As an admin (one of many), a writer for the site, and as
a member of the site, I continue to see people who seem to
think the stand of Boycott-RIAA and/or DMusic, is that we
condone sharing of copyrighted RIAA files. I am speaking now,
officially, ONLY for myself, and I certainly invite not
only Shmoo, but George, Leflaw, and Tom to chime in,
but here is my position for the record.

I DO NOT condone nor do I encourage, the sharing of
RIAA associated, copyrighted song files, nor for that matter,
do I as Admin of Boycott-MPAA.com, condone nor encourage the
sharing of MPAA associated movie files.

For the record, I do not encourage nor condone
copyright infringement, period.

I do believe in FAIR USE and believe that to the
maximum amount possible, Fair Use should be encouraged and supported.

But, also, for the record...
FILESHARING per se is not wrong or illegal.
SHARING OF COPYRIGHTED FILES is not per se wrong or illegal.
P2P AND FILESHARING NETWORKS, ARE NOT, per se wrong or illegal.

I believe I speak for the stance of this Site's official policy,
that we OPPOSE, in the strongest terms, sharing of copyrighted
RIAA associated, song files. Our boycott is against buying,
uploading, downloading, etc., in other words, we are against
trafficking in RIAA or MPAA associated copyrighted files
in any way.

Actually, the RIAA and Boycott-RIAA have the same stance on
the issue of sharing of RIAA associated song files, we just
go farther and urge you not to obtain or use RIAA song files
in any way, and certainly, not pay for them!

But, I personally, also stand for use of proper terms
when dealing with filesharing of copyrighted files
when the copyright owner (or putative owner), objects to,
or does not authorize the sharing of said files. It is
NOT "stealing", not "theft", and using the Federal
definition of piracy, is not "piracy".

If it is copyright infringement, let it be called that,
and not theft, extortion, murder, grand auto theft,
child abduction, or any other nonsense which does not apply.

Now, this is an eclectic site, and many members do NOT
have a problem with the uploading and downloading of
MP3s of RIAA associated songs, but they nonetheless,
support the efforts of the site, and our overall
opposition to the RIAA.

And, we even have members who seem, for whatever reason,
to take a friendly position to the stance of the RIAA.

Free speech means people get to express their opinions,
differing though they may be.

I personally, many years ago, had one of the largest
news organizations in the world, copyright infringe an
article I wrote, and distribute it to local newspapers
around the country (and I believe, the world) without
giving me attribution (a "byline") and certainly without
paying me (though I was paid for the first serial rights
by the magazine which originally published it, but they
ONLY had first serial publication rights). I did not
whine or sue them.

I also believe that most of those here at the site,
are for changes to the current copyright laws, and
even abolition of the DMCA, under which most of these
RIAA lawsuits are pursued.

But, until these laws are changed, we DO NOT advocate
the breaking of copyright laws, or, at the very least,
I do not advocate that.

If I have incorrectly stated the opinions of the other
admins, please feel free to clarify your opinion(s)
on the issue at hand.

Thanks for your time.
:)
~CodeWarriorz Thoughts

It's interesting to me as well that these things keep coming up but somehow never seem to get addressed. My personal belief is that the law is vague because certain groups want it that way. This makes sense really. If I draw a line and say "everything up to this point is ok, everything over this line is wrong" then you can bet your ass that people will stack everything as close to that line (on both sides) as they can. This is exactly what the recording and entertainment industries want to avoid. Right now they can hide behind vague, ambiguous laws and claim that everything they don't like is illegal. Since they don't like advances in technology that they can't control they dub them illegal and use their money and political clout to squash those advances and the people who make and use them. No clear line, no black and white, just their interpretation.

This is where Codewarrior and I differ in our opinions. I respect Code greatly and I value his opinion but it has been my experience that the only way the law gets changed or clearly defined is by an act(s) of civil disobedience. Until someone makes them prove what they are saying and forces the issue to the forefront it will never change. The law makers won't touch this because they don't have to. the judges won't rule on it unless it gets dumped on them. Innovation won't continue until there is a pathway for it. In short it is going to take someone who is willing to be a sacrificial lamb and that person has not yet made an appearance. That's why I disagree with Codewarrior on this statement..

"But, until these laws are changed, we DO NOT advocate
the breaking of copyright laws, or, at the very least,
I do not advocate that."

I do advocate it. I believe the only way to get those changes made is to force the issue. make them decide the right and wrong in a court of law. let's have it put forth plainly in black and white what is and is not legal. only then will the lawsuits stop and business take it's natural course. Of course that's going to mean someone will have to stand up and say "Now is the time."

That's why I believe we should embrace he p2p crowd. I think we should support that woman who wants to fight the riaa whether we agree with her or like her or not. I think they should take the same approach as they did with betamax. Remove the liability from her and use this as a landmark case. Both sides should put forth their best arguments and see what the real facts turn out to be. Then we can all move on from there.

Copyright infringement, especially in the case of peer-to-peer, is a red herring to keep people from talking about the real crimes that are being perpetrated by the RIAA member labels.

It's been working for five years.

"You don't win against a political power structure where you don't have the votes. But you can win against an economic power structure when you have the economic power to make the difference between a merchant's profit and loss."

That quote was from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Actually, capt..I agree with you that civil disobedience (e.g. the black protests in the South) are extremely important to changing laws. Althnough I do not advocate copyright infringement, I am not stigmatizing anyone who does it as a protest against the unfair copyright laws.

Thus, "for the record" I will not condone the activity, but I am not castigating those who are doing it for political purposes.

I value what capt said...and that's why I think this is a valuable thread to see where everyone is on this issue.

I also agree 100 percent with George!
~CW

In assessing "right and wrong" and how it applies to the music industry, copyright infringement seems to be really, really far down the list of most important things to deal with, no matter what name you call it.

Sony just had to cough up $10 million for payola, a real, identifiable, clearly outlined law. The other three are in line to do the same.

Oddly enough, conforming to payola laws should save the industry millions every year. Will the artists get paid more as a result? I don't think so.

According to people who know, not once has an audit of a label failed to find money due to the artist, unless maybe it happened this week and we just haven't heard about it. The Mob kept more accurate books than the record industry does.

That's criminal. They have stolen more money from artists that was rightfully due to them and done more damage to music in general than the entire army of p2p users can possibly be blamed for in a Mitch Bainwol wet dream.

1.) I do think copyright infringment is wrong and absolutely do not condone it.

2.) However, I see nothing wrong w/ downloading music w/o paying for it from a moral standpoint. I see it as the same as taping music off the radio or taping shows off TV. I also see it as the same as getting free water from a water fountain. I acknowledge that downloading music w/o permission is illegal but absolutley disagree w/ the law. After all, don't forget that just b/c it's the law doesn't mean it's right. Wasn't slavery a law? Wasn't denying women the right to vote the law?

3.) Copyright infringment for monetary purposes (defined as making money out of pirated works) I absolutely condone and I believe that the ridiculously high fines and jail times relating to copyright infringment should apply only to those making money off them.

4.) I am also sick of the RIAA propaganda trying to portray file sharers as the scum of society. Time and time again, the RIAA tries to claim that file sharers are solely responsible for people losing their jobs. They even go so far as to claim that when you download music off p2p, you SUPPORT TERRORISM.

The RIAA themselves are perhaps one of the most morally rephrensible groups out there. They had to settle a price-fixing scandal; there are numerous accusations of them actually illegally bribing government members (see James Sensenbraugh), they even tried to lobby to Congress to make HACKING INTO PCs legal for the purposes of protecting their own copyrights (see Orrin Hatch).

I'm sick of the RIAA trying to take the moral high ground when these guys are really nothing more than unethical sleazebags.

CodeWarrior, I as a member here at Boycott-RIAA.com who posts personally hold a position similar to, if not the same as your own, as unclear as that might be by my posts here. I agree with all of the points in your stance.

Date: August 27, 2005 @ 12:24 PM
Copyright infringement, especially in the case of peer-to-peer, is a red herring to keep people from talking about the real crimes that are being perpetrated by the RIAA member labels.

It's been working for five years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gdZiemann
Date: August 27, 2005 @ 12:25 PM
"You don't win against a political power structure where you don't have the votes. But you can win against an economic power structure when you have the economic power to make the difference between a merchant's profit and loss."

Thats it in as much of a nutshell as possible.

Don't share it ( give RIAA what they want )
Don't buy it.

"Do we condone or encourage copyright infringement of song files?"

it depends on our moral stance. the question should be will we stand up for what we morally believe or just pay lip service to it until we face or are fearful of legal retaliation from a personal or business perspective.

"Thus, "for the record" I will not condone the activity, but I am not castigating those who are doing it for political purposes."

spoken like a true politician.

"1.) I do think copyright infringment is wrong and absolutely do not condone it.
2.) However, I see nothing wrong w/ downloading music w/o paying for it from a moral standpoint."

#1 and #2 contridict each other. if #1 is correct then then #2 is also wrong. is it illegal? yes, is it wrong??.......

George is so right. Also to point out is that Dr. King Broke existing laws and spent time in jail as a civil disobedoence against those laws.

"1.) I do think copyright infringment is wrong and absolutely do not condone it.
2.) However, I see nothing wrong w/ downloading music w/o paying for it from a moral standpoint."

#1 and #2 contridict each other. if #1 is correct then then #2 is also wrong. is it illegal? yes, is it wrong??......."

Actually, they (the two phrases) can be stated together without contradiction... downloading music from independent music artists who put their works up, a la Dmusic.com, or public domain works as well certainly is not copyright infringement.

Copyright and Fair use is extremily important when it comes to innovation.

When a CD burner is announced, than this gives the consumer the ability to copy CDs. But when copy-protected CDs out, consumers will backlash. The recording industry learns from this, and should plan to put necessary technology to decide what type of copying is allowed. The new copy protected CDs are a speed bump for the pirates. A perfect way to copy protect the media is to develop "smart" technology that allows a consumer to copy to give to a friend on "special designated CDs" that costs extra money, but the manufacture of the media would pay royalty fees for every music copied to give to a friend. For instance, I copy 13 tracks from Sony (only copied from the origional lincense CD using a special program) on this so-called "Transfer CD". When I give this CD to my friend, and starts the CD, the CD loads and $12.87 of royalty fees from the creaters of the "transfer" CDs are transported from the makers of the CD and this software. Therefore, I copied music to a friend, and that's $12.87 to the artists.

See, I think that they need to expand the market to every technology. Hopefully, as new technology evolves, I think that usage of copyright works should increase, while the copyright artists have more flexibility. More fair use, and more artist flexibility = more money to the artists.

JD,
Your heart may or may not be in the right place, not for me to judge.
But, no matter WHAT DRM is created, it will not be accepted, and WILL by bypassed.

I personally accept NO flavor of DRM, and purchase accordingly, hence the boycott.

JDonahue, as I said before, sell it to the RIAA member companies. They'll buy it. We won't, we're boycotting the RIAA member companies.

I hope you get rich off those idiots.

"I hope you get rich off those idiots."

I do too, really.
You sell it well, you seem to have it well thought out. Chances are good they'll buy it and youll be reasonably well off.
It will still be cracked open and useless in record time.

MP3 User I stand corrected. I interprited the #2 statement in the contex of downloading RIAA.

and george is right. p2p is only the tip of the iceberg. the problem is that the only way the issue is going to get dealt with is if they can find a catalyst which forces total copyright and industry reform.

and jd, it's a pretty fair bet that somebody will buy your drm scheme. do you need any investors?

What I don't understand is why it is morally wrong to download, say, 100 mp3 music files from a P2P system, and keep them to play when you want, whereas is it not wrong to record those same 100 songs from the radio.

Why is it 'pirating' to borrow your friend's Startrek DVD and copy it onto a blank DVD for your own use, whereas it's not wrong to record the film onto VHS tape next time it is shown on TV. In fact my aged aunt has literally a cupboard full of VHS tapes containing all her favourite shows and films she has taped over the years. is she a copyright thief?

I am generally against sharing RIAA music because it helps distribute the music and may influence some people to buy it. The vast majority of my music collection is from independent hardcore/punk labels. However, I find there to be some great releases coming out of the RIAA and would never resort to just not listening to them. These releases I would be willing to share or buy used. Regardless, if there is an RIAA release I want I will listen to it. And I will not pay for it. And I will not care. The RIAA will receive no symapthy from me so long as they continue to;
1. Not pay their artists/Stifle their creativity
2. Sue their customers
3. Assault the Indie music scene

The major's scheme is crumbling down. It may be cheered on by the few of us that refuse to buy anything from them. But, I don't believe we few are truly causing the damage. They did it to themselves.

If you make money from infringing copyright, yes it's wrong.

If you don't they should appreciate the free advertising. (Or not if it's crap, but then screw them and their conflating downloads with lost sales)

Copyright was a bargain between the public and the artists originally designed to protect the aforementioned from unscrupulous publishers. The bargain was broken. Copyright is now a tool for the lawyers of unscrupulous publishers to use against artists and the public.

When copyright law again promotes the useful arts and sciences for a limited time I'll take it seriously. Until then it will be treated like prohibition, and rightly so.

grrargghh already stated a bit of this, but I felt like stating my beliefs on this issue.

I disagree with the first purchase of RIAA material during the present day. Buying used copies of RIAA music is perfectly acceptable because the blood money has already gone to the RIAA and purchasing used copies just helps the vendor regain some of the money they originally spent on the product. This also offers idealogical support to the artist.

The exception to this is used copies that contain drm. You only have to worry about this will newer music, but that's not a problem for me because my music tastes have for the most part frozen and in some instances reverted back to the mid-to-late 90's (post grunge, alt rock, pre-emo punk.)

If I had the money to throw around, I'd be inclined to send a check to the artists themselves everytime I purchased their music 2nd hand or downloaded it as a method of supporting them without supporting the RIAA. Sadly, I don't have the money to throw around, so that's not an option.

It seems like a contradiction to oppose 1st but not 2nd purchase since if there isn't 1st purchase then there cannot be 2nd purchase (unless there is theft, that is, phyiscal theft of the actual media disc), but I don't have a problem with enjoying the fruits of someone else's sin/stupidity

Granted that the artist chose to be represented by the RIAA labels, but they shouldn't be punished for making that mistake. Not listening to their music just because the RIAA represents them seems a little silly to me. Especially if you're punishing yourself by not listening to music you enjoy. That would be allowing the RIAA to ruin your music experience. I oppose giving my money to the RIAA. I accept that others will because not everyone is idealistic or political.

Of course I'll also seek out the music of independent artists in order to bring greater breadth to my music experience.

I believe in civil disobedience and, like many people, I'm eagerly awaiting the arrival of an RIAA lawsuit victim to take a stand.

I believe that the RIAA is guilty of far more and far worse moral and ethical wrongs than even the worst file-sharer. However, this does not excuse wrongs committed by file-sharers themselves - the exception to this being civil disobedience and justifiable Robin Hood activities (i.e. if you've wasted large sums of money on albums for the last few decades and the RIAA has in all practicality, though not officially, admitted that you paid too much for them, then that would be acceptable infringement, although calculating how much you should be due to make up for such over-spending would be difficult).

If you lack any personal qualms about supporting a corrupt industry that abuses it's content creators and consumers alike, and have the money enough to purchase the overpriced product, then it is, in my opinion, wrong to download the music instead of paying for it. Unfortunately, there are honest people who work for the RIAA labels who are not the content creators but sound technicians and such who shouldn't be punished for working for a corrupt industry. Not every can afford to live on ideals. Money is necessary to exist. Basically what I'm saying is that if you're some artless lawyer with a mansion and five sports cars, you can afford to spend money on crappy Britney Spears albums instead of downloading them. Otherwise, if you're poor, the p2p file-sharing is more like a non-government subsidy for affording music akin to getting food stamps. It's just better sound quality than taping songs off the radio.

Thanks again, for the insightful and intelligent discussion of a relevant topic.. DMusic is the best! I want to examine the term "copyright infringement." In the current interpretation of "intellectual property" rights, any bully can get a lawyer after somebody and claim that they are "pirating" their works. What does that mean, exactly? Simple. Follow the money. They feel, as the "owner" of the whatever, that they are entitled to so much money for their works.. AND that they get to set the price. When corporations were granted the status of a "person" in legal terms, a whole pandora's box of bullying ensued, and, as usual, the artists who use the materials to create their art, are left out. I'm not able to discuss the implications of all of this in this short essay, but a balance must be reached. Like gfmlcka, I feel that the strict adhearance to a series of wrong laws is killing the creativity that abounds in this culture.. in jazz, in particular, this presents a real problem.. because we create, through improvisation, a new variance of a composition every time we play it.. clearly outside the stifling perameters of "recorded" product. But, what if someone makes a bootleg and distributes it without our knowledge and doesn't label who it is? Then what? What if a photographer takes a picture of someone and does not compensate the "material" they used for the composition of their photograph? Then what?? You see, artistically, to me, both instances would be cool, but legally, because of the gargantuan greed of the current law, and it's barren capitalistic philosophy, it is not cool.. now what???

And, by the way, gdz... When Martin Luther King began to organize and address the ECONOMIC apartheid that this country still endorses, including critizing an unjust war, they killed him.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?ed20050828a1.htm
(The Japan Times)
JASRAC's data indicates a new trend amid the problems. While CD sales have been dwindling every year, copyright payments have registered a record amount for three years in a row, reaching 110.9 billion yen in fiscal 2004. (looks like copyright infringement, when you get the strait poop, revenues are not hurting in japan and are rising for the copyright holder at a steady rate, bet it,s the same in the U.S.A.

First, I want to make it clear that I think the RIAA is a bunch of idiots who did everything they could to fight technology to preserve their stronghold on musicians and the industry as a whole. If they spen half as much time and money on embracing technology and helping shape the new industry, they, and everyone involved - including the consumer - would be reaping the benefits today. The RIAA's problem is that they blame lost sales on downlaods. The truth is, 97% of lost sales are a result of producing pure crap. the balance is from downloads.

Regardless of how foolish the RIAA was/is, it doesn't change right and wrong when it comes to copyrights. Beyond the words and music for which an artist has a copyright, the copyright on the mechanical work (the sound recording)also belongs to somebody. Perhaps not the artist, but maybe a record company. In the case of indie music, it is usually the artist, or a small record company which the artist controls. The recording is their product. If you download a song, without compensation to all copyright holders, for which the copyright holders of the recording and music and lyrics has not specifically granted the right to do so, you have violated the copyright. Live in denial all you want, but if you are taking someone's product without paying them for it you are STEALING. It IS THEFT. It's no different than picking up something from the store and walking out with it.

If the copyright holders have granted permission to download, then there is no violation. They are giving you their product. It's all up to the artist and/or record company. If a store is giving away free beer, I'll be the first in line.

Are we (the consumer) getting ripped by the RIAA and the big record companies? Sure. Are the artists getting ripped by them as well? Sure. Do we have to stand for it? Absolutely not! But downloading music from ANYONE without permission or compensation is not the way and it isn't right.

The right way is to bypass the usual RIAA channels with alternative marketing methods like this site, CD Baby, Amazon, and others. This beneifts the consumer by providing a wider variety of music at lower prices, and puts more of the revenue in the pocket of the artists. It's a win/win for everyone.

Now, a very effective marketing move for a band can be releasing A song for free download and free distribution. But just because a band releases ONE song doesn't mean ALL of their songs are free. Pay attention to what you are doing.

The bottom line is, bands can't afford to work for free. If you think it's a God given right to download music without compensating the artists, then keep it up. Eventually bands won't even bother to record because it isn't worth it. They will do some live shows for the love of music, and a few will be good enough and popular enough to make a fair living with it by touring the bigger clubs.The only recordings you'll hear are the Disney/Sony productions that get forced on the masses until their brains are programmed with it. Downloads don't really hurt the big companies that much. They make lots of other profits to absorb the little effect downloads have on them. The real losers are the independent artists who have everything on the line.

And to technosoul02, who said:
"However, I see nothing wrong w/ downloading music w/o paying for it from a moral standpoint. I see it as the same as taping music off the radio or taping shows off TV. I also see it as the same as getting free water from a water fountain."
The radio or TV network has payed the artist for the airing of the show AND for what you are taping off the radio or TV. Belive me, those royalty rates factor in a certain percentage of copies for "personal use" being made. Every copy taped from the air kills a copy being sold in the store. Now if every artists starts factoring in for illegal downloads too, cool. You'll pay more so your friends can get free copies from you. And the water you drink from a fountain isn't free. It doesn't come from a magic spring or elves. Somebody is paying for it for your enjoyment.

The only thing that will convince you is time. Eventually someone will take something you've worked hard on because they think it is their right to do so. Then, and only then, will you understand.

PS - I noticed the copyright at the bottom of this page. How would you feel if someone started lifting pages off this website for their own site? Just a thought.

RebelCast:

"but if you are taking someone's product without paying them for it you are STEALING. It IS THEFT. It's no different than picking up something from the store and walking out with it."

as far as 'illegal' down/uploading goes
Nothing was taken.
Nothing was stolen.
It is not theft.
It is entirely different from picking up something from the store and walking out with it. Taking a CD from a store will get you a small fine, maybe a few days in jail.
Uploading a 10 song CD can get you
$1,500,000 in civil liability. See the diff?

It's called copyright infringement.

"Every copy taped from the air kills a copy being sold in the store"

Pure Bollocks.
You can live in denial all you want.
Go cash your RIAA check now.

"The bottom line is, bands can't afford to work for free. If you think it's a God given right to download music without compensating the artists, then keep it up. Eventually bands won't even bother to record because it isn't worth it."

My opinion, AND personal experience ...
If you are in a band to make money, you are in a band for the WRONG reason, and will never be happy.

( 27 years in working bands, 35 yrs being a musician, never got rich, turned away 1 label with no regrets )

Three points on p2p copyright infringement:

1. It is illegal.
2. Many people do it, on a large scale, and most percieve no ethical wrong in doing so.
3. If the law is unenforceable, and makes illegal an action which the vast majority of people either see no problem with or have no oppinion on, and is committed on a vast scale... then the law is flawed, not the people who violate it.

From a purely philosophical and political vantage I think it is every Americans Patriotic duty to engage in as much rampant copyright infringement (as currently defined) as humanly possible. Except as to where sharing would be inconsistent with this site’s boycott.

Having said that, the definition of copyright infringement should be changed. For example record companies should not be allowed to sell cds of music for which they do not pay the artist a royalty or advance. Film and advertisement companies should not be able to synch music with their films and commercials without paying the artists a royalty or advance.

It should not be infringement for music fans to share music with each other and transfer music from machine to machine.

"How would you feel if someone started lifting pages off this website for their own site?"

Like we said something important.

Jazzmary -- You're right, of course. But the fact that Dr. King was murdered does not lessen the truth nor the power of his words. They killed him because he was right and people were listening to him. If he had been an ignorant fool, they could have just ignored him.

"the difference between a merchant's profit and loss" can be a very small margin.

It's easy to look at the major labels and see that they are reducing their rosters, cutting back their product numbers (new releases) and making various other adjustments to try and move the break-even point lower. They're losing money and trying to reverse that trend.

Sales will be down even further this year.

We're winning.

It has nothing to do with copyright. King's bus boycott had nothing to do with the buses, just the people who controlled them. It wasn't about packaging, paint jobs, tire pressure, engine oil, the patent on the freaking bus or even the far being charged.

It was because the people who ran the busses were complete and total assholes who felt themselves better than everyone else and above the law.

Just like the record companies. This has nothing to do with copyright. It has to do with right and wrong. What the labels are doing -- to musicians AND consumers -- is just wrong.

"or even the FARE being charged."

Rebelcast wrote:
"The radio or TV network has payed the artist for the airing of the show AND for what you are taping off the radio or TV. Belive me, those royalty rates factor in a certain percentage of copies for "personal use" being made. Every copy taped from the air kills a copy being sold in the store."

I am aware of all this ... but the last sentence there really bothers me. You don't believe in fair rights? You actually think that taping off the radio and TV are tantamount to infringement?

It appears that we have ourselves a new challenger at Boycott-RIAA. Judging on his arguments and statements, he may or MAY NOT be troll material. I will respond (respectfully as long as I can for these arguments can be aggrovating at times) to his post.

"Regardless of how foolish the RIAA was/is, it doesn't change right and wrong when it comes to copyrights."

Which of course can be argued as moot being right/wrong to some extent is a matter of personal opinion, it is possibe however to have collective groups of opinions varying on these issues, but here we have various degrees of opinions on the issues.

"Live in denial all you want, but if you are taking someone's product without paying them for it you are STEALING. "


I believe this argument to be unrealistic, and a completely dangerous interpretation of the term "stealing." Think about it, if it was true that the definition you defined was accurate (hypothetically), how would it be enforced? In the course of a day, you always take *something* and not pay for it (air, water, that glass of OJ your friend offered you, I could go on and on), which if your simple definition was true, would send the world's population to jail, which is why the law does not use such a simplistic definition.

"It IS THEFT. It's no different than picking up something from the store and walking out with it."

Funny, I though the law called it copyright infringement because you were making a copy of something against the wishes of the copyright holder, and not removing something from the posession of somebody else.

Yes, the two acts are different both in penalty (law), and in what happens in the process of the two crimes. Anybody using common sense will see that there are major differences.

"If the copyright holders have granted permission to download, then there is no violation."

True.

"But downloading music from ANYONE without permission or compensation is not the way and it isn't right."

Unless I read this wrong, there is a contradiction. Downloading music without compensation nullifies the part about permission, so your downloading with permission would be nullified because you didn't compensate them monetarily.

"The bottom line is, bands can't afford to work for free."

And who is advocating that here, may I ask?


"Eventually bands won't even bother to record because it isn't worth it."

Unrealistic situation to boot. Music will always be created as long as people want to express themselves. I see the real reason for fallout on the part of bands is the fact that some of them are too lazy to work around or adapt to changing enviroments and take on challenges they may present.

"The radio or TV network has payed the artist for the airing of the show AND for what you are taping off the radio or TV. "

Of course, but I think that any argunment based around the radio is that the consumer (which is the main focus) doesn't pay up after they were paid by the radio station.

"Every copy taped from the air kills a copy being sold in the store."

Bullshit.

Maybe it could potentially throw some people off from buying a CD, but how would you know that, if the event in time has not even happened yet? There are more than one option, but which one will happen, I doubt people will know until another event triggers this choice, but certainly YOU don't know.






























"Eventually someone will take something you've worked hard on because they think it is their right to do so. Then, and only then, will you understand."

Hmmm... Can you elaborate? Smells like bullshit.



My rating:

""Every copy taped from the air kills a copy being sold in the store.""

There are a some things that contradict this. What you believe depends on how reliable you consider the sources.

First, look at Big Champaign's top downloaded files list.
Second for the same time period, look at whatever top SALES chart you choose for the same time period.
You just might notice that those lists are nearly the same for the same time period.
This same odd trend seems almost the same for "Big Movies" as well.
This belies the 1 download = 1 lost sale theory.

No, I didn't provide direct examples.
That is because I really don't want anyone to take my word for it. I would like those that are interested to Google out these lists for themselves, and come to their own conclusions for the data they find. Also, you can get the data from sources YOU trust.

" "Eventually someone will take something you've worked hard on because they think it is their right to do so. Then, and only then, will you understand." "

Actually, I understand this quite well.
Federal and State Taxes ...
Social Security ...
The recent Land grab using Eminent Domain as justification. etc ...
All of this "taking" from those on the "top of the heap"

"Eventually someone will take something you've worked hard on because they think it is their right to do so. Then, and only then, will you understand.
-The United States Goverment,the only thing of value it has is what it has taken from others (American Indian). If you pay taxes in this country you have a real clear picture about taking, we understand about being took! Current copyright laws are so slanted it,s a joke!

Filesharing? Good. As long as the RIAA and Comcast and ClearChannel control who we hear, all we will hear is music that can sell to the masses. Let's hope RebelCast fits into one of their categories...otherwise, without filesharing and P2P, he doesn't have a prayer. And that's all I'll say about filesharing, except that I take the 5th....

Code, to give your question a yes/no answer the exact definition of "copyright infringement" would need to be agreed upon by all.

My opinion is that we shouldn't call it "copyright infringement" when it is not done for profit.

And that, Schmoo, takes us back to Captdunsel's first post on this thread, where the courts should set legal precedent on exactly what that is.

yup

"PS - I noticed the copyright at the bottom of this page. How would you feel if someone started lifting pages off this website for their own site? Just a thought."

PLEASE DO! We've always ENCOURAGED it! (Just attribute the source!)

CodeWarrior was "infringed" because they reprinted his article FOR PROFIT and did not even bother to give him his byline on it!

I think copyright infringement is making unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials in such a way that it exceeds fair use.

"SHARING OF COPYRIGHTED FILES is not per se wrong or illegal."

I do not agree with this. I don't think the law does either. Otherwise, DoD would still be in existance. They "shared" many software packages, often before official release.

Without the copyright owners permission, it is illegal to share said copyrighted works. As far as being wrong is concerned, I would have to say yes it is wrong, because your copying something to share it without permission of the person or persons who created it.

Some of you seem to think that if it's done without profit, then it's okay. That's not the case. Fair use never intended for you to give copies to your friends. Fair use intended for you to make copies for yourself, as a backup, etc. Not for everybody in the neighborhood.

It doesn't require money to change hands for it to be copyright infringement. All that's needed is to copy the file without the owners permission.

As a programmer and a game designer I do not condone copyright infringement in any way, shape or form.

That said I don't stand for DRM in its current form either, and I'd rather shoot myself than work in my own goddamn industry. Thankfully I'm still in school and don't HAVE to work in my industry, but when I get out things aren't going to be good for me unless I go into business on my own.

Hopefully the Gnutes will pick up on what I do - it'll hopefully become the future of DRM, and it'll be a good one.