Since the invention of Napster in 1999, and the online file-sharing boom that followed, the entertainment industry has spent countless millions attempting to convince the public that illegally downloading music or videos from the Internet is tantamount to sticking a gun in a person’s face and demanding his wallet. “Content theft,” they say, is just as bad as any other type of “stealing.” But according to Stuart P. Green, a Rutgers Law School professor and expert on theft law, copyright infringement isn’t really “stealing” at all.
The crux of Green’s argument — which mimics that of many who have discussed this issue with any amount of critical thinking in the past — is that, in order to actually “steal” something, you must deprive the owner of whatever that thing is. If you take my bicycle, then you have it, and I don’t. But if you download a song off The Pirate Bay, you’ve simply made a copy — now there are two bicycles. (Or thousands or millions.)
“If Cyber Bob illegally downloads Digital Joe’s song from the Internet, it’s crucial to recognize that, in most cases, Joe hasn’t lost anything,” writes Green in an op-ed for The New York Times. “Yes, one might try to argue that people who use intellectual property without paying for it steal the money they would have owed had they bought it lawfully. But there are two basic problems with this contention. First, we ordinarily can’t know whether the downloader would have paid the purchase price had he not misappropriated the property. Second, the argument assumes the conclusion that is being argued for — that it is theft.”
Indeed. According to the Center for Copyright Information (CCI) — a propagandist entity set up by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to oversee the upcoming “six strikes” anti-piracy system — file sharing costs the U.S. economy $58 billion annually, and has led to the elimination of 373,000 American jobs. It is industry-spouted figures like this that led Congress to consider the dangerously vague Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). And it seems unfathomable that the entertainment industry will change their tune anytime soon, despite the fact that equating file sharing with “stealing” or “theft” just doesn’t resonate with the public at large.
That’s not to say that copyright infringement is morally justifiable. (Though some argue that it is.) As Green notes, it would be more appropriate to use “concepts like unauthorized use, trespass, conversion, and misappropriation” to condemn file sharing than “stealing” and “theft.” I’m not entirely convinced of that, either, since I doubt these terms mean anything at all to most people, even if they are more accurate, ethically speaking.
Regardless, I highly recommend checking out Green’s op-ed; it’s well worth the read. Besides, if you simply read this article, and not that one, then I will have effectively stolen a page view from The New York Times — or something like that…
[Image via Kinetic Imagery/Shutterstock]
If they think that 100% elimination of unauthorized distribution would magically create a larger Entertainment Budget Pool, they’re just flat wrong.
If you look at the impressive growth of video game sales over the last decade, and if you look at -total- entertainment/media receipts (film/music/games) over the same period, you still see strong growth in total. Piracy is not something done by wealthy people to become wealthier. It is not a way to ‘save money’.
The industry will continue to martyr out its suffering until we force a paradigm shift in the packaging, distribution, and fair use of mass media. They throw around claims that 1/3 or 1/2 of all media distribution is pirated, and that it is a blow to the economy, all while failing to acknowledge that very few consumers would even consider doubling their media purchases if there were no other way to procure a copy.
You must look at the entire system in aggregate. You can always look at a single isolated pirate copy, and call it theft. At least, you can if you assume that single copy represents a single sale, that was irrevocably lost. In the vast majority of cases, it is not. Piracy ultimately falls almost entirely into 3 categories: 1) an unsatisfied trial which quickly ends in deletion of the file(s), 2) a satisfied trial in which the downloader proceeds to purchase the file(s), 3) an economically disadvantaged consumer who has already spent their limit, and just wants something to do with their time while they wait for our beloved Job Creators.
…a law professor came up with that? That’s the same argument my friends and I were making in High School.
http://www.gameproducer.net/images/piracyisnottheft.jpg
But those that do it are charged with theft and that is not the proper charge for what they did so according to the laws they shouldn’t have been found guilty.
I don’t think he quite understands the copyright business model, though I support his intentions.
Ryan Callaghan “Its also a completely separate issue with breaking copy protections. It can be illegal to remove DRM even if no copyright laws are violated.”
That’s true… but you are already saying it’s ILLEGAL to remove copy protection. If you do, you’re an outlaw – Pirate.
The story is so simple. They make the rules. You do not obey? You’re a pirate!
Digital Trends – I have read the article and agree that copying is not stealing (becouse the original is stll there). But this is not the point of this problem! The problem is that they don’t want illegal copies. Let’s try this way… if you steal a CD from the store, the store can sue you but copyright IS NOT violated. OK now you buy a CD and make a copy of it and give it (free of charge) to your friend. Now the copyright IS violated.
Just one more thing if you feel sorry for these billionairs. If there cring thats bad over there bilions of dollars how much more is it the poor that are hurting. Big bad billionairs making the poor pay for what they lost again no suprise i have no love for them.
Some say that you pay to access the internet not own it.But i don’t really own anything because its not physical in nature or is it?The point is after all this reading im still not convinced im stealing.IF access to the internet if paid for, then is what i access free, really free? Some say nothing is for free, well is that because i had to pay for the access to the internet? Or is it because someone who once made billions of dollars off of people now don’t. Because someone found a way to give it to the public for free.I wonder. Well i don’t think anyone would mind if those billion aires gave back to the public but they really never do its always small amounts that go to charity to make themselfs look good I never seen a billion air give it all over to the public lol like thats a real concept but anyway no one minds being able to have something nice to enjoy while these billion aries live it up, i doubt there worried about affording a trip to the movies or buying a music video there living lavish lives and they just want it to stay that way understandable but the poor got a hand out and they lost billions thats too bad because they did,nt steal it though. If you make a movie and some guy buys it off the shelf thats a copy and that means you still own it. If you dont get money from that copy on the internet you lost nothing because you had nothing , you can’t lose something you nevr had.And nasty names like pirite and calling people out because they cant afford something like poor people, and bootlegs is just crule to say the least. If you want to protect your danm movie dont make it public. If you dont want the world to see it don’t show it to the world.Truth is they make plenty of money and there cring only makes them more thats why they do it.
This article confirms what I’ve been saying for years. There are three groups of pirates. Group A: The people who download stuff in order to test out the thing, to see if it is actually worth buying to begin with. If it is, then they buy it, if it isn’t, then they delete it. Is this a lost sale? No. No it is not. Group B: The people whom cannot afford to buy the products to begin with. Again, is this a lost sale? No. And considering it a lost sale, would be like Ferrari considering every single person whom is a passenger in one of their exceedingly expensive cars, to be a lost sale. If you go by this concept, then the automobile industry is losing possibly trillions of dollars a year. And then there is C: the people who bootleg the stuff and sell them. this is the group that really are the actual lost sales. The entertainment industry however, bundles it all together, to make their end result look ridiculously inflated. Considering their figures claim that they lost more jobs than they even have ever had available…it made me lol.
Interesting concept. When I copied that news article, did I “steal” anything from the writer and publisher? Even the price they would have gotten for someone to read it? No, obviously not, since (1) they made the piece available for free through the internet and (2) their value is received through “page views” counted by advertisers. As I had to “view” their page to read and copy this article, they got what they asked for from me, and since I conspicuously indicate the source of the article when redistributing it to my small group of correspondents, that generates other clicks and views from additional readers visiting their site to (a) verify the source and (b) seeing other items of interest on their site. The same holds true for most music and video labels. Independents, tough . . . but they, at least, appear to be quite successful at selling online. Maybe it’s the quality of the content that makes the difference. It would seem, then, that the copying of an internet item has not only been “paid for” but also generates additional “income” by virtue of the copying and redistribution.
If the item is available for purchase, you could argue that the artist has lost the price of the sale. But, what about items that are no longer offered for sale, or were never on the market?
You can’t steal something that isn’t physical in nature e.g. the bike scenario. Get over it. People will download stuff and there is nothing anyone will be able to do about it. Downloading music, movies, games is awesome and I love getting everything I can’t afford for free! Maybe if I wasn’t spending all my money on repaying my college loans I could afford to go out and buy all this great stuff. Capitalistic pigs.
The argument is flawed. Intellectual property cannot simply be compared similarly like physical goods.
Take for example: The basic terms of ownership for song X is $1 per person.. If person A bought it at $1, but shared it with person B, he effectively ‘stole’ a second copy of the song and made it available to person B for free. Or, you can say, he stole $1 from the seller, since the seller is deprived of $1 sales because of what person A did. Fair enough?
Professor Green does NOT offer digital copies of his books on Amazon…..Hmmm? I urge Rutgers Law students to purchase one ‘collective’ copy of any required reading for Professor Green’s lectures (presumably books he’s written) and distribute ‘free,’ scanned copies for use – this would be quite an acid test for the sincerity of his argument.
That’s funny you mention it since libraries offer copying services and you can print pages for the cost of toner and paper… I don’t think libraries pay royalties to the publisher so maybe all college, high school, and elementary schools should do away with research and essays since it should cost money for the right to use someones intellectual property. If not than research is void of copyright since each student would be required to purchase the books(encyclopedia’s too) When you buy software from an encyclopedia company do they state that the info you are using will be distributed to a classroom of about 30? Should multiple seats be purchased as to who the info goes to? What is the difference between research and entertainment… if you are learning the words for the song isnt that research.
Also, the problem with calling it “stealing” is in the title of what people are doing. “File-sharing”. If I share my soda with someone, am I breaking a law?
Only if it is a name brand soda. If is is Western Family or something like that, no one cares.
damn…
/me walks over to his wife and grabs his soda!
“We’re not going to jail over you being thirsty!”
Nice, you tried to make your argument with an analogy that doesn’t apply. There are no copyrights saying you can’t share your dinner or drink. There are copy rights that say you can not steal music. Stop rationalizing.
Actually it was an attempt at humor. You know, “Ha Ha”?
And actually if you want to be serious about it, there are copy rights, and patents on drinks such as soda. But I wasn’t going that route, it was just a joke.
Damn people need to lighten up a bit.
Did you not read the article? It is not stealing. The original holder of the item still has it, ergo not theft. Is it copyright infringement? Absolutely. Is it morally wrong? Yes.
No because you only get the part you did not share. Now what if you “shared” a file with 1000 other people BUT only 1 of you could use it at a time? If you could make unlimited copies of the soda and you “lent” your copies out do you not think that would hurt soda sales? What about the people who are no longer needed to make soda?
So, what if someone actually copied a song? What I mean by that is, had a band, and made an exact copy of the song, and shared it with their friends. What would that be considered?
Or, if I draw a picture that I saw online, and hang it in my room. Is that stealing?
not many people want to swig from the same bottle, especially if you have burped in it…..on the other hand 70% of people want to steal or “fileshare” intellectual copyright. Illegal file sharing should be a criminal act full stop. Why should millions of people steal someones creativity which has the ability to be sold, while others are happy to buy rewarding the artist or creator. double standards stink and pathetic liberal excuses are for parasites. Put those who file share on trial and put those who develop P2P in prison. You don’t go in a store and share groceries do you, or clothes or a car or children’s nappies or walk round to your neighbours and share his dinner or wife without permission, or borrow little jimmies bike which was in his dads shed without asking or get in your mates car and drive the $100,000Bently without asking. Fk file sharers and their weak excuse for stealing.
I was merely provoking intellectual discussion and plenty of what if scenarios. I don’t necessarily disagree with you. My main issue with digital media copy right laws has more to do with the invasion of privacy they create, in the ruse of intellectual copy right protection. Everyone has a right to keep their own ideas and products, but the government doesn’t have a right to snoop through everyones emails claiming they are protecting copy rights.
CISPA comes to mind as one of the latest attempts of such invasion.
I do agree with the Op-ed piece… but I can’t help but think. Couldn’t file sharing be equated to those guys on the street corner selling bootleg copies of dvd’s? I mean, they most likely have the original, but they are selling a copy of them to someone else. So no content is lost, just another copy to the masses. The only difference I see here is, money is exchanged.
In case you did not know thats totally ilegal also.
I do know that’s illegal. Which is why I used it as a “but I can’t help but think” point to the article.
People seem hung up on a symptom of a much larger problem. With the advent of the digital era old business models have become obsolete. Our current economic system was built on the concept of supply and demand. It was necessary and logical that as supply and demand fluctuate the price for goods is influenced one way or another. With digital the supply has become infinite since there is no overhead in copying data bits. According to our dated economic ideas, something that has infinite supply should be free. All that is leaves is the idea and the related services. How you can put a dollar value on an idea has always puzzled me as an idea can have different values to different people. Artificially restricting the flow of information and ideas for profit also seems vulgar to me for my own philosophical reasons. So all that remains is the monetization of services. I believe if someone or can provide a better service (one particularly that isn’t contrived for the sake of justifying its own existence), then they will naturally be compensated for their services. Setting up artificial barriers that exist solely to generate profit rather than to protect a limited supply is just asking for circumvention and rightfully so. Copyright and intellectual property law is a desperate death throe of an industry that has become obsolete and refuses to innovate or adapt. Meh. Good riddance.
Actually Alan it depends where you live. In Canada we are allowed to make copies for personal use, it only becomes illegal when we give away any of those copies (or keep them after giving away the original)
Its also a completely separate issue with breaking copy protections. It can be illegal to remove DRM even if no copyright laws are violated.
I should add if you buy a record the recording owner retains the original that would be the point of copyright ;-)
The problem is not that sharing copyrighted material is stealing. The problem is that on every CD, DVD, BD…. is a writing… “Copy and Redistribution prohibited.” (Or something like that). This is the end of the story. Because if you buy a CD you have agreed to those terms. This is their trick. You copy the CD? You’re an outlaw. Simple as that. Every other point of view… “I do not steal”, “I make a copy becouse the original is stil there…” No use. “Copy and Redistribution prohibited.” It says all.
which is why they go after the people doing the distribution of the material, not the downloading.
I would really like to know why you feel you have a right to have a copy of something you never paid for. You clearly have never spent the time to actually create something. Someone who creates something has the right to set a price for it and if it is too high you do not have to buy it. Like it or not the only system we have states you have to buy things for a set price and if you do not like it do not buy it again or do not buy things from that person again. It is in the nature of people to get what they want for as little as possible. Don’t believe me just buy a bunch of things and put them out on a table with a box that is labeled pay as little or as much as you want and see what you wind up with. There people know they are actually taking physical things that cost you money and I bet you will lose it all (including any money anyone pays). Now if they would do that for real tangible goods imagine how much worse it is for intangibles. By the way his article was in response to the Megaupload case (who actively facilitated illegal uploads) not downloaders.
Hmm, I didn’t think I actually said I agreed with downloading files without permission. Though if you want to assume what my actual stance is on the matter, I would rather fill you in. I am all for free information. That being said, digital media falls under “information”. Now, I am not saying go out and get everything you can from torrents and upload sites. You do what you want to do.
Have I created anything of artistic value? Other than paintings and drawings, as well as producing my own music for fun on the side. No. But those are all just hobbies of mine. You seem to think that my explanation of people’s rational is my own. Which it’s not. I do believe artists should be compensated, but not at the sake of lining the unnecessary record labels big wig exec pockets. Personally, I haven’t bought an album in over a decade. Well that’s not true, I bought the last Rise Against album, which kicks ass. I am not really a music person. I have a subscription to netflix, and that’s about all I need. I became disenfranchised with the recording industry and movie industry when their profits started blowing up and the artists were the ones losing out. Now that the industry is actually balancing itself back out the RIAA and MPAA start bellyaching. I’m sorry, but I have no sympathy for them. Again, I haven’t been interested in new artists in a very long time, and I already bought all the music I enjoy… Also, albums (in physical or digital form) were never actually meant to be the anchor in an artists revenue stream. It was always about performing live and taking to the road. The album was more of a method to get people’s interest and to keep it. You can argue and debate that all you want, but it’s the truth of the matter.
What ever happened to capitalism? Instead, now we have governmental intervention in all aspects. RIAA/MPAA complaining that they are losing an over exaggerated amount of monies (which really isn’t the case) so the federal government tries to step in and regulate the people (Which is harder), instead of letting the business model adapt and change with the times. This only sets them up for failure.
Also, you do know that there are artists using the “pay what you think I deserve” model, and their doing just fine… I know Radiohead did it, and Louie CK did something similar by selling his last video for $5 on his website and made over $500,000 in 4 days. So, why do we need labels again?
In summation: Artists should be compensated. Record labels and distribution companies are the real thief’s. Government intervention is never good. Information should be free.
I correct myself. I am a music person. What I meant was, I don’t like a lot of new music that is coming out these days.
I know this is a gross oversimplification, but if the industry was really buying into that argument of the “Copy and Redistribution prohibited” label being sacrosanct…why havn’t records stores that sell used CDs/vinyl/tapes/ect… been shut down as well?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m incredibly grateful to Amoeba Music SF for selling me that first pressing copy of Peter Gabriel’s ‘So’ for 5 bucks. But isn’t that also prohibited redistribution of material?
There is the principle of first sale. Basically is says the owner can only control the first sale (of the actual item). If you own a record you can sell it (but you have to sever ALL of your rights ie: NO COPIES). The redistribution clauses are like a lot of things in personal contracts (non-enforceable). Now that is ONLY for legally purchased physical items. It was not a big deal in the analogue days since each generation makes worse copies and large scale copying requires special equipment and time. The digital age makes infinite absolutely perfect copies for virtually no cost possible and that ultimately devalues the item in legitimate channels. It makes no sense that people who search for specific titles of popular items have no interest in them and would not buy them if there were no “free” alternative. I’m not saying its 100% but I’m sure it is above 50% otherwise people who do it are either fools or have no respect for their own time. Think about what activity you would do, with the limited amount of free time you have, if more than 50% of the time you think it was totally worthless. Why would you continue to do something like that?
I don’t think he quite understands the copyright business model, though I support his intentions.
Instead of hitting share, I’ll just highlight all the text of this article and post it on my blog. And I will present it as my work. You still have your webpage, now I have mine. No problem there.
Exactly.
I dont think anyone who shares, say, music, don’t present as their own. Dude, I just recorded this awesome album. Check it out… I’ll sell it to you for $5.
BTW, I also have a bridge in Brooklyn I’ll sell to you for cheap.
haha! Nice… but that’s my bridge. If you go near it again, I’ll get the federal government to sue you.
In that case, I have many other bridges! Just tell me where you need one.
They’re charged with violating copyright and IP laws. This is semantics.
But those that do it are charged with theft and that is not the proper charge for what they did so according to the laws they shouldn’t have been found guilty.
Wow, narrow minded
Ok so it’s illegal but not stealing think before you write
There are other things that are illegal but not considered stealing…
The problem is most people do not feel it is just a bad regardless of what you want to call it. Stealing is something we relate to as bad, infringing sound so harmless but for a society that is hoping to make IT as its cornerstone (with most IT income from the major players like Google and Facebook being nothing more than advertising) such mentalities are a death knell for our economy. It a small step from thinking its ok to experience others work for free to not respecting the concept of any intellectual properties. Then the only thing we still produce in the United States will be gone.
If you want to talk about respect of intellectual properties, lets talk about the gross over inflated amounts that distribution labels put on said property. Lets take music. $15-25 for a new hard copy cd. Physically, it cost the distributors somewhere in the ball park of $1 to actually print that cd. What was the studio time? A few 10′s of thousand? If that at all? All for an album that has maybe 1 or 2 good songs out of 10-15? That’s called raping the consumer. If you can’t put out a good album, don’t expect people to buy it. They will find a way to get the song they want without paying the artist, because lets face it, they probably don’t deserve the .99 itunes asks for anyway. Speaking of which, I know bands who put out music from their own garage and sell it on itunes and make decent money off of it. It’s not about piracy. RIAA/MPAA love to make people think they are failing because of piracy. They refuse to face the facts that they are using an analog business model in a digital world. It’s just not going to work. They are running their boats into the ground. Is there any wondering why itunes and independent unsigned bands are booming these days? I think not.
Price does not justify stealing. Your a thief admit it.
If I downloaded music illegally, I would say so. But I don’t so nice try. Read the rest of the posts please.
Why do YOU get to set the price? YOU did not make it. If the price is too high do not buy it. If the songs are crap do not support the artist or label. BTW I love it when people say the record companies tell the artists what to put out. Most of the time the artists choose the materials and they think its all good but hey taste is subjective. That does not give you any rights to experience anything they make for free. If they let you hear it then you have the right to buy or not but you do not get to set the price you want. If so they sell a song for $2 you want it for $1, they set it at $1 you want it for 50 cents and on and on. Speak with your pocketbook but you have no rights to experience their work and decide what you want to pay unless they allow you to. This guy is flogging a book on his views I hope someone copies it and it get widely distributed on the net. Note he is NOT giving it away or asking people what they want to pay for it.
law of supply and demand. If people don’t want to pay for it, they wont. If record distribution labels don’t recognize it, they are the ones to blame for piracy. I think you have a hard time with reading comprehension due to your emotional connection to this issue or something. I never said record labels tell the artists what to put out. What I said, or tried to say is, if an artist can’t put out a decent album, people wont buy it, and they will get the songs they want anyway they can. As for your “That does not give you any rights to experience anything they make for free” I guess the radio’s should be considered pirate airwaves then?
Clearly you have a PHD in the nature of humans. Because no one wants to buy anything.. yeah, that’s why iTunes is the #1 music seller in the world! Oh, most of their songs are $.99… yeah, i hear a lot of people complaining about that.
“This guy is flogging a book on his views I hope someone copies it and it get widely distributed on the net. Note he is NOT giving it away or asking people what they want to pay for it. ” One vital flaw in your theory… I’m not trying to make a profit over what I am saying. ;) Now, please go back and read.
…a law professor came up with that? That’s the same argument my friends and I were making in High School.
http://www.gameproducer.net/images/piracyisnottheft.jpg
Let them get our IT jobs back to the US so that we can have jobs and start buying mp3′s online.
heh, the reason why 130+ thousand jobs were lost wasn’t due to file sharing… It was due to Apples use of Foxconn and other outsourced positions.
Damn itunes…
I have two problems with his opinion (which is all it is) First uploading is stealing, what is being stolen is the exclusive distribution rights of the copyright holder. Once that right has been taken it can never be restored. Second by the good professors opinion identity theft is not theft at all and should not be illegal. After you are a victim you still have your identity; also trade secret theft would also not be theft since they still have the information. Like trade secrets which a company can share and still retain the protection, copyright protection allows the owner to determine how it is distributed and in essence who should get it.
As a second example when people put on a performance (whether it’s recorded or not) the entertainment is considered a service. Again even though many may be entertained by the same performance you would it be justified to allow people who do not want to pay to just walk in? Is not the value of the property depreciated by the availability to experience it without paying? I find the idea that the majority of people who download something would not pay for it if there was absolutely no other way to get it frankly absurd. Do we really have so little respect for our own time that we are worthless beings who watch things that have absolutely no value to us? We justify these activities by saying “it was worthless so I’m glad I did not pay”, but if we did pay how many would demand a refund? Why is a majority of the material being illegally downloaded more often than not popular items and not things like Photoshop 1.0 and copies of really bad movies like attack of the killer tomatoes? Maybe people should get legal advice from the good professor and then not pay him, after all nothing has been taken from him by his own definition.
I beg to differ. Audio cassettes were sold blank for the use to record things we liked. Fortunately the onlything you could dub is music off the radio or sounds from another audio cassette. The only difference between file sharing and hitting record on an old boom box is the paid commercials you must listen to in order to get to push a record button. Remember Sony sold stereos also with this record feature that could record AM/FM stations. Isn’t Sony part of SOPA and MAPP. The only real issure is either the music company gets paid by commercials or cassette sales at that time… now since there are no commercials(unlike crackle which is free on my phone for full length movies with some commericals) The music industry was mad someone else(napster) made money without them getting a cut… so they sued until Lars and Company stopped using tampex.
Your comparison is fundamentally flawed. The audio cassette was originally designed as a medium of distribution. Later it was to record original material not to copy copyrighted material. Now in the case of taping radio no one cared since they only carried 1 or 2 songs of an album(it was a form of promotion for the albums). It is also fine to copy something you have paid for since you pay for that right of service. It is and never was alright to copy an entire work and “give” it to someone else. Likewise while you could sell your copy (rights of first sale) you could not do so and keep a copy.
But I never paid the radio station for the music, the commercials paid for the music to be aired. It’s like old analog TV. Did you have to pay to get basic channels(pre digital requirements)? no it was free because advertising paid for the service… you just needed to buy the medium(TV and Antenna). Well I guess the class of 1985-2000 should all turn themselves in for piracy since prettymuch everyone with a radio recorded music off the radio. If it wasnt an issue before then why is it an issue now. Like I said the companies didnt care before because they got theirs through advertising and other mediums not charging you for radio service to hear a song… All you need to listen to music is a radio… do you pay for a service to receive the signal? No you pay for the radio and set the frequency. Unless Sony Entertainment or Metallica start their won radio service(i think they are slowly ousting radio through the likes of itunes and cloud services) just to protect that back door… Why was it ok then and not now? Jester King had a good point about buying a $20 CD to get 1 or 2 good songs when the rest were fillers to make the deal look better… It takes time to learn the industry’s backhanded tricks in order to level the playing field(napster).
Your definition of theft is kind of stretching things… Its illegal either way, so I dont know why people want to redefine the laws surrounding illegal downloading.
A lot of those laws and rules are now holding us back in the coming cloud age. In the future, if you want to store your files in the cloud, you may be seen as guilty until proven innocent. All of your files will be scanned for illegal media. And that’s even if you’re just storing them privately. If you want to share files of any type, the process has been getting more difficult for the last decade. While I could burn a copy of a CD for my friend years ago, it’s quite difficult for friends to share things these days. Whether or not that was ever “legal” or not, we had means to do it before, but as CDs fade and everything is beginning to be stored online, we’re losing easy ways to do that. So there are plenty of reasons to want to redefine the laws, whether you’re sharing legal or illegal materials. The MPAA and RIAA are now trying to accuse legitimate cloud storage companies of promoting piracy. That’s not cool.
I was meaning redefine theft specifically. I do agree that proper laws/regulations need to be defined for online activities as most of the current ones were made before the internet was ever a consideration.
In the future there will be no physical mechanism to copy things. Once the “cloud” services take over there will probably be no physical media or downloads made so there will be no opportunities to copy. As we move to the cloud operating systems will become more and more locked down to be little more than thin clients with no local storage. No one will be able to take anything and the really frightening thing is it will allow pay for play to exist. The studios will have absolute control and we will pay every time something is used. That’s why the studios are heavy investing in these cloud distribution operations.
good -not many people want to swig from the same bottle, especially if you have burped in it…..on the other hand 70% of people want to steal or “fileshare” intellectual copyright. Illegal file sharing should be a criminal act full stop. Why should millions of people steal someones creativity which has the ability to be sold, while others are happy to buy rewarding the artist or creator. double standards stink and pathetic liberal excuses are for parasites. Put those who file share on trial and put those who develop P2P in prison. You don’t go in a store and share groceries do you, or clothes or a car or children’s nappies or walk round to your neighbours and share his dinner or wife without permission, or borrow little jimmies bike which was in his dads shed without asking or get in your mates car and drive the $100,000Bently without asking. Fk file sharers and their weak excuse for stealing.