Global Music Industry Unleashes Another Round of Lawsuits

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4436223.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4436223.stm</a><br /><br /></div><i>"More than 900 internet file-sharers were threatened with legal action on Tuesday as the global music industry stepped up its anti-piracy war. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) announced it was launching 963 new actions in 11 countries in Europe and Asia. It brings the number of cases against internet users accused of illegally uploading music to 11,552 worldwide."</i><br /><br />It looks like the RIAA doesn't hold a monopoly on suing members of it's country for sharing music. Thankfully, it's <a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5182641.html">not something I have to worry about</a>. Not that I use P2P networks that often anyway. ;-) What about your country? Is sharing music legal or illegal in your country?

[Felix Torres]

Is sharing music legal or illegal in your country?

Here's a question for you: do you think as many people would be as upset at the RIAA for their lawsuits if instead of euphemistically calling it "sharing music" the media called it what it is, unauthorized publishing of somebody else's property?

Just wondering.

[Gary Sheynkman]

I live in the US and voted legal. The RIAA is just a way to push people around who do not know their rights.

Hows this... the first music service that can provide compressed waves instead of poorly encoded aac or mp3 files gets my money.

I know I might get flamed for this, but come on..some of the lawsuits are absurd.

[OSUKid7]

I won't pretend to completely understand the laws regarding file sharing, but I do believe your question is fundamentally flawed.

Is sharing music legal or illegal in your country?

The way I understand it, sharing isn't the part that's illegal -- downloading (copying, taking, stealing) the copyrighted material is illegal. I realize the RIAA and now the IFPI are going after the big-time sharers (I'm hoping because they are also the ones who download the most, and have the most illegal music files), but in reality, isn't it the sharers who are committing the illegal act?

So is sharing music illegal in my country (USA)? Well, in my mind no, but I copying copyrighted music you don't own is illegal.

[Jason Dunn]

...sharing isn't the part that's illegal -- downloading (copying, taking, stealing) the copyrighted material is illegal. I realize the RIAA and now the IFPI are going after the big-time sharers (I'm hoping because they are also the ones who download the most, and have the most illegal music files), but in reality, isn't it the sharers who are committing the illegal act?

No, I don't think that's the way it works - they always go after the SOURCE of the problem in the same way the Microsoft goes after the factories counterfitting the software, not the people who bought it.

[OSUKid7]

No, I don't think that's the way it works - they always go after the SOURCE of the problem in the same way the Microsoft goes after the factories counterfitting the software, not the people who bought it.
I know that's what they're doing, but that's not fundamentally what's illegal. The Microsoft case is different, because the counterfeiting companies are replicating data (i.e. copying, violating the EULA, etc.), not just selling the counterfeit software. I don't have a big problem with the record companies going after the big sharers, because chances are they are the same people who pirate the most music. My point is that the sharing process isn't innately illegal.

If you left your door at home open and unlocked, should you be arrested for someone coming into your home and taking your possessions? After all, you are sharing your possessions with the world, but it's still the bugler's responsibility if he choses to steal from you.

That's my thought anyway. Digital law fascinates me. ;)

[Felix Torres]

My point is that the sharing process isn't innately illegal.

That's my thought anyway. Digital law fascinates me. ;)

P2P isn't leaving your hard drive open to the world; not using a firewall on a broadband connection does that.
P2P is *active* publishing, via active protocols that actively *offer* copies of the files in the "sharing" folder.

It is as much publishing as setting up a blog or discussion group on digital media. :-)
And it *is* inately ilegal unless you recorded the music with *your* band in *your* studio and the songs were all original compositions. (cause if they're covers, you owe money to the composers.)

P2P networks are not sharing--sharing is lending a CD to a brother or sister or your office mate at work; sharing is personal, you *know* who you're sharing with--P2P is impersonal distribution of copyrighted content you do *not* have the right to distribute to people you never met.

Its a matter of scale and personal connection.
Right now there is a debate over whether the GROUPER technology is legal or not. Cause GROUPER lets you set up encrypted *closed* networks of up to 30 by-invitation-only members who can share files and stream media off each other's shared list.
The question is the size--30 members--the studios are making noises of discomfort but they're not suing. (MS has similar features in their ThreeDegrees project but the size is on the order of 6-10 and the studios went along with it. Cause that is a reasonable size for an online virtual get-together of friends.)
If they did sue grouper, there is a fair chance they'd lose because the system is *intended* for personal collaboration and sharing and as such would likely pass the Betamax decision test.

P2P networks like Grokster probably will not pass that test when the case hits the US Supreme court.

Bottom line: P2P is publishing - one drive to many clients.
And if the content is copyrighted--as 99.99999999% of the P2P content is--it is ilegal in most countries.

And those where it isn't--Russia and Canada come to mind--will soon be adjusting their laws. In Russia they don't legally recognize the existence of the Internet; they have no laws that envisioned it. In Canada, downloading is legal, but the players get taxed to pay the copyright holders.

I actually heard the screams on this side of the border when *that* was announced.

Not legal.
And not victimless.
But it is interesting to see the many ways folks rationalize this oh-so-convenient form of stealing.

[OSUKid7]

P2P isn't leaving your hard drive open to the world; not using a firewall on a broadband connection does that.
P2P is *active* publishing, via active protocols that actively *offer* copies of the files in the "sharing" folder.
Hmm, interesting. So you're saying using P2P networks is just like uploading files to an anonymous FTP site or burning thousands of music CDs and distributing them to anyone? I had never thought of it that way, but I do see your point. I don't pirate, and for the most part advocate anti-piracy. Still, I see nothing wrong with P2P technologies -- just how people use them.

Until now I really thought most if not all of the blame lay on the copier, not the supplier, but sharing files with P2P programs is in fact active publishing, I see where that is the supplier's problem. Even so, shouldn't the copier be punished for downloading the copyrighted files, or in essence, receiving stolen goods?

[Felix Torres]

Until now I really thought most if not all of the blame lay on the copier, not the supplier, but sharing files with P2P programs is in fact active publishing, I see where that is the supplier's problem. Even so, shouldn't the copier be punished for downloading the copyrighted files, or in essence, receiving stolen goods?

Indeed they could.
But proving a d/l is harder than an upload, apparently, and the law is clearest on uploading=publishing than downloading=fencing. (The way they build their cases is by actually downloading a file from the target server and documenting the transaction.)

Plus, the RIAA is going after the source and the publishing mechanism, (since they are, in effect, *competing* with legal sources of distribution) in the hopes of turning downloaders into paying customers. After all, vendors don't really like to sue customers, real or potential, but they see no problem with suing competitors...