Should digital file sharing be a crime?

This issue, brought about by the dawn of the Internet age, is among the most pressing of our time. With torrenting and other methods on the rise, the RIAA and MPAA are desperate to crack down on their perceived loss of revenue.

So, let's put it to a vote: should this be a crime?


For those not familiar with the subject, I'll spare you the technical details, and provide a simple analogy. Let's say there's a person named Jane. She goes to her local hardware store and buys a cheap screwdriver, one that costs about a buck. Later, her friend Rick calls and says that he needs a screwdriver. So Jane goes down to her basement, fires up her lathe, and makes an exact copy of the screwdriver she bought before, and gives it to Rick.

The hardware store owner then sees Rick using the screwdriver, accuses him of theft, and files a lawsuit. Of course, Rick didn't steal it: he and the store owner had no interaction whatsoever. Then, Rick finds out that the hardware store owner isn't just suing him for a dollar, which is the cost of the screwdriver- the owner is suing him for almost FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.

Now, replace 'screwdriver' with 'song' and 'hardware store owner' with 'RIAA', take out the part about the lathe, and that's basically what's going on here. So, did Rick commit a crime?

Wouldn't it be the hammer manufacturer who would sue Rick for copyright infringement, not the hardware store?

I think that it should only be illegal when somebody is making a profit from duplicating and selling these things.

Course. It is illegal.

No. When you download a song off the internet you are getting it for free, however if you like the song and you let others hear it some people will still use itunes and will purchase it.

Songs have copyright protection, while screw drivers do not nor would your standard screw driver have patent protection (been around to long)

This is an asinine analogy.

Without copyright protection for their music, musicians would have less incentive to produce music thereby lessening the music industry as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WN1 Hit

Course. It is illegal.

---

The question isn't, 'Should you not do it?' it's "Should it be a crime".

Explain why you think it should be illegal other than, 'It's illegal'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by webby189

Songs have copyright protection, while screw drivers do not nor would your standard screw driver have patent protection (been around to long)

This is an asinine analogy.

Without copyright protection for their music, musicians would have less incentive to produce music thereby lessening the music industry as a whole.

---

If it's on Youtube, I can get it for free. Should Youtube be illegal then?

Course you should not do it. It should be a crime.

EDIT. Why would you download stuff that is copyrighted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WN1 Hit

Course you should not do it. It should be a crime.

---

But why should it be a crime?

EDIT: As a person who's been downloading platform games for the past 6 years, you can see why I'm against it being illegal...

You know Axer, I'm wondering what it was like in the first decades, or even century, of the printing press. And how, over time, the whole book printing industry became regularized and "policed'' in almost every way imaginable. I imagine a similar phenomenon is taking place today.

Which is the same as saying that, in my opinion, it doesn't matter what my opinion on the subject is, it will, eventually, be a crime. :)

:modedit: lol edited that when you posted.. :/ (to acer).

Yea, I saw....

Why do I download music? It's more available on the internet. Also, I can't exactly afford to buy 10k songs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wildor

Which is the same as saying that, in my opinion, it doesn't matter what my opinion on the subject is, it will, eventually, be a crime. :)

---

I think the bigger issue here is our fleeting anonymity. If they don't know who I am, they can't come after me. Making file sharing of copyrighted material legal is not going to happen, but we could have some success in reducing the amount of information on who does what and when and how and how often that The Man is able to keep track of and use to prosecute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigilstone17

I want to complicate this issue some more. The FBI warning you always see during the start of a movie says "Do not make unauthorized copies". Now, when you purchase a film or game, does that not give lease to authorize copies of your movie or game? Because you bought it, does that not make it and all its content yours?

---

I believe you can copy it as long as you do not distribute it or something like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigilstone17

I want to complicate this issue some more. The FBI warning you always see during the start of a movie says "Do not make unauthorized copies". Now, when you purchase a film or game, does that not give lease to authorize copies of your movie or game? Because you bought it, does that not make it and all its content yours?

---

With gaming, you're not allowed to make copies, even if you own the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wikipedia

ROM images are copyrighted code and are protected by international law. The only legal images are homebrew games created by programmers, images released into public domain, or images downloaded with the permission of the copyright holder.

---

I found that here: http://gaming.wikia.com/wiki/Emulator

I personally think that the uploading & downloading of a song for free pn a Peer to Peer Service should fall under Fair Use myself. If I am listening to a Song on the Radio and I record it off the radio that is protected by Fair Use and is not a crime So why should downloading it from the Internet be any different than recording it off the radio ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaldath

I personally think that the uploading & downloading of a song for free pn a Peer to Peer Service should fall under Fair Use myself. If I am listening to a Song on the Radio and I record it off the radio that is protected by Fair Use and is not a crime So why should downloading it from the Internet be any different than recording it off the radio ?

---

The quality of a song off of the radio would be worse than from a cd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaldath

I personally think that the uploading & downloading of a song for free pn a Peer to Peer Service should fall under Fair Use myself. If I am listening to a Song on the Radio and I record it off the radio that is protected by Fair Use and is not a crime So why should downloading it from the Internet be any different than recording it off the radio ?

---

Good point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jorbaud

The quality of a song off of the radio would be worse than from a cd

---

Not necessarily.

Well, what I see as the pressing issue is that the record label suffers no material damages as a result of the 'theft'. If a crime has no victim, can it truly be said to be a crime?

No, it can't. That's like charging somebody for murder when no murder was committed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigilstone17

I'm not so sure of that. I think you can make copies as long as you don't make a profit off the license.

---

Well, I'm going by Wikipedia... I'd need to check the actual US Law to be sure.

This is the way I see it:

Its going to happen whether its legal or not. As it is now, people simply do it because its easier and cheaper (I still tend to buy CDs myself, seeing as they tend to last longer and are easier to keep track of then digital files. But I do download the occasional single song), but if its made to be a massive issue, it gains infamy. And sadly, infamy, and being told not to do something, combined with the presumed anonymity of the internet, all comes together to make people want to do it. Not because its easier or cheaper anymore. But because they were told not to and think they can get away with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acer5200

If it's on Youtube, I can get it for free. Should Youtube be illegal then?

---

Youtube doesn't stream copyrighted material without the author's consent, because they don't want to get sued.


Edit:
Back on topic

I think authors should have civil recourse (as they do) for copyright infringement. Without such an incentives fewer books would written, albums be recorded or video games developed. Like most things in the world it all comes down to money, and without fiscal protection against copying these works many of them would never be made. And i like books, music and video games.

As far as criminal prosacutation (is this what u mean by illegal?) i think it should also apply for the reasons as stated above. Although I believe the standard for criminal proceedings should (and i believe it is) be much higher than that of civil restitution. I don't think the FBI should be coming after college kids for downloading music, and beleive or not this happened to some of my classmates back when napster first came out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by webby189

Youtube doesn't stream copyrighted material without the author's consent, because they don't want to get sued.

---

Still, even though they have the author's consent, I can still download it from their site. Now, isn't that technically file sharing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WN1 Hit

Course you should not do it. It should be a crime.

EDIT. Why would you download stuff that is copyrighted?

---

Err Hit....You've said on Skype your copy of Photoshop is cracked....



So, $1 songs should be illegal to DL, but $700 Programs are Ok?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pialpha

Err Hit....You've said on Skype your copy of Photoshop is cracked....



So, $1 songs should be illegal to DL, but $700 Programs are Ok?

---

You just eviscerated his argument...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acer5200

Still, even though they have the author's consent, I can still download it from their site. Now, isn't that technically file sharing?

---

I'm 99% sure when the author consents to their work being used on youtube they implicitly agree to allow it to be used in any fashion that youtube allows in standard practice. (you would need to contact the youtube legal department to confirm this)

The interesting thing about this discussion is most of non internet copyright law has been codified for years, but most of the internet applications of these laws are either inapplicable or non existant.

One would have to look to the limited case law on the topic to give you an educated opinion on how a judge would rule in specific circumstances.

Quote:

---

For those not familiar with the subject, I'll spare you the technical details, and provide a simple analogy. Let's say there's a person named Jane. She goes to her local hardware store and buys a cheap screwdriver, one that costs about a buck. Later, her friend Rick calls and says that he needs a screwdriver. So Jane goes down to her basement, fires up her lathe, and makes an exact copy of the screwdriver she bought before, and gives it to Rick.

The hardware store owner then sees Rick using the screwdriver, accuses him of theft, and files a lawsuit. Of course, Rick didn't steal it: he and the store owner had no interaction whatsoever. Then, Rick finds out that the hardware store owner isn't just suing him for a dollar, which is the cost of the screwdriver- the owner is suing him for almost FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.

Now, replace 'screwdriver' with 'song' and 'hardware store owner' with 'RIAA', take out the part about the lathe, and that's basically what's going on here. So, did Rick commit a crime?

---

Your analogy is flawed in every way possible.

First a screwdriver in no way compares to a video game, piece of software or movie. Especially the former.

A screw driver doesn't cost millions of dollars to produce and require a million copies sold in order to pay production costs for the game just made, turn a large enough profit to satisfy publishers and their stockholders while still having enough left over to fund the next game.

Downloading a game illegally is theft. You are stealing the hard work put into it. How would you like to lets say, be a plumber, fix their pipes, only to be stiffed at the end. That is what you are doing, stiffing them for the work they did.

And don't say, "Well, I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so its not theft."

What about the people who were going to pay for it and download it anyway? How are you going to differentiate between the two? You can't, so its either all or nothing and it needs to be all.

Music I don't really care about, but I heard that the music industry is dying with only hits being able to turn a large enough of a profit to cover distribution costs and publisher demands. Digital downloads might have something to do with it. Just do a poll on how many people actually buy their music, that should give the answer.

But music should be illegal as well just to maintain principal.

And the old, "Not like my $40 would have made a difference." No, but there are millions of you saying, "Not like my forty bucks makes a difference." and together that makes a large difference and only the conceited believe themselves to be the exception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humility

Your analogy is flawed in every way possible.

First a screwdriver in no way compares to a video game, piece of software or movie. Especially the former.

A screw driver doesn't cost millions of dollars to produce and require a million copies sold in order to pay production costs for the game just made, turn a large enough profit to satisfy publishers and their stockholders while still having enough left over to fund the next game.

Downloading a game illegally is theft. You are stealing the hard work put into it. How would you like to lets say, be a plumber, fix their pipes, only to be stiffed at the end. That is what you are doing, stiffing them for the work they did.

And don't say, "Well, I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so its not theft."

What about the people who were going to pay for it and download it anyway? How are you going to differentiate between the two? You can't, so its either all or nothing and it needs to be all.

Music I don't really care about, but I heard that the music industry is dying with only hits being able to turn a large enough of a profit to cover distribution costs and publisher demands. Digital downloads might have something to do with it. Just do a poll on how many people actually buy their music, that should give the answer.

But music should be illegal as well just to maintain principal.

And the old, "Not like my $40 would have made a difference." No, but there are millions of you saying, "Not like my forty bucks makes a difference." and together that makes a large difference and only the conceited believe themselves to be the exception.

---

I'll just point to this with a thumbs up.
Where is Conrad? I'd like to see what he has to say about this.

I disagree with you Mr. Sigilstone17.

In historical, cultural and philosophical developments the term modern would be the periods of the late 18th Century and the 19th Century in which revolutionary fervor swept aside the old regimes or the autocracies and despotisms of Pre-Revolutionary Europe. In such a time span, I possess in-depth and specialized knowledge. Examples include the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Period, the Bourbon Restoration, the reign of King Louis-Philippe I, the Second French Empire of Emperor Napoleon III, the theme of liberalism, the concept of nationalism, etc while in the domain of Modern Philosophy and Existential Philosophy I have studied the works of Immanuel Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schiller, Lessing, J.S Mill, Kierkegaard, etc.

1. Here are my interests in the field of history:

The First Athenian Period of hegemony: 478-404 BCE; the Peloponnesian War: 431-404 BCE; the era of Theban hegemony: 371-362 BCE; Hellenistic History: 335-30 BCE; the Roman Principate: 27 BCE-235 CE; the Roman "Barracks Period": 235-284 CE; the Roman Dominate: 284-395 CE; the Secessionist Empires: the Gallic Empire: 260-274 CE [Tetricus I, Tetricus II, Victorianus, etc], the Palmyrene Empire: 260-274 CE, the Britannic Empire, the Illyrian Empire; the Western Roman Empire portion: 395-476 CE; the Eastern Roman Empire [Early Byzantine Period]: 324-610 CE; the Byzantine Empire [Middle Byzantine Period]: 610-1204 CE; the Byzantine Successor States: 1204-1479 CE; the Carolingian Frankish Empire under Charlemagne: 768-814 CE; the Successors of Charlemagne: Louis 'the Pious' from 814-840 CE and the Treaty of Verdun: 843 CE; the Holy Roman Empire or the "Sacrum Romanum Imperium": 962-1806 CE; the Great Italian Wars of 1494-1559 CE; the French Revolution Period: Jacobin political theory and the Jacobin-Girondist struggles, the Thermidorean Reactionary Movement, the French Five Man Executive Directory of 1795-1799 CE; the Napoleonic Consulate Period of 1799-1804 CE; the July Monarchy of 1830-1848 CE; the Second French Empire of 1852-1870 CE.

2. Here are my interests in the field of philosophy:

Classical Western Philosophy, Stoicism, Medieval Scholasticism, Renaissance Political Philosophy, Renaissance Neoplatonism, German Philosophy, the History of Philosophy, the Philosophy of History, Political Philosophy/Theory, Social Philosophy, Aretology, Metaphysics, Ethics, Epistemology and Aesthetics/Apolaustics, etc.

In addition, I have written short essays on the topic of the societal/collective ethics of the contemporary world in which I described contemporary society's repression of the natural autonomy of the individual. I have also compared modern democracies to more authoritarian forms/modes of government in which I favored the government whose agenda concerned itself with maintaining the juste mileau or a form of government between the excesses and vulgarity of the masses or the people and the abuses and hubris of the wealthy and privileged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigilstone17

Conrad is only an expert on ancient historical matters. More modern issues tend to make sparks fly from his ears and require us to reboot him.

---

Seeing the above, I'll have to agree. :D

Were such a law to be implemented, it would have to be agreed to in every nation in which internet is common, and exceptions would have to be made. For example, say you want to play a game from ten years ago, for a console that no longer exists except as a rarity. How do you get such a game? A digital copy. Any other way of getting it wouldn't provide revenue to whoever is still around to claim it anyways, seeing as a game that old wouldn't be sold in any store other then a pawn shop. An age limit to be applied, is really what I'm getting at. It would make it a little less of a "freedom of information" issue, while still allowing for the producers, creators, and distributors to get their money out of it. And while I feel that they do deserve their money, the restitution fees shouldn't be such monumental sums. Fairness for all sides is what is needed here.