Slashdot Mirror
Spanish Judges Liken File Sharing To Lending Books
Dan Fuhry writes "A three-judge panel in the Provincial Court of Madrid has closed a case that has been running since 2005, ruling that the accused are not guilty of any copyright infringement on the grounds that their BitTorrent tracker did not distribute any copyrighted material, and they did not generate any profit from their site: '[t]he judges noted that all this takes places between many users all at once without any of them receiving any financial reward.' This implies that the judges are sympathetic to file sharers. The ruling essentially says that file sharing is the digital equivalent of lending or sharing books or other media. Maybe it's time for all them rowdy pirates to move to Spain."
But, but, but,,, this really goes against American principles and the way we live here. Therefore, it has to be wrong ! ;-)
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Is why many publishers would be happy to close all libraries if it were politically viable.
Qxe4
The second piratebay trial is coming in Sweden as well.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
The real problem with the file-sharing phenomenon is that it *has no* accurate analogy. Nothing like this has ever been possible in history, and until it wasn't even imaginable by most people until it had already begun. The first-world legal system, relying so heavily on comparison and precedent, is woefully unequipped to deal with events that do not fit into an existing paradigm. That's why judgments range from "100 biiiiiilion dollars" to "Nothing to see here, move along". Hell, capitalism isn't even prepared to deal with something like this. Asking a market analyst what happens when the cost of production reaches zero and is available everywhere is like asking a physicist what happens inside a black hole - neither one has the foggiest fucking idea. All they know is that the conventional rules of the last 200 years don't apply, and that anything going in will never come out.
Brave new world indeed.
These judges just made some potent enemies...
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
Until big dollars representation finds their way in Spain and tell them how it *should be*.
It's straight to the top of the "priority watch list" for you, Spain.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I only do it when it takes nothing away from the body. In this case you could have understood the post completely without reading the subject. Sorry if that bothers you.
Qxe4
I don't watch soccer, but because of this, I will be rooting for Spain in the world cup...now can anybody tell me if they are a good team?
"the equivalent of sharing or lending books or other media" makes no sense. The example is clearly in reference to a physical book - when was the last time you were able to lend a physical book to someone without depriving yourself of it at the same time. Also, it would have to be done in a way that enabled the person you lent it to to do the same thing - lend it on without depriving themselves of it and do so as easily as a link on a web page or in software with no other limitation. With that capability, if the people (or business) that produced the book did so with the intent of making money on it - how would it work?
...that we, as consumers, want to consumer media with reasonable terms.
There will always be a certain number of people who want things for free. But I suspect most of us are happy to pay a reasonable amount of money for most content.
I, for example, like certain anime TV series which I can't get through any legal channel locally. So I just torrent the fansubs. I'd love to pay 0.5-1 EUR per episode to get a DRM-free download to keep. But I can't.
Since Spotify came along I've been happily subscribing for 10 EUR a month to get an unlimited amount of music. I don't get to keep it, but it's kind of like having I radio station where I am the DJ, without the annoying ads. The price is right, thus I pay.
I'm still waiting for a reasonably priced edition of ST TNG... The price of the DVD:s is ridiculous for a series that started twenty years ago.
Piracy will likely never go away, but if the media companies actually tried to serve customers instead of maximizing profits they might actually end up with something which is viable in the long run.
.: Max Romantschuk
Have the operators of The Pirate Bay considered relocation to Spain?
Well, I've got to admit, that when I'm fucking, I don't have much brain capacity and dexterity left over for writing because I do tend to devote all my attention to the task at hand. I suppose it's different for conservatives because a lot of the time either a) the woman has to lie back and think of England or b) the guy is lying back and enjoying the blowjob he demanded (which she she decided to give because she's looking for a lifetime meal ticket). I prefer the liberal approach, but to each his own. My writing skills, outside of periods of sexual intercourse, are quite satisfactory and were thus even before attending university.
Let's cross the Spanish Main, me hearties. Aaaaaarrrr!
No left turn unstoned.
In Spain when you buy a media for storage (SD Cards, HDDs, CDRW, etc) you are paying a tax ("El canon digital") and that funds are shared among the authors or people with IP over published and registered works. So.. is not illegal (almost legal) to download music, movies, books, etc for personal use. Not is not personal use become rich selling 2000 "personal" copies of the last CD release of Shakira...
You choose, in USA pay each CD to the artist o in Spain you pay to some random artist when you purchase a SDCard for take pictures of your kids... Spain is too different from USA.
I live in Spain, but I not born here and not study here.
How is it different? If the tracker knowingly (and possibly profitably - though this isn't really important) provides a services that offers pointers to torrents of material that is being distributed in direct contravention of the wishes of the creator or copyright holder. How is that different from a fence saying 'hey, I never handled the goods - I only match up buyers and sellers'? Many trackers out there only exist because of their willingness - collectively or individually - to offer torrents of illicit content.
Of course the 'big dollars' are going to get out their big guns and go after this kind of thing, it's big business after all. But it scales well down below big studios and companies too.
Is this *change* or is it *wrong*? The Internet is a kind of new frontier, most frontiers are pretty messy in their frontier stage. Lots of people get hurt, lots of stuff changes hands in good ways and bad ways. Ultimately as more stable and sustainable elements of society arrive the rule of law is established and more efficient and stable (and less dangerous) commerce becomes possible. Nearly all of the readers of Slashdot benefit from, or are at least participants in, these elements of our society including, commercial business, public safety, public health, public education etc.
It seems that the freedom that a frontier provides is somehow conveniently separated from the responsibility and respect we should all have to each other and products of each others work. It also seems that in the debates on Slashdot that somehow it is wrong to profit from work. I don't get this - again nearly all of us readers profit from our work every day. Many of us, probably most, participate in a collective creation of products or services that are sold for profit which is in turn used to pay us. Is that right or not?
I've never understood why, if that were true, there's so much venom in these discussions directed at the content creators/owners. Even if they are rotten bastards, if you want to benefit from the protections that enable you to sell your work those same protections need to be offered to everyone who is doing work that is legal in our society, even if they are rotten bastards. Is this wrong?
When we get a free and unlimited source of electrical energy, we can surely expect the oil companies to make it illegal somehow.
Unfortunately that's the primitive world we still live in folks.
Unfortunately there is a law called "Law of sustainable economy" that is about to pass, that will bypass judges completely and will let the goverment to shut down websites without judge aproval, as long as the website has harmful content for "the authors" (copyright holders). So, in ensence they'll have the power to shut down every webste they don't like, in less than 24h. A judge could revert that, but that could take months or years.
Moreover, the (copyright) industry is asking the goverment for the right to shut down internet connections if the law of sustainable economy doesn't reduce piracy up to 70%.
For all of you north-americans speaking out of your methane-generating device, allow me to put this in context.
In Spain we pay a tax called 'canon' (bad choice, you cannot google that and get any meaningful results, google for 'sgae canon' instead, SGAE being the equivalent of your RIAA and its ilk). That tax is about 2-3 euros out of about 50 (those numbers vary but think you pay 2-3 eur when you buy a 500 GB HD anywhere). Got that? Ok, you pay also when you buy anything of the following: TV, DVD, camcorder, camera, iPod, iPhone, any other smartphone, USB drive, microSD, set-top box, playstation, whole computer (with HD inside), etc. Any medium capable of storing copyrighted works is taxed. Many spanish people misunderstand what this tax is for and there is outrage among the ignorant that THEY(tm) tax you 'before' you commit THE CRIME(tm). Of course, it's not like that. This tax gives us what you americans and anyone everywhere has been doing since the beginning of time: lending privately. When I was 10 and lent a mix tape to a friend it was legal. When a friend lends me a book it's legal. When today someone brings a DVD to a friend's place to play it on their telly (oh those peeracy vornings) it's also legal. So this is why spanish judges rule like this. It's also not new, we have had rulings like that for 5 years since the SGAE started their scaremonging about the trillions they lose to piracy every hour. Spanish judges have no other way to rule than this because the canon tax gives everyone the right to lend privately, even if those to whom you lend are not your friends and even if this whole process is automated. Neat? You bet. Going to last? I think the legal bases for this are sound and as I said it's been extensively tested in court. That means the only way SGAE has to take this right away is to lobby and change the law but so far they have been unsuccessful. IANAL but I think you have in the US a weaker legal figure called 'fair use' that doesn't go as far.
Last thing: For this trick to work there cannot be any monetary profit to the web operator. As I said before, this is analog to lending privately. Have even a google ad in the page and you may lose the case; as long as you make a page with only P2P links you are safe.
> they did not generate any profit from their site
That is no excuse.
Well, spanish law says sharing is legal if no profit is made. So, it really isn't a excuse. It's a legal principle.
This decision highlights the pervasive anti-commercial bias in society. It often has no practical basis. Often, the making of the money adds no extra damages to the crime itself. The bias against commercial sharing is no exception.
Commercial sharing involves sharing the same works to the same people. It has the same demand-killing effects that non-commercial sharing does. It affects the artists in the same way. The only real difference I can see is that the artist, unlike with non-commercial sharing, might actually be able to compete with the non-vanishing price point of commercial sharers. If anything, commercial sharing is better for artists than non-commercial sharing.
Why do we make such a distinction? Why is it so much worse for a person to receive an ill-gotten stream of money than, say, an ill-gotten stream of free entertainment? It makes no sense to me. I cannot support a decision not grounded in (not so) common sense.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
A fence actually handles the stolen goods. The Spanish court decision seems to be partially on the basis that a tracker never handles anything.
Lets consider A who says to tracker X 'I have goods G' .
Tracker T simply tells potential buyer B that A has G. T has no knowledge of whether A has legal title to G.
It is no different from a newspaper advert placed by A. The newspaper is not responsible for determining whether A has the goods legally or not, and therefore neither should a tracker
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Canada has a pretty famous blank media levy in the Canadian Copyright Act. 2/3rd of the tax goes straight to authors and publishers.
USA has a 2% import or manufacturer tax on devices that can be used to duplicate music. (Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998)
I just wanted to point out that the idea of taxing based on possible copyright violation is something North Americans are familiar with, and is not unique to Spain. Although Spain has cast a much wider net than even Canada when it comes to applying the tax.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I think the ruling makes sense, you just disagree with it. Of course, sharing a file is not identical to lending a book. If they were identical then there wouldn't have been a trial or a ruling.
The judges realized sharing a file was not identical to lending a book. File sharing is rather new to the courts and the judges needed to figure out the legality of this new "file sharing" activity. The US courts have sided with the corporations and have deemed that file sharing is just like making and distributing counterfeit physical books and cds. But sharing a file is not the same things as printing and selling copies of a book. If we apply your logic to the rulings in the US courts then we would have to conclude that those rulings don't make sense either.
The truth is that file sharing falls in between lending and counterfeiting. IMO, it is the US rulings that make no sense. The reason is that with file sharing, the recurring cost for producing digital information that people want is actually negative. For example, if a particular torrent file is popular then there will be a lot of seeders for it. The US courts are trying to hobble the miracle of zero or negative recurring costs while the Spanish court's decision unleashes the incredible efficiency of distribution via file sharing.
You asked how can someone make money writing a book. The answer is easy, I (and many others) pay for web sites and books and music that I like even if I am not required to. I see it as my votes for things I like. I want to keep the things I like going so I gladly contribute. I agree that legalizing file sharing might have a drastic effect on publishing industries. These industries, for the most part, have devolved to transforming scarcity into profit. Once scarcity is no longer an issue, their scarcity based business models will either transform or die. While this may be painful for workers and investors who stick with the outmoded model past its expiration date, for society as a whole it is a good thing. Authors who inspire readers enough to donate money or pay in order to keep the author rolling will survive. Many authors will thrive. Less inspiring authors won't do as well but since it costs only about $200 to self-publish a book, the barrier for entry, even for lousy authors is very low.
In general, the creation of artificial scarcity and artificial inefficiency make society as a whole less wealthy while they make a few individuals more wealthy. This is morally indefensible.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Obvious troll is obvious.
"violence and horror inflicted by Somalis sailing around the world".
Surely you jest.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Media pirates may not always profit, but they steal revenue from entertainment companies, because music and movies pirated will not be seen in theatre or stage, so producers get no income
Entertainment companies may not always profit, but they steal money from people, claiming they lost revenue and sales and saying they are entitled to this money that people used for other things like food, clothes or transportation because people has no more income to pay outrageous prices for entertainment.
Fixed it for you.
Which kind of new is this if there are sentences like this?
This implies that the judges are sympathetic to file sharers.
WTF??? Have you ever heard that a killer doesnt go to prison because judges are sympathetic to killers??? I havent (maybe you, but not in Spain) because there are laws for that, judges cant do whatever they want. For all of you that dont know anything about Spain, we pay a tax (canon) that allow us to copy whatever we want whithout obtaining profits (profit == money)
The ruling essentially says that file sharing is the digital equivalent of lending or sharing books or other media.
In Spain this is 100% legal. And dont forget that a torrent file has not copyrighted information.
Maybe it's time for all them rowdy pirates to move to Spain."
I would say that piracy is what Israel (supported by USA) does. And if any of this "pirates" comes to Spain will be welcome but leaving their guns at home (in Spain are illegal).
Why dont you clean your coast instead of putting pressure in other countries laws?
Several other countries in Europe tolerate self -growing/-producing small quantities of cannabis too.
It seems that the old world is better at making distinctions between large organised crime rings, and a couple of people in a corner doing stuff harming no-one else.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
What a shame neither common-sense or basic facts back you up - http://www.thebookseller.com/news/99958-toc-piracy-may-boost-sales-research-suggests.html
throw new NoSignatureException();
It. Is. Not. Stealing. I know I shouldn't feed the obvious troll, but really, I can promise you, as someone who is legally trained, stealing is completely different to infringement of intellectual property rights. That's not a justification of any action, it's a plain statement of fact. That you can't or won't understand this either indicates that you are reasonably ignorant of the differences (in which case, best not to comment) or that you're an obvious shill for the labels who would like everyone to believe the two are the same, since stealing has a lot more negative connotations than copyright infringement (people can envision having something of theirs stolen, they can less easily envision having some copyright of theirs infringed). So, no, I actually know you're not right - I understand the point you're trying to make, but when you use deliberately inflammatory terms which are just incorrect, you invalidate your whole argument. Had you said it was morally wrong, maybe you'd have a point that was worthy of condiseration and discussion, but to say it's stealing is no more accurate than to say it's murder, or to follow the **AAs definition of file sharing as being an act of hijack that takes place on the high seas.
How much are you paying for FOSS? I bought Mandriva. I bought a GIMP book. Because I had the money and wanted to. If I didn't have the money, I wouldn't but I could still get it because it was free. However, in that case, if piracy had been an option, it would not have resulted in a lost sale.
So "what about OSS" is pointless: what about it? It already is a service where you pay nothing and yet it exists right now. So what if other non-OSS software has to rely on service and updates for revenue? OSS doesn't have a problem.
In Spain we pay a tax called 'canon' (bad choice, you cannot google that and get any meaningful results, google for 'sgae canon' instead, SGAE being the equivalent of your RIAA and its ilk). That tax is about 2-3 euros out of about 50 (those numbers vary but think you pay 2-3 eur when you buy a 500 GB HD anywhere). Got that? Ok, you pay also when you buy anything of the following: TV, DVD, camcorder, camera, iPod, iPhone, any other smartphone, USB drive, microSD, set-top box, playstation, whole computer (with HD inside), etc. Any medium capable of storing copyrighted works is taxed. Many spanish people misunderstand what this tax is for and there is outrage among the ignorant that THEY(tm) tax you 'before' you commit THE CRIME(tm). Of course, it's not like that. This tax gives us what you americans and anyone everywhere has been doing since the beginning of time: lending privately. When I was 10 and lent a mix tape to a friend it was legal. When a friend lends me a book it's legal. When today someone brings a DVD to a friend's place to play it on their telly (oh those peeracy vornings) it's also legal.
Wow! Spain sure is enlighted and far beyond America in this realm...
Oh, wait.
17 USC 109(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
Give your book to your friend. No problem. Give your CD to your friend. No problem. Sell your CD to a friend. No problem. Bring your DVD to your friend's place to watch. No problem (see 17 USC 109(c)).
I mean, really... Did you honestly thing it was illegal to lend a book to a friend in America? You've never heard of "lending libraries", or even "book clubs"?
True, and that is why I didn't answer other obvious points. But I thought that the information could be useful to people grown in other IP legal frame.
The real difference between file "sharing" and lending books seems to be that shared media (e.g., music, video) files) tend to get copied and passed around--they never are returned--and are thus dissimilar to lending a book. It's like comparing apples and oranges. To make lending a book like sharing media files, one would need to make copies of the book and pass them out to any interested persons--something that is clearly a violation of copyright in most instances (i.e., even fair-use limits how much of a work may be reproduced for protected uses).
Since music often is broadcase on public airwaves, I do believe it deserves different treatment than books, however. I liked the interpretation of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1983 that allowed for the transfer of CD recordings to tapes, because the tapes could not preserve the same level of sound quality (effectively degrading the audio to a level comparable to that heard on radio broadcasts). I wish media companies would allow people to rip and share audio files at sub-optimum levels (perhaps even limiting the allowable audio quality of then protected rips and files by statute). This would allow them to protect their "pure" digital media while facilitating legal file sharing that tends (in my understanding) to expose more customers to more music which, in turn, drives new album/track sales.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Maybe it's time for all them rowdy pirates to move to Spain
I find it kind of a flamebait. In Spain we have a bad enough situation with everyone paying the "media tax" to a guild that is supposed but demonstrably not sharing it among musicians (more about that on previous posts). We don't deserve to be called pirate-friendlies like that.
When you lend a book, you are giving out a copy that was authorized for production. When you share a file, you are giving out a copy that was not authorized for production. Notwithstanding not all unauthorized copies infringe - I know that. However, if the unauthorized copy was exempt from copyright infringement for private use, then if you are giving out the copy to other people, then *by definition*, "private use" can't be applicable anymore, so it would stand to reason that the copy becomes infringing unless there is some other remaining reason why the copy would still be exempt.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I've read some comments here talking about the "tax" known as "canon digital" here in Spain.
I just want to explain that it is not a *tax*. The amount of money got from this "canon" is not used by the goverment but by a *private organization* (CEDRO for books, SGAE for music...).
What do I want to point with this? Well, the money is managed by a private organization. That is *NO TAX*. They decide what to do with that money and how to give it to the "artists/writers/whatever".
[angry comment]
To go even further, 80% of money they get from the "canon" is paid by the law system in Spain. Ain't that ridiculous? Material obviously not used for copyright infridgment has to pay for the "canon"!
[/angry comment]
It has also been said that we citiziens pay for every CD/DVD/HD/TV/whatever with canon. That is not *exactly* true. The company that is selling the CD/DVD/... pays for it and, therefore, increseas the price to keep the benefits but the user is *not* paying the "canon". There is a difference legally speaking.
I just wanted to inform you slashdot readers ;)
Regards
Too bad the whole limewire case can't be tried in this country!...would save them trillions...
Please not that comments here are just pessimistic due to how things were developing so far (see other news at http://torrentfreak.com/), and people only say you'd take greens becouse other courts probably did (or pressure, or in one case, they were/are actually pro-copyright lobbyists themselves).
In reality, what we mean is that this is finally a ruling with some common sense. And don't be discouraged by many other courts ruling differently. You beat them hands down (due to your open mindedness I guess).
So your solution to artificial scarcity is policy that will create real scarcity? And you wonder why no one takes you seriously?
they get a copy of a song or movie or whatever they would have otherwise had to pay for. community theft.
I don't know about yours, but my shower is not public.
So not watching a movie is too? Bollocks.
heat, tourism, and angry women. and computers. and filesharing. great combination !
Read radical news here
Authors who inspire readers enough to donate money or pay in order to keep the author rolling will survive. Many authors will thrive.
I downloaded Cory Doctorow's "Eastern Standard Tribe" from his website for free. I liked it so much that I ended up buying a copy to have. Judging by his sales numbers, it seems like I'm not the only one.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
It seems that you are assuming very few people will pay to support authors when they can get the works of those authors for free. People can already get books for free from public libraries yet that hasn't squashed the sales of books.
Perhaps you and your friends will refuse to pay for a book you found inspiring. I gladly pay to support the authors of books I love. Therefore there may be a real scarcity of authors who cater to greedy individuals who have an extremely narrow and childish world view but there will be an abundance of authors who inspire their readers to pay back for what they received.
I'm not seeing any downside here.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
All profit comes from scarcity, that's how supply and demand works. In our society when you are the creator of a work you are entitled to certain, but limited, rights to determine what happens with that work. This is based primarily on the concepts of property and private ownership. You can choose to sell or give away or destroy the work as you see fit (with some limitations). This is one of the principle rights granted individuals in our current system, this would not be true in a communist system where the product of your work belongs to the state as a whole and any value created by your work accrues to the state. The right to determine what is done with the product of your work is yours whether you are digging ditches and want to get paid for the product of your work - sell your work to someone who wants ditches dug - or whether you author a creative work such as a story, a t-shirt design or a piece of software. In our system one of the rights you have is to profit from your work, this includes an implied right to be protected from some forms of deprivation by others. One form of deprivation we protect creators from is the form where someone makes an exact copy of your work and sells it for themselves. There are limitations to this protection though, copying is allowable (again with limitations) for educational purposes, imitation is allowable for parody (this is SUPER important) etc. Another major form of allowable deprivation is that of competition, in principle this is what patents are meant to sort out but obviously that's becoming increasingly problematic. Regardless, our current system is set up to protect these rights as one of the core principles of freedom.
And yes, our legal system moves slowly. One of the benefits of this is that it provides a certain stability and also deliberation as things are decided by courts and legislators (and executive branches with respect to enforcement). So yes, our system is struggling right now with how to extend the rights of control of the creator with the new frontier the technology has provided.
Also, just because the cost of duplication drops (even to near zero) doesn't mean that the price of that good needs to drop with it. What is the basis of that argument? If Picasso had created a painting of high value, then duplicated it in the form of prints - who has the right tell him that he couldn't charge a million dollars for each print based on the fact that those subsequent prints only cost, say $5 to make. What would the basis of that limitation of rights be? Would it be the 'social good'? How would that work?
BTW, what do you mean by 'artificial scarcity'?
"Maybe it's time for all them rowdy pirates to move to Spain."
But how do you translate "Arrr" into Spanish? "Si" is a poor substitute for "Arrr".
The article is not exactly clear...did the judges rule that it's ok as long as you don't host or directly share copyrighted material? Is profit a requirement for prosecution? Does this leave the door open to prosecute people that actually are hosting the copyrighted material on the torrent network (even if it is, say, cached in encrypted form and they didn't know they were hosting it while it was in-flight thru an onion proxy like Tor)? Article sucks, too many unknowns!
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
There is a fundamental flaw in thinking of digital media sharing as counterfeiting. We consumers are charged a very high portion of the price of the actual goods in concept of manufacturing and distribution of the medium.
We as society have evolved to new distribution methods, there are PRIVATE PROFITING COMPANIES providing us with services that enable the free flow of information between individuals. The simply haven't, and are using their money and influence to pressure every possible authority into restricting our freedom.
"But... now that electricity reaches homes and lightbulbs provide uninterrupted light... How are we, candle and oil lamp manufacturers going to make a profit?!?"
Its their business model what its broken and its not our responsibility to fix it or to find a new profitable way for them.
Also, taking into account the sheer ammount of effort and money they have put into slowing progress , and the vile methods they use...
I for one say Fuck You
I'm just curious as to what you think the subject line is for.
I can't give full credit yet, but this may be the path to settling this conundrum of artistic material being expensive to produce yet easy to copy. Clearly we have a growing socioeconomic problem that threatens creativity. With the intelligence of mankind evident in creating such good technology, the solution to making this technology usable to the benefit of all is simple.
Once copying is accepted by law, copying becomes taxable.
Copiers pay a tax (probably based on mere bandwidth usage, which will nail people who don't copy, but that's life in an age where everyone is "borrowing" good content), and producers of content get paid (based on unique downloads to unique IP addresses from official servers, so no you can't download to yourself just to tick up your score).
A few decades ago, libraries funded by taxes made it possible for many people to experience knowledge without having to pay full price per book. At present, it is fair to use taxes to make digital information and art available without even paying the astounding sum of $0.99 per item.
For a fair tax all around and for practicality, several criteria must be met.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
Artificial scarcity describes the scarcity of items even though the technology and production capacity exists to create an abundance. The term is aptly applied to non-rival resources, i.e. those that do not diminish due to one person's use, although there are other resources which could be categorized as artificially scarce. The most common causes are monopoly pricing structures, such as those enabled by intellectual property rights or by high fixed costs in a particular marketplace. The inefficiency associated with artificial scarcity is formally known as a deadweight loss.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
In the case of lending a book or property, theres still only a single instance of the property in use. In the case of file sharing, the original good is duplicated into two separate instances of equivalent good, hence the "copy" part.
The court quite rightly realized that the number of copies is irrelevant. The effect of sharing is the same as the effect of lending, both on consumers (who get their media desires sated for free) and on publishers (who don't get paid).
Consider the difference between a file sharing site that lets you download any song you want, and a hypothetical "file lending site" that lets you listen to any song you want (anywhere, on any device, at any time(*)). The only real difference is that one site leaves you with more free space on your hard drive, and the other leaves you with more free bandwidth. But as far as your appetite for music and the publisher's appetite for money are concerned, they might as well be the same.
(* Physical lending is limited to the number of copies on hand, but that number might as well be infinite, because there are no restrictions on how many copies a person or library is allowed to lend. For the "lending site" analogy to be perfect, it would have to buy multiple copies of popular songs, but that number would still be much lower than the number of listeners.)
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
for those who think that there is a difference in making copies of a digital product as opposed to a physical product you might be correct, however if you think about it. a physical copy can be compared to a digital copy in that you use your own computers hardrive to etch the information you are copying the book from onto another device. would they look at physical copying differently if someone had a machine that allowed them to view what was in a book and physically write and or print it and share it with friends? we do already but the problem with using it is that the paper costs more than if someone were to copy the book onto a flashdrive or something. we are still paying for the flashdrive that holds the media similarly to a book. it all draws down to the question of whether or not they would respond the same to media sharing negatively if paper were cheaper and if people simply left the information stacked up as packets of paper in the middle of the side walk with a sign that says "Take me".
RIP TRICERATOPS, YOU NEVER EXISTED
Isn't that what the ruling points at. There are just too many unknowns in not for profit file sharing as such the judges logically err on the side of the majority rather than the minority.
Say you own the viewing licence to a large collection of copyrighted content, you are allowed to let any one watch any content at one time, at one location in a private setting. As long as the content is not being streamed to more than one location at the same time, including your own use, you are sharing access to unused parts of your collection. Of course it should be a stream and not a download.
Technically you should be able to create a business where people share the creation of a content library upon condition that only one person at a time can stream any particular piece of content at one time, technically even a single piece of content can be broken down into it component digital elements and only one person at a time is able to access that particular digital element. So a neighbourhood digital streaming only club as a future broadband only non-profit business model (it doesn't really need to cover much territory to effectively fund it's purchases, management and digital upload).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Dear Spain, I'm not sure if you meant what you said, given that you're about to default on your sovereign debt, but I appreciate it anyway. It's no secret that a lot of file sharing happens in college. It's as natural as young women having pillow fights in their underwear. However, if college bookstores are allowed to resell the same used textbooks over and over for an exorbitant profit (until the textbook author writes an unnecessary new edition to stop it), I think I should (at very least) be permitted to share an e-book with a fellow needy, underprivileged student for the benefit of our mutual education. Sincerely, SharingIsCaring@checkTheFascistNCAA_Machine.com.org
He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
What I want to know is, was I modded redundant because I pointed out the obvious that the obvious troll is obvious? Or was it my obvious redundant use of the word obvious when commenting on the obvious fact that the obvious troll is obvious?
Unless you force everyone to get "Trusted" Computing (which is essentially DRM at the firmware level which is illegal to subvert), streaming == downloading if the user wants it badly enough.
$ make available
angry women
Naah, they just talk quickly. If you can't accelerate your brain activity in the heat of siesta to the level enabling you to understand their point you end up as a annoying non-listener.