Europe recommends decriminalization of file sharing
The European parliament has recommended that those who share files with no intent to profit from it should not be criminalized.
I find this an encouraging story, especially in its suggestion that copyright should be rethought.
However, I am puzzled about the illegality of file sharing.
Back in the days of vinyl, if I bought a record (which I did quite often) and then taped it for my brother or for a friend, I alwasy understood that to be legal. The copy of the record was mine, after all; I had purchased it, and I had copied the record for my own personal use. When I gave to to another, it was not for profit. I, in fact, "shared that file."
Why, then, is file sharing on Limewire or BitTorrent any different? Because it is on a massive scale?
If I can't share a piece of work I have paid for, then the concept of copyright is indeed outdated and needs to be rethought.
No one on Limewire or BitTorrent is charging or profiting from sharing. How, then, is file sharing illegal?
My naivete is perhaps artificial, but I am interested in responses.
I find this an encouraging story, especially in its suggestion that copyright should be rethought.
However, I am puzzled about the illegality of file sharing.
Back in the days of vinyl, if I bought a record (which I did quite often) and then taped it for my brother or for a friend, I alwasy understood that to be legal. The copy of the record was mine, after all; I had purchased it, and I had copied the record for my own personal use. When I gave to to another, it was not for profit. I, in fact, "shared that file."
Why, then, is file sharing on Limewire or BitTorrent any different? Because it is on a massive scale?
If I can't share a piece of work I have paid for, then the concept of copyright is indeed outdated and needs to be rethought.
No one on Limewire or BitTorrent is charging or profiting from sharing. How, then, is file sharing illegal?
My naivete is perhaps artificial, but I am interested in responses.
Those tapes you mentioned from back in the day were of relatively poor quality and this of no threat to the record companies. However, with the digital age, you can make a perfect copy. This is a threat. And the record companies are not interested in preventing someone from sharing for a limited time. However, there is no way to enforce that so the downside is unlimited file sharing which is a no go for the record labels. The restriction on sharing is collateral damage of the bigger problem. And for those who would paint the record labels as the bad guy, there is plenty of evidence that people will copy the crap out of songs and not pay for them if not forced to. The original wrong has been committed by the consumers, not the labels. The heavy handed response, while not particularly popular or elegant, is legally justified in my opinion. You can now buy songs individually so what is the ostensible reason for not purchasing a song or songs? It is stealing - RadioHead's experiment not withstanding.
Reply to this
Based on our current model of copyright, yes, it is stealing.
But I post this information to put up the question: isn't it time we reconsider copyright? Radiohead's experiment is not isolated. Nine Inch Nails has done the same thing. Both are very significant because it shows that the current model of musicians working through a record company is not longer necessary.
Perhaps it is time we rethink the economic model upon which copyright is based: I produce something and you pay for it.
Google has created a whole new economic model where the advertisers, not the users of content, pay. Cannot something like this be harnessed?
The new file sharing technologies are very sophisticated. Bit Torrent is almost impossible to trace and very very difficult to stop. If users are not willing to pay for content, then perhaps artists need to look for other venues for revenue.
The traditional media outlets are beginning to realize this. I submit the New York Times as an example: last fall they dropped the Times Select option which required users to pay for certain content. That decision left the Wall Street Journal as the only major media outlet left that still charges for content.
In addition, many lesser known media outlets--young, unknown bands, young unheralded writers, alternative moviemakers like Alex Jones--rely on the viral marketing of file sharing and YouTube to get their message out.
The record companies may be in the right from a legal standpoint, but they are on the losing end of the battle.
Reply to this
You mention the NY times model. The big difference to me is that their "content" lasts for about a day. A song could last a lifetime. So I watch an ad to get my song. OK, then what? Can I forward along then to a 1000 of my friends who don't have to watch the ad? The model will undoubtedly change over time, but I can't stand the attitude of consumers who believe it is their right to have access to music for free. It is anti-capitalism. A song represents intellectual capital and its owner deserves to be compensated for its consumption. Any argument to this is ultimately a attempt to justify stealing. Would a different model be better, perhaps, but that doesn't justify stealing. This is like me saying that I don't think GM should charge for cars. They could build one that shows me ads at stop lights and I wouldn't have to pay for it. So I will steal one now while I wait for that business model to come about. Bullshit.
Reply to this
You mention the NY times model. The big difference to me is that their "content" lasts for about a day. A song could last a lifetime. So I watch an ad to get my song. OK, then what? Can I forward along then to a 1000 of my friends who don't have to watch the ad? The model will undoubtedly change over time, but I can't stand the attitude of consumers who believe it is their right to have access to music for free. It is anti-capitalism. A song represents intellectual capital and its owner deserves to be compensated for its consumption. Any argument to this is ultimately a attempt to justify stealing. Would a different model be better, perhaps, but that doesn't justify stealing. This is like me saying that I don't think GM should charge for cars. They could build one that shows me ads at stop lights and I wouldn't have to pay for it. So I will steal one now while I wait for that business model to come about. Bullshit.
Reply to this