Americans, only you can stop this:

[Trolldeg]

http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9829826-38.html

[Bubba136]

Don't worry. There is an election comming and a lot of voters are not really happy with positions politicians are taking on this issue. There already is an active lobby directed towards defeating this legislation, or at least, diluting it's provisions to be less harsh.

[Dr. Shoe]

But what's the problem? Downloading music or any other intellectual material from a file-sharing site is theft pure and simple! It's as bad as going into the musician's home and stealing their CD collection. You Americans want to shoot burglars robbing your homes and yet you don't want stiff penalties for other forms of stealing! If you want music, you pay for it!

[Bubba136]

I was just letting Trolldeg know that there was an active effort to kill the bill (what legislation being considered in congress are called). However, I do agree with Dr. Shoe. It's just downright stealing. Penalties are very severe under this bill and, if it passes and becomes law, after the first few people are prosecuted for pirating and have to pay those huge fines, the practice will stop – at least here in the USA.

[BobHH]

Dr. Shoe's position is rather simplistic and unrealistic given the high price of buying music, the easy availability of music online, and the ease of downloading it. When candy is placed in front of a child and the child is punished for taking it, that is the wrong approach. If you don't want the child to take the candy, then don't put it there. The temptation should be removed. If downloading easily available music is wrong, then make it unavailable. Don't turn ordinary people into criminals, which too many people and the entertainment industry want to do. It isn't only file sharing services that do this. There are many music sources available to the casual explorer, and many have been listed by reputable sites as sources for free music. It isn't clear what music is still protected and what is not when visiting these places. Technology has overtaken old fashioned distribution systems, and the whole thing needs to be rethought. Unfortunately, the politicians who make the laws are often for sale to the highest bidder, so that is what usually influences the result. That's a whole other problem - elected officials are so money hungry for campaigning and re-election that they will do anything to get money, and to heck with the average constituents. At least in the USA. It may sound like I download lots of music, but my interests are in dance music, mostly older and less available stuff (Charleston, anyone?), and not currently popular music, so I don't.

[johnieheel]

Well I have to agree with Dr.Shoe and BobHH. It is wrong to steel so if they don't want anybody to steel their music, movies etc, then why put it on the internet in the first place. With all the technology in the world, which I no very little about, why can't they find some way of keeping it out from in front of your face and so easy to take?

[Bubba136]

BobHH commented:

It isn't only file sharing services that do this. There are many music sources available to the casual explorer,

One aspect of this issue that is highly contended it the "transfer of music from one person to another." From a person that bought and paid for the CD and then lends it to a friend who copies it onto a disc for his use.

Does the person that bought and paid for the CD have a right to let someone else, that hasn't paid for it, copy it? I believe most copyright notices include language that indicates that reproduction of the material in any form, without paying for it, isn't authorized.

Most people believe that when you buy something it becomes your property to do what you will with it and that the language against reproducing it doesn't matter because they own it.

One for the courts to figure out and, althought I might be wrong, I'm afraid that historical rendering of opinions have come down on the side of the producer (artist, musicians, etc).

[Dr. Shoe]

Indeed. If your friend buys a record then it is unlawful to allow another to copy it, it is the same for software. The only circumstances where copying is lawful is where you are transfering it to another medium for your own use. Even if you download from a paysite to your MP3 and then burn it onto CD for your car that can only be for your own use and passing this on to another party is conspiracy to steal and the friend will be guilty of theft. As far as temptation goes, you go into a supermarket and there is a wide range of goods in front of you but you wouldn't dream of walking out of the store without paying would you? If you don't know whether you should be paying for a track or not then try this simple test, ask yourself how much this track would cost on CD if you went into the store to buy it. If the answer is more than a couple of pounds or five dollars then you should be paying for it over the internet as well. Generally speaking though I would suggest that anyone other than a complete moron would know whether they were supposed to pay for their music or not. As far as making these people into criminals goes, that is exactly what a person is if they steal, whether it's music off the internet or a laptop from your house.

[at9]

All the laws and Digital Rights Management etc won't trouble the big boys, the ones who are really ripping off the artists and record companies. They'll just carry on exactly as before. On the other hand it's a real nuisance for those of us who want to make backup copies of our DVDs, use music tracks on different media etc. Back in the 1960s of course it was wrong to copy that Beatles LP on to cassette to give to a friend. It's still wrong to share your MP3 tracks now but let's get a sense of proportion into this. On the scale of crime from parking offences to murder where does it fall? The big losses to the industry are from the big pirate operations. The comparison with stealing physical goods is misguided. If I steal your car you don't have a car anymore. If I steal your music track you still have it to enjoy yourself.

[Bubba136]

at9, if it's wrong, it's wrong. There isn't any degree of wrongness. A crime is a crime. Although one crime might be more serious than another, any crime is still prosecutable. It's up to a judge to assign punishment.

[BobHH]

Dr. Shoe again: No, anyone other than a complete moron does not necessarily know whether they should pay for their music. Examples: Some music which is now widely available was originally posted as free by the artists on the Playlist.com site. Unfortunately, I think the site has been taken over by MacWorld and is no longer available. Songs from Rod Stewart's album "Still The Same," released earlier this year, are now available on a number of music sites. The whole album was available for free download on mp3.com by arrangement with the publishers. So it isn't completely clear.

[Dr. Shoe]

Yes but I suspect that this fact is made abundantly clear... and it is on an official website and not on Limewire...

[Bubba136]

Let's put a nail in this one! I'm sure that any website will clearly state if the music is free or tarrifed. If a "music downloader" wants to stay out of trouble, it's up to him to read (look for) conditions for downloading.

[Dr. Shoe]

Exactly my point. Any site like Limewire or Kazoo that has a lot of tracks available that should be paid for and the person viewing is aware that they should be paid for should be avoided in any case. Just go to legal downloading sites and if the tracks or podcasts are supposed to be free then they will be.

[Trolldeg]

It's not about the rights or wrongs of filesharing, it's about letting governments make stricter laws that violates the personal integrities of citizens. And by order from the big industries. Should we let 1984 become a reality just because a dying industry is desperate for money? When are these corporations going to realize that it is not a viable business strategy to sue a potential customer? "..but I see music as a river, and the water in a river is there for everyone and anyone that wants to have a sip can have a sip and have some water. Now somewhere along the line someone came up with the idea of putting the river water in bottles and selling the bottles of water. That's the record industry. Music is a river, music is water, and the bottling company is the industry, and it's not inherently evil, because it's frankly, convenient to have water in a bottle, so if you're driving in your car and you're thirsty you don't have to drive to the nearest river and take a sip, you can just reach down and take a sip out of your bottle. The same way if I'm driving in my car and I want to hear a song, I don't have to drive over to the people's house and ask them to play it for me, I can put the CD in and listen to it, or turn on the radio. Where it gets ugly is that when the bottling company, since their aim is to make money-- at some point they may have thought like, "Let's bottle this water and that way we can share the healthful qualities of water with all the people." At some point it becomes, "This is our industry, we need to make money, and how can we increase profits?" Well, the way to increase profits is to try to discourage people from going to the river, and having to buy the bottled water. And they'll start with that but eventually what they're going to get into is they're going to start blocking the river or they're going to poison the river. But water is always moving, and it's very difficult to poison a river, very hard indeed. And that's the good news about music, it can't be stopped, it will always happen, people will always make music, and regardless of whether or not there's money to be made form it or not, it's still going to happen, it can't be stopped. So in my mind with the sales of records, the industry has done their best to claim ownership of music but they don't-- they only own the things that they sell, so when people who are songwriters say, "That's my property and if you give it away for free then I lose my incentive," then, well, good riddance." -Ian Mackaye, Fugazi

[Dr. Shoe]

It's not about the rights or wrongs of filesharing, it's about letting governments make stricter laws that violates the personal integrities of citizens. And by order from the big industries. Should we let 1984 become a reality just because a dying industry is desperate for money?

When are these corporations going to realize that it is not a viable business strategy to sue a potential customer?

What personal integrities would they be then Trolldeg? The right to help yourself to other peoples' property whenever you feel like it? Of course they're desperate for money, people like you keep on stealing from them!

If a person walks into Walmart a steals are they a customer or a thief? Do you think that they would regard this person as a potential customer? It is a viable business strategy to deter other thieves by prosecuting all they can catch and having them sent to prison for 10 years.

[Bubba136]

Trolldeg, it's hard for me to “square” your attitude about unauthorized reproduction of intellectual property when you are attempting to make your living as a graphic artist. Music and artistic creations are identical in that if someone appropriates your graphic renditions without your permission or reimbursing you for your work, it’s aginst the law – no matter how much you want it not to be. Besides, copyright laws are actually a matter of treaty between nations since The 1886 Berne Convention first established recognition of copyrights among sovereign nations.

[Trolldeg]

What personal integrities would they be then Trolldeg? The right to help yourself to other peoples' property whenever you feel like it?

I actually thought you would be able to carry a debate at a higher level than this.

Do you want the IFPI and MPA to have the right to monitor ALL your internet activity, just to check if you MIGHT do something that infringes on their "intellectual property"?

Do you want the state to tap into all you phone conversations just to check if you MIGHT be a terrorist?

Of course they're desperate for money, people like you keep on stealing from them!

It's not stealing. When something is copied the original is still there. Call it for what it is, copyright infringement, not stealing. You really have adopted the "newspeak" of the copyright lobby. Orwell turns in his grave.

Everything on the internet is copied to your computer when you choose to watch it.

If a person walks into Walmart a steals are they a customer or a thief? Do you think that they would regard this person as a potential customer? It is a viable business strategy to deter other thieves by prosecuting all they can catch and having them sent to prison for 10 years.

See above.

[JNR]

Trolldeg wrote:

It's not stealing. When something is copied the original is still there.

As talented as you are, Trolldeg, I certainly hope you'll remember this when you make it "big" (and, you will) and someone misuses your work.

[Dr. Shoe]

I actually thought you would be able to carry a debate at a higher level than this.

Higher than what? If you were debating the rights and wrongs with a burglar caught carrying a laptop out of your house, what sort of plane would that reach?

Do you want the IFPI and MPA to have the right to monitor ALL your internet activity, just to check if you MIGHT do something that infringes on their "intellectual property"?

Do you want the state to tap into all you phone conversations just to check if you MIGHT be a terrorist?

If you aren't what does it matter?

It's not stealing. When something is copied the original is still there. Call it for what it is, copyright infringement, not stealing. You really have adopted the "newspeak" of the copyright lobby. Orwell turns in his grave.

Everything on the internet is copied to your computer when you choose to watch it.

But you're denying the Artist, the Songwriter, the Session musicians, the investors and everybody connected and credited with the production of a fair income for their work! You're also forcing the record company to put a lot of people out of work... Copyright infringement is as much a theft as my example before... Suppose someone took some of your work, reproduced it thousands of times and sold them for $100 each, would you want a cut of the profits or not? Would you consider taking him to court to force him to hand it over? I suggest you answer truthfully because if you say that you wouldn't then you will be condemning yourself to a lifetime where other people will profit from your work...

You may have stuff on your computer to watch later but if it wasn't free or public domain then you'd better have paid for it.

[Trolldeg]

If you aren't what does it matter?

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

[Dr. Shoe]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

But your liberties are not under threat - at all!

No one is trying to stop you using the internet or your phone, they're just planning to monitor the usage. To be honest they've been doing it for years, they just want legislation so that now you know that they're doing it.

If it hadn't been for people using it as a tool to commit criminal acts then this legislation would not be neccesary.

[euchrid]

Not wanting to take sides here guys but would like to point out that there's a positive aspect to "free" distribution of music.

Wider distribution through all channels - mates passing out copies, Napster downloads, personal copying of lending library CD's or whatever - leads to an increased fanbase for the artists. The larger fanbase may well then "reimburse" the artists through there longterm support, making many future purchases (media, gig tickets, merchandise, etc.) that they would otherwise never ever have bought!

This has been my own experience many times over and it's particularly true of artists who have not achieved wide media exposure.

The Robbie Williams and Kylie Minogues of this world are not going to go hungry through CD copying, whereas up-and-coming artists might never achieve any degree of fame, wealth, success, recognition, etc. unless people obtain free (or cheap) copies of their music.

This appears to have been recognised by the majority of artists - check out the thousands of MySpace Music pages where their "free" tracks can be listened to as many times as you want.

[Dr. Shoe]

Indeed, but you will notice that the free music ceases as soon as they make the big time.

It is also true to say that sampling free music can lead to a greater fanbase but the people who habitually download pirate music are not the sort of people who will eventually start buying music legally.

Radiohead recently sold their album for whatever the downloader was prepared to pay. Something like 90% of them paid nothing. This is because they are so used to stealing music they thought nothing of it - and these were mainly existing fans.

[Bubba136]

Lighten up, Trolldeg! No worries mate. With reasoning like yours, no Swedish court will ever convict you.

[Trolldeg]

But your liberties are not under threat - at all!

Of course they are, you're just to afraid to see it.

No one is trying to stop you using the internet or your phone, they're just planning to monitor the usage. To be honest they've been doing it for years, they just want legislation so that now you know that they're doing it.

If it hadn't been for people using it as a tool to commit criminal acts then this legislation would not be neccesary.

Perhaps we should open every letter people send too? In case they send illeagal things to each other? Or to track down thoughts that we don't want them to have?

[Trolldeg]

It is also true to say that sampling free music can lead to a greater fanbase but the people who habitually download pirate music are not the sort of people who will eventually start buying music legally.

And what do you base that on? I have read numerous accounts of people who buy more music and movies since they started file sharing, because they discover so much new culture that they never had come in contact with before.

Also, ther have been several studies published claiming that there is no correleation between file sharing and the decline in music sales.

Radiohead recently sold their album for whatever the downloader was prepared top pay. Something like 90% of them paid nothing. This is because they are so used to stealing music they thought nothing of it - and these were mainly existing fans.

WRONG.

According to Comscore, 62% choose not to pay. Those who paid, paid $5.7 on average. The average income per album landed on $2.1.

Those figures, however, are according to Radiohead wrong:

"In response to purely speculative figures announced in the press regarding the number of downloads and the price paid for the album, the group’s representatives would like to remind people that, as the album could only be downloaded from the band’s website, it is impossible for outside organisations to have accurate figures on sales.

The figures quoted by the company comScore Inc are wholly inaccurate and in no way reflect definitive market intelligence or, indeed, the true success of the project."

http://www.e-consultancy.com/news-blog/364550/radiohead-savage-comscore-s-wholly-inaccurate-figures.html

But even if the numbers were correct, it's still more than the band would have gotten throug the usual channels with record companies and distribution.

[Dr. Shoe]

And what do you base that on? I have read numerous accounts of people who buy more music and movies since they started file sharing, because they discover so much new culture that they never had come in contact with before.

Also, ther have been several studies published claiming that there is no correleation between file sharing and the decline in music sales.

WRONG.

According to Comscore, 62% choose not to pay. Those who paid, paid $5.7 on average. The average income per album landed on $2.1.

Those figures, however, are according to Radiohead wrong:

"In response to purely speculative figures announced in the press regarding the number of downloads and the price paid for the album, the group’s representatives would like to remind people that, as the album could only be downloaded from the band’s website, it is impossible for outside organisations to have accurate figures on sales.

The figures quoted by the company comScore Inc are wholly inaccurate and in no way reflect definitive market intelligence or, indeed, the true success of the project."

http://www.e-consultancy.com/news-blog/364550/radiohead-savage-comscore-s-wholly-inaccurate-figures.html

But even if the numbers were correct, it's still more than the band would have gotten throug the usual channels with record companies and distribution.

Ok, it was 62% but it still supports my view that the majority of the FANS, not new listeners, refused to pay!

I have yet to meet a single "filesharer" who has paid for any of their music for about 5 years...

[Bubba136]

I often wonder why it is so difficult for some people to realize that if something is "wrong," is it simply wrong! Saying that file sharing or downloading music without paying for it results in greater sales is like saying robbing banks increases the economic activity in a community because the people that rob the banks spend the money in stores buying stuff. Civil behavior, developed over several hundred years, is suddenly worthless because people living in today's society believe they have the right to abide the laws they think are right and disobey those that they feel are wrong. That's fine with me. However, anyone breaking the law should be prepared to accept the consequences of their conduct. And, the consequences are doled by those that enforce the law. It doesn't bother me one bit if people like Trolldeg want to download all the music their computer can hold as long as they understand from the "git go" that if they get caught, it might cost them dearly for their infringment. (I seriously doubt that this would happen in Sweden, however.)

[Dr. Shoe]

Indeed. If you know that filesharing is illegal so why do ity? It is because it is so rife and costing , in fact seriously hurting, the industry so much that they had to push to introduce these laws and the penalties that go with them to stamp it out. If folk hadn't started this then our so called "civil liberties" would not be at risk! It is little wonder that the people who are complaining the most are those who want to break the law.