Curmudgeonly & Skeptical presents Boned Jello: File Sharing

Thursday, October 04, 2007

File Sharing

Today's Dilemma

Or is it?

“

DULUTH, Minn. - The case against Jammie Thomas is expected to go to jurors today. Six major record companies accuse Thomas, 30, of sharing 1,702 songs online in violation of the companies' copyrights. The record companies claim they found the songs on a Kazaa file-sharing account they later linked to her.

*snip*

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis said he would decide then whether the record companies would have to prove the songs were actually transferred to any other users for jurors to find Thomas liable. [Full]

”

Disclosure: I know someone very close to me who downloaded about 1200 songs from Napster. That said, if you were on a jury involving file sharing, would you vote to convict?

Rodger the Real King of France 10/04/2007 09:22:00 AM 33 Comments

"If the number of Islamic terror attacks continues at the current rate, candlelight vigils will soon be the number-one cause of global warming. "
Argus Hamilton

33 comments:

Anonymous said...: Looks like we got enough to hang the jury. Damn I hate the buggywhip industry mofo's.

Casca; 10/4/07, 9:35 AM
Anonymous said...: To all you folks you who voted hell no, I guess you would lke to be living in Red China, where intellectual property rights are pretty much unheard of, pirated videos and DVD are the norm, substandard nuts and bolts, tainted medicine; the list is endless when you stop respecting ownership.

I have seen my designs used by other glass "artists" and it sucks. Total disregard for my effort and total laziness on their part. I was showing my last magazine ad to a friend in his studio the other day. The ad ran in Gulf Interiors, a magazine sold throughout the middle east, and featured a number of my commissions. Anyway he is lookng at the ad and says, OMG, a client brought in a picture of one of the pieces, downloaded off my website, and is having them repo it. Of course it won't be anything like my work, but fuck, this kind of crap pisses the shit out of me.

There is a line and once you cross it, you're a thief. Period
MM; 10/4/07, 10:10 AM
Rodger the Real King of France said...: I agree with your passionate defense of IPR, but I also think you're comparing apples and oranges. There's a big difference in most people's minds between taping songs off the radio for personal enjoyment (which is in effect what's the music industry is fighting), and what you describe.; 10/4/07, 10:20 AM
OregonGuy said...: Theft is, has been and will continue to be, the illegal conversion of property for personal use.

If you don't own it and you take it knowing that the act of taking is illegal you are a thief. When a newspaper box is left slightly ajar and you scoop your hand in and grab a "free" newspaper you are a thief.

Compare your hypothetical with this hypothetical. Now ask yourself how this is different?

Guys like me pay thousands in licensing fees every month to BMI, ASCAP and SESAC. If we don't pay it what incentive does an artist or recording company have to continue producing the product we want so badly we're willing to steal?

Or would you rather "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"?; 10/4/07, 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...: My friends and I trade CD's that we load onto our hard drives.
This way you can pick the songs you like and dump the others.
If I pay $18.00-$20.00 for something,I can lend it out.
Poletax.; 10/4/07, 1:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Okay, you caught me. I stole a plant from a state park last month. Yes. Stole. Could hardly believe I'd do such a thing, but, after I pulled up a plant to bring home to my garden, I hid it in my truck so the parkies wouldn't fine my ass. Rationale, "If everyone took one plant, pretty soon there would be no plants." Everyone's NOT going to take a plant. AND, the effing government claims land, charges us to walk there, taxes us to caretake, decides when or if we can visit.... I'm taking a damn plant. ONCE in my life. But, I did steal it.; 10/4/07, 1:36 PM
Anonymous said...: It's not apples and oranges Rog, it's apples and apples. If there is a big difference in some people's minds about stealing music and stealing my designs, sadly that says that some people are fucked in the head. Stealing is stealing.

And Poletax, that's just another rationalization. Buying the CD gives you the right tp play it. That's it. Not to trade it with your friends. I don't understand why you don't see this as theft. If you were a musician and were losing vast sums of royalties, HTF would you feel? Someone is stealing your property.

God, this is cut and dried. If you're going to be a thief, don't fudge the GD line you've crossed. Go to oregonguy's link and read the pretzel this bitch twists herself into to rationalize her theft.

I have a friend who is a glass artist who has seen her designs show up in an pattern book!!!! Imagine how you would feel about that. It's like someone breaking into my home. Well than, imagine you're a musician and see your music being played on a recordable CD.
MM; 10/4/07, 1:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Look THINKER...Think about this. I don't give a damn WHAT Sheryl Crowe said, it is definately advisable to use more than one sheet of buttwipe at a time.; 10/4/07, 2:09 PM
Anonymous said...: First of all I don't listen to any current music since to my crusty, musty old ears is all sounds like crap.

Technology has made this a real tough situation and like prohibition it is a hard to enforce. Glass guy, if I do not sell stuff I record for my own use on my own disc in my own home how are you even going to know about it. We were taking LP records and making mixes on tape back in the 60's, now are you telling me that a mix is illegal, how about an iPods thingy?

I understand the problem but I think it is a risk of the current music industry and I wonder how hard it will be to make a conviction stick if you have judges and jurors who are doing the same thing.

As for the glass artist who has a design in a pattern book, if she can prove her copyright she has legal recourse against the person using her design, in a commercial venue. Let someone copy her design in their garage for their own private use and see what kind of lawyer wants to take that case on.

As you can tell, I am not a lawyer so what I think is about worth what you are paying for it.; 10/4/07, 2:09 PM
Anonymous said...: MM,I see your point and it's a point well taken.If you make your living from CD sales,yeah,Kazaa and the other sites gave you a beating.
But what I've read,the over-paid bidness men at the recording/release companies are the ones whining and snotting around about loosing their 'Money For Nothing.It is rare you hear the musicians speaking out.
And how about Radiohead going around the big companies by releasing their album for sale only on their website?And at a bargain.
Poletax; 10/4/07, 2:18 PM
Anonymous said...: If you take something that you wouldn't buy, and there is no loss to the owner, then there is no damage. That's why copying for your own use is entirely legal. It's when IP is copied and sold that it is illegal, so like Rog said, Apples and Oranges.

Here in San Diego there is a road named after Fred Waring, the inventor of the Waring Blender. Few know that he was the bandleader of The Pennsylvanians, the most popular group of the 1930's. He had a radio show, and refused to sell his recordings because if people could play his music whenever they wanted, who would listen to his show? By 1940, The Pennsylvanians were history, and Fred moved on to the blender biz.

The same arguments were made when movies were broadcast on TV by theater owners; by movie execs when the VCR was born, and now by music industry execs over the transformative technology of the information age. All were and are shoveling against the tide.

The reality for artists in the entertainment industry is that the more widely you are known, the more your product will be purchased. Since the production and distribution cost of a CD is somewhere South of a dollar, well you do the math.

The thing that's different today is that the IP lawyers have bought the political process to the extent that public domain product is almost dead. It is that product that feeds creativity. There are tens of thousands of creative products now bound up in legalities that should be up for free use in public domain. This most effects me in the software world where a product lifecycle is exceedingly short, and where applications encumbered by lawyers will simply be lost to time in the copyright lawyers acquisitive search for a buck.

This subject is worthy of a book of which many have been written. All you who cast stones would do well to do some reading. Ya just don't get it.

Casca; 10/4/07, 4:26 PM
Anonymous said...: If you buy some one's music and remix it and use it for your own enjoyment, that's seems to be fine. If you remix it and use it in a commercial venue, I think you have to pay a licensing fee and if you give it away, well you've got me there. However Rog's original question was about downloading music without paying for it.

As for my friend's artwork, stolen from her. Her recourse is nada, how is she going to prove hers was the first? We can do 100s of designs a year, are we supposed to file a copyright on every one? I take comfort in the fact that if someone does steal my design, they have taken the easy way and will never grow as an artist. And the potential client that downloads my artwork and shops it will never get what I bring to the table.

As for the "over paid" bidness(sic) men, I always get immediately leery when some one tells some one else thay are being paid "too" much.
MM; 10/4/07, 4:39 PM
Anonymous said...: How is taping a song off the radio any different than using your VCR to record a movie or show for you to view at your convenience? Why do current models of DVD recorders use that Macrovision crap to prevent someone from archiving stuff from your Tivo but its OK to use VHS?

And Juice, you should see the bucket of rocks I brought home from a Canadian National Park for my garden!
TFV; 10/4/07, 5:24 PM
Rodger the Real King of France said...: Casca and the Samarai lady are el-correcto. Which is why I'm betting the lady gets off.; 10/4/07, 5:49 PM
gregor said...: All in all it's costing the RIAA more money than it's worth to go after soft downloaders, so, at some point, it will not be profitable and the whole issue will fall to the wayside.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-music-industry-exec-p2p-litigation-is-a-money-pit.html
My own experiences in the field are limited to acquiring out of print or out of copyright music, that people have taken the time to rip to digital and post to downloading sites (all off-shore). I have no use for modern day artists, for the most part and the few who are turning out something worth listening to, I'm more than happy to pay them for their efforts. I try to purchase my music from places line Magnatune, who pay the artists directly (www.magnatune.com) and from the artists themselves. I do not patronize music stores or on-line retailers.; 10/4/07, 6:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Actually I think we are all overlooking an important point. Is the accused a mofo liberal? If so, hang them high!!

TFV; 10/4/07, 6:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Well according to Drudge she's guilty. I bet she voted for Kerry in 04.

TFV; 10/4/07, 8:20 PM
Anonymous said...: "If you take something that you wouldn't buy, and there is no loss to the owner, then there is no damage. That's why copying for your own use is entirely legal. It's when IP is copied and sold that it is illegal, so like Rog said, Apples and Oranges."

Huh? If I go to Wal-mart and take things I wouldn't buy, do you think they will think there's no damage? This is *NOT* an apples and oranges comparison. If you download music without paying you are a thief. Period. You may try to justify it by saying, well, I'd never buy it anyway or I'm not selling it. That's bull. Just because your shoplift is easier with a mouse click makes it no less stealing.

Second, this is not anywhere like copying something you bought for personal use. Courts have upheld peoples right to do that. You bought a CD and you upload the songs to your Ipod. Ok, you bought the music. You can play it on what you want. She never owned the songs. She wants something and doesn't want to pay for it. She's a thief and probably a liberal too.

"I also think you're comparing apples and oranges. There's a big difference in most people's minds "

No apples and oranges here. This case is exactly what MM is talking about. She isn't just downloading for enjoyment. She is downloading for *free* enjoyment. Because she didn't want to pay. That's stealing. Technically, recording the radio is illegal. Certainly you've heard all those disclaimers about not reproducing for any reason without the express written consent of so and so. Not all shows have those, but the law is still there.

This lady is a thief. Plain and simple.

Guilty. Bailiff, take her away.; 10/4/07, 11:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Redneck Chris, were we separated at birth?

Stealing is stealing. I'm disappointed with you Rog on this one. Just because tech has made it so common place and so easy to dupe music doesn't make it right.

And casca, I can't speak to the issues you've raised with computer software. Lawyers are fuckers, oh wait, your lawyers are the fuckers. It seems to be a much easier issue to"throw stones" with music. And fucking art glass designs.
MM; 10/5/07, 12:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Red & MM, start by finding the definition of damages under the law.

If you take product off the shelf at Walmart, you damage them. What product has the downloader stolen? His ability to listen to a song at his chosen moment in time? Where is the damage to the artist/recording industry thugs and lawyers? The artist benefits from being heard. The recording industry types need to find a way to survive in a world where they no longer make the rules.

Casca

PS Whenever my thinking runs counter to Rodger's, I always do a sanity check.; 10/5/07, 1:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Wow casca, that reasoning sounds like the woman at the end of oregon guy's link.

Damages are evident. Some one is offering a product for sale and you've decided that you can get it without paying them for it. Seems pretty simple to me. If you don't want to pay them than you're a thief. Rationalize it any effing way you want, new technology, thuggish businessmen, bully lawyers, whatever, if you take something without paying for it, YOU ARE A THIEF.
MM; 10/5/07, 8:19 AM
Rodger the Real King of France said...: Wow, No taped television nor music in your house? I tip my hat to you guys.; 10/5/07, 9:10 AM
Corsair, The Mostly Harmless said...: Roger, are you being intentionaly dense? I am dissaponted in you. This sort of fuzzy thinking is usually a hallmark of the socialists. NO ONE is saying you can't rip songs from a CD YOU PURCHASED and use them on your IPOD. What this lady did is the same as if she shoplifted hundreds of CD's from a store, made thousands of copies, then turned around and gave them away to strangers. She illegally took a product.. Music in this case, without paying for it. Just because you can do it with a mouse click instead of boosting the disc from the store is irrelevant. Do not musicians deserve to be paid for the product of their labor?; 10/5/07, 9:20 AM
Anonymous said...: At some point a scum-sucking lawyer (I know, that's repetitive) is going to go after someone for playing music on a boombox at a party. Or one guy for saying, "Hey, man, you gotta listen to this song!" to another and handing over his headphones.

Can we kill them all then?

OMG; 10/5/07, 9:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Ah well, I tried. In the words of Chairman Bill, "one does not argue transubstantiation with an alter boy."; 10/5/07, 10:12 AM
OregonGuy said...: Actually, OMG (if that's a nick) accidentally hit the nail on the head. When ASCAP, SESAC of BMI enter a business they're looking for the boombox.

If your store has a built-in sound system, fer instance, several overhead speakers wired to a sound system in the back, you are using that music for a commercial purpose. More than one shopkeeper has been amazed when told that such a commercial use requires the payment of licsensing fees. And, you can either agree to pay the fees, shut down your system or pay the penalties. Which are on a "per use" basis. Normally an inspector will wait around long enough to write down the names of ten of his artists/clients before approaching the shopkeeper. So, usually, given Hobson's choice of a nominal monthly licensing fee or a $90-thousand lawsuit, the shopkeeper agrees to a monthly fee.

However, if that same inspector comes into your shop and you're listening to a boombox by the cash register...that music is for the clerk's "personal use". That personal use is a protected right of the individual user.

Personal use versus commercial use. Just so's ya know.; 10/5/07, 1:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Wow. Ok, Damages. The damages here is the loss of revenue. Ok, it's only a share of a buck. Come one. A share of a lousy buck. Hmm, this CONVICT had 1200 files or some number like that. Now it's a share of 1200 bucks. Take oh, a million of those (out of 300 million people is very plausible) and now your looking at a share of 1200000000 dollars. That's the point. At some time a society must do what is right over what is easy or harmless.

They benefit by being heard. Only if people BUY the songs. Being heard by people stealing just means more people steal their music.

You do have a couple points though. The industry needs to adapt and I think they have. It is not a case of not liking who is making the rules. It is a matter of right and wrong. Taking someones stuff without compensation is stealing.

Also, you are absolutely correct, when one disagrees with Rodger, one needs a sanity check. I have checked it. I stand by it. It is rare when you can argue with our blog overlord. He's always so dead on. I don't think so in this case.

Rodger, I do have recordings. Mine come from TiVo. I pay TiVo a fee and they take care of the licensing fees and everything. It's in my contract. I can record at will and keep as long as I want as long as I don't give or sell the show. They even keep stats on that. It's how they knew Janet Jackson's boobie shot was the most rewound and watched event ever to that point. VCR's don't have said agreements. However, the channels don't care because the commercials are recorded and that is their money. If they cared, they would win. They used to care. When the VCR's first came out, they fought everything.; 10/5/07, 5:48 PM
Rodger the Real King of France said...: Yeah, I'm dense. I am saying that I have, for 40 years, taped songs off the radio and have, for 20 years, taped television shows and movies off the television. So have 90% of the freaking world. I didn't sell them, I listened to them BFD. If you equate that with being a pirate, so be it.; 10/5/07, 7:15 PM
Anonymous said...: MM: Great minds think alike.

Rodger: But you're a nice pirate. Say it with me: ARRRGHHHH, Ahoy ye maties!

Good weekend everyone!

:); 10/5/07, 7:28 PM
Corsair, The Mostly Harmless said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/5/07, 7:41 PM
Corsair, The Mostly Harmless said...: Sigh. Roger, My King.. What you are talking about is, as I said before a perfectly legal thing. Recording TV with your TiVo/VCR or a song from the radio for your personal use is COMPLETELY FINE. That IS NOT what this chick did. She made exeact digital copies of copyrighted material without paying for it, and made those copies available to others. When you listen to the radio, or TV, the content is paid for either by advertising, or by paying a fee (like HBO or other cable channels). If you want to record that content for your own enjoyment, groovy. I for example will BUY a CD I like. I never listen to it directly. First thing I do is rip it top MP3 and put it on my house server so I can add the songs to my play list. I don't put those files out on the net for others, because if other folks want to listen to the music, they are supposed to buy their own copies.

Here. Look at it this way. Say I get a DVD of a popular movie, and the duplicate it thousands of times. Then I open a booth on a street corner and sell them or even give them away. Is that wrong? The EXACT same thing applies to what the lady did by distributing stolen music via Kaaza.; 10/5/07, 7:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Looks like you struck a nerve with this one, Rodger.

Technically, downloading music without paying for it is stealing but I'd never convict anyone of doing so. Right now the law is propping up an industry that has no reason to continue existing. Technology has overtaken it. Any industry that thinks it can improve things by suing their customers wholesale is clearly in it's death throes (It must be run by Democrats).

Artists no longer have any reason to sign away control and ownership of their music to a bunch of worthless parasites so that it can be heard. The purpose of the record companies has been to distribute and promote their artists - something that they have always done very poorly for most of them and that they can now do for themselves. Unsigned artists can now cut out the myriads of middlemen and promote themselves online, sell their music for half what the record companies do and make ten times the money.

Fans love supporting the artists, not the parasites hanging on them and they hate getting ripped off. Can anyone tell me why a music cd that costs maybe $300 grand to produce costs $18 when a movie that costs $300 million to produce costs $10?

The industry doesn't serve it's customers very well either. About the only place you can hear music easily is on the radio, but the only music they play is whatever the latest crap the record companies have just printed up a million copies of and needs to unload.

Before I started downloading music, I had pretty much stopped listening to music, let alone buying any. I just never heard any that made me reach for my wallet. There is a whole world of music out there that they they never let you hear, that you couldn't buy if you wanted to. I'm not just talking about tiny labels or the music of Upper Mongolia. There's a lot of good stuff that the major labels just don't think is worth promoting and old stuff that they won't re-release - but if you download any of that, you're stealing and they are losing money even though they refuse to sell it. Figure that one out.

Now that I download music, I'm hearing stuff that I like and buying stuff that I really like - just like it used to be with the radio. Only now they call me a thief. Because of free downloads, I am buying more music than I ever have, yet they talk about how downloads are hurting the industry as if that is a bad thing. The industry is already dead, I just wish it had the common decency to lay down and stop moving.
GrinfilledCelt; 10/5/07, 11:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Sanity check??....That would require a 'sanity clause'...Groucho told me "there ain't no sanity clause".; 10/6/07, 8:04 AM

Thursday, October 04, 2007

File Sharing

33 comments:

Post a Comment