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.'"
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
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.
Even still, downloading someone's song to your hard drive and listening too it doesn't really fall under fair use. It is being copied in its entirety, you aren't using it for satirical or education purpose. The only thing going for you is the fact that you aren't making money off of listening to it.
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.
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.
Information is the lifeblood of democracy. Art is the lifeblood of culture. They are as essential to functional human society as food is to bodily survival; just as we would find it immoral to withhold food from anyone if food were freely replicable and distributable (the farmers' business plans notwithstanding), we should find it equally immoral to withhold information from anyone now that our technological environment makes information freely replicable and distributable.
I'm surprised by how infrequently I see this argument articulated, even among free-culture types.
...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.