The Legal Aspect Of File-Sharing

etj · #**101** (**permalink**) December 25th, 2005

the problem with trying to "DEFINE" this term is as with anything else: interpretation.

By definition the word FELONIOUS can mean of or relating to FELONY why by law is a crime punishible with 12 months or more of imprisonment if found guilty of said crime.

All states within the United States of America have a law which some commonly call BRCSP, bying,receiving,concealing stolen property.
Property has been changed to INCLUDE intellectual or NON-TANGIBLE things.

The bottom line is that when someone produces something, they do so for their FINANCIAL GAIN and when you "share" it with someone you violate the law. Any moron that thinks it's PERFECTLY OK to do so wouldn't have a problem with me going into his bank account and taking his/her paycheck weekly; going into the garage and stealing the vehicle; taking his/her lunch JUST BEFORE it's been touched.

Come on people.. THINK!!! What dipped-in-crap for brains thinks it's ok to take, use etc. other people's things without permission or proper monetary compensation.

Smart like Rock. Fast like tree!

Quote:

Originally posted by sberlin
actually, leeware, this is the definition of theft, from dictionary.com :

---
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
---

note that theft requires "every part of the property stolen must be removed." when a song (or anything else that has a copyright) is copied, nothing is removed, it is simply duplicated. that is why copyrights exist: to prevent unauthorized duplication.

people cannot steal or thieve a copyrighted piece unless they physically remove the media from the store it's being sold at, which is a crime in the sense that you're depriving the store of its ability to sell something it purchased.

the digitalization of media has simply enabled people to spread information without having to worry about the initial creation being depleted. it's a way of providing never-ending resources.

copyrights are artificial limits on resources, a way of maintaining a capitalistic view on resources, where the ruling class can limit what the peasants can use. now, this is done under the auspices of 'allowing greater innovation and invention', but this use is patently absurd in the current context of copyrights.

no one is stealing when they are copying. to say that someone is stealing is insane, because they are actually creating. to use a quote i once heard somewhere, "if i have an apple and you have an apple, and we exchange apples, we each have one apple. if i have an idea and you have an idea, and we exchange ideas, we each have two ideas." this is the same with digital media, we can copy the apple so we both have two apples -- no one is losing.

the RIAA and associates are simply using a business model that cannot survive in the current world. they need to use true innovation and invention to come up with a better plan, instead of simply trying to change the definition of words and make everyone thieves.

in 1991 the Supreme Court ruled, in Feist vs Rural Telephone Co., that collections of facts cannot be copyrighted. now how is it that collections of facts, such as a definitive proof that 'using X will achieve Y in the fastest possible way' can now be copyrighted so that people can be put in jail for using that fact without permission from the copyright holder? through a *******ization of law -- allowing loopholes for those that show 'business models depend on it'.

it's as if we're allowing companies and theories to take on the importance of an actual life. killing a business model or using a theory without consent has taken the same kind of ire as killing a person or enslaving an individual. why can't the distinction be seen anymore?

just my thoughts. feel free to copy, theorize on, mutate, individualize, or do whatever you want with them. i won't sue you.

etj · #**102** (**permalink**) December 25th, 2005

My 1969 mustang was "misplaced" will FOrd give me another one? Does this give me the right to "steal" one?

Of course not.

A one-time purchase of something doesn't give you a "lifetime" right to it. As long as you can "posess" it, you can use it. If you sell the record collection, or otherwise have no posession of it, you're just out of luck.

Quote:

Originally posted by HeadCraft
What if over the years...myself being >50y/o..I had purchased every song I now have as mp3/wma but due to a variety of circumstances no longer had physical possession of the original vynal, tape, or cd (e.g. the vynal got scratched so bad it was unplayable, it got burnt up in a housefire, destroyed in a flood, broken when someone sat on it at a party, etc or the 8track that died the same fate as my cassettes: cassette tape that was eaten by my player, melted in the sun, was contaminated by sand at the beach, etc. or the cd got warped on my dashboard, became useless due to age deterioration, etc.)

or GOD FORBID SOME AS*hOLE STOLE MY MUSIC FROM ME!!!!

DO I STILL HAVE RIGHTS TO THE MUSIC I PAID TO USE & IF SO DOES THAT MEAN I CAN DUPLICATE MY MUSIC LIBRARY WHICH I PAID FOR >40 YS BY REPLACING THE LOST MUSIC VIA P2P?

THE ISSUES BECOME COMPLICATED, DON'T THEY?

HeadCraft · #**103** (**permalink**) December 26th, 2005

Quote:

Originally posted by etj
My 1969 mustang was "misplaced" will FOrd give me another one? Does this give me the right to "steal" one?

Of course not.

A one-time purchase of something doesn't give you a "lifetime" right to it. As long as you can "posess" it, you can use it. If you sell the record collection, or otherwise have no posession of it, you're just out of luck.

US courts disagree with you when it comes to Audio/Video material. Court decisions have stated that anyone has THE RIGHT to one backup copy for their own personal use.

mynameisearl · #**104** (**permalink**) December 26th, 2005

Question?

who is or should be held accountable for the copyright infringment.

The producer of the material?

The consumer that buys the CD , DVD ext then uploads it to the net?

Or the the third party that downloads it off the net?

The producer of any written or recorded material has the responsiblity of copyrighting and then protecting said material.
But buy broadcasting such material and making it availible to the general public the producer of such material gives "limited" licence to basically anyone who hears and or records the material.

such as through (mass media) radio and TV ext, as long as it is not mass produced and sold for profit.

a good example would be recording your favorite TV program on your VCR to watch later when you have the time.

The consumer that buys the material is entering into an agreement with the producer of said material....do to the legal verbage contained in the copyright. And has an obligation to use the product responsibly. But has also pruchaced a "limited" licence
to the said material.

The consumer goes home uploads the material onto his computer so he can listen to his favorite music while he surfs the net. But includes it in his shared files.

The third party which has not purchased the product and has not entered into any agreement with any producer of copyrighted material and therefore not obligated to protect said material downloads it off of the net via a file sharing program.

Who has violated the agreement? The consumer. But he has limited licence.

The third party copier? But he has never entered into any agreement with anyone and because it was accessed through (mass media) should also be granted "limited" Licence.....is always implied when material is broadcased over a mass media outlet.

The producer of said material? which has made their product availible through (Mass Media) that grants the general public limited licence to view,listen to and record said material with a VCR ,Tivo,taperecorder,media player,ext

Who's responsible?

ut,oh I better go unplug my Tivo before I infringe on spongebob squarepants rights!

OR is this just the price of fame and fortune?

etj · #**105** (**permalink**) December 26th, 2005

Quote:

Originally posted by HeadCraft
US courts disagree with you when it comes to Audio/Video material. Court decisions have stated that anyone has THE RIGHT to one backup copy for their own personal use.

yeah,I'd forgotten about this one. Still, I just get the impression people want something for nothing.
The facts remain that each and every one of us require money to survive these days. How do people get money? Most work for it. IT's not right to assume that because you can--that you should.
I've had plenty of opportunities to steal something that I thought was rediculously attractive and the owner was a complete fool for leaving items unprotected--but instead I didn't; nor did I leave it for some theif.

etj · #**106** (**permalink**) December 26th, 2005

The question I'd like to know is just hiw much money does the record industry lose because of this?
the undustry claims in the millions. Personally, I've not purchased a CD or other form of music since my teens and early 20's. I have a radio, and I used to DL from Winmx until it shut down. Now I just figure it's not worth the threat.
The songs don't have enough value to me to risk paying fines or worse.
I don't think the music industry is losing anything. I believe that most people downloading music aren't the same ones that will go to the store and purchase.

HeadCraft · #**107** (**permalink**) December 27th, 2005

Quote:

Originally posted by etj

I don't think the music industry is losing anything. I believe that most people downloading music aren't the same ones that will go to the store and purchase.

I also believe that being able to preview music via the internet, whether P2P, freebie incentives of MMJ, Rhapsody, itunes, Yahoo music, etc. does more Good than harm: If I have an opportunity to preview tunes w/o standing at the sampling places in Wal-Mart or Sam Goodies ("record stores" ad Infinitum) I may be more inclined to purchase the CD if I have had an opportunity to listen in the comfort of my own home.

A large portion of shared music is HORRIBLE quality, vocals sound like the singer is in the bottom of a Well usually...BUT if it sparks my interest I will be open to purchasing the entire CD just to have a quality recording...as long as some company like Sony doesn't install a Rootkit on my 'puter....BAD Sony!!

etj · #**108** (**permalink**) December 28th, 2005

so true,
I wonder ohw many other people will try before they buy.
I've purchased CD's, tapes, records etc. that had one good song and no others. I was frustrated and felt ripped off.
Also, about the quality. You're absolutely right.

I really don't think it's completely right, but the music industry is just whining like the post office and everyone else. Things are just changing. Get used to it.
I have no problems going to a music and paying a subscription fee but I'm not going to pay $2 per song when the quality sucks and I could have bought the CD myself for the same price.

Quote:

Originally posted by HeadCraft
I also believe that being able to preview music via the internet, whether P2P, freebie incentives of MMJ, Rhapsody, itunes, Yahoo music, etc. does more Good than harm: If I have an opportunity to preview tunes w/o standing at the sampling places in Wal-Mart or Sam Goodies ("record stores" ad Infinitum) I may be more inclined to purchase the CD if I have had an opportunity to listen in the comfort of my own home.

A large portion of shared music is HORRIBLE quality, vocals sound like the singer is in the bottom of a Well usually...BUT if it sparks my interest I will be open to purchasing the entire CD just to have a quality recording...as long as some company like Sony doesn't install a Rootkit on my 'puter....BAD Sony!!

Eman1992 · #**109** (**permalink**) December 28th, 2005

SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME I DONT KNOW HOW TO DELETE THE HISTORY ON Limewire PRO 4.8.1 SO SOMEONE MESSEGE BACK PLEASE POST SOMETHING

mrsmoose · #**110** (**permalink**) June 28th, 2006

Hi LeeWare,
I ask this question, because the artist has asked me. I misunderstood what permission I had, and loaded some music into MY library. I am presuming that means it is available for unknown parties to then search for this music and download a copy of it from me. Is this correct? The artist has some live music I am welcome to share, but apparently not a recorded release. How can I make this right?

Thanks,
mrsmoose1478

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeeWare

There is a raging debate over the legal aspects of file-sharing. I hope to spread some light on this issue.

I am starting this thread because I've been asked this question quite often.

A. The Concept Of File-sharing in itself is NOT illegal.

B. Contrary to Popular Belief (downloading certain material unfortunately is stealing-based-on-the-law) - I'll attempt to explain the controversy.

b1. Stealing means to take the property of another without permission. So the argument goes: (if x -->y and y-->z)

If x owns/produces a product and sells it to y and y in turn shares-it with z (did z commit theft?)

The answer is a matter of perspective:
z did not commit an act of theft against y (this is where most people stop in their arguments)

BUT z did commit an act of theft against x (by law because z did not obtain permission from x to acquire the product and or resource).

Now y did not commit theft but did infringe on the rights of x because when y purchased a product from x one of the conditions of that sale was to abide by the conditions of using the product those rights are clearly spelled out in the fine print on most material.

If you go to court this is what's going to be at issue, so the judge does not care about how you perceived this agreement and the issue will be decided on the fact presented.

C. What about fair use?

Again the consumers rights are explained in legal verbage of the material. However people are not getting in trouble for using their products fairly they are getting in trouble for violating the terms of the agreements they made when purchasing certain digital media.

Nobody has gone to jail for converting their media to another format (MP3/AVI etc) for their personal use. (however this can sometimes be a violation of an agreement (read the fine print.))

What has drawn attention to this issue is that people take those digital copies and share them in a public place (the Internet) where people (anonymous users) can obtain this material. This issue would not exist if people did not do this.

Finally, there is a process for obtaining permission for certain types of additional uses.

hope this helps

http://www.leeware.com

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Legal or not?-Music sharing and China	Trish #1	General Gnutella / Gnutella Network Discussion	0	February 20th, 2006 08:54 AM
Music sharing: is it legal?	dandaman32	Open Discussion topics	1	January 31st, 2006 09:31 PM
How legal is file sharing from Lime Wire in the U.S.A..	danmartini	Windows	0	April 25th, 2005 01:41 PM
File Sharing in the UK - a legal perspective	lassie	Chat - Open Topics - The Lounge	1	March 21st, 2005 01:45 PM
Legal Music Sharing Program	X_Gamer7	General Gnutella / Gnutella Network Discussion	1	September 16th, 2003 08:46 AM