Is Downloading Music Stealing? Not In My...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AR8+6 July 2003 - 05:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AR8 &#064; 6 July 2003 - 05:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BlizZ@1 July 2003 - 21:08
If you buy a music CD, you&#39;re buying a CD with audio files in them. You&#39;re not buying an "audio file" and that&#39;s it.

---

So? A CD is a bunch of songs/audio files put on to a disc, so, even if you download one audio file, you are stealing a part of the CD, so it IS stealing... I&#39;m sure you are saying this just so you feel better about downloading music :P [/b][/quote]
I spoke to a judge of a crown court this morning for a good 20mins about file sharing, he told me its not classed as theft we would only be sued for breach of copyright laws.

so can we all please put an end to this topic, if you still dont believe seek some legal advise yourself :rolleyes:

Of course, they have to have a different term when it comes to copyright stuff. Breach of copyright is theft on a conscience level.

This should be enough reason to &#39;pirate&#39; with a clear conscience...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/20809.html
CD anti-piracy system can nuke hi-fi kit (turns out it probably won&#39;t though...)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/20945.html
&#39;Hi-fi nuking&#39; CD technology safe claims developer

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/21092.html
Music biz patents anti-rip encryption technology

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?...p?id=ns99991783
Philips says copy-protected CDs have no future

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23736.html
Philips moves to put &#39;poison&#39; label on protected audio CDs

http://www.theinquirer.net/03040213.htm
HP, others face multi-million CD suit

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/24947.html
Brit music indies want copy-protected CDs

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/25274.html
Marker pens, sticky tape crack music CD protection

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/26969.html
Music labels are bleeding - Midbar

http://cryptome.org/jg-wwwcp.htm
What&#39;s Wrong With Content Protection.txt

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/27960.html
&#39;No more music CDs without copy protection,&#39; claims BMG unit

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/28009.html
All CDs will be protected and you are a filthy pirate
(Music company reply back to a user&#39;s problems that the CD is &#39;broken&#39; because it won&#39;t play in his PC)

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,...7,58081,00.html
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8416
US Congressman recommends jail for file traders

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/30074.html
Cut software piracy and jumpstart &#39;stagnant&#39; economies

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/18130.html
MPAA believes all Netizens are criminals

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/24208.html
MPAA&#39;s Valenti pushes for copy-control PCs

http://tech.msn.com/IP/MSNART130.asp
The end of CD copying?

http://msn.com.com/2100-1106-852952.html
New CD protection won&#39;t play on PCs

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=39...ead&cid=4214275
A letter to Congress [urging the withdrawl of manditory copy protections]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/27064.html
US Dept of Commerce talks DRM with consumer groups

http://www.fastcompany.com/online/60/monopolist.html
Memo to: Media Monopolists

http://david.weekly.org/writings/sap.php3
Secure Audio Path: A Bad Way To Go

http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html
1 music artist&#39;s perspective of CD copy protections and Napster

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/20839.html
Congress attempts to force Media giants to play fair

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/dirge.html
The Year The Music Dies

http://www.tomshardware.com/technews/20030206.html
DVD Rot Appears To be An Issue

http://www.fair.org/extra/0109/powell.html
Big media have an ally in new FCC chair Michael Powell

http://www.forbes.com/technology/2003/02/1...partner=newscom
Pirates & Paranoids - Recording Restricted

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-912695.html?tag=nl
Apple: Play music at your own risk

OK i thought long and hard since my last brain crash and came up with this.


When you buy a CD you are not buying the music, thats silly you dont own the music the artist does. What you are actually buying is the license to listen to the music.

This license is made for you, there is only one license, and it permits you to have one back up copy of the music providing that both arent being used at the same time, and if the orgienal is destroyed. It alkows you to play the copy of the music anywhere anytime. You can resell, give, trade etc as long as the media is no longer in your possesion after the said event... You are not selling the music on (say) you are mearly transferring the ownership of the license

So when you copy and trade media, you are giving someone the media to use when they dont have a valid license to use the media, you or the other recipient are not stealling you are breaching copyright laws since you are not granted the ability to make other licenses for other people.

SO ergo its breach of copyright , not stealing&#33;&#33;&#33;

You people think like the RIAA when you say its stealing, if you move your position to that of the user and not the company then you will see.

What is being traded illegaly is licenses not music. Since the masses wont understand "breach of copyright" they escallate the crime to "theft" which has more defined boundarys in a public sense.

If you record something off the radio or tv for that particular broadcast the broadcasters would have to have applied for a public license, hence that particular copy of the music for that time in question is public, avaliable to all.

My £0.02

Xan

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BlizZ@1 July 2003 - 20:53
Stealing (in my opinon) is NOT downloading some data with YOUR own personal computer, but is physically taking something from someone and keeping it.

---

So...by your logic, it would be all fine and dandy if I were to hack into your bank, and transfer your funds over to mine? I mean, I haven&#39;t PHYSICALLY done anything...all I&#39;ve done is manipulate data using MY computer, that&#39;s all.

:blink: :blink: Ok.. ponder this: How many of the people that got busted by the RIAA/MPAA where charged with THEFT?..none. They were ALL charged under violations of the copyrite statuates.

Why do artists copyrite their works(?) .. to PREVENT others from duplicating/copying it and then offering that work as a GENUINE item for PROFIT..this was the original INTENT of the copyrite statuates..it was never intended to be applied to people that copy a file for their PERSONAL USE.
I&#39;m also reasonably confident that most P2P users dont copy these files with the intent to sell them.. those that do SHOULD be prosecuted.

The arguement here is that once the file is offered for distribution (upload) it no longer falls within the realm of "personal use"

Are we stealing these files? NO. Under the LEGAL definition of theft.. we would have to PHYSICALLY DEPRIVE the owner of their property. Since we are making a copy of that file; and not removing it from the owners possession thereby depriving them of its use.. the legal criteria for the offense has not been met, and does not apply.

There is a very huge difference between copying a file and COUNTERFITTING a product for profit.. the likes of the RIAA/MPAA would like you to think that people that share files are doing the later when they are not. ;)

Just my 2 cents worth..

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fatal Error@7 July 2003 - 15:35
:blink: :blink: Ok.. ponder this: How many of the people that got busted by the RIAA/MPAA where charged with THEFT?..none. They were ALL charged under violations of the copyrite statuates.

Why do artists copyrite their works(?) .. to PREVENT others from duplicating/copying it and then offering that work as a GENUINE item for PROFIT..this was the original INTENT of the copyrite statuates..it was never intended to be applied to people that copy a file for their PERSONAL USE.
I&#39;m also reasonably confident that most P2P users dont copy these files with the intent to sell them.. those that do SHOULD be prosecuted.

The arguement here is that once the file is offered for distribution (upload) it no longer falls within the realm of "personal use"

Are we stealing these files? NO. Under the LEGAL definition of theft.. we would have to PHYSICALLY DEPRIVE the owner of their property. Since we are making a copy of that file; and not removing it from the owners possession thereby depriving them of its use.. the legal criteria for the offense has not been met, and does not apply.

There is a very huge difference between copying a file and COUNTERFITTING a product for profit.. the likes of the RIAA/MPAA would like you to think that people that share files are doing the later when they are not. ;)

Just my 2 cents worth..

---

Great post, but we are wasting are time because everyone that knows anything about law knows its not theft but some people cant be told.

I remember not so long ago when recorded hit songs from the radio. Used a dual cassette recorder to copy a friends tape. Dont remember the RIAA crying them. Whats the difference except the conveinence? Screw&#39;em&#33;

It is not stealing in the traditional sense (like, for example, shoplifting) but it is unlawful taking of something that does not belong to you. Sure you can call it sharing but if the person at the other end doesn&#39;t have permision to share you do not have permission to download it.

From what I can See, There is 4.4 million people downloading right this very moment. Hmmmm&#33;&#33; Im not detecting any wide spread panic. Of those 4.4 mil., I wonder how many have mp3s. And How many other p2p programs doing the same. Looks like a good portion of the planet is filling up the free space on their hard drives. The RIAA is kinda like shipwreck survivor adrift in the middle of the ocean surrounded by cyber sharks.