Somebody explain to me how file sharing songs ISN'T theft.

[eyepaddle]

We can leave out reasons like the RIAA are evil, becuase they are--as decades of broken "rock star" dreams can attest. We can also leave out the fact that Lars Ulrich is an asshole--because he is. But let's just get right down to the nub of the matter: is it theft to get copyright protected material free from somebody who does not hold the copyright?

Granted the million dollar plus fine against an individual isn't likely to change anything in a long term meaningful sense, but somebody make the ethical case for the unfettered sharing of intellectual property.

A disclaimer: I am in no way associated with anything even remotely related to the entertainment industry, I've just never heard anybody address this issue with anything beyond "I just really really like free stuff, so there."

However a glimmer for all sides--possibly save the RIAA--the gigantic settlement may likely prove counterproductive for industry groups.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9134582&intsrc=news_ts_head

[PeaceNikki]

1. Here:

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/01/bbc-file-sharing-is-.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/28/copying_is_theft_and_other/
Theft vs. Copying
The RIAA, MPAA and copyright holders describe P2P users as "pirates" - invoking images of swashbuckling pre-teens hauling up the Jolly Roger and stealing intellectual property in the dead of night. New ads announced by MPAA President Jack Valente impress the idea that "copying is stealing" and that someone who burns MP3s is no different from those who slip a CD under their shirt at the local Tower Records.

But technically, file sharing is not theft.

A number of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a man named Dowling, who sold "pirated" Elvis Presley recordings, and was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. The Supremes did not condone his actions, but did make it clear that it was not "theft" -- but technically "infringement" of the copyright of the Presley estate, and therefore copyright law, and not anti-theft statutes, had to be invoked.

So "copying" is not "stealing" but can be "infringing." That doesn't have the same sound bite quality as Valente's position.

Complicated matters further, copying is not always infringing. If the work is not copyrighted, if you have a license to make the copy, or if the work is in the public domain, you can copy at will. Also, not all "copies" are the same. Say you buy a CD and play it on your computer -- technically, you have already made a "copy" onto the PC in the process of playing it, but that's not an infringement.

Making an archive copy is okay too, as long as your retain the original. What about a transformative copy -- say, making an MP3 out of a CD? You can do that, so long as you retain the original work. If the original CD get scratched, damaged or lost, you can probably burn the MP3 back to a CD (sans the really "sucky" titles), but this is not entirely clear.

So the RIAA and MPAA's claims that all "copying" is "stealing" are much overhyped.

[eyepaddle]

4. Hmnm, interesting. However, as somebody who spends his professional

life following the letter of the law, I see that I have phrased the question imprecisely, Infringment does not equal theft (just as "robbery" and "burglary" are also quite distinct from "theft" in a legal sense).

So file sharing is not theft, nevertheless, it does seem to be punishable(?) by one set of laws, so it seems that a fair amount of legal reasoning has determined that it is inappropriate--just not as much as walking away with somebody's unattended bicycle in a criminal--not civil sense.

The final paragraph would also lead me to conclude that if I provided you with a copy of an album, it would be okay if you already possessed the album, but would be infringement if you did not.

[Heidi]

12. If I make a painting and sell it to you, I relinquish control of how many people you allow

to look at it, photograph it to enjoy later, etc. I would NOT like it if you made Giclée copies of my original art and SOLD them to people, and I might have some recourse under the law to stop you from doing that. However, at the same time, if you're sharing my work with others and not profiting from it, you're probably doing me a favor. As as long as copies of my work aren't being represented as original and as long as you weren't profiting from it, I wouldn't mind you sharing. Remember back when you and I were younger, when it was perfectly okay to copy music we'd bought on cassette tape and share it with friends? Even video cassettes copies of movies were generally okay as long as they weren't sold.

This doesn't answer your question, I guess, but maybe you get what I mean. I see this as MAYBE infringement on POSSIBLE sales revenue, but I kinda loathe putting a price tag on "maybe."

ETA: I've missed you, and thank you, friend. :hug:

[PeaceNikki]

13. Very well stated.

:thumbsup:

The RIAA thuggery with the help of the Congress is nothing short of shameful.

[eyepaddle]

14. There we go!

This is the paydirt I was hoping for when I made my OP. I've gotta run for the weekend now (what with all my new found "family man" responsibilities and all) but thanks for giving me something to think about.

I've gotta say, I'm not surprised it was you who made the point. I'm glad to see you are still here to. I drift in and out, but I just can't see leaving for good anytime soon. :hi: :hug:

However, to continue the discussion, there does seem to me to be a distinction between an art form like painting where artisits do well by selling individual copies for larger and larger prices, versus music where the model is selling a large amount of copies for (comparatively) small prices. Is there a volume of sales distinction?

Bye for now, I'll be back on Monday! :hi: (In this case that is waving goodbye)

[petronius]

2. Of course it's theft, in the common use of that term

In a legalistic sense, although IANAL, it's probably something else, like 'copyright infringement.' I agree with you, every defense of it that I've ever heard has been some sort of weaselly rationalization - which annoys me almost as much as RIAA evilness. I don't particularly care if people choose to steal music, just own up to the reality of it (and definitely don't delude yourself into thinking you're some sort of Robin Hood-like anti-corporate hero...)

[PeaceNikki]

3. Here's an image to help you

[eyepaddle]

7. That clears up the question as to whether or not it is against the law of the sea

but it still falls short of making the case that file sharing is an activity with zero legal(ethical) risk from any body of law.

[mainegreen]

5. It isn't theft. It is unathorized use. It should be illegal.

However, they really should NOT be able to charge more than at most double the cost of each song you've downloaded. And the distributor should not be liable for anything, except for any penalties they should incur for having songs they should not have themselves.

However, that said, the Music Industry is behaving *so immorally*, that I feel they should be barred from bringing cases to court. I know there's no basis for this, but frankly the RIAA is not sane. Maybe they should be appointed a court guardian?

[fishwax]

6. is making/receiving a mixtape theft?

What about recording songs off the radio?

[eyepaddle]

9. Well, I haven't reviewd the case law, but I think it probably is: see the last paragraph from

PeaceNikki's repsonse. I just think that even the RIAA knew they could never track down who was doing what so they never pursued it. Plus their estimate of loss was that it was probably an acceptable cost of doing business.

[fishwax]

10. both are of questionable legality, to be sure -- as to theft,

neither is theft legally (in line with the distinction above between theft and copyright infringement), but I got the sense your OP was more about an ethical definition of theft than a legal one (could be wrong). Personally, I see nothing wrong with making a mixtape for personal use, for a friend, etc. (Selling copies would be a different thing, imo.)

Does the same thinking apply directly to file sharing? For me it does, to an extent--Sending a co-worker an mp3 of Johnny Cash singing "No Expectations" to wish them farewell when they're moving on to greener pastures is technically illegal, but I'm not convinced it ought to be. File sharing on the magnitude of leaving thousands of songs in a shared folder for anyone on the internet to access free of charge, on the other hand, seems to me a different thing. But I'm not sure where that line forms for me ...

[eyepaddle]

11. Yeah, your take on my OP was pretty much accurate.

I think the limitation on infringement is a practical one; making mix tapes involves one person giving to a single other person--in other words pretty damn hard to track down. File sharing on a shared folder on the internet, well anybody can do a search like that.

Even the copyright holders.

[tigereye]

8. people made mix tapes all the time in the past...

I think sharing with friends is fine - the volume of the sharing now may give one pause, though. My feeling is that sharing music makes people want to hear it, hence more sales for concerts and more impact for those bands. Most bands don't make much money from recordings anyway.


The RIAA people are nuts, though, their thinking is far, far behind the technology and all that it implies, and they just anger the folks who would buy the music in the first place.


JMHO


for the record, I still buy plenty of CDs.