55. At 9:52pm on 24 Jul 2008, donprestoni wrote:
Normally I read whats here but don't normally post myself, either due to lack of knowledge, the subject not being of one of sufficient significance to me to motivate me to do so or .
However some of the comments here illustrate the number of people misinformed or happy to miss the point.
In short, the BPI are wrong and out of touch and large sections of the public appear to have no understanding of what p2p software actually is and what their rights are relating to it.
The first thing to clarify is that p2p software is in no way illegal, file sharing is not illegal and downloading music is not illegal.
The illegal part relates to the data concerned. If the material you are sharing or downloading is copyrighted, then you are breaking the copyright, that is the illegal part. If I write a book and put it on the internet to be downloaded, anyone is allowed to. If I write a song, the same applies. If I create anything, file for copyright then distribute it, you can download it as long as you stick to the license (normally this means paying me, and not redistributing it for profit or as your own work)
This whole thing is centered around copyright law, not misuse of software. If the BPI gets its way and starts disconnecting people for file sharing, then they are going to get hit by a whole avalanche of legal challenges, most of which they will lose. Whilst at university we used p2p software on the local network for a number of uses, but the one that used the most bandwidth and resulted in the largest downloaded files was the sharing of graphics files that we were working on in group projects. Since the BPI or anyone else cant examine what im sharing without breaking the law anyway, I can only assume that a warning would follow noting I had been file sharing, telling me what a bad boy I was. A warning for legally using a legal copy of some software to distribute the latests copies of my own work with co-authors working on the same reports? And threatening me with disconnection unless I stopped? Yeah, that will stand up in court.
Back to the music issue:
From where I stand, it appears that no one here is demanding free access to all the media they want, but they are acting in response to what they perceive to be a horrendous deal from the record industry distributors.
The complexity of exactly what you are entitled to do with music or film once you have purchased it, and exactly what it is you are purchasing are complex, but rather than bickering about what you can and can't do, the BPI and others should be focusing on the gulf in their stance, and where their market stands.
Currently if I buy a piece of music, I don't own the piece of music, I own a copy of it which I can use as I please (pretty much) as long as its not being used for the general public or my own profit. I AM entitled to copy it, within certain restrictions but these are so hard to enforce as to be impossible to police, and breaking the restrictions is not a criminal act, it is a breach of copyright which is a civil matter anyway. Plus they would have to prove you had broken them. This has been the status quo since cassettes came on the market, and will NEVER change. There will always be a way to copy music, as whatever hard format is available to industry, will become available to the mainstream consumer with a couple of years as hardware manufacturers seek to maximize their markets.
The problem is that the deal with digital music is very very different. There are now ways to download music legally, however the formatting of them is so restrictive that it almost violates copyright law itself. Formats such as iTunes (though not just iTunes) seek to make it as difficult as possible to use their media in the same ways as any other form of purchased media.
You cannot sell on a downloaded file in the same way as a CD, which is fair enough at first glance as they cant be sure you deleted your copy, but then they can't be sure you didn't copy the CD either...
However restrictions of use of a digital file to one machine are a big issue. If I buy a CD it works in any f my CD players, whether at work, in the car, in my lounge it doesnt matter, the CD plays. Limiting of iTunes downloads to only operate on iPods is farcical, no one seeks to tell me I can only play that CD on one brand of player, why should mp3's be any different?
This isjust one example of the problems. Should the record companies choose, they could end the problem once and for all.
Offer a service that allows downloading of music without digital rights management rubbish, charge a fair price, (given that once a data file is made everything else is profit to be distributed among the relevant parties,) a decent (CD quality) bit-rate and a decent set of rights with your legal copy (such as the right to burn it to a CD should you so wish) and a huge market would develop. Imagine something like HMV online where you could buy a CD with say 20 tracks on it, but rather than having to accept someone else's choices you could choose your 20 and have the compilation emailed to you legally, with a decent quality. Or pure downloads, either way, there is plenty of room for the industry to make more money than ever before in a way that engages the music community rather than tries to fight it.
The problem is a system like this would also allow smaller artists to approach big companies and sell their goods, and shock horror they wouldn't need a label. As long as they are securing enough downloads a week to make a profit for the distributor on keeping the data on their hardware it will remain. Maybe thats what the big labels are afraid of?
As for comments like
"If you actually enjoy music and movies and games, why are you all so determined to avoid paying for them, and forcing those companies who create them out of business?
Can't you see how stupidly self-destructive that it?"
The choose to ignore the fact that downloads could be used as a free marketing device, but they would rather fight it.
"so you haven't heard of itunes then?
keep up kid!
what's the next excuse you have for stealing other peoples hard work eh?"
See above notes on restriction of use of currently available downloaded formats, and getting a fair deal for the consumer. If you choose to be a toy for the big companies to milk into their purses its up to you, but many who can avoid being ripped-off will.
"I see...... so is my local corner shop to blame for shoplifting?
Far be it for the average british citizen to take any flipping responsibility for their actions!"
Please go and read about ethics, it is commonly considered to be operating within the highest ethical plane if you act on what is morally acceptable and right for society rather than obeying the law of the land. Some laws or trading practices are unjust. We're people never to stand up to these kinds of situation, the excuse "I was only following orders" would come in to play a lot more.
To take this a step further, I will apply my own wildly inappropriate analogy (to compete with copyright theft/theft links)
We're the law of the land to say that copyright theft were a capital offense, punishable by death, would you then say the guilty should take responsibility for their own actions and face the death sentance without complaint, or would you concede that perhaps that was one situation where the law may need to be changed to better fit with what society considered acceptable.
Hopefully you would choose the latter.
From there, if the law or prevailing custom can be wrong on one occasion.... you see where i'm going with this. Think about it.
"Whereas the people knowingly taking other peoples work without paying are still on the right side of the line?"
Consider the vast number of artists who distribute for free via p2p to promote live tours where they, as artists can make some money, and compare that to the record companies signing artists, doing very little to help the creation of the music, but using "publicity" to retain 90% of the profits and consider then who is taking other peoples work and not really paying for it, and then trying to protect their precious golden goose from the evil free market... and reconsider where your line is.
I know here that I have picked on the responses from one person, I have done this not to grind an axe but to highlight the distinct lack of public awareness of the situation. Then again, on one side you have the masters of publicity so its not hard to see who's views will be most widely distributed.
GROW UP.
