Posted on 06/05/2002 4:09:50 AM PDT by Skooz
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:39:37 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Popular music has been upended by every technological advance from electricity and the phonograph to cassette tapes and recordable CDs. The switch from analog to digital accelerated the pace of illicit duplication and distribution, sounding the loudest alarm yet. As Napster struggles to survive, other sites from Gnutella to KaZaa are filling the void. Last week, labels and music publishers sued Audiogalaxy, a booming file-swapping network that lured 3.5 million users in March.
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
That is my undestanding of he law, as well. My wife is a CD's worst nightmare. Every time I open her car door I see CDs all over the carpet and on the seats--none in a case, of course. I always make another copy of any CD she gets hers eyes on. It just protects my investment.
Some of the file-sharing programs listed above (Imesh, KaZaA) share ALL file types, so whatever you do, do NOT place confidential files in directories that you share with the entire internet. I'm amazed at how many people do this.
With the release of version 3.1, WinMX is easily the best PTP file sharing program out there right now. Since Morpheus switched from the Fast Track protocol to a gnutella protocol several months ago it sucks. It's not worth bothering with. Kaza still uses the fast track protocol but it installs a lot of "spyware" on your computer so I would advise against using it. Stick with WinMX, it has an incredibly large user base and uses a distributed protocol so it would be very difficult to shut down.
This is half correct. Piracy as defined by copyright law is copying and distributing, whether it's for profit or not. You are permitted to make one personal copy, for backing up or one for your car, etc. It is not legal to make a copy and give it to someone else, even if you don't get any money for it.
Support open source code and free distribution of all digital information.
Some of that "digital information" is the copyrighted creative work of a person who makes their living doing it. The creative people who do it will cease to do so if you take away the financial incentive.
Piracy is stealing, as sure as if you went walking through a friends living room and lifted a five dollar bill off his coffee table. It robs people of income they're entitled to by law and by right.
Serves them right if you ask me. They're stealing from someone else when they swap music files. So someone gets their confidential files. It's only "digital information" that should be freely exchanged, as another poster here suggested.
Ya think?
Last year, sales of certain rock albums fell off dramatically after the first day of sales
This is presented as evidence of widespread illegal copying; however, the obvious alternative possibility (that the first buyers told their friends that the album sucks) is not addressed. The latter explanation is more consistent with a falloff specific to certain albums.
I imagine where he's finding justification for this is that copyright law authorizes punishment against the perpetrator who copies and distributes a copyrighted work, but fails to even mention sanctions against someone who solicits or accepts pirated copyrighted works. This is an oversight in the law and I believe it will soon be revised.
By looking at the entirety of copyright law, it's clear that by no means is this omission intended to imply that acceptance of pirated works is legal.
$14 to $20 for a music cd is an ecconomic argument to go to the
trouble of downloading. (right or wrong)
When a production cd is $1 downloading is less attractive.
This is an argument to demonstrate the point of ecconomics.
Why are the beatles able to repackage an old songs and have them go to number one?
Consumers are buying the packaging.
Personally I get the impression the music labels are trying to
protect the proverbial buggy whip industry through coercive legislation.
If you want a real world example look at copying vhs movies.
When movies were generally over $50 it was easy to justify copying a vhs tape.
Now VHS movies have dropped in price it is practically cheeper to buy rather than rent.
Especially if you are not in a rush to buy when a movie is first released.
It was not the ridiculous and easily circumvented macrovision protection that stopped copying,
it was ecconomics.
There is more here than simple consumer copying.
This is a royalty fight among comercial users.
Perhaps what is needed it an elimination of the copyright protection paradign of
protect against all infringments or loose all claim.
To the limosine leftist who have discovered capitalism
in this justifiable concern, I say "It's the ecconomy stupid!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.