stealing music, and the future of copyright

youd have a case if you only sold one copy and deleted the rest afterwards.

taking no money away from the artist.

 

Your license is tied to the original copy. You can keep the archival copies, and can make new copies of your copies.

Yes,

The distribution would be illegal. Same as if you gave away or sold a burnt copy of the cd.

 

if i share my file online, and people dont just "borrow" the files, they keep them, this is exactly the same as red loaning his cd to a person and being unconcerned about whether they make a copy.

when the music companies sue, they sue for unauthorized distributiion. they sue the guy who puts the files online for others to download. this is the same thing you are doing if you loan your cd to poeple who will copy them.

"The jury was instructed that merely "making available" sufficed to constitute an infringement of the plaintiffs' distribution right, even without proof of any actual distribution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas

 

no its not the same unless they make a copy of red's original. and damages are sought against those who simply download as well. i know people who were busted when they initially tried to control this futility.

what is your actual argument? the laws and industry should adapt? i agree

the industry is so greedy and foolish it reminds me of the gambling thing.

they refuse to admit the inevitable and try to control the uncontrollable instead of adapting their business model to the current climate.

 

the most famous case, the one i linked, the jury was instructed that simply making the files available for download was wrong. red is indifferent to whether his pals make copies. but red is not an authorized distributor of the music. red is doing illegal file sharing.

i do to but i think technically they were busted for making the files available, which of course happens immediately as the file as downloaded. i dont think it would be illegal for me to download a file i legally own. it is the distribution they got you for, not the downloading.

in the most famous case, the media companies had their company, mediasentry, download from a woman. then they sued her for illegal distribution. the verdict was $9000 for each song they downloaded from her.

yes, and that the new laws and policies will not hurt music or leave us with no artists or whatever.

 

sharing his album to listen and not copy is not illegal. theres still only one paid copy/license in existence. if they copy it its illegal.


file sharing is different by its very nature of being available for millions of users at any given time. its clearly not dudes with backups of their originals just saved on their pc. even if you could identify it as an original backup, the industry cannot control it either way, obviously. even though they pretend they can. as futile as the drug war i suppose.

by simply downloading i meant they do are not running some megaserver offering thousands of every artist you can think of like some do. i understand the technicality of hosting but these dudes were simply the average joe looking for a few mp3s.

no one said that. though it could kill off some of the super talented people out there by stealing their work instead of being compensated for it.

 

the case i mentioned, the woman was convincted for "making available". she was not a licensed distributor. she wasnt actively trying to give away copies. she was just allowing access to a folder on her computer. thats what red is doing as well, on a smaller scale.

same thing red does (loaning music to folks who might keep a copy) just a larger scale.

i think piracy could hurt an industry like video games or books, where the investment required to create is so great. but i cant be convinced that musicians need much compensation to produce. i can see any negatives for music if information is freely distributed.

what i am saying is that there is no real reason free music distribution/sharing should be illegal. the positives outweight the negatives.

 

Do you really think file sharing's popularity is due to fear? People don't download stuff because they are scared to steal a physical CD, they download stuff because it's easy. They don't have to leave their house and maybe fight traffic to deal with a bunch of random inconsiderate imbeciles shopping at the music store with screaming children.

That's whole point of this argument of the music industry needing to change their business model. Video game companies offer downloads of video games because they recognized this when games started becoming pirated. It's just as easy to burn an Xbox game as it is a music CD. They saw the change and they adapted and they still make skillions of dollars. For being such an Obama homer, you sure are against change.