Is Filesharing Ethical?

[RPizzle]

This thread is fun. It's more fun because I'm probably one of the biggest file sharers (steal-ers...amirite?) here.

[klr]

... If one owns or has title to the source material, then no. If one doesn't, then you are pretty much getting someone for nothing. I consider purchasing a product such as music to be tantamount to owning the use of the music regardless of media (CD, DVD, .mp3). Also, I am totally against the DRM because it robs the end user of their own property that they have purchased.

The music industry would doubtless claim that this is not for you to decide - that it is they who set the limits of what it is you can do with the product that is being sold, not you, and that in buying something, you are agreeing to abide by those restrictions.

This is a valid argument.

I was putting it and the other "strictly (il)legal ..." arguments up to being shot at . That was my point in highlighting the fact that UK/Irish law does not allow you to rip your own CD's onto your own portable music player.

[RPizzle]

... If one owns or has title to the source material, then no. If one doesn't, then you are pretty much getting someone for nothing. I consider purchasing a product such as music to be tantamount to owning the use of the music regardless of media (CD, DVD, .mp3). Also, I am totally against the DRM because it robs the end user of their own property that they have purchased.

The music industry would doubtless claim that this is not for you to decide - that it is they who set the limits of what it is you can do with the product that is being sold, not you, and that in buying something, you are agreeing to abide by those restrictions.

This is a valid argument.

I was putting it and the other "strictly (il)legal ..." arguments up to being shot at . That was my point in highlighting the fact that UK/Irish law does not allow you to rip your own CD's onto your own portable music player.

I figured. I was being purposely obtuse. However, I often find that playing Devil's Advocate elicits responses which are more explanatory than those in agreement .


Edit: I should also mention that I do tend to use a somewhat provocative argument style, as I find that once people lose emotional balance, their arguments tend to weaken. Granted this does not include strict scientific analysis. Basically, if I'm debating anything, don't take it personally...and everything I say is probably a lie.

[klr]

More food for thought:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8177285.stm

File-sharer admits swapping songs

A US student who faces millions of dollars in fines for illegally swapping music files has admitted that he shared and downloaded hundreds of songs.

Joel Tenenbaum is accused of copyright infringement by four recording labels for sharing tracks by artists such as Nirvana and Green Day.

It is only the second music-downloading case to go to trial in the US.

In the first, single mother Jammie Thomas Rassett of Minnesota was ordered to pay $1.92m for sharing 24 songs.

Mr Tenenbaum is accused of using a computer at his parents' home and at his college to download and distribute digital files.

Prosecutors working on behalf of the record labels have focused on 30 shared songs.

Under US law, the recording companies are entitled to $750 to $30,000 per infringement. However, the jury can raise the amount to $150,000 per track if it finds the infringements were wilful.

In the Minnesota case, the jury awarded $80,000 per song.

In opening remarks on Tuesday Tenenbaum's lawyer said he "was a kid who did what kids do and loved technology and loved music".

Recording companies had been slow to adapt to the internet, he added.

But prosecutors argued that file-sharers take a significant toll on the revenues for artists and others involved in music

The recording industry has recently changed its tactics in file sharing cases, preferring to settle quickly for much smaller amounts.

However, cases such as those against Mr Tenenbaum, which were already filed, are proceeding to trial.

The four recording labels involved in the case are subsidiaries of Universal Music, Warner Music and Sony.

The case continues at the US District Court in Boston.

[RPizzle]

I found this very interesting, and pretty relevant to the discussion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090731/ap_ ... le_lawsuit


Amazon sued over Kindle deletion of Orwell books


SEATTLE – A high school student is suing Amazon.com Inc. for deleting an e-book he purchased for the Kindle reader, saying his electronic notes were bollixed, too.
Amazon CEO Jeffrey P. Bezos has apologized to Kindle customers for remotely removing copies of the George Orwell novels "1984" and "Animal Farm" from their e-reader devices. The company did so after learning the electronic editions were pirated, and it gave buyers automatic refunds. But Amazon did it without prior notice.
The lawsuit seeking class-action status was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Seattle on behalf of Justin D. Gawronski, 17, a student at Eisenhower High School in Shelby Township, Mich., as well as Antoine J. Bruguier, an adult reader in Milpitas, Calif.
Patty Smith, an Amazon spokeswoman, said the Seattle-based company was aware of the filing but does not comment on pending litigation.
The case seeks unspecified damages for all buyers of e-books that Amazon deleted from the Kindle as well as a ban on future deletions.
The lawsuit said Amazon never disclosed to customers that it "possessed the technological ability or right to remotely delete digital content purchased through the Kindle Store."
Bruguier complained to Amazon repeatedly after losing his copy of "1984," appealing in vain for that or an authorized edition to be restored to his Kindle, according to the lawsuit. "I thought that once purchased, the books were mine," he wrote.
Gawronski told The Associated Press he was assigned "1984" for an advanced placement course in which students must turn in "reflections" on each 100 pages of text when they return from summer break, then take a test. He was a quarter to halfway through the book when it disappeared from his Kindle.
His notes on the book were "rendered useless because they no longer referenced the relevant parts of the book," according to the lawsuit.
Jay Edelson, a Chicago lawyer who filed the lawsuit, said in a news release that Amazon's actions could have far-reaching consequences if allowed to stand.
"Amazon.com had no more right to hack into people's Kindles than its customers have the right to hack into Amazon's bank account to recover a mistaken overpayment," Edelson said. "Technology companies increasingly feel that because they have the ability to access people's personal property, they have the right to do so. That is 100 percent contrary to the laws of this country."

Interesting how it is 1984 that got deleted...haha.

[Rum]

From the BBC News website - huge fine for file sharer

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8177285.stm

[klr]

From the BBC News website - huge fine for file sharer

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8177285.stm

I posted that link a couple of days ago, but the story has been updated since then. When I posted it, he was only "facing ... millions of dollars in fines ...". They seem to be going after people who download and then share tracks. The fines are still massively disproportionate IMHO.

I found this very interesting, and pretty relevant to the discussion.

...
Interesting how it is 1984 that got deleted...haha.

[leo-rcc]

Vaguely related:

A Dutch court has ordered The Pirate Bay to remove itself from the Netherlands within 10 days or face fines of 30,000 euros per day.

The ban is unsurprisingly the result of a copyright lawsuit and call for action filed by the local recording industry lobby group, Stichting Brein.

A judge on Thursday ordered the three Pirate Bay administrators - Frederik Neij, Gottfried Svartholm, and Peter Sunde - to "cease infringing the copyright" of the record labels and block the website's traffic to the Netherlands.

For every day the order is ignored, The Pirate Bay will be subject to a fine of 30,000 euros (£25,590, $42,200) up to a maximum of three million euros.

According to the P2P blog TorrentFreak, the ruling came as a surprise to the three founders because they hadn't received an official summons - and weren't even aware of the case.

Because the trio weren't present at the hearing, the court issued a default judgment in Stichting Brein's favor.

But as the Associated Press points out, it's not really clear how the site will block all its traffic in and out of the the country or whether the court can even enforce a ban if The Pirate Bay declines.®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/30 ... irate_bay/

[Transgirlofnofaith]

Interestingly, I bought a CD today. That's because:

1) It's a medium-success artist.

2) The song I wanted from it(the perfect girl) wasn't available on any file-sharing programs. Anywhere.

So I ripped it to my computer and now others can download it. I am so banally evil.

Incidentally, the name of the CD is "Just Look Pretty And Sing", by Tara Slone.

[Bella Fortuna]

I wish I just had friends who had all the music I wanted, it would make things so much easier...

[Rum]

Interestingly, I bought a CD today. That's because:

1) It's a medium-success artist.

2) The song I wanted from it(the perfect girl) wasn't available on any file-sharing programs. Anywhere.

So I ripped it to my computer and now others can download it. I am so banally evil.

Incidentally, the name of the CD is "Just Look Pretty And Sing", by Tara Slone.

Well my argument would be that I only download music I would not buy. I do genuinely buy the stuff I really like. I also d'load music I already own on CD because I can't be arsed to trip it! I wonder if that is illegal.

I will deny this as totally fabricated if the anti-terror police come knocking!

[Trolldor]

It's pathetic.
They say it hurts artists but they're never able to show how.
And if the band has split up - aka Nirvana - how can they justify their actions by saying it "hurts artists"?

[Transgirlofnofaith]

They say it hurts artists but they're never able to show how.

South Park did a good parody on that. I'm too lazy to look for the episode name, though.

[The Red Fox]

They say it hurts artists but they're never able to show how.

South Park did a good parody on that. I'm too lazy to look for the episode name, though.

Season 7 Episode 9: Christian Rock Hard. The other major reason to watch the episode is the fucking hilarious parody of Christian Rock music.

[Transgirlofnofaith]

They say it hurts artists but they're never able to show how.

South Park did a good parody on that. I'm too lazy to look for the episode name, though.

Season 7 Episode 9: Christian Rock Hard. The other major reason to watch the episode is the fucking hilarious parody of Christian Rock music.

Oh, that is like, ttthssowww gay, girlfriend. *wrist swish*

But really, it isn't far off the mark, unfortunately.