The Legal Aspect Of File-Sharing
 

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

Informative....
 

Thanks LeeWare... for taking the time to offer such a well written, informative clarification!

It was an interesting read on this very touchy subject. ;)

Re: Informative....
 

Your welcome...I'm glad you enjoyed it. I hope that others find it useful as well.

LeeWare, I have a couple of issues with this summary. The first is your use of the term "theft." It's an inaccurate word, and it's only used because that's the term that the RIAA keeps using over and over to try to alter the debate about copyrights. It's an inaccurate word, and using it plays right into the hands of the RIAA.

The basic problem with the word is that when I steal something the person that I stole from no longer has that item. The term that should be used is copyright infringement. If I download a copyrighted song using LimeWire, I have infringed on that songwriters/performers/record companys right to that song. I have not stolen that song from them, because you can't "steal" a song.

This may seem trivial, but it really does affect the debate. Anybody can say "stealing is wrong" and it's impossible to say that they are wrong. On the other hand copyrights have always been a balance between content producers and content users. When the balance has been upset and skewed towards content producers (and the recording companys that make money from them) then is copyright infringement is wrong (even if you call it stealing)?

For instance, the RIAA has argued in the past that it is infringement to copy a CD and give it to a friend (this was about two years ago, they've since abandoned this insane arguement) If they call it stealing and call me a thief then how am I supposed to defend myself. I'm left trying to say that some stealing is okay, which is a bad position to take. Instead, we have to challenge the RIAA's choice of words. If the RIAA wants to argue that copying CD's to mp3 players is wrong, that's fine, but at least call it what it is, copyright infringement, and then work to change the laws to strengthen the consumers right to use copyrighted materials.

-CM

Clarification of Terms
 

Technically they are using the word appropriately in respect to the laws protecting their
products and the context in which it is used.

Now, what I think people tend to react to is the connotations of the word "theft" (The set of associations implied by a word in addition to its literal meaning.)

(Stealing means to take the property of another without (permission).


"The basic problem with the word is that when I steal something the person that I stole from no longer has that item. The term that should be used is copyright infringement."

Again, for the record (pay attention)

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 (Important---->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.

Perhaps I confused some people with all of the (x y & z associations so here we go.)

I loan my car to a friend (Larry) for (his exclusive use.)
My friend (Larry) loans my car to his girl friend (Jane).
She (Jane) gets stopped by the police, I'm notified that this person is driving my car (Can I press charges? Can I make the charges stick?) = yes and yes.

Why?

Fact: Jane did not steal the car from Larry.
Fact: Jane did not receive my permission to drive my car. (This action technically constitutes theft regardless of the intent)
Fact: Larry did not steal my car BUT he did violate an agreement we had.

I promise you that I can win this case hands down in a court of law any day.

What I think people are reacting to subconsciously is this:

The death of the free-Internet has been disappearing since the early 1990s, this is when commercialization by businesses began to take root. This was the best and the worse thing that ever happened to the Internet -- it was the best thing -- because it brought the Internet to millions. It was the worse thing--because using the Internet is now largely a commercial endeavor. With the focus shifting from How can we use this (the Internet.) to save money to how can we use the Internet to make money. The formula being:


The Formula:

{

1. Develop a service.

2. Push it as a more cost-effective business model to traditional method of doing business
or free (the intention here is to create a need.)

3. When the subscriptions are high begin charging small fees (to avoid mass-flight.)

4. Acquire a solid legal foundation to protect your model. (This step most effectively eliminates anyone who might threaten your model.)

5. Raise rates of providing the service due to increased cost of providing consumers with the convenience. (see number 2. for irony.)

6. Find things that people are largely interested in and begin at 1. = develop a service

}


Hope this helps to clarify things.

http://www.leeware.com

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.

Further Clarifications
 

http://www.dictionary.com search term = theft


theft

\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.

Technically accurate but you left out the parts highlighted by my original comments.

You can argue the remaining aspects of the notes however I'm sure many of these cases are decided on the the first to conditions being true.

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.

Hope this helps.

yes, leeware -- but the entire definition must be fulfilled, not simply a part of it.

a square is not a square if the polygon just has 4 sides. all 4 of the sides must also be of equal length.

in the same sense, someone is not stealing when a felony is commited. to fulfill the definition of theft, the original property must be removed.

Exactly My Point
 

That's exactly my point! You see the owner of the property gets to make the call in conjuction with the laws.

For example, if every night after I park my car on a public street someone comes and takes my car and drives it around and when they finish they bring it back and park it where I left it.

Then based on your suggestion that every aspect of theft must be fulfilled. (When I go to get my car, it's there and there is not any physical damage then your suggesting that this does not constitute an act of theft?)

Now,

what if I'm aware of this nightly activity and I call the police and inform them that someone is taking my car every night.

The person gets busted with my car.

I cry theft = I did not give my permission for them to use my car.

The guys lawyer argues:

1. It (the car) was there every morning when I needed to use it.
2. They didn't damage it.
3. They were going to bring it back.

The judge scratches his head and says...well based on the facts presented in this case, I don't see where you were wronged. The court has decided to ignore your claim of theft because technically they did'nt steal your car they just used it and you didn't suffer any consequences as a result of this so called "unauthorized use" so have a nice day!

I only wish it was that simple -- and I'm sure the people who have ended up in court over this issue probably wished the same thing.

All propaganda aside--

There are several industries who are having problems with their traditional business models and they are looking for ways to survive.

These types of issues can be discussed passionately between peers such as ourselves. However the real battles are taking place in courtrooms. All though people might not like it. These industries did their homework and they do have valid legal protection for their products and anyone who thinks otherwise is wasting his or her time throwing stones at an iron tank.

Re: Exactly My Point
 

I don't think it qualifies as "theft" under that theory. It would mean that the person stealing your car nightly wasn't taking your car but making a copy of it and driving it around. If the police came over to investigate your car would still be there and the "thief" would be driving a copy.
Which is where the problem comes in right?

It's not so much stealling property but intellectual property. That's what business (and consequently lawyers) have issue with.

That's also what my ISP sent me an email about this morning stating that they would suspend my service if I didn't stop giving away Tony Hawk N64 ROM's.

Re: Re: Exactly My Point
 

Your absolutely right! but again the argument always seems gravitate away from the fact that my permission is required to make that copy of my car AND to take without my permission (which does include make a copy of (read the copyright info on your cd-covers.) constitutes theft.

Okay, let's take apart your example one by one:

The car is stolen every night, plain and simple. The thief just happens to be particularly strange, and returns it.

There doesn't need to be physical damage to constitute theft. All that's needed is some felony was commited and someone removed something of yours. Both are described above.

The guy would have to have an insane lawyer to take the case, because he obviously stole it. Theft is not subsided because you didn't need the item at a certain time. There was a time, plain and simple, where the other person had it and you didn't.

These industries did do their homework, yes. But they found that they do not have as valid legal protection as they'd like, so they're seeking a propaganda campaign to make their legal protection stronger, first in the mind's of people and then in the law's of the country. It's up to people to not fall victim to false cries of thievery.

When someone *copies* something, at no time, ever, does the original leave your hands. Thus, there is no thievery, no matter how you try to twist and turn the subject.

Unfortunately they are well within their legal rights to do this (although I bet Tony Hawk wouldn’t care). The thing is, I still buy software, video games, music CD's and DVD's even though I know I can get them for "free".


The mindset seems to be that the some how the music industry or whomever is afraid of losing some little piece of chump change because of this. Although the statistics show that music, video, and software sales are not down at all. If anything they are up in most areas.

I suppose from a legal standpoint the copyright holders have to go after any and all infringements or it sets a precedent. Also historically speaking the legalities of a given situation seem to mean little when it's about about huge sums of money. Which apparently this whole file sharing threat is to somebody.

Thank You.
 

It's been suggested that we are twisting the issue. But I'm attempting to answer a fundamental question. Is it illegal?

Now people creatively turn this discussion into an issue of semantics. (well it's not really stealing if you make a copy so on and so forth.)

What is so complicated about obtaining something that when it was created SOMEONE agreed albeit through purchase to the following legal verbage:

(Unauthorized Duplication is a Violation of Applicable Laws.)

Unauthorized = Without Permission
Duplication = to make copies of
Violation = nonobservance of a condition
Applicable Laws = Rules and Procedures / limits

Although people seem to have a problem with the term "theft" as it relates to certain violations of the above legal verbage.

If I own an ISP and I provide access to my customers. Which means use of my network facilities and this (agreement) includes bandwidth limits, let's say 256Kbps bandwidth limitations.

Now this customer figures out that using a special software he's able to use 512Kbps bandwidth on my pipes.

Now the customer can argue that this is a performance gain for him as he did not modify my network in anyway to accomplish this higher speed.

So, to charge this individual with theft of service is unfair on my part because it doesn't satisfy the offenders definition of theft.

Overall I am suggesting that because I created the agreement --I get to determine what constitutes theft of my products, services and resources and the courts will back this agreement based on the legal verbage of my agreement with the customer.

semantics
 

Yes I think the problem is we want the so-called anarchy of the early days of the Internet. Unfortunately I think those days are gone. Besides it gives something for the lawyers to do.

So it's easier to discuss the semantics of the issue instead of the inevitable conclusion, which is of course that too this will be shut down eventually by either law or circumstances. We'll have to find a new way to share or just quit altogether and realize that George Orwell was only off by a few years.

SneakerNet
 

I don 't think that they will stop sharing, I think that if sharing becomes impossible via the Internet people will return to SneakerNet.

LeeWare,

You're twisting the issue because you're combining the emotional appeal of the word 'theft' and 'steal' with the fact of illegal activities. For whatever reason, people prefer to understand the reason that something is illegal. Theft makes a close fit for these cases, but it is unfortunately not true. People are not stealing by copying. Yes, it is semantics -- but it is an important point. If people are to understand that what they are doing is illegal, they must understand why it is [illegal]. And the reason is *not* theft.

I challenge you to find a word that accurately describes, without the emotional baggage, the illegal activities of copying a copyrighted piece.

Yes, copying music and whatnot is illegal -- I have never disputed that. But no, it is not theft.

For the Record
 

For the record, the terms "theft" and "steal" are not necessarily my words when it comes to describing some of the activities that take place on the Internet. However, these terms appear to be a consistent and prominent part of an industry's effort to highlight a problem. I assume that they chose these terms creatively for the intrinsic emotional value the words carry in order to indicate the seriousness of the problem.

Now, I agree that it is important for people to understand how what they are doing is illegal. But we also cannot ignore people and are fully aware of the legal consequences of such actions and sometimes, those people, act as if though they are targets of some kind of conspiracy to keep them from doing something they feel they have the right to do.

As for your challenge to find a word that could accurately describe the activities I would choose the word: Clandestine and more importantly the term clandestine-activity. I would add that it is on this basis the industry has gone after many peer-to-peer operations.

For those in our audience, clandestine = Kept or done in secret, often in order to conceal an illicit or improper purpose.

Interesting Analyisis on the subject, however, I lean towards copyright infringment instead of theft. No one seems to mention the legalized theft which goes on daily for all peoples purchasing CDs. A CD cost probably less than a dollar to create, yet sells for 15.00 (out right robbery) of society as a whole (of course this is in my opinion).

True, the owner of any property weather it is real or intellectual has the right to sell said property for any amount he(she) sees fit and society as a whole certainly is not being forced to purchase CDs. Also, the owner has the right to recoupe initial funds spent on creating the product, but I do not ever see the price of CD's going down, once that CD has been deemed profitable within a certain percentage rate.

Since the advent of duplication technology someone has been whinning about being wronged. Cassette tapes were taking the bread and butter away from starving artists and from the industry itself, and Hollywood tried the same thing with video recorders. However one has to ask ones self just how much profit is enough? There will always be someone to purchase your work and generate royalities for you. Society as a whole does NOT do any damage to the profit system by duplicating and in my opinion the technology and sharing only generates more profits in the form of advertisments.

Hollywood certainly agrees. They found that their trojan horse has certainly been turned into a champion fighter for them instead of a defeat because they now earn as much on the Video rental sales as they do at box offices, yet in the 1980's it was nothing but a means to take the bread from their tables.

I also remember in the late 60's and very early 70's about how this EVIL machine called the Xerox copier was the Devil's own creation to infringe on copyrighted material and take money from the owners (not my analogy I assure you). What happened with that? Turned out to be businesses biggest asset in the office. What about the fax? I could go on, but the post is getting long.

This is not a moral post, nor is it a post to say that sharing files is right OR wrong. This post is to challenge the notion that file sharing in a detriment to industries. . . whether its evil incarnate, write or wrong is it is DAMAGING the industry, damaging the copyright holders, taking food out of the mouths of celebrities babies mouths. History records that every technology that has come along which delt with duplication was met with rabid, foaming at the mouth, critics who claimed that instead of making 10 million dollars they only made 9 million dollars.

In the end, in every case mentioned above, duplication has been proven to be a benefit not a harm and as I stated earlier, how much profit is enough? Does society really care about the difference of 9 or 10 million dollars when the average person comes up woefully short?

Dennis

Other Industry Problems
 

" No one seems to mention the legalized theft which goes on daily for all peoples purchasing CDs. A CD cost probably less than a dollar to create, yet sells for 15.00 (out right robbery) of society as a whole (of course this is in my opinion)."

I would be hard pressed to challange any of your other statements as they gracefully highlight ligitimate aspects of the whole problem.

I would however expand on your above comments. The same thing happens in terms of computing technology. The myth about the prices of technology going down. They don't go down they stay the same. The technology changes.

Does anybody remember when a 486 cost around $2,200?

Consider the purchase history of a single pc buyer attempting to keep up with the latest and greatest pc technology.

This problem is exaggerated by a consumer that does not take advantage of the advanced features offered by the newest pc offering.

So let's say that for a five year period the latest and greatest pc of each respective year costs between $1000 - $1500. This customer upgrades his or her computing technology during each of these cycles. Now mind you that many people don't outgrow their computing needs they simply buy into the hype of new technology.

So the cost to this consumer is apx between $5,000 - $7,500 for the same computing functionality.

Now, your above average technology users tends to purchase technology based on the computing needs. So outgrowing technology occurs at a much slower pace if at all depending on the technology.

So that everyone's clear about what I'm suggesting. For people who use apx 20% of the technology available to them the cost of keeping up is painfully expensive.

So the story goes... Most people including myself have purchased music CDs for only one or two songs (The rest of the cd-I didn't like.) In cases such as these I paid a high price for a couple of tracks off of a twenty song CD. This is not a new problem for the music industry it goes all the way back to LPs and perhaps even beyond. (The industry needs to effectively address this.)

Alternatively, It would be unfair not to mention the times I've purchased a CD for a single song and discovered that I liked the whole CD. This was good because many of the tracks were not in circulation on the air-wave.

It has been said "Great minds may not think alike, but they abserve the same facts". Glad we see more things alike than not. My only thoughts as far as the CD issue is that the technology there is pretty solid. It has not really changed much in 15 years, and what you see is what you get. I do not see the technology behind music changing any time soon either.

Sure, it takes a lot of money to develop a CD. I would like to see two tiered pricing. Sell your CD for 15 dollars up to a point where the industry breaks even on costs and then up to a firm percentage point of profits. Once the profit point is reached, sell the CD at a lower price, say half. Profit is still being generated and the People gets a break. It would go a long way towards PR for the industry also, make us think they actually care (of course they do not....they do not even pay their music celebrites fairly, and MOST do not even have the rights to their on songs, because they sold their souls to the music industry).

Great Debate Lee, you stimulate thinking and I enjoyed your comments greatly. Hope my posts can inspire as much as yours.

Dennis

LeeWare
 

Dennis,

I'm glad you enjoyed the conversation. I think everyone here has made a good contribution to the subject. To stimulate thinking was exactly one of my intention in starting the thread it's a good way of understanding peoples prospectives on issues that effect us all.


So, I would like to thank you and everyone who took part in this conversation.

:)

Glad to see this actually ending civilly. Too often debates on the internet end up simply in flames.

Although I still hold that the RIAA and whatnot are artificially limiting resources, inflating the prices without increasing the technology, thereby making things worse for themselves while still trying to maintain the damsel in distress image.

I find it all too hypocritical to start a campaign calling people thieves while sucking up all money and creativity from their artists. The simple fact is that if CDs cost the correct price, or the RIAA went with technology to promote a solution that earned them money, much more would be accomplished not only for them, but also for society as a whole.

I agree
 

I agree with your comments on the root cause of the problem. I hope that someone within the Music and Entertainment Industry is thinking hard about how to capitalize on this tremendous opportunity. Which is what it is.


Thanks again for your many thoughtful contributions.

So If you are Z, how do you know X was infringed. When some Xs say its ok to download.

How is a person to know.

If I use a mp3 player that has digital music content protection, Should I assume if it plays it is ok.

Let me put it a differnt way. Closer to home.

I am a parent, my child 11 want to down load mp3 files, I do not want to not my child to infring on copy rights of others. My problem is I have no method to determin if a given mp3 file is ok to download or not.

How do I explain Its leagel to here a song played on the radio station. Its leagle to tape that song off the air and play it at some other time. But its not ok if I get the same song off the internect and play it.

Do not kid yourself. The RIAA is also condeming recording songs from the radio also. Seems they act as all everyone does who is consumed with greed. Give them a small victory, and they think they can take on the entire world.

As I stated in my earlier post, they want to stop all forms of duplication, and I believe if one looks at it from a right or wrong stand point we all know that WE did not write, produce, sing, or have any rights to that song at all. We certainly did not "pay" into the industry's pool for the rights to play and hear the song. Why then do we think its okay to duplicate the song in ANY way?

No, I am not going back on my previous stand earlier in this thread. I still think duplication spurs on profits and creates advertising for the industry. I still believe that duplicating does not HURT the profit system by duplication, however, I think a question like the one asked is pretty shallow. It is up to us to decide if we are doing wrong, up to each indivual to decide if we are taking food out of the celebrities mouths, hurting the industry by not paying for these songs. I think its obvious to most and the question becomes sort of mute once a individual sorts these things out for themselves.

Is it right or is it wrong? Moral or not? Read my earlier posts on other forms of duplication and I believe you can assume what my position is, however, I will not advocate a stance here. I think you need to figure out if its right on your own.

Dennis

Some Answers To Your Questions
 

It's actually simple: Think Distribution Channels! Let me put it a different way closer to home - In order to make this a fair comparison let's say you live in a world where by-in-large distribution channels have agreements with X to sell for a fee a product to Z let's call these distribution channels Y so (X -->Y -->Z) = X is the creator, Y is the authorized distributor and Z is the consumer.

Now, let's consider the economics of the same situation (money flow) (Z --pays-->Y ---pays-->X). Being that this is the defacto standard for distribution I think that you can answer this question for your self.

If stores sell meat and consumers buy meat for their families from stores. Would you except meat from a man who *freely offers it* from the trunk of his car? (I get the impression that this would make most people suspicious.)

How is a person to know.

Is it possible that the man selling the meat from his car is an authorized distributor of the content? (sure it's possible.)

Is it possible that this man is an unauthorized distributor of meat?
(highly-probable!)

Now, as a parent who I assume is concerned about your child violating the copyrights of some unknown entity. To use my previous example; "if your children are getting meat from the man who is *giving it away* from the trunk of his car.* I'll leave it up to you as a parent to make the value jugement in this.

There are established distribution channels for these things which include: (Purchasing CDs) from authorized sources for your children. (Signing up and paying a fee for services) which allows access to digital music.

"How do I expain that it is legal to hear a song played on a radio?"

Remember the formula (X ---> Y ---> Z) in the case of radio Y licenses the products from X for a fee Y = radio station attempts to build a subscriber base by offering Xs content. Y makes money from companies who wish to gain access to Ys subscriber base to pitch Ads.

a. X gets money from Y
b. Y broadcasts Xs content to Z
c. Y gets money from C = Companies wishing to push ads to Ys customer base.
d. C gets money from Z who purchases products and services based on those Ads

Don't you just love capitalism!

Hope this helps to clarify things.

http://www.leeware.com

I wish the it was as easy for a parent. In your meat vendor example right from wrong is an easy call to help teach a child right from wrong.

But some music vendors have granted permission for riping there songs and putting on the intenet many more have not.

Is there trusted web site one can use a reference to help determin right from wrong as it relates to downloading a given file?

The goal is still the same, not trample on others copy rights, but if there is a question , teach my child how to research the issue, and make a jugment call.

Right / Wrong
 

It's unfortunate that people consider this a right or wrong issue--As if it were a question of ethics--but it's not, it's a legal matter.

For example, if I'm late for work and the speed limit is 55 mph and I drive 70 mph. (In my mind what I'm doing is not wrong because I am trying to make it to work on time.) However, I am violating a law by driving 15 miles over the posted speed limit.

Back to our discussion on the legal aspects of file sharing. If you think CDs cost to much and you can't take the idea of paying for a subscription service then you have already decided that for you, downloading content (that you know you could have paid for)-is the right choice for you.

But is it legal?

People we know this story:

You double park your car in a no stopping, no standing zone, Violators will be towed!

You think to yourself (I'll just be a minute.) 15 seconds after you walk away the tow truck is there hooking up your car, 10 seconds later you turn around in shock! You spend the next 10 minutes debating with the tow truck driver over how unfair or wrong it is for him to tow away your car--all the while you are completely ignoring the action that got you in this mess in the first place.


So again -- All the hype and crying from the Entertainment Industry wouldn't exist if people were not sharing content these companies have legal rights over.

All the hype and crying from users over the industries effort to curtail such activies wouldn't be an issue if People didn't share content that do not have the rights to share.

These two items are intimately related.

Now, there is a simple solution to the whole issue and guess who has the most power to influence change?

The users! Why? Because users/consumers have the things these industries want and need access to in order to survive your money!

I'll start a new thread to talk about how to effectively change the climate of the digital commons.





http://www.leeware.com

The person wasn't asking about ethics, they were just asking for a reference source. Some artists do not give their souls to the RIAA, and thus allow people to freely download music. But, in the wonderful glory that is large corporations, the RIAA just ignores that fact.

Good Place to Start
 

Here's a good place to begin your research (Especially as it relates to downloading music from the Internet.)

http://www.riaa.com/Copyright-What.cfm


Hope this helps.

Thank you for the reference site. to RIAA.

I agree right from wrong is not the same as is it legal.

I was hoping to use file sharing as a topic to reach/teach an 11 year child.

At this point allowing my child use of limewire. does not seem prudent, as there is not an easy method to determin what is legel to copy and distribute and what is not.

So am I safe or not?
 

Mr. Leeware,

So with out all the legal jargon, tell me, am I going to be safe to download music and other software from the net or not? If not, I have heard that I can mask my IP address, I would be more then happy to do this as well. Have any ideas?

PA

Bogus Claims
 

Let me make it simple:

#1 Downloading software, movies and music from the net is not illegal!

#2 Downloading copyrighted software, movies and music is illegal.

So it depends on what you want to download.

#3 Any software program that claims to mask your IP address is bogus these programs only hide the IP information at the User Interface level which means that if anyone with the most basic understanding of networking could see what IP addresses you are using.

Consider for example the following facts.

In addition to LimeWire I use Kazaa, Kazaa doesn't show the IP address of the people transferring files to or from you. But there's this machine I have on my network that shows me a map
of the IP addresses talking to my machines. There's no way you can avoid this.


Think of it this way, It would be like trying to use a phone to call someone without having a phone number, no phone number, no service period.

Please spread the word.

Re: The Legal Aspect Of File-Sharing
 

First of all... how are ya?... I've seen you on some other forum. Although we have different opinions on this subject, I do enjoy discussing it with you so far.

Going back to your post...

Let me put your explanation, in sort of similar way...

Now you've assigned to "x" a "manufacturer...
Now I think, it would me more acurate to say that
"x"= the "copyright law" that protects "manufactured product. The rest can stay the same...
But there is one more thing...

"a"=amount of individuals with opinion that is in favor of file sharing out of total population.
"b"= total population
"c"=percentage of "a" to "b".
Now believing the theory, that the law was created to help our society function corectly, and not that people exist to help for the law to function no matter what, here is my idea of what it all comes down to...
y=? (how many is sharing)
z=? (how many of those that get stuff)
b=? (everyone in US)
now a=y+z
c=a%*b (damn... was is it "*"to calculate percentage?... I gotta loose calculator... correct me if i f*** up :D )
And...
x=c

The higher value of "y" and "z", the more "x" will serve to improve our society.


Something like that... I might make a mistake somewhere, it's just I got too used to computers doing all calculations for me, and I really forgot...but you get the point right?

Take care...

Re: Re: The Legal Aspect Of File-Sharing
 

I am well, and I too enjoy these conversations. The thing critical fact that is overlooked in your calculation or model of

things (don't worry I didn't check it for technical accuracy) is this.

#1 - There is a whole generation of people that exist now in the Internet age. Consider for example the fact the I have

been involved with technology for about 17 years. A lot has changed in that time.

#2 - The most fundamental change is the commercialization of the Internet (The idea that business can profit from the

Internet) This started around the mid-to-early-90s. At the same time access requirements for consumers were lowering because

more consumers = more business opportunities. Those involved in the community between 1988 - 1991 were concern what this

would do to the Internet community. (I was one of them) Anyway,

#2a big business brought increased attention from cyber-thieves
#2b More consumers brought more Interest in companies wishing to sell services (spam)
#2c Other industries have entered the business as access providers so that they could create a portal type Internet where

they control not only your access but the content you see. A perfect example of this is cable providers.
Their hoping to achieve the success of services like AOL who's still around and the Compuserv's of yesteryear.


#3 - Most of the general population (consumers) started to use or get involved with the Internet around 1997 - present but

mainly during the dot-com hype. This whole concept of P2P is only a few years old. The popularity of Mp3 is only about 4

years old. This technology was developed in 1987 and received a patent in 1996.

#4 - Fast foward to the last 4 years and companies were using mp3 technology as a way to lure consumers in mass to services

which they had planned to charge for at some future point. Unfortunately, they forgot to ask the creators of the content for

the legal rights to do this. Internet Piracy has alway been a problem the DMCA was drafted to address many of these concern.

Mind you this was all years before the whole P2P revolution.

#5 - The p2p revolution did two fundamental things 1) it allow people to share without a central authority (this is good)
2) It allows people to sharewhat ever they want (This is good if you are a responsible user i.e. aware of laws and the

implications of doing this. It is not good if you think that because you purchased a cd/movie/sofware you own the rights to

do whatever you want with it including sharing it on the Internet see #4) Companies are smart enough to avoid these legal

hassels consumers now bear the burden of legal problems thanks to p2p and an uninformed userbase. (people ignorant of the

laws.)

#6 - The passion for free content comes primarily from two camps 1) (see #2)
and 2) If you got involved with the Internet in the last 3 - 6 years you probably don't know any other type of Internet

experience. You like a lot of people primarily got involved or got Interested in it when sites like Napster came along and

Scour and when MP3.com was new and the idea of free content was rampant. In other words you don't know the Internet in any

other way. So, this hostile legal climate seems unfair and for this I divert your attention back to points #3 - #5

I hate to be the bearer of bad news.

Re: Re: Re: The Legal Aspect Of File-Sharing
 

...yes... and also there is whole bunch of those, that still has problems operating video player...

What I'm trying to say is, I didn't overlook those factors. I'm well aware of them, but because I connot determine the actual figures to represent any of those groups ...old,young, uploaders,downloaders, I have assigned them all to the variables "y" and "z". Everything else depends on the actual values for "y" and "z"

ad.2. I don't know when but you're propably right about the birth of "internet commercialism".

The thing is, that so much time time has past, and internet is still not something that you can strictly define as something for business, or some window to see other cultures and not some kind of means for the thievery to go on.
Internet... well it's just everything...

"#2a big business brought increased attention from cyber-thieves
"
You say cyb.thieves, I say people with need to discover and check out something new (yes the desire to get something for free is a big factor too).
You call it stealing, I call it taking back what's ours and was just taken away from us...

And if any artist will say... "You don't wanna pay, I won't sing"
I would say ..."finally"
Because the true artist will sing no matter what, and those are the ones we like to listen to and enjoy watching.
And I'm positive,that if someone is good, public will just not let him die....


<got tired for now:D>

Legal Aspects Online Video Format
 

Please be advised we have published the useful segments of this debate online in video format. Search term CBT - or Legal Aspects

I'm taking it that the people that would be able to disclose information on who has been file sharing is down to P2P clients.
Is it possible for these companies to refuse to disclose who has been using their service?

The Beeb have done a Q&A on the subject.
Useful if you're not British and even more if you are.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ic/3079908.stm

Excellent arguments. I enjoyed reading every word.

Copyright infringement is illegal, but I could argue that the majority of my music files or not 100% duplicates of the original.
At least have my files have been shortend or just plain sound like an 8-track. When Puff Daddy remixed 15 out of the 16 songs on his album all he did was change a couple beats, words, etc.. He did not make a 100% exact copy: Therefore avoiding copyright infrigement.

Suppose I only download files that are 99.9% original would I be infringing on copyrights???

You Can Argue Anything you Want
 

You can argue anything you want in fact, people do it all the time. However, this does not change the fundamental elements of the discussion which are, the content producers get to decide the rules not the consumers.

I love America it's a great country with many freedom such as being free to do as your told and not ask any questions. That's probably my personal favorite.

U.S. Court Case


In April 2003, a Los Angeles federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against file-sharing services Grokster and StreamCast Networks, which makes the Morpheus P-to-P software, saying that they cannot be held culpable for illegal file trading done over their networks.

Plaintiffs in that case, including the Motion Picture Association of America, the National Music Publisher's Association of America, and the Recording Industry Association of America, appealed the ruling to a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard the case in early February.

The decision of that panel may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that is expected to have repercussions on the entertainment and technology industries, as well as on a related case brought by the plaintiffs against Sharman.

The judge will hear the case on February 20, Sharman says. In the meantime, the recording industry is unable to gain access to any documents seized under the order, the company says.

Sharman Networks, the owner and distributor of the Kazaa peer-to-peer network

So in a nut shell, we're still busted.

File swappers are generally anonymous on peer-to-peer networks, identified only by an Internet Protocol (IP) address assigned by their ISP. But names and addresses of subscribers can be determined by reviewing ISP records, which can connect IP addresses to individual accounts.

fellows,, i was thinking if you download a song,,and then sell the song for profit that is boot-legging,,,and is illegal... but to download a song for your personal use(not for sale)would not be stealing,, what if i went to the store and bought a new cd ,, and then decided to make a copy of the cd just incase my store bought disk got broken or damaged,,, have i broken any laws of stealing or copy rights,, is making a back-up copy of a cd that i bought that much different than downloading a cd that somone else bought,, and if the record company does"t want their disk to be copied or downloaded why dont they just make the cd"s so that they are unable to be copied,,only played ????

semantic Rationalization
 

My recommendation is that you read this entire thread as this argument has already been made and concluded. You should also read this thread

http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showth...threadid=21176

Semantic rationalization are used often by people who wish to twist issues by trying to argue something from some strange an irrelevant angle. This is not to suggest that people do it on purpose however, some do. It just reflects a person ability to reason effectively.

hey lee,,

i did some-what agree with your views of copy rights,, sombody,, somwhere,,owns these songs that people are sharing,, i was wondering what your opinion is on this,,, back years ago sombody invented the old 10 foot satelite dish,,people bought them and found that they could pick up every channel in the sky,,,so premiem channels (hbo,showtime,and such) did not start suing people,,they scambled there signals,, so people invented black market descamblers ,, but in todays time even those are about usless because they scramble their signal so fast and often,,and can even send a signal that will burn the descrambler,,, the people with these old dishes were just getting what was availble to them as long as it was availble,, todays times sombody invented the computer and file sharing,,,people bought it and found they could share music,,what is your opinion on that if the record companies feel they are getting ripped off then make your cd"s where they can be played but not copied or shared i"m sure they have this technolgy,,, people who are doing this sharing are just doing what is availble to them,, i mean,, why pay for county water if you have a well ??? from what i have read ,,,you seem to be a person of good since and knowledge,, i was hoping to get your opinion on the record company suing people for just doing what is availible,, v/s doing like hbo,showtime making their product only availible to those who pay for the service ???

hey lee,,,

you seem to know so much more than me about is file sharing legal or not ,, from what i have read you seem to have really done some homework on this subject,, question for you ,, i bought a service called k-lite,, k-lite advertised that they are a file sharing site of music,movies,and more that is 100% legal,, they advertise you dont have to worry about getting caught ,,going to court,,they say they are legal,,,so i bought a years subscription with the idea that if sombody does end up suing me i could say that i paid for this site that was suposed to be legal,, go after them ,,not me,, have you ever heard of legal file sharing sites,,or do you think i got fooled into buying a false advertisment ?? and if you think it is false,, that i got fooled,,do you think the company suing me will be more interested in going after k-lite or just targeting me ??

My opinion --
 

Most of my opinions can be stated quite simply:

Don't share copyrighted material on the public Internet!

The record companies should have started by suing individuals. Copyright infringment is not a technological problem. The root cause of copyright infringment lies squarely on the sholders of the infringers. There is a remedy for those who didn't intend to infringe on someone elses work. It's call a cease and desist order = warning don't do this anymore. You have an opportunity to stop doing what your doing after this its open season.

I completely agree with the actions of MPAA, RIAA and BayTSG. When it comes to taking actions against pirates. However I completely disagree with them when they go after the technology that facilitates file sharing. File Sharing is not a bad thing.
File Sharing is not illegal.