- This news story is archived and is closed to comments now -

"It's still a crime to upload that music to the Internet or P2P for all to share. Unless you live in Canada where the Supreme Court has said that sharing music on-line is not a crime."

Does that mean we can have Canadians upload all the music, then Americans can download it legally? ;D

Well, according to the Supreme Court of Canada downloading music is not a crime, uploading it is.

Don't quote me on that though, that judgment was made years ago.

lol. Sony, they are taking that stance because thye probably would profit from this case winning, in record labels favor, and they want the money. Damned idiots. That is a good way to kill the fan base! Threaten to sue them!

You know, sharing songs has been around a lot longer than the internet. It's called the radio. Nobody threatens to sue me when I tape a song off the radio. What if I take that tape, transfer it to digital medium and put it on my computer (specifically a file that is connected to Kazaa or Limewire etc.)? It's still legal, because I originally got it from the radio and put it on to magnetic media then transferred it to digital.

What they're also failing to realize, however, is that many people use illegal downloads for semi-legitimate purposes. My room mate is guilty of downloads and sharing files, but he does it in good faith and if he likes what he hears, he actually goes out and buys the album to support the artist, so in reality, he's not really doing the artist or the label any harm.

Radiohead's covering that with a completely digital album release. Pay what you want, or pay nothing. If tactics like that (hopefully) catch on like wildfire, these annoyances will hopefully end (though some snot nosed punk will always try to milk the little man).

I like what Radiohead is doing and do hope it catches on. In fact, I somewhat beleive that big label musicians with million dollar contracts should make most of their money from concert tickets rather than inflated CD prices.

And to admit; I do download music from the web.

BUT . . . it's the music I already own in CD form. I own several dozen CD's and choose to download the individual songs from P2P and BitTorrent. Technically (and legally speaking), I'm not doing anything wrong since I have never (and will never) upload any content that I haven't already purchased in a store to any sharing portal.

The 'recording from radio' issue is a grey area, but has been deemed illegal. There was some case a few years ago (don't ask me to referance, it was a long time ago and wasn't covered very well) that had some company selling software that allowed users to record XFM and Sirrus satallite radio. The company was fined and shut down.

Still, the RIAA (and MPAA and software/game companies) need to back off. If they don't, they'll alienate their customer base to the point where we won't buy CD's anymore. Besides, service like iTunes are driving CD sales into obscurity.

i thinks its stupid you make music for peole to listen to. sorta like what prince did a while ago

"Unless you live in Canada where the Supreme Court has said that sharing music on-line is not a crime."

This isn't correct. The Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeals set out in BMG vs. Doe what evidence would be required in order to get a court order to disclose the identities of people behind specific IP addresses. Otherwise such a disclosure would be a violation of federal privacy law.

If you download recorded music (nothing else) for private use, then this is covered by the Private Copying regime of the Canadian Copyright act. If you download anything that isn't recorded music, or you share what you downloaded in any way (IE: via p2p, via distributing copies, etc), then it is as much a copyright infringement in Canada as it is in the USA.

There is a lot of misinformation about this case. Some of this has come from CRIA (the Canadian re-branding of the RIAA) which wants to scare Canadian politicians into passing draconian changes to Canadian copyright law. The fact is that with a tiny amount of evidence they could successfully sue Canadians who are unauthorized sharing music.

The problem in these cases, both in Canada and the USA, isn't a problem with the law but the technological incompetence of the recording industry in actually collecting useful evidence.


I'm the host for http://digital-copyright.ca , and we are a citizens based forum focused on educating politicians and the general public about copyright. We also have a number of petitions to Canadian parliament.

This is just one more example in a long line of royal cock ups by sony. One, producing the Da vinci code (It tanked in the box offices), two the PS3 launch almost didn't work out at all. And now this, number three. Trying to frighten the fanbase by taking a very money hungry stance and supporting this thing. It drives me insane.

I download a ton of music, off downlaod.com, limewire, anywere. My music folder tops out at 1.26 Gigbytes of content! I must oh billions in lawsuits, if I beleive sony. Also, the most distrebution I have done is make CDs for myself, and my sister. Hmmm. This just sounds so ridiculus that I can't hardly type because I am laughing so hard. THis is just lunacy.

For the record...Jammie Thomas is a 30 year old single mother of two.

Sony apparently doesn't realize that P2P file sharing is just free publicity. I do what Avalith's friend does. Most of the CD's I own I bought because I downloaded a song or two on Limewire and liked what I heard. Only about 20% of my CD's are bought out of good faith and liking what the artist has done in the past, the 80% is from sampling what the artist has brought to the table in this manner. I would much rather own a CD than keep filling up my iPod with songs that I won't listen to.

Yeah, they're all in a snit over P2P and file sharing, but Internet Radio Stations are just fine. Hey, I have a bunch of radio tuners running in Ubuntu Linux, and I can record the stream. No problem with that, right Sony?

You're right, Jonny, P2P is free publicity. If sony wants to commit suicide, then fine, let'em. I don't care. But if they continue to make these stupid and un PR friendly decisions, they'll tank.

Now JC, exactly what does Jammie Thomass' maratil statues have to do with things??

Micah,

One of the differences between P2P or other methods of file sharing and Internet Radio Stations is that the music is paid for by the Internet Radio Companies paying royalty fees in the amount of 0.07 cents per listener per song. No fees have been paid by those who share music through P2P networks. This fee was put in place on June 20th, 2002, with retroactive fees being charged back to 1998. When this commenced, Internet radio stations started dropping off the face of the 'Net like flies because they could not afford these required payments.

Yes, one can record the music streaming in across the airwaves of AM/FM radios or through the Internet connection of online radio stations and there is no argument from the RIAA about doing that since the song has already been paid for so that you can listen to it. The problem comes from redistributing the music thereafter. When that is done, a fee must be paid. Thus, if you recorded, say "Billy Jean" off a Michael Jackson Internet radio channel for your own pleasure, you would be in the clear. If you followed that act by making it available over Limewire, bitTorrent, or another sharing system (or even copying the file and giving it to friends), you would be liable for the royalty fee mentioned earlier or you would be in violation of Copyright Law.

Same freaking difference Cillchaoi. Somebody somewhere paid for it if it is on a P2P network.

Yes, jonny, someone paid for it for private use but the problem is that the payment made does not give others the right to redistribute the music again. If one wishes to do that legally, one needs to pay the fee for the right to do that, specifically the 0.07 cents per song per recipient. Thus, if one wishes to use a P2P network to distribute music, he should expect to pay.

And yet it's actually legal under such acts as the First-Sale Doctorine which allows a user to redistribute or dispose of said material in any manner the end user wishes.

Music is a right, not a priveledge Cillchoai. I know that it's all in good business practices but is Sony going sue me because I break out the guitar and sing a song thy hold the copyright for when I'm out drinking with my friends.

And I suppose they fail to see that the market is going quickly towards one that is reliant on file sharing as opposed to magnetic of digital medium like CD's.

Offer us a better alternative. Make it worth our while to not "pirate" music. Make it so we don't have to do it.

Not to mention, all this suing of little kids and unwed mothers and what not only serves to put the music industry in an even worse light than they were in the first place thereby promoting further "pirating" of copyrighted material.

"This is our world now... the world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals." -From the Hacker manifesto

The best way to stop piracy . . .

Make songs and shows and software that people will actually want to buy. Honestly, how many bands have one good song wrapped into an album full of crappy songs. Then the record labels have the gal to demand that we pay $15 bucks for a CD full of bad music just to get one good tune.

Regardless, piracy has been around for decades and it's not going to disappear anytime soon. In fact, pirates used to make and sell copies of vinyl records and wax tubes (a cylinder that acts like a record).

Perhaps there should be a small levy applied to ISP fees, say $5 dollars. It would be like the levy applied to blank CDs and cassette tapes. That levy goes towards the recording industry to supposedly compensate musicians since it is believed that these mediums are used exclusively for the purpose of music piracy.

there are only two ways to stop 'piracy' (which feels stupid for me to use, i can't imagine how executives say it with a straight face)forever.
One, shut down the internet. Two, stop making music. both of these would lead to record labels losing their precious money, so they can't happen. as long as things aren't free, someone is going to try to make them free. frankly, i applaud people who upload their music. i think of them as modern, less-necessary, Robin Hoods. these people who run the labels and try to imprison people for not paying way too much for way too little fit the role of villain perfectly.

This is why i hate Sony. they would love to take every cent i own (all seven of them), my home and anything else they could get their hands on because i've downloaded music that may or may not have been on their label and let me rot in jail for years and years over $50, if that. normally i would refuse to buy anything from that company, but they got PlayStation, which is my console of choice.
nothing is ever simple, is it?

"Property is theft, deeds are propaganda, destruction is creativity. Love and sex are the only commoditties." -The Anarchist Cookbook

This statement actually summarizes exactly how I feel on the subject of piracy. Open source, it's the only way to go.

You know, I understand why Sony is getting upset, but then it isn't just sony. There are other Companies as well. There is good and bad to the p2p networks. Just because sony is taking action against the one gentalman does not mean they are wrong to. It is their buisness and technically P2P downloading can be considered stealing. I understand also all the justification in downloading songs. I do agree with the good faith in which you like a song you go buy the album after listening to it. Everyone here is getting angry at the fact that Sony is concidering P2P as piracy... Well DUH it is! People should realize this as they download the songs, the justification.. I just want the one song.. the rest of the album is crap.. Partially quoting from Micah above... Well there are sites where you can pay to get just the one song downloaded or even for a cheaper price than buying the CD in a store you can get all the songs from the CD downloaded as well.. I'm just saying there are other ways to keep the industry happy... and legally so. You don't have to use a P2P to get what you want. After all How would you people feel if you created a product to sell and become successful with, and others started just taking said product for free. It's big buisness and part of this country to be able to make profits with the things you sell (That's not to say I think it is right that the music/movie industry make so much as it is anyway... Sometimes I think this country is backwards on how they do things.. but hey...) I guess I've said my peace. Think about it....

Quite agreeable; if someone uploads hundreds of songs or downloads hundreds of songs, then I full support the record label in trying to protect their property.

However, when they try persecute some single mom who supposedly downloaded a bunch of gansta rap tunes, or one college kid who downloaded one song, they're going just a little too far.

Furthermore, there are the issues of fair use. For those of us who don't pirate music, having our fair right uses eroded by their laws really hurts.

Acdtually, what Sony is doing is unethical. Why persecute one, when you could get the whole lot. And why sue the individual. What is actually illegal is the P2P network that is pirating the music and making it available for download. But you know, it's all semantics.

But the P2P network is simply providing a service that can be used for legal means. It's the individual that commits the crime.

Case in point; fire arms.

George W. Bush shot down (bad pun) a bill that would have made fire arm manufacturers liable for deaths and injuries caused by fire arms. If Bob and Bill each buy a Corvette, that's fine. If Bob speeds and Bill doesn't, no one can blame Chevy for making the car too fast. If Bob kills a pedestrian, Chevy still isn't liable.

There's lots of people who use Bit Torrent and P2P to download legal content (game demos, Linux ISO's, freeware & shareware).

I agree, Sony and other labels should be able to protect their works. But, they are taking a petty crime and turning it into a capital offense. If someone stole a CD from a store they'd get a slap on the wrist. Download a CD from P2P and the RIAA police will prosecute you into the ninth depth of hell for it.

There has to be a more amicable solution to the whole music piracy issue. Unfortunately, the labels are too arrogant to acknowledge that there possibly is one.

But it is actually legal under the first-sale doctorine as I've stated before.

Yes, but some laws often conflict with others. A major re-write for the patent/copyright/and tradmark offices in order. Unfortunatlly, it will be big business writing the laws since they have the money to lobby the goverment for those changes into their favor.

But we could take plagerism as an example. I was in this writing course once with a reeally arrogant teacher who made a point of telling all the students that if we were to miss a single punction in a quoted piece of work, that would constitue plagerism. He further suggested that we would fail the course, be expelled, suffer legal reprecussions and possibly have a criminal record for missing a comma in some quoted work.

A little bit absurd.

But if the students acknowledge and refernce the origional source of that quoted piece then it isn't stealing. I buy a book and read a sentence to someone. That's fair use. I lend them the book. More fair use. I copy and upload the book to a P2P network. I've comitted a crime in duplicating said work and redistributing with the copyright holders expressed permission.

Sony should try to relax and re-think their tactics as they apply to song swappers.

This website is stupid.

For this article, Jammie Thomas is a female, yet is referred to as a male several times.

Most articles I have read on this site are in some way inaccurate. Find something better.

No you didn't Micah. Because of the way that P2P networks such as limewire work. The files are not technically uploaded anywhere. You place the file into a folder on your computer. Then when somebody searches for that file the network searches all available computers in the network, prioritizes them and sends a display of where those files are at. Someone clicks to download a file that's on your computer. Nowhere in that process have you done anything illegal. Is Sony telling me they want to make it illegal to put my music on my computer that just happens to have a P2P program on it. And what about people who have lost or damaged a certain CD, then just go download the songs? They've already paid for the media, they have the right to the back up, but they downloaded it instead of direct copying. Is this an illegal act? The legal grey areas are too great and many for any lawsuit like this legitimate. When the government changes wording on the Fair Use and First Sale doctorines I'll concede on this point but right now, this kind of crap is outright disgusting in my opinion.

John, you are right this lawsuite is bullshit, But I'd suggest stepping off the soap box.

Joe, I have the right to express my opinion just as much as everyone else so with all due respect, jog on.

Jonnyblack, Fair Use allows copying of an excerpt of a complete work for very specific private purposes. First Sale Doctrine allows the purchaser to lend, rent, loan, or destroy that purchased copy as the purchaser sees fit.

There are a number of problems to your argument regarding music. A song is a complete piece of work in and of itself whereas an album/CD is more akin to an anthology (a collection of complete works). Additionally, copying the song to one's own computer from a legitimate source (such as a purchased CD or a song that is purchased for download through iTunes or some other similar website) is permitted but redistributing it is not. When one uses a P2P software, such as Limewire, one makes that copy available to multiple people for duplication. If, instead, the file was made available only to one other person and then deleted from your machine upon successful transfer, that would be permitted. As Limewire et alius do not transfer the file to only one other person at a time nor do they delete the source file upon successful transfer, they are permitting violation of copyright law by the person who uses that software to upload the file as well as the one who is obtaining a copy of the available file without proper purchase of said item.

As for those who purchased a CD and had it subsequently damaged, they are permitted to make copies of the music from the original source for unlimited private use in accordance with the Audio Home Recording Act (passed into law in 1992). If the person fails to make a backup copy prior to its destruction, the only legal recourse is to purchase a new copy. The failure of the purchaser to make a backup is not the responsibility of the owner of the copyright.

Also, as a sidenote, per the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, one no longer has the right to make backup copies of any medium that has copyright protection applied to it, wuch as most DVD movies/TV shows and software CDs and DVDs nowadays. To make a backup copy is an infringement upon the rights of the copyright holder. Only non-copy-protected media (most commonly music CDs and audio tapes) may be backed up legally.

Jonnyblack,

(laugh). I don't think I will "Jog on" My point was that you are elevating yourself to a higher plain than everyone else, and basically playing the school teacher who is punishing the kids.

Now, obviously you have the right to express your opinion, but that doesn't intail the right to admonish and slam others for not seeing it your way. Now, with all due respect, Get off the damn soap box.

If some people really wanted to split hairs, or perhaps quibble over bits and bytes, it could be said that someone uploading Torrents of songs may not be committing a crime.

Because Torrents are little pieces pulled from multiple sources, it could be deemed as a First Sale Doctrine; lending it to others and or destroying the copyrighted work by fracturing it into hundreds of smaller pieces that are free to be collected by others.

It's a huge gray area, but because the downloader pulled dozens of odd bits from different sources and recompiled them into a song, then they weren't pirating that song. They were just collecting portions of something from multiple sources that could be reconstructed into a song.

Regardless, people should still buy CDs and support the musicians. Honestly, how would you feel if the roles were reversed and someone was taking your work for free, preventing you from getting paid.

Exactly< Micah, Big huge grey area, and ultimatly it is up to you (the person) to decide what you feel is legal or not. But, like I said above, this by no means, gives one the right to play high and mighty with others.

Micah, the issue is that the person who is making the file available for download is in violation of copyright law because he has no authorization to make the entire work available for transfer. There is no grey area here whatsoever. The only way that one would be able to avoid copyright violation potentially would be by making only a second or two of the song available for download. Whether one person obtains the entire file from one source or not is no defense for those making the file available in the first place because of the fact that they are making the completed file available.

Then perhaps someone should get to work on 'Baby Bit Torrent'. It wouldn't be hard to develop a Torrent type engine that prevents seeder from seeding any more than say 1% of a file.

But I still personally believe that people should support musicians, movies, software and game developers. If you like their work, buy it. If you don't, then sample the demo. So many people download pirated content simply because they can and never use it, listen to it or watch it. If people only downloaded what they would deem as must have essential, then we wouldn't have such a large piracy problem.

Besides, piracy complicates life for those of us who don't pirate. Us honest people are forced to live with DRM, Copy-Protection and Root-Kits when we haven't (and wouldn't) pirate the intellectual/creative works of others.

A couple bad apples can spoil the lot.

If the "baby bitTorrent" used only the same one percent of the file each and every time rather than a random one percent each time that the file was requested, then it might potentially be possible for the seeders to avoid being targets of any litigation and only the person downloading the file would be. That would be a very fine line and I would not hold my breath that it would hold up in court. The letter of the law would be upheld but the spirit of the law would not be and, thus, could still land the seeders in legal hot water.

I also tend to agree that those who hold copyrights (as well as patents) should have their rights protected, so whether we can find a way to make torrent (or other P2P) downloading in accordance with the law, those who have the rights should be supported as they have poured their hearts into those items to entertain or otherwise benefit us. They should be paid for their efforts.

I just think that the grey area is too wide to lend any legitimancy to these kind of lawsuits Cillchoai. As for the First-Sale bit, I think you might want to go back and read it again as it does in fact allow for redistribution such as but not limited to selling/trading a work to another entity. It's that "not limited to" that makes my argument legit.

In Canada there is a small levy placed upon recordable media and MP3 players. That levy goes to compensate recording artists since it is believed (and likely true) that all blank CDs and iPods are used to pirate music.

Hey, I just burned Ubuntu 7.10 Gutsy Gibbon to CD on the weekend and my 80GB video iPod has nothing but files on it.

Maybe they should (as I had suggested to others in the past) place a small levy upon ISP service. That if you sign-up with the ABC ISP for DSL access, you pay a couple bucks a month on your bill for a collective anti-piracy fund. That fund would help to compensate musicians.

But it's more likely that the record labels would just keep it for themselves.

Still, redistribution of someones intellectual property is not only a legal gray area, but a moral one as well.

If you (and pardon the analogy) watch Martha Stewart bake bran muffins on TV and copy down her recipe, that's okay. Bake the muffins and share them with a friend, okay. Sell them to a friend, getting pretty gray. Publish said recipe on your web site without Martha's permission, dark gray. Credit her on your site, light gray.

It's not just law, it's the morality of society that judges what is right and what is wrong.

Unfortunately, capitalism gets in the way far too often. Friggin' money!!!

Jonny, I suggest that before you try to practice law, you actually study and practice it as I have. Right of First Sale states quite plainly and clearly that you have the right to "sell, loan, rent, or destroy" the copy of the material that has been purchased. It does NOT give one the right to make copies of it for redistribution. That is piracy and is not permitted.

Micah, the issue of the bran muffin recipe is not a legal grey area at all as the recipe is made available for use without limitation as is stated in the fine print. Rebroadcast of the show itself would be a violation.

Redistribution of intellectual property is not a very grey area at all when looked at in accordance with the rights that are truly granted by the owners of said property and in accordance with the laws that protect their rights. As we have been discussion music primarily in this discussion, the same answer stands: it is illegal and immoral to redistribute copies of songs. One many download them for free from a legitimate site if the creator of those songs (the vocalist/band) permits one to do so. Otherwise, they must be purchased through a legitimate outlet to remain in accordance with the law.

You are correct that it is not only the laws that determine what is right and wrong but also the moral standards of society. However, in court, the moral standards that are enforceable are defined by the body of law that has been enacted up to that time.

Ok, Micah this is not a slam or insult I just need to say this.

I am sure martha would be pleased you are being such a goo Stewart of her recipes.

(laugh)

good*, sorry for the typo.

Hey, I agree. It promotes her.

But her lawyers may tell her on convince her that someone is stealing from her and that they should sue for millions.

I think that we can both agree that lawyers are to blame for a lot of things. They do tend to make mountains out of mole hills all too often.

As for the gray area issue; laws are specific with no room for interpretation (except when taken to a Supreme Court, challenged and perhaps subsequently re-written). Ethics and morality is subjective.

The law does say that stealing is wrong. But the morality of a man stealing a loaf of bread from a noble man to feed his starving family is subjective.

Same with the muffins.

And of course, a stolen MP3 doesn't feed ones family nor does it qualify as a basic human necessity and or a right.

I still feel though that lawyers make more trouble for us than they're worth.

Micah,

The ones who make trouble for us are the ones who assume they have rights they do not truly have (such as those who assume that Right of First Sale means that one can redistribute copies of the CDs just because they are technologically able to do so). It is because of them that we have so many frivolous lawsuits clogging the courts of this country. The attorneys who file these multitudes of frivolous cases (even when they can tell that there is little legal ground on which to base them) are failing to live up to their duty as the first line of scrutiny for taking a case. Unfortunately, the first rule that is drilled into every attorney nowadays (because of the potential of malpractice lawsuits) is "Don't judge; advocate." Basically, what this is taken to mean is that anyone who comes to you with a potentially winnable case (even if the chances are slim), it is most wise to take the case so that the client does not attempt to file a charge of malpractice against you for refusing to take the case. (This has happened repeatedly in this country with the clients winning because the attorneys tried to give the better legal advice of dropping it and moving on.) What that first rule of legal representation was intended to mean originally was that it is not the job of the attorney to judge the client (such as to determine his guilt or innocence or amount of responsibility for the incident in question) but, rather, to defend his position, assuming that the position has legal backing.

Also, so that you know, every court is expected and required to interpret the laws. That is their job. Not all judges interpret the laws the same way, so that is why the previous cases of similar nature are looked upon as precedents. These help to strengthen one side or the other of an issue. All too often, only the appellate courts or the US Supreme Court get mentioned in regard to legal interpretation but that is only because they are high profile.

Ethics and morality are subjective, yes, but they are subjective for each society. A perfect example is the consumption of dog meat in certain parts of the world. Here in the US, if someone decided to have dog meat for dinner, it would be considered animal cruelty and would potentially land the person in prison (especially here in Kansas due to the laws that were enacted a little over a year ago). As for stealing a loaf of bread, theft is theft is theft. Depriving the rightful owner of the property, whether it be a loaf of bread or a stereo, is criminal and as such goes against the grain of every society on this planet. No excuse can be made to change the fact that one has taken something that did not belong to him. If this hypothetical man has a family that is starving, then he should do something to change that. If nothing else, he can do what I have seen people doing in Las Vegas: offering to wash car windows at stop lights. There is no need for him to steal bread.

As for the muffins, I will remind you once again that the recipe that is displayed on a cooking show is given to the general public for use without limitation. If one decides to use that recipe to build up an bran muffin empire that puts Otis Spunkemeyer to shame, so be it. There is no restriction on that recipe.

I didn't say copy and redistribute Cillchoai, and the argument isn't about copies of said material. And I'm sorry I practice in the medical field instead of law, I just don't like lawyers for some reason. (not a slam, just being sarcastically honest.)

My problem is this: Who is gaining financially because I download a song for my own personal enjoyment without distributing it for monetary gain or otherwise?

To be frank, you are gaining financially because you did not pay the money that you should have for the music that you obtained. Gaining property through inappropriate means is theft. You did not pay for the music, so you do not have a right to have it.

The one who is injured by the theft ultimately is the band/singer/etc. who wrote and produced the song in the first place. Just as an artist charges for his paintings and a live production theatre charges for seats to enjoy the performances, the singers charge for their music. They are entitled to be paid for their product.

You mean the producers and recording companies and entitled to be paid for it. Truthfully how much out of every CD does the original recording artist see? Enough to still get rich while lining the pockets of everyone else, please don't hide behind that failed logic of the recording artist deserve to be paid. If the recording artists were getting pissy about it would be the recording artists who sue and not the company that produces their records. And Lars Ulrich can go do something very obscene to himself.

Well, Jonny, that "Failed logic" is legitimet, how would you feel if someone started getting free care from the hospital, or doctors office, that you work in? That amounts to you not being paid and, thus, your paycheck is stolen from you, in escence (This is already happening with the social security system but don't get me started).

Now, it may be that the grey area (in the law) does not exist, but their is a huge grey area on a plain neither morality, or law, touch. People. (Laugh) Without the people, no music, without people, no pirated music, without people, no limewire or other P2P systems. Without people, no lawsuite. It is that simple. This lawsuite has no legitimacy because of the existance of people. It is, truly, that simple.

It's failed logic joe because much like myself, recording artists are under contract. Whether the industry is losing money or not the artist is getting paid. If the recording artist feels that the contract is not being fulfilled, file for breach of contract and move on. It's the companies that are doing this and they are the ones who should be held accountable for their unlawful actions, such as making millions of the backs of others and not fulling said contractual agreement which I can only assume includes protecting against the people who would exploit such free services to gain profit.

Jonny, are you familiar with the way a musician, author, or other contracted artist is paid? It is called royalties. The person gets a percentage of the profits gained by the sale of the item created by them, produced (meaning put into a physical form) and distributed by a music label, and sold by the merchants. Thus, each copy that does not get sold because of a pirate is money out of the hands of those who legitimately have earned it. Theft is theft, end of story.

It seems that you try to dignify the fact that you wish to steal from others but, as one who looks objectively at the situation can see, there is no justification for it. If you work for someone who provides a service and you find that your pay is being reduced because someone is stealing said service, you would be just as pissed as the musicians, so the music companies file lawsuits to help recover the damages from the loss of income.

Oh, by the way, the reason that the music companies are pursuing the lawsuits rather than the artists themselves is that the companies are required to represent the musicians in legal affairs concerning their music. This is also part of the contract.

First off, Cillchaoi, I am not sure you mean to, but you keep coming across as if you are playing the parent in this talk. That is somewhat anoyying.

Also, Jonny, I do not beleive that is failed logic, as I said before, it is just like someone getting free medical care, and you (eventualy) not being paid.

Another point I wish to make is that, in this case, I beleive the term "piracy" is being wrongly used, as piracy entails profit from theft. P2P systems do not gain, for any party involved, profit. So it seems to me that the entire premiss of this lawsuite fails to meet any kind of...truth for lack of a better term. Then the fact that this guy had to have bought those songs from somewhere. So he is, in fact, no pirate. He legitimatly bought that music, and simply allowed others to download it.

That is were the afore mentioned element of the people comes in. And as I stated above, this whole things hinges upon the people. Again, like I said above, no people, no nothing.

In Short, this whole thing is such bullshit I can smell it, rather strongly, and I live I Kansas! Imagin what it must be like in LA. But to get back onto topic, this whole thing should be thrown out the window and that is that, period.

Actually, the problem is that those who download the music without paying for it are profiting by it since they are obtaining something by paying nothing. That is theft and is to what the colloquial term of piracy is applied when it comes to intellectual property.

I will not argue the merits of the case, as I do not know enough about this specific case to do so but I will say that the basis of piracy is appropriate and proper.

Well, Cill, no one profits, and here's why. The money people do NOT spend on music, gets spent elsewere, also, I was not aware that sound waves constitute as "something". I suppose, if one truly want to split hairs, that this whole issue is about the trading of computer code, illegaly. Now does that make sense at all? So that and the fact that, like I said, this really isn't "piracy", slaps you upside the head with a wet fish! (Big laugh)

Dave,

I suggest that you look at this from a different point of view: what is pirated is the music itself, which is a product of one or more people who invented it, submitted it for production and distribution, and marketed it for sale. The medium has been purchased originally by some bloke who then made a copy of it and made it available for download by the masses so that they would not have to pay for the music themselves. This is a deprivation of proper earnings paid to the creator of said music and, as such, constitutes theft.

Now as for the money being used elsewhere, that indicates clearly that a profit was made by the person who downloaded the music for free because the money was then available to be used for something else. Look at it this way: a person refuses to pay his rent and, instead, buys new DVDs. Is he entitled to remain in his rented domicile for free? No, of course not because he has not paid for it. To attempt to insist that he has the right to do so just because he had the money but chose to spend it elsewhere is the same argument that you are trying to make by saying "he didn't profit by it because he spent the money on something else." The money did not go to whom it should have and, instead, was used for something more. Sorry but as I have said before, theft it theft.

I was not aware that sound waves constitute as "something".

That's the whole point of digital piracy. Because a product in a store is physically tangible and you can hold it in your hand, taking it without paying for it is stealing.

Conversely, because the ones and zeros of Bit Torrent/P2P are not as physically tangible as the CD on a store shelf, people do not feel that they are stealing.

Stealing can simply be termed as taking someone else's property without their permission and or payment if they ask for your payment in exchange for that item.

Theft is theft, regardless if it's MP3s or a loaf of bread. When theft occurs, it's up to the parties involved to come to some agreement or settlement.

The record labels that represent the musicians could sue for a hundred dollars or million dollars. That is their right.

But, for some record label to say I'm committing a crime if I take a CD I own and rip the tracks to my music folder on my Ubuntu PC without re-distributing those tracks (keeping them for my own personal use), that is what disturbs me.

I practice fair use, but the RIAA and MPAA would like to see fair use rights squashed and that is wrong.

True, I had not though of it that way Micah. It is amazing, though, how this all relates back to the human factor? Us humans tend to beleive matter is like a keyboard, or CD. Of course, this whole issue with Matter and such just defines itself as a great big loophole.

And guess what, human nature tends to find loopholes, now doesn't it? Piracy, big loophole, albeit created by a hacker at somepoint in history, but it is still a loophole out of having to relinquish money, that perhaps, can be best spent on rent or a bill.

Of course, Theft is theft and I do know this. But I tend to beleive theft pertains more to physical things.

One could buy Autodesk's AutoCAD for $1000 and get a box with manual, CD and other little items.

One could hose their bandwidth and download the CD images without paying anything.

The resulting product is the same, but one was never paid for. It is that physically tangible aspect that as people who would never steal in the real world stealing in the digital one.

Wow, it seems that Micah and I actually agree. It is a rarity but one that I am glad to see when it occurs.

Best wishes to you, Micah!

If people find it wrong to steal in the real world, then why don't they find it wrong in the virtual world?

It's that whole physically tangiable item thing all over again.

That's the big issue, isn't it? To use an example, God, no one has seen him, no one can touch him, so not a whole lot beleive in him...I am among the "Non-beleivers" But that is slightly aside the point. But people beleive what they can touch, just human nature.

quote

What is actually illegal is the P2P network that is pirating the music and making it available for download. But you know, it's all semantics.

No. Take a look at the last page you have to go through before you can download Lime Wire. For those of you who don't want to click the link, here is a [link name=screenshot]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v71/protomanexe07/Screenshot-LimeWireDownloadLimeWire.png[/img]. Clicking the bottom button gives you this message:

quote

Important Information about Using P2P Software Safely

Lime Wire LLC does not distribute LimeWire Basic to people who intend to use it for purposes of copyright infringement.

Thank you for your interest; however, we cannot complete this download.

As mentioned, it's the individual that determines the legitimacy of their activity on the P2P network; the P2P network itself is perfectly legal.

quote

What is actually illegal is the P2P network that is pirating the music and making it available for download. But you know, it's all semantics.

No. Take a look at the last page you have to go through before you can download Lime Wire. For those of you who don't want to click the link, here is a screenshot. Clicking the bottom button gives you this message:

quote

Important Information about Using P2P Software Safely

Lime Wire LLC does not distribute LimeWire Basic to people who intend to use it for purposes of copyright infringement.

Thank you for your interest; however, we cannot complete this download.

As mentioned, it's the individual that determines the legitimacy of their activity on the P2P network; the P2P network itself is perfectly legal.

Yeah the P2P networks are legal or atleast should be. It bugs me when I hear of different P2P programs and sites being sued and taken down when it is the people who upload and download illegal things.

- This news story is archived and is closed to new comments now -