Supernova.org

[furrina]

Most artists want people to share files. It makes more people aware of their music and gets them to come to their shows and yes, buy their records.

A nice portion of what's on BitTorrent is high-quality bootleg recordings of live shows, past and present, which of course couldn't be purchased as an alternative because they're, um, over. So nobody "loses."
Except the neighbor whose bandwidth you're biting to download them

edit: Just to add, yes, distributing copyrighted music, etc. is illegal. If you do not want to break the law, don't participate in it. And I do believe copyright laws, etc. are very important and signify an important part of our overly capitalistic system, necessary to protect ideas, creative endeavors, etc. I just think in the near term the "music industry" is really behind the times, not to mention greedy (artists don't see most of the $ spent on CDs unless they sell huge amounts, fullfil mulitple-album contracts, etc.).

I'm not going to talk about software pirating, too complicated and over my head, except to say that as in music, the developers at big (M$, yes, Apple) companies don't see much the $ from software sold, they're lucky if they get good salaries and benefits. Also that a lot of good stuff is given away free and those guys barely make a dime (open source, freeware, etc.).

 

[javabear90]

all of this copy right junk is annoying, i mean if it's a big thing I can understand, but a tv show. Who the F*** cares if you watch the simpsons on your computer. Heck I would think the maker people would like it. However the commercial people would not. Now what would be cool if the TV show people could distribute thier shows online to download and say that you can't modify them, and for personal us only, and you have to watch the commericals.... etc...

/rant

i-i-is it over?? (From agent smith in matrix revolutions)

 

[MikeLaRiviere]

Let's Get This Straight

First things first: let's not confuse illegality with immorality. Just because an act is illegal does not necessitate that it is immoral. Let us recall Rosa Parks and her situation. Having made this statement, I am sure many will argue that file sharing is immoral, which brings me to my second point: file sharing is legal in Canada (here is a link to the story). This statement I make to point out that the morality of file sharing is subjective.

Regarding file sharing, I will use an anecdote to illustrate the position of the proponents. Your friend buys a book, reads it, decides it was a good read, and gives you the book. You then read the book. According to US copyright laws as applicable to file sharing, you and your friend have just committed illegal acts. Your friend has distributed a copyrighted work, and you have violated copyright laws by not acquiring a license for this work. Of course, you did not commit a wrong; people commit this act by the millions at state-sanctioned libraries.

Therefore, I have shown that the argument of the proponents of file sharing is neither baseless nor immoral. I am certain that many rebuttals will ensue. Bear in mind, however, that while many may not find file sharing immoral, the government finds it illegal.

Mike LaRiviere

 

[furrina]

First things first: let's not confuse illegality with immorality. Bear in mind, however, that while many may not find file sharing immoral, the government finds it illegal.

Mike LaRiviere

Those are very intelligent points, and I'm not in anyway raising argument. I just want to clarify something (perhaps I'm wrong about this?) -- I don't think file sharing itself is illegal. What is illegal is downloading (obtaining without purchase) copyrighted materials such as music, software, tv shows. Also illegal is the distributing of those materials, i.e. making them avl. for download. File sharing is legal, I can share my vacation video via bittorent (if i figured out how to do it) without running foul of any law.
The RIAA, etc. is trying to go after the creators of the clients (kazaa etc.) but their reasoning is that those clients enable, or were made for the purpose of, the illegal acts mentioned above. Current thinking is that this won't hold up in court.

Also: I think Azureus has a very pretty blue frog

 

[musicpyrite]

OK, I'll admit that I'm illegaly downloading TV shows if you can prove it to me. I have no problem with admiting that, if someone can prove it to me.

Just tell me what the difference is between saving a TV show on my Mac, and downlading it via BitTorrent. (and keep in mind I do not upload anyting in BitTorrent, there is a way to stop uploads, so I'm just downloading)


also, keep in mind that I don't want to start a flame war, please respond in a reasonable maner.

 

[kanker]

Just tell me what the difference is between saving a TV show on my Mac, and downlading it via BitTorrent. (and keep in mind I do not upload anyting in BitTorrent, there is a way to stop uploads, so I'm just downloading)

Unless BitTorrent has a license to distribute the copyrighted material that you are downloading, then their distributing said works it is illegal, making your downloads is illegal. I'll agree that in the case of broadcast television, it's a VERY fine line between taping for personal use and downloading, but it's the use of the unlicensed middleman that causes the problem.

Sorry if I come off a little strong on this issue, but I have been a professional musician since I graduated from high school 15 years ago. Every dollar I have ever earned as an adult has come from music, so when I see people flaunting the copyright laws that are the only line of defense for the creative professional's intellectual property rights, it really pisses me off. Tremendously. If artists, directors, programmers etc... wish to allow file sharing of their intellectual property, then I say more power to them, just don't make that decision for them and deprive them of income that they justly deserve.

 

[nerd]

Regarding file sharing, I will use an anecdote to illustrate the position of the proponents. Your friend buys a book, reads it, decides it was a good read, and gives you the book. You then read the book. According to US copyright laws as applicable to file sharing, you and your friend have just committed illegal acts. Your friend has distributed a copyrighted work, and you have violated copyright laws by not acquiring a license for this work. Of course, you did not commit a wrong; people commit this act by the millions at state-sanctioned libraries.

Mike LaRiviere

You're missing an important distinction here. In this context, "distribution" involves making copies. If your friend had photocopied the book and given it to you, then he would have been distributing a copyrighted work. Obviously it's not illegal to check a book out of the library, loan a CD to a friend, etc.

Regarding the ethics of downloading copyrighted stuff, it seems pretty straightforward to me. If you believe in the concept of intellectual property, then illegally downloading copyrighted material is "wrong". It doesn't belong to you.

 

[MikeLaRiviere]

Good Point

I'm glad someone brought up this point, as it had been an idea in my mind while I wrote the statement. Photocopying information in a library is legal, and it is not stealing. The fact of the matter is that intellectual property is "soft" property; therefore, the price is artificially set by the producer or some middle party (i.e., the RIAA). With regard to musicians, unless the musician records and distributes the work personally, very little money actually goes to the musician; take a look at this link. Additionally, I doubt anyone would consider summaries of books, either verbal from a friend or written from SparkNotes, etc., to be illegal. What are summaries but "compressed" versions of the original work? Of course, much is lost. But then again, what is the MP3 or AAC file but a compressed piece of music? Ninety percent of the original information is lost. This idea is analogous to a two minute advertisement for a television show.

My problem with intellectual property is this: copyright laws were written to prevent others from copying and selling (i.e., profitting from) the works of others. For instance, it is illegal for a movie pirate to tape a showing and sell the resulting videos. Unfortunately, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) is broader than the USA PATRIOT Act; further, its contents contradict earlier legislation that stipulates that copying for personal use is legal.

These are just a few thoughts to bear in mind. If you're morally opposed to downloading or uploading files, don't do it, otherwise you won't be able to sleep at night. If you're not morally opposed to file sharing, just recognize that US laws may restrict your activity.

Mike LaRiviere

 

[lordmac]

moraly speaking

Well moraly spaking in my opinion downloading tv shows is one thing( i mean its basicly the same as tivoing something.) ITs the other stuff that I think is wrong. The thing that I think is the most moraly wrong to download is software and games and a little bit music. I Know that the artist dont get much from the albums they sell buts more then they get when you download them illeagaly and as for software and movies what your doing is stealling some that somebody or people worked quite hard on and making it so they are not rewarded for there hard work. I mean if you spent 2 years devloping a peice of software and then people just came along and just stoll it how would you fell after puting sll that time in to it.

-I ask you think of the morality of it before you do it.

 

[nspeds]

First things first: let's not confuse illegality with immorality. Just because an act is illegal does not necessitate that it is immoral. Let us recall Rosa Parks and her situation. Having made this statement, I am sure many will argue that file sharing is immoral, which brings me to my second point: file sharing is legal in Canada (here is a link to the story). This statement I make to point out that the morality of file sharing is subjective.

The claim that there is a distinction between legal ethics and ethics is a valid point. However, I will have to attack your reasoning. Because of the first claim you made (that a distinction exists) and because of the second claim you made (that File-Sharing is legal in Canada), the only conclusion you can reach is that "legal ethics" are subjective, not morality. If that was the point of your reasoning, then your logic is fine. However, I am hard-pressed to believe that morality is subjective (even though it probably is) based in the subjectivity of legal ethics (since the first premise, in fact, claims that a distinction exists).

 

[nspeds]

Well moraly spaking in my opinion downloading tv shows is one thing( i mean its basicly the same as tivoing something.) ITs the other stuff that I think is wrong. The thing that I think is the most moraly wrong to download is software and games and a little bit music. I Know that the artist dont get much from the albums they sell buts more then they get when you download them illeagaly and as for software and movies what your doing is stealling some that somebody or people worked quite hard on and making it so they are not rewarded for there hard work. I mean if you spent 2 years devloping a peice of software and then people just came along and just stoll it how would you fell after puting sll that time in to it.

-I ask you think of the morality of it before you do it.

The problem with evaluating the moral worth of actions before committing them and using morality as a proper measure of "what is right" is that since morality is subjective, we could have murderers killing people on the justification that killing is moral in their mind.

On a more philosophical level, yes, different moral realms exist (ie. the teleological and the deontological), however, the average consumer isn't aware of the discrepencies that exist between the two concepts.

I think laws in a nation-state are implemented in order to negate the inherent subjectivity of morality. In this sense, when you commit an action that may please you on a moral level, it wouldn't please society because they subscribe to the law (in tacit agreement that they will never agree with each other on a moral level).

If you don't care about your community shaking its head at you when you download songs, then you are set to go. However, when the police comes knocking your door, citing the moral laws you abide by won't delay the process of them reciting your Miranda rights.

 

[netytan]

How ironic that from the moment we can see the right way up we are taught to share, then we grow up and find out that we've been taught a load of ****: assuming of course that it is your oppion that file sharing is wrong!

In my oppion all human knowledge is or should be free, if only for he simple reasoning that even if you read a book word for word, watch a DVD or listen to music the knowledge gained/experiance is subject to interpretation (like the rest of reality) rather than being a true copy - so how can copyright really exist?

It the your mind that creates the world.

In my oppion its stupidity, yes let the artists who created the work reep the rewards as they deserve!

But this is out of controle, i have not met one person who can honestly claim not to have broken this law at some point in my whole life... so all you people who are arguing against this i am sorry to say, are hipacrits .

Just chill and dont take things too seriously!

Later,

Mark.