Challenging Music Downloading Myths

The BBC is reporting on a study by digital music research firm The Leading Question, which found that people who download music from peer to peer networks paid for four and a half times more music than regular music fans. Also that most of these people "are extremely enthusiastic about paid-for services, as long as they are suitably compelling." What is nice is that the BPI welcomed the findings that not all file sharers are actually evil... they still pledged to carry on the 'carrot and stick' approach though.

Comments

Common knowledge is hardly ever common.

[shmlco]

If you're going to quote a two-decades old case, then do it correctly. "The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of 2314." Reread the last part, "for purposes of 2314". Which means that they determined that, for this case, the act didn't apply.

Why? "The purpose of 2314 to fill with federal action an enforcement gap created by limited state jurisdiction...." So this is why 2314 exists.

"No such need for supplemental federal action has ever existed with respect to copyright..." And why it doesn't apply.

To back up, "Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud." So, to quote your own case, there are property interests and it's not just "run-of-the-mill theft".

Now, from dictionary.com: Theft: "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent."

Property OR services. Check. Without consent. Check.

Finally, from a moral standpoint, if you take my property, my work, the results of my work, or even just my ideas, you're stealing from me.

So, from a legal, dictionary, and moral standpoint... buzz off.