The way I see it, when user gets on file sharing network(or internet in general) he/she is sending and requesting bits of data across the wire. These bits of data are meaningless until they are compiled into a file. At this point their only meaning is "this is a collection of bits called x and it is of the type y." The file doesnt actually become the copyrighted "music" until it is decoded and "played" by some program like winamp, mediaplayer etc.
So if I download an mp3 file but never decode/play it have I broken the law here?
If so then they are trying to say that their copyright extends to the series of 1 and 0 that make up that file. This may be true of the digital file on the CD but if I rip that cd, its not the same series of 1 and 0 anymore. Again, the file is meaningless. It seems to me that the act of infringement occurs at the playing of the file when actual sonic recreation occurs. Thus, it seems that the makers of the media players are the ones enabling us here to break the law. Not the file sharing programs.
Just a random thought.
I love your thoughts and arguments. In fact, I have thought the same thing many times. However. Think about how it's illegal to photocopy a book. That photocopy is illegal because it *respresents* the same information(up to an approximation). This is why mp3s of copyrighted music are illegal to trade.
That being said, I still agree with you, but I can't properly argue it right now. =)
...Record companies' business models need to be changed to revolve around airtime, concerts and other merchandise. And they need to do this before people truly hate them so much even a low price won't save them.
I'm getting really sick of people discussing this RIAA issue on either side who don't use basic common sense and logic.
Ah, but you have questions.
Q: Don't you think that by using P2P software, you're not supporting the artists that you purport to love?
A: Besides that question having bad grammar, it's completely absurd. Buying a CD from a store where most(meaning a GREAT MAJORITY) of the money from the sale ends up in the bank accounts of all the layers of business people inbetween the artist and me DOES NOT make me feel like I'm supporting the artist.
Q: Don't you think the RIAA has a right to persecute those who are killing their industry?
A: No. In fact, the RIAA's actions are so disgusting, I wouldn't buy a CD anymore, even if you gave me the money in order to buy it. I used to buy CDs...I've spent hundreds if not thousands of dollars on them. But no more. They make me HATE the industry. Even if the RIAA won the battle, I would still not buy CDs anymore. I would copy them from friends who are stupid or immoral enough to buy them.
Q: Don't you think that copying intangible data can be considered stealing if someone says so?
A: Absolutely not. If I go and buy a copy of Live's Throwing Copper from a USED CD store, the money that I pay for that disc *in no way* ends up in the hands of the artist. But I don't hear a bunch of people kvetching about buying used CDs. Why isn't the RIAA going after used CD stores? Because they have no legal grounds to. Because they wouldn't get away with it, and they would piss off even more people than they are now.
These problems that society is having come from the fact that we're on the brink of complete technological advancement, and the old is fighting the new. It's the same story every time an industry is forced to change. See radio, TV, motion pictures, web pages, the automobile, electricity, etc.
The RIAA is trying to cash in as long as possible. If you want to stop them, buy CDs only from used CD stores.
First of all, I hate the RIAA.
Second of all, as to your comment:
It never was about money. They're only suing SHARERS, not downloaders. They're deliberately trying to kill P2P. If it was about money, they would sue the DOWNLOADERS. More revenue stream from that, wouldn't you say? It's about power and who determines what music gets to be popular.
In one sense, your comment is valid. That sense comprises about 5% of reasonable senses. The other 95% is the sense that says that if you cut off the SHARERS, you will cut off the DOWNLOADERS, and thus avoid millions of lawsuits, as opposed to a few hundred. *thwack*
Slashdot Mirror
Amen.
I can't believe that I figured out what IANAL meant. My sickness must be worse than I had previously imagined.
I've heard that "bell tap" thing before! I wondered for *years* what the hell that way. Thank God for /.
The way I see it, when user gets on file sharing network(or internet in general) he/she is sending and requesting bits of data across the wire. These bits of data are meaningless until they are compiled into a file. At this point their only meaning is "this is a collection of bits called x and it is of the type y." The file doesnt actually become the copyrighted "music" until it is decoded and "played" by some program like winamp, mediaplayer etc. So if I download an mp3 file but never decode/play it have I broken the law here? If so then they are trying to say that their copyright extends to the series of 1 and 0 that make up that file. This may be true of the digital file on the CD but if I rip that cd, its not the same series of 1 and 0 anymore. Again, the file is meaningless. It seems to me that the act of infringement occurs at the playing of the file when actual sonic recreation occurs. Thus, it seems that the makers of the media players are the ones enabling us here to break the law. Not the file sharing programs. Just a random thought.
I love your thoughts and arguments. In fact, I have thought the same thing many times. However. Think about how it's illegal to photocopy a book. That photocopy is illegal because it *respresents* the same information(up to an approximation). This is why mp3s of copyrighted music are illegal to trade.
That being said, I still agree with you, but I can't properly argue it right now. =)
...Record companies' business models need to be changed to revolve around airtime, concerts and other merchandise. And they need to do this before people truly hate them so much even a low price won't save them.
Too late.
*high five*
I'm a US citizen, but I have to give you respect for that comment.
Oops. Sorry about the formatting on this. I need to pay attention to the formatting choice from now on.
I'm getting really sick of people discussing this RIAA issue on either side who don't use basic common sense and logic. Ah, but you have questions. Q: Don't you think that by using P2P software, you're not supporting the artists that you purport to love? A: Besides that question having bad grammar, it's completely absurd. Buying a CD from a store where most(meaning a GREAT MAJORITY) of the money from the sale ends up in the bank accounts of all the layers of business people inbetween the artist and me DOES NOT make me feel like I'm supporting the artist. Q: Don't you think the RIAA has a right to persecute those who are killing their industry? A: No. In fact, the RIAA's actions are so disgusting, I wouldn't buy a CD anymore, even if you gave me the money in order to buy it. I used to buy CDs...I've spent hundreds if not thousands of dollars on them. But no more. They make me HATE the industry. Even if the RIAA won the battle, I would still not buy CDs anymore. I would copy them from friends who are stupid or immoral enough to buy them. Q: Don't you think that copying intangible data can be considered stealing if someone says so? A: Absolutely not. If I go and buy a copy of Live's Throwing Copper from a USED CD store, the money that I pay for that disc *in no way* ends up in the hands of the artist. But I don't hear a bunch of people kvetching about buying used CDs. Why isn't the RIAA going after used CD stores? Because they have no legal grounds to. Because they wouldn't get away with it, and they would piss off even more people than they are now. These problems that society is having come from the fact that we're on the brink of complete technological advancement, and the old is fighting the new. It's the same story every time an industry is forced to change. See radio, TV, motion pictures, web pages, the automobile, electricity, etc. The RIAA is trying to cash in as long as possible. If you want to stop them, buy CDs only from used CD stores.
First of all, I hate the RIAA. Second of all, as to your comment: It never was about money. They're only suing SHARERS, not downloaders. They're deliberately trying to kill P2P. If it was about money, they would sue the DOWNLOADERS. More revenue stream from that, wouldn't you say? It's about power and who determines what music gets to be popular. In one sense, your comment is valid. That sense comprises about 5% of reasonable senses. The other 95% is the sense that says that if you cut off the SHARERS, you will cut off the DOWNLOADERS, and thus avoid millions of lawsuits, as opposed to a few hundred. *thwack*