File Sharing Case Before Supreme COurt

[The Duke]

Any thoughts on the file sharing case the Supreme COurt is hearing this week?

[A18]

Can you be more specific?

[Brandon H]

Hollywood has a lot of money to buy lawyers with. But Mark Cuban is helping the techies out financially. The question is, do a bunch of 60+ year olds (who are expert at law) know enough about technology to reach the proper conclusion? Regardless of how the case goes, I have not bought an RIAA product in over two years. I would encourage anyone else who has a concern about fair use to do the same.

Just read something that Fred Von Lohmann of the EFF and Ted Olson of the RIAA were on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning. Von Lohmass says he believes the Court is qualified to work on technology issues. Makes me feel a little better. But I won't be surprised either way on how this case turns out.

[The Duke]

Can you be more specific?

The record industry says they have Federal copyright protections against people sharing music on the internet.  The Supreme COurt is hearing the case to determine if file sharing is a copyright protection violation.

[A18]

Can you be more specific?

The record industry says they have Federal copyright protections against people sharing music on the internet.  The Supreme COurt is hearing the case to determine if file sharing is a copyright protection violation.

I thought that's why we have iTunes...

[Blue Rectangle]

I've been very torn on this case.  On one hand, protections to intellectual property are generally important to our economy.  Without patent protection, technological innovation would certainly come to a screeching halt, as would our economy.  The public value of copyright is harder to estimate.  It is not at all clear that the driving force behind artistic effort is lust for money.  Society may actually benefit if certain money-driven "artists" loose their incentive to create.

As far as the law goes, the intent of copyright law is to prevent others from profiting from another’s creative work.  Giving away copies for free would seem to be OK.  The counter argument is that giving away copies causes the creator to loose potential profit and that this is legally equivalent to wrongfully taking another’s profit.  I see that argument as a major stretch.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I just hope the RIAA loses, being the corporate thugs they are. I don't really listen to stuff on RIAA labels anyway, so it doesn't really affect me.

[Brandon H]

I just hope the RIAA loses, being the corporate thugs they are. I don't really listen to stuff on RIAA labels anyway, so it doesn't really affect me.

I agree with you. And that may be a first.

[A18]

What a bunch of crap. Corporations don't have property rights?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

the RIAA pays radio stations to keep indie music off the air, using pirce hiking and gouging tactics, and treats all artists on their label like utter sh**t. They are beneath contempt.

[phk]

Is recording movies with VCRs piracy? When VCRs first came out - the head of the MPAA was like "OMG! What do I do?! What do I do!?" But as it turns out VCRs were a godsend for the movie industry.

Have you ever been walking around the store and you see a free sample of something sitting there? You go ahead and grab it. I've even done this with perfume, just because hey it's a free sample. However would I actually buy perfume? No. Likewise, a large majority of the products, music especially, people pirate from a company is not theft of money: that person would not have bought the product and only obtained it because it was free.

So in most cases the issue comes down to intellectual theft.

Now the problem with all anti-piracy arguments in this thread is that theft is assumed to be inherently evil, whilst I do not consider it so. Is Robin Hood stealing from the rich giving to the poor evil? Did Jean Valjean deserve to go to prison for some 20 years for stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving family? Is not the USA's use of Iraqi oil theft? Point being - not that piracy is noble - but that theft is more than a simple black/white concept.

Indeed we have to look at the repercussions. Recording companies will claim that piracy is this huge stab in their side but that is hardly a subjective assessment. Most recording companies use the formula of: number of songs pirated * normal retail cost = money lost. But this is not the case - most pirated music/software/etc, as I said above, would not ever have been actually bought. The money lost is far less substantial. Personally, I would have no qualms about damaging the profits of an extremely greedy corporation - only the most influential and powerful music artists get profits from record sales. Indeed some music artists actually end up OWING money. Truth is - I have yet to hear of a company, be it software or music oriented, that has gone bankrupt or even undergone serious changes as a result of piracy.

What are the positives then? Proliferation of art - both in coding and music. Many independent bands, I hear tell, have successfully used P2P sharing to obtain a following. Further formation of a global community. Codification of intellectual property laws of which the US has long needed. And more.

[The Duke]

I side with the downloaders.

The argument I make is that since no money changes hands, this is not actually a violation of patent laws.  Under the Record Companies interpretation, it seems that a friend borrowing a CD is a federal crime.  That's crazy.

Its not a substituted effects case because there is no one to say that a track I download is a substitute for a track I buy.  Most tracks I download I would never buy, because its not worth the money.

Actually, I have bought albums because a friend downloaded songs and I liked them.  I bought a Dr Dre CD I'd never heard of before my brother downloaded some of it.

The idea that artists can't make money off their records anymore is the most insulting part of the RIAA suit.  They're making more money now than they ever have.  They'll always make moeny off concert tickets, merchandise, and of course, CDs.

The record companies are afraid that all of a sudden, some band could actually make it without them.  A band could feasibly put their songs on the itnernet to be downloaded, gain a following, and make tons off of concerts and mercandise without owing a thing to record companies for promotions and distribution, because it can all be done electronically now.  The big record companies should be afraid, they're dinosaurs.

Power to the people.

[Alcon]

Imagine when we can clone matter what a problem this will be! Oy vey.

In any case, I object to the downloaders breaking the law (they should wait for a decision, even if this is unjust) and the RIAA for doing something as bird-brained as suggesting to make viruses to destroy the computers of downloaders (total science fiction if they thought this wouldn't get into the wrong hands so quickly - and totally brainless even if they didn't.)

Honestly, I'm fine with 99 cents per song on iTunes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Under current case law, its fairly clear that if the majotity of the traffic on Grokster and StreamCast were legit, then the RIAA would have no case.  The problem is, from what I’ve heard, about 90% of the file sharing traffic is currently in violation of copyright.  It would be slightly less if we had reasonable copyright laws that kept Congress from extending copyrights whenever Disney is about to have its copyright of Steamboat Willie expire, but I digress.  Not only that, but their business model causes them to make more money when more file-sharing is done per person, thereby causing them to make more money when more copyrights are violated.  Sony never made more money when people copied more tapes.

If I had to rule based on the limited info I have, I would rule that Grokster and StreamCast would have to turn over a percentage of their revenue equal to the percentage of copyright-infringing files that are being shared and take reasonable steps to discourage the practice, but would be allowed to continue in business.  Whether they can survive having to hand over 90% of their revenue is a seperate question that should not be considered by the court in reaching its decision.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Under the Record Companies interpretation, it seems that a friend borrowing a CD is a federal crime.

Not quite, since you and your friend can’t both play the CD at the same time.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Under the Record Companies interpretation, it seems that a friend borrowing a CD is a federal crime.

Not quite, since you and your friend can’t both play the CD at the same time.

well no, but he can burn it.

Technically illegal yes, but what if you burned a back up copy and lend your friend the actual copy? A good example is me and my vinyls. I hardly ever buy CDs. I buy vinyls instead and rip them to computer and burn CDs of them. Now what if the vinyl goes out of print and is worth lots of money on ebay so I sell it. I still have the burned CD.

Another example is when I knew a guy who was trying to unload a bunch of CDs he didn't listen to anymore. One was kind of rare and tough to find and I wanted it (Cable - Variable Speed Drive). Since he just wanted to get rid of these CDs, he asked for CDs to trade for that included some very easy to find ones. I knew that I could easily get one of those at the indie store in my town, so I went and bought it (Sunny Day Real Estate - How It Feels To Be Something On), ripped it to my computer, burned it, and then traded it with him for the rare CD. I actually did end up buying it again on vinyl just because I wanted the vinyl though, but the point still stands.

[Nation]

I just hope the RIAA loses, being the corporate thugs they are. I don't really listen to stuff on RIAA labels anyway, so it doesn't really affect me.

My thoughts exactly.

[??????????]

What is the difference between downloading music of one of these sites and borrowing a friends tape and recording it onto your own? I thought the court ruled a while back that the latter wasn't illegal?

[Ebowed]

What is the difference between downloading music of one of these sites and borrowing a friends tape and recording it onto your own? I thought the court ruled a while back that the latter wasn't illegal?

The RIAA just wants attention, like the loser association they are.

[Peter]

What is the difference between downloading music of one of these sites and borrowing a friends tape and recording it onto your own? I thought the court ruled a while back that the latter wasn't illegal?

According to my memory (which may be wrong), borrowing a CD from a friend and copying it is fine under the copyrighting laws as long as its all for personal use. The problem is that those you get music from across download software you probably don't even know their names, thus arguably its not the same thing.

I hate commerce/patent cases, so I really haven't followed this one, nor do I know much about the case law surrounding it. From an ideological standpoint, I hope the downloaders win because (for once) BRTD is correct about the corporate thugs in the record industry.