File Sharing

[Tombstone]

Whats your opinion on Kazaa, WinMX, imesh, etc. ?

 

Legal? Illegal?

 

My opinion,

 

There isn't a black and white, its all grey. It is "sharing" but in a way that raises alot of conflict. It's alot different than lending a cd to a friend, you're putting songs on the internet for anyone and everyone to download for free.

 

I just saw on the news that the government is picking people that share alot of songs, movies etc. and sueing them. I personally have alot and could be sued. I'll take whatever happens and move on.

 

Any thoughts on the subject?

[Tombstone]

Heres a link to CNN where its talked about also

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/06/25/download.suits.ap/index.html

The RIAA said its lawyers will file lawsuits initially against people with the largest collections of music files they can find online. U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer, but Sherman said the RIAA will be open to settlement proposals from defendants.

 

[Icetuete]

from a certain point of view it is illegal because u offer stuff on the internet that u and others actually should pay money for. on the other hand there are not yet laws against it in many places so theres nothing wrong about it.

 

i heard that the music industry produced fake files all over the p2p programms that downloading there becomes kinda frustrating. but i dont know exactly and havnt too much expirience with it.

[karate_woman]

Whats your opinion on Kazaa, WinMX, imesh, etc. ?

 

Legal? Illegal?

 

My opinion,

 

There isn't a black and white, its all grey. It is "sharing" but in a way that raises alot of conflict. It's alot different than lending a cd to a friend, you're putting songs on the internet for anyone and everyone to download for free.

 

I just saw on the news that the government is picking people that share alot of songs, movies etc. and sueing them. I personally have alot and could be sued. I'll take whatever happens and move on.

 

Any thoughts on the subject?

 

It isn't a grey area unless the material isn't copyrighted. An example: my mother-in-law used to show animated movies to her Grade 2 classes until the Board of Education looked into the rules about showing to an "audience"; apparently a group of 30 or so children in a classroom was a big enough audience that she had to stop showing the movies in class - they needed to obtain permission to show them and it was too much of a hassle.

 

If you think of it in terms of a book and not music it would be clearer to you. If you lend a book to a friend to read that is no problem. If you photocopy the book and give them a copy it is a copyright infringement. If you scan it and share it with your friends in p2p, it is also a copyright issue. People don't generally do that sort of thing with books because they are so bulky, however.

 

Anyway...I use p2p mainly to check out a few songs from an artist when I've enjoyed their single on the radio. I will buy a CD only if I enjoy at least 2 songs, so rather than waiting for the next single to come out I can know right away and will often buy the CD sooner than I would have otherwise. If I decide not to buy that artist's CD, I'll wait and see if it is a compilation (if it is a big hit it generally will be) and buy it that way.

[Martial_Artist]

Well just because there's no law doesn't mean it isn't wrong. Lack of law doesn't equate moral justification.

 

I'm a writer so this hits pretty close to home.

 

A writer or musician makes money off of royalties. A royalty is a percentage of the sale price of each individual piece of work that is given to the artist. This is not a big percentage. 3-10% on average. Royalties are paid on the individual sale of each piece of work, i.e. every CD or every book, etc.

 

Copying something and giving it to another without paying the creator is copyright infringement. Copyright laws across the world are very specific about this. Photocopy a book and give it away and you're breaking copyright law. The only exception is archival for personal use, not distribution--free or otherwise.

 

If the file sharing continues and everyone does it so that only a few people actually ever buy anything musicians and writers won't have the incentive to create anymore. Imagine working very hard for something and never getting paid for it. Imagine working for your boss, right now, and never getting paid.

 

Writing and music are trades, very hard trades. It takes a lot to get published or a record produced. These people put a lot of time, money, effort, and talent into what they do. It isn't easy. Then, money hard-earned, is taken from them because of copyright infringement.

 

It is pretty black-and-white. It is stealing. Stealing from the artist their way of life. The courts have already made a move on it, look at what happened to Napster.

 

MA.

[shotochem]

I personally love file sharing. I still purchase CDs regularly. Sharing allows you the opportunity to preview before you buy. The quality of a store bought CD tends to be of much higher quality than a made one. Its not like the way it was in "Record" days where an entire album contained good enjoyable music. Artists tend to have one or two big hits then they are overmerchandised and the general public has enough of them till the next one comes out. Another benifit is you are able to get unusual, hard to find rare groupings of artists that you can not get anywhere else. I have many such compilations. So, the jury is out am I an immoral pirate or just a rabid fan and careful consumer? It's all a matter of perspective.

[Wado Guy]

Yes. It's illegal.

 

Now having said that, I'll tell you this... *I work in the music industry*

 

The record companies aren't losing noticeable money. The industry is way too big. As a whole, the industry is being too whiney and too baby about the whole deal. Someone beat them to the punch so to speak. Labels need to be offering pay to download options from their websites so both parties will be happy. BUT, as you can see......they'd rather alienate their customers (and future potential customers).

 

This industry is almost too big for most to fathom. It's huge. File sharing hasn't even put a noticeable dent in the money side of things.

 

Every time you hear a song on the radio, someone gets a few pennies added to a check in their name. Think about that.

 

NOW...let's take someone fairly new to the scene and somewhat popular...oh...how 'bout that Fifty Cent guy. As much as I'm not into his stuff, it gets played ALOT on the radio.

 

See where this is going????

 

Think about it.

 

I could tie in how Aliens are using mental telepathy to control the music industry, but that's a whole other story for another time

[kchenault]

It is pretty black-and-white. It is stealing. Stealing from the artist their way of life. The courts have already made a move on it, look at what happened to Napster.

 

MA.

 

I have to ask the question. Have you personally ever recorded anything with a VCR? If so, you have infringed on someone elses copyright. Therefore, you have stolen from them. This can be applied to anything with a copyright on it. It may seem black and white, but the ramifications are really dark. You can't prosecute everyone, but how do you justify the discriminitory practice of singling out people because they have made money on the stealing? By your own line of thinking, stealing is stealing. Not whether any money was made. I have taped TV episodes from the television, and I have downloaded tv episodes from the internet. I do not sell them, but I have broken copyright laws, because I did not pay for the eps. Will I be prosecuted? Probably not, but had I sold them on eBay, you bet. It is all about money, not rights, IMO. This too will pass.

[Martial_Artist]

Ah, but television is not the same medium as music or books. Something that has to be purchased before use. Television is freely dristibuted and royalties are collected from ad agencies and not the consumer. You don't pay NBC or ABC or FOX to watch their tv programs. Companies paying to place ads on TV do. Now, if the individual consumer had to pay for each program viewed then there would be stricter regulations regarding the distribution of TV. Look at movies, DVD's and VHS, it is very explicit about the copyright notices. That's because you have to pay for those and royalties are made on each sale. TV is pretty much considered public domain, same as radio. You don't see the FBI Warning before each and every program.

 

Music and books are different media and are handled different from TV shows.

 

MA.

[kchenault]

Playing Devil's Advocate, what about a movie that is played over public airwaves? Or a song played over the radio? NFL football games are played on the "free" airwaves, but they are also copyrighted. By their copyright, you are not even supposed to tape them off of tv. Are there different parts to copyright law concerning different media?

 

Also, I don't have cable, so I don't know this. Does HBO, Cinemax and the like play the FBI message before a movie? I would say copyright law is flawed and also the government doesn't disseminate the info about the law very well.

 

Things that make you go hmmm.....