NationStates Jolt Archive

I mean we've got these freaks at the RIAA :mp5: who keep arresting people for "Stealing" music through means such as Kazaa, Morpheus, etc. Thye use the grounds that this is illegal to sue people for on average US $5,000. Is this right? Doesn't the Consitution give each citizen a right to privacy? Moreover, isn't it a little bit rediculous to arrest someone because they have some free music on their computer? I want to hear fomr both sides, Infringement on Human Rights or a job well done? I open the floor.

I mean we've got these freaks at the RIAA :mp5: who keep arresting people for "Stealing" music through means such as Kazaa, Morpheus, etc. Thye use the grounds that this is illegal to sue people for on average US $5,000. Is this right? Doesn't the Consitution give each citizen a right to privacy? Moreover, isn't it a little bit rediculous to arrest someone because they have some free music on their computer? I want to hear fomr both sides, Infringement on Human Rights or a job well done? I open the floor.

It is stealing, so I guess it should be Illegal. I wouldn't want my stuff being stolen over the internet. Imagine you are an Artist loosing $100 000's every year because of this...I would think you would be quite unhappy.

I agree with you, to a point. What about the artists that feel that file swapping is a better way of promotion? I mean specifically the artists who perform for the experience, not the money.

Not if the files are legal. there are many legitimate uses for file sharing programs.

I agree with you, to a point. What about the artists that feel that file swapping is a better way of promotion? I mean specifically the artists who perform for the experience, not the money.

Ah yes, but those artist usually allow so many songs or bits of songs to be downloaded from their site. File sharing itself is pretty illegal unless the artist allow such songs to be spread across Kazaa or any such file sharing net work and lets face it much stuff on Kazaa etc is quite illegal

hmm its a toughie. on one hand it should be illegal cos of the forgone royalties that pay the artists' wages - without a pecuniary incentive, will thre be such allure towards the music industry; will we end up with fewer artists and less musical choice?
On the other hand, they do charge too much for music in the shops. Plus the record companies take a huge share of the profits comparitively to the artists - thus the price could drop and the artists could keep their hard-earned money if only the record companies made less.
Personally i'd rather pay for my music, but not like £16 per album. same with DVDs - they're just too expensive. An album for £8 and a DVD for £8-10 would be ok with me (maybe a little overpriced for some). Downloading from the internet cuts the record compainies' costs anyhow cos of reduced (no) shipping, distribution or cd mastering (producing the cd/dvd and designing/printing the label and case). The future is cheap cds and dvds avalable on the net for download only, imo; and the sooner the record industry realises this the better.

ps: all must use bittorrent ;)

I'm not sure that I believe in intellectual property in the first place.

I think the solution is sell individual songs in the internet for 1$ or somthing like that. they start to do it somewhere, and the sells going well right now.

I'm not sure that I believe in intellectual property in the first place.
so, every body can steal CDs from stores, go without pay to movies, and such?
come on, if you want something that had price, you have to pay for it.

I mean we've got these freaks at the RIAA :mp5: who keep arresting people for "Stealing" music through means such as Kazaa, Morpheus, etc. Thye use the grounds that this is illegal to sue people for on average US $5,000. Is this right? Doesn't the Consitution give each citizen a right to privacy? Moreover, isn't it a little bit rediculous to arrest someone because they have some free music on their computer? I want to hear fomr both sides, Infringement on Human Rights or a job well done? I open the floor.

I am a musician. I'm not famous or have a record label, of course, I only play the trumpet (^^) but still, here's my take:

Based on how the industry works, yes it should be illegal.

But I believe the real crime here is the industry itself. Music comes from the soul, not from the wallet. A better phrase/rhetoric:

"If music is the reflection of one's soul, and you charge money to play the song... does that make you an auditory prostitute?"

The best counter for the illegality argument would be this: it's not the artists who lose money, its the record industry, the money-hungry corporates who want to profit off of someone's "soul en volume."

why dont we just ban vcrs, cassette recorders, and dvd burners, while we are at it
thats not going far enough! scanners, copy machines, and cmeras should all be banned

im gonna sue people who take pictures of paintings i tell you its gonna be a war!!!



:mp5: :mp5: :mp5:


the point is, if i own a peice of music, and i want to share it with my friends, why is file sharing any diffrent then me making a cassete recording from a cd.. so what if my "friends" happen to be a millin people i never met who live all over the world, we have the same taste in music so im sure we would get along :D

http://www.worldofends.com/

so, every body can steal CDs from stores, go without pay to movies, and such?
come on, if you want something that had price, you have to pay for it.
so, every body can launch nuclear missiles at each other for listening to music and such?
come on, put at least one gram of effort into considering what I'm saying before making a fool of yourself

so, every body can launch nuclear missiles at each other for listening to music and such?
come on, put at least one gram of effort into considering what I'm saying before making a fool of yourself
your idea about punishment is little too radical.
you said that there is no difference between listen to music, and steal the cd of the songs?
artists as PC games companies, movies companies and microsoft as the right to see benefitd from the work they had.
if you can't buy it don't use it. If you can buy it and still don't pay, you are criminal. that simple.
don't tell me things like: the radio play songs too, and I could see movies in TV and tape him by the video. this is other story. when things go to the TV, they are the public enterprise, and the creators get money for their work.

as I say before: you can easily find sites that sell song in 1$ ,or less. pay that or you stealing.

your idea about punishment is little too radical.
Duh.
you said that there is no difference between listen to music, and steal the cd of the songs?
No, I didn't. What I said is all that I said.

It is stealing, so I guess it should be Illegal. I wouldn't want my stuff being stolen over the internet. Imagine you are an Artist loosing $100 000's every year because of this...I would think you would be quite unhappy.
well unless you the artist run your own label and produce and sell your own music, you arnt losing shit.

It's the control of industry which the clients of RIAA (and their associates) want to retain. While piracy does have a bad impact on the record companies and their clients, I believe it's the record companies who are to blame.

If they stopped overpricing music CDs, then there would be less incentive to pirate music in general. While now legit sellers of online music exist, selling a download for say $1 they will always be people who want it for free (don't we all?).

The artist lose money, but the record companies simply want more power over artists and of course fatter profits for less cost. File sharing is a rebellion against this and it hits where it hurts, the profit margin.

:headbang:

Illegal trade in intellectual property is EXACTLTY the same as dealing in stolen material property and should be treated EXACTLY the same. If you file swap CD XYZ without permission, that is exactly the same as if you waltzed into the store, and shoplifted it.

the only people who don't understand that are the socialists and communists, and they don't understand property to begin with.

Property rights, don't need 'em. If all those musicians care about is money, I really don't see much reason to respect them.

Property rights, don't need 'em. If all those musicians care about is money, I really don't see much reason to respect them.

Are you willing to work for free? Why should they?

If you don't agree with the price being charged, don't pay it - it's not like you have to have the music. But downloading it is stealing from the artist.

But downloading it is stealing from the artist.
Which is part of the fun.

It's legal in Canada (I think) so I don't care.

Which is part of the fun.

Whether or not it's fun (which I don't get, but there you go), it's still a felony. If the theft crosses state or international lines, there are some rather serious punishments if the courts decide to get nasty.

If you like the music, why wouldn't you want to support the people who produced it?

Whether or not it's fun (which I don't get, but there you go), it's still a felony. If the theft crosses state or international lines, there are some rather serious punishments if the courts decide to get nasty.

If you like the music, why wouldn't you want to support the people who produced it?
Cause I don't like all the songs most of the time. Just a few. So why should I pay for all the stuff I don't want? Anyway. It's not illegal here in the Netherlands as far as I know.

Cause I don't like all the songs most of the time. Just a few. So why should I pay for all the stuff I don't want? Anyway. It's not illegal here in the Netherlands as far as I know.

Why do you get the stuff you don't want in the first place? There are plenty of places to hear music to find out whether or not you like it, without copying it. If you like something do you then pay for it? I suspect not...

And I'd be very surprised to find out that this is legal in either Canada or the Netherlands.

"its not illegal here, i dont think"

I've read this a couple times already.

Arrogance of the law, is no excuse.

In sweden it is legal to download music and films, but theres a new law coming up sometime in 2005 i think.

And I'd be very surprised to find out that this is legal in either Canada or the Netherlands.
Article 16b of the Dutch copyright law from 1912. It says it's legal, in this case for music or movies which you have dloaded, to have multiple copies of those around for study or personal use. You can even legally put it on a carrier like a CD rom or DVD. As long as your intent is not to use them for commercial ends to make money of them.

Property rights, don't need 'em. If all those musicians care about is money, I really don't see much reason to respect them.

:::steals all of Letilia's anime:::

Sorry, but that's what will happen if you deny property rights - you won't have them either.

:::steals all of Letilia's anime:::

Sorry, but that's what will happen if you deny property rights - you won't have them either.

Oh, I need a car. Grab that for me too, pls.

"its not illegal here, i dont think"

I've read this a couple times already.

Arrogance of the law, is no excuse.

So any laws not based on the American justice system is bad?

Don't be stupid.

So any laws not based on the American justice system is bad?

Don't be stupid.

Excuse me flamer, no one said anything about the American justice system.

Arrogance of the law is no excuse, no matter where you are.

I think that people who don't do it just because of the law are moralistic weak. everybody need to find what bad despite only afraid from the police.
why are you think things is bad only if they outlawed? do you kill or steal if you know the police can't catch you?
because if you do, you have problems.

beside, the ones who do it depite the law are worse. they do it only because they want to harm "the evil CDs companies", or to feel "cool"

www.baen.com/library

Go there and read the essay. It's about books but to a lesser extent it easily applies to music as well.

As a musician, I can say .... no ... it should be completely legal.

Excuse me flamer, no one said anything about the American justice system.

Arrogance of the law is no excuse, no matter where you are.

Laws are different in different places. It's not arrogance.

Why do you get the stuff you don't want in the first place? There are plenty of places to hear music to find out whether or not you like it, without copying it. If you like something do you then pay for it? I suspect not...

And I'd be very surprised to find out that this is legal in either Canada or the Netherlands.

Whether or not it is legal to share files in Canada or the Netherlands is actually irrelevent... it is not legal for persons in those countries to share music/programs or files from OUTSIDE those countries, UNLESS those OTHER countries ALSO have free transfer of copyrighted material.

So, if people file-swap music by American artists, even if they do the swapping in Canada, they are still infringing American copyright law, because that is where the work was copyrighted... so that is where the legal protection is 'based'.

It is perfectly legal to download in the US. In theory it is illegal to upload, although there has not yet been a single case brought to court criminally.

Laws are different in different places. It's not arrogance.

Yes laws are different. That's not what I am saying.

I am saying it is an obligation to know the law, instead of "I think it's legal, so I'm gonna do it even though people keep saying it is illegal and have been filing lawsuits for years....."

It is perfectly legal to download in the US. In theory it is illegal to upload, although there has not yet been a single case brought to court criminally.

Something of a technicality... downloading per se might be legal, but owning a copy of an album/program for which you have no legal copyright is illegal.

So, if you download a copyrighted file, and keep it, you have commited a crime.

It's a bit of a grey area, though... since people could always argue that they were NOT KEEPING the file, they just hadn't deleted it yet...

Of course, if you make a hard copy... then it's illegal, because you have made a back-up of media you don't own.

Yes laws are different. That's not what I am saying.

I am saying it is an obligation to know the law, instead of "I think it's legal, so I'm gonna do it even though people keep saying it is illegal and have been filing lawsuits for years....."

I don't like people like you. Sorry.

I don't like people like you. Sorry.

Lol? I'm sorry if I have offended you... but what do you mean... like me? Who am I like?

why dont we just ban vcrs, cassette recorders, and dvd burners, while we are at it
thats not going far enough! scanners, copy machines, and cmeras should all be banned

im gonna sue people who take pictures of paintings i tell you its gonna be a war!!!



:mp5: :mp5: :mp5:


the point is, if i own a peice of music, and i want to share it with my friends, why is file sharing any diffrent then me making a cassete recording from a cd.. so what if my "friends" happen to be a millin people i never met who live all over the world, we have the same taste in music so im sure we would get along :D

Ah but if Artist want to share their music they can allow downloads from their site. The point is there are some artist who don't (and we must respect this)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/alman9898/random/riaa.jpg

It's the control of industry which the clients of RIAA (and their associates) want to retain. While piracy does have a bad impact on the record companies and their clients, I believe it's the record companies who are to blame.

If they stopped overpricing music CDs, then there would be less incentive to pirate music in general. While now legit sellers of online music exist, selling a download for say $1 they will always be people who want it for free (don't we all?).

The artist lose money, but the record companies simply want more power over artists and of course fatter profits for less cost. File sharing is a rebellion against this and it hits where it hurts, the profit margin.

Agreed. I'm a musician making recordings (an album in the works) and I don't have a problem with downloading. Because I will sell my CD for $5 (about $2 profit). Not for 22 friggin dollars. People are good if you give them a chance. (P.S. That price lends out to about $0.50 a song, so even downloads are a rip.)

Agreed. I'm a musician making recordings (an album in the works) and I don't have a problem with downloading. Because I will sell my CD for $5 (about $2 profit). Not for 22 friggin dollars. People are good if you give them a chance. (P.S. That price lends out to about $0.50 a song, so even downloads are a rip.)

Its ironic though, cause the artist don't make that much money per album. The Record Company make the most.

Are you willing to work for free? Why should they?

Depends on what job, really.

Personally, most of the stuff on my computer is copied off of my own CDs, and is just on there so I can play it in Winamp without changing CDs. Of course, the small amount of stuff I DO download is techno that I can't find in stores, so I'm kind of hazy about it...

Personally, most of the stuff on my computer is copied off of my own CDs, and is just on there so I can play it in Winamp without changing CDs. Of course, the small amount of stuff I DO download is techno that I can't find in stores, so I'm kind of hazy about it...

Pretty much like me, the only stuff I downloaded is small Australian bands that never released a Cd and have allowed their songs to be downloaded. Mind you if they do release a cd I do buy it promptly.

It should be illegal, as it compromises the integrity of the music, and hurts those that recorded it. It can be perfectly legal, of course, but only by the artist's and record label's consent (if the artist signs with a record label).

It is only illegal t copy copyrighted materials and ask profit in anyform for the copy. Otherwise it is perfectly legal to give it away. read the small print it says for private use and not to sell copies nothing in any of the small print or the law in which it references to about giving away copies.

The act of file-sharing is not, in and of itself, illegal--nor should it be. What is illegal (and justly so) is copying and/or redistributing the intellectual property of another without the owner's consent, regardless of the means by which it is done.

If the owner of a certain piece of intellectual property wishes to allow unlimited copying and distribution of it by whatever means available, that is his prerogative, and in that case doing so is perfectly OK. Otherwise, it's wrong regardless of the law.


The best counter for the illegality argument would be this: it's not the artists who lose money, its the record industry, the money-hungry corporates who want to profit off of someone's "soul en volume."
So?

The record companies are the ones who own the rights, having received them with the consent of the original artists--thus, the record companies are just as morally entitled to whatever they choose to charge as the artist would be if he had not signed over the rights.

If they stopped overpricing music CDs, then there would be less incentive to pirate music in general.
Just because I don't lock my doors, does that make it ok for you to sneak into my house in the middle of the night and steal all my furniture?

well someone did bring up this point.. if i tape a song on the radio.. i dont pay for it..and i certainly am not required to pay for it if i make a copy of that tape..
Such as if i take a picture.. i can take pictures of paintings and reproduce them.. and give them away.. so long as im not making a profit on it, its not considered theft of intelectual proerpty.. so why is it.. if i make a copy of a song.. and give it to a friend for free online.. and i make no profit.. why then is that theft ?

In fact you only violate intelectual property right laws when u restribute copyed materials for a profit.. however the music industry is preciving the "profit" as savings incured by the person recieving the song free of charge.. then shouldn't anyone who makes tapes of tv shows be required to pay a fee.. or tapes of the radio.. or photographs.. etc ?

no. because theoretically reducing someone's profit margin (MAYBE, that assumes you'd buy it if you couldn't get it free, HIGHLY questionable) still ain't theft. when a company has a lower profit for the fiscal year because people have stopped buying their shit, they don't get to sue their former customers for their theoretically lost profits.

plus, it's not putting musicians out of business, it's not making them unable to support themselves, and the poorest musicians (i.e. independent artists) are usually the biggest supporters, because it gets the music out.

if you don't want people to hear your music, you shouldn't perform it. if you want people to hear your music, you shouldn't care how they go about it. and artists make the vast majority of their money off merchandise and live shows, NOT the royalties from CDS

CDs cost less than a dollar each to make. MUCH less than a dollar. yet they cost 20 dollars per. artists get a few cents per CD, tops. where's all the money go to? the record companies.

if what filesharing accomplishes is putting the parasitic music industry out of business, leaving artists and audiences, with no massive, bloated, greedy middleman, then good fucking riddance.


think about what would have happened if woody guthrie had an agent who had copyrighted "this land is your land" and sued everyone else who sang it, and you get a sense of how ridiculous, greedy and whiny the RIAA is.

Just because I don't lock my doors, does that make it ok for you to sneak into my house in the middle of the night and steal all my furniture?


Actually yes it does. Like leaving a spare key in the car and having car stolen ince they discover a key was used it is not theft.

Had this come up a lo in court.

Actually yes it does. Like leaving a spare key in the car and having car stolen ince they discover a key was used it is not theft.

Had this come up a lo in court.

You're committing an is/ought fallacy. Just because the law is a certain way now does not mean that that's necessarily the way it should be. And given that the title of this thread is "Should File Swapping be Illegal?" rather than "Is File Swapping Illegal?", I think it's fairly safe to say that this is a discussion about how things SHOULD be, not how they ARE.

Actually yes it does. Like leaving a spare key in the car and having car stolen ince they discover a key was used it is not theft.

Had this come up a lo in court.

That is completly wrong. Unless the owner of the car gave permission for the person to take the car it is theft. The fact that there was a key in the car does not constitute permission for any random person to take it.

It seems that there is quite a bit of ignorance of copyright laws in the United States. It is not illegal to possess a pirated copy of anything.
The purpose of Copyright is to give the author of a work control over how and when copies and derivitive works are made. It does not give a copyright holder any right to control how possesses a copy of the work.
It is not a crime to violate copyright for comercial purposes. If you sell pirate CDs or put pirated MP3 on a pay website then you can be arrested.
It is not a crime to violate copyright in a non-commercial manor. It is, however a tort. No one has been arested nor can anyone be arrested for P2P filesharing but some have been sued.
While $100,000 per song lawsuits are big news, that figure is the maximum ammount that can be awarded by a judge or jury. Actual awards are limited to actual damages, the ammount of money lost because of the copyright violation and the amount of money gained by the violator, if any. The amount must be proven by a poponderance of the evidence In actuality, if any of these cases had gone to trial damage awards would have been minimal.
Under the DMCA, it is a tort to violate any sort of copy protection, even if doing so is necesssary for "fair use" of the product. It is a crime to sell devices or programs designed to defeat copy protections.
There are exceptions to this, however. If the original media is obsolete, for example, one can defeat copy protections to make a usable copy. This applies primarilary to video game ROMs and it still requires you to own a valid original copy.
You can also copy E-books whose original format prevents the use of any handicaped accessability option, such as reading aloud or brail output.


The estimates that file sharing costs the enterainment industiries hundreds of millions of dollars are based on erronious assumptions. For the most part, those that download and do not buy an original copy would not have bought an original cop anyway, usualy because they can't afford to. Those who do download and buy CDs are more likely to buy CDs containing downloaded songs.
These assertions are difficult to prove, however, since there have been no scientific studies on file sharing that I am aware of.
More tangible is the way music is sold. Very few record companies sell directly to consumers, they sell to record stores. They get their money from the stores then, not from the consumers. Music stores will purchase CDs that sell well and cater to their customers. If a CD sells out they will probably order more, so retainl sales are important to the industry. However, there is no evidence that suggests that file sharing hurts retail sales. By some estimates, the opposite is true. Also, used CDs are sold. It is not uncommen for people to buy second hand disks at a reduced price, the recording industry sees nothing from these resales.

The old copyright model was made for a world where it costs millions of dollars to priate on a grand scale. The advent of computer networks changed that, Instead of adjusting the model for the changing times the old order is trying to preserve itself at the expense of both consumer and artist. The truth is that the model needs to be changed.

As technology devolps the record companies are going to die out if they don't change their paradigm drasticly.

It is only illegal t copy copyrighted materials and ask profit in anyform for the copy. Otherwise it is perfectly legal to give it away. read the small print it says for private use and not to sell copies nothing in any of the small print or the law in which it references to about giving away copies.

That's funny... part of the liner notes on this album (c) 1992 I have here read:

"WARNING: All rights reserved, including all rights of the producer and of the owener of the recorded work. Unaurthorized copying, public performance, broadcasting, hiring or rental of this recording prohibited, as provided by apllicable law. Distribution: Sony Music"

And here, from The Best of Squirrel Nut Zippers, (c) 2002

"All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcasting prohibited."

Hmmmm, want to rethink that?

And here, from The Best of Squirrel Nut Zippers, (c) 2002

"All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcasting prohibited."

Hmmmm, want to rethink that?


That is just an example of the person who wrote the legal notices oversteping his bounds. Lending an original copy is not and has never been a copyright violation. If it were, then every library in the country would be liable for unspeakably huge damage awards..

This thread needs a poll.

IMHO, copyright should be limited, not extended, and file sharing of copyrighted works should be legal.

"Should File Swapping be Illegal?"

-Ansewer = NO! And it should never have been illegal! But i think that "big money" are winning this one :( BUT WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER!! :mp5:

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

And I'd be very surprised to find out that this is legal in either Canada or the Netherlands.Why are you so surprised?

Whether or not it is legal to share files in Canada or the Netherlands is actually irrelevent... it is not legal for persons in those countries to share music/programs or files from OUTSIDE those countries, UNLESS those OTHER countries ALSO have free transfer of copyrighted material.

So, if people file-swap music by American artists, even if they do the swapping in Canada, they are still infringing American copyright law, because that is where the work was copyrighted... so that is where the legal protection is 'based'.

Wrong...again and again

Wrong...again and again

Actually, on a legal stand point, he's absolutely correct. Actually punishing the culprit however would depend greatly on international relations, because the non-U.S. nation would not HAVE to give up the criminal. However, the law would and does still apply.

I think Michael Crichton said it best:

"It is strictly the moralist who continues to claim that 'Crime doesn't pay.'" (Pardon me if I misquoted it, but I'm going off the top of my head here.)

I personally think that it should be illegal. Those artists who desire to get the word out by giving away free music can toss their ever-so-cheaply-produced CDs into wild mobs (This sentence here is in jest, by the way).

Since I've just come into a five-page thread and have enough points to debate to baffle the mind, I'm just going to run off a couple of counterpoints to complaints I commonly hear (again, off the top of my head) and go from there, if that's all right with you guys.

"A twenty-dollar CD has only one or two songs I like, so it's not worth my trouble." --Incidentally, I've personally researched a couple of websites (not sure where they are now, but I can look them up if anyone wants them) that give unlimited downloads for $.99 US a month. Talk about your vicious cycles--the downloaders are saying that prices are too high, while the loss in profits boosts the prices. And if it's not worth the money, then the simplest solution seems to be to simply not buy it. It's music, not oxygen.

"There are a lot of artists that get free advertising from it, so in fact they PREFER we steal their music." --http://www.musicunited.org. I'll let the artists speak for themselves on this one.

"All artists/songwriters/big-bad-corporations care about is the money, anyway, and they have enough that it doesn't matter." --Believe it or not, the money that goes into record-making still contains in large part the paychecks of every janitor/makeup artist/lowly-peon working in the record industry. Simply put: you don't pay, they don't eat. And the logic behind this is essentially saying that it's all right to steal in the name of income equality. Hmm. I don't think Bill Gates (or the charities to which he donates money in large quantities) will appreciate that.

"Downloading isn't illegal, either because it's only uploading that's illegal or we don't sell it for money." --I'll address the second point first: that's like saying it's fine to shoplift clothing if you only wear it and not sell it. Now for the first point: it's a blatant misconception. Downloading music is an act of copying something to which you do not own the copyright (usually) to your computer, and is therefore a violation of copyright law, PERIOD.

Okay, those are the top four I've heard, in person and on this thread. But before I leave and wait for the flames, just one more point, that regards the initial quote I put at the top of this post. I've tried appealing to people on both the practical and ethical levels, and in both cases, I've found I'm simply wasting my breath. So I'll admit one point: in this particular case, crime apparently does pay. But one thing leaves me confused: does this act of larceny not bother anyone's conscience in the least? Does their moral fiber remotely respond to the numerous gigabytes and terabytes (yes, I have met people with this much stolen property) on their hard drives?

Well, that about finishes it up for me. I'm open to rebuttals or (most likely) blatant flaming.

"Should File Swapping be Illegal?"

-Ansewer = NO! And it should never have been illegal! But i think that "big money" are winning this one :( BUT WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER!! :mp5:

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

As someone so eloquently put it:
They've got the money.
They've got the lawyers.
They've got the politicians.

But we've got the programmers!

so, every body can steal CDs from stores, go without pay to movies, and such?
come on, if you want something that had price, you have to pay for it.
CDs aren't intellectual property. They would never be free. The content is the intellectual property. There is a lot of public domain music, gobs of free/open-source software, and many books with expired copyrights. Virtually none of that stuff is available on hard media for free, but anyone can legally copy it.

I think Michael Crichton said it best:

...

Well, that about finishes it up for me. I'm open to rebuttals or (most likely) blatant flaming.
That's just stupid.

First of all, illegal is not the same as immoral. If you think that it's immoral to download music and want to convince us of that, saying that it's illegal isn't an argument.

Copyright in its modern form was created not because artists has any natural right to what they create but to reward and promote the creation of new works. Promote in order for the public to benefit from the works, not the artists.

And since it's for the benefit of the public, it's only fair that we ask them if they're happy with copyright law. Are we? Apparently not. The vast majority agrees that some amount of piracy is OK.

The people has spoken, all around the world. Copyright law should be reformed immediately, so that most people are happy with it.

It should be legal. A company could greatly increase awareness of its products by embracing file sharing. Any of us who download anime fansubs should have an idea what I'm talking about. I don't think the music industry is any different.

As for file sharers, when the code for Half-life 2 was stolen and put up for download on the internet a web-wide effort was conducted to find the culprit. Which they did. It was not the company who found him but hackers and other netizens who were able to trace him down. And Halo 2, which had a french version released to the net by someone naughty, saw that even though it was downloaded an enormous amount thru bittorrent (Suprnova no doubt) it didn't stop it from being a super-mega seller. It may have even increased the buzz around the game and ended up increasing sales (although Halo 2 was up there with HL2 and GTA:SA for most hungered-for game of the year and I suspect the buzz couldn't get much higher). Too bad there wasn't much interest in tracking the culprit down online (probably since netizens don't think too highly of Microsoft ;) )

I've always believed that the net embraces companies/products that embrace it and the freedom it provides. DRM is not going to be around for long. Sony has already begun to move away from it and open source software will overpower proprietary software (Shape up, Microsoft! FireFox is gonna getcha!).

I would like everyone to lower their heads as we say farewell to http://www.suprnova.org

It should be legal. A company could greatly increase awareness of its products by embracing file sharing.

It can, if it wants. But if it doesn't want to, that's it's decision.

It can, if it wants. But if it doesn't want to, that's it's decision.

We shouldn't be the ones who have to be penalized just because of the ignorance of a larger entity. If it doesn't want to then it can leave alone those who do.

I wasn't trying to use either "illegal" or "immoral" as a complement to the other point. I was attempting to use both arguments in tandem to try and convince people to stop file sharing due to discomfort, either on a legal or moral level.

I frankly don't see what's wrong with copyright law as it stands. If you want lower music prices, neither purchase nor download. Competition will force prices to drop, and then you'll be happy. Downloading forces the companies to try and beef up security to prevent theft, which drives the prices UP. You're not helping your cause any by stealing.

"file-swapping" in its original form, is merely the exchange of bits of information from computer to computer, (i.e. two programmers sharing scripts and such) Therefore, the exchange of files will never be illegal. Besides, there's always IRCspy.

Here is the real problem behind the entire file sharing issue. The question is whether a collection of sound recordings is worth giving someone exclusive rights to distribute over a period of 95 (yes, you read that right, ninety-five) years.

I must say no, especially in light of the recent draconian measures added to existing copyright regimes. It has reached the point where unregulated use is going to be squashed with the next generation of CD/DVD players. Folks, this is NOT what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the copyrights and patents regimes in the 1790's. Let me explain:

Each and every person is a culmination of his or her experiences in life. Experience comes from the world around you, namely, the society you live in. Each person in a society contributes to the knowledge of the whole. For the most part, that knowledge was gained at little or no cost to you. You draw interpretations as you learn and do more. Some people put those interpretations into art forms, like music. The point is, EVERYONE draws from life experience and societal contributions (IE, the Public Domain) in order to create art.

Thus, in the end, contributions of art works ultimately belong to the society that inspired it. Our Constituion, however, grants the right to the artist who drew upon his life and societal influences to profit from his work in order to " promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". In other words, we allow people to make a living as scientists and artists because they get "LIMITED TIMES" to exploit their discoveries and creations.

Do you really think that 95 years is "limited"? Consider how fast information flows today, and how easily a work can be changed, remixed, and turned into something completely original by building upon its predecessor. "Limited Times" was 14 years at first, with an additional 14 years available upon renewal. Now it's 95 years from the date of publication (or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever is shorter). And most royalty owners are trying to extend them again, with some aiming for 200+ years.

Consider this:

Some of the Sherlock Holmes stories are still in copyright because of the latest extensions. The writer, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, died before the Great Depression.

Many of the "Golden Age of Hollywood" films have turned to dust. Why? Nobody will publish the works because they no longer have any idea who owns the copyrights (they still have at least another decade or two before they expire, assuming another Mickey Mouse Act doesn't get passed). These films are sitting in cans, eroding with time, never to be seen again, never to inspire a future film maker. We are literally losing tons of film every year.

If the 28-year term was still in effect:

- People could be taking the works of the Beatles and making "what if" albums to explore the themes they used. As it is now, chances are you'll be dead, and nobody will care about the Beatles any more before this can happen.

- Early disco influences could be thematically introduced into modern dance music. Okay, this isn't necessarily a good thing.

- Elvis would be free... not just as in "free beer", but as in "free spech".

Think about this. Did any of these people form their music in a vacuum, or were they inspired by other types of music? Rock 'n roll was underground for years before it was picked up by the mainstream music companies. Same goes for disco. Elvis was inspired by black gospel and black Memphis rock.

The original agreement was this: "Okay, you get to draw off this huge pool of knowledge and art, make money from it, and in return you give your art back to the community when you're made your money for 28 years." Sounds pretty darn fair to me.

Let's get back to the topic -- file sharing. Is it illegal to download music? I say, if it's less than 28 years old, you bet it is. However, the copyright industry (AKA the RIAA, MPAA, etc, etc) has IMMORALLY gained unreasonable copyright extensions by paying off congressional members. (Strangely enough, the term extensions always seem to happen when the first Mickey Mouse film is about to expire.)

"Intellectual Property" is bunk. It's a criminal concept. You cannot own thought, because there is a very good chance that the same thoughts will be generated by someone else at almost the same time, based upon mutual life experience and societal influence. Look at the infamous patent for the telephone -- Bell got it to the patent office only hours before Elisha Gray. Yet they had developed it independently, basing it off the same principles and EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE... you know, that how societal contribution I have been blathering about. I think of proper copyright terms more as an "Intellectual Lease" agreement.

So, perhaps I have little sympathy for the RIAA. Let me state for the record that I think the problem has nothing to do with CD prices. It's about freedom of expression. The RIAA is the biggest hypocrite in this area. They have tons of cocaine-snorting First Amendment lawyers ready to pounce on someone who tries to censor a RIAA member's album, yet they do their damnedest to lock out non-RIAA recording companies from store shelves.

Do you really think they are trying to shut down P2P because of piracy?

Nuh-uh. It's called EXCLUSIVITY. It they can't grasp it, control it, 100%, it must be destroyed. Look at the old Napster. People were finding all sorts of new music. Good music. Great music. Non-RIAA music.

There is a bigger picture here, folks. Think about this. Why do you think the RIAA tends to target younger people with their lawsuits? Because younger people, in general, have more open minds about music... like, music that isn't put out by the latest karaoke lip-synching, midriff-baring trailer park reject.

THAT is what is pissing off the RIAA.

Hmm, interesting points, if slightly abrasive. Very well, I concede--copyright law is in need of a minor overhaul, but not simply to suit the needs of people who want all manner of freely shared music.

But as for your points on intellectual property: I am a writer, by hobby more than by trade. But I have a lot of work that I'd rather not be taken as soon as it's completed. But since I'm not quite sure what you mean by your stance on intellectual property as a whole, I'll wait until there's more information on it.

It should be legal. A company could greatly increase awareness of its products by embracing file sharing. Any of us who download anime fansubs should have an idea what I'm talking about. I don't think the music industry is any different.


yes, but then how many of those people that download anime burn them to DVD, then when legal DVDs come to there country don't buy them because they already have it.

A related subject: what are your attitudes towards movie bootlegging?

yes, but then how many of those people that download anime burn them to DVD, then when legal DVDs come to there country don't buy them because they already have it.

People who for some reason prefer lower-quality image and sound?
I for one rarely burn any anime (or movies/games) anymore, since I'll either buy it or never watch/play it again anyway.

Example:

I can get Hellsing on DVD for 30 Euros, or burn it on cd's for 3.

DVD gets me high quality, extra's, subtitles of my choice (and technically non-Japanese spoken text as well, but I'd sooner commit sepukku), a warm fuzzy feeling in my tummy for supporting the producers and the DVD cases look nice next to The Guyver and The Holy Grail in my bookcase.

CD gets me mediocre (I've seen worse) quality, no extra's, no choice of subtitles, stupid 'credits' from the person who ripped it trying to make himself look cool, I feel guilty for not paying it, and it's on 4 bare cd's with 'Hellsing' written on them, hidden somewhere in a cd-case.

Hmmm, tough choice.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/12/06/tech.music.reut/

well let's see what a recording artist from the 70's and 80;s Janis Ian has to say - she has multiple Grammy's and chart topping records back then..

========================================

she wrote in "Performing songwriter" magazine

They told me downloads were "destroying sales", "ruining the music industry", and "costing you money".

Costing me money? I don't pretend to be an expert on intellectual property law, but I do know one thing. If a music industry executive claims I should agree with their agenda because it will make me more money, I put my hand on my wallet�and check it after they leave, just to make sure nothing's missing.

Am I suspicious of all this hysteria? You bet. Do I think the issue has been badly handled? Absolutely. Am I concerned about losing friends, opportunities, my 10th Grammy nomination by publishing this article? Yeah. I am. But sometimes things are just wrong, and when they're that wrong, they have to be addressed.

"The premise of all this ballyhoo is that the industry (and its artists) are being harmed by free downloading.

Nonsense. Let's take it from my personal experience. My site (www.janisian.com ) gets an average of 75,000 hits a year. Not bad for someone whose last hit record was in 1975. When Napster was running full-tilt, we received about 100 hits a month from people who'd downloaded Society's Child or At Seventeen for free, then decided they wanted more information. Of those 100 people (and these are only the ones who let us know how they'd found the site), 15 bought CDs. Not huge sales, right? No record company is interested in 180 extra sales a year. But� that translates into $2700, which is a lot of money in my book. And that doesn't include the ones who bought the CDs in stores, or who came to my shows. ...

One other major point: in the hysteria of the moment, everyone is forgetting the main way an artist becomes successful - exposure. Without exposure, no one comes to shows, no one buys CDs, no one enables you to earn a living doing what you love. Again, from personal experience: in 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that didn't show I owed them money. So I make the bulk of my living from live touring, playing for 80-1500 people a night, doing my own show. I spend hours each week doing press, writing articles, making sure my website tour information is up to date. Why? Because all of that gives me exposure to an audience that might not come otherwise. So when someone writes and tells me they came to my show because they'd downloaded a song and gotten curious, I am thrilled!

Who gets hurt by free downloads? Save a handful of super-successes like Celine Dion, none of us. We only get helped.

I have no objection to [the recording industry] et al trying to protect the record labels, who are the ones fomenting this hysteria. RIAA is funded by them. NARAS is supported by them. However, I object violently to the pretense that they are in any way doing this for our benefit. If they really wanted to do something for the great majority of artists, who eke out a living against all odds, they could tackle some of the real issues facing us:



* Singer-songwriters have to accept the "Controlled Composition Clause" (which dictates that they'll be paid only 75% of the rates set by Congress in publishing royalties) for any major or subsidiary label recording contract, or lose the contract. Simply put, the clause demanded by the labels provides that a) if you write your own songs, you will only be paid 3/4 of what Congress has told the record companies they must pay you, and b) if you co-write, you will use your "best efforts" to ensure that other songwriters accept the 75% rate as well. If they refuse, you must agree to make up the difference out of your share.

* Congressionally set writer/publisher royalties have risen from their 1960's high (2 cents per side) to a munificent 8 cents.

* Many of us began in the 50's and 60's; our records are still in release, and we're still being paid royalty rates of 2% (if anything) on them.

* If we're not songwriters, and not hugely successful commercially (as in platinum-plus), we don't make a dime off our recordings. Recording industry accounting procedures are right up there with films.

================================================

I think this shows the industry doesn't care about artists profits at all

Hmm, interesting points, if slightly abrasive. Very well, I concede--copyright law is in need of a minor overhaul, but not simply to suit the needs of people who want all manner of freely shared music.

I think the rampant downloading of music is a symptom of the larger issue. Music is but a form of expression of the human condition. Very few compositions are "timeless". Most are quite rooted in the time they appear on the scene. Take rap music, or the latest boom-box syntho-crap boy band. As Dennis Miller said about the Spice Girls, "Can't wait until their Unplugged reunion, huh?"

Lawrence Lessig (a Stanford Law professor) made four very succinct points about this phenomenon, which I will paraphrase here:

<REFRAIN>
1 - The present always builds upon the past.
2 - The past always tries to prevent the present from building on it.
3 - Our society is as free as our control over the past.
4 - Ours is less and less a free society.
</REFRAIN>


But as for your points on intellectual property: I am a writer, by hobby more than by trade. But I have a lot of work that I'd rather not be taken as soon as it's completed. But since I'm not quite sure what you mean by your stance on intellectual property as a whole, I'll wait until there's more information on it.

By "Intellectual Property is bunk", I mean this. Copyrights are not forever, nor should they be. The way the terms are set now, even old wrinked up farts in Congress won't live long enough to see works put back in the public domain.

Let's address your question. When you publish your first major book, it will sell a million copies. (Now aren't I a nice prognosticator?) :) From the date of publication, you should have your 14 year exclusivity period to decide who can copy that book. Another 14 if you renew it... if not, it goes BACK into the public domain. It's an "Intellectual Lease". A timeshare condo for abstract concepts, complete with the slip on the door telling you when you have to check-out. You get to make exclusive use of the ideas, art, invention, etc, under the promise that everyone gets to use it when your time is up. All that's missing is Barney the Dinosaur singing about "Sharing is Caring" (and I'm still convinced he's a Communist).

Why do I say BACK? Because technically, since a person is the sum of his experience in the public world, so are his creations. What is this sum? The language you speak. The types of people you meet, who inspire your characters. The places you go and incorporate into your works. Natural settings, sounds, sights. The events that shape your thinking. The (in my case, anyway) public schooling that allowed you to speel correktly. :-)

Since you made the effort to bring these notions together into a coherent whole (your book, for example,) you are entitled to the fruits thereof... for that limited time period. After that time is up, your work now serves a greater purpose of enriching other works. Perhaps even a spin-off, not written by you, of a popular character in your fiction.

I imagine that you picked up, at this point, that I write a bit myself. Or, should I say, spigot my entire thought train into a huge pools of poetic drivel often. We writers, music makers, and dreamers must defend the richest rewards of all... seeing what happens next, of course.

:headbang:

Illegal trade in intellectual property is EXACTLTY the same as dealing in stolen material property and should be treated EXACTLY the same. If you file swap CD XYZ without permission, that is exactly the same as if you waltzed into the store, and shoplifted it.

the only people who don't understand that are the socialists and communists, and they don't understand property to begin with.

Jerk, thats crap man, thats just what The Man wants you to think. Do you know why blank CD's aren't getting any cheaper? Its because there is a tax being put on them, as well as on a bunch of things like ipods and the like and this money goes to some big pool that gets doled out to the artists. Because we pay a tax like this, the Canadian courts have decided that it is legal to upload and download music. RIAA be damned.

"its not illegal here, i dont think"

I've read this a couple times already.

Arrogance of the law, is no excuse.

True, true, but that doesn't change the fact that it IS legal in Canada, I KNOW.

Oh, I need a car. Grab that for me too, pls.

And if another copy of that car popped up when you drove yours away, that woudl be fine. The fact of the matter is that the RIAA's business model thrived on the fact that it was difficult to get music out there and distribute it. Now, the internet and digital technology has made the cost of selling one copy or a million copies the same. If I buy a car, I have one car nothing I do can make my car into a bunch of cars easily. If I have a song on my computer I can copy paste copy paste a million copies of that song for free. The RIAA's business model is broke, but they still have money so they are using the corrupt US legal system to further their cause. I'm not saying the artist shouldn't be paid, but not like this; not like this.

In sweden it is legal to download music and films, but theres a new law coming up sometime in 2005 i think.
Sorry if already answered...

But I was wondering about this yesterday. I know it's legal to download, but if you use bittorrent you're also uploading. Is it legal in Sweden?

Jerk, thats crap man, thats just what The Man wants you to think. Do you know why blank CD's aren't getting any cheaper? Its because there is a tax being put on them, as well as on a bunch of things like ipods and the like and this money goes to some big pool that gets doled out to the artists. Because we pay a tax like this, the Canadian courts have decided that it is legal to upload and download music. RIAA be damned.
I absolutely hate those taxes. I have never burned any music or videos (except my own) on CD's or DVD's. Yet I have to pay the tax. It's not fair. :(

Here it's legal to make a copy for your own use (even if you don't own the original one) and give it to few friends. I quess uploading is not "giving it to few friends".

Last week police arrested 34 Finns of copyright violations. 4 of them had torrent servers and 30 of them were admins of the site (finreactor). Now there are about 20 000 homeless filesharers in Finland :(

Actually I have downloaded only few movies which are impossible to find from anywhere else. And legal stuff.

Here is the real problem behind the entire file sharing issue. The question is whether a collection of sound recordings is worth giving someone exclusive rights to distribute over a period of 95 (yes, you read that right, ninety-five) years.
...

Well said, man. I pretty much agree with everything you're saying. Perhaps, you should blog that. Xanga (http://xanga.com) will set you up with a free blog page if you want one.
Personally, I can tolerate copyright laws in principle, but today they're far too expansive. I have traditionally respected existing laws, but I lost that respect them when the DMCA passed. What total crap!
:mad:
RIAA can kiss my ass, but I think the MPAA is even worse. I still have trouble believing the level of collusion they managed to achieve with hardware makers, but what really bothers me is that the law is behind them. It should be perfectly legal for me to manufacture and sell DVD players that defeat the regional/copyright BS, at least as long as I'm not violating reasonable patent laws.
Of course, patent laws aren't reasonable. Patents have become ridicuously strong. I like the way Jefferson looked at them, that the patent is a temporary government granted monopoly to encourage public disclosure of innovation as opposed to perpetual trade secrets. It was a comporomise, but today it's a liscense to print money. No 'obvious' inventions or innovations desreve a patent. Patents should only be granted for ideas that could resonably be trade secrets, not for something any idiot could come up with (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,368,227.WKU.&OS=PN/6,368,227&RS=PN/6,368,227).

Sorry if already answered...

But I was wondering about this yesterday. I know it's legal to download, but if you use bittorrent you're also uploading. Is it legal in Sweden?

It's illegal to upload, but there are ways of downloading without uploading.