Filesharing - Distrubution Or Not

[RealitY]

The whole premise here regarding filesharing being illegal seems to be the point of it being"distribution".

Although the point of "distribution " appears legally challenged...
I have to come to think in light of the Jane Doe vs RIAA case that simply having your CD collection on your hardrive (legal), which becomes illegal when put into your "shared folder", since you are " distributing" it. This appears to be a flawed concept perhaps since "distributing" means just that, "distributing"...

If I have a CD at your house and you make a copy of it...
Could that be deemed "distribution" on my part
Or did YOU copy it.

If I leave my windows open and you take a picture of a copyright poster on my wall...
Could that be deemed distribution on my part
Or did YOU take that picture.

If I put my CD's in my "shared folder" (window open) and you copy them...
Could that be deemed "distribution" on my part
Or did YOU download it

I have read the dictionary definition of "distribute" and it seems could be argued either way I gusess, although simply putting files in a folder would be a very liberally streched meaning of the idea. Otherwise the concept of "sharing" would have to be deemed illegal, good luck, thats a strech. Though someone is trying to pass a law making "file sharing" illegal, most lickely to define these issues.

How do they intend, long term, to show filesharing as truly being illegal, a loophole is soon to appear.

Just trying to strike up some thought.

[echidna]

file sharing is only illegal if you are not the copyright holder to the shared media
although the majority of most peoples shared media fits this description it is the nature of the material shared rather than the act of sharing files which is illegal

i have been unimpressed by the common claim that file sharing is illegal
breaching copyright conditions is illegal, not file sharing
[although using K++ is illegal as it breaches kazaa's copyright agreement]

[RealitY]

Originally posted by echidna@21 August 2003 - 09:24
file sharing is only illegal if you are not the copyright holder to the shared media

I understand the premise, I am just challenging it.

i have been unimpressed by the common claim that file sharing is illegal

Then do you agree that "sharing" even by legal definition if challenged would NOT be illegal.
Nor could this actually truly be considered "distribution".

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by REALITY+21 August 2003 - 09:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (REALITY @ 21 August 2003 - 09:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-echidna@21 August 2003 - 09:24
file sharing is only illegal if you are not the copyright holder to the shared media

I understand the premise, I am just challenging it.
[/b][/quote]
why are you wishing to challenge this?
are you hoping that you&#39;re gonna be let off the hook because you "challenge" the "law" or that you&#39;ll be heralded a pioneer for generations to come as the member of the k-lite board who rebelled against the goons of rht riaa and brough the slaves of oppression to freedom?

p.s. yeah, the punctuation (or lack thereof) is wrong, but i&#39;m challenging preconceptions in grammar and the english language

[RealitY]

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob@21 August 2003 - 09:35
why are you wishing to challenge this?
are you hoping that you&#39;re gonna be let off the hook because you "challenge" the "law" or that you&#39;ll be heralded a pioneer for generations to come as the member of the k-lite board who rebelled against the goons of rht riaa and brough the slaves of oppression to freedom?

Once Again, You Prove Yourself To Be A &#33;@#&#036;%^&*()
Another Useless Comment.

I am simply debating the issue at hand.

In order to be a Hero I would need to be the member...
Of the KLite Forum that Kicks &#33;@#&#036;%^&*() of your RETARDED statements.

Once Again...
Go Away

With Your Pessimism
And Your Now Newly Found
Proudly Stated Childish Assumptions

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by REALITY@21 August 2003 - 09:44
I am simply debating the issue at hand.

...and when i debate the reason for your debate you can&#39;t handle this...why?

my point was that if you wanted to have any impact on current goings-on, why not contact a lawyer and fight your case that way...not just suggest an idea on a forum?

[RealitY]

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob@21 August 2003 - 09:53
...and when i debate the reason for your debate you can&#39;t handle this...why?

Oh for F**k All...
Debate The Debate...
Are You My Mother...
Only A Mother Could Say Something So RIDICULOUS

my point was that if you wanted to have any impact on current goings-on, why not contact a lawyer and fight your case that way...not just suggest an idea on a forum?

1. Don&#39;t need a lawyer, don&#39;t care for them much.
2. Fight my case?? What Case?? You Feeling OK??
3. When were you F**king put in charge of what I do.
4. Are you setting the criteria for the board these days?

Your Stewing In It Right Now.
Pull It Out Your &#33;@#&#036;%^&*() Before You Get Backed Up.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by REALITY@21 August 2003 - 10:07
You Feeling OK??
3. When were you F**king put in charge of what I do.

Your Stewing In It Right Now.
Pull It Out Your &#33;@#&#036;%^&*() Before You Get Backed Up.

i could ask you the same thing...

i don&#39;t have any preconception that i have any input on your actions at all.

and how exactly am i "stewing in it"
and what is "it"?

it seems to me that you attempted to spark up conversation about a point, when i asked why you&#39;d want to do that and to what end, you couldn&#39;t handle it, and sent me that pm...

what&#39;s the point of starting a debate if you won&#39;t take any opposing arguments without acting in a childish fashion?

[RealitY]

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob@21 August 2003 - 10:12
it seems to me that you attempted to spark up conversation about a point, when i asked why you&#39;d want to do that and to what end

Why Not?? Also I never heard you ask to what end.

what&#39;s the point of starting a debate if you won&#39;t take any opposing arguments

What oppsing arguments??
Perhaps your referring to when you said this...

why are you wishing to challenge this?
are you hoping that you&#39;re gonna be let off the hook because you "challenge" the "law" or that you&#39;ll be heralded a pioneer for generations to come as the member of the k-lite board who rebelled against the goons of rht riaa and brough the slaves of oppression to freedom?

Is that what you consider an opposing argument??

what is "it"?

It Is "SHIT".

[Ardor]

Your logic is flawed&#33; When you download something for free, that others (artists, actors, directors, distributors,etc) have worked for and deserve a reward for, you are stealing their work without compensating it. When you are sharing this with others, you are allowing others to steal as well, so the crime is greater. So yes it is a crime, and don&#39;t be hypocritical about it. I have faced that I am a criminal a long time ago. B)

Whether record- & movie-companies are using an outdated model of distribution is an entirely different discussion. Point is, when you download movies + music, you are taking things for free and not giving back to the creators.... fact&#33;

But then again... who gives a sh**?