Do you really BELIEVE sharing music files IS legal?

[CaptainMorgan]

Well friends, my time here is done. It has been a great eleven days with you, but now it is time for me to move on to other things. This makes me sad as I have enjoyed battling and manipulating many of you. But this can't be helped.

I have one question left to ask though. Do your really believe file sharing is legal?. I have been advocating this position for 109 posts now, and I was wondering if my view have manipulated any of you?

Rest assured that you will hear OF me again, but not FROM me. When this happens, you may want to look me up again. I can promise that it will be interesting.

I hate that this sounds "all mysterious". It really is not. (I am not John Titor!) It is just that there are certain ethics involved in discussing it in this particular forum. It will become obvious why this is the case, next week.

I want to expressly thank the following characters for making my stay here so enjoyable: Aqlo, JonnyMnomonic, Afn, MainManMoe, MemeticMage and tMoD. I know I missed a few, sorry. I hope to hear from many of you again.


Again, for those of you that missed it. I am not a lawyer, physicist, journalist, philosopher, mathematician, or activist.

I am a Hacker. I am here to manipulate you.

"Yet it does move." GG

[aqlo]

Thanks Galileo, it's been swell.

No, I don't indulge in fixed beliefs, they slow a person down.

I'm watching eagerly to see what other competing answers there are.

[Kooperman]

Quite nice 11 Agent P2P, your work was excellent. Do drop by for a spot or an adjustment at any time. Code phrase: pork futures and Vanilla Coke.

[shawners]

you havent manipulated me or many of us.. WHo are you again.. Oh yeah just a person who just enjoys posting.

[Malicious Intent]

Thank god his gone - he was driving me mad! Perhaps he is getting sued next week and since he is all mouth and no trousers, feels that lecturing us all on the legalities of p2p is wrong. I don't feel that his arguement ever got past the stage that since there is no precedent in the area, then there is no law to discuss. At least I don't think it did, I got bored reading it after a while.
Perhaps i'm just bitter my name isn't on his list.

[thongsai]

no of course its not legal.. but i dont really care.. i believe in stealin from the rich.. oh no we download music, now some poor musician wont be able to afford insurance for their ferrari

[aqlo]

all mouth and no trousers

[Kooperman]

I was in love with one like that once, but her valve began leaking....our relationship seemed to just deflate after that...

[Redneck4sure]

aqlo and Kooperman....... I am beginning to think you are both perverts. Do you know the difference between perverted and kinky? A pervert uses the whole chicken. I did not know I was joining a comedy club. I have paid money for less laughs!:shy

[Kooperman]

....less laughs is what we provide best....

[aqlo]

I think that that guy who does it with the chickens is hilarious.

They asked him once if he would do it with a rooster, he said Hell no that would be queer.

[Redneck4sure]

Originally posted by aqlo
I think that that guy who does it with the chickens is hilarious.

They asked him once if he would do it with a rooster, he said Hell no that would be queer.

What did you expect the rooster to say?!?!:shy

[Theinfamousone]

Of course it's not legal to share. That's pretty obvious. If you mean, is it ethical to file share? That is one of the most complicated questions ever asked. For decades copyrights have been battling between not letting our country turn into an aristocracy (where the rich control everything), and between communism (where everyone owns everything). Both are very bad words around our country.

For example the home VCR was fought over and the rights to give to the public with recording TV shows for personal use etc. Recording off the radio is legal, copying CDs for private use etc.

All things P2P personify that battle. It's the ultimate grey area. Because the record labels don't care if you can get a 30 second preview from amazon.com, or iTunes music store. They don't care if you borrow music from other people for a finite amount of time. Or even an infinite amount of time as long as the physical media isn't copied and put into the hands of someone else who didn't pay for it, unless they weren't planning on playing it, but once they play it, they just broke the law I guess, of course you could argue you were just borrowing it from that person, unless they are played at the same time, but of course the music can be enjoyed by more than just the person who owns the CD anyway, you just have to be within earshot. It's ok if someone who doesn't own the CD plays it for someone else in their car without paying royalties to the artist. Well some people's ears are better than others, where do you draw the line?

If they are your brother or sister or immediate family member, that wouldn't be a problem. But if I give a copy to my aunt? That's pushing it. If I give a copy to my Grandma? What about my 3rd cousin twice removed? Which is essentially what P2P does.

And what about the idea that music is just a set series of sound waves. Well, the sound waves vary depending on the ambient noise, and the air density and your elevation and all kinds of things, therefore the music is never exactly the same, especially when it's compressed to an mp3 format.

The real question is, what does the greater good, allowing 60 million hard working American working class people to have free music when a couple CEO's lose a few percent off their ungodly paycheck. Or to stop file sharing, and give them another 5% every year.

I know where I stand. I don't know about all you guys. But I bet 99% of the people in the country would agree with me when the situation is stated like that.

[FutureIverson]

im feelin' infamous1, it's illegal but it's a choice we make. You can't justfiy p2p so i don't even try.

[dr. damn]

Of course it's illegal! But so what?

[FrozenShadow23]

I'm with Dr. Damn on this one.
It's far from legal. We are taking what we don't own... and i love every bit of it. I don't know if it's ethical tho. I buy independent CDs from little artists still (even this strains me tho... $$$$). I'm not really looking to stick it to the RIAA or spite them by downloading, I'm just getting free music. Call me a thief if you want, i really don't care cause hey, i am a thief.

/me wonders why other people with morals download music. Maybe they just pretend to have morals?

[shawners]

Its illegal if they make it illegal and such, if your asking people not to do it cause its immoral is stupid. Immoral can be getting your girl pregnant and not be married, or being gay. so should file sharing be only redeemed as immoral? If they make it against the law to not have premarital sex and such, should that be illegal?
Ilegal for black people to vote and women to vote in this country at one time. So laws change, and so do peoples mind. what would be legal or illegal in next few years. hard to say.

[jonnymnemonic]

I like to think I have morals, but I download music. Why? Because what I do lack is much willpower to resist temptation. However, realizing my flaw, I do think it'd be best (although not for me personally) if taking other peoples' stuff wasn't quite so easy to get away with.

I'm sort of like a canny alcoholic. A smart alcoholic doesn't go to bars or keep alcohol in the house or go to keg parties, etc, etc. This keeps him from relapsing due to willpower being eroded in the face of constant temptation. If the drink is right in front of him, he might not be able to resist it. But if he has to go to the store to buy it, then it's a little easier.

[ROMANTICGUY50]

I support filesharing. I believe that it is legal. 1000%
FIlesharing will never die

[rainbowdemon]

Originally posted by Kooperman
....less laughs is what we provide best.... Some less than others!!

[Lamourlady]

Originally posted by FutureIverson
im feelin' infamous1, it's illegal but it's a choice we make. You can't justfiy p2p so i don't even try.

ditto.....excellent post infamousone!
make the choice and live with the consequences.
but atleast try to know all the facts....the eff can help u there and realize that many laws need to be changed and we need to embrace the future and all it has to offer.
okay.....not all it has to offer, but u know what i mean.

[stts]

Whether its legal or illegal has nothing to do with what we think. The media giants paid politicians to pass a law making fileshareing illegal. They tried a few decades ago to make tape recording illegal but failed. They settled for a tax on all blank cassette and video tape. This time around the media mogals were slicker and slimmier and quietly slipped this law under the door. We are stuck with this mess and only the relentless millions will bring about reform. The media tried this same law in Canada but canadians smelled a rat. All they did was extend the blank tax to all blank digital media too. That is why you wont get sued DLing in Canada.

When I was a kid with a paper route, I bought HiFi tape equipment so I could record cassettes of albums borrowed from all my school mates and neighbors. I recorded them the way I liked them. No crappy leftover songs on a tape. Now the tape equipment is gone and I burn CD's with mp3s the way I like them. They are not the way you buy them at the store. I got no sympathy for media giants that price fix CD prices high and refuse to offer content the way I want it. I am the boss of my spending, not them, and I found a better way to get content the way I want it. Its called FILESHAREING and I will continue it on the sly untill the Mogals learn to embrace it and fix these stupid fileshareing laws.:devil2

[Redneck4sure]

Totally illegal. When you are pirating mp3s you are stealing from a bunch of thieves. But does that make it right? Can you steal from thief without being morally wrong? Remember that old saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right.". I also remember hearing that, "two wrongs don't make a right but three lefts will." I am glad my morals are so low that I don't care.

[aqlo]

Some smart person in here is wearing
"two wrongs don't make a right, but they sure do make it even" or something similar, I buy that.

Don't get mad, get even; then get Odd. . . .

[tMoD]

Thank you, CaptainMorgan. It's been a pleasure. Farewell and stay safe.

Edit- God, I have zero social skills: I sounded like an idiot.

[rainbowdemon]

Two wrongs don't make a right.". I also remember hearing that, "two wrongs don't make a right but three lefts will." I'm left- handed. If we can find 2 more then we will be right. Or do you just want to give somebody 3 lefts?

[que-em]

Not my thoughts. Taken from another board that summed up my same feelings. If they RIAA owned them I would have to pay for it...LOL

These are the questions some are answering:

1) are your objections to the RIAA fueled only by a concern that they may be successful in putting an end to your FREE acquisition of product that you do NOT pay for?
1a) isn't it within the rights (and responsibilities) of the creators of the COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL to protect the DISTRIBUTION of their product as best they are able?
2) i have seen in other posts that some feel that RIAA's investigation of the file-sharing of music is an invasion of privacy... how so? is a store owner who reviews the video tape of a shoplifter also 'invading the privacy' of the thief?
3) how much of the vocal protesting is being made by people whose false pride won't allow them to confess TO THEMSELVES that what they are doing IS stealing?
4) i've heard many people attempt to justify their p2p participation by putting forth something along these lines:
"well, the greedy artists/executives keep putting out shitty CDs with only 4 good tracks, so why should i pay to buy the CD"

I don't believe it's considered stealing at all....The copyright laws are flawed to begin with and they should not automatically be extended to the internet. Which is what the RIAA is trying to do.

If a new form of communications is founded, why shouldn't they have to pay THEIR dues just like the rest of us?? I paid for my computer (a large amount too, they probably get theirs for FREE), I paid for internet service, I paid for high speed DSL, and CONTINUE to pay and it's LEGAL to swap files on the internet. Why shouldn't an average joe benefit from this for once.....

One of the primary reasons I even bought a computer in the first place is because I heard from friends about being able to download music. Hard to find music. Music that records stores and distributors were holding hostage for astronomical amounts of money. For example, I wanted to purchase old Sly and the Family Stone and Gil Scott Heron albums and the only places that carried it wanted upwards of one hundred twenty five bucks for it. Now THAT'S stealing. I'm sure these albums were available in other places, but access to them was limited to the area you were from. They ran the only game in town, they owned the music and if you wanted it, you would HAVE to give up the money right?? Or simply do without what you wanted....which is what I had to do.

Well now here's a chance, FINALLY, to bypass all their exploitative actions. The internet allows you to correspond with collectors in China, maybe on the fukkin moon, or wherever. We no longer HAVE to go to the places that charge us an arm and a leg. So now these monopolistic vultures see we don't need them to get what we want. So what do they do?? They go to CONGRESS to try to change things, something that same "average joe" could do but doesn't have the time or money to do but the RIAA does to try to get the laws changed in their favor.

All they are trying to do is CORNER the market on music so we have to go back to ONLY purchasing from them and they can charge us WHATEVER they want to charge us. Just like the cable market. I believe this internet downloading thing is what the Free Market is, or should be, all about. It gives opportunity to anyone to be able to become an entrepeneur. Monopolistic corporations like the RIAA want us to be their SLAVES. That's why the albums released today are giving us less and less good things to listen to, yet the prices CONTINUE to increase.


I think copyright and patent laws have gone to far. If someone buys a cd and wants to give it away then so be it. The industry has gone to far and paid the lawmakers to go right along with them. All you have to is look at how silly some of the things they are doing. Ex. replay tv has been hit with a suit because they let the consumer skip ads. One of the guys from the networks had the nerve to say anyone who skips an ad is stealing tv. I'm also very tired of being told that a product I purchase doesnt belong to me. I just have some limited right to use it. Of course at one point people who used vcrs were stealing also.


Well maybe if the industry was held to the same legal standard they want thir fans held to. Wasnt the music biz found guilty of price fixing. How come no bodys in jail or fired or scorned for that action. Why dont they have to pay money out of their own pockets at rates of say just 100 bucks per cd they sold at an inflated cost. That is stealing from people who buy cds.

1) are your objections to the RIAA fueled only by a concern that they may be successful in putting an end to your FREE acquisition of product that you do NOT pay for?

One man's opinion my own:

1) My objections to the RIAA are fueled by the emotion I harbor against most large corperations They are based to a large part upon greed. I know of many musicians that have had their work stolen by the music industry. However I understand that is really not germane to the question. Big business does not give a damn about the only thing that keeps them in business. The people.

Free is always good, but that is not my concern.

If the RIAA were not so greedy they would use the net to increase their profits. Set up their own site and charge each of the 60 million users lets say five dollars a month to download music. They could feature an artist a month, even limit the number of downloads to some reasonable number. They of course would advertise on their web site. They could now reduce their inventory, press only those CD's ordered, They of course would still sell the CD's in the stores.

Someone like you could set up a pay per view thing, how would your profits increase, if you reduced your inventory by 50%? While at the same time increase your sales, by the same margin.

If they cornered ten percent of the market that would be and income of $30,000,000 a month. Money they don't even really have to work for.

Just by eliminating the partial downloads, and bad recordings alone, they would get all of the serious music lovers and students.

Supposed they captured 30,000,000 customers, you do the math.



1a) isn't it within the rights (and responsibilities) of the creators of the COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL to protect the DISTRIBUTION of their product as best they are able?

1a) Obviously the owners of COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL have a legal obligation to protect their interests.

2) i have seen in other posts that some feel that RIAA's investigation of the file-sharing of music is an invasion of privacy... how so? is a store owner who reviews the video tape of a shoplifter also 'invading the privacy' of the thief?

2) There is no comparison to the RIAA's investigation and the video monitoring of a public area. First of all there is a sign posted outside of the store that the area is under video monitoring. You can see the cameras as you enter the store or area.

Your activity on the net is being monitored without your knowledge, then the information is being used to bring suit against you, all without your knowledge, or any warning.

A shop lifter is warned he will be video taped. A 12 year old kid just having fun more than anything else must pay $3,000 and the mother did not even know what was going on. The RIAA makes this BS statements the parents should know what their kids are doing, as some sort of justification for extorting money in nothing more than a scare campaign. All without warning. I would be more impressed if they expressed the same concern about child porn.

No one even knows how the RIAA is searching the private records of the individual operator. Yes, private, once I acquire information regardless to how I acquire said information, I secure that information on my hard drive, I am now entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

There is another side to that coin. If the RIAA acquired a license to participate in p2p sharing, this gives them the right to access your shared folder. Did they do that? Or did they have someone represent themselves as an individual then turn the information over to the RIAA? Or are they employing some other method of invading the privacy of a citizen? They have bragged about how sophisticated is their equipment, stating there is no way to get around it, that is BS, I am sure it can be circumvented.

I understand these are civil suits, and we all know the rules of evidence are not as relevant in civil cases as they are in Criminal proceedings.

3) how much of the vocal protesting is being made by people whose false pride won't allow them to confess TO THEMSELVES that what they are doing IS stealing?

3) Who says they are stealing, of course the RIAA and the courts which back them, because they have a vested interest in supporting the RIAA. Why can't I share a file with another person? It does cost the RIAA some profits, but is that any difference in video tapping a TV Show. Once the product is broadcasted, that product becomes public domain.

An artist makes a presentation, does that mean that song is still the property of the artist or by publicly presenting his craft is it now the property of the receiver? Now I don't think you should go into a concert of movie and record the presentation then sell same. But if I can record something on my computer, VCR, Cassette or what ever, that is mine to do with as I see fit. As long as I do not intend or attempt to profit by my recording.

What is next, when you buy a CD only the purchaser can listen to it?

When you steal you intend to deprive the owner of his property, when a song is recorded the owner still has his property.

They have raped for years and now they are beign raped. Who the hell would sympathize with them?

Seriously. If a friend buys a cd and I say "let me dub that", I need to be arrested? Then somebody wants to dub my copy. Oh shit lock everybody up.

Meanwhile the corporations with their offshore accounts, fine print, tax evasion are better than us. LOL

(Ph)uck them. There are plenty of humanoids that pay a water bill and buy water in a bottle thats just as gem infected as the water they already pay for. What is the RIAA worried about? They will always have humanoid costumers.

These greedy (ph)ucks just cant take giving up a condo. (Ph)uck the RIAA and (ph)uck snitches. Any RIAA affiliate caught in a peer to peer should be hit with viri out the ass!!!!

(Ph)uck, what do I look like, boo boo the fool? Blank CD's are 25 cents a piece and they want to sell me one for 10-20$? LMAO

Why doesnt the RIAA just invest in making blank CD's, they will get their money back. Shit sony aint that worried are they. They getting money no matter what. They make computers, burners, blank cd's and music.

Shit changes and truth be told in a very short time they wont be needed.

Anyway they will never be able to stop newsgroups, but most that is above most humanoids. How they gonna stop a private FTP? Hack into it. Should we give them laws to invade our privacy to make their money. HELL NO.

If I want to host an FTP and invite fam in, that should be private and what I do in my own house is my business, and the FTP is a "virtual home!!!"

(Ph)uck corporate america, they have been sucking the blood and life out of the common man for to long and when the common man wakes up they whine and bitch.

They have a right to price gouge and corner the market, we have a right to evade that shit. In the past corporations have lobbied to have laws their way and not the common mans, and I feel that shit should change.

The internet is changing the world, and they should either get down or go the way of the dinosaur.

Like I said, did the horse and buggy makers bitch this much when the autos were taking over, or did they buy stock in auto companies?!??!?!?!?!?!

1)I would say no for 2 reasons. The first is that main drive for the "online infringment frenzy" is based wholy on a love of music, the desire to collect and experience preferred types of music. You can still assume abstainment of paying even in light of those larger principles is still at issue and it may be........the reason I make major point about the love of music is because I believe by and large the core group of downloaders are also the core group of consumers who have supported the lavish budget of the record industry up till now and in the future of whatever form it cares to maintain itself as. The 2nd, is that no amount of legal strong arming can defeat online trading.

1a)Without a doubt. Isn't it with Presidential duties to protect his country thus giving him a wide range of rationale to go about self-serving campaigns that aren't neccesarily consistent with the orginianl aims. An organization like the RIAA who as a collective has engaged everything from monopolizing to extortion of its own artists has no right to turn self-righteous all of a sudden. They are protecting that 50 points per album system and simply trying to maintain their own longevity and regardless of the rhetotic consumers know a smokescreen -albeit legally sound- when they see one. There are many obstacles of course to legitimate online downloading but rest assured it will change the nature of their system.

2.)lol....or the -xray machine at the airport? For one the physical store is not your property. In the digital world the investigating force is sending/receiving electronic signals within your property.
I truly am up in the air about this one because on the internet, if not otherwise, privacy is an illusion. Let's say hypothetically in the future we can harness the ability to put a criminal under stasis and extract pure memory of the infraction do you think that should be heard as evidence or is it an invasion of privacy? ........where does privacy or the justification for its violation end or begin?

3)Not sure about that one....I would say "stealing" is a matter of semantics with the term "infringement" perhaps being the more appropriate term for the violation, as would be "extortion" for the reverse ass-raping consumers have undergone for years (but sometimes we simplify it as stealing too). The semantics that I associate with stealing insofar as pirated music is concerned is saved for those who burn-instead of buy or more specifically bootlegg and deprive actual sales. If someone steals my computer when I get home I don't log on due to lack of equipment. If you steal an idea and there is no loss or gain of profit there is no deprivation......that is an uncanny reality of the intellectual property dimension.

4)I've rarely heard someone evoke such conflictory rationalizations as youve pondered here. Substandard may mean not of par value relevant to the asking price (obviously not a morally sound argument). Further if the product is deemed substandard, the burden of whether or not to pay being lifted may free the would be patron to at least listen to it being that is is of no cost (akin to the horrible tasting sample at a gorcery store that you will unvariably get 2 of simply because you can). Lastly and most importantly in the consumer lingo "Substandard" is mostly your "2 good tracks on a 15 track album" instance. Many will simply acquire the two songs they like and ignore (delete?) the remainder.

1)No, because even if they shut down the whole p2p network I'd still find another way to get my shit without paying; however it would probably be a tad more inconvenient.

1a)While I agree with the artist's rights in prinicple the sad fact is the record companies are so crooked and poorly managed that an artist has to sell at least 500,000 copies just to break even. If I were to walk up to Del and give him $3 for that copy of Deltron 3030 I downloaded off of hotline he would be getting more from me directly than he would if I had purchased his CD.

2)Reviewing a tape of a shoplifter is investigation of a crime that has already been committed. the RIAA's actions are equivilant to strip searching everyone who had been in the store on the basis of a few stolen items.
You admit to having Win MX on your computer. If I use Win MX to steal copywritten material does that mean that you should have your computer's hard drive searched? Consider that the people searching the computer won't just be looking at your shared folders. They will also be examining your e-mails, business records, banking records, and possibly have access to your credit card info.

3)Oh I won't deny it at all. I've stolen many materials using Kazaa. I've also promoted child labor by buying Nike shoes, live in an apartment founded on stolen land and polluted the enviroment by driving to work. I don't even want to think about the ramifacations of buying my wife a diamond wedding ring.
Compared to the dispicable acts that I, and most other North Americans commit on a daily basis without a second thought I view my kaaza use as relativly harmless.

IMO - I think it is fair in the scenario given, if direct sales are the only anticipated form of profit, it was a poor investment to begin with...

Why pay more when you can payless? Its ,the American way, I'm just following the example set by our ancestors. Its my patriotic duty to practice civil disobedience, and protest unfair taxation and price gouging.

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998, is one of vaguest pieces of legislation ever created, it was written that way intentionally by the lobbies for the MPAA, RIAA, and various software associations. This law's creation has the sole purpose of protecting these industries, instead of the industries working out a new profit structure in responce to advances in technology. Technology today has made the current methods of product distribution for intellectual property obsolete. The successful business will adapt to the new climate and overcome factors that hinder profit. Microsoft knows this, that is why they are working so hard on changing their profit structure

shit... If cold fusion were to be innovated tomorrow in a form efficient enough to be employed by every man in their homes and autos, the US congress is more than likely to outlaw the implementation and use of the technology.

side topic:

This is indeed a lively debate, everyone that participated offered very significant contributions. My one problem is we all seem to have overlooked the one thing that would stop this outrage. The vote.

If just ten percent of the computer owners wrote their representatives and demanded the injustices be rectified, something positive would happen almost overnight.

We all know we are being abused, but we will do nothing about it. It doesn't matter if the other man does do the right thing, it is important that you do more than complain to one another. That is what the fat cats rely on. Voter apathy.

Politicians recognize one thing and one thing only, THE VOTE. We can tell our reps that you can procrastinate if you want, on election day you will not receive our votes. Shit gets done.

This issue is more important than downloading music, the freedoms our government brags about are being stolen in the name of national security and so called fair play.

I think that openly stolen election kind of confirmed a lot of peoples' suspicion that the choices are made before the ballots.

I vote out of respect for my ancestors but I'm not so sure that the process works as efficiently as you suggest

There would not have been a problem if there was a national standard and method of voting for national candidates. Not to say it would be perfect but to employ a process that is known to have flaws is criminal.

Voter turn out would be greater if there was more time to vote. I think in France voting is held for three days two of the days being the weekend, I think that is how I heard it discussed one time. If I am wrong please correct me.

No, the system is by no means flawless, I do not mean to suggest that just by voting will solve or end all of our problems. But as __ pointed out the other day, most elections are held on and about local and state issues. That is our input to the national political agenda.

Politicians such as Sharpe James of Newark, New Jersey and Marc Morial of New Orleans, greatly influenced decisions made in Washington, only because of the potential voting bloc they represented.

That is why our vote is important. Nothing will be decided by one vote, but remember when Nixon was elected president, he received less than 50% of the popular vote. There was a joke about the Nixon election, Every time Nixon saw two people in one place he knew one of them didn't vote for him.

There is no doubt voting is important, even when the results are not what you would have wanted.


OK That it...for now.

[aqlo]

Isn't the web more like a party than a store though? If I want to invite the whole wide world to a party I can let them listen to my music I have if I want to. If I want to get some Cuear Channel goon in there with a truck full of gear to sharpen it up for me, he's going to charge me isn't he? So he can pay residuals for commercial use. Not me I'm just playing my albums for my friends.

By the way you guys go look at that petition that just posted. It really makes me feel the message.

Reach out, touch Faith

[tamarisk]

Sharing legal files is legal

[metale]

Yes, I believe so.

The cd I bought, is MY FUCKING cd. The virtual file .wav or if you like .cda is MY FUCKING file.

I am onwer of MY FUCKING life.
If I want, I put those files in MY FUCKING hard disk.
If I want, I with let you connect to MY FUCKING pc.

I SUPPORT FILE SHARING. I SHARE SONGS. I DOWNLOAD SONGS. what will you do?

[Rish]

It's not our choice whether it's legal or illegal. Whether we think it's right or wrong, honest or dishonest... is a different story.

[shawners]

Darn que-em, you quote alot, I wont bother quoting you since i dont have the time today..

[Power Penguin]

I don't quite understand the question. Most people know it's illegal from a brief glance at the home page.

I think music download companies have a big future. We all just need slightly fatter pipes.

[jonnymnemonic]

It's a pretty stupid question, really. Anyone who can read (the copyright laws) can see it's not legal, at least not to distribute (share). Downloading isn't necessarily illegal, however. Damn Canadians got it all. The U.S. spends all the money and blows up all the bad guys, while they Canadians can stay home and legally download music and smoke medicinal pot, what kind of deal is that? ;)

[rainbowdemon]

while they Canadians can stay home and legally download music and smoke medicinal pot, what kind of deal is that? ;) A pretty good deal, I think!!:fire

[Lamourlady]

Originally posted by metale
Yes, I believe so.

The cd I bought, is MY FUCKING cd. The virtual file .wav or if you like .cda is MY FUCKING file.

I am onwer of MY FUCKING life.
If I want, I put those files in MY FUCKING hard disk.
If I want, I with let you connect to MY FUCKING pc.

I SUPPORT FILE SHARING. I SHARE SONGS. I DOWNLOAD SONGS. what will you do?

u tell em', Metale!!!!!!!
lol.

[rainbowdemon]

Originally posted by Lamourlady
u tell em', Metale!!!!!!!
lol. Looks like she did. Right to the point!!

[mojo-ris-in]

Does everything have to be a philosophical question? I fileshare because I can. I could care less about the morality or legality of it. I look at it this way, if the RIAA wanted to they could have avoided this by making CD prices fair to begin with. They didn't and are now getting what they deserve. It was a business decision that they made and it was a bad decision and that's the way I see it. No morality plays or worrying about whether it's legal or not.

[shawners]

It cost more to produce tapes, vcr tapes, and to make a dvd or cd, so why are they higher then the tapes? Do away with tapes and their be more money for the recording industry.

[Omyn]

VCR recordings seem old, but people still use them.

[metale]

oh yeah she did :)

i certainly didnt have any questions after reading that LOL

Right!
The things as they are without lies.
That's my spirit.

[aqlo]

That's a mighty powerful spirit indeed :gj

[FuzzBass]

Is it that hard to grasp?

-File sharing in itself is perfectly legal.
-Copying of a copyrighted piece of data other than for personal use is illegal. Period. *)
-Offering a copyrighted piece of data for downloading is legal **)
-Downloading a copyrighted piece of data is the same as copying it, so it's illegal.

*) So is lending someone your personal copy!
**) Allowing people to download is the same as leaving your disk rack open to your visiting friends, allowing them to borrow your CD to copy it. What's wrong about that? File sharers are like friends....

[Psilaxs]

Weeks later and no one has heard a word about Mr Captain Morgan.
Though I never expected to, people feel the need to make themselves out to be someone very important on BBS systems, such as Raf111.

[aqlo]

Psilaxs you are mistaken, he's at thebighack.org and maybe you should be too if you care about this subject.

[Lucian]

Alcohol was illegal and the same people who were against filesharing were against Alcohol.

[Empire]

Copyright is like speed limits.

At one time I'm sure the speed limit was 12 miles per hour (in the horse and buggy days). This was for "everyone's" benefit.

http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/speedlimits1.htm

Automobiles made that speed limit obsolete of course and the horse and buggy manufacturers went broke because they didn't see the writing on the wall. I'm sure people were whining about the evils of automobiles back in the day.

That's what's happening with copyright currently. It has become roadkill on the information superhighway. It will go the way of the 12 mile per hour speed limit.

Nowdays speed limits are posted, but no one follows them really. If copyrights were really enforced we couldn't have xerox machines, tape recorders, VHS recorders or ANY form of recording because recording devices are used mainly to make copies of things that are copyrighted.

Everyone whines about new technology and the common whine is always "it helps criminals". I'm sure when the telephone came out it was evil because bank robbers could make plans over the phone. When the automobile was invented it was evil because bankrobbers could get away from the scene of the crime faster. Whenever a technology threatens someone, that someone will always try to equate the technology with evil. Nowdays it isn't bankrobbers, it's "child pornographers".

[cheapprick]

Copyright is like speed limits.

At one time I'm sure the speed limit was 12 miles per hour (in the horse and buggy days). This was for "everyone's" benefit.


I'll go a little off-topic.

When the automobile was introduced in England, the aristocracy was still rather attached to their eloborately ornamented carriages and horses. They managed to reduce any glamour this cursed new contraption may have by pushing new laws through the House requiring anyone driving a car to post 3 men in front of the car. The 3 men were to walk along waving flags to warn people about the impending arrival of an automobile, effectively reducing the car's speed limit to @ 3 miles per hour.

[aqlo]

That's brilliant CP.

I'm quite sure Cap doesn't give a rat's ass if you go offtopic on this thread at this late date so long as you guys keep producing brilliant analogies like that one.
:gj
Thanks to you also Empire, as always.

[Malicious Intent]

I'll go a little off-topic.

When the automobile was introduced in England, the aristocracy was still rather attached to their eloborately ornamented carriages and horses. They managed to reduce any glamour this cursed new contraption may have by pushing new laws through the House requiring anyone driving a car to post 3 men in front of the car. The 3 men were to walk along waving flags to warn people about the impending arrival of an automobile, effectively reducing the car's speed limit to @ 3 miles per hour.
I thought it was only one guy with a red flag that was needed. If you were rich enough for a car, you could afford someone to walk infront. Perhaps sit them on the bonnet so you could go a bit quicker!
The law was quickly scrapped. Lets hope that laws that stop music lovers getting their music the way they want it are also scrapped.

[Adzoe]

Music copied, performed, and played for personal use has always been legal. When there were only cylinder recorders people learned the songs and sang them, and wrote down the words listening to their neighbor's Victorola.

Then there was the tape recorder like my forst little Norelco. I listened to th AM stations and recorded the songs I liked to take with me and play on my time schedule. The "industry" didn't mind, because the quality of AM was not that great.

Along cae the 45s and the 33s, with higher quality. I made tapes from them. My friends borrowed them, and propably made tapes. FM came along with no advertising, and I taped whole albums, often of classical music. The quality was great, but there was still no illegal activity.

Today I can go to the library and borrow a book for free. I can copy paragraphs, pages, chapters, whatever I like, for my own personal use. No problem. I even read an entire book onto tape for one of my friends. Still no problem. I memorized poems, making a copy in my brain. No problem, it's for personal use. In the US Army by request of my bunkmates I recited a popular poem virtually every night. No problem, it was personal use and not for profit.

Are we getting the picture yet? Today I can record movies off my TV and songs from the 30+ channels I get with my DirectTv. I can TIVO whatever I want. From the TIVO I can play it back, transfer it to my computer, or even use my computer as a TIVO to recod movies or any kind of TV broadcast, for my own use. I can loan out tapes to any or all of my friends and they can watch them, and I have not violated any laws, because this is personal use.

On the internet I can play hundreds of music stations, and copy the output into digital or analog format with no violations. I have the same right to share my copies as I have always had by making them available for my friends. This falls into the realm of personal use I have always had the privilege of enjoying.

There are those who now want t restrict my personal freedoms that I have always enjoyed. They may pass laws to that effect, but then we need to challenge them on constitutional and historic grounds.

[Happiechik]

:bling P2P has changed the way music is made, marketed, and managed. Irregardless of the question of legality, P2P will positively transition market burden. The average Joe-Shmoe used to pay upwards of $20 bucks for a CD with possibly 3 good songs on it. Now, record companies will have to take into account cost efficiency when producing and distributing a CD and recording artists will have to simply create better music. This is a very common economic concept; it's what the market will bare.

[shawners]

If There was no p2p, i hate to think of all the bands i never heard of in the USA or songs i may never have known, the remixes i may have listened to. HOw high the cd prices are, their not as high as they might of been.
All the various disc i can make of all the artist i like.. P2P is a beautiful thing =) Could be beautiful if they would accept it.

[Kyle06]

hmmmmmmmmmmmm wait

What are we talking about

!me falls over asleep

[Digimortal]

Of course sharing of copyrighted files is technically illegal if you follow the letter of the law, but there are several reasons why it could be justified.

The spirit of copyright is being totally abused abd the laws manipulated to eliminate our rights to 'fair use.' The copyright owners just want to extend their powers to ensure a continued revenue stream for themselves.

Selling digital content on CD/DVD etc is an outdated way of business, we have all found a much better way of doing it. If they just let us download their content it would cost them very little in bandwidth costs, thus almost entirely eliminating distribution costs. If they let us distribute it by p2p then they pay nothing, we pay for the content to be distributed in the form of our ISP fees we pay to cover the bandwidth costs.

Another thing that amuses me is when they go on about the money they've lost through pircacy, when in fact they haven't lost a penny! It's all based on assumptions, like that a kid who's downloaded ten albums that week would have bought them all if the piracy had been stopped, when in fact he would have had enough money to maybe buy the one single that's been hyped the most on the radio that week.

Anyway back to my main point, CaptainMorgan you are totally correct about the letter of the law being broken by piracy of copyrighted files over p2p. However it is the spirit of the law being abused by the content owners that many of us have a problem with.

They are in store for a big shake up in the industry as we move to a world where all media is digitised and shelves stacked high with shiny disks become a thing of the past!

[REDO]

no of course its not legal.. but i dont really care.. i believe in stealin from the rich.. oh no we download music, now some poor musician wont be able to afford insurance for their ferrari

yeah, were like Robin Hoods. Steal from the rich, share with the poor.

[DudeAsInCool]

Que-Em

You forgot that file-sharing is like going to a library..

[tMoD]

A provocative case can be made that the intent of the Audio Home Recording Act is to protect all forms on non-commercial copying:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap10.html#1008

[origin]

Sharing music is legal in my book!

I love when it comes to ethical questions like these someone has always got something good and *morally correct* to say it just gets you thinking....hmmmm

l8

[shawners]

If the music industry was ETHICal, i would reconsider being unethical. But since that they are fools who do things against us, now we have a chance to fight back.

[killswitch1968]

If the music industry was ETHICal, i would reconsider being unethical. But since that they are fools who do things against us, now we have a chance to fight back.

All laws have some sort of moral justification behind them. While there are regulations against file sharing, I do not recognize the morality backing it up.

Therefore: Illegal, yes. Moral, no.

[mattyw]

There is no question of whether it's illegal or not. It is definitely 100% illegal to distribute copyrighted material (or receive illegally duplicated material) without the copyright holder's express permission, which is what we're doing when we share files through a P2P.

There is also no question (and this is a bit more debatable) that file sharing is different than stealing. When you steal something, the person you stole it from no longer has it. This isn't the case with file sharing. What we're doing is COPYING, not stealing, because we're not removing anything; we're simply duplicating it.

This forum would be a hell of a lot more interesting if we had some devoted anti-file sharing folks to show the other side's view, but such people are of course unlikely to be spending time at zeropaid.com.

[Truncheon]

File Sharing is legal. It's a question of copyright infringement.

I still don't understand how record companies and artists are losing money when music is being shared?

No money is changing hands. It is a stretch to say that these are lost sales.

How come the labels aren't trying to get some sort of a cut of the CDS I bought for $5 in the used section?

[incoherent]

It's definitely illegal.
Then why do I share? Because I have bought so many CD's at insane prices.

[GMBazillion]

This is what I truly belive deep down in my heart. This is the real me. I want to be real and not bullshit around the anwser.

I don't care if it's legal or not. I like the idea of getting a free thing with very little to no risk involved. Oh and BTW. I'm not going to ever use any of those P2P subscription services that the RIAA wants me to use. I've tasted free and there's NO going back. Ever.

[stts]

Ya know, after going thru several major tragedies and haveing to then spend several years scrapping money together and aquireing masive debt just to sue and sue and sue those bastard issurance companies that let me down with great spite in my hour of need, I am comming to realize that life doesnt play fair and the little guy had better get with the program. The name of the game is grab it if it comes your way and never let it go. Even though I just barely won, my experience has left me bitter, because I should not have had to go thru that in the first place. Gone are several years of good living and a credit mess that will never clean up. The day will come when your going to need all that stuff you been grabing to defend yourself when the big guys come and grab at you. To hell with ethics. Thats what the record labels said when they price fixed. You all know they didnt accidentally price fixed. So now their sniveling and sueing 12 year old.s Let the **aa's eat cake and die. Capitalism will replace them and hopefully they will be more honest and ethical and fair to their customers.

[origin]

If little kids can believe that Santa Clause is real, then I can believe that filesharing is legal ;)

l8

[rainbowdemon]

If little kids can believe that Santa Clause is real, then I can believe that filesharing is legal ;)

l8
Well that's fine except for one thing. When little kids find out that Santa Claus isn't real,all they get is disappionted. When we find out file-sharing isn't lagal, we get sued.
lol
But I'm not going to stop!! :finger 'em!!!!

[origin]

never give in! fight till the death ;)

l8

[drnkbudweiser]

I do realize that sharing music on a p2p network is illegal, but the question you have to ask yourself is "Do I give a fuck?" And I would have to say that the answer to that question is "NO, I DO NOT." So the damn RIAA can pucker up and kiss my WHITE ASS, cause they not going to get one damn cent from me.

[DudeAsInCool]

This forum would be a hell of a lot more interesting if we had some devoted anti-file sharing folks to show the other side's view, but such people are of course unlikely to be spending time at zeropaid.com.

As someone in the film industry, I sympathize and side with the people here againt the RIAA and their idiotic tactics. But until that industry begins treating their customers respectfully, and taking advantage of the technology that exists to offer quality and quanities of music at economical prices, it will be their own fault if they disappear. What isnt clear to me yet is--What is 'Fair Use' and what is 'promotion'? It's hard to insist people pay for downloading from the internet when they can get it on tv or radio for free.

But that said, I dont think its reasonable for people to put stuff on the internet such as first run movies or games before they have even been released... I think that's really pushing it... I will now put on my armor and run for cover... LOL (That said, Sen. Feinstein's bill to punish people with 5 years in jail for doing so is INSANE)

[cheapprick]

I will now put on my armor and run for cover... LOL

Brawk Brawk Brawk j/k

I actually agree with you. If a person really needs to check out that new movie, go watch in a theatre. I've never seen the home system that can match it yet.

And I try.

[aqlo]

Those of you who are interested in this stuff, they are showing signs of activity over at The Big Whack again.

http://thebighack.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=503

Can 0s and 1s ~really~ make a difference?

[Auggie2k]

I buy a CD and copy the songs onto my computer and they are shared with my friend across the road = illegal

I buy a CD and copy the songs onto my computer, make a CD and give it to my friend across the road = legal

I think theres a pattern emerging here. Is it me or aren't they the same?

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

I buy a CD and copy the songs onto my computer, make a CD and give it to my friend across the road = legal

How is this one legal? Are you making an exact copy of the CD you bought or giving him the one you bought? If it is giving him the one you bought, the authorities-that-be are expecting that you will erase the copy you made on you hard drive. My guess is that the second case will be illegal, even when you clarify your point.

[truelyme]

As for the morality issue of file sharing...

The Phony Moral Debate
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/04/new_arguments_a.html

The cost of buying a cd as opposed to the cost of downloading a paid for cd. You are being ripped off every time you buy a download, not to mention the qualtity of the bit rate.
Value for money
http://p2pnet.net/story/4490

[Auggie2k]

How is this one legal? Are you making an exact copy of the CD you bought or giving him the one you bought? If it is giving him the one you bought, the authorities-that-be are expecting that you will erase the copy you made on you hard drive. My guess is that the second case will be illegal, even when you clarify your point.

It is legal, say if I copy most of the songs onto a cd, then the cd is unique, it's simply a compolation of songs!

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

From 55-75% of the songs could be considered "most."

Somehow I don't think that would fly. How many of these could have been CD Singles that you have cheated the poor record company out of profit?

I think a minority, say 40% of the songs on one album, may fly as a compilation.

[policy_editor]

alot is legal I dont care i download music anyway

[crackerjacker]

bump
.....................
bump

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

lol...dividing the 4 poll options into just yes or no..it's tied at 61 a piece.

Not too many convinced.

[the1andonly1_00]

File sharing is totally legal. Think of it this way. If I lent you a cd cuz it had some songs on it you like and you wanted to record them. Would anyone question you and say " hey copying that is illegal."? Of course not that why boom box manufactures have it set up so you can copy cd to cd or cassette. So whats the differance here? Just cuz we all live many miles apart all we are doing is saving gas or a stamp to copy your songs or movies.

[Wipeout]

IMHO:
File sharing is totally illegal. Sharing with a few people is okay. Sharing with the whole world is not okay. The people does not gain profit if you do that. But I don't care anyway. Most movies you download is not dvd quality. And to mention downloading HD quality will take you at least a week overnight with a high speed connection to download one. I could seriously just turn on my hdtv and watch HD channels. But honestly, how many of you care about quality?

[the1andonly1_00]

:icon_thum Check the books(law books) no where in ther does it give any one person a limitation on how many times he/she is alowed to share something. And no where on the disk you buy from the store does it say this also. If it was illegal then there would be some sort of message imprinted on the disk or at least a little voice on the product that would tell you this.

[Wipeout]

I've never bought an album before. I only bought game soundtracks. Love the final fantasy soundtracks. But I also buy game disks. The first one I bought was starcraft. When I installed it, guess what it says? Don't share your cd key with anyone else.

[the1andonly1_00]

software is a little differant. all the CD code is for is registration purposes (warrenty) youd be surrpised on how many people actualy try to complain about copies. And as for copy right laws the are there so no one can make money off the companys product. As long as your not making a profit then you are ok.

[Wipeout]

Why was napster down if it wasn't illegal?

[The Hunter]

Greed by the music industry.

[the1andonly1_00]

it wasnt a P2P program it was something that you had to pay for. and the artist were not getting their share of the profit that napster was making off their songs

[Wipeout]

Before it went down, it was free. Now you need to pay for using it.

[the1andonly1_00]

no you still had to pay for the use of it. now you have to pay for each individual song.

[Wipeout]

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/napster.htm

[DwarfBaby]

Speeding is illegal, yet the vast majority of us do it. Same with file sharing. Except with speeding sometimes people get killed or paralyzed, burned, maimed. A speeding ticket $50 to $100 bucks getting caught by the RIAA might cost you $5,000. Caught distributing movies, software can get you the same time as manslaughter; however distributing movies can cost $100,000 or more according to the warning label.

Yes, there are laws for everything and much of the time they don't make much sense. And the majority of people would not agree to them if they understood the implications. Eventually there become so many stupid laws people begin to simply ignore them when possible. Just talk to the average British citizen about crazy stupid laws if you don't believe me.

A couple hundred years ago some Limey bastard tried to tax our tea. I wonder how that one turned out.

[ccc1005]

I think one of the most interesting cases lies with TV episodes that are recorded (not the DVD box set). I think some issues might arise with the removal of commercials, but otherwise I dont see what's bad about it (then again when does it law agree with that...)

[Digital Bliss]

I wrote a paper on this and even though im a hard core file sharer iknow its wrong but its not gonna stop me and its not because im cheap i cant aford 50 doller games and shit i work at a pizza joint and only et 20 hrs a week

[Sparky9]

creative commons music, netlabels, etree, unsigned artist, and a ton of other music is legal to share.
if the RIAA doesn't want me to promote their crap artists, i'm ok with that, i share/promote 1000s of legal mp3s

[method]

----- GG.. some tips -----

IP: 24.175.(censored).(censored)
Loc: Houston
ISP:RoadRunner

Don't boast about manipulating people... it makes you the focus of attention.

----- Now onto your question -----

Yeah.. DLing commercial cheese is wrong.

Was it wrong when all the record labels engaged in price-fixing to gouge maximum profits from the consumer?

Is it fair that record labels try to keep copyright going for decades after the death of the artist?

Is it right that they are now trying to hire music to us and infest crap with DRM which totally denies us our right to fair use?

So... if the record labels keep up with their wrong-doing... why should I stop??... because one is branded "illegal" and the other unfair bullshit is branded "legal"?? - f**k that and f**k the lop-sided, corporate-friendly joke of a judicial system that tries to enforce it.

I don't want DRM-infested bullshit, period... and rapidly, it seems the only way I can guarantee that now is to download off free p2p networks and avoid the shit in the shops or on the pay-to-play sites.

Peace!!

[shawners]

Downloading music is no more wrong then britney being a skank, and christina a whore.. Or Limp Bizkit for just doing a bad bad remake of behind blue eyes. Just government are losing money from it, sales tax, the recording artist gross or revenue is taxed, the employees they hire pay taxes, and the crap they buy will have tax on it, now not buying a record effects all those taxes.

[transduction]

File sharing is a technological consequence of the growing gap between the rich and the poor. People are sick and tired of getting ripped off. Celebrities like Julia Roberts make more money per film than most people will ever see in a lifetime. The bottom line is that the p2p revolution is here and there is no way anyone is going to put the "genie back in the bottle". They're either going to lower their prices, or keep getting ripped off. The internet will only get faster and more interactive. The internet 2 will be commercially available soon, and a 1gb file will be able to be downloaded in minute or less. What are they going to do when T1 and faster connections become affordable?

[crackerjacker]

bump again

[dictators_gas]

It is illegal to download files which are deemed illegal. There are files to download which are not. For instance, if you wanted to download Openoffice.org or something that has a free or open-source license, then it is perfectly ok. Any file that you do not have a license fo, would therefore be illegal. Those who break laws have what is coming to them.

If you think it ok to steal from others, then you dont mind if I break into your house and steal from you do you? I mean, its the same exact thing. Your stuff does not belong to me, I didnt buy it. But you don't care, because you see no harm in stealing from others, right? Believe me when I say that Karma will catch up to you.

[Sparky9]

downloading isn't stealing, because the original copy is still there. copywrite is the right to copy, if copying isn't permitted, then its an infringement of copywrite, NOT theft.

if corporations have their way, when we invent the thing on star trek that produces copies of food, drink and other sundries, it will end up having a coin slot on it.

[Unsueable Davey Brown]

Speeding is illegal, yet the vast majority of us do it. Same with file sharing.

Is the non-profit trading of music files really illegal in the same way speeding is? I'm not so sure.

With speeding people are charged, and they go to court. They defend themselves, and if found guilty of breaking a particular law, they pay a fine. I'm not sure that has ever happened with music file trading. Has it?

My understanding is people have been threatened with lawsuits. They're told if they go to court they will have to meet the music industry's legal machine, will lose the court case, and will have to pay millions of dollars. They are given the option of settling out of court for less money. It's kind of like extortion, and it works. No-one has actually gone to court to force a decision on the legality of the practice, as far as I know.

How do we know non-profit, music file trading is illegal, if there's no precedent telling us so?

[DwarfBaby]

Is the non-profit trading of music files really illegal in the same way speeding is? I'm not so sure.

With speeding people are charged, and they go to court. They defend themselves, and if found guilty of breaking a particular law, they pay a fine. I'm not sure that has ever happened with music file trading. Has it?

My understanding is people have been threatened with lawsuits. They're told if they go to court they will have to meet the music industry's legal machine, will lose the court case, and will have to pay millions of dollars. They are given the option of settling out of court for less money. It's kind of like extortion, and it works. No-one has actually gone to court to force a decision on the legality of the practice, as far as I know.

How do we know non-profit, music file trading is illegal, if there's no precedent telling us so?

Alright, you got me, its like speeding in Mexico. The officer will ask for 50 American Dollars. If you pay him he will drive away, no ticket, no problems. If not? To be honest I think most people just pay the 50 bucks.

[Unsueable Davey Brown]

I'm still not sure, because even in Mexico there's precedent proving the speeding law actually exists. I'm not sure there is such a thing in America specifically dealing with the non-profit trading of music files.

Also these allegations are being made by way of a civil suit. Even if someone was found to be liable for some sort of wrong-doing, I'm not sure it would define an illegal action. If someone gets bit by a dog in your backyard, and you get sued, even if you have to pay restitution, what part of that dog biting is illegal? All a proof of fault would do is offer precedent as to where liability lies in such and such a case.

Let me put it another way. If non-profit music file trading actually did meet the criminal definition of theft, as the music industry likes to insinuate, you'd be charged for theft, but that's never happened.

There was that one thing with the kid in Arizona where he pled guilty to some state law to avoid being charged for selling music, but I'm not sure that applies.

[crackerjacker]

i believe that filesharing is legal.
hmm

[crestfallen]

Sharing files is legal... so long as it is not copyrighted material.

Music is copyrighted. Therefore it is illegal to distribute it.

The problem is that downloading music is perceived to be socially acceptable even though it is illegal. It's a social quandry that legislators, the music industry, and people must deal with.

[Sparky9]

Music is copyrighted. Therefore it is illegal to distribute it.not all of it, the RIAA doesn't own everything
http://www.vitaminic.com/main/
http://creativecommons.org/
http://www.electromancer.com/
http://music.download.com/
http://www.iuma.com/
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/search.asp
http://www.archive.org/audio/etree.php
http://www.archive.org/audio/netlabels.php
http://bt.etree.org/
ect, ect. . .

[crestfallen]

Of course. Things that are in the public domain or are unlicensed are legal to distribute.

[Sparky9]

i guess you've never heard of creative commons licenses?

[boogiedan]

i voted a total yes
nice poll
interesting peep's sayin of course not(totally NO)

[levelquo]

Well friends, my time here is done. It has been a great eleven days with you, but now it is time for me to move on to other things. This makes me sad as I have enjoyed battling and manipulating many of you. But this can't be helped.

I have one question left to ask though. Do your really believe file sharing is legal?. I have been advocating this position for 109 posts now, and I was wondering if my view have manipulated any of you?

Rest assured that you will hear OF me again, but not FROM me. When this happens, you may want to look me up again. I can promise that it will be interesting.

I hate that this sounds "all mysterious". It really is not. (I am not John Titor!) It is just that there are certain ethics involved in discussing it in this particular forum. It will become obvious why this is the case, next week.

I want to expressly thank the following characters for making my stay here so enjoyable: Aqlo, JonnyMnomonic, Afn, MainManMoe, MemeticMage and tMoD. I know I missed a few, sorry. I hope to hear from many of you again.


Again, for those of you that missed it. I am not a lawyer, physicist, journalist, philosopher, mathematician, or activist.

I am a Hacker. I am here to manipulate you.

"Yet it does move." GG
on the bend
over and out
we here you darling
love and kisses never dismisses
embrace
hehe

[p4paji]

Yes, without a doubt. Sharing is totally legal.

[uselesscrap]

on the bend
over and out
we here you darling
love and kisses never dismisses
embrace
hehe

........Hi CJ!

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

Sticking to your namesake, I see.

Did you see she was banned 2 weeks ago?