Slashdot Mirror
Decriminalizing File Swapping
IAmTheDave writes "Wired reports that judicial activism is taking hold in France, much to the dismay of the recording industry, as judges are beginning to suspend the sentences of convicted file swappers. Further, they believe they are starting a revolution against the draconian laws at the base of the industry's legal agenda, and that sometimes laws need to be changed. Says Judge Dominique Barella of the laws against file swapping in today's society: 'It is similar to the sociological consequences of the Prohibition period in the U.S. (during the 1920s). Certain laws can have unexpected consequences on society.'"
When, how, and under what circumstances is it ok for copyright owners to protect their content?
'It is similar to the sociological consequences of the Prohibition period in the U.S. (during the 1920s).
The prohibition period in the US continues to this day. Marijuana, LSD, opiates, and a host of other substances less harmful than alcohol remain prohibited. It's just that the propaganda is better this time around.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
In a sense that matches up with the "fair use" notion in the US. Swapping a few songs with your friends hardly seems criminal, or at least trivial.
Pulling tens of thousands of files from other file-trading networks and then making them available for free to people anywhere in the world, that hardly sounds like "fair use". It's too bad the the technologies that enable the fair use case also enable the more clearly criminal case.
I suspect the second you make a cent directly or indirectly from your trade it would no longer be regarded as personal use.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
While I don't mind cutting out the middleman, I think this stinks for the artist. Let the artists set up their own websites and accept a payment equivalent to their royalty. Let's kick out the guys that say who will and will not release music. There's an explosion of new music out there, some of which we may not appreciate, that is just waiting for the opportunity to get listened to. Let's break up the whole cartel, the RIAA, the radio stations and anything else that stands in the way of the freedom of musical expression, which ought to be covered in the 1st amendment.
"Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
The laws concerning copyright of written text weren't changed when the Xerox ocopy machine became available. Should copyright laws on music recordings be changed just because it's so easy to store, copy and "share" such recordings? I don't see any argument other than "I want my free [commercial] music" and that's not a good enough reason.
Tag lost or not installed.
In a true capitalist society would patents & copyrights even exist ? I don't believe so, they're incompatible with that philosophy. The whole bitch & moan routine by mpaa/riaa/copyright holders/etc sounds like sourgrapes to me.
>So, France doesn't produce much music the world want s to listen to, or many movies they want to watch.
Really? Their music might not be to everyones taste but their movies can be absolutely superb.
RikF
In Soviet Russia you own your cat
seriously though, i think it's refreshing to hear people in authority looking at the situation from this perspective instead of blindly following.
change always has to start somewhere, at some level.
It's even more insane to criminalize file swapping than it is to criminalize drug use. Catching file swappers basically requires the violation of either the 4th ammendment or the first.
At one point in time the freedom to copy was so unimportant to the average person that the trading away that freedom in the hopes of some greater social benefit made sense. Now things have changed, and it's time to re-evaluate how the social benefit might be achieved without trading away an important and easily exercised freedom.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Looks like they're basically saying "Sorry, EU-MPAA, but we really do have more important issues to tend to than some high school kid that's downloading little bits of "1" and "0" that he can put on his iPod. Besides, he's paid the media tax that you turkeys claimed was necessary to cover the costs of piracy. Now go away."
I agree that sometimes the laws are a bit extreme in the US when if come to Copyrights. For instance the 3 years in jail felony for downloading a pre-release movie is a bit extreme. I think a fine would be more appropriate.
but on the other hand, some of these kids that are being fined only had like 433 songs. What happened to "The RIAA will only sue 'major' contributors to copyright infringement"? I thought they defined that as at least 900+ songs.
It isn't balanced in either direction. The punishment often doesn't fit the crime which I believe is some where in US criminal law.
No kidding. These judges aren't trying to change copyright law, they're trying to put it back to what it was originally designed to be!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
as judges release convicted fileswappers with suspended sentences associated with otherwise draconian penalties stipulated by copyright law. [emphasis added]
File swapping is not a crime! Copyright infringement is. We wouldn't call someone who downloaded child pornography a "convicted web-surfer"
I suppose I'm rehashing the tired hacker/cracker terminology argument, but terminology does matter. Public opinion shapes public policy, and ultimately creates laws. Even though their are legitimate uses for file sharing programs, we may find them made illegal simply because they were publicly associated with copyright infringement. Nevermind the fact that web browsers facilitate more copyright infringement than filesharing programs - it's the public perception that matters.
I'm a file swapper too. But that doesn't mean I'm guilty of copyright infringement.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
People understand it just fine. They just ignore it for their own convienience.
I'm really not seeing how you can see the analogy as anything other than ridiculous, unless you think that a ban on file swapping is leading today's teens to hard drugs.
In a way it does. The more you are told that something that seems obviously "OK" is illegal, the more you start to think that perhaps OTHER laws are silly as well.
The more laws you stack up that the majortiy of the populace simply do not follow (speeding, P2P, etc) the more people break other laws as well. "In for a penny, in for a pound" as the saying goes.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't like his translation. Here's mine.
"National prohibition of file swapping (1999-)--the "noble experiment" -- was undertaken to make earning a living easier for artists, increase the feasibility of living upon one's art, and improve well-being in America by enhancing trade. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure
The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on file swapping but also to the mounting efforts to drastically reduce access to file swapping and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling.
Although consumption of illegal music fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Files became more filled with bugs and spyware; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems found it infeasible to even prosecute; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in art quality or artists' standard of living. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many listeners to switch to Brittney Spears, Ashlee Simpson, NSYNC, The Backstreet Boys and other dangerously stupid artists that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Copyright law. Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Copyright Law--most economists and social scientists supported it. Their findings make the case against Copyright Law that much stronger."
I agree that this argument, as a snippet, is still a little lacking. However, the fundamental problems originally addressed by copyright protection as well as patent protection are no longer handled by said laws.
My little site.
In case you want to disgree, think about this: copyright expires. It does so so that the art can be returned to society, it's rightful owner. If it were otherwise -- if the artist owned it -- wouldn't the expiration of copyright have to be considered stealing?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
That's all it does.
If you infrigne on someone's copyright, you aren't stealing anything, what you are doing is taking away their legal right to profit from the work they own the rights to profit from.
The right to profit from an easily copyable work is something that should be protected and at the same time it shouldn't be continually extended as it has been during the past 20 or so years.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
This is actually a tricky subject. On the face of it, yes they shouldn't have an "opinion". However, within a system of checks-and-balances, it is the responsibility of the judiciary to interpret the laws and even decicide if they are unconstituational or unenforcable.
Where it can get tricky is do you believe the constitution is a "complete" document. Do you believe we are only due those rights speicifically spelled out in the constitution over 250 years ago or are there other rights we should be afforded even if they aren't really laid out in the constitution? The US government was basically laid out at a time when the assumption was the legislative branch couldn't get TOO far out of control because they have to answer to the people. Because of this they have the sole right to add constituational amendments with a 2/3 vote. Once this is done, in theory there is nothing the judiciary can do about it.
Today, in many ways you could argue the legislative branch doesn't really have to answer to the people. Its more they have to answer to the social eliete and those people can help them get elected. There is certinaly talk about media being liberal or conservitive and if the legislative makes those in charge of the media happy thats all they need to worry about as the media can then take care of convincing the "people" who to vote for. Personally, I don't think it has gotten too far out of hand and the system is still working, but this is the worry.
If the legislative DID get WAY out of control they could just pass tons of constituational ammendments and completely by-pass the "balance" the judiciary was meant to provide.
As an example, its pretty tough to read into the constitution that everyone is created equal and have the same rights, except in the case of gay marriage. Judges can easily see this and so are striking down such laws. So now there is talk of passing an amendment banning this to get by the judiciary. If this were to happen, what do you do? The constitution's core concepts clash with a new amendment so what do you do?
This is where it gets REALLY tricky. Some people subscribe to the idea of "natural law" (I personally agree with this). In a nut-shell means that reguardless of what laws are written down, there are a "natural" set of laws which also exist. For example, of this from wikipedia Natural law is intended to function as a non-theistic standard by which laws may themselves be judged. One classic example is that of the Nazi final solution: the laws which permitted the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Poles, Communists, etc. may have been formulated and ratified within the legal structures of Germany, but they violated natural law..
While I completely agree there is a natrual law, and cases like the above example is a time when it should have been envoked by someone THIS is the tricky part. Since this "natural" law is basically completely subjective, it could be used by idiot judges anywhere anytime for anything. There is no real way to say "OK, use this if Nazi are killing people but not if its something I want". It can be very dangerous in cases to use it and equally dangerous in other cases not to use it. Anyway, a use of "natural law" as the basis for a decision could easily be considered "judicial activisim". All the current talk currently about "judicial activisim" is really a bunch of crap. What they are doing now is thier JOB!!!! This balance is clearly spelled out! They ARE supposed to look at laws and decide if they are valid (unconstitional, unenforcable, etc), but those currently in power happen to want things which aren't strickly constitutional and are try to put pressure on the judiciary to have them stop doing thier jobs.
Anyone who really buys into this "judicial activisim" stuff REALLY should have paid more attention in civics class.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Ok I am Joe Average and I STILL don't get it.
Would someone please explain it to me?
Some years back I went down to the "You-Buy-It Electronics Mart" and bought a new cassette recorder/ player with built in equalizer and FM/AM radio. I tuned in my favorite Country Radio and found out they had Dolly Parton on every half hour. I sure liked that song, so, I slipped a new tape in and ShaZAM! I had a copy of Dolly I could now play in my Pickup Truck!
Some time after that, I went back to the You-Buy-It, and this time they sold me this fancy VHS recorder. Since I work swing shift down at the factory, this was great for recording all my Hee-Haw episodes so I could watch'em when I got off work. I also like to record the games in case the fellows wanna come over for a Coors and see'em again. -My OWN "instant reply" by gum!
Well a year ago, I was back down at the You-Buy-It and the fellers sold me this Corn-puter thing that gets me on that Inter-Net. From there, thanks to this cable modem thing (I wonder what channel it is on?) I found this "Page" they call it, where there is all sorts of Country MP3s I can "download" (See? I am pickin up the lingo!), and record (no wait, they say "Burn"). Now I can play Dolly in my new pickup's fancy CD player.
Now I hear about this "stealing music" thing they keep acusing me of. I don't get it. The You-Buy-It sure didn't strike me as some criminal organization sellin me illegal equipment. And those tapes and disks all had the name brands of big companies on 'em, Companies I see on commercials all the time. Why was it "OK" for me to record Dolly back when, and it ain't now? And, if it IS illegal, then why do they sell me all this fancy stuff when there should be a LAW agin' it? Now I ain't no lawyer, and I ain't no computer geek, Can you please explain the difference in simple words a plain old American can understand?
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The comparision to Prohibition is an appropriate one. When a large number of people oppose a particular law, it's the laws problem, not the peoples problem. You simply can't argue against perception, and the perception of most people from the "mp3 era" is that file swapping is not theft.
Whether it is or is not theft isn't the issue, the issue is the RIAA's refusal to take advantage of the situation by creating new products and services which mesh with the perceptions of consumers. Intstead they use their efforts to sue people who are only going to spend more time being careful before they go about pirating again. The lawsuits accomplish nothing but create an environment of anger and desire for retribution.
There is a time for focusing on the problem and then there is a time for focusing on the solution. The RIAA spends most of their time in the former.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I disagree. A couple thousand people are paying $45-$300 to go see the Stones this fall in my town, in fact so many that the concert sold out in something like 53 minutes. Many people pay $10 to go see a movie on a huge screen in a place with a nice sound system that can seat as many of their friends as they want, not to mention the chance to participate in the perfumed posse of inexperience with the world invariably gathered outside. Those who have the rights to songs are offered millions of dollars all the time for the right to use their song in a commercial. There are many ways to make a living off intellectual property that don't require monopolization and armies of lawyers to maintain, that already work and still would if the commodities were free to exchange in a less-decorated form.
As I read that, a particular phrase caught me:
"No measurable gains were made in art quality or artists' standard of living."
It's funny...everyone assumes that if we legalized file sharing that artists would starve. But we have seen no such thing - perhaps even an opposite effect. As the internet has grown, and P2P with it, I think we have a bigger "media culture" than before. People get more excited about upcoming releases (of movies, music, games, whatever), and entire online communities are created that center themselves around these products.
In fact, I would be hard pressed to cite an example of an artist that STOPPED recording because his or her music was being swapped so much on the internet. There are these theoretical losses the RIAA/MPAA cite well into the billions of dollars - but I don't see "billions of dollars" less in the lifestyle of the pop stars. Metallica is just as rich as always, N Sync just as successful.
One might assert that the money is coming out of the pockets of aspiring artists, but I would disagree. The RIAA was NEVER the friend of new artists, just as Hollywood is NEVER the friend of the low-budget film maker. I would assert the opposite: with sites like Magnatune and CD Baby, aspiring artists have a better chance than ever to make a buck for their efforts, and get exposure the RIAA and MPAA could never offer.
Piracy is still piracy, but at the end of the day, you'll find that even in a society where file-swapping is legal, your artists don't starve. This has been held as the highest argument against file sharing: we're stealing from the artists. But truthfully, I simply don't see it. Sure, there's always gonna be those that would prefer to trade online and never pay, but there will also be those that will want to purchase the stuff they found because they liked it so much. Very few people go out and blindly buy music, because it doesn't make any sense. Why would you pay $15 for a CD filled with something you know nothing about? You have to get into it somehow. Back in the old days, it was radio. Then cassette tapes came around, and it was all about mix tapes that were given to your friends. I know I bought a lot of albums because of mix tapes I got from my friends. Now, its home-burned CDs, P2P AND radio.
As I see it, those "unofficial" distribution channels help artists become known. You have to hear the music somewhere first, and then you buy. P2P, radio and home-made media allow for that to happen. Most artists don't get radio play anyway. All that leaves is word of mouth and P2P for someone to get to know the music, and since few people will consistently pay $15-$20 for an album filled with music they have no clue about, this makes home copied music and P2P pretty important In an age where fewer people are listening to the radio, and more people are carrying music on a portable player, it's just silly to think that killing P2P off will HELP the industry.
Of course, this begs the question "How do we change laws to reflect this?" And that is a dicussion for another time; I don't have that answer. All I know is that the way it is right now, is wrong.
...what you are doing is taking away their legal right to profit from the work they own the rights to
Careful there. You do not have the right to profit. You do have the right to attempt to profit.
That may seem like a minor distinction, but it's actually a huge one. Confusing the two will only muddy the copyright water even further, which nobody needs.
One possible outcome might be the end of big budget movies
As another poster wrote, how much is file sharing hurting George Lucas's pocketbook? Or the creators of Spider-Man or X-Men?
Who are the file swappers stealing from? The black stuntman in the ads?
Give me a break. Maybe movies like Gigli would never have been made. That's about where it ends IMO. The blockbusters would continue to get made regardless.
IMO an open distribution method would encourage theatre use.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
What he is talking about is just freedom. Freedom to work and live without domineering forces. I was hoping that some of you free market slashdotters would start to see the light because of the rather obvious case that sits right in front of us all--the monopoly power of cablecos and telcos. Obviously, they are inhibiting the advance of technology through their dominant power.
Monopoly power, which government enables, isn't freedom or the free market. Much as what you say in that socialism doesn't exist, neither does the free market. Instead what we have is a corporate aristocracy. It bares no resemblance to Adam Smyth's capitalism.
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
FalconThomas Jefferson, 1814
Should there be a Law?