met:

1) The music industry must provide each potential customer with one free listening of any album ever produced. The music industry itself must find the means to accomplish this, but whatever path they choose, the one free listening must be both readily available and complete.
2) Legal music distributers develop a method of creating user-mixed CDs or of distributing any song ever recorded in such a way that a user-mixed CD can be legally created.
3) It is legal for me to upload any music that I already own onto a secure web site for my personal use in other locations.
4) Audio-streaming remains legal

We feel that while file-sharing for the sole purpose of avoiding buying any music is both illegal and inethical, the tactics of the music industry (including, but not limited to, their suing children and their consistent use of CD price-fixing over the last decade) are far worse. Because of the combined efforts of mass-media radio and the recording industry, the diversity and quality of popular music has been declining rapidly since the introduction of tapes and CDs.

OOC: Combat the music industry's exhorbitant prices legally: buy only used CDs (or better yet, records)

Correctamundo!
It was the record industry's crooked and uncompetitive tactics that gave rise to the file sharing phenomena, because people are looking for a better alternative.
The people now have the power over supply and demand and the record companies don't like it one bit. Instead of supplying the customers what they want, they sue them instead.
The would kill children if given the legal right to. These are very bad people, and you should not sympathize with them because they are losing a few dollars.
If you sue people for sharing files, maybe you should break down the door of everybody who tapes TV shows, copies DVDs, or tapes their CD.
THe RIAAs tactics are ANTI-capitalism!
True capitalism is the action of finding ways to "capitalize" on a situation.
They are not "capitalizing" on anything, but using the court system to maintain the traditional structure of the industry and of business in general.

This won't go very far. The music industry will lose this war. Must keep up with technology or perish.

Keep up with your unlawful bending to the temptation of stealing? Never. Let's make ALL theft legal if theft of music is legal!

The trick is to make it to where it is little to no benefit for piracy. Cost is a major concern. CDs are nearly a joke because it doesn't cost much to produce that next CD or the next CD after that. If they produce enough, the per unit price will be extremely small and they could even sell CDs for $5 instead of $20.

That's more of an issue of quality of music over quantity then. Some CDs are worth paying $20 while some aren't even worth $5 but at $5 it's not worth worrying about whether you like it or not.

CDs do cost a lot, and execs are probably skimming quite a few dollars off each CD sale, but the fact is that they (record companies collectivly) are the supply. Without them, bands would stand little chance of ever getting their CDs published world wide. We are the demand, and boy do we demand it. They can charge whatever they think they can get out of us. Apparently it works, because people buy CDs.

The CD itself costs a couple cents to actually make. The band probably gets a dollar, maybe two dollars, and the producers and mixers might take another two dollars. The rest goes to the recording company. If you don't like this situation, start your OWN recording company. It's possible. You can probably find a venture capitalist willing to loan you money, and bands that would be willing to work under unrestrictive contracts.

No the bands don't get even close to a dollar. Not even 10 cents. Most of it goes to the record comanies.And your wrong in saying that they are the only vehicle for worldwide publication. Bands are now doing that through P2P. Even new labels are doing that to get their product out and establish a brand. The major companies see that as a threat so they try to shut it down. As I said, that is anti-capitalism.

I am against this bill, simply because it accomplishes nothing and is thus useless.

Affirming the illegality of file sharing has not done a damn thing for years; now just because the UN decides to affirm existing laws in a new resolution you expect tens of millions (yes, folks, tens of millions) of people to suddenly say, "Oh my god! It was illegal! I'm going to uninstall my filesharing program, delete all my music, and spend 20 bucks buying CD's!!!"

Dream on.

Not to mention, as my fellow LoL colleague Anomolies mentions, you are strengthening the rights of a corrupt, thoroughly evil industry at the expense of people who either don't have the money to buy CD's (that's me), or don't feel they have to spend 20 bucks for one good song, or believe that music should be free (now THAT argument is crap), but nevertheless love music.

How about a more inventive approach to the situation of online piracy than to bludgeon more and more of this type of crap down our throats?

-King Ivan Drago I of Reformation

Our nation would support this proposal iff (if and only if) the following conditions were met:

1) The music industry must provide each potential customer with one free listening of any album ever produced. The music industry itself must find the means to accomplish this, but whatever path they choose, the one free listening must be both readily available and complete.
2) Legal music distributers develop a method of creating user-mixed CDs or of distributing any song ever recorded in such a way that a user-mixed CD can be legally created.
3) It is legal for me to upload any music that I already own onto a secure web site for my personal use in other locations.
4) Audio-streaming remains legal


I would like to add:
5) The pizes of CD's and other audio material should result from market condtions and not from their combine trust agreemaents

This won't go very far. The music industry will lose this war. Must keep up with technology or perish.

Keep up with your unlawful bending to the temptation of stealing? Never. Let's make ALL theft legal if theft of music is legal!

The trick is to make it to where it is little to no benefit for piracy. Cost is a major concern. CDs are nearly a joke because it doesn't cost much to produce that next CD or the next CD after that. If they produce enough, the per unit price will be extremely small and they could even sell CDs for $5 instead of $20.

That's more of an issue of quality of music over quantity then. Some CDs are worth paying $20 while some aren't even worth $5 but at $5 it's not worth worrying about whether you like it or not.

CDs do cost a lot, and execs are probably skimming quite a few dollars off each CD sale, but the fact is that they (record companies collectivly) are the supply. Without them, bands would stand little chance of ever getting their CDs published world wide. We are the demand, and boy do we demand it. They can charge whatever they think they can get out of us. Apparently it works, because people buy CDs.

The CD itself costs a couple cents to actually make. The band probably gets a dollar, maybe two dollars, and the producers and mixers might take another two dollars. The rest goes to the recording company. If you don't like this situation, start your OWN recording company. It's possible. You can probably find a venture capitalist willing to loan you money, and bands that would be willing to work under unrestrictive contracts.

I guess you didn't get what I was saying...

Okay, the record label, the band, equipment, facilities, and the executives are considered fixed costs. Once they make the first CD, the others are cheaper and the next one after that is even cheaper. You just spread the fixed cost over a huge volume of CDs and they may even total a couple of dollars (or whatever you use) and everything after that is PROFIT...

It's all well and good if I just have to sell that first CD and nothing after that for Oh, let's just say $10,000,000. Then they can work on the next CD.

This won't go very far. The music industry will lose this war. Must keep up with technology or perish.

Keep up with your unlawful bending to the temptation of stealing? Never. Let's make ALL theft legal if theft of music is legal!

The trick is to make it to where it is little to no benefit for piracy. Cost is a major concern. CDs are nearly a joke because it doesn't cost much to produce that next CD or the next CD after that. If they produce enough, the per unit price will be extremely small and they could even sell CDs for $5 instead of $20.

That's more of an issue of quality of music over quantity then. Some CDs are worth paying $20 while some aren't even worth $5 but at $5 it's not worth worrying about whether you like it or not.

CDs do cost a lot, and execs are probably skimming quite a few dollars off each CD sale, but the fact is that they (record companies collectivly) are the supply. Without them, bands would stand little chance of ever getting their CDs published world wide. We are the demand, and boy do we demand it. They can charge whatever they think they can get out of us. Apparently it works, because people buy CDs.

The CD itself costs a couple cents to actually make. The band probably gets a dollar, maybe two dollars, and the producers and mixers might take another two dollars. The rest goes to the recording company. If you don't like this situation, start your OWN recording company. It's possible. You can probably find a venture capitalist willing to loan you money, and bands that would be willing to work under unrestrictive contracts.

I guess you didn't get what I was saying...

Okay, the record label, the band, equipment, facilities, and the executives are considered fixed costs. Once they make the first CD, the others are cheaper and the next one after that is even cheaper. You just spread the fixed cost over a huge volume of CDs and they may even total a couple of dollars (or whatever you use) and everything after that is PROFIT...

It's all well and good if I just have to sell that first CD and nothing after that for Oh, let's just say $10,000,000. Then they can work on the next CD.

With all due respect, I think you need to do a little research on how the music industry really works.
An artist gets signed o a major record label. The label payed for all the recording and distribution cost. When the artist signs on that dotted line, their songs no longer belong to them. THey belong to record companies.
For the rest of that artists life (or however long that contract lasts), a majority of royalties go to the record companies.Even when the overhead is payed off.The record copmpanies take the money that the songs earn, gives a small amount to the artists and keeps the rest. There's another profession with the same business model,can you guess what it is?