so, then by the RIAAs logic I become a criminal the instant I share that folder on the Internet.
Exactly. As soon as you make it available to others, you are responsible for the copies that leave your machine. You have no right to make available copies to people, since you don't have the right to redistribute the recordings. The RIAA is not wrong here. Foolish in their methods, yes, but not wrong.
No, it should not be illiegal on the sharer's part. Think about it people.
You have CDs at your house. Most people leave them sitting out and other people can listen to them when they are over. I don't know anyone that locks their CDs in a vault, or hides them in locked cabinets. So by having these CDs sitting out is similiar to having them on your computer being shared. Most p2p programs by default are set to search your computer for files, so the average 'non-techie' wouldn't think about the results of that. I even know people that use their p2p programs to play the music, which means it has to be shared or in their library.
Anyway, back to the CDs in the house. So by having these laying around you are "sharing" them to any visitors that come in. If you have a bunch of friends come over and one of them brings a laptop and rips a CD of yours (without asking your permission) does that mean you are guilty of piracy? That is what happens online. Sure, some people choose specific files to share with the intent of other people downloading them, but others don't pay any attention to it. Just like some people might not pay any attention to the friend that rips someones CDs when he is over.
The guilty party should not be the person that shares it, but the person that downloads it. Because that person is willingly making illigal copies of the music. True, the copy is made on the sharer's computer, but the downloader is the one that initiates those commands.
If someone has a party and at some point a CD is grabbed from his/her collection and then copied using his/her computer without any permission then he/she should NOT be guilty. Only the person that took the CD and copied it is stealing, the owner (or 'sharer') had no part in it except that is where the guilty part found the music (or other 'information').
I'm only talking about p2p use here. If someone is actually handing out copied CDs or putting mp3s on a website that is a different matter because they are doing it for the purpose of redistributing the music. Although I keep some of my mp3s online, but I don't advertise where it is because it's purpose is to allow me to listen to my music at work.
-> Hard-working artist makes music
-> -> Hard-working record label publishes it
-> -> -> Music lover #456 pays for CD
-> -> -> -> Music lover #456 rips CD to computer (for mp3 listening or sharing)
-> -> -> -> -> Music lover #123 find music from #456 via p2p or other methods and downloads (or trades for another song that #456 wants).
Actually that has been done to. A few months back I read an article where Homeland Security was linking Piracy to organized crime and the funding of terrorist actions.
What I don't understand is this:
People download music so they don't have to pay for it. Either because they can't afford it, don't think the CD will be worth $16, or just flat don't want to pay if they can get it for free. So, if people are pirating to get the materal for free how do terrorists or organized crime gain any money from this?
I think it's stupid and the FBI should have better things to do then get on their knees and 'serve' the RIAA.
Bah!
Give me a manual over an automatic any day! No, I'm not even a street racer, my camaro is NOT modified and infact it isn't even a Z28 or SS. It is slow as snot, but it's fun as hell to drive. I never want to go back to an automatic. Plus while shopping around all the cars with automatic transmission cost more than the manuals. So I saved money and get more fun:P
Slashdot Mirror
so, then by the RIAAs logic I become a criminal the instant I share that folder on the Internet.
Exactly. As soon as you make it available to others, you are responsible for the copies that leave your machine. You have no right to make available copies to people, since you don't have the right to redistribute the recordings. The RIAA is not wrong here. Foolish in their methods, yes, but not wrong.
No, it should not be illiegal on the sharer's part. Think about it people.
You have CDs at your house. Most people leave them sitting out and other people can listen to them when they are over. I don't know anyone that locks their CDs in a vault, or hides them in locked cabinets. So by having these CDs sitting out is similiar to having them on your computer being shared. Most p2p programs by default are set to search your computer for files, so the average 'non-techie' wouldn't think about the results of that. I even know people that use their p2p programs to play the music, which means it has to be shared or in their library.
Anyway, back to the CDs in the house. So by having these laying around you are "sharing" them to any visitors that come in. If you have a bunch of friends come over and one of them brings a laptop and rips a CD of yours (without asking your permission) does that mean you are guilty of piracy? That is what happens online. Sure, some people choose specific files to share with the intent of other people downloading them, but others don't pay any attention to it. Just like some people might not pay any attention to the friend that rips someones CDs when he is over.
The guilty party should not be the person that shares it, but the person that downloads it. Because that person is willingly making illigal copies of the music. True, the copy is made on the sharer's computer, but the downloader is the one that initiates those commands.
If someone has a party and at some point a CD is grabbed from his/her collection and then copied using his/her computer without any permission then he/she should NOT be guilty. Only the person that took the CD and copied it is stealing, the owner (or 'sharer') had no part in it except that is where the guilty part found the music (or other 'information').
I'm only talking about p2p use here. If someone is actually handing out copied CDs or putting mp3s on a website that is a different matter because they are doing it for the purpose of redistributing the music. Although I keep some of my mp3s online, but I don't advertise where it is because it's purpose is to allow me to listen to my music at work.
But it usually goes like this:
-> Hard-working artist makes music
-> -> Hard-working record label publishes it
-> -> -> Music lover #456 pays for CD
-> -> -> -> Music lover #456 rips CD to computer (for mp3 listening or sharing)
-> -> -> -> -> Music lover #123 find music from #456 via p2p or other methods and downloads (or trades for another song that #456 wants).
Actually that has been done to. A few months back I read an article where Homeland Security was linking Piracy to organized crime and the funding of terrorist actions. What I don't understand is this: People download music so they don't have to pay for it. Either because they can't afford it, don't think the CD will be worth $16, or just flat don't want to pay if they can get it for free. So, if people are pirating to get the materal for free how do terrorists or organized crime gain any money from this? I think it's stupid and the FBI should have better things to do then get on their knees and 'serve' the RIAA.
Bah! Give me a manual over an automatic any day! No, I'm not even a street racer, my camaro is NOT modified and infact it isn't even a Z28 or SS. It is slow as snot, but it's fun as hell to drive. I never want to go back to an automatic. Plus while shopping around all the cars with automatic transmission cost more than the manuals. So I saved money and get more fun :P