File Swappers to RIAA: Download This!

Washington Post ^ | July 6, 2003 | Leslie Walker

[Nick Danger]

flood cyberspace with bogus copies of RIAA music

This is why they need more economists and fewer lawyers. Game theory tells you that that technique will not work against a population that is as cohesive as students are. We force these little buggers to associate with one another every day. All it takes is one geek per school to break the code, and the good copy leaks out through the school instead of over the Internet. All they are doing is increasing the economic value of geeks, enabling them to get more dates (a noble undertaking, actually).

While the economists were there explaining this to the lawyers, they could also explain what it means that the delivered cost of a listened-to song is asymptotically approaching zero, at a time when their clients' business model turns on the relatively costly physical distribution of solid-matter goods which are really just glorified containers for that which is to be delivered.

The fun part about telling lawyers stuff like that is that they don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. So they will continue to accept fees and burn the money from the glorified box-makers... for engaging in activities that fight the Invisible Hand.

[two23]

Every public library that offers books to readers for free is "book sharing"....every time I read a book and pass it on to a friend, I'm book sharing..same thing. I don't hear the authors and publishers of the nation going to and fro looking for people to devour with law suits.

[longtermmemmory]

The library also allows you to check out dvd's and music cd's. The public library paid the copyright fee.


remeber this is intelectual property NOT physical property. The rules of ownership and compensation are DIFFERENT.

[strela]

Anybody with a PC, studio software, a sound card and a website can record, mix, publish and distribute music.

Then let them do so, and with my blessing to boot. However, not everybody can afford to give away their product or service. Honest people have two options when it comes to music; either pay the going rate for it, or don't buy it. Those are the only choices; file sharing or copying the music without permission is stealing, plain and simple.

The recording industry no longer provides an indispensible service to their clients and to their customers.

Sure seems funny that so many people are stealing something that no one seems to want. Your logic is in abeyance.

[strela]

Don't refer to copyright infringement as theft, it isn't.

By infringing somebody's copyright, you are depriving them of monies that you would have spent to acquire their product, and you are facilitating that same theft on the part of others. If that isn't stealing, then the word has no definition.

[ThinkDifferent]

By infringing somebody's copyright, you are depriving them of monies that you would have spent to acquire their product

Incorrect assumption.

[Principled]

If people were selling music they'd purchased, I'd be against them - they'd be earning $ from another's works. But they aren't selling music - they're giving it away.

So Schwinn comes to your door one day with a few bicycle cops and says, "Say, did you let your little girl ride your bike yesterday? We surveilled this area and saw it. We're going to sue your ass off. You can't let someone else use your bike! They have to buy their own!"

Just doesn't quite add up.

[visualops]

Well, it doesn't really work like that. But, fair use generally entails that, for instance, your friends and family can come to your house and listen to music with you, without paying a fee to do so. It's also generally assumed you should be able to make copies for your car or portable player, or create your own compilations, just as one can with cassette tapes.

[Principled]

I don't think giving away something you own is stealing.

If you've signed an agreement that you won't do so (eg software), then it's obviously wrong.

But how can someone else tell me what I can and cannot do with my own property?

[lewislynn]

You can't let someone else use your bike! They have to buy their own!"

Schwinn bicycles aren't protected under copyright laws...get it?

Can you reprint someone elses copyright protected book or newspaper and hand them out for free?

[discostu]

Because you don't own the right to copy and distribute that music, the copyright holder does. You are bootlegging the music giving it away and stealing money from the copyright holder and the creators of the music.

[Principled]

I am obviously not a copyright lawyer...

It does strike me as counterintuitive that I would be prohibited from copying music I had purchased and putting it on a CD for a road trip, or for my office music, or for my computer when I (or my family, friends, or employees) want to listen.

Is there a law against the number of individuals allowed to listen at one time????

[Principled]

I am not stealing money from anyone by downloading music.

What makes you think it's stealing?

[visualops]

BS. Study up and learn about copyrights. It isn't theft, it's infringement.
Making an "illegal" (even that terminology is technically incorrect) copy isn't theft. Infringement includes the unauthorized or unlicensed copying of a work subject to copyright, it's basically performing the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without their authorization.
17 U.S.C. § 106

Sec. 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.


Your rape analogy doesn't apply, and is poorly constructed. The Clinton reference is meaningless, superfluous and strictly designed to inflame. Pretty lame.

[Principled]

I would be stealing if I were charging for allowing others to copy my music. That's not happening.

Folks are just giving it away.

That being said, I understand why RIAA is upset - they think they're making fewer profits because fewer people will buy music if they can get it for free. Duh.

The answer, IMO, is not to make laws that distort the market. The answer is to adapt to technology to conform to the market.

I think I should be able to let others listen to my music, ride my bike, borrow a shirt, etc. If I'm not charging for any of these things, what's the violation?

[Principled]

Thanks for posting this, visualops.

It seems that in the case of giving away music on the internet, the only violation is the act of copying.

Does this mean it's illegal for me to copy some vinyl onto CD???

Does this mean it's illegal for me to copy stuff onto tapes to listen in my car???

Good grief.

[discostu]

No you would be profiting from your theft if you were charging. You're stealing without profit. It's still stealing.

No the RIAA is upset because people who do not own the copyright are copying things illegally. Whether or not the people illegally taking those illegitimate copies would ever pay is immaterial. What's material is that copyright law is being violated in massive quantities and that the criminals shrug their shoulders.

How could they conform to the market? There's no way to "compete" with people illegally distributing your copyrighted material for free.

The violation is that copyrighted materials cannot be copied without the permission of the copyright holder. None of this is new, they aren't making new laws, the concept of copyright is in the Constitution.

You're free to let others listen to YOUR music, a copyrighted CD you bought in the stores isn't YOUR music, it's someone else's, they also are free to let others listen but on THEIR terms not yours.

[discostu]

The violation is in the distributing. Copying for personal use only is legal, once you give it to somebody else it's a bootleg and you're a bootlegger.

[billbears]

I really enjoy starting XMMS, and putting it on random play. It is a heck of a lot more convienient for me than it would be to try to do something similar with my collection. I even bought an FM transmitter so I can tune it in on my home stereo.

I thought about that but haven't yet. I do use MusicMatch's 'radio station' at home and it is nice to put it on random. I do have a 20GB Archos MP3 player but to tell the truth it's not something that's easy to use going down the road. May have to look into XM, but I just want to make sure which of the two competitors is going to make it before I choose

[mrfixit514]

a copyrighted CD you bought in the stores isn't YOUR music

No but most people view it as their property since they bought it. They are not renting it. They are not leasing it. The solution is simple. People should stop buying CD's until the industry gives them what they want. It won't take long if people would show some willpower and stick with it long enough. We are the consumers. They should be worried about pleasing us. We need to give the "invisible hand" a chance to correct this problem.