queston on the legalities of downloading

[flyinmac]

I wasn't referring to you specifically, and I appreciate your answers to questions posted here. It just seems to me that a lot of posters have very low tolerance for illegal downloading and yet never really explain why it matters so much to them. My guess is that if you asked them about how they felt about smoking pot, violating minor traffic laws, or illegal immigration, they wouldn't be nearly as upset and may not care at all. Why is illegal downloading so intolerable? Again, Flyinmac, I am not speaking about you but others who have expressed very strong opinions on this issue.

I can understand that... I like to challenge people on some issues as well.

If you believe something, I do think you should have a reason to believe it.

In terms of the law, it is pretty simple most of the time. If it's illegal, then it's "wrong" to do it. If you don't think it's wrong, then actually do something to change the law.

Often, people want to just say the law is wrong and do what they want and justify it in their mind and pretend it's OK.

Personally, if you really believe the law is wrong, then stand up and do something to change the law.

Hiding in your basement and trying not to get caught, does very little to institute change. Rather, it just serves to prove that the law is correct and that you are knowingly doing something wrong. Again, if someone genuinely feels that the law is wrong, then do something about it, don't just hide and justify it in your mind.

Personally, I do think the law oversteps some of our rights. And, sometimes I find that frustrating. But, the topic here was not whether I agree with the law, it was about whether something was illegal.

In terms of copyrights, I do believe that people have a right to get paid if you choose to utilize their product / time investment.

But, I also disagree with the concept that I should repurchase the same movie over and over again if I want to be able to play it on more than one kind of movie player (for example, if I own the DVD, but would like to watch it on my iPod - due to the law regarding circumvention of copy protection).

But, simple fact is that the law is pretty clear. If you choose to break the law, then be prepared for the consequences. If you feel strongly enough about the issue to break the law (particularly intentionally), then you should feel strongly enough to work to change the law.

Breaking the law simply because you find it an inconvenience to you, does nothing but confirm that the law is right (and make you technically a criminal - of sorts). But, working to change a law that you disagree with is far more productive, and will serve you much better.

I do agree with your concept in general. If you believe something, believe in it enough to publicly (and not anonymously) stand up and defend it. If the law is wrong, work to change it. Until you change the law, the law is the law. It will be illegal until you do what it takes to make it legal.

 

[Tomorrow]

This isn't accurate. There are plenty of things that can be downloaded on Limewire and other P2P networks that are not copyrighted, such as speeches, educational materials, historical movies and documentaries, copies of public broadcasts, and yes even music, movies, and other forms of entertainment.

Bad examples, because even those things are copyrighted - the person who made the recording owns the copyright.

Now, that doesn't necessarily imply that the copyright holder will restrict its distribution, but the copyright does indeed exist in those examples.

 

[mgguy]

perhaps it's because many people here work in fields that are directly effected by copyright laws? people who write and develop software, graphic designers, etc., perhaps they tend to think that copyright laws directly effect their income and so tend to take a dim view of such activity?

I think you are onto something here. I can see how they would have a problem with it if it affects them directly. Thanks for the insight.

 

[mgguy]

Bad examples, because even those things are copyrighted - the person who made the recording owns the copyright.

Now, that doesn't necessarily imply that the copyright holder will restrict its distribution, but the copyright does indeed exist in those examples.

The examples I gave (e.g., presidential addresses and historical speeches) are often not copyrighted, or were at one time but are not now.

 

[Macky-Mac]

The examples I gave (e.g., presidential addresses and historical speeches) are often not copyrighted, or were at one time but are not now.

actually, MOST of the stuff you listed is probably protected by copyrights. Published material? Covered for at least the life of the author and then an additional 70 years (copyright FAQ) so something needs to be really old to have fallen out of protection. Pretty much any realized creative expression of an idea is covered by copyright laws, unless the owner has released it into the public domain, or until it's so old it isn't covered any more.

Of course for a lot of older material, nobody is trying to protect the copyright any more so nobody is going to come after you if you download it.

 

[MacSamurai]

You asked a forum of Mac users about the legalities of downloading, so you got an appropriate answer. I even provided you with a link to the law itself (it's in the Wikipedia link I gave you). You can read it or not - that's your call. If you want a lawyer, go get a lawyer. Don't come here asking for help then criticizing the help you get because it isn't the answer you were hoping for.

flyinmac even gave you a personal experience and that wasn't enough. But you asked for an understanding of the underlying laws, and we've given it to you in abundance.

I think you misunderstood me.I very much appreciate your(and others) efforts at an answer to my question.BUT it is not the only answer and not exactly the response I am looking for. Yes you gave me links, but there are lawyers who specialize in these kinds of things ie it's not so easy to read/understand/go through every single line of US legislation relating to this.Once again sorry for any misunderstandings.Oh and like I said in my first post,I'm not only interested in US legislation and would like to hear about this issue for other countries as well.

 

[trule]

I think you misunderstood me.I very much appreciate your(and others) efforts at an answer to my question.BUT it is not the only answer and not exactly the response I am looking for. Yes you gave me links, but there are lawyers who specialize in these kinds of things ie it's not so easy to read/understand/go through every single line of US legislation relating to this.Once again sorry for any misunderstandings.Oh and like I said in my first post,I'm not only interested in US legislation and would like to hear about this issue for other countries as well.

Why?

The articles in wikipedia are enough for laymen, its actually not a complex topic...so what exactly are you looking for that you can't figure out from Wiki?

 

[trule]

.So if i were to download(ie via a direct download) a mp3, and not share, it would not be illegal?

If the material has no copyright (public domain) OR it has copyright and the owner of that copyright gives permission for downloads then it would not be illegal. In any other case you are stealing!

The laws are consistent in most of the Western World, the only difference is the punishment

 

[MacSamurai]

If the material has no copyright (public domain) OR it has copyright and the owner of that copyright gives permission for downloads then it would not be illegal. In any other case you are stealing!

The laws are consistent in most of the Western World, the only difference is the punishment

good thing there is the rest of the Western World and even an Eastern World
and on you remark about wiki,i think i actually found this link to be a bit more useful. But like many laws it leaves things up in the air... like what about TiVo in respects of fair usage and copyright infringement...

 

[Melrose]

Who was it who sang "It's all been done before?"

If it under copyright protection and you copy it without permission from the copyright holder or from a third party who has permission from the holder to dispense it then it is illegal. Period.

Likely, in today's world, you won't get caught if you're just some lonely idiot sitting in barcalounger using Transmission (no offense to lonely idiots in barcaloungers), but that doesn't make it any less illegal. They go after the intermediary party because that's where the problem exists in large - suing John Doe in the caravan park won't prove anything because there are a million more ready to take his place. If they can shut down the distributor, they kill a million birds with one stone: Turn them away one man at a time or just shut the door altogether.

 

[trule]

good thing there is the rest of the Western World and even an Eastern World
and on you remark about wiki,i think i actually found this link to be a bit more useful. But like many laws it leaves things up in the air... like what about TiVo in respects of fair usage and copyright infringement...

Once again, why do you care? If you think YOU can bend the law I promise you that the people you are ripping off can bend it further

Anyway, the whole point of the legal system is to keep things up in the air...that way there is lots of work for judges, lawyers, lobbyists and politicians.

 

[MacSamurai]

Once again, why do you care? If you think YOU can bend the law I promise you that the people you are ripping off can bend it further

Anyway, the whole point of the legal system is to keep things up in the air...that way there is lots of work for judges, lawyers, lobbyists and politicians.

On a personal level I don't care.I'm not trying to bend the law.I just found a subject that I was interested in and thought I'd share this discusion with the community maybe finding some interesting points along the way