[Yogi]

RUEZ RUEZ:

Yogi Yogi:

Trying to stop this is like trying to hold back the tide. There's nothing to stop me from zipping and sending music files to anyone I want. I have done, and will continue to do at my will.!

I suppose you won't complain then if someone takes something of yours without asking.

That's like telling someone " I sold you the seeds, but ya can't grow no weeds"!

I don't EVER recall signing any document outlining what I may or may not do with any music medium that I ever purchased. Until such time as I do, ...

[Yogi]

Curtman Curtman:

Yogi Yogi:

Trying to stop this is like trying to hold back the tide. There's nothing to stop me from zipping and sending music files to anyone I want. I have done, and will continue to do at my will.!

The law does. Copyright law gives exclusive rights to copyright holders for making copies. Fair dealing provides an exception for certain circumstances. Electronic distribution is specifically listed as NOT being fair dealing. There's nothing stopping you from buying a CD, making a copy for yourself then giving away the original that I can see. You can't participate in a Peer to Peer network without distributing copies electronically though.

Exactly what I stated earlier

[Yogi]

Curtman Curtman:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

OMG yer right!! All that music must be for something nefarious

Nah, I was thinking more along the lines of picking fights in the forum, and arguing for the sake of arguing. Takes one to know one.

Nope! Just fair personal opinion on the subject. Normally referred to as 'discussion'. Which is, I believe, the concept of CKA!

[Choban]

Fact is the information is there for the taking, no one has asked us to pay a fee for it and people still buy cd's go to movies and buy DVD's

I agree people downloading massive ammounts of music/movies and selling them on street corners should be arrested, the average joe trying to save a few bucks and see if a disk is worth paying for before he buys it shouldn't.

I myself download movies/music, watch/listen to them and if I like them buy them second hand from cash converters or a second hand store, are these stores paying royalties to the artists/studios that made them? No they aren't so in a roundabout way they are file sharing too aren't they.

I have lots of copied music, I do think that if I'm ever brought to court for it the first thing my lawyer should ask the judge is if said judge ever had or made a mix tape, or ever copied a cd from a friend, or used his/her VHS to record a program off the TV, likely yes they have and are just as guitly as I am.

As far as the affected industries go I call BS, concert attendance isn't affected, CD's still sell and people still go to movie theaters, the industry is screaming becasue for many years they lived the high life and all of a sudden people don't have to be gouged by them, they are still posting profits with the exception of a few and those few should probably look at the quality of their products as a cause

The easy solution is to add or raise the "copyright" fee on blank disks and other tehc used to rip files to the net, or put the onus on ISP providers to block content that is deemed illegal (though addmittedly this is impossable), or better yet go after the companies who created the technology that made all this possable, (sony with their first vhs and DVD recorders comes to mind).

[Curtman]

Yogi Yogi:

I don't EVER recall signing any document outlining what I may or may not do with any music medium that I ever purchased. Until such time as I do, ...

You don't need to sign anything to still be accountable to the law. Copyright is literally 'the right to make copies'. I never signed anything at 7-11 saying that I couldn't walk out with a pocket full of candy either. I would expect to be punished if I did that though.

Yogi Yogi:

Curtman Curtman:

Yogi Yogi:

Trying to stop this is like trying to hold back the tide. There's nothing to stop me from zipping and sending music files to anyone I want. I have done, and will continue to do at my will.!

The law does. Copyright law gives exclusive rights to copyright holders for making copies. Fair dealing provides an exception for certain circumstances. Electronic distribution is specifically listed as NOT being fair dealing. There's nothing stopping you from buying a CD, making a copy for yourself then giving away the original that I can see. You can't participate in a Peer to Peer network without distributing copies electronically though.

Exactly what I stated earlier

I was agreeing with that, and showing what I believe is the difference between that and emailing MP3's to your buddy or uploading them on Limewire.

[Choban]

$1:

what I believe is the difference between that and emailing MP3's to your buddy or uploading them on Limewire.

See to me there is no difference, you made a copy and made it available to others who did not pay for that copy.

[Curtman]

Choban Choban:

$1:

what I believe is the difference between that and emailing MP3's to your buddy or uploading them on Limewire.

See to me there is no difference, you made a copy and made it available to others who did not pay for that copy.

But there seems to be a difference as far as the law is concerned. Copyright forbids unauthorized copies so you either need a license from the copyright holder, or an exemption. Fair Dealing (what most Canadians mistakenly call 'Fair Use') is the best bet. People always talk about whether or not they are allowed to "download". I don't think that's as much of an issue as the "upload" that happens at the same time. That's where you are broadcasting copyrighted material around the world electronically. In a peer to peer network, you are doing exactly that.

[Choban]

$1:

I don't think that's as much of an issue as the "upload" that happens at the same time. That's where you are broadcasting copyrighted material around the world electronically. In a peer to peer network, you are doing exactly that.

The problem being that the law doesn't go after the uploader, rather the college kid who downloads 10000 songs and 100's of movies or the web sites that host the p2p platforms though they just provide the means.

As you said copyright forbids unauthorized copying, after it's online it's already copied, meaning that what your copying from these networks is a copy of the original.

Plus uploading is a grey area, I can loan said disk to my friend, I can make him a copy and no one would bat an eye as no one would know other than him and I because it's not on the web, but I cannot post it online for others to use (and truthfully I accept this, though once someone else copies it I should be free to). Really murky waters

I justify it to myself like this (granted just to myself). If I want to hear a cd or see a movie I will download it, if I like it I will buy it, if I hate it I'll delete it and hence I get to pick and choose what I buy based on my opinion of the quality of the product rather than the overblown hype about it, and lets face it, the majority of the crap out there will end up in a bargain bin within a year of it's release anyway so...

[Curtman]

Choban Choban:

The problem being that the law doesn't go after the uploader, rather the college kid who downloads 10000 songs and 100's of movies or the web sites that host the p2p platforms though they just provide the means.

This is exactly the problem, and its why the courts have ruled in favour of the "downloader" here. The one case that compared downloading to photocopying books in a library neglected to speculate what it would do about that same guy handing out photocopied books outside of a bookstore.

Choban Choban:

As you said copyright forbids unauthorized copying, after it's online it's already copied, meaning that what your copying from these networks is a copy of the original.

That works if you are visiting a web page and clicking links to download MP3's. Then whoever runs the website is making the copies, and you're receiving them. P2P is different though, you become that guy making the copies whether you realize it or not.

Choban Choban:

Plus uploading is a grey area, I can loan said disk to my friend, I can make him a copy and no one would bat an eye as no one would know other than him and I because it's not on the web, but I cannot post it online for others to use (and truthfully I accept this, though once someone else copies it I should be free to). Really murky waters

I justify it to myself like this (granted just to myself). If I want to hear a cd or see a movie I will download it, if I like it I will buy it, if I hate it I'll delete it and hence I get to pick and choose what I buy based on my opinion of the quality of the product rather than the overblown hype about it, and lets face it, the majority of the crap out there will end up in a bargain bin within a year of it's release anyway so...

My theory is that CRIA isn't interested in using the law to prosecute offenders, they're more interested in showing that the current law is ineffective at prosecuting the offenders so they can lobby for things like ACTA.

[DrCaleb]

Curtman Curtman:

My theory is that CRIA isn't interested in using the law to prosecute offenders, they're more interested in showing that the current law is ineffective at prosecuting the offenders so they can lobby for things like ACTA.

That's why their number on 'lost income from Piracy' year after year don't add up.

[Choban]

$1:

P2P is different though, you become that guy making the copies whether you realize it or not.

You become that guy if you seed the files yourself after downloading them, I do not, I know it drives alot of P2P users nuts but there are usually plenty of others providing the file

[Choban]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Curtman Curtman:

My theory is that CRIA isn't interested in using the law to prosecute offenders, they're more interested in showing that the current law is ineffective at prosecuting the offenders so they can lobby for things like ACTA.

That's why their number on 'lost income from Piracy' year after year don't add up.

Thats very true in both cases

[Curtman]

Choban Choban:

You become that guy if you seed the files yourself after downloading them, I do not, I know it drives alot of P2P users nuts but there are usually plenty of others providing the file

I'm not intimately familiar with the bittorrent protocol, but I do believe that as blocks of the torrent are completed by the clients, they begin sharing back with the other peers. Wikipedia calls avoiding this "The Leech Problem"

$1:

The leech problem
A BitTorrent user may often choose to leave the swarm as soon as they have a complete copy of the file they are downloading, freeing up their outbound bandwidth for other uses. If enough users follow this pattern, torrent swarms gradually die out, meaning a lower possibility of obtaining older torrents (see content unavailability above). Some BitTorrent websites have attempted to address this by recording each user's download and upload ratio for all or just the user to see, as well as the provision of access to newer torrent files to people with better ratios. Users who have low upload ratios may see slower download speeds until they upload more; users who download excessively without uploading enough may be banned from these trackers. This prevents (statistical) leeching, since after a while they become unable to download at even a fraction of the theoretical bandwidth of their connection. Some trackers exempt dial-up users from this policy, because their uploading capabilities are limited. The BitTorrent protocol also attempts to minimize the damages of leeches by using only a portion of their bandwidth for one-directional trades and using the majority for two-directional trades that tend to help the swarm as a whole.

There are "cheating" clients like BitThief which claim to be able to download without uploading. Such exploitation negatively affects the cooperative nature of the BitTorrent protocol, although it might prove useful for people in countries where unauthorized uploading of copyrighted material is illegal, but downloading is not.