First of all, theft and copyright infringement are different. Only one definitely robs someone of property and value. How could downloading a song be theft if I only intend to search for music I want to purchase and then eventually find the CD in a store? That isn't theft, that is free advertising for the musician. The issue of "theft" assumes that the RIAA loses a sale for every MP3 downloaded, and that is just not the case. That is like saying, "Since I downloaded the mp3, I will no longer purchase the CD" -- or, the act of downloading a song in MP3 format causes financial harm to the RIAA / music industry / artist. Obviously, some people may not purchase the CD if they can get all the MP3's on the album. A sale "could" be lost in that circumstance. Also, nobody is profiting from the exchange of mp3's (those that do should really get nailed to the wall, though). When I was 20, I had 300 CD's stolen. I have no proof that I ever owned them. In my opinion, I am perfectly justified in downloading all those MP3's because at some point I paid for the right to listen to those CD's. Simple economics state that someone will get what they can for free instead of paying for it. Is it immoral? Not in my opinion, because MP3's don't sound the same as actual CD's. There is a small difference. Most of everyone I know who uses KAZAA to browse for songs does so to find refreshingly new artists apart from all the crap that is pushed on radios. After finding new groups, I personally research them and would definitely support them if I like their music. The concept is simple -- if they don't get paid, they don't create new music. It wouldn't be advantageous to freeload off artists. Do I feel bad about using Kazaa or Morpheus? Not at all. It is one of the only places that I can find refreshingly new stuff from a lot of garage bands that are trying to get their music into the mainstream. Nobody has the right to take the high moral ground for the RIAA. The only difference here is REAL theft from guys in suits, apart from "copyright infringement" from a kid on some campus.
interesting comments. what about regionally-based access restrictions - i.e., different formats sold in different countries? what about access restrictions remaining on media containing copyrights that have expired (even assuming more conveniently-timed copyright term extension acts, they should expire eventually)?
Madison brings up a good point about region codes for DVD's. In my opinion, that is totally unacceptable. If I pay for a product, the amount of copyright protection that was placed on it shouldn't hinder my ability to play it. This happened when they modified certain CD's so that Macintosh computers could not play them, along with some CD payers and IBM CD-drives. If the industry wants to make a CD more difficult to rip, that is fine. However, when those efforts cause the product to fail for its intended use, that is totally unacceptable. The RIAA's model is to assume that everyone uses file-sharing "P2P programs to download music without ever paying for it. Their model assumes that most people are using it to get free music. What they fail to understand is that a large majority of users are using it to FIND new artists that have been neglected from the commercialized music industry. As I said in a previous post, the RIAA isn't doing this for the financial repercussions of lost sales (they're not stupid, they know the economy has been hit hard and that CD's are considered a luxury item in economics) -- they are doing it for more power and control. They don't want people bypassing their business model. In that respect, the RIAA isn't a legitimate business but akin to a massive drug cartel. Sadly, they're getting backed by many politicians because they do extensive lobbying and "line the pockets" of many people who have the power to assist their agenda. It is exactly like the fabric vs. hemp industry during the 1920's. Funny how cigarettes are still legal and highly dangerous to your health but weed is considered illegal. Know the truth. Fight back against the deceptive practices of greed within the system.
aphie - you proved my point about people not understanding (or caring) that downloading a pirated song from some website IS stealing. You might view it as a "free sample" that gets you to buy the CD - millions don't. They just download all the "free samples" they want and burn their own CDs without ever buying a commercial CD. If the copyright owner isn't giving away "free samples", then no one has the right to infringe on their copyright and make unauthorized copies and make them available. It's that simple. As for the copyright laws being written for the fat cat studios - copyrights have been around for 100+ years. They apply to books, magazines, newspapers, plays, movies, etc. If you write a book and manage to get it published, is it OK for someone to scan it and start offering it for free to anyone who wants to download it. There go your royalties!! If you didn't want to get paid for your book, you could just post it yourself on the internet for free. If do want to get paid, you're not going to think too highly of some jerk off stealing it and giving it away. Same with recordings. If the artist or the label want to offer "free samples" to encourage people to buy their CD, they can. But it's not up to you or anyone else to do it for them. If you don't understand that simple fact - you demonstrate the pervasiveness of the "easy theft" - it's just bits and bytes, I'm not stealing anything "real" - so I'm not really stealing. Picture yourself as a copyright holder who's having their work ripped off and bootlegged - if you didn't want to protect yourself against schmucks stealing your work, why'd you bother with a copyright? As far as region restrictions on DVDs - again, whether someone thinks it's fair isn't the issue. The OWNER of the copyrighted material can do anything they want to with it. That's what the copyright grants them. Whether you like how they distribute THEIR work isn't material - if you don't like it, don't buy it. Not to be confused with the lame rationalization of "I don't like how they're doing it, so I'll just steal it".
but the regionalization was raised with regard to fair use, relating to rights of the owner of a copy. if the copyright holder can prevent fair use, then fair use is meaningless. same with DMCA-criminalization of access to works with expired copyrights. that the copyright holder says "I'll only sell the work if you access it using a device I say you may use" does (should?) not confer a longer copyright term.
Regionalization was indeed raised with regard to fair use - but it's NOT a fair use issue. Too many people think that buying a CD or DVD grants them unlimited rights - it doesn't. It grants them fair use within the limits of the initial access license granted to them by the copyright owner. Read the terms on the back of a DVD - "...Not Authorized for Sale or Rental Outside the USA or Canada: This copyrighted product has been manufacturered and distributed by XXX and is authorized for sale or rental for private home use in the USA and Canada ONLY. The sale or rental of this product outside of the USA and Canada has NOT been authorized by XXX, and is in direct violation of its written terms of trade..." If anyone doesn't like those terms, they don't have to buy or rent the DVD. Copyright owners are permitted to license the use of their products and works in pretty much any manner they want. Regionalization is simply a restricted licensing grant which is perfectly consistent with a copyright owner's rights. If the copyright owner has licensed access to their work within a specific geographic region, then fair use is specifically limited to use within that region. Gaining access to a European region DVD (i.e., a DVD for which the copyright owner has granted a restricted use license within the specified region) and bypassing the access control mechanism so you can use it in the US is a violation of the granted license to use and is NOT fair use - it is a violation of valid terms of license that the copyright owner has granted. Expired copyrights are an unlikely scenario - copyrights on works after 1978 last for the life of the artist PLUS 70 years. For works prior to 1978 they last 95 years - and could be extended further if the copyright owner reissues the work in a new format. So you won't even encounter the expiration of the copyright on your "Oops, I did it again" CD until probably sometime in the 22nd century - by then we'll have gone through at least a dozen incarnations of new media and distribution.
LIFE + 70!! This seems a bit excessive to me, doesnt it? LIFE + 70,, give me abreak! They get to stick it to you forever essentially, total BS. that Stinks. I say FREAK EM, Rip them off B4 they rip YOU off! stick it to em first!
If your NOT joking (hopefully you are) - who exactly is "they"? The artist, the author, the songwriter, the playwrite? The person/people who created whatever it is that people apparently think is worth listening, watching, reading, etc. (but would rather steal than pay for)? And whether one or more people think that allowing the creater of a work to own the rights to their work for their life + 70 years (which allows them to pass the fruits of their creation on to their family (or the purchaser of the work to profit it from it after buying it)) is completely immaterial. It's the law - if you don't like, you can try to get it changed by electing new legislators. But why is it "excessive" to allow the creator of a work (and later his/her family) to benefit from it? They created it, it's theirs. The argument could be made for copyrights that never expire - they're not patents, so there's no "greater good" involved in as there was in eventually wanting patented concepts (especially fundamental patents) to become public domain.
I AM NOT JOKING. "THEY" ARE WHOEVER THEY MAY BE PROFITEERING (NEGATIVE SENSE) & PREYING ON THE REST OF US! PATENT ARE ONLY GOOD FOR 7 YEARS ARENT THEY? MORE REASONABLE & FAIR THAN TWO LIFE SENTENCES (AND FOREVER IF RENEWED) FOR MUSIC COPYRIGHTS DONT YOU THINK?