What is Digg?310 Comments
- kevinmotel, on 10/12/2007, -20/+646i download lots of files with XXXX in the names!
- jacobsor, on 10/12/2007, -22/+219"Downloading isn't illegal. You're simply accessing something that was out there on the Internet. SHARING (uploading) is illegal."
Absolutely, totally wrong. I'm sorry, but anyone who believes in this day and age that downloading copyrighted files off P2P networks is legal must have his head buried in the sand. You can disagree with the law all you want and try to change it, but none of this changes what the current law *is.*
Copyright infringement is making a copy of a copyrighted file (or other recorded work) without the permission of the author/owner of the copyright. When you download a file, you are making a copy. Before there was one copy on the server and zero on your hard drive. Now there is one on the server, and one on your hard drive. This is copyright infringement.
FAQ from the United States Copyright Office:
"Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
"Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights. ... Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks."
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html#p2p
The law is right here.
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/index.html
Summaries are right here.
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/index.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/piracy/
Yes, there are limited exemptions for "fair use." No, they don't apply to garden-variety file sharing. Every court that has considered the issue has concluded that ordinary file sharing of copyrighted materials is copyright infringement (uploading or downloading). - str3ama, on 10/12/2007, -7/+123everyone rename your pirated goods to a random filename, then upload it - if I think that 5gb ISO file is a high-def pic of the Digg logo - they can't sue me.
- mr1337, on 10/12/2007, -29/+142Bottom line: Downloading isn't illegal. You're simply accessing something that was out there on the Internet. SHARING (uploading) is illegal.
- sabertooth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+64DON'T COPY THAT FLOPPY!
I think it mentioned something about the End of the Digital Age.... - Cuja, on 10/12/2007, -5/+63i'm not sure if what they are saying is correct but I have read/heard similar things. I for one agree that just because a file is named "xxxx" then "xxxx" is what it will be, is not enough proof that you are trying to STEAL it. Citing the seeding of incorrectly named files as an example. I wonder if as a test there were a file server that a lot of people contributed to. And on that file server we only stored files that are known to be misnamed. Then uploading those files (according to the RIAA) is illegal because they are Named "xxxx". Of course we would never be fortunate enough to have the RIAA ***** the hammer on said file server, but what would the ramifications be if they did?
- davidrools, on 10/12/2007, -4/+59All i know is that if you appreciate what a band or artist does, you ought to support them so they'll keep making good music for you to listen to. If not buying the CD, buy a tshirt off their website or go to a concert. They probably make more money off of those things than the CDs anyway.
@cptn
...And if you're never paying money, you're not a fan of music. - revenge7, on 10/12/2007, -25/+79If EVERYONE did it, the people that make the stuff you download wouldn't make any money, and wouldn't be able to make anything new.
- patience, on 10/29/2007, -1/+49Taking legal advice from Digg.
Mistake #1. - gameforge, on 10/12/2007, -6/+51Well *****, the cops may as well show up and accuse me of having stolen everything I own, since I can't necessarily prove that I bought any of it.
By downloading a song, I am not immediately doing something illegal - they would have to take the time to prove beyond some kind of doubt that I never owned the song to begin with. That involves them showing up with a warrant (they could just ask me to bring proof to court, in which case I go buy the CD first, toss the receipt, and bring the CD - they probably know that's not going to work).
So, you know those tracks that don't play anymore on your favorite CDs because they're so scratched? Do you know how I go about replacing them?
That's not illegal - I still have the original CD. It is NOT illegal for me to possess digital versions of media which I own. So, again: by simply *downloading* a song, I am not *immediately* proved guilty just by proving that I took part in the download.
On the other hand, if I distribute the music, I obviously have no way of knowing whether the people downloading it have the legal right to it. By simply *uploading* it to people who can't legally have it, I am *immediately* doing something illegal. No showing up at my house to prove anything. Technically, I might be uploading it to someone that does own it. I'm just sending them their backup copy. That's why when the RIAA successfully downloads it from you, they gotcha - they know damn well you don't know who you're sending it to.
Also, partial songs are valid ground for them - a copyrighted work is the sum of its parts; therefore, each part is also copyrighted. The first second of every copyrighted song is copyrighted, even if it's digitally all 0's.
I'm not allowed to sell booze to people without verifying they're of age. And, I'm not allowed to give digital copies of stuff to people without verifying that they have a license to it. But...
* Downloading music you don't own is illegal.
* Ripping that tag off your mattress is illegal.
* Willingly ripping a single blade of grass out of a public park is illegal.
But feel free to do any of those things anyway.
Two extra points (I'm really sorry for the extra long comment, bury me at your will):
Someone asked why we don't change the law, since we're all against the RIAA - it's simple, really. The majority of the people don't pirate music; probably not by coincidence, this same majority isn't on Digg. To them, it's meaningless - they don't care much, but they can't be bothered to change the law.
And finally, pay attention to your P2P software! Much of it is set up by default to share things you download, even small pieces of things that you haven't even finished downloading yet (remember, the first second of every copyrighted song...) - so by not ever uploading stuff, you still might be uploading stuff unless you figure out with no uncertainty how to turn it off.
Again, sorry for the extra long comment, seems to be a thing with me lately... - JoshuaH, on 10/12/2007, -12/+50http://duggmirror.com/tech_news/Downloading_Pirated_Anything_Is_NOT_Illegal/
- rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -20/+54Its just really really amoral? I dunno. I buy stuff I like. If I ever pirate something its because something either got stolen from me, or I lost my original. I really don't want to re-buy stuff just because someone else stole something from me, and I think its fair. I just do what I think is right and that is more than enough for me.
- mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36But you don't have to be doing something illegal to get sued.
- shandar, on 10/12/2007, -11/+43I'm just wondering... Since it seems like EVERYONE in the US (minus the RIAA, MPAA and a few individuals) are against strict copyright laws and you are living in a democracy, why haven't you pressed the government to change it? In a democracy all it should take is a majority, and you sure seem to have that bit sorted out.
- stratdog25, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31Unfortunately the general public's understanding of the law is fuzzy here. (Thx for the research btw, jacobsor) For instance - if you watch a stream of a copyrighted work from a website (say a movie trailer), you ARE downloading it (copying it from the source). Totally legal and within the copyright holder's permissions. Now if you were use a streamripper or whatever means to copy that trailer outside of a temp file, you've broken the law. You've reproduced a copyrighted work WITHOUT the holder's permission.
Life was SOOO much easier when I was taping Night Ranger songs off FM radio. - strangerzero, on 10/12/2007, -21/+50Most artists are not motivated by money. When it comes to music the artists don't make that much off the recordings any way.
- theholycow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27@gameforge:
The tag on the mattress is perfectly legal for the consumer to remove. It is under penalty of law that nobody pre-consumer can remove it; it's there to make sure the consumer knows what materials the mattress contains. - Aliarse, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31You work for the RIAA, don't you mickey?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24Ssshhh! 1st rule of usenet: never talk about usenet.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22/visits wal-mart
- cptn_cardboard, on 10/12/2007, -24/+44if your in it for the money, you're not an artist.
- chrisby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20I'm a law student and just finished my intro to IP course last semester. That said, this post is 100% inaccurate. Sorry.
It's great that so many people are digging into the Copyright Act and attempting to parse the statute, but one of the first things you learn in law school is that statutes only provide part of the picture. Court cases interpreting those statutes give you a far better picture of the law. As for this particular claim that "downloading pirated anything isn't illegal," I suggest that everyone take a look at this 7th Circuit case decided almost 2 years ago: BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2005). Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMG_Music_v._Gonzalez
Here's a good analysis of the case: http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2005/12/bmg-v-cecilia-gonzalez.html. Whether you agree with the decision or not, that's the state of the law right now. Even if you live outside the 7th Circuit's jurisdiction, this case will provide persuasive authority for future suits that the industry will likely bring. - Nerys, on 10/12/2007, -13/+33My problem is not with whether its right or wrong it with what its called.
YOU CAN NOT STEAL DIGITAL CONTENT.
Its called copyright infringement for a reason. Thats because its not THEFT of anything.
NOW that does not change the fact that its wrong but I hate the brainwashing that has determined that its theft and I hate that I get a slap on the wrist if I STEAL a movie from walmart but I an ruined for life if I download the same damned movie. - modeless, on 10/12/2007, -18/+37It doesn't matter if downloading is illegal or not. The RIAA doesn't sue people for downloading. They sue for uploading.
- justcorey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Just to clarify, the RIAA is a bank that charges at least 80% interest.
- ThetaDot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21"because nerds love justification." Right on, but it's not just nerds. All of mankind, dude... all of mankind...
- Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21@shandar
Well, for starters because its not a true democratic system. Its a representitive republic
Besides, have you ever known a government that listens to its citizens over those backroom deals and lobbyists? - Bartboy919, on 10/12/2007, -23/+39I like to thing of stealing as being wrong if you take something away from someone. example: if I take a book from bobby, he no longer has the book, which takes away from bobby. If I take digital media from the web, the onlything im not doing is giving something, Im not taking anything away. This alone should make pirating stuff fine.
- semiotix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16"But Your Honor, a website told me it was totally cool to do this!"
"What? A website on the Internet?!"
"Yes, sir."
"And did the commenters also agree that downloading pirated stuff wasn't illegal?"
"Pretty much, Your Honor."
"Case dismissed! And I'm fining the RIAA a TRILLION DOLLARS!!1!11one" - Shirokun, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18"Absolutely, totally wrong. I'm sorry, but anyone who believes in this day and age that downloading copyrighted files off P2P networks is legal must have his head buried in the sand."
Not if you are from Spain or Italy.
Music, movies and images are culture, and therefor we have a law, a right, which allows us to access to this culture by sharing, copying a CD of my friend or using P2P as long as we don't make any commercial profit from it.
Curiously... many artists are pro-P2P: "The more people download my song the more people will assist to my concerts". And this is absolutely true: The concert assistance rate has had an increase of an 80% in 4 years.
Specially music is now more alive than ever before.
If there wasn't P2P I would still listen to those hip moving girls music on the radio - ThetaDot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Right except for that whole eating / sleeping under a roof thing. Who the hell wants to be poor if they don't need to be?
- zeromancer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15uh oh. watch out for 30trip. he's busting out the mom jokes.
- themoose, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15"I also submit that the videos preceding certain movies and other texts that state that “downloading pirated movies is stealing” are lies intended to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). If a lie is repeated enough and in enough places, it can become the truth for a lot of people (or sheeple)."
Using fear to try and get people to do one thing or another?
Isn't that terrorism? - dankosaur, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14strangerzero:
1) It's not just musicians--software requires a lot of manpower to make, and it's not all open-source yet (though that's coming...), and movies require even more work.
2) While it is easier and cheaper to make/record music these days, getting great production comes at a price--hiring orchestras, etc. It would be hard for a lot of music to get produced without some sort of financial recompensation for the investment. - Portfolioso, on 10/12/2007, -14/+26@modeless
Not really, they are scumbags that collect IP addresses at random from whoever is involved in any kind of transfer, then send letters and lawsuits over. It is completely unfair. If you're torrenting, and your IP shows up in the pool while they're harvesting, then you're screwed. They don't care if you don't have the eitiree file. - Lisztman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13The DMCA is (currently) exclusively an American policy.
- gameforge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@theholycow
Someone dugg you down, but I dugg you back up - it's a good point, and I was unaware... it's just that the tag on the mattress has always been a cliche for pointless legal threats, so I thought it fit in well. :) - VANOS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I'm a lawyer and I agree with him. This post should have been buried a long time ago for being inaccurate. But, if you really want to use some non-lawyer guy's blog opinion as your safety net/illusion of protection, be my guest. Just make sure not to bitch about legal fees when you find out you're wrong.
- mickeyknoxxx, on 10/12/2007, -24/+34So that everybody can understand how this effects the music business, let me just state that the issue here is a deciding difference between major success and minor success.
The way the music business has been formed for years is record labels act as a bank that is willing to invest money behind a band/artist.
So the label cuts a bunch of huge checks. One for marketing and promotions. One for a recording budget. One for publicity and advertisement etc. The end all be all, is that the artist becomes "somebody you actually heard of" due to the amount of money that was spent on that artist making them nationally/internationally famous.
Yes, the record company makes the majority of the money off of the record sales. But that is due to make ALL plus more of the money invested back as any major investor would expect. What the label did for the artist in return, was brand their name large enough to recieve $100,000 a live show (due to a startling number of ticket purchasing fans), make their value of merchandise sky rocket (due to the popularity of the brand) and allow them with their fame to enherit many endorsement oppertunities.
Now heres where pirating music comes in.
The consumer says,"***** that i'm downloading the *****. It aint like the artist gets money off of the record sales anyway." What happens is, you along with many steal the music. This causes the record labels to make no money back. This forces the label (again acting as a bank) to close their wallets and put nothing behind promoting, marketing, advertisement, video, radio play, publicity etc.
This makes the artist not popular. Which means now, the artist has no money to support a tour, no money to create the merch, and no budget to record the record. They can operate on a smaller local scale and use the web (myspace, youtube, etc) However, because their brand has not been commercially introduced to the masses, they will make very little amounts of profit. Which forces the artist to have to quit music and get a day job to pay his bills.
The record companies, due to a major dip in profits over the past 5 years, are now forced to take what little money they do have and only spend it on guaranteed sales. In other words, theirs no money anymore for the non-branded artist. Which is why the Snoop Doggs, Jay-Z's and Bustah Rhymes of the world are all almost 40 and still making music. Because all the new talent that was waiting on the shelf is currently staying on the shelf because of pirated music.
As an artist myself, I dont care if Im famous or not, rich or not. However, i would like to be able to know that if I'm going to stalked by the press, drowned by the media, hounded by thousands of fans everywhere I go, touring all the time getting no sleep, recording 16 hours a day and than having to look pretty for the lettermen show, I want to be highly compensated for it.
If my life is just small time touring and local branding, I wont make enough money to pay my rent. so either be broke or be rich. It's the way the business is designed. But right now, there's no chance of fame anyway. Because only the artists who branded themselves on a major scale before the pirating error can get any funding to do anything. So for now its a day job and a pipe dream.
Those are the facts. - robdiggity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Does it surprise anyone else that the number of posts on a subject are inversely proportioned to the amount of knowledge of that subject?
The RIAA does not and has not made use of criminal law in any of its actions against 'copyright violators.' This article is as moot as it is ridiculous - the RIAA is making use of civil recourse in its strategies, not criminal law. - dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Unless you're a complete leech, you're usually uploading to other peers as you download.
- Nightspark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Just the other day here on digg, a commenter linked to a ruling from what I believe was the US District Court for Colorado, which cited a precedent that required "theft" to result in the owner being deprived of the item. I don't know if a similar precedent applies nationally, but this court had determined that when a copy of digital data was made, it wasn't theft.
It may (or may not) be illegal, but everything I've heard suggests that digital piracy is not legally "theft" (but IANAL). - franksands, on 10/29/2007, -1/+10Ok, so I created this monster comment on the site, and only after pressing submit, I remembered I was in duggmirror :P
So, I will post my answer here:
I am not a lawyer, and will speak in very layman terms, because that is the extent of my knowledge. It goes something like this:
Pirated items, music, games, etc, are items that were obtained without the permission of the owner of the item. So, if you buy a CD, you are entitled to listen to it, and make a backup copy for your safety. But, if you put the CD on the internet, and someone downloads it, that person was not entitled to listen to that music.
But things are not so clear in some cases. I could lend the CD I legally bought to a friend of mine, so this person would listen to the CD without buying it. And this is where things gets messy: because it is almost impossible to prove that you have a pirated item.
I think that what we need here is more a change of mindset, both from consumers and providers, than a change in the law. We need to change our model: we would pay the artist, not because it is the only way to get the content, but because we want to thank him for the content he provided. On the other hand, the distributors must learn that piracy works because it is a *lot* more efficient than the normal means: piracy doesn't require activation, registration, forms, double-checks. Piracy doesn't have DRMs, serial numbers, pass-codes, or any other nuisance. So the only way to beat piracy is the oldest solution that you have in any other business: be better. Be more efficient and treat the customers better than pirate stores and you will beat the pirates. And look, I am not saying you have to be cheaper than the pirated items, I said better. Like and old friend of mine says: "If you book them, they'll come". It's the same thing here, if the distributors and providers treat well and with respect their customers, the customers won't have any reason to pirate.
Ok, this has turned out to be a monster comment, but I got inspired, and this is a very important topic to me.
Frank - mickeyknoxxx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14haha
No, and nor am I fan of them either. I'm just an artist.
I just know that there is no end to downloading and I except it. It hurt the business really badly and it will continue to do so.
But do I think a fan should be persecuted for downloading their favorite music? Absolutely not. I just wish there were some answer to all of this where everybodys happy. - DoorFrame, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8""If you get an RIAA letter for downloading, it'd be cheaper to go to Walmart and buy CDs to backup your collection than it is to legally defend or settle. Then simply show that you own a license for all of the downloaded content.""
Except that you'd have to go into court and perjure yourself about when you bought the CDs. Not the BEST plan ever. - badken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@"Please don't cite the Copyright Act. It does not apply to downloading."
In its most basic form, "copyright" is "the right to make a copy of a work".
Are you not making a digital copy of something when you download a file?
If you don't have the legal right to make a copy, you're breaking Copyright law. - tastypastry, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Simple solution. Have two PCs in your home. One that is completely clean and has Linux installed on it and an open wifi router. And well we know what the other PC is for.
- LoopyChew, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The article, as applied to "illegal drugs":
So I, like, went to my pot dealer the other day, and, uh, when I came home, I found out that--get this--my baggie was full of oregano. I then called the police and, like, when they found out I was trying to score pot off this guy, they busted me, even though I never got my goddamn weed. ***** the police, man. - badken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The law does not distinguish between physical transfer of recorded medium or digital transfer. If you make a copy *including downloading a digital copy*, you are infringing the copyright owner's exclusive rights.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
First a definition: “Phonorecords” are material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “phonorecords” includes the material object in which the sounds are first fixed.
Section 106 states: "the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:"
...
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
[this covers basically any kind of copying, including digital file sharing]
...
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
[this covers streaming digital audio by internet radio]
The bottom line is, when you download a piece of music from anyone other than the copyright holder or the holder's agent (the rules are simliar for audiovisual works), you are making an unauthorized copy, and thus violate the exclusive rights of the copyright holder:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#501
(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.
Doesn't get any simpler than that. -
Show 51 - 100 of 311 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is