Do you believe file sharing is illegal?

[Joe Fields]

A locked post put this question in my mind. Personally, I don't believe it is any more illegal than going to a library, borrowing a book, then loaning that book to a friend, so they can read it.

I have purchased four full record collections in my life, and spent untold thousands of dollars on vinyl and cd's. I paid 18 dollars for Limewire Pro and have had all the access I ever wanted. I have built an impressive collection of music.

I cannot see paying money for i-tunes or whatever, when you can go to a music "library" such as Limewire, or other file sharers. What say you?

Is file sharing illegal?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. It's all property of the muse.

:shrug:

[mainegreen]

2. Depends on what you download. File sharing per se is not illegal.

[ghostsofgiants]

3. Well whether or not it's illegal is a matter of law, but whether or not it SHOULD be illegal...

That's another question.

I download, I share, and I buy.

And if people really want to talk about artists getting fucked over and not getting paid for their work, they should take it up with record labels who treat talent like shit, not fans.

[GirlinContempt]

8. You know the levy on CDs, Tapes and DVDs?

That protects us, consumers, from being sued in Canada.
We pay the levy, we're legally free and clear.
And the court ruling, too. That helped.

[petronius]

20. But doesn't that mean that people who are not using the CDs for copyrighted material

are paying for those that do? I've heard the suggestion that media and hardware should all have a fee attached to them that goes to teh recording industry - I hate the idea, because I don't use my computer for file sharing. Why should I pay for those that do?

[GirlinContempt]

28. Yeah, it does.

Oh well. It started way before file sharing, it's the way it is *shrug*

[huskerlaw]

4. It's not like borrowing a library book

because you never give the music back. It's much more like stealing the library book. Furthermore, if the "sharing" continues past the person who bought the CD sharing with one person, it's not like a library at all.

For example, let's say Person A buys a CD and uploads it onto Limewire. You come along and download it. Then you upload it and share it with X, Y, and Z. X, Y, and Z share it with...etc. You can't do that with a library book. You'd get fined for not returning it, right? Plus, you, the original "borrower," now "own" the music, as does everyone that you "lent" it to. You don't get to own your library book, at least not without paying for it.

In order for everyone to "own" the library book, each person that you loaned it to would have to make a copy of it. Guess what? That's copyright infringement. As is downloading music.

Regardless, I don't judge people who do it...I've done it on occasion myself. But I prefer iTunes.

[philosophie_en_rose]

7. I agree.

The library analogy would work, if the physical CD was passed around between friends. Even if it were passed around to twenty people, only one person has one CD at a time. The equivalent to downloading music is scanning an entire book and posting the scans all over the internet. You're not lending your copy to anyone.


I don't judge anyone that downloads entertainment of dubious origin. I'm certainly not above watching a Youtube video of uncertain legality. However, I don't think the library analogy is a particularly strong defense.

[GirlinContempt]

9. It's more like the photocopier in the middle of the library.

[Joe Fields]

14. Okay, bad analogy. Try this one. It's more like sticking a vhs tape in your

vcr and recording a show. As long as I don't try and sell that vhs recording, I am free to tape the show. And, if the music business and the makers of cd's and cd recording equipment aren't somehow held responsible for making it possible to download unprotected music, then why should I be held responsible? And, as far as unprotected music goes, why is it not protected by technology from piracy?

[huskerlaw]

16. Still not a good analogy.

It would be like recording the TV show and then posting it on the internet for anyone to download for free.

As for your argument about the unprotected music...if I leave my house unlocked, should you be legally entitled to steal all my stuff? Perhaps I'm negligent in not locking the door, but you're still criminally responsible for theft.

[Joe Fields]

21. No different than loaning it to your friend for them to watch, or copy.

Did Van Gough recieve royalties every time one of his paintings got sold, long after he originally sold it? Does G.M. get a share of every used Chevy that gets sold? As I understand it, what Napster did was illegal, but I fail to see how what file sharers like Limewire do are illegal. It's just an audio library.

[huskerlaw]

24. Unless you have thousands of friends

who could access that VCR tape simultaneously and keep the contents for themselves, then no, it's not the same thing.

And again, it's not a library.

[Joe Fields]

27. many people see it differently, but I'm sure the courts will decide,

once and for all.

[huskerlaw]

29. They have decided.

It's illegal.

[Joe Fields]

35. Which case are yoiu talking about?

[huskerlaw]

38. Condescending much?

But since you asked oh so nicely...

A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d at 1014 (C.A. 9, 2001)

MGM v. Grokster, 259 F.Supp.2d 1029 (C.D. Cal. 2003)

MGM v. Grokster, 454 F.Supp.2d 966 (C.D. Cal. 2006)

Among others. The law is that the file-sharing software is legal, because it has a potentially legal purpose (sharing files that are not subject to copyright). However, the 3rd party/end users (that would be YOU) are liable for copyright infringement when using the file-sharing software.

Thanks for playing.

Next time, maybe, don't act superior when you don't know what you're talking about, 'kay?

[Joe Fields]

39. I know about the Napster case. Different than Limewire.

You just love to argue with me, don't you. Good practice for a lawyer, I guess. Anyway, it's just a thread. I download for free, am guilt free, and I guess that's that.

[huskerlaw]

40. Aspects of it are different, yes

However, the part about end-user copyright infringement is relevant. And I believe that's what you were asking about.

I don't care if you download or not, I stated that many hours ago. What I do care about is you calling me "Perry Mason" in a derogatory way and insinuating that I don't know what I'm talking about. When, in fact, you are the one who is misinformed.

And where do you get off calling me argumentative when YOU are the one who asked me what cases they were? If you don't want an answer, don't ask. Pretty simple, really.

[Joe Fields]

41. I'm trying to behave. By the way, how's the traffic in L.A.?

[huskerlaw]

42. That's behaving? Alrighty.

Traffic is fine. I've managed to go a whole 1.5 years without getting lost.

I must be some sort of wonder woman, since we all know that regular people can't figure this city out.

[Joe Fields]

43. I know that Limewire hasn't been shut down. I also have a pretty

good feeling that you weren't consulted in any pending cases. I also know that there is a group in Cleveland that is preparing to sue Limewire and it's end users. See? I read the papers.

[huskerlaw]

44. Could you at least TRY to read my comments?

The courts have held that the software is legal, that's why it hasn't been shut down. However, the end-users (YOU) are liable for copyright infringement when using that software to download copyrighted material.

Did I ever say I was consulted? Nope. Have I read the cases? Yep. I'm guessing you haven't.

[Joe Fields]

46. That still doesn't explain why Limewire and other file sharers haven't

been shut down.

[huskerlaw]

47. Yes, it does

The courts have held that the software, in and of itself, is not illegal. Why would they shut it down if it's not illegal?

What IS illegal is what some people use it for...specifically, downloading copyrighted material.

Try thinking of it this way. It's legal for Ford to make a car that can go 75 miles per hour, because there could be a legal way to use that car while driving at that speed...say, on an interstate. However, drivers can still be held legally responsible for driving it 75 mph in a 25 mph zone. The product itself is legal, the way it was used was not.

Just because the car CAN go 75, it is not always legal to do so. But since sometimes it is, Ford can make a car that goes that fast. But, again, if the driver chooses to use it illegally, they're held criminally responsible.

I don't think it can be spelled out much more clearly than that.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

18. How about borrowing CD's from the library?

Then ripping them to an ipod? I've done that with a few books-on-cd, to take on long drives. The library gets the CDs back, so someone else can check them out, and I get to "read" a book without late fees.

Ripping the borrowed music CD's might be a little more "gray".

[stuntcat]

25. gray, and illegal I'm sure

but a few weeks ago I did it with a Carpenters cd :blush:

[huskerlaw]

32. Still technically illegal

but unlike when you download off of Limewire, they really have no way to catch you. Plus, you're likely just going to use it for yourself and maybe a few friends, not the entire world of the internet, so they're less concerned.

[Xithras]

5. Personally, I prefer to purchase my music.

I have better things to do with my time than to spend days going through poorly ripped MP3s with no track data, inconsistent album names, etc. I'd rather buy my music from a service like AllOfMP3. It's not free, but I know that the rips are of consistently high quality and are 100% guranteed to work perfectly, every time. Free services may be useful for college kids and people with lots of time on their hands, but I just want to get my music and go. If I spend 10 minutes putting an album together and loading it onto my MP3 player, that's about 9 minutes more than I WANT to spend. *click* *Buy Album* *click* *Download* *click* *Copy to Player* Done.

And to answer your question, of course it's illegal. The laws say you can't do it, therefore it's illegal. Now, whether it's wrong is a completely different question. Lots of things are illegal, but aren't actually wrong.

[Omphaloskepsis]

6. AllofMP3 is based in Russia.

They don't pay the artist or RIAA anything. The fact that you payed for it only means you got played. There is no legal difference between me grabbing a cd from the piratebay or you buying one from Allofmp3. Both are Copyright Infringement. I just got my shit for free.

[Xithras]

11. Played? Not hardly.

Legally, you may be right...or maybe not, the legality of AllOfMP3's music in the US is still the matter of some debate. It's legal in Russia, and we have a treaty with Russia which allows the importation of legal items purchased in foreign countries. Russia has shut down many piracy sites over the years, but they haven't killed AllOfMp3 because it resides in a legal gray area. The legal question for Americans, of course, is whether the purchase "took place" in Russia or the USA. If it happened in Russia, the purchase is protected by treaty and the RIAA can fluff off. If it happened in the USA, it's an act of piracy. So here's the great unanswered question...if I'm sitting in my US office, and transfer Euro's from my British I-Cash account to a Russian e-commerce retailer, which country did the transaction take place in? Who's law prevails? If it's Russia's, the transaction was legal and the music can be imported. If it's British, the purchase itself is legal, but the importation isn't. If it's US, both the purchase and importation were illegal. So far, no judge in the US has ruled about the legality, and no US law specifically addresses it. Until someone does, AllOfMP3 will continue to exist.

But the sites legality isn't really an issue to me. I don't buy my music because it's "right", I buy it because it's easy. I can buy a full album from AllOfMp3 for 20 cents a song. That gets me an uncompressed first generation 320k rip, with the track and album data fully populated. I can listen to full-length previews before I buy them, spacing between the tracks is guranteed to be consistent and clean, I can always find any album I'm looking for, and downloads are quick because I don't have to deal with some dick on the other end who decided to throttle his uploads at 1k/sec.

We end up with the same music, I just have a much easier time getting mine. The time savings alone is worth the very small expense.

[Deja Q]

13. Yet corporations want to offshore to Russia as well.

I hope they're note media or IT-based. "Hey you country with an 80% piracy rate, take our jobs for pennies on the dollar and you will prosper! We will pretend not to notice what you're doing behind our backs too!"

[Joe Fields]

23. I have better ways of spending what hard-earned money I make.

[Fox Mulder]

10. Sure it's illegal.

The law says so.

Now, I don't think it should be illegal, but that's another story.

FYI, I haven't paid for music in eight years.

[Joe Fields]

15. I've got no guilt in doing so. I've helped many a rock star pay for

their drug habits, their jet planes, their mansions, their divorces....

[ghostsofgiants]

31. Actually you've done that more so for record executives than you have rock stars, I reckon.

[Joe Fields]

36. very likely true.

[Deja Q]

12. If it's copyrighted, yes. Unless the owner puts it up for free download.

Which many have done; I recall a Commodore Amiga site; "Back to the Roots" - by playing nice, many companies who owned the copyrights allowed defunct commercial apps to be downloaded for free -- which is way cool.

[warrior1]

17. FYI

I've heard if you file share stuff on your computer, it's backdoor into your private information that anyone can steal. I wouldn't do it for that reason.

[Joe Fields]

22. You've heard, or you know for a fact?

[warrior1]

50. I heard from a person in law enforcement

who deals with cyber crimes.

[philosophie_en_rose]

52. It depends on the program.

There are ways to limit the files that are shared.

In addition, there are websites that post files online. No need for P2P.

[likesmountains 52]

19. I don't usually download any "new" music...most of what I look for is stuff

that I already have the album, the cassette tape and CD of...just trying to keep my music library in the latest format so I can still listen to it. I do not feel any guilt about not buying the song for the 4th time..

[HughBeaumont]

26. Not one or two songs. A whole CD, yes..

Before there was Amazon, Audio Galaxy, Napster, mp3.com, MySpace, or just the internet, period; you relied on word of mouth and someone else's opinion. College radio . . . well, if you live in Ohio, you know the station comes in crystal perfect when they're playing salsa. Metal, I don't know, for some reason it seems the wattage all of a sudden dropped like 50% - you had to be stationary, with your car facing a certain way, and even then three other stations are fighting for the airwaves. Anyway, I couldn't tell you how much money in the 80s I gave to groups who didn't deserve it simply because I wasn't allowed to try before I buy. Record stores didn't refund all of your money either if you purchased a bathub shitter - you only got back 20-30% of it at best, none at worst.

If a band doesn't have an mp3 or two of their songs on a website, I'm not buying a damned thing from them. Simple as that. I don't spend cash on a whim anymore. Don't make me guess how you sound; that's just bad business.

[ghostsofgiants]

30. "Don't make me guess how you sound"

I refuse to buy any album that I haven't downloaded and listened to a few times first.

[Mr. Blonde]

33. It is most definitely illegal

and probably should be. Meaning I also think it is wrong. But I still do it. It is kind of like speeding to most people I think. Sure it is against the law, but still kind of fun too.

When I have the money I am more inclined to buy CDs. Especially now with an iPod so I don't have to worry about carrying them around and getting them all scratched to hell.

The recording industry isn't doing itself any PR favors either. If they would cut back prices the same way Hollywood does DVDs, they would probably have less of a problem. You can get a DVD out 6 months for 10 bucks. The Wall still costs 30 fucking dollars nearly 30 years after release.

When I steal I have to say I feel better about going to see those bands live since that money actually goes to the band and not some asshole record exec.

[ContraBass Black]

34. Is driving a car illegal? No.

Is driving a car at 147 mph southbound in the northbound lanes on I-81 while drunk and not wearing a seatbelt? Yes.

"Is file sharing illegal?" No.

Is sharing music files for which sharing is forbidden by the copyright holder? Yes.

[LostInAnomie]

37. Is it illegal? Yes. Do I care? No.

I think it's funny hearing all these uber rich record execs and musicians bitching about how file sharing is stealing from them. Boo fucking Hoo! Before file sharing I got ripped off a million times by artists that put out shitty CDs with only one good track that I couldn't return (talk about theft). I couldn't care less if they can no longer afford a car made of gold with a built in coke grinder.

Fuck 'em.

[Mojambo]

48. Dude. We are so simpatico.

I'm pretty much off major label music anyway.

And when you're into indie stuff, filesharing is pretty much the only way to go when it comes to discovering new music. Especially if you don't have any good record stores near by.

[wildhorses]

45. why of course not

ain' this the land of the free:bounce:

anarchy:headbang:

[Neoma]

49. It isn't wrong if that is what you're asking.

Copyright laws piss me off personally:

http://www.eff.org/IP/freeculture/free.html
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html

Have fun.

[vi5]

51. Yes, it's illegal. No it's not ethically wrong....

2 different things. And mp3's are not the same things as cd's. They are digital replications of material contained on cd's. They are of lesser quality and they don't include any of the packaging or artwork. It's absolutely no different than when my friends would all buy cassettes and we would dub (inferior) copies from each other. We wouldn't get the artwork, and the quality would be inferior to if we bought it, but we'd get to hear the songs we loved.

[MilesColtrane]

53. "I cannot see paying money for i-tunes or whatever..."

Then what about downloading a movie or software?

Your reasoning would seem to indicate that you'd have no problem downloading, using, and sharing pirated versions of DVDs, movies, or games.

What do you say?