I have a question about MP3 filesharing.

[AndyHammond1970]

I have a question as to why this is viewed as illegal. How does it differ from these everday situations that already exist.

1) Blockbuster, Movie Gallery, etc. all buy movies on VHS and DVD that are copyrighted material and are allowed to lend them for profit to customres and no one thinks this is against the law.

2) Libraries do the exact same thing with books at no charge as well,
and many loan records and cds too. No one thinks this is illegal

3) you can take a DVR or hard drive recorder or VCR and tape a copyrighted movie or TV program.

It seems to me that once the original purchaser buys an album then they should be allowed to share that file with people as long as they are not charging money for it. I think that filesharing is killing the music industry is total bull anyway.

i wanted to hear other opinions realted to this.
thanks
andyhammond1970

[lazarus]

1. basically

the RIAA made an idiotic argument that the Napster lawyers didn't realise was crap. They were arguing that content is what you're purchasing. If this was true, I could register my CD, and get a replacement for the cost of the materials if it was destroyed, just like software.

[no one in particular]

2. Its just the death throes of an outdated industry.

Copyright law has been been stretched to outrageous proportions and these people don't want to get off the golden teat.

If we're lucky, this might even get some young people off their Big Mac enhanced asses and become more politically aware.

[Against ME]

3. For one, they are not illegally copying them

The problem with filesharing, is that you are illegally copying, and redistributing the product. If you record a movie off TV, you cannot sell that movie. Everytime you share a file, you have basically created a copy, and it is illegal to copy and distribute a copywrited material. If you buy a CD, you own that CD, you can sell it lend it do whatever you want, but the Musician owns the music on that CD, so once the music leaves the CD, you in essence no longer own it, and so it is copyright infringment.

[tkmorris]

4. Interesting argument

I had the same thought; the only thing that could even reasonably be argued that makes it different than those other sources the original post mentioned is that a copy is created.

Try this on though. Say I made all of my music collection available via the net, except you couldn't copy it. On demand it would play in a streaming format. Is there a problem with this?

The library comparison is quite valid in my view. Anyone who wants to read a book can simply check it out of the library and return it when done. There is no need for anyone to ever buy another book firsthand. They do though. There is a sizable population that always will. I think the music industry is similar. Filesharing of MP3's doesn't mean that no one will buy CD's.

[Mechatanketra]

5. Just a thing or two ...

You're right about distributing copies being illegal, but to clarify, chances are the musician does not "own the music on that CD". 99% of the time, their record label does, thanks to the unfortunate (and arguably unconstitutional) "work for hire" clause of copyright law.

Also, it isn't the copying itself that's illegal, but distributing copies. You're allowed to make all the copies you want as long as they stay in your basement (metaphorically speaking).

[lazarus]

6. actually

You can distribute copies as long as you don't charge for them. At least, that was the case law back in the '70s, when the record companies screamed that cassette tapes were going to destroy the industry.

[leftofthedial]

7. fair use is the key

The digital Consumer's Union has a pretty good handle on this.

Bill of Rights

Regardless of the labels' unfair business practices, on average $1.72 out of the purchase price of every CD DOES in fact go to artists (performers and songwriters). Every illegal copy you make takes money out of the pockets of artists.