Full Version: P2P, Ripping and the Freedom of Information
I had no idea where to put this so, moderators feel free to move it.
Ripping is a time consuming and dearly loved part of my life. For those that don't make custom cds, ripping is taking files off of cds whether it be music,movies or software. Recently My friends and I have come under attack by adults that think we should'nt be taking files from cds and using them as we wish in custom cds or online. I think that if we bought the cd to get the files we paid the price it is ours to do with as we wish. How many people would disagree?
I was recently online looking up music to download and I came across several P2P sites(Peer 2 Peer filesharing)and was struck by just how much information I could get from them. I was also aware that many of the things offered to me were free but illegal. Now I was in a spot here. On the one hand I had the choice of free and unlimited information with a risk of being fined heavily and quite possibly arrested; and on the other I could turn and be bored outta my mind while staying out of trouble.
Being a teenager, a music junkie and naturally curious I downloaded the program and watched as music, movies, software, pictures and files were suddenly opened up to me. I have yet to actually take anything but there is a cuirosity there. This is obviously hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of material here sitting in front of me and countless others, free. I will give the links to several sites that are P2P that will tell you just what you can get and see.
Ares P2P
Kazaa P2P
Morpheus P2P
You don't even have to download them just look at what they say about themselves.
I am offering several Questions to debate to you:
Should there be laws prohibiting filesharing?
If so why? If not, why not?
Should Ripping software be outlawed?
If so why? If not, why not?
Finally; With the current laws in place restricting access to such site, is there really a freedom of information?
The sites above are the top rated P2P sites. To see what they are all about just read the disclaimers they have everywhere.
My opinion on this will come later on after I look more deeply into this issue.
Ripping is a time consuming and dearly loved part of my life. For those that don't make custom cds, ripping is taking files off of cds whether it be music,movies or software. Recently My friends and I have come under attack by adults that think we should'nt be taking files from cds and using them as we wish in custom cds or online. I think that if we bought the cd to get the files we paid the price it is ours to do with as we wish. How many people would disagree?
I was recently online looking up music to download and I came across several P2P sites(Peer 2 Peer filesharing)and was struck by just how much information I could get from them. I was also aware that many of the things offered to me were free but illegal. Now I was in a spot here. On the one hand I had the choice of free and unlimited information with a risk of being fined heavily and quite possibly arrested; and on the other I could turn and be bored outta my mind while staying out of trouble.
Being a teenager, a music junkie and naturally curious I downloaded the program and watched as music, movies, software, pictures and files were suddenly opened up to me. I have yet to actually take anything but there is a cuirosity there. This is obviously hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of material here sitting in front of me and countless others, free. I will give the links to several sites that are P2P that will tell you just what you can get and see.
Ares P2P
Kazaa P2P
Morpheus P2P
You don't even have to download them just look at what they say about themselves.
I am offering several Questions to debate to you:
Should there be laws prohibiting filesharing?
If so why? If not, why not?
Should Ripping software be outlawed?
If so why? If not, why not?
Finally; With the current laws in place restricting access to such site, is there really a freedom of information?
The sites above are the top rated P2P sites. To see what they are all about just read the disclaimers they have everywhere.
My opinion on this will come later on after I look more deeply into this issue.
Should there be laws prohibiting filesharing?
If so why? If not, why not?
Should Ripping software be outlawed?
If so why? If not, why not?
Finally; With the current laws in place restricting access to such site, is there really a freedom of information?
* * * * * * *
It's my understanding that there ARE laws prohibiting file sharing. They're called copyright laws.
I think there are few legitimate reasons to do what you're doing. I make tapes from my favorite CDs sometimes so that I can play them in my car, which has only a cassette deck. That's a gray area to me -- I really should buy cassette copies of these CDs, but #1, that would get expensive, and #2, cassettes are getting hard to find. I always listen to CDs at home, and to me, as long as I'm not making copies of CDs for other people or selling the copies I make, I'm still within my rights.
What you're talking about, though, is sharing with any Joe or Jane on the world wide web. Artists deserve fair recompense for their work. So in my opinion, 'ripping' as you call it is wrong, and software and sites that promote or assist in doing it should be banned.
If so why? If not, why not?
Should Ripping software be outlawed?
If so why? If not, why not?
Finally; With the current laws in place restricting access to such site, is there really a freedom of information?
* * * * * * *
It's my understanding that there ARE laws prohibiting file sharing. They're called copyright laws.
I think there are few legitimate reasons to do what you're doing. I make tapes from my favorite CDs sometimes so that I can play them in my car, which has only a cassette deck. That's a gray area to me -- I really should buy cassette copies of these CDs, but #1, that would get expensive, and #2, cassettes are getting hard to find. I always listen to CDs at home, and to me, as long as I'm not making copies of CDs for other people or selling the copies I make, I'm still within my rights.
What you're talking about, though, is sharing with any Joe or Jane on the world wide web. Artists deserve fair recompense for their work. So in my opinion, 'ripping' as you call it is wrong, and software and sites that promote or assist in doing it should be banned.
Should there be laws prohibiting filesharing?
There are laws against the kind of filesharing done by these P2P networks. They are called copyright laws. That's exactly why you can be sued for sharing files on these networks, or for downloading material you don't already own.
Should Ripping software be outlawed?
Vibiana, in her post, says that she makes cassette tapes of her legally owned CDs for personal use in her car. That's considered "fair use".
I would say that "ripping" several CDs that you own, to make custom playlists or compilation CDs of your favorite tunes would fall into the same category. So, no, ripping software per-se should not be outlawed, as it fulfills a perfectly legal function.
The illegality isn't in the ripping of the files, it's in the offering of those files to others that don't own an original copy of the CD, or DVD or program, and in your downloading of files you don't already own.
What you have bought is the right to listen to the copy of the CD you purchased, and to make a copy or two strictly as a backup to your original CD. You do not "own", and did not buy, in any sense of the word, any of the material on the CD, and you do not have a "right" to do with it whatever you want.
Now, that said, if you do have a legal copy of a particular CD, and are too lazy, or too technologically challenged to rip your own CDs, I would say that downloading that CD as a set of MP3s would also be legal, as it can be argued that those MP3s are your "backup". This does not, however exonerate the person putting them up online for any and all take. He is still violating copyright laws.
In fact, all of the Companies you linked to, have such disclaimers on their website:
Ares and KazaaP2P sites
Copyright Infringement Liability - P2P technology makes it possible to share all kinds of information. Some information is protected by copyright, which means that you generally need the copyright owner's permission before you make it available to other P2P users. Popular music, movies, games, and software are often protected by copyright.
Copyright infringement can result in significant monetary damages, fines and even criminal penalties. Some copyright owners have filed civil lawsuits against individuals that they believe unlawfully distributed large numbers of copyrighted songs. You can learn more about copyright laws at www.p2punited.org/copyright.php.
Morpheus P2P
Using Morpheus™ or Morpheus Ultra™ for the uploading or downloading of copyrighted works without the permission or authorization of the copyright holders may be illegal and could subject you (or the ISP subscriber) to civil and/or criminal liability and penalties. For more information about U.S. copyright law, please visit http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/and http://www.copyright.gov/title17.
Some content included on or with Morpheus Ultra™ may be reproduced, uploaded and downloaded. There are a significant number of copyright holders who have authorized the sharing of their content for non-commercial purposes, such as some content with Creative Commons format licenses, and there is also content available in the public domain and not protected by copyright. Most commercially released popular songs, films, and software are NOT authorized for free redistribution but require separate purchase or licensing.
Also, "file sharing" can cost you or your parents a whole lot of money. Penalties can range from $250 to $150,000 per each item infringed on. So, theoretically, a ten-song CD offered up on a P2P site could end up costing you between $2500 and $1,500,000. Still think it's worth it?
Finally; With the current laws in place restricting access to such site, is there really a freedom of information?
Well, current laws don't restrict your access to such a site, or they would not be up on the net, and you would not be able to link to them. Current laws also do not prevent you from downloading and using their software for legitimate purposes. Much like a photocopy machine, it can be used for legal and illegal reasons, but the machine itself is not the arbiter of legality, it's how the machine is used.
And I've heard the "information demands to be free" argument before. It doesn't wash. If you are a writer, photographer, singer, whatever, you do have the right to give away your product, if you so desire. You also have the right to charge whatever you think you can get for it.
The important thing to remember here, is that software writers, songwriters, movie producers and authors do have a product for sale. The only difference between what they are selling, and say, what a furniture store is selling, is that it's a lot easier to steal a digital product, than it is a sofa. It still doesn't make it right, or legal.
There are laws against the kind of filesharing done by these P2P networks. They are called copyright laws. That's exactly why you can be sued for sharing files on these networks, or for downloading material you don't already own.
Should Ripping software be outlawed?
Vibiana, in her post, says that she makes cassette tapes of her legally owned CDs for personal use in her car. That's considered "fair use".
I would say that "ripping" several CDs that you own, to make custom playlists or compilation CDs of your favorite tunes would fall into the same category. So, no, ripping software per-se should not be outlawed, as it fulfills a perfectly legal function.
The illegality isn't in the ripping of the files, it's in the offering of those files to others that don't own an original copy of the CD, or DVD or program, and in your downloading of files you don't already own.
QUOTE(deathalive)
I think that if we bought the cd to get the files, we paid the price, it is ours to do with as we wish. How many people would disagree?
Your opinion of your "ownership" of the material on the CDs is not accurate. What you have bought is the right to listen to the copy of the CD you purchased, and to make a copy or two strictly as a backup to your original CD. You do not "own", and did not buy, in any sense of the word, any of the material on the CD, and you do not have a "right" to do with it whatever you want.
Now, that said, if you do have a legal copy of a particular CD, and are too lazy, or too technologically challenged to rip your own CDs, I would say that downloading that CD as a set of MP3s would also be legal, as it can be argued that those MP3s are your "backup". This does not, however exonerate the person putting them up online for any and all take. He is still violating copyright laws.
In fact, all of the Companies you linked to, have such disclaimers on their website:
Ares and KazaaP2P sites
Copyright Infringement Liability - P2P technology makes it possible to share all kinds of information. Some information is protected by copyright, which means that you generally need the copyright owner's permission before you make it available to other P2P users. Popular music, movies, games, and software are often protected by copyright.
Copyright infringement can result in significant monetary damages, fines and even criminal penalties. Some copyright owners have filed civil lawsuits against individuals that they believe unlawfully distributed large numbers of copyrighted songs. You can learn more about copyright laws at www.p2punited.org/copyright.php.
Morpheus P2P
Using Morpheus™ or Morpheus Ultra™ for the uploading or downloading of copyrighted works without the permission or authorization of the copyright holders may be illegal and could subject you (or the ISP subscriber) to civil and/or criminal liability and penalties. For more information about U.S. copyright law, please visit http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/and http://www.copyright.gov/title17.
Some content included on or with Morpheus Ultra™ may be reproduced, uploaded and downloaded. There are a significant number of copyright holders who have authorized the sharing of their content for non-commercial purposes, such as some content with Creative Commons format licenses, and there is also content available in the public domain and not protected by copyright. Most commercially released popular songs, films, and software are NOT authorized for free redistribution but require separate purchase or licensing.
Also, "file sharing" can cost you or your parents a whole lot of money. Penalties can range from $250 to $150,000 per each item infringed on. So, theoretically, a ten-song CD offered up on a P2P site could end up costing you between $2500 and $1,500,000. Still think it's worth it?
Finally; With the current laws in place restricting access to such site, is there really a freedom of information?
Well, current laws don't restrict your access to such a site, or they would not be up on the net, and you would not be able to link to them. Current laws also do not prevent you from downloading and using their software for legitimate purposes. Much like a photocopy machine, it can be used for legal and illegal reasons, but the machine itself is not the arbiter of legality, it's how the machine is used.
And I've heard the "information demands to be free" argument before. It doesn't wash. If you are a writer, photographer, singer, whatever, you do have the right to give away your product, if you so desire. You also have the right to charge whatever you think you can get for it.
The important thing to remember here, is that software writers, songwriters, movie producers and authors do have a product for sale. The only difference between what they are selling, and say, what a furniture store is selling, is that it's a lot easier to steal a digital product, than it is a sofa. It still doesn't make it right, or legal.
Should there be laws prohibiting filesharing?
There already are, but there should not be.
If so why? If not, why not?
Because intellectual property is absurdity. The purpose of property rights is to ensure that people can use the products of their labor without unwanted interference from others. Now, if the product of your labor is information, other people using it does not interfere in your ability to use it. That said, property in information is unnecessary. Granted, people should not be allowed to extort information by force, but giving the original inventor a monopoly on the information is vastly excessive.
Should Ripping software be outlawed?
If so why? If not, why not?
No, for the reasons stated above.
Finally; With the current laws in place restricting access to such site, is there really a freedom of information?
No again. Freedom of information cannot exist when un-originality is a crime.
There already are, but there should not be.
If so why? If not, why not?
Because intellectual property is absurdity. The purpose of property rights is to ensure that people can use the products of their labor without unwanted interference from others. Now, if the product of your labor is information, other people using it does not interfere in your ability to use it. That said, property in information is unnecessary. Granted, people should not be allowed to extort information by force, but giving the original inventor a monopoly on the information is vastly excessive.
Should Ripping software be outlawed?
If so why? If not, why not?
No, for the reasons stated above.
Finally; With the current laws in place restricting access to such site, is there really a freedom of information?
No again. Freedom of information cannot exist when un-originality is a crime.
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Jul 15 2005, 03:44 PM)
Vibiana, in her post, says that she makes cassette tapes of her legally owned CDs for personal use in her car. That's considered "fair use".
Along these same lines, I have about 900 vinyl albums and maybe 400 cassette tapes and I don't know how many 45s.
In 1998, I started remastering and digitizing some of these and putting them on CDs. I use a program called D.A.R.T (Digital Audio Restoration Technology):
D.A.R.T.
Sound waves tend to be repetitive. D.A.R.T divides a 3 minute song into several million samples. It then cuts and replaces clicks and pops with material immediately before or after the disturbance that sounds identical. This process avoids filtering out some of the sound spectrum. D.A.R.T. automatically declicks up to one hundred samples and as many as 1500 manually.
As of last night I had remastered 260 CDs worth of music from various sources. At 20 or more songs per CD that translates to something like 6000 songs.
I think Sound Forge was the first company to come out with such a program and someone told me Pinnacle software has one called Clean.
QUOTE(Frozny @ Jul 15 2005, 05:04 PM)
Because intellectual property is absurdity. The purpose of property rights is to ensure that people can use the products of their labor without unwanted interference from others.
Now, if the product of your labor is information, other people using it does not interfere in your ability to use it.
Now, if the product of your labor is information, other people using it does not interfere in your ability to use it.
Of course it can, and it often does. In common use, property rights are actually considered a "bundle" of rights, if you will, and is simply a definition of "one's own property", and refers to the relationship between an individual and the objects which are their own to dispense with as they see fit. Traditionally, that bundle of rights includes:
1. control and use of the property
2. benefit from the property (examples: mining rights, or rent)
3. the ability to transfer or sell the property.
4. the ability to exclude others from the property.
Intellectual property most often include copyrights, patents, and trademarks and servicemarks.
Copyrights
A copyright is a property right granted to the authors of original works that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression (cassettes or CD's or videotape) and that are independently created and possess some minimal degree of creativity.
The exclusive rights provided by a copyright include protection against unauthorized printing, publishing, copying, selling, distributing, and/or performing of the copyrighted work, regardless of whether that transfer is for profit.
Copyrighted materials include not only traditional written works but also such things as computer software, electronic files and publications, internet/website files and publications, multimedia, CD-ROMs, DVDs, videotapes, audiotapes, and training programs.
Go ahead and tell a brokerage house that they can't sell their analysis of the market, or that they can't sell it only to customers and subscribers. Tell a newspaper columnist that he has to write for free, and can't sell his work to a newspaper, or a subscription only internet site. Or a software publisher that he can't sell his games for profit, but must give them away.
Patents
A patent is a property right granted by the government to inventors of new and useful inventions. Patents may be granted on any new and useful process, machine, manufactured article, composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvements thereof. During a patent's limited term, its owner has the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing the patented invention into the United States.
How many products would we not have on the market today, if people decided they couldn't make any money on that "better mousetrap" because it would just be stolen anyway?
Trademarks and Servicemarks
A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, which identifies and distinguishes the source of goods or services from one party from those of others. A service mark is the same as a trademark except it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product.
Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling them under a non-confusing mark.
Still think intellectual property should be free, and un-originality should not be a crime? Want to see how fast your life can be made a living hell? Go ahead, open a hamburger joint and call it, oh, I don't know, McDonald's. Or open a hotel and call it Holiday Inn.
Others using my personal intellectual property certainly does interfere with my ability to use it, if my ability to profit from that property is hampered. That information is as much a "product" as any tangible thing that I may produce.
For example: I discover and develop a new way of selling that blows away every other method out there. A 95% rate of conversion, higher profit margins, the works. And I decide to sell that information to major retailers, but I haven't yet got around to selling it to car salesmen. Are you really telling me that it's ok for you to steal that information, and sell it or give it away, as your own, to car dealerships? That you're not harming me and my property, simply because I haven't tapped that market yet? What if the information wasn't just copyrighted, but since it was a new process for selling, I had also gotten it patented? Would that make a difference?
But if we are just talking things like movies, pictures, books and CD's under copyright law, how does your taking my work and offering it up for free on the internet harm me? According to you, I can still "use" that property, and you are not preventing me from doing that.
But you are. You have unilaterally decided that I should not be able to to sell it to whom I want at the price of my choosing, or to control the distribution how I want. You are reducing my ability to benefit from that property, in the form of rentals, or from being able to benefit by a future sale or transfer of the rights to that property to someone else, because you have diluted those markets by offering up my property for free.
And you've done it, just as surely as if you broke into a store, and gave everything away to everyone that passed by, because you thought it should be "free for the taking".
QUOTE
That said, property in information is unnecessary. Granted, people should not be allowed to extort information by force, but giving the original inventor a monopoly on the information is vastly excessive.
But that's the whole point of intellectual property rights. No one has to take the property by force anymore. It can be copied and redistributed with almost no effort on your part, and in that redistribution, damage my property and my ability to make decisions concerning that property. What for example, is the difference between my making a new and innovative product, and not being able to protect it under patent law, and my writing a new and innovative software program, and not being able to protect it under copyright law?
Why should I bother to invent new products, or to write new software, or perform a new song, if I can't expect to be able to make money off that endeavor? That's my livelyhood your talking so cavalierly about.
QUOTE
Freedom of information cannot exist when un-originality is a crime.
Nonsense. No one is saying that you can't use my idea, or my software, or my music. Only that I am entitled to be fairly compensated for that software or music, when you do use it. If you don't like the price for what I am offering, or you find the product unsuitable in some manner, you are entitled to find something closer to what you are looking for, at a price that you are more comfortable with, if you can. You are not entitled to steal my work, or to offer your copy of it up to anyone and everyone.
NiteGuy
I understand the purpose of patents, copyrights etc but I believe they've verged from their true intention of "increasing human knowledge."
The point of getting a patent was to "motivate" inventors to continue to invent by ensuring they'd profit from their inventions. However, patents and copyrights are now being used as tools in corporate warfare instead of "increasing human knowledge" in fact, it's decreasing human knowledge in some areas such as DNA research. I'd hate to think the race to find the cure for AIDS or Cancer is being slowed by greedy companies that hold IP patents. Patents and copyrights are also being abused in the computer industry as well. Amazon.com is the only site that as "1-click ordering". This means they patented the process of storing a customer's billing information so that they do not have to enter it every time they purchase something. Stuff like this benefits everyone. I think we need a global policy on patents and a way to ensure companies aren't abusing the patent system.
I understand the purpose of patents, copyrights etc but I believe they've verged from their true intention of "increasing human knowledge."
The point of getting a patent was to "motivate" inventors to continue to invent by ensuring they'd profit from their inventions. However, patents and copyrights are now being used as tools in corporate warfare instead of "increasing human knowledge" in fact, it's decreasing human knowledge in some areas such as DNA research. I'd hate to think the race to find the cure for AIDS or Cancer is being slowed by greedy companies that hold IP patents. Patents and copyrights are also being abused in the computer industry as well. Amazon.com is the only site that as "1-click ordering". This means they patented the process of storing a customer's billing information so that they do not have to enter it every time they purchase something. Stuff like this benefits everyone. I think we need a global policy on patents and a way to ensure companies aren't abusing the patent system.
QUOTE(psyclist @ Jul 15 2005, 08:26 PM)
NiteGuy
I understand the purpose of patents, copyrights etc but I believe they've verged from their true intention of "increasing human knowledge."
The point of getting a patent was to "motivate" inventors to continue to invent by ensuring they'd profit from their inventions. However, patents and copyrights are now being used as tools in corporate warfare instead of "increasing human knowledge" in fact, it's decreasing human knowledge in some areas such as DNA research. I'd hate to think the race to find the cure for AIDS or Cancer is being slowed by greedy companies that hold IP patents. Patents and copyrights are also being abused in the computer industry as well. Amazon.com is the only site that as "1-click ordering". This means they patented the process of storing a customer's billing information so that they do not have to enter it every time they purchase something. Stuff like this benefits everyone. I think we need a global policy on patents and a way to ensure companies aren't abusing the patent system.
I understand the purpose of patents, copyrights etc but I believe they've verged from their true intention of "increasing human knowledge."
The point of getting a patent was to "motivate" inventors to continue to invent by ensuring they'd profit from their inventions. However, patents and copyrights are now being used as tools in corporate warfare instead of "increasing human knowledge" in fact, it's decreasing human knowledge in some areas such as DNA research. I'd hate to think the race to find the cure for AIDS or Cancer is being slowed by greedy companies that hold IP patents. Patents and copyrights are also being abused in the computer industry as well. Amazon.com is the only site that as "1-click ordering". This means they patented the process of storing a customer's billing information so that they do not have to enter it every time they purchase something. Stuff like this benefits everyone. I think we need a global policy on patents and a way to ensure companies aren't abusing the patent system.
Psyclist, I understand your point completely, and I agree to an extent. But that's not what started all of this. Deathalive wanted to know about the legality and ethics of file-sharing CDs, movies, software and the like.
Are patents, copyrights and trademarks being used to hammer some companies by others? Absolutely. But that doesn't justify the wholesale theft and distribution of the latest copy of Microsoft Windows, the latest Star Wars movie, or some groups CD, just because you have the hard drive space, and the bandwidth to make it happen, and a P2P program like Morpheus or Kazaa.
Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean should do it, or that the ability to do it makes it right or legal.
Fair enough, I guess I was applying "Freedom of Information" to all respects.
But that doesn't justify the wholesale theft and distribution of the latest copy of Microsoft Windows, the latest Star Wars movie, or some groups CD, just because you have the hard drive space, and the bandwidth to make it happen, and a P2P program like Morpheus or Kazaa.
Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean should do it, or that the ability to do it makes it right or legal.
Ok first off...if you steal Windows, that's your own fault...you should be downloading Linux/Unix (for free!
)
I guess I'm more playing devil's advocate more than anything on this so I'm just throwing this out there. When VHS/Video Recorders came out, everyone thought it'd be the end of the Movie Industry...when Cassettes came out, everyone thought it'd be the end of Radio and music would die because no one would make any money anymore. Same with CDs. However, something better always comes out, because the technology you're worried about forces you to create something better.
In this case, I think P2P and the illegal downloads have forced companies to create services such as itunes, where you can get an mp3 legally and super cheap.
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Jul 15 2005, 11:11 PM)
But that doesn't justify the wholesale theft and distribution of the latest copy of Microsoft Windows, the latest Star Wars movie, or some groups CD, just because you have the hard drive space, and the bandwidth to make it happen, and a P2P program like Morpheus or Kazaa.
Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean should do it, or that the ability to do it makes it right or legal.
Ok first off...if you steal Windows, that's your own fault...you should be downloading Linux/Unix (for free!
) I guess I'm more playing devil's advocate more than anything on this so I'm just throwing this out there. When VHS/Video Recorders came out, everyone thought it'd be the end of the Movie Industry...when Cassettes came out, everyone thought it'd be the end of Radio and music would die because no one would make any money anymore. Same with CDs. However, something better always comes out, because the technology you're worried about forces you to create something better.
In this case, I think P2P and the illegal downloads have forced companies to create services such as itunes, where you can get an mp3 legally and super cheap.
Should there be laws prohibiting filesharing?
I don't have a black and white answer for this question. Part of that is because I don't listen to most of the music produced. I think if politicians do pass laws on this, they need to consider who's going to benefit from the laws. Several years ago, Metallica sued napster over the file sharing issue even though the band members already had several million dollars in the bank.
Musicians do deserve to be compensated for their work. But society needs to ask the question of what fair compensation is. Should a person be able to write a song and be able to earn several million dollars from that song? How long should a copyright itself last? The Wizard of Oz was made in 1939. All the original actors are dead but the copyright for that movie is still there.
One thing I really would like to add is that I take issue with Corporate America using the word piracy. Before the 1990s, piracy was used to refer to people who hijack ships and commit murder. Despite that filesharing is a type of theft in many instances, it is offensive to compare music thieves to terrorists.
I don't have a black and white answer for this question. Part of that is because I don't listen to most of the music produced. I think if politicians do pass laws on this, they need to consider who's going to benefit from the laws. Several years ago, Metallica sued napster over the file sharing issue even though the band members already had several million dollars in the bank.
Musicians do deserve to be compensated for their work. But society needs to ask the question of what fair compensation is. Should a person be able to write a song and be able to earn several million dollars from that song? How long should a copyright itself last? The Wizard of Oz was made in 1939. All the original actors are dead but the copyright for that movie is still there.
One thing I really would like to add is that I take issue with Corporate America using the word piracy. Before the 1990s, piracy was used to refer to people who hijack ships and commit murder. Despite that filesharing is a type of theft in many instances, it is offensive to compare music thieves to terrorists.
I have confirmed now that the actual crime isn't downloading the songs, it is the actual sharing of the songs.
A PDF to prove:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/chapter11.pdf
So basically, if you don't share anything, you aren't committing a crime. It sounds like you are committing the type of crime that they are talking about.
Niteguy:
The same webpage (not that specific one, but the same, general, thing, webby deal) says that it is $150,000 for a "work," and then it defines a "work" as, I think, something like an album. So a CD like that would still be costing $150 gs at most, which still is about $149,980 more than the Best Buy CDs.
A PDF to prove:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/chapter11.pdf
So basically, if you don't share anything, you aren't committing a crime. It sounds like you are committing the type of crime that they are talking about.
Niteguy:
QUOTE
Also, "file sharing" can cost you or your parents a whole lot of money. Penalties can range from $250 to $150,000 per each item infringed on. So, theoretically, a ten-song CD offered up on a P2P site could end up costing you between $2500 and $1,500,000. Still think it's worth it?
The same webpage (not that specific one, but the same, general, thing, webby deal) says that it is $150,000 for a "work," and then it defines a "work" as, I think, something like an album. So a CD like that would still be costing $150 gs at most, which still is about $149,980 more than the Best Buy CDs.
Well that copyright article was very helpul. Thanks Blingice. I am not one of the people that shares anything although I have downloaded a couple of word files from Ares I have not downloaded music, though I will consider it now. To me it is not a question of should or shouldnt, but will or wont. We should not kill.. It happens. We should not say hateful things to others.. It happens. We should not file share... It happens. There is not much more I can say. NO matter what happens there is always going to be someone that uses filesharing software.
As for Ripping If I want to make a personalized Cd with a custom set of songs out of my favorites; I bought the CD's that contribute to it so God willing I will do with as I please. And If I recall correctly the FBI warning says that so long as it is used for my personal use and not for public or private gain, I am well in my rights to do with it as I please.
To me it is not a question of should or shouldnt, but will or wont. We should not kill.. It happens. We should not say hateful things to others.. It happens. We should not file share... It happens. There is not much more I can say. NO matter what happens there is always going to be someone that uses filesharing software. As for Ripping If I want to make a personalized Cd with a custom set of songs out of my favorites; I bought the CD's that contribute to it so God willing I will do with as I please. And If I recall correctly the FBI warning says that so long as it is used for my personal use and not for public or private gain, I am well in my rights to do with it as I please.
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Jul 15 2005, 09:40 PM)
Go ahead and tell a brokerage house that they can't sell their analysis of the market, or that they can't sell it only to customers and subscribers. Tell a newspaper columnist that he has to write for free, and can't sell his work to a newspaper, or a subscription only internet site. Or a software publisher that he can't sell his games for profit, but must give them away.
Is that all you have? A misrepresentation of my position? I never said that the possessors of information must be forced to disclose the information they possess. If someone knows something that someone else wants to know, the former can demand to be paid before disclosing the information. However, giving him the power to shut the latter out from all other sources of that information is unnecessary, monopolistic, and tyrannical.
QUOTE
A patent is a property right granted by the government to inventors of new and useful inventions. Patents may be granted on any new and useful process, machine, manufactured article, composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvements thereof. During a patent's limited term, its owner has the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing the patented invention into the United States.
How many products would we not have on the market today, if people decided they couldn't make any money on that "better mousetrap" because it would just be stolen anyway?
and useful improvements thereof. During a patent's limited term, its owner has the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing the patented invention into the United States.
How many products would we not have on the market today, if people decided they couldn't make any money on that "better mousetrap" because it would just be stolen anyway?
Patents are NOT necessary to ensure profit from inventions. Even without patents, the advantage of invention is that you enter into a market with no competitors. Even with patents, competitors will eventually emerge - patents expire, you know. Patents are just a means of artificially elongating the period of no competition, thus allowing the inventor to extort artificially high profits at society's expense.
IMO, patents are all too similar to Plato's discredited and absurd theory of forms. If I create a widget, I don't just own the widget - I own "widgetness," the form of the widget - the widget that I have created is merely an "instance" of my property, and I own all the widgets in the world. I hope someday you begin to see how ridiculous this is.
QUOTE
Trademarks and Servicemarks
A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, which identifies and distinguishes the source of goods or services from one party from those of others. A service mark is the same as a trademark except it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product.
Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling them under a non-confusing mark.
Still think intellectual property should be free, and un-originality should not be a crime? Want to see how fast your life can be made a living hell? Go ahead, open a hamburger joint and call it, oh, I don't know, McDonald's. Or open a hotel and call it Holiday Inn.
A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, which identifies and distinguishes the source of goods or services from one party from those of others. A service mark is the same as a trademark except it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product.
Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling them under a non-confusing mark.
Still think intellectual property should be free, and un-originality should not be a crime? Want to see how fast your life can be made a living hell? Go ahead, open a hamburger joint and call it, oh, I don't know, McDonald's. Or open a hotel and call it Holiday Inn.
Or let's see how life can be made a living hell by having everyone who dares draw symbols live in fear of lawsuits from a random obscure small business who used the symbol first.
There should be protections against outright fraud, but businesses should not be able to claim absolute authority over every single use of their symbols - or, for that matter, claim property in the most basic of symbols, such as triangles or five-pointed stars.
QUOTE
Others using my personal intellectual property certainly does interfere with my ability to use it, if my ability to profit from that property is hampered. That information is as much a "product" as any tangible thing that I may produce.
Do you realize how absurd this standard is? By this standard, if I own a gun, I should be allowed to rob banks - otherwise, you are interfering in my ability to profit from my property.
The only justified profit is that which comes through voluntary exchange, not through government force.
QUOTE
For example: I discover and develop a new way of selling that blows away every other method out there. A 95% rate of conversion, higher profit margins, the works. And I decide to sell that information to major retailers, but I haven't yet got around to selling it to car salesmen. Are you really telling me that it's ok for you to steal that information, and sell it or give it away, as your own, to car dealerships? That you're not harming me and my property, simply because I haven't tapped that market yet? What if the information wasn't just copyrighted, but since it was a new process for selling, I had also gotten it patented? Would that make a difference?
How would I steal the information? Break into your office and look at your notes on this sale method? I'm not condoning violations of material property, you know. But what if I figure it out on my own by, say, meditating? Would you send the cops on me for merely speaking to car salesmen about it?
QUOTE
But if we are just talking things like movies, pictures, books and CD's under copyright law, how does your taking my work and offering it up for free on the internet harm me? According to you, I can still "use" that property, and you are not preventing me from doing that.
But you are. You have unilaterally decided that I should not be able to to sell it to whom I want at the price of my choosing, or to control the distribution how I want. You are reducing my ability to benefit from that property, in the form of rentals, or from being able to benefit by a future sale or transfer of the rights to that property to someone else, because you have diluted those markets by offering up my property for free.
But you are. You have unilaterally decided that I should not be able to to sell it to whom I want at the price of my choosing, or to control the distribution how I want. You are reducing my ability to benefit from that property, in the form of rentals, or from being able to benefit by a future sale or transfer of the rights to that property to someone else, because you have diluted those markets by offering up my property for free.
I suppose, then, that competition is theft. Am I reading you right? Competitors "dilute the market" and "deny benefit from property."
Here's a news flash - you can still sell it to whomever you want, at the price of your choosing. You just can't force anyone to accept it. Nor can you smash anyone for offering the same service at a lower price. You can, however, refuse to sell your copies unless the buyer agrees not to copy it.
QUOTE
But that's the whole point of intellectual property rights. No one has to take the property by force anymore. It can be copied and redistributed with almost no effort on your part, and in that redistribution, damage my property and my ability to make decisions concerning that property.
Well, there is a huge distinction between two inventors inventing the same thing at roughly the same time, and a man putting a gun to an inventor's head and demanding that he tell the secret of his invention. The latter is what I meant by "extorting information by force."
QUOTE
Nonsense. No one is saying that you can't use my idea, or my software, or my music.
If you have the copyright, then you have the power to say that.
QUOTE(deathalive @ Jul 18 2005, 03:03 AM)
To me it is not a question of should or shouldnt, but will or wont. We should not kill.. It happens. We should not say hateful things to others.. It happens. We should not file share... It happens. There is not much more I can say. NO matter what happens there is always going to be someone that uses filesharing software.
As for Ripping If I want to make a personalized Cd with a custom set of songs out of my favorites; I bought the CD's that contribute to it so God willing I will do with as I please. And If I recall correctly the FBI warning says that so long as it is used for my personal use and not for public or private gain, I am well in my rights to do with it as I please.
As for Ripping If I want to make a personalized Cd with a custom set of songs out of my favorites; I bought the CD's that contribute to it so God willing I will do with as I please. And If I recall correctly the FBI warning says that so long as it is used for my personal use and not for public or private gain, I am well in my rights to do with it as I please.
So why start a debate about whether it's right or wrong? You're looking for validation, not debate.
Also, you didn't clarify in your original post that you were 'ripping' from your legally owned CDs. If all you are doing is making personal copies, you're within your rights, as others pointed out. Your alluding to "online" use in your original post is what people are objecting to.
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Jul 16 2005, 03:11 AM)
Are patents, copyrights and trademarks being used to hammer some companies by others? Absolutely. But that doesn't justify the wholesale theft and distribution of the latest copy of Microsoft Windows, the latest Star Wars movie, or some groups CD, just because you have the hard drive space, and the bandwidth to make it happen, and a P2P program like Morpheus or Kazaa.
I think it's interesting that in almost every case, the only people who are claiming 'intellectual copyright infringement' are the recording studios who DON'T MAKE ANY OF THE MUSIC THEMSELVES! The artists, in fact, are largely being terrorized by the studios who only exist to make a buck.
The story I like to tell is The Offspring, a couple years ago, wanted to put their own music up on their own website for download. Obviously, they owned their own intellectual copyright, but their label insisted that they take the album down because they were afraid of losing CD sales. In the end, the studio won out and the album was taken down. At the time, The Offspring was the most downloaded group on the net. They were also the best-selling group in music. So much for 'piracy hurts sales' huh?
The recording and media industries have always been the Chicken Littles of the technology world. Every single new technology that comes along is decried as the end of the world as we know it. They did it with recording tape, they did it with recordable CDs, they did it with recordable DVDs and they do it with the Internet. In fact, the reality of the situation is that the recording industry is outmoded. They refuse to revise their marketing model because that means that they won't make multi-billions every year straight into their pockets. So they invent nonsensical arguments, bloated numbers and outright lies to justify their position that everyone is stealing from them and they deserve more money.
The only ones that are getting ripped off are the artists and the ones with the guns to their heads are the recording industry.
QUOTE
Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean should do it, or that the ability to do it makes it right or legal.
Just because something is against the law doesn't make it wrong either. There are a lot of really stupid laws on the books, pushed through by political or financial interests for their own gain.
QUOTE(Cephus @ Jul 18 2005, 12:27 PM)
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Jul 16 2005, 03:11 AM)
Are patents, copyrights and trademarks being used to hammer some companies by others? Absolutely. But that doesn't justify the wholesale theft and distribution of the latest copy of Microsoft Windows, the latest Star Wars movie, or some groups CD, just because you have the hard drive space, and the bandwidth to make it happen, and a P2P program like Morpheus or Kazaa.
I think it's interesting that in almost every case, the only people who are claiming 'intellectual copyright infringement' are the recording studios who DON'T MAKE ANY OF THE MUSIC THEMSELVES! The artists, in fact, are largely being terrorized by the studios who only exist to make a buck.
The story I like to tell is The Offspring, a couple years ago, wanted to put their own music up on their own website for download. Obviously, they owned their own intellectual copyright, but their label insisted that they take the album down because they were afraid of losing CD sales. In the end, the studio won out and the album was taken down. At the time, The Offspring was the most downloaded group on the net. They were also the best-selling group in music. So much for 'piracy hurts sales' huh?
The recording and media industries have always been the Chicken Littles of the technology world. Every single new technology that comes along is decried as the end of the world as we know it. They did it with recording tape, they did it with recordable CDs, they did it with recordable DVDs and they do it with the Internet. In fact, the reality of the situation is that the recording industry is outmoded. They refuse to revise their marketing model because that means that they won't make multi-billions every year straight into their pockets. So they invent nonsensical arguments, bloated numbers and outright lies to justify their position that everyone is stealing from them and they deserve more money.
The only ones that are getting ripped off are the artists and the ones with the guns to their heads are the recording industry.
QUOTE
Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean should do it, or that the ability to do it makes it right or legal.
Just because something is against the law doesn't make it wrong either. There are a lot of really stupid laws on the books, pushed through by political or financial interests for their own gain.
I agree with the first part absolutely. However, that really supports the idea of artists controlling their output. I agree that the big losers in file-sharing are record companies, not artists. However, that also doesn't mean that p2p is right. It means that free downloading of software and music and movies should be decided by the persons who produce the work, not the public at large. As a musician, I have absolutely no problem with people downloading and ripping my music for free. After all, I make music with the goal of having people enjoy it. Any commercial success I might obtain is of secondary importance to simply sharing what I do. But not every artist feels that way.
The example of an artist like Metallica is just not relevant - it is easy to demonize them, because they have so much money, they must just be greedy, right? But filesharing can hurt other artists. Artists who decide not to play the major-label game. Artists who decide to sell their work themselves, and set up a download store, or sell their music through iTunes. When that music ends up on programs like Napster instead, the artist definitely suffers.
The only difference between informationally based product and a physical product is that the former can be infinitely reproduced. If I build a cabinet, it can be stolen, but not easily copied a million times at no cost to the copier. If I record a song, it can be stolen once, and copied a million times for free. So to argue for free downloading without the approval of the producer, one is arguing that theft of product should be legal. And I just can't buy that. I think people arguing for that tend to make justifications in order to feel better about what they are doing.
So if I happen to be a musician, the product of my hard work should be free, but if I build cars they should cost money? Gee, why do I not buy that?
Now, let me remind you once again that I have always encouraged people to copy and download my music at no cost. But it's MY choice to do so, NOT anyone else's.
QUOTE(Frozny @ Jul 17 2005, 08:32 PM)
QUOTE
Trademarks and Servicemarks
A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, which identifies and distinguishes the source of goods or services from one party from those of others. A service mark is the same as a trademark except it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product.
Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling them under a non-confusing mark.
Still think intellectual property should be free, and un-originality should not be a crime? Want to see how fast your life can be made a living hell? Go ahead, open a hamburger joint and call it, oh, I don't know, McDonald's. Or open a hotel and call it Holiday Inn.
A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, which identifies and distinguishes the source of goods or services from one party from those of others. A service mark is the same as a trademark except it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product.
Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling them under a non-confusing mark.
Still think intellectual property should be free, and un-originality should not be a crime? Want to see how fast your life can be made a living hell? Go ahead, open a hamburger joint and call it, oh, I don't know, McDonald's. Or open a hotel and call it Holiday Inn.
Or let's see how life can be made a living hell by having everyone who dares draw symbols live in fear of lawsuits from a random obscure small business who used the symbol first.
There should be protections against outright fraud, but businesses should not be able to claim absolute authority over every single use of their symbols - or, for that matter, claim property in the most basic of symbols, such as triangles or five-pointed stars.
Your statements here represent 1) a fundamental misunderstanding of the law surrounding trademarks and 2) a fundamental misunderstanding of branding.
Someone cannot simply trademark a symbol like a circle or a square, it has to be a unique symbol. As Nite Guy stated in his post:
QUOTE(NiteGuy)
Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling them under a non-confusing mark.
If you want to get technical, there is something called an internal class which a product or service is filed under - you can file for up to 3 classes. I believe you can have a similar mark as an existing business as long as you aren't under the same internal class, but I'm no trademark lawyer.
Secondly, branding is something takes a lot of time, talent, money and luck to pull off. A business should be able to protect their brand and the existing trademark laws adequately give them that protection. You seem to be suggesting that they shouldn't be afforded that protection.
Did anyone read this?
The fact is, this proof shows that there is no debate regarding downloading. Besides, if someone brings you to court saying you were downloading from people who are illegally sharing, it would be pretty hard for them to prove that you were knowingly downloading illegally shared material.
QUOTE
I have confirmed now that the actual crime isn't downloading the songs, it is the actual sharing of the songs.
A PDF to prove:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/chapter11.pdf
So basically, if you don't share anything, you aren't committing a crime. It sounds like you are committing the type of crime that they are talking about.
Niteguy:
QUOTE
Also, "file sharing" can cost you or your parents a whole lot of money. Penalties can range from $250 to $150,000 per each item infringed on. So, theoretically, a ten-song CD offered up on a P2P site could end up costing you between $2500 and $1,500,000. Still think it's worth it?
The same webpage (not that specific one, but the same, general, thing, webby deal) says that it is $150,000 for a "work," and then it defines a "work" as, I think, something like an album. So a CD like that would still be costing $150 gs at most, which still is about $149,980 more than the Best Buy CDs. hmmm.gif
A PDF to prove:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/chapter11.pdf
So basically, if you don't share anything, you aren't committing a crime. It sounds like you are committing the type of crime that they are talking about.
Niteguy:
QUOTE
Also, "file sharing" can cost you or your parents a whole lot of money. Penalties can range from $250 to $150,000 per each item infringed on. So, theoretically, a ten-song CD offered up on a P2P site could end up costing you between $2500 and $1,500,000. Still think it's worth it?
The same webpage (not that specific one, but the same, general, thing, webby deal) says that it is $150,000 for a "work," and then it defines a "work" as, I think, something like an album. So a CD like that would still be costing $150 gs at most, which still is about $149,980 more than the Best Buy CDs. hmmm.gif
The fact is, this proof shows that there is no debate regarding downloading. Besides, if someone brings you to court saying you were downloading from people who are illegally sharing, it would be pretty hard for them to prove that you were knowingly downloading illegally shared material.
QUOTE(blingice @ Jul 23 2005, 10:36 PM)
Did anyone read this?
The fact is, this proof shows that there is no debate regarding downloading. Besides, if someone brings you to court saying you were downloading from people who are illegally sharing, it would be pretty hard for them to prove that you were knowingly downloading illegally shared material.
QUOTE
I have confirmed now that the actual crime isn't downloading the songs, it is the actual sharing of the songs.
A PDF to prove:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/chapter11.pdf
So basically, if you don't share anything, you aren't committing a crime. It sounds like you are committing the type of crime that they are talking about.
Niteguy:
QUOTE
Also, "file sharing" can cost you or your parents a whole lot of money. Penalties can range from $250 to $150,000 per each item infringed on. So, theoretically, a ten-song CD offered up on a P2P site could end up costing you between $2500 and $1,500,000. Still think it's worth it?
The same webpage (not that specific one, but the same, general, thing, webby deal) says that it is $150,000 for a "work," and then it defines a "work" as, I think, something like an album. So a CD like that would still be costing $150 gs at most, which still is about $149,980 more than the Best Buy CDs. hmmm.gif
A PDF to prove:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/chapter11.pdf
So basically, if you don't share anything, you aren't committing a crime. It sounds like you are committing the type of crime that they are talking about.
Niteguy:
QUOTE
Also, "file sharing" can cost you or your parents a whole lot of money. Penalties can range from $250 to $150,000 per each item infringed on. So, theoretically, a ten-song CD offered up on a P2P site could end up costing you between $2500 and $1,500,000. Still think it's worth it?
The same webpage (not that specific one, but the same, general, thing, webby deal) says that it is $150,000 for a "work," and then it defines a "work" as, I think, something like an album. So a CD like that would still be costing $150 gs at most, which still is about $149,980 more than the Best Buy CDs. hmmm.gif
The fact is, this proof shows that there is no debate regarding downloading. Besides, if someone brings you to court saying you were downloading from people who are illegally sharing, it would be pretty hard for them to prove that you were knowingly downloading illegally shared material.
Actually, that's not entirely true, blingice. You are certainly entitled to make a copy of any song photo or movie you have purchased, and have a legal copy of in your possession, for archival or personal use.
It is not legal under copyright laws to download songs, photos or movies you have not previously paid for, or have aquired through another legal manner (someone gives you their old album collection), and/or do not have in your physical possession.
For instance, years and years ago, I was an Elvis impressionist, and bought a ton of his albums to listen too, to add to my repetoir of songs, and to study his voice. I still have all of these albums.
Now, if I find a site on the internet, or a newsgroup, or through a P2P service that I can download these albums as MP3's, it's legal for me to do so, because I still retain the original purchases, even though their being offered on that site is illegal for the person sharing them. It's simply easier and quicker for me to download them, than it is to rip them myself, because many of them are on vinyl, rather than on CD. But, the important thing is that I still have physical copies at my disposal.
However, downloading music or movies that I have not purchased, and/or do not already have legal, physical possession of, can still subject me to civil and criminal penalties. Why? Because then I'm not simply making copies of something I already own, I am actually stealing material I have no legal right to. I'm circumventing the ability of the record company, and artists to make a profit from their works.
If you've heard of the Music or Movie associations suing people for unlawfully downloading songs or movies, that's why. The people sued had huge numbers of songs, sometimes in the thousands, that they had downloaded, and had not paid for. In addition, of course, some of these same people were also offering up all of those songs for others to take.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.