Legality regarding Bittorent

**bwayne337** · 09-07-2010, 07:13 AM

regarding sharing music, what is the exact law?
my justification is that I would lend my friend some of my CDs - so what's the difference with lending my CDs to my community (my Bittorent community lol)? They're not stealing it because I own it - no breach of contract there because the contract has been performed once I've paid my money. Nor are these community people reselling the product for personal gain.

So? Convince me!

**Quarterquack** · 09-07-2010, 08:05 AM

But see, some people venture to say that lending your copy to a friend involves the fact that you don't own said copy anymore. Therefore they still made a sale, and if the two of you want to listen to it simultaneously, then you will need a second disc. The same logic is not applicable to making infinite copies, as in that case, the need for more discs, and consequentially more sales, is eliminated.

Sony tried to root some laws in Australia (I think it was) a while back, trying to let people share PSP games by sending trials to their friends for like 2 days after which they expire. It never got rooted well, but that just goes to show you how intent some companies are on redefining "sharing".

**bwayne337** · 09-07-2010, 08:10 AM

that's stupid..
so would buying CDs from a second hand store be considered illegal activity as well? what is the definition? or is it vague altogether...

**patroclus** · 09-07-2010, 08:37 AM

RIAA (Music) doesn't sue people anymore, if that's your concern. I'm not sure about the MPAA (Movies) though. To answer your question, I think it's completely justifiable. As an average person, I can't financially support all the wide variety of entertainment thrown at me. In terms of music, CD's just cost way too much money. Even if you used iTunes, it adds up. I was too young to remember Napster but if a service like that still existed, I would totally optimize it. The entertainment industry just doesn't want to embrace new technology. It's really sad how ignorant they are. Even streaming sites are forced to take down copyright material. Their response to YouTube was monitored channels like Hulu and VEVO. And they wonder why I resort to piracy. I don't want to watch a 30 second commercial every time I want to watch something. What it all comes down to is accessibility. Blockbuster is going out of business and for a good reason. Why drive all the way to your local video store and pay $5 to rent a movie. Does that really make sense when a DVD costs $15 to buy permanently. Don't even get me started with Blu-ray. Now Netflix is the new successor and it still doesn't convince me to leave piracy. Yea, sure I get it within a day but my anxiety begs to differ.

So your still not convinced, huh?

Well here is my final response. Depending on where you live and your local movie theater, I pay 10 bucks for movie tickets. And I go to a lot of midnight premiers. Piracy has broadened my horizon and taste in music as well. I am able to get a sense of many different genres and really appreciate the music that much more. The money I saved could go to support artists who would never have gotten the publicity otherwise.

I still believe piracy is stealing. It's bull shit how some people delude themselves into thinking that it's not. It's actually nerve racking to hear people say it's sharing. I just can't meet their needs when I have to worry about providing for myself. This is where I find comfort in file sharing and why I was so drawn into the community. It gives me the ability to test out and figure out what's for me and what's not. It's not like I solicit all my boot legs. The ones that I truly care for I recommend to my friends and help get the word out. In the end of the day are you really going to punish someone for being a FAN

**bwayne337** · 09-07-2010, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by patroclus

I am able to get a sense of many different genres and really appreciate the music that much more. The money I saved could go to support artists who would never have gotten the publicity otherwise.

Amen, brotha

I'm just not convinced as to why those twats all threaten to sue private trackers. I can see that they're illegal and they hurt their sales, but at the very least, they reach out to more people than they would've had piracy not been formed. a little food for thought - the music industry/movie industry need to stay loyal to their customers. ffs, you lose a good % of your buyers by shutting down trackers or suing people. serves more of a deterrence than a regulation. i, for one, buy cd's by artists i like (of course once I check them out by downloading - who the fuck would want to waste money on a cd these days?). of course, i don't buy all the cd's i download, but i buy cd's for the artists i do want to truly support - as mentioned earlier, artists that don't get the recognition they deserve.

i merely think that society sets forth the thinking that piracy is wrong, although when you really think about it, it's really just sharing CDs with penpals.. I'm always sending my friends tracks from my favorite artists and shit. i'm sorry Sony Entertainment if i like your artist's records and i want to promote it. (i'm pretty sure all the concerts I've gone to were by artists i found listening to music on bittorrent)

**patroclus** · 09-07-2010, 09:38 AM

Well I think it makes sense for them to go after private trackers. Otherwise sites like What.CD would be able to have open registrations. Could you imagine the amount of content that would be on that site if everybody could join. With only 100,000 users they have over 500,000 albums. Anyways going back to your loaning CD principle. If you give someone else your retail copy than you no longer have it. Therefore you are letting him borrow it. Unless you were a really friendly guy, he would have to buy his own copy to continue enjoying it. With file sharing you are distributing something so both of you have it. Now he doesn't have to go buy it which is why studios/record companies have a problem with it in the first place. Their problem is also our problem. We are living in a digital age and everything is so available. We go on music sites and are constantly bombarded by the latest track to download. I can find out about new artists instantly and that only sparks my curiosity more. In their ideal world, we the end user are supposed to decide through previews if we want to buy it or not. They claim that those services are sufficient enough to help us make a determination. I on the other hand rarely find myself using those services. Aside from Last.fm, I don't really use iTunes or Myspace Music to find tracks. I actually find most of my stuff through dedicated blogs/fansites/forums or trackers. It's really hard though to decide how one should go about doing this. I've just gotten so used to file sharing that it is the most comfortable. When I look in the right places I am ensured the same decent quality as if I were buying a CD. Maybe I am mindlessly downloading files but I for sure am making the best use of it to my ability.

**bwayne337** · 09-08-2010, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by patroclus

Well I think it makes sense for them to go after private trackers. Otherwise sites like What.CD would be able to have open registrations. Could you imagine the amount of content that would be on that site if everybody could join. With only 100,000 users they have over 500,000 albums. Anyways going back to your loaning CD principle. If you give someone else your retail copy than you no longer have it. Therefore you are letting him borrow it. Unless you were a really friendly guy, he would have to buy his own copy to continue enjoying it. With file sharing you are distributing something so both of you have it. Now he doesn't have to go buy it which is why studios/record companies have a problem with it in the first place. Their problem is also our problem. We are living in a digital age and everything is so available. We go on music sites and are constantly bombarded by the latest track to download. I can find out about new artists instantly and that only sparks my curiosity more. In their ideal world, we the end user are supposed to decide through previews if we want to buy it or not. They claim that those services are sufficient enough to help us make a determination. I on the other hand rarely find myself using those services. Aside from Last.fm, I don't really use iTunes or Myspace Music to find tracks. I actually find most of my stuff through dedicated blogs/fansites/forums or trackers. It's really hard though to decide how one should go about doing this. I've just gotten so used to file sharing that it is the most comfortable. When I look in the right places I am ensured the same decent quality as if I were buying a CD. Maybe I am mindlessly downloading files but I for sure am making the best use of it to my ability.

I agree in every point. Long live file sharing! Forever, that is....

**ca_aok** · 09-08-2010, 05:31 PM

No idea where you live, but in Canada, downloading music is legal as long as it's for non-commercial purposes. Uploading, however, is illegal, and that includes seeding torrents. So if you wanted to be perfectly safe you're better off using DDL or Usenet in that sense. Our current government is trying to enact DMCA 2.0: Revenge of the Hosers, so that might be subject to change soon

**respawn40** · 09-09-2010, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by patroclus

As an average person, I can't financially support all the wide variety of entertainment thrown at me. In terms of music, CD's just cost way too much money. Even if you used iTunes, it adds up.

There are people out there who would say "if you feel that giving up a portion of your money for a luxury item isn't worth it, then you shouldn't have it". You sacrifice something (in this case money), to gain something (in this case the music). But hey, at least you're being honest about your motives!

I was too young to remember Napster

Me too bro! You sure do sound (err...type?) like one of my contemporaries!