File sharing: Legality and applicability

[El Greco]

The Internet is full of file sharing applications. You don't have to know the alleys and the paths of Internet like the back of your hand anymore in order to find anything you want. The latest releases of music, movies, applications, games etc. are readily available for download, sometimes even before they hit the stores. Many questions spring from this situation:

1) How can the authorities or the companies decisively stop the illegal activities ? Can anyone in his right mind expect that the situation is reversible ?
2) What could the long-term implications for music, video and software industry be ? Their profits don't seem to go down, so could file sharing serve as a way of improving quality/ lowering prices ?
3) If people practically "legalize" file sharing, what is the meaning of keeping it illegal ? And anyway, what have been the results of keeping music copies illegal for decades ? Wasn't it a moot prohibition ?
4) Why do many companies contribute to all this by knowingly implementing weak protection schemes ? Perhaps availability and fame are more important to them than protection ?

[ceptimus]

The companies should lower the cost of the items they sell. If a software company or music CD supplier reduces their selling price by 50%, then they reduce the amount of money 'pirated' by 50% also.

But wait! It gets better - if the cost is only half as much, more people will buy the goods anyway, instead of bothering with the pirated versions, so the money value of the pirated goods may reduce by much more than 50%, and the company selling the product may end up making just as much, or more money, by selling an increased volume of goods, at the lower price.

Photocopiers have been around for years, and cameras for years before that, but when was the last time you photocopied or photographed a book, rather than buy your own copy? I realize this is not really a fair comparison, as it is much less hassle to clone a CD than to photocopy a book. My point though is that with paperback books selling at $10 or less, not even pirates can be bothered to copy them.

[Powa]

The problem with music CDs is that you usually only want two or three songs on a CD and yet have to pay for the remaining crap. This was ideal for music companies and they made oodles of money that way. Music CDs as they are now are on the way out. Online purchase of individual songs is the way to go. That means lover revenue for the music companies and the artists, but hey, they were selling us loads of crap for far too long, and now we're wiser and also have means to get songs for free (albeit illegaly). So they'd better kiss our a**es and beg us to buy anything at all.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I guess the whole music thing wasn't so much of a problem back when artists put out albums that had lots of good songs, rather than only two or three. Or maybe people's musical tastes have become more sophisticated. Yeah, that must be it.

Ceptimus said:
The companies should lower the cost of the items they sell. If a software company or music CD supplier reduces their selling price by 50%, then they reduce the amount of money 'pirated' by 50% also.
If they would just make the albums free, then they wouldn't lose any money at all! I'm sure they'd make up for it in volume, though.

~~ Paul

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by ceptimus
The companies should lower the cost of the items they sell. If a software company or music CD supplier reduces their selling price by 50%, then they reduce the amount of money 'pirated' by 50% also.

But wait! It gets better - if the cost is only half as much, more people will buy the goods anyway, instead of bothering with the pirated versions, so the money value of the pirated goods may reduce by much more than 50%, and the company selling the product may end up making just as much, or more money, by selling an increased volume of goods, at the lower price.



Oh, if only things were that easy. Then we could give EVERYTHING away FOR FREE and make up the revenue on VOLUME!



Photocopiers have been around for years, and cameras for years before that, but when was the last time you photocopied or photographed a book, rather than buy your own copy? I realize this is not really a fair comparison, as it is much less hassle to clone a CD than to photocopy a book. My point though is that with paperback books selling at $10 or less, not even pirates can be bothered to copy them.

Personally, I've met people who have bought cheap ($400) Chinese bootlegs of the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians ($1200), just to have a copy for themselves. I always just went to the library. Now Grove is a subscription service.

Personally, I've spent well into my 40's living in rental property and barely getting by while working a day job in order to bring to the market two market-quality CDs (see my home page for details). I'm not very impressed by the looting mentality which I see repeated endlessly here and elsewhere on the net.

El Greco originally asked about consequences. Here's the consequences I think are likely to come about:

[list=1]
The burying of quality music in reams of amateurism--a further aggravation of the usual state of things.
The inability of major publishing and record companies to use big-earner projects to subsidize more varied, prestigious but narrow-niche fair like jazz, classical music, Alternative rock, and "oldies" (anything over ten years old). A consequent narrowing of the range of available commercial-quality recordings, a gap not filled by improved quality of amateur hardware because even pro hardware sounds amateurish in amateur hands.
The foundering and failure of publishing and recording companies, which are bought out by technology providers (can you say AOL-Time-Warner?).
The transference of "centralized power" from recording and publishing companies to technology companies (instead of Sony Classics owning the content, you'll have to pay Sony Electronics for the hardware while content creators get cut out of the deal altogether).
And finally--a blossoming of creators who refuse to be recorded anywhere ever, whose wares can only be sampled in person--by customers who pass through a TSA-like security system.
[/list=1]

That's my short brainstorm of ideas on where this is leading.

I expect to be roundly flamed for saying these things, but frankly, I'd rather tell 'em like I see 'em and get flamed for it than pretend it ain't so.

[Hand Bent Spoon]

It should be noted here that file sharing in and of itself is not illegal. Only the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material is what is being called into question.

It should also be noted that file sharing has not been shown to have a negative impact on album sales. Study: File-Sharing No Threat (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34300-2004Mar29.html) (This study agrees with an earlier AT&T Labs/Forrester Research study on the topic).

And to all you artists out there, remember that you only gain fans if people can actually hear/read or work. Restrict your work too much and it will be appreciated by no one except yourself. You will either be dragged kicking and screaming into the future, or you will be left in the past with no audience at all.

[andycal]

Of course, this whole argument is based on only one area of the market, that of the software (be it music, video or programs).

Look at it from the hardware vendors point of view. Would we really have such a massive take up of DVD hardware if it weren't for the cheap availability of DVD's? Why do most hardware vendors ship region-free kit?

Why are DVD's and VCR's only $/£59 from Wall-mart/Tesco/Asda? And why are there bucketloads of manufacturers?

Look at computers in general, the Spectrum was one of the first really powerful computers that made the mass market, and then bought on lots of piracy. I used to copy a load of games, but I'd buy a few also. I only bought a Spectrum because I knew I could get the software for cheap or free from a friend. This was true for many people, hence Sinclair sold tons of them. By selling so many, more people developed for them, and the software industry boomed.

Same for the Amiga. Atari ST, PC. The PC sells in volume because software is easily available.

Why are Ipods selling so much? Have that many people really got 20gig of legal MP3's??!! Of course not, and if it wasn't for Kazaa, Gnutella and obviously Napster, people wouldn't buy them.

What corporate America giveth, corportate America can taketh away (or sue your butt for owning).

[Z]

What kills me is this notion that file sharing violates copyrights. For decades, we used to share copies of cassettes, records on cassette, even 8-tracks. No one jumped down anyone's throat, because we weren't making a profit or claiming it was our own music to gain a profit. There was a company in Florida that specialized in lots of locally made goods - but it gave away cassette duplicates of popular records. Never once got in trouble, because GIVING away copies a) earned no profit and b) did not create a significant impact on the music industry. In fact, Arista Records often sent them albums for duplication to help promote Arista artists!

Now, enter the Internet. Suddenly copyright laws are being re-interpreted, and in spite of the fact that file-sharing actually BOOSTED sales of albums initially, the corporations are going lawsuit-crazy... thereby spending more money for nothing. The only drop in their sales have been the results of customers who are disgusted and disillusioned with corporations for taking such a stance against file-sharing. I know, for my own part, I have vowed to pay $0 for music from major corporations taking part in these lawsuits until such time as they stop this witch-hunt. I still support local musicians and companies, many of whom promote artists by releasing one or two tracks directly to the file-share community. I don't feel in the least bit guilty or bad... I have tons of music at my fingertips but I also have several hundred CDs from before the Napster scandal.

I feel very similarly about software, too. Why in the world does software need to cost hundreds of dollars, and why should I have to buy one copy for each computer I want to use it on? When did this trend begin? Especially when the software is so often flawed upon release, that almost anything you buy nowadays has auto-updaters or a steady flow of patches available? I do pay money for software - usually after it drops below $20 and is available in the bargain bins. But I remember a time when programmers shared their goods freely because it was part of the principle of the thing. Now, it's all about the almighty dollar, making a fast buck. So companies churn out unfinished and poorly-tested software for hundreds of dollars. Well, not my dollars. If it's not fully functioning, requires patches and updates, and isn't a virus protector, then don't expect me to pay full price. I'll buy a copy off of eBay from someone in Taiwan or snag a download off of BearShare or KaZaaLite before I bring some corporate suit $400 closer to buying his third Jaguar.

I'm less viral about movies, in general because there are very few DVD-quality downloads out there and because it takes just too long to download them. But only the very best films get my theater dollars - otherwise, I wait until Sam's Club has the DVD for $12-18, or I borrow it from the library. Am I cheap? Probably, to a degree - I still buy Lego rather than MegaBloks, shell out pretty good cash for Cable DSL rather than AOL (although I'm miffed that all the Free ISPs are gone), and payed full price for GTA: Vice City for the PC - I just like to think I pay the value of a thing rather than the price set by corporate mongers.

It's all moot anyway - as long as two computers are hooked up somewhere in the world, file sharing will continue unabated. The software is too easy to get, too widely spread, and simple enough to make anew should something stop the older versions. And there will always be people willing to share what they bought. After all, you don't think all those songs on the Internet were somehow stolen initially, do you? Someone somewhere paid the obligatory cash for the song - what they do with it then is up to them, as long as they don't profit from it or claim it as their own. That's how I understood the copyright laws.

[EGarrett]

As I've said...the genie is out of the bottle in terms of file-sharing technology. Almost all new music will inevitably be freely available via the internet.

So companies will have to change the way they make money off of their music.

My prediction is that they will use the model for television programming that is freely available...embedded advertisements. Sometime down the line you might be downloading that new pop single...and in the middle of the song under the chorus you hear "Beef...it's what's for dinner!" or some other jingle.

If TiVO-type technology continues to spread I can see the same thing happening to television. Advertisements will bounce across parts of the screen (like pop-up or overlay ads on web pages) during shows.

[Rat]

I don't thing anyone can seriously claim they have any legal right to download music free, and it's difficult, if not impossible, to claim any moral right.

When I was very young, and therefore had no money, I'd be able to buy very little music, so I'd tape friends' stuff, and they'd tape mine. I'd still buy stuff when I could afford it.

The situation has hardly changed for me now. I buy as much music as I can reasonably afford, which is a fair amount. I have a huge collection of music. If more companies still sold quality vinyl (not the mm-thick stuff they've sold since the eighties) I'd possibly have more. I'll buy CDs if I have to, and more likely Audio DVDs, but I've never liked them, and I've never liked having to pay well over the odds for what I consider (whether rightly or wrongly is irrelevant here) to be inferior.

I've had tons of stuff from Kazaalite and Soulseek. Much of it has been stuff I'd never heard before, and have since bought. A huge amount of it is stuff I've been trying damn hard to track down to buy for years but is no longer available. I tried for ten years to get a copy of Neil Young's On The Beach, which was never released on CD (till last year) so became very rare, and could never find one. It is one of my favourite albums of all time, yet was not available at any price anywhere I looked. I eventually got a vinyl copy second-hand, and then downloaded it (the vinyl still sounds better). Yet I still bought the CD when it was finally released.

Nobody has suffered poverty because of my actions. I buy what I can, when I can, when it's available. If I did not download, the only obvious difference would be that I had less music to listen to. I do not claim, and cannot, that I have any right, legal or moral, to download stuff for nowt, but I feel – strongly – that it has not harmed any musicians, and has benefitted some whom I would not otherwise have heard of.

I realize that not everyone is not as saintly and conscientious as me, but as pointed out above, various studies have shown that the music industry have not suffered financially from filesharing, whatever way you look at the data.

The only person who could suffer for this is me, if the BPA sue me for thousands of pounds, at which point the lovely music industry cartel, fighting for the poor musicians, will heroically make themselves richer, the musicians themselves will be no better off, and I will never again be able to afford to buy music. Who then is the winner? And who are the losers?

Cheers,
Rat.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I guess the whole music thing wasn't so much of a problem back when artists put out albums that had lots of good songs, rather than only two or three.

I realize that this is input to the Sarcast-O-Meter, but there was a time when singles and albums were different things. The singles were called 45's and were discs of vinyl with big holes in the center. Popular groups with the song format, when the songs became hits, [b]always[/p] put out singles of their songs, and people bought them individually. They were much cheaper than albums.

Some groups preferred to make productions that were not just a collection of songs but had a coherent theme. These people put out albums. There was even a special word for this kind of concept in rock: "album rock." Albums were distinguished from singles in another way. While singles were often distributed in simple white or brown sleves, albums often had elaborate cover art, often connected in some way with the contents.

Of course, there existed albums that were just a collections of songs, but it was a lower proportion than it is now. But mostly, when you bought a recording of "Beethoven's Ninth," "The Individualism of Gil Evans," "The Dark Side of the Moon," "Remain in Light," or "Freak Out," it was an evening of entertainment, which provided stuff to listen to, stuff to look at, and stuff to read. People who wanted songs bought the much cheaper 45s. Back in the mid-1970s, when albums were typically six or seven dollars, singles generally went for around 50 cents to a dollar. The marketing was clear: 45s for teenie boppers; albums for the more mature. There was even a time when popular music was primarily only available on 45s and 78s (the latter having been a preferred format for jukeboxes), while classical music and jazz and showtunes were readily available on albums.

Now, I think, albums are to a much larger extent just ways to put one or two songs into a box and sell it for $25.00. Sure, there's cover art, but there's a reason that people prefer 17-inch monitors over 6-inch monitors, and you'd better have a magnifying glass for the squinny little text in the booklet. As a result, I think, there has been a teenie-bopperization of music.

[Brian]

I believe this is closely related.
I think the biggest change in entertainment we're going to see as a result of new technology is in network TV. Before too long (20 years?) Tivo type devices will be as common as VCRs. Nobody will watch commercials ever again. I don't know how the industry will respond. Will they add more product placement to their shows? Run commercials in a side bar? Will all TV stations be a service that is paid for?
How about TV costs 5 cents per half hour(times how many million viewers?)? And the show that is being watched gets a cut.
Now to swing this a little more back on topic.
Assume downloading music is an inescapable fact, as it seems to be. Selling songs for a buck a shot on the internet will reward good songs and good songwriters. I suppose the word should be "popular" instead of "good". Now if a band writes one great radio hit and 11 filler songs, they'll only profit from the good song. This seems fair to me.
Instead of:
12 songs=$16*1 million CD's sold
it'd be
1 song download=$1*1 million downloads

Imagine if you had to buy 11 rotten eggs to get one edible one at the supermarket.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Brian
I believe this is closely related.
I think the biggest change in entertainment we're going to see as a result of new technology is in network TV. Before too long (20 years?) Tivo type devices will be as common as VCRs. Nobody will watch commercials ever again. I don't know how the industry will respond. Will they add more product placement to their shows?

Well, with radio and to a certain extent with television, advertisers didn't used to buy commercials; they sponsored entire shows and made their advertising an integral part of the show. Consider Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, the Bell Telephone Hour, and Fibber McGee and Molly, which was sponsored by Johnson's Wax and always had a commercial built into the script.

Another way of getting people to watch commercials is by making them enjoyable to watch. In England, movie theaters show fifteen minutes of commercials before a movie. Some people don't like it, but I generally find it charming. The US has had a few series of commercials, like the original ones where the Energizer Bunny went through parodies of other commercials, but they've been running that bunny schtick too long and need to come up with something new.

People are also always going to watch commercials on live sporting events, or at least, if not watch, they're going to be on while they're in the kitchen getting more chips and salsa.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by EGarrett
As I've said...the genie is out of the bottle in terms of file-sharing technology. Almost all new music will inevitably be freely available via the internet.

So companies will have to change the way they make money off of their music.

My prediction is that they will use the model for television programming that is freely available...embedded advertisements. Sometime down the line you might be downloading that new pop single...and in the middle of the song under the chorus you hear "Beef...it's what's for dinner!" or some other jingle.

If TiVO-type technology continues to spread I can see the same thing happening to television. Advertisements will bounce across parts of the screen (like pop-up or overlay ads on web pages) during shows.
And this scenario is good how?

The "genie out of the bottle" argument can equally be applied to knock-off goods. Hey, they can do it because it is so easy. Rolex will just have to find a new way to make money off watches. How about hologram-ad projecting watches?

The technology to intercept phone calls also exists. Should phone-in service companies just "have to change the way they make money" because a competitor can camp out on their phone lines and re-direct calls to themselves?

Anybody can go to the patent office and see how new, innovative technology is done. Should the inventors "have to change the way they make money" because it is so easy for a competitor to duplicate the invention?

Does anybody see the flaws in this "it is easy, it is inevitable, therefore you'll just have to adjust" argument?

[epepke]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

And this scenario is good how?

Could be a good point. Bad examples.

The "genie out of the bottle" argument can equally be applied to knock-off goods. Hey, they can do it because it is so easy. Rolex will just have to find a new way to make money off watches. How about hologram-ad projecting watches?

Knock-off goods have been available for many years now. Rolex makes money because people who want Rolexes buy a real Rolex.

b]The technology to intercept phone calls also exists. Should phone-in service companies just "have to change the way they make money" because a competitor can camp out on their phone lines and re-direct calls to themselves?[/b]

Land lines are controlled by property rights. As for wireless, check the PATRIOT act and see how this works.

Anybody can go to the patent office and see how new, innovative technology is done. Should the inventors "have to change the way they make money" because it is so easy for a competitor to duplicate the invention?

Actually, this is a good point, although probably not in the way you intended it. Patents are a quid pro quo exchange. A patent applicant is granted exclusively for a period of time. In return for this, the patent holder has to disclose how it's done.

In contrast, the DMCA is so ridiculous that I have to resort to the style of The Boomer Bible to describe it.

1) Publishing a work means that one has control of it,
2) Forever.
3) Which is to say, one's lifetime plus 70 years,
4) Although it's a bit hard to control your work when you're dead,
5) But the rights apply to your heirs or to whomever you have sold your rights to,
6) Forever
7) Which is to say, for 70 years,
8) Which used to be 50 years,
9) Which changed when Disney figured out that they would lose the rights to sell copies of "Steamboat Willie"
10) Which matters
11) Somehow
12) Because if they can't sell copies of "Steamboat Willie," what can they sell?
13) And so forth and so on
14) Anyway,
15) They can also make it impossible to copy "Steamboat Willie"
16) Using a bunch of prime numbers and such
17) Which probably doesn't matter much,
18) Except that it's a violation of Federal Law even to think about trying to break the encryption,
19) And is probably Terrorism or something,
20) For some reason.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by epepke
Knock-off goods have been available for many years now. Rolex makes money because people who want Rolexes buy a real Rolex.
So has the ultimate knock-off good, counterfeit currency. Do you endorse that? If not, why not? Your Rolex claim is specious. Rolex makes money despite the knock-offs. So do other goods manufacturers. Are you unaware of manufacturer's associations created to try to stop the flow of knock-offs? Are you unaware of the losses each manufacturer incurs because of knock-off goods?
Land lines are controlled by property rights. As for wireless, check the PATRIOT act and see how this works.
I'm not talking about wire-tapping. I'm addressing the "technology exists, therefore..." argument.
Actually, this is a good point, although probably not in the way you intended it. Patents are a quid pro quo exchange. A patent applicant is granted exclusively for a period of time. In return for this, the patent holder has to disclose how it's done.
And why is the patent holder granted exclusivity?

[EGarrett]

At no point did I make a value judgement on what I was predicting. I don't think it would be good...ads embedded in songs or during TV shows would actually be very irritating IMO.

Technology exists to steal, cheaply reproduce or bootleg pretty much everything.

The question is, how good are the knockoffs and how widely used is the bootlegging or reproduction.

Knockoff Rolexes are nothing like the real thing. Bootleg movies are usually filmed with a camcorder inside a theater and both look and sound like crap. Thus both businesses are under 'control' because they don't offer the same benefit as the original product.

Music file-sharing is basically rampant compared to other forms of bootlegging...it's also cheaper (you don't pay at all for a Kazaa song compared to several dollars for a bootleg movie). The quality can also be indistinguishable from the actual product.

Add that to the fact that file-sharing continues to grow every day, and the downloading craze has ALREADY forced music companies to drop CD prices... and you have a problem that could logically require music companies to alter their business model in the coming years.

That's why I said you might see embedded advertisements. File-sharing is bootlegging on a level that's free and of a higher quality than any kind of bootleg before...thus causing it to potentially alter an industry.

[Zombified]

MP3 files (and other formats) are convenient for their own sakes - people with CD collections are ripping their collections so they can listen to music on their computers, with MP3 portables, etc. I have a bunch of CDs I've never actually listened to, I've just ripped them and added them to my collection. So I think part of the equation is just the convenience of a compressed, portable digital format (and with metadata as well).

If that's true, then it ought to be possible to make a legal business selling digital music files, so long as there's at least some protection from your products become too freely available.

Sure enough, along comes iTunes and other services like it. Now, we'll see over the long run how much profit they can make. But I think it demonstrates that people want the convenience of being able to download music files and use them on a variety of digital devices is as much a motivation as getting free stuff, and people would still be willing to pay to get that convenience.

[Z]

Not to mention, Zomb, the fact that people (like me) don't really want to hear 8-12 tracks by the same artist in a row all the time - and CD-jukeboxes are pretty hard to get at any quality. So instead - rip'em and hit 'random' - automatic radio station filled with music you WANT to hear, nicely mixed.

Alas, alas, but it's ILLEGAL to rip your CDs onto your computer!! O Woe! O Agony!!

... but why?

For example, a CD-Rom I recently picked up had a lengthy bit of legaleze on it that included this statement:

1. GRANT OF LICENSE: W--- L--- and D--- hereby grant you the right to use the material contained on the enclosed CD-ROM and/or other physical media (all of said material is hereafter referred to as The Software) on a single computer... You may not use The Software on more than one computer or computer terminal at the same time...

And so forth.

So, what they're suggesting that, if I have the CD-ROM in my computer, reading one file on it, and my wife comes in and wants to read another file on it (we used a shared CD/DVD/RW drive on our home network), well, TOO BAD - IT'S ILLEGAL.

But why, exactly? What the heck is so EVIL about us using it together? They don't seem to have a problem with both of us reading it on the same computer, so what's the big deal?

Obviously, this is targetted more toward file-sharing and illegal duplication, but it seems that once lawyers get a wild hair, even me and the missus won't be safe. Well, that's sort of what started happening with music files. Sure, they're attacking the big uploader/downloaders - but they also nailed a 12-year old girl for a few thou, and went after an elderly gent who burned his collection to the computer for ease of use, never once uploading a single file (but a 'friend' reported him, and he got busted).

It's insanity - basic rules that are meant to protect a company or individual's business interests get clawed at by corporate lawyers and twisted until anyone and everyone falls under the axe. It's an age-old situation, and I abhor it.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
For example, a CD-Rom I recently picked up had a lengthy bit of legaleze on it that included this statement:

"1. GRANT OF LICENSE: W--- L--- and D--- hereby grant you the right to use the material contained on the enclosed CD-ROM and/or other physical media (all of said material is hereafter referred to as The Software) on a single computer... You may not use The Software on more than one computer or computer terminal at the same time..."
If the above quote of the licence agreement is accurate, and there are no other clauses that restrict use further, then you shouldn't be complaining. That agreement says you can install the software on as many machines as you like as long as you only use one of the installations at a time. In other words, the software company has given you more rights to the software than the minimum required by copyright law.

Here's a question: Since you obviously don't like the terms of the licence agreement, why didn't you just return the software to the place of purchase for a refund?

[crimresearch]

"...The problem with music CDs is that you usually only want two or three songs on a CD and yet have to pay for the remaining crap...

Maybe that's not the problem with CDs, maybe the problem lies with listeners losing focus after a few songs.
And that could be more properly blamed on MTV's rapid attention span conditioning, or possibly even on A.D.D.

The stuff that sells the most is all the same level of mediocrity, since 'the public' wouldn't buy it unless it were marketed to the lowest common denominator.

Paul

[Z]

You're kidding, right?

First, once opened, software is generally non-returnable. Wal-Mart comes to mind - that wonderful store that will take a return of products they may have never even sold to you, will, at best, EXCHANGE one CD-ROM for an IDENTICAL CD-ROM. This is the case in MANY places around the U.S. Once you buy software, it's yours, period. No refunds, no exchanges, no substitutions.

Second, I admit right here, right now, I refuse to abide by the 'agreements' of MOST of this sort of media, because I refuse to let some ridiculous lawyer somewhere dictate what I'm going to do with my own property in my own home. If I want to copy this CD-ROM and put a copy on each computer in my house, tell me how this violates copyright? Or even moral responsibility??

Third, all of these recent copyright changes aside, wasn't the point of copyright law essentially to keep people from claiming someone else's work as their own? When and why did we start expanding that to letting people tell US how we can use media once we bought it? If you pay $20.99 for a CD, that music is yours to play on any device you own - and if you want to make a tape to play in your car, burn the music to your computer, and send it to a couple of friends for them to hear, what's the harm? You still bought the CD, and you still gave them the profit on it. Even worse, if you pay upwards of $300 for a piece of software (sometimes more) and are being told you can't use that piece of software on more than one machine? Do these companies really think we have the money to blow buying Windows XP Professional for every computer in our homes? It's a ridiculous concept, and I admit openly and honestly that I won't abide by it. It's moronic, and those pushing it are greedy and selfish, or just plain stupid. Those supporting it are equally stupid. Tell me honestly , Icon, if you buy software and have four computers, are you REALLY going to only use that software on one computer, and buy a second, third, and fourth copy to use on subsequent machines? Suppose you run a small office, or are a teacher? Are you going to buy 20-50 copies of software at a time???

I'm sorry if this comes off as a bit of an attack, but there are so many people out here who are just blindly falling into this corporate-sponsored sleight-of-hand trick, instead of putting forth the effort to speak out, get motions in motion, and get rid of this kind of corporate uber-control. What, did Britney Spears lose out on a million bucks or so? Would she even notice?? Did the president of Arista Records come up short trying to buy another Jag? Really, I have no sympathy for people claiming that the Record Industry is 'losing money' on file-sharing. I'd MUCH rather see the RIAA lose $1,000,000 than see 100,000 customers lose $20. Personally, I'm a little shocked that our commercial estates have lost all sight of the little concept of 'customer comes first'. But, hey, that's the U.S. for you - we're not a Democracy, we're not a Republic. We're a Capitalist commercialist business-centered -ocracy. (What's the word for that, by the way?) Americans don't have freedom - we have end-user rights and privileges. And those rights are dwindling with every mega-corporate-sponsored vote of Congress and every trial-by-money successfully concluded by the Legal Sharks of America.

**wipes brow**

Now, just to be fair to the company in question, the Software was a bit of book-reader software with a few thousand public domain titles. Nothing spectacular, nothing earth-shaking, but interesting enough to buy. And the rest of the statement mainly had to do with your rights in using the public-domain content - which, of course, are considerable and extensive, including copying and quoting large passages, printing entire books, and sharing the output. But the CD-ROM itself is what they are more concerned about - even though it was 'free' (well, about $7 for S&H, of course...)

Ludicrous.

[Z]

Sorry, Paul, but having owned several thousand full albums, I can safely tell you that 65-75% of the material on most albums is crap. I've gone to buying Best Of and Compilations just because at least then only 25-35% of the album is crap. Most artists get two or three decent songs per album, and then use that remaining space for their less-than-great stuff. After all, if they had to wait until they had an album full of good music, most artists would STILL be waiting to put out.

I miss theme albums, like the Wall, Operation Mindcrime, and Turn of a Friendly Card. Not that these didn't have some loser tracks on them, but at least the album as a whole was something to experience.

[crimresearch]

Well, note that the original poster didn't specify...for him all music CDs seem to share the property of being mostly boring.
I've heard that claim advanced from other sources as well, and it may indeed be their perception that even theme albums like 'The Wall', or multi hit albums like 'Toys in the Attic', are boring after a few good songs.

I don't doubt for a second that it is possible to go through that many albums without finding the majority of the songs of high quality...that still says more about the market than it does about songwriters...There are lots of people turning out consistently excellent work, they just aren't making it to the top of the sales charts (for a variety of reasons, including illegal downloading).

And it has been a quarter of a century since MTV started indoctrinating viewers into the notion that you are only supposed to get one song from a given band at a time...how old are the majority of the downloaders now?

So, if the downloaders are indeed attempting to compile their own personal favorites, we are still left with the question of how that justifies not paying for any of it.

Similar to foks who go into a store and eat food while inside, then leave without paying for it.
Is it a sufficient rationalization to merely say "Well, I wasn't that hungry, and didn't want to pay 10 bucks for a whole can of nuts and a 6 pack, so I only took what I wanted..."?

Paul

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
You're kidding, right?No, this is the Critical Thinking forum, we're not allowed to joke around in here.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
First, once opened, software is generally non-returnable. Wal-Mart comes to mind - that wonderful store that will take a return of products they may have never even sold to you, will, at best, EXCHANGE one CD-ROM for an IDENTICAL CD-ROM. This is the case in MANY places around the U.S. Once you buy software, it's yours, period. No refunds, no exchanges, no substitutions.Well, no. If you purchase a product that includes a contract for use, and that contract could not reasonably be inspected without first opening the product packaging, then you have a legal right to return the product for a refund if you refuse to agree to the terms of the contract, whether or not the product has been opened. You'll need proof of purchase and you must return the product in a timely manner. You should not confuse the posted returns policy of a department store with the law.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Second, I admit right here, right now, I refuse to abide by the 'agreements' of MOST of this sort of media, because I refuse to let some ridiculous lawyer somewhere dictate what I'm going to do with my own property in my own home. If I want to copy this CD-ROM and put a copy on each computer in my house, tell me how this violates copyright? Or even moral responsibility??Do I really need to tell you how that violates copyright law? Oh well, the copyright act explicitly states that you may not make unauthorised copies of software (a single backup copy is defined as an authorised copy). Unless the licence agreement that came with your software expressly allows you to make extra copies then you're in breach of the act. Now, though the physical media and the packaging that your software was purchased in is your "own property" to do with as you please, the data contained on the media is NOT your "own property". Your licence agreement clearly states that you've purchased a non-exclusive licence to use the software, you do not actually own the software. As for music CDs, if you look on the rim of any of the CDs you own you'll probably find a clause to the effect of "All rights of the producer and of the owner of the recorded work reserved", which basically means you have absolutely no rights to the work except for those rights granted by the copyright act in your conuntry, namely the right to (privately) listen to the work and the right to make a backup copy. That's it. If you don't agree with the rights you receive when you buy a music CD, the appropriate action you should take is to decline to purchase the product, not steal the product. Why is this single point so difficult for people to understand?

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Third, all of these recent copyright changes aside, wasn't the point of copyright law essentially to keep people from claiming someone else's work as their own?No, that's called plaigarism. Copyright law prevents unauthorised use of a work, something else entirely.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
When and why did we start expanding that to letting people tell US how we can use media once we bought it?You can do anything you like with the media, it's the data that's protected under copyright law. The rule that prevents unauthorised copying has most probably existed ever since the act was first introduced.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Do these companies really think we have the money to blow buying Windows XP Professional for every computer in our homes? It's a ridiculous concept, and I admit openly and honestly that I won't abide by it.If you've seriously installed a single copy of XP onto multiple machines and you're using Windows Update to get you patches, don't be surprised to see a couple of Microsoft lawyers on your doorstep sometime soon. Every time you download your software patches, the Windows Update web app logs the registration key of your OS as well as the hardware GUID it created when windows was installed on your machine. A backend process checks to see if multiple machines are downloading patches from the update site using the same OS registration key.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
It's moronic, and those pushing it are greedy and selfish, or just plain stupid. Those supporting it are equally stupid.I write software, and I buy software, and I can see that the copyright act is for the most part just and reasonable, does that make me triply stupid or just doubly stupid? No wait, I think I've got it, I'm greedy, selfish, and doubly stupid.

You seem to have it in your head that software houses are like goldmines, that the people that own them and work in them have more money than they know what to do with. This view is simply false. For every Microsoft there's a hundred or so small software houses just managing to stay afloat. Although the situation is now slowly starting to improve, since the dot com bust there's very few projects around for the number of software houses.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Tell me honestly , Icon, if you buy software and have four computers, are you REALLY going to only use that software on one computer, and buy a second, third, and fourth copy to use on subsequent machines?Well, I only own two machines, one has a paid for version of Win98SE, the other has a paid for version of XP Pro. Yes, to my knowledge I don't have any pirated software nor am I running multiple instances of single licence applications.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Suppose you run a small office, or are a teacher? Are you going to buy 20-50 copies of software at a time???This cannot be a serious question. Microsoft and most other software vendors sell multi-license versions of most of their products with a reduced per user cost based on the number of users, it's pretty standard practice. And yes, if I had a business with twenty machines I'd buy twenty copies of XP to run on them. In Australia the maximum penalty for having stolen software installed on a company machine is now around A$250,000 per offense. And companies in my country are routinely audited by the BSAA, allowing illegal software on company machines means risking bankruptcy.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I'm sorry if this comes off as a bit of an attack, but there are so many people out here who are just blindly falling into this corporate-sponsored sleight-of-hand trick, instead of putting forth the effort to speak out, get motions in motion, and get rid of this kind of corporate uber-control.Eh? What is this sleight-of-hand trick of which you speak?

[EGarrett]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
If you pay $20.99 for a CD, that music is yours to play on any device you own - and if you want to make a tape to play in your car, burn the music to your computer, and send it to a couple of friends for them to hear, what's the harm? You still bought the CD, and you still gave them the profit on it.

Do you see the harm if you buy the software the first day it comes out, then send it to a couple million friends for them to hear? Everyone in the U.S. who wanted to use the product?

Maybe, that way, you can see how the trend is damaging.

[LettristLoon]

I know diddly about computer software. I use Microsoft Word for work, and those with whom I share this computer play solitaire.

But I know music! And, yes, file-sharing does not bode well for classical music, as pointed out earlier in this column. But, let's face it - ever since Maria Callas started traipsing about with Aristotle Onassis, very little has boded well for classical music.

If "Western art music" is incompatible with the changing times, then it must go the way of the dodo and dinos. Oh well. At least most plastic pop stars - who, artistically, signify about as much as Toscanini ever did - will suffer as much as a Berlin Symphony Orchestra, or what-have-you, so cest la vie. The proles will suffer on and life will continue much as it always has. Blago bung!

- B

[Stumpy]

Surely arguing the legal minutiae is superfluous. Illegal filesharing totally ignores the rights of the artists. It matters not if technically it might be legal or increases albums sales or engenders the production of better material. Erroding further the already tenous rights of artists to have a say in how THEIR work is distributed is simply wrong.

[geni]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
[B] Do these companies really think we have the money to blow buying Windows XP Professional for every computer in our homes? It's a ridiculous concept, and I admit openly and honestly that I won't abide by it. It's moronic, and those pushing it are greedy and selfish, or just plain stupid. Those supporting it are equally stupid.

No one is making you use XP on your computers. If you don't want to pay for it don't use it is very simple.

[Z]

Actually (sheepish grin)... XP came installed on our computers already, and considering the price I paid for these, I essentially didn't pay for XP. So who's to blame there, me or the company that applied the discounts?

Sorry, but don't blame the end user on eroded rights of artists - blame the very RIAA for screwing everyone! 'Cuz that's where the fault truly exists. Who do you think screws artists the most? Then they turn to the artist and cry, "Well, the consumers made us do it..."

Bullhockey. The record industry is squarely to blame for every problem that musicians face, not the consumer. If it were up to us, we'd probably pay quite a lot, if that's what artists deserve; but instead, we're buffered from the artists by a system of middlemen all looking for their cut.

So we pay even more, and artists see even less.

As to software - frankly, I don't understand why ANY piece of software should cost more than, say, $50. I understand that software creators spend years sometimes working on software until it works, but given the fact that almost ALL software is released to the public buggy, shoddy, and partially unfinished, where is the justification for spending hundreds, if not thousands, on it? And I can understand the thinking that, if 1000 people are going to buy your software, but 100,000 are going to pirate it, that you might want to charge the 1000 enough to cover 101,000 uses... but that's not really fair either, is it?

The software industry is really the true dilemma of file-sharing. On the one hand, programmers should be paid well for the hours they spend writing programs; on the other hand, software shouldn't cost so much as to be inaccessible to the general computer-using public. What hurts programmers even more is that file-sharing software is so easy to do, that probably on average of only half of all of a programmer's circulating work is paid for. Add to that the fact that there are lots of low-cost and freeware alternatives to most programs (at least, your common-apps programs), and you have really got to have a top-notch piece of work to justify getting paid for it.

You know, it's almost a form of financial elitism - one side saying information should be free (i.e. music, media, and software), on side saying it should belong only to those with the cash to pay for it. Well, why don't we just eliminate broadcast radio and television while we're at it, get rid of free papers and publications, and make the entire entertainment and information industry premium? Most free internet access has shut down already, now let's make every internet site a subscription site as well. Isn't that fair to the HTML coders who spend hours making their websites?

Phooey to the whole thing.

[geni]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

As to software - frankly, I don't understand why ANY piece of software should cost more than, say, $50. I understand that software creators spend years sometimes working on software until it works, but given the fact that almost ALL software is released to the public buggy, shoddy, and partially unfinished, where is the justification for spending hundreds, if not thousands, on it? And I can understand the thinking that, if 1000 people are going to buy your software, but 100,000 are going to pirate it, that you might want to charge the 1000 enough to cover 101,000 uses... but that's not really fair either, is it?


Once again no one is making you use the software. And if you can't see why any software should cost more than £25 perhaps it's time you looked into the world of speaclist software to start with.

[geni]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
You know, it's almost a form of financial elitism - one side saying information should be free (i.e. music, media, and software), on side saying it should belong only to those with the cash to pay for it. Well, why don't we just eliminate broadcast radio and television while we're at it, get rid of free papers and publications, and make the entire entertainment and information industry premium? Most free internet access has shut down already, now let's make every internet site a subscription site as well. Isn't that fair to the HTML coders who spend hours making their websites?

Because in the cases you cite someone has chosen to give you the media free. Either because they have another way of erning revinue (such as advertising or donations) or they are not looking to use thier product to make money.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
As to software - frankly, I don't understand why ANY piece of software should cost more than, say, $50.It's a matter of supply and demand.

Extreme example: modelling software used to test the mechanical engineering of a structure like a building or a bridge. It would take many programmer-years to build such a program, and there is clearly a need for it, but there's probably only a few dozen customers out there. However, since those customers are working projects with budgets from $10M on up to the stars, paying $100,000 for that program is not unreasonable, and still cheaper than building it yourself.

That's an extreme example, of course, but if you look at software products, it fits pretty well: industrial databases are amazingly expensive, niche professional programs are expensive, broad-market professional programs are a few hundred bucks, and mass-market stuff is mostly $100 or less. Likewise, simple, personal programs are cheaper than really complicated ones.

Supply and demand here don't quite work the way it does for normal, physical products: the demand side of the equation is only those people willing to pay for the product. If nobody is willing, the demand is effectively zero in economic terms, so there will be no supply. No one will write that program.

How does 'free' software fit into this? My personal theory: the people that contribute to open-source projects do so because they want the program they are writing: they are paying for the program they want with the time they are willing to devote to the project. Only those projects where the personal "demand" is enough to get donations of talent will get done by open-source programmers.

My personal fantasy about the music industry is that people will get tired enough of mass-produced and legally encumbered pop music to return to making DIY music for themselves and sharing that with their friends, instead of sharing Britney Spears or Metallica. But I kinda doubt it.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

No, this is the Critical Thinking forum, we're not allowed to joke around in here.

Some of history's greatest social insights have come to fruition as the result of a bit of "joking around." Haven't you ever read the works of Mark Twain, Jonathan Swift, Aristophanes, Lewis Carroll, etc.? To think jokes as being anything less than of the highest order of human thought is to be yourself caught up in the truly quixotic and counterproductive ramblings that you so indict that most sublime conception to be. Even James Randi himself will often publicly acknowledge the pride he takes in his mildly vitriolic wit.

As for the RIAA and its qualms with particular peer-to-peer file-sharing models such as Kazaa, it is with all objectivity aside—perhaps much to their credit—that I say, "They deserve to be stolen from for putting out crap and then force-feeding it to everyone for all of these years!" I’ve always had a strong antipathy toward economics in general; it just facilitates people acting like asses to one another. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never seen a dollar bill actually do anything itself. To me, currency has been a superfluous variable in an already too complicated world. They say that Donald Trump builds buildings; does he really, or does he just tell other people to?

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Actually (sheepish grin)... XP came installed on our computers already, and considering the price I paid for these, I essentially didn't pay for XP. So who's to blame there, me or the company that applied the discounts?If you bought a PC with XP pre-installed, then you did pay for your copy of XP regardless of whether on not you think you did. PC suppliers that have agreed to supply a MS OS on all their machines pay something of the order of US$30 per licence.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Who do you think screws artists the most?That would be those who steal their music. The music companies generally pay the artist a few cents on each sale, an arrangement that the artist agreed to in writing. People who illegally copy an artist's music pay the artist nothing at all, an arrangement that the artist DID NOT agree to.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
As to software - frankly, I don't understand why ANY piece of software should cost more than, say, $50.Zombified has already addressed this issue.


Originally posted by zaayrdragon
You know, it's almost a form of financial elitism - one side saying information should be free (i.e. music, media, and software), on side saying it should belong only to those with the cash to pay for it. Well, why don't we just eliminate broadcast radio and television while we're at it, get rid of free papers and publications, and make the entire entertainment and information industry premium?You seem to have a tenuous understanding of the business model behind such things as free to air TV and radio. If you've ever bought any product that's been advertised on TV or radio then you are paying money to that business model, whether you like it or not. The introduction of such devices as TiVo may spell the end of free to air television, or may radically change the way products are advertised on television.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Phooey to the whole thing. Now, are you going to tell us the details of this corporate sponsored slight-of-hand trick?

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
To think jokes as being anything less than of the highest order of human thought is to be yourself caught up in the truly quixotic and counterproductive blah blah blah.Since I'm not from the USA, I don't generally feel the need to add that stupid smily thing to the end of my sentences so people will know which bits are intended to be tongue in cheek.

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
As for the RIAA... [verbosity removed]... I say, "They deserve to be stolen from for putting out crap and then force-feeding it to everyone for all of these years!"This make not an ounce of sense. If this music is so poor, why is it being stolen by so many people? As for "force feeding", every time I get one of those letters from RIAA informing me that I'm required to purchase ten more CDs within the next six weeks, I just throw it in the trash.

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
To me, currency has been a superfluous variable in an already too complicated world.Well, send it to me and I'll dispose of it for you.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

Since I'm not from the USA, I don't generally feel the need to add that stupid smily thing to the end of my sentences so people will know which bits are intended to be tongue in cheek.

This make not an ounce of sense. If this music is so poor, why is it being stolen by so many people? As for "force feeding", every time I get one of those letters from RIAA informing me that I'm required to purchase ten more CDs within the next six weeks, I just throw it in the trash.

Well, send it to me and I'll dispose of it for you.

See, I tricked you into being funny! However, you miss the idea behind my statement about the RIAA because you decided to omit the most important part of it in quoting me. I said that I was putting "all objectivity aside." In that I mean to say that I was approaching the problem more with my limbic system instead of my prefrontal cortex. But anyway...

To elucidate on the term "force-feeding," this marketing technique can be traced back to "Put Another Nickel in the Nickelodeon"; the music companies buy out lots of airtime on radio stations across the country for playing the same songs over and over again, expecting to win people over through a kind of indoctrination/brainwashing. Guess what, it works! Besides, the general public doesn’t really have an ounce of musical sense as it is.

[Powa]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Besides, the general public doesn’t really have an ounce of musical sense as it is.
Hm... That would explain Spice Girls.

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
And why is the patent holder granted exclusivity?

Just to address this one point:

Patent holders are granted limited exclusivity on feats of engineering, and copyright holders are granted exclusivity on feats of creativity, because they made or paid for, respectively, the inventive or creative effort which made the product possible; without that exclusivity, anybody who made something new would (as used to happen) find Joe Monopoly making copies of their goods without the investment of inventing or creating them, and thus with the ability to undersell them--and thus there'd be no incentive in the market to make anything new or try to make anything better.

Libretarian fundamentalists are often fiercely against copyright and patent, and fiercely in favor of market dynamics, but they need to go to extreme lengths to show that their preferences won't lead to stagnation.

[Zombified]

If I recall correctly, the original motivation behind patents was to provide incentive for public disclosure of new methods. The tradeoff you make with a patent is you give up your trade secret, which could be kept secret forever but isn't protected if disclosed or rediscovered, in favor of a legally-guaranteed monopoly for finite period of time.

No one is required to get a patent, so if you prefer your new technique be withheld as a trade secret, that is your prerogative, but then you abandon most legal protection (except that trade secrets cannot be disclosed by criminal means or violation of private contracts, like non-disclosure agreements). A proponent of patents would argue that the libertarian view offers only the trade secret route, which suppresses disclosure and makes the "marketplace of ideas" less efficient. The primary libertarian objection to patents is that an inventor can be prevented from exploiting his invention if someone else has already patented it, even if he was completely unaware of the prior art, which of course is no barrier if the prior art was merely a trade secret.

Of course, one could argue at length whether such a system actually works the way its intended to, or whether the provided period of time is too short or too long, which is another whole barrell of monkeys...

[Vitnir]

Personally I'm a feel a bit split on this issue. I don't have any qualms when it comes to Microsoft, they just dont need my money. When it comes to software makers other than Microsoft however I tend to buy all software and games I use. It thus all boils down to whether I like the company or not for me.

I don't buy many music CD's, I mostly listen to talk radio and online internet radio stations. The CD's I have bought has actually been because of internet radio since I have found new and interesting music that way that cannot be described as mainstream. When it comes to downloading mp3-files I'm also a bit split, I don't hesitate to download but if I really like the music I don't mind buying the album. Here is also the good part of internet, the local music store typically only has the top 20 sellers in stock, there is however no problem finding old and obscure albums to get on mail order from a homepage.

[Batman Jr.]

I remember having read someplace that record sales were up an average of 2 million copies every month the original, free Napster was online, and that this statistic alluded to the fact that most people were actually using the service to preview portions of albums they were dubious about buying. Can anyone confirm this?