File Swappers to RIAA: Download This!

Washington Post ^ | July 6, 2003 | Leslie Walker

[John Jorsett]

The Recording Industry Association of America's announcement on June 25 that it will start tracking down and suing users of file-sharing programs has yet to spook people, say developers of these applications.

"Forget about it, dude -- even genocidal litigation can't stop file sharers," said Wayne Rosso, president of Grokster, one of several systems that allow users to upload and download files -- many of which are unauthorized MP3 copies of songs published by the RIAA's member companies. Rosso said file-trading activity among Grokster users has increased by 10 percent in the past few days. Morpheus, another file-trading program, has seen similar growth.

Maybe MP3 downloaders are interpreting the recording industry's threat -- an escalation from its earlier strategy of targeting file-sharing developers -- as a sort of "last call" announcement. Starting June 26, RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a news conference, the group would collect evidence against consumers illegally trading files of copyrighted music, with lawsuits to follow in a couple of months.

[Jhoffa_]

Sorry. Yes. You are.

Okay, then post the relevent portion of copyright law to back up your claim.

Actually, my original point was it's wrong to take what belongs to someone else, regardless of how outragously they price it.

This side argument is the other posters attempt to hide from the reality that what he is doing is stealing from others. We have copyright laws to protect against this and he even admits this endeavor is, in fact, illegal.

[Jhoffa_]

And I said "similar" several times also..

His scenario had us working from a "picture" (his quote)

Music "sharing" OTOH, involves making an exact duplicate of someone elses work in direct violation of the US code.

It's illegal and it's illegal for a reason.

He's not "building" his "own" music with a band in his garage, he's instead ripping off the music someone else "built"

That's crooked and he even admits such.

[Hajman]

It's a falsehood.

Which you have failed to prove (claiming it's false isn't proving it's false).

If I build a boat, for my own use, it's illegal.

That's your point, isn't it?

No, that's your point, when you claimed copying songs was theft.

Now.. please go and find me the applicable portion of copyright law that you will charge me with.

It's under copyright of intellectual property. If you build a boat to the specifications of the boat you saw (created a perfect copy), you've created a specific boat model which is owned by someone else (for trucks, if you went out and basically created a Toyota trucks and used it for your own use, you'd be infringment of the Toyota truck IP). You'd be copying the IP. It wouldn't be theft, but it would be copyright infringment (if you went out and copied a book, by hand or by scanner or by copier, it'd fall under the same thing).

Even if you were right (which, you aren't) it in no way legitimizes your endeavor.

You have yet to actually supply a logical argument that I'm incorrect (in fact, you've supplied no argument whatsoever. You just continue to claim I'm wrong. That doesn't make me wrong).

-The Hajman-

[Hajman]

Toyota does not price its trucks based simply on the materials and labor that goes into fabricating and assembling the truck. A friend who worked for GM told me that a $20,000 GM car may have only one or two thousand dollars worth of manufacturing costs associated. So why are cars such a "rip off". Because they aren't. GM also has to recover their R&D costs, risks, advertising, and other costs from selling cars. If you were to knock off a GM car, you could do so for a few thousand dollars. Would that be stealing from GM? I think so.

Actually, no, it wouldn't be stealing from GM, because it'd just be removing a potential value (which is not illegal). The cost of production is irrevelent. Whether the goods or service was actually removed from the owner, is. (As for the original, it doesn't affect the copies, nor does it affect how the copies are produced or used).

-The Hajman-

[moehoward]

Ok, what you are saying now is you are replicating an existing boat.

We are getting way off now. But here goes. I am sure you have seen the Kit cars (Lamborghini , Ferrari etc) that are built on Pontiac Fiero chassis. Lamborghini has sued successfully some kit manufacturers under infringement laws. And these guys just sell the bodys for the conversion.

I have worked with record labels and film studios, their application of these IP laws are very different than what your proposing. The common issue is monetary damages from the infringement. This must be proven and is difficult to do.

[Hajman]

Actually, my original point was it's wrong to take what belongs to someone else, regardless of how outragously they price it.

This side argument is the other posters attempt to hide from the reality that what he is doing is stealing from others. We have copyright laws to protect against this and he even admits this endeavor is, in fact, illegal.

I never claimed it was legal to copy music. I claimed it wasn't stealing. I agree it's legal. Your original point is valid. It is stealing to take something from someone else without their permission. However, my point was copying the song doesn't take it away from the owner. You agreed by giving the simular argument that copying the boat doesn't take it away from the owner. Neither copy of boat nor song is stealing. Your original point, though valid by itself, isn't valid for the subject at hand (is copying music theft?)

-The Hajman-

[Hajman]

Music "sharing" OTOH, involves making an exact duplicate of someone elses work in direct violation of the US code.

moehoward said that if you made a copy of the boat, then you'd be in violation of copyright. You told him to prove it, but then in the next breath you claim that if you made a copy of the song, then you'd be in violation (but you didn't give any evidence to prove it). You're contradicting yourself (claiming copying goods X for your own use doesn't violate, but copying goods Y for your own use does).

He's not "building" his "own" music with a band in his garage, he's instead ripping off the music someone else "built".

Yes, actually, I am building my own music. The tools for the boat are hammer and screwdriver. The tools for the song is a computer and software. The materials for the boat are board and nail and screw. The materials for the song are bits and data space on the hard drive. The tools and materials may differ, but it's still building a copy from your own materials, time and tools. They're topologically equivalent. Tossing out terms like "ripping off" doesn't change that fact.

That's crooked and he even admits such.

Oh, I'm sorry. Didn't you know? Ad hominems and putting words (falsely) in other people's mouths only makes your argument look bad, and doesn't affect the validity of my arguments. I said copying of songs was a breach of copyright. I didn't say (as you're trying to infer) that it was theft.

-The Hajman-

[Hajman]

I agree it's legal.

Oops. Let me correct that: I agree it's illegal.

-The Hajman-

[Hajman]

I have worked with record labels and film studios, their application of these IP laws are very different than what your proposing. The common issue is monetary damages from the infringement. This must be proven and is difficult to do.

Would it not be possible just to have a successful lawsuit just on the fact of copyright infringment? (Or did I missinterpret what you were saying?)

-The Hajman-

[moehoward]

" Would it not be possible just to have a successful lawsuit just on the fact of copyright infringment? (Or did I missinterpret what you were saying?) " Successful? Not sure. The plaintiff has to prove damages in some way. I think that's why the RIAA is pushing for broader coverage than afforded under existing law.

[Hajman]

Successful? Not sure. The plaintiff has to prove damages in some way. I think that's why the RIAA is pushing for broader coverage than afforded under existing law.

Ah, I didn't realize damages were necessary for a successful lawsuit. I would imagine that it'd be difficult to prove a direct relationship for damages (and from what I've seen so far, the opposite might be true in a limited sense).

-The Hajman-

[rwfromkansas]

It lists a bunch of areas that the govt. has the authority to work under (which shows that there is no 'elastic clause') like some try to claim there is in this section.

[rwfromkansas]

It lists a bunch of areas that the govt. has the authority to work under (which shows that there is no 'elastic clause' like some try to claim there is in this section.)

[rwfromkansas]

It lists a bunch of areas that the govt. has the authority to work under (which shows that there is no 'elastic clause' like some try to claim there is in this section.)

[rwfromkansas]

It lists a bunch of areas that the govt. has the authority to work under (which shows that there is no 'elastic clause' like some try to claim there is in this section.)

[rwfromkansas]

sorry for the triple posting........FR hiccuped on me

[Sofa King]

>True, but that's a little like saying that the general principle "what goes up must come down" does not prove that if I throw this particular ball up, that it will come down. Perhaps not, but that's the way to bet.

This is a false analogy. People have been throwing things up into the air for quite a while now. Mass online distribution of a digital product is new territory.

>This is the "everyone is at heart a thief" hypothesis, which I choose to reject based on several decades living among these humans. I find that most of them are pretty decent. That's why I say that a Kazaa copy is not free. It has a psychological cost, at least to the person who is not by nature a thief. They know they're stealing. There is a non-zero cost to them every time they download a song. They may not even admit it... but it's there. So you don't really have to go to zero to beat Kazaa. You just have to get close to a person's "guilt point" and they will switch.

I don't think you understand what the new American morality is all about. I want it = I have a right to have it.

[Question_Assumptions]

In an abstract sense, if I benefit from the fruits of someone else's labor without compensating them, have I stolen from them? If not, what have I done?

If I hire a translater in Japan and use their services to negotiate a contract with a supplier, and then refuse to pay the translator yet benefit from the contract that I could not have negotiated without them, have I stolen from them? The point remains that without the original Toyota, boat, or song, I would not have my copy because I have not replicated all of the work that went into the original. Without the labor of the producer of the original, I would have nothing, just as I would not have a contract with a supplier in Japan without a translator. Yes, I can negotiate contracts and, yes, all of the details in the contract may have been determined by me, but without the effort of that translator, there would be no contract. Without the original Toyota, there would be no copy. Without the original recording, there would be white noise in the MP3 file. In all of these cases, and with the lawn cutting and the locksmith, I have taken nothing tangible from anyone and have deprived no one of the future use of anything, yet I have received benefits from their labor for which I am not compensating them. If this is not theft, then what is it, in the abstract?

[discostu]

I'm not looking at the money, the claim is that iTune is a business model that will reduce illegal fileswapping, iTune has been out for a while so there should be some evidence. There seems to be enough evidence to show that it will be a successful business model, so there should be enough evidence to show if it will reduce illegal file sharing, where is it? You keep claiming it back up your claims with proof. Show me how much less illegal filesharing there is now.

[discostu]

That's exactly my point. Unless they know they'll make their money back they won't sign anybody, this is keeping away the suprise hits that were how the industry made the extra dollars to push the industry over the top. Prefab top 40 is nice recurring revenue but the big big profit comes from unexpected sectors, they no longer mess with unexpected sectors.