ezzye
November 1st, 2004, 01:06 AM
The worldwide web was once wondrous. Then it became commercialised. Then came file sharing. It was not commercial but depended on users’ goodwill and was an excellent way for young and old to discover and explore music. This marked the end of the compact disc era and the start of the MP3 download era.
Napster was king. It was free and had millions of users innocently sharing music. The sharing was done privately one to one directly between home internet users. Then the US judiciary shut it down. Big business and the government told the public that file sharers were pirates and that the law could stop them.
The selfless act of privately sharing files with friends was theft like stealing from a shop. Only instead of physical goods intellectual property was being stolen, the copyright owner’s rights were being infringed.
The effect of this was to make privacy a dirty word. Big business wanted to snoop on its customers. They said to protect them from music pirates and poor quality unauthorised products and services. They want to see into your home, on to your computer hard disc to check if you have been sharing any of their property with your friends. They want to find out your name and address from your internet service provider (ISP). They reassure us, the public by saying, “If you aren’t guilty you have nothing to fear.”
The protection of copyright and other types of intellectual property benefits everyone. If someone uses their time and creative energy to create a song, book, theatrical play or film then they should own it and be able to benefit from it commercially. But how far should that protection go.
US law states that using copyrighted works, "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not copyright infringement."
This type of fair use is an exception to copyright. But how far does fair use extend? Is making a back-up copy of a compact disc on your computer, theft or fair use? Is sharing your compact discs with family and friends, copyright infringement or fair use? Is sharing the personal contents of your computer privately with a social acquaintance free of charge, piracy or fair use?
Are we allowed some privacy to do as we want for no commercial gain or is privacy no longer allowed? Yet freedom of speech depends on privacy. Do we trust big business so much that we are prepared to allow them to access our personal details so that they can track where we go and what we do online?
In the movie Jurassic Park the creator of the park said, “Life will find a way.” It is the same with internet file sharing whatever the barriers put up by government and big business people will find a way to exchange information in a secure, private and efficient way. This is what people want and we live in a democracy. The internet cannot be un-invented.
This is borne out by the figures. Since July of 2004, the internet file sharing population has jumped by 15% despite the lawsuits brought about by the recorded music industry. (ITIC, IT Innovations and Concepts, a Canadian research firm specializing in piracy and file-sharing trends.) One of the main drivers for broadband is file sharing. The range and number of files that are available to download from other internet users’ computers using file sharing is far greater than those offered from commercial download services such as iTunes. Consumers recognise this and so vote with their feet.
Yet artists need to be adequately compensated for their work. Without copyright there would be no music or movie industry. Copyrighted works and the rights to their exploitation belong to their creators. These rights are valuable. So it is fair that the rights owners solely should decide what rights to sell for what price. When you buy a compact disc you only buy the right to listen not to distribute the music on it. A consumer would have to pay much more to purchase the right to use the music in say a movie. It is up to the copyright owner to set the price for each right. They own it. It is their property.
File sharers are not opposed to copyright but don’t think that their privacy should be invaded to protect the rights of copyright owners. Non-commercial personal sharing of files directly between individuals during social activities in the privacy of their own homes should be allowed. In a free society privacy should be a right that everyone enjoys in their personal and social life.
Ensuring artist are compensated is a separate issue. There are many ways to achieve this without invading home internet users privacy.
For example, a duty could be charged on recordable CD ROMs and broadband connections. The revenue generated could then be distributed to copyright owners to compensate them for the partial loss of their rights caused by broadband and recordable CD ROM use.
File sharing should not be a crime. It is a spontaneous social service set up by a community of internet users for other online users. It is like a library but instead of sharing books, files are shared. What are missing are the necessary regulations to ensure that copyright owners are compensated. That is what is needed.
The private non-commercial sharing of files should be deemed fair use. The ability to communicate privately over the internet is needed to preserve a free society. Countries with repressive regimes such as China and Saudi Arabia monitor and restrict what their citizens can access over the internet. We are born with our right to privacy. We should not give it up lightly.
So how should the rights of copyright holders to receive financial compensation for the use of their works and the right to privacy of home internet users to share files within their online community be balanced. Copyright depends on consumer consent. So the solution should involve consent. When coercion is used to solve social problems, we all suffer. It usually fails to achieve its aims instead it reduces the rights and freedoms of all.
Government could pass laws forcing internet service providers to disclose the personal details of users using home computers suspected of sharing copyright material. They could ban file sharing by monitoring internet use to prevent it. In the end all internet traffic could be monitored not just for words relating to bomb plots or terrorist conspiracies but for words like “Eminem” or “Beatles” that hint at the sharing of copyright material. Then what next, monitoring emails to stop tax evasion, domestic violence or recreational drug use?
How far will the invasion of our privacy go? Already, our shopping transactions are monitored by loyalty card systems, journeys by close circuit TV and soon our identity by ID cards.
Say your teenage son or daughter has been downloading the latest Eninem compact disc track, from another teenager friend while at home in their bedroom. Do you really want your internet service provider to be forced to tell third parties your personal details to enable them to sue you?
Will it soon be illegal to use any technology that allows the user to communicate securely and privately with other internet users? Some restrictions of privacy are needed for national security and to prevent certain major social ills like paedophilia. The music and movie industry are important money earners for the country.
However, the right of citizens to privacy is more important. They need to find other ways, other than coercing the public, to get paid. The entertainment industry depends on the goodwill of the public. They should not be attacking their best current and future customers through the courts.
Government must get involved to ensure that both copyright owners and internet users are treated fairly. What prevents this is the fact that both the movie and music industry are run by a small number of very large corporations.
These have a vested interest in preventing change and the development of technology. They want to ban file sharing as it reduces their power by allowing new competitors to enter their market. They want more restrictive laws to protect their dominant position and to reduce the effect of technological change. They want to slow down or prevent the move from physical to electronic media.
For internet users the real solution would be to water down copyright by extending fair use. This would stimulate creativity and benefit everyone. Fair use could be strengthened in legislation. In a similar way to how the government legislates in favour of public service broadcasting. The Fair use exception to copyright could be extended to include the non commercial sharing of files when done directly between individuals at home.
The problem is that the government does not like intervening in commercial markets. Also, both the music and movie industries have powerful lobbies that aim to protect and strengthen their position. Their press releases are widely reported linking file sharing to lost sales and therefore lost jobs.
However, qualitative research has found that, no-one trusts their claims of lost sales and lost jobs. In fact, even those people who do believe the figures reported largely aren't concerned because of the general perception of the huge profits these industries make and the perception that this is the result of ripping off the general public.
In the US since last September, the recording industry sued more than 4,100 file sharers for damages of up to half a million dollars each. At least 600 of those cases have been settled for approximately $3000 each.
These cases depended on internet service providers providing the private details of alleged copyright infringers. The record industry is planning to take similar action in the United Kingdom. If this happens what users do in the privacy of their own home on their computers will come under the scrutiny of outside parties. Ordinary law abiding middle class parents and their children will be criminalised for the non commercial sharing of music on to their computers with their online friends.
Recording a movie or a music clip on a video recorder (VCR) at home is allowed as it is not for profit only convenience. It is essentially deemed fair use of copyright material. There are no police raids on VCR owners to check what they are recording and for how long they are keeping recordings. File sharing should be in the same position if it is private, non-commercial, done at home directly between individuals. An individual’s right to privacy is more important than copyright and should therefore have greater protection.
I want the freedom I was born with. In a free country privacy in our personal and social life should be an absolute right. The state should only breach an individual’s privacy to protect society from terrorism or some other major social ill, such as paedophilia. We should not have our privacy invaded to enable the recording industry to maximise its profits.
Sorry for such a long post but I had to get this off my chest.
Napster was king. It was free and had millions of users innocently sharing music. The sharing was done privately one to one directly between home internet users. Then the US judiciary shut it down. Big business and the government told the public that file sharers were pirates and that the law could stop them.
The selfless act of privately sharing files with friends was theft like stealing from a shop. Only instead of physical goods intellectual property was being stolen, the copyright owner’s rights were being infringed.
The effect of this was to make privacy a dirty word. Big business wanted to snoop on its customers. They said to protect them from music pirates and poor quality unauthorised products and services. They want to see into your home, on to your computer hard disc to check if you have been sharing any of their property with your friends. They want to find out your name and address from your internet service provider (ISP). They reassure us, the public by saying, “If you aren’t guilty you have nothing to fear.”
The protection of copyright and other types of intellectual property benefits everyone. If someone uses their time and creative energy to create a song, book, theatrical play or film then they should own it and be able to benefit from it commercially. But how far should that protection go.
US law states that using copyrighted works, "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not copyright infringement."
This type of fair use is an exception to copyright. But how far does fair use extend? Is making a back-up copy of a compact disc on your computer, theft or fair use? Is sharing your compact discs with family and friends, copyright infringement or fair use? Is sharing the personal contents of your computer privately with a social acquaintance free of charge, piracy or fair use?
Are we allowed some privacy to do as we want for no commercial gain or is privacy no longer allowed? Yet freedom of speech depends on privacy. Do we trust big business so much that we are prepared to allow them to access our personal details so that they can track where we go and what we do online?
In the movie Jurassic Park the creator of the park said, “Life will find a way.” It is the same with internet file sharing whatever the barriers put up by government and big business people will find a way to exchange information in a secure, private and efficient way. This is what people want and we live in a democracy. The internet cannot be un-invented.
This is borne out by the figures. Since July of 2004, the internet file sharing population has jumped by 15% despite the lawsuits brought about by the recorded music industry. (ITIC, IT Innovations and Concepts, a Canadian research firm specializing in piracy and file-sharing trends.) One of the main drivers for broadband is file sharing. The range and number of files that are available to download from other internet users’ computers using file sharing is far greater than those offered from commercial download services such as iTunes. Consumers recognise this and so vote with their feet.
Yet artists need to be adequately compensated for their work. Without copyright there would be no music or movie industry. Copyrighted works and the rights to their exploitation belong to their creators. These rights are valuable. So it is fair that the rights owners solely should decide what rights to sell for what price. When you buy a compact disc you only buy the right to listen not to distribute the music on it. A consumer would have to pay much more to purchase the right to use the music in say a movie. It is up to the copyright owner to set the price for each right. They own it. It is their property.
File sharers are not opposed to copyright but don’t think that their privacy should be invaded to protect the rights of copyright owners. Non-commercial personal sharing of files directly between individuals during social activities in the privacy of their own homes should be allowed. In a free society privacy should be a right that everyone enjoys in their personal and social life.
Ensuring artist are compensated is a separate issue. There are many ways to achieve this without invading home internet users privacy.
For example, a duty could be charged on recordable CD ROMs and broadband connections. The revenue generated could then be distributed to copyright owners to compensate them for the partial loss of their rights caused by broadband and recordable CD ROM use.
File sharing should not be a crime. It is a spontaneous social service set up by a community of internet users for other online users. It is like a library but instead of sharing books, files are shared. What are missing are the necessary regulations to ensure that copyright owners are compensated. That is what is needed.
The private non-commercial sharing of files should be deemed fair use. The ability to communicate privately over the internet is needed to preserve a free society. Countries with repressive regimes such as China and Saudi Arabia monitor and restrict what their citizens can access over the internet. We are born with our right to privacy. We should not give it up lightly.
So how should the rights of copyright holders to receive financial compensation for the use of their works and the right to privacy of home internet users to share files within their online community be balanced. Copyright depends on consumer consent. So the solution should involve consent. When coercion is used to solve social problems, we all suffer. It usually fails to achieve its aims instead it reduces the rights and freedoms of all.
Government could pass laws forcing internet service providers to disclose the personal details of users using home computers suspected of sharing copyright material. They could ban file sharing by monitoring internet use to prevent it. In the end all internet traffic could be monitored not just for words relating to bomb plots or terrorist conspiracies but for words like “Eminem” or “Beatles” that hint at the sharing of copyright material. Then what next, monitoring emails to stop tax evasion, domestic violence or recreational drug use?
How far will the invasion of our privacy go? Already, our shopping transactions are monitored by loyalty card systems, journeys by close circuit TV and soon our identity by ID cards.
Say your teenage son or daughter has been downloading the latest Eninem compact disc track, from another teenager friend while at home in their bedroom. Do you really want your internet service provider to be forced to tell third parties your personal details to enable them to sue you?
Will it soon be illegal to use any technology that allows the user to communicate securely and privately with other internet users? Some restrictions of privacy are needed for national security and to prevent certain major social ills like paedophilia. The music and movie industry are important money earners for the country.
However, the right of citizens to privacy is more important. They need to find other ways, other than coercing the public, to get paid. The entertainment industry depends on the goodwill of the public. They should not be attacking their best current and future customers through the courts.
Government must get involved to ensure that both copyright owners and internet users are treated fairly. What prevents this is the fact that both the movie and music industry are run by a small number of very large corporations.
These have a vested interest in preventing change and the development of technology. They want to ban file sharing as it reduces their power by allowing new competitors to enter their market. They want more restrictive laws to protect their dominant position and to reduce the effect of technological change. They want to slow down or prevent the move from physical to electronic media.
For internet users the real solution would be to water down copyright by extending fair use. This would stimulate creativity and benefit everyone. Fair use could be strengthened in legislation. In a similar way to how the government legislates in favour of public service broadcasting. The Fair use exception to copyright could be extended to include the non commercial sharing of files when done directly between individuals at home.
The problem is that the government does not like intervening in commercial markets. Also, both the music and movie industries have powerful lobbies that aim to protect and strengthen their position. Their press releases are widely reported linking file sharing to lost sales and therefore lost jobs.
However, qualitative research has found that, no-one trusts their claims of lost sales and lost jobs. In fact, even those people who do believe the figures reported largely aren't concerned because of the general perception of the huge profits these industries make and the perception that this is the result of ripping off the general public.
In the US since last September, the recording industry sued more than 4,100 file sharers for damages of up to half a million dollars each. At least 600 of those cases have been settled for approximately $3000 each.
These cases depended on internet service providers providing the private details of alleged copyright infringers. The record industry is planning to take similar action in the United Kingdom. If this happens what users do in the privacy of their own home on their computers will come under the scrutiny of outside parties. Ordinary law abiding middle class parents and their children will be criminalised for the non commercial sharing of music on to their computers with their online friends.
Recording a movie or a music clip on a video recorder (VCR) at home is allowed as it is not for profit only convenience. It is essentially deemed fair use of copyright material. There are no police raids on VCR owners to check what they are recording and for how long they are keeping recordings. File sharing should be in the same position if it is private, non-commercial, done at home directly between individuals. An individual’s right to privacy is more important than copyright and should therefore have greater protection.
I want the freedom I was born with. In a free country privacy in our personal and social life should be an absolute right. The state should only breach an individual’s privacy to protect society from terrorism or some other major social ill, such as paedophilia. We should not have our privacy invaded to enable the recording industry to maximise its profits.
Sorry for such a long post but I had to get this off my chest.