File Sharing

[()]

Okay, so internet companies are being sued over music file sharing.  so what about downloading music videos?  or downloading anything at all.  Where will it really end?

I have downloaded music like the rest of everyone, and other files as well.  I don't think I stole anything since someone bought it, then decided to share it to anyone on the net.  It would be no different than a person making a CD copy and giving it away to people, or loaning the music CD to someone or selling it at a yard sale or swap meet.

Is downloading a Video illegal too?  Yes I would thing it would be, so I downloaded Madonna's Vogue video and learned it was a MTV someone recorded and put on the net for downloading.  

Are the VCR companies guilty for making a device for people to copy movies from VHS to VHS, CDRW companies for making CDRW';s that can burn copies of CD's and more, and now DVD-RW's that allow you to copy DVD's as well?

Companies make software that tells you you can make back-up copies of your DVD's.  Now shouldn't the companies be sued for making software and hardware that allow people to make all these so called illegal copies of software, music, videos and more?

It's silly to think that the music and software companies will go after the people on the net for downloading the stuff that companies advertised to the consumer about all the things they can do with a CDRW and a DVD-RW.

Who's really guilty when it comes down to it?  

We all are!  Me too...
but don't tell anyone...

[tacit]

QUOTE(Tonye @ Jul 31 2003, 6:54 AM)

I have downloaded music like the rest of everyone, and other files as well.  I don't think I stole anything since someone bought it, then decided to share it to anyone on the net.  It would be no different than a person making a CD copy and giving it away to people, or loaning the music CD to someone or selling it at a yard sale or swap meet.

You did steal something. If someone bought it and put it on the Net, that person broke the law.

It is legal to sell the CD to someone else as long as you do not keep a copy of it yourself. It is NOT legal to make a copy and give that copy to someone else, just like it is not legal to make a copy of a computer program and give it to someone else. The copyrightnot belong to you. You do not have the right to make copies of it and give it away.

Any time you are copying any copyrighted material without paying for it and without the permission of the copyright owner, you are breaking copyright law. That applies whether you are downloading a song or a video, taking a picture from a Web site, photocopying a book, or copying a computer program.

Having said that:

The Recording Industry Association of America is not actually suing people because they want to protect copyright; that's a smokescreen, a dog-and-phony show to distract people from their real motivations.

The interesting thing about the "theft" of music on file sharing networks is that it's not really about money. During the Napster debacle, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) commissioned a study to prove how much money they were losing because of illegal downloads.

The findings? Record sales go UP, not down, when an artist is traded on Napster.

Why?

Exposure. Same reason that record sales go up when a song is played on the radio.

And that's what it's really all about.

In order to understand why the RIAA wants an end to all online music trading, you have to understand something more basic: Why do record labels exist?

Let's say I have a band. I want to cut an album. If I sign a standard recording contract, I will probably never see so much as a dime from record sales. (Contrary to popular belief, most bands never profit from album sales, unless the album is a huge hit. 100% of the album sales go to the label.)

I only see money from concert tours and ancillary sales (T-shirts and the like).

So why on Earth would I sign with a label? Why do record labels exist?

Record labels exist because in the days of vinyl records, it cost right around $100,000 to cut the master for an album and set up production--not including studio time, engineering, and other production costs.

Most artists could never afford it. Most artists, unless they were already wealthy, could never hope to shell out the $100 grand it'd cost to produce a record, much less the cost to warehouse it, distribute it, and so on.

Enter the age of the compact disc. It costs about $1,000 to master and produce a CD, complete with cover art, jewel box, and the whole kit. CD production costs about 37 cents apiece in quantity. These costs are easily within the grasp of most people; you do not need the financial capital of a record label in order to produce your own album.

But nobody will BUY the album if they don't know about the album.

So you are still stuck. You have to sign with a record label, because the record labels control what gets distributed in stores and what gets played on the radio. (Radio stations are paid by the RIAA to play songs. They typically don't play it if the RIAA doesn't tell them to.)

Enter the Internet. With MP3s and the Internet, now you can make your own CD, AND you can market it, and reach a huge audience...in fact, it is possible for an average person, with no financial clout behind him and only average resources, to record an album, master the album, promote the album, and get it out to listeners--without the record labels!

THAT is what it's about.

If you can start a band, make a CD, market the CD, and sell the CD, and have your CD go platinum, all without the record labels, then the record labels will cease to exist. No more $250,000,000 salary for record label CEOs. No more 10,000 square foot houses in Aspen. No more mistress in Miami.

It's about exposure. The labels absolutely, positively can not let individuals like you and me get music out to fans without their help. if they do so, the entire billion-dollar empire collapses.

[RobW]

And then there's large corporations like Sony who scream and complain loudly about file sharing, but seem to forget that they make a somewhat nice little bit of $$$ through their sales of burners, blank CDs, etc. Of course, I'm sure they believe that their products are only used by people backing up data...  

[()]

Tacit, I am going to disagree, the companies that made the devices that allowed the consumers to burn and copy are the ones responsable for the consumers ability to copy and give away.  

you didn't hear about the industry complaining about people recording their LP's to cassette did you?  Nope! I don't think so, and it was done just as much as people are burning CD's today.

The companies are upset because they created a way for material to be given away through the means of the internet.

If you take a magazine and make a photocopy of a picture or an article in it, you broke the law there too. but, you don't hear Time and People creaming about it.

If the record industry didn't want people to copy and burn material, they should've prevented the companies that made the burners availble to the consumeres and encourged them by selling the items with tht intend to burn and copy anything you want.

I don't feel guilty, but I don't copy and sell the material, but if a friend of mine wanted a song and i had it, i would make him or her a copy and give it to them.

I already copied my CD's so I can keep the originals in good shape and just play my copies in my car and home stereo.

So the recording industry needs to either stop companies from manufacturing  CD burners or charge them a fee.

Going after the consumers won't really work.  How are they going to get 150.000 out of a person that makes only 15 to 20  thou a year.

Then you look at how many people that have downloaded music and other files over the net.  Do you really think the courts are going to hear every single case filed.  Not a chance.

Jails are over crowed, and the system is releasing violent criminals due to the over crowding.

Then the music industry needs to be careful of a backlash as well.

Their CD's were way over priced to began with and Apple did a good thing with the Apple Music Store where you can pick and choose the songs you want, instead of paying out 23.99 for a CD at Bestbuy.

I think the music industry will change for the better and will be sued as well for gauging the prices on their cd's.

Lawsuits can go both way, and the music industry has to rethink what they really want to do.

Lower the prices and make single CD's for 1.49 would be a good start, but I can get it from Apple for only .99 and burn it as many times s I want...

and I wouldn't feel guilty about it...

 

[Diana]

Hi,

I have to take a stand on this. Copyright is copyright and the inventions of methods that allow easy ways to circumvent copyright do not lessen its value or meaning.

It is only by the broadest of stretches that one can say that these inventions are responsible for people's behavior. It's like saying "the devil made me do it". Just because you can doesn't make it right.

I have little sympathy for the RIAA. Not because of copyright issues though. Their copyright is irrefutible. My sympathies lie with those who would advance our technologies against the likes of the RIAA.

The CD as we know it was being created and finalized as a standard from the mid 60s through the 70s. All through this process the recording industry was fighting the new technology tooth and nail. A CD is literally a "master" of the data it holds. Unlike LPs and tapes that degrade a small bit everytime they are played, the CD remains in good condition, capable of being used to create another near perfect copy of itself, over and over again. Home users couldn't make mass copies of LPs or tapes because after a few runs, the copies became noticably crummy. A tape, (then or CD now) will always be a decent "copy" of the master. The recording industry seems to understand that there is a baseness in human nature that overrides our good conscience and allows us to steal through copyright infringment and claim no guilt. They have been afraid of this for years. The CD could have been marketed years earlier than it was except for the obstacles thrown up by the recording industry. The CD technology has long existed that would make CDs much more dense and capable of holding more data than they do currently, but again at the insistence of the recording industry, they were limited by negotiated and agreed upon standards.

The market forces that determine prices people are willing to pay for their entertainment are important to the recording industry and they feared a system that would allow a person to purchase a CD capable of holding tens of tens of times the amount of music that an LP or tape would hold...and paying the same price as for that LP or tape. One of the major compromises that was reached during the CD's rise to consumer use was that a standard be made that limited the amount of data it would hold. So, the recording industry has a long history of holding back technology. One of the first circumventions of the 74 minute limit for CDs was the MP3 file format. The RIAA fought that really hard also.

If we as decent people would hold ourselves responsible and accountable for our actions, none, I mean none of this would be an issue. I see a real and viable reason for technology to continue to advance. We benefit from it. I can foresee a time when even the recording industry will realize they can also benefit from new technologies. It's a shame our human nature gets in the way.

[ljocampo]

I guess I'll have to put my two cent in this topic.  I always respect an author's copyright protecting her or his creativity.  On the other hand, I also have some rights to use the products I paid for in a non-commercial way.

For example, if I have five rooms with computers in them, I should be able to listen to music, I paid for, in any of the rooms I choose to be in.  Apple's music store will not LEGALLY allow that, and this is counter to my rights to play those songs.  Their legal clause forces me to brake the law, but they discrimated against me by instilling that law it the first place.  Nowhere in America should a person be punished before they've committed the crime.

On the topic of sharing music.  If you have a friend over to your pad, do you turn off the music to obey copyright laws?  Of course not!  Well for many people the internet is their virual pad.  I have never shared my music (and I have paid for every bit of it) to someone who intends to keep using it for free, because if I could buy it, so can they.  However, maybe their just going to preview it so they can make a decision to buy it.  The music companies haven't sent me a dime (finders fee) for marketing their product.  And maybe they should!  Statistics show that they have increased their revenues since internet sharing started.

Copy protection didn't work for software (et. al.) and it won't work in the long run for music either. That's all I have to say about this.

[tacit]

"Tacit, I am going to disagree, the companies that made the devices that allowed the consumers to burn and copy are the ones responsable for the consumers ability to copy and give away."

This is a bit like saying "The companies that make guns are responsible if someone gets shot--not the person who pulled the trigger." The fact that a device can be used to break the law does not mean the manufacturer is responsible if someone uses it to break the law!

"If you take a magazine and make a photocopy of a picture or an article in it, you broke the law there too. but, you don't hear Time and People creaming about it."

That's because a photocopier does not make a perfect copy, and it does not let you make millions of copies for free.

If it becomes possible to make millions of perfect, flawless copies of a magazine and distribute them for free, you better believe Time and People will start screaming!

"If the record industry didn't want people to copy and burn material, they should've prevented the companies that made the burners availble to the consumeres and encourged them by selling the items with tht intend to burn and copy anything you want."

How? They have no legal authority to do so. If I don't want to get stabbed, should I make it impossible to sell knives to the public?

"Jails are over crowed, and the system is releasing violent criminals due to the over crowding."

Copyright is a matter of civil, not criminal, law. You don't go to jail for copyright infringement; you can only go to jail if the copyright infringement meets certain other criteria, such as fraud (eg, making counterfeit Rolex watches) or you profit by more than a certain amount.