File Sharers Aren't Stealing, But The RIAA Is...
from the good-arguments dept
There have been a number of opinion pieces showing up in newspapers across the country lately saying that the "sue your customers" strategy of the RIAA is the only sensible path to take. Here's a phenomenal response to one such article that makes some wonderful points on copyright infringement vs. theft and who's really being robbed. First, it says that (as we've asserted repeatedly here) not only is file sharing not theft, the Supreme Court has even said so. They clearly distinguished between copyright infringement and theft in a 1985 case, where they said, "(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use." Making matters even worse for the RIAA, the article points out that the record labels represented by the RIAA often don't have the digital rights to the music from the artists they represent. However, they are collecting money (from fee-based services like iTunes and from these legal cases) and not giving it to the artists they represent. Thus, the argument goes, isn't it really the RIAA who is stealing (used properly) from musicians?
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given by Anonymous Coward on Sep 22nd, 2003 @ 7:30am
excellent article pointing out the difference between theft and infringement. Still against the law, but not as severe.
Eventually this will play out in court.
--rjd--
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given by Ed Halley on Sep 22nd, 2003 @ 7:37am
CNN has been pumping pro-RIAA scare-consumer stories for a couple of months now. Time is also getting into the act. Very few stories on these AOL/TimeWarner give rebuttal, and it seems only the rebuttal stories point out the parent company connection.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Piracy = Theft (At Least in Singapore) by Gerry Ho on Mar 7th, 2005 @ 1:43am
The law works a bit differently on the other side of the globe. I'm glad the U.S. Supreme Court has differentiated theft and copyright infringement, but the IP-governing body in Singapore, IPOS has stuck to its own version, and has launched in 2004 a "anti-piracy" campaign (Singapore is famous for government-led campaigns) with the jingle:
You wouldn't steal a Car.
You wouldn't steal a Handbag.
You wouldn't steal a Mobile Phone.
You wouldn't steal a Movie.
Movie Piracy is Stealing.
Stealing is Against the Law.
Piracy. It's A Crime.
Toughened copyright laws come into effect Jan 1, 2005, and informants are encouraged to squeal on copyright infringers. The shame of it all.
(Full article: http://www.ipos.gov.sg/main/newsroom/media_rel/mediarelease1_270704.html)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Who really loses. by Jkeentauna on Feb 28th, 2006 @ 5:49pm
Artists get their money from thier album sales. We all know this.
However, Cd stores also suffer from pirating.
Many on campus cd stores across america have gone under in the last few months, due to low cd sales.
Many new bands recieve money from these little stores to help them get started.
The percentage of signed bands is quickly falling each year.
The music industry will have problems.
Big problems.
Just give it some time.
Help the little bands.
If they are on the top 20 list pirate away.
But if they are not. i will support them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Piracy = Theft (At Least in Singapore) by meee on Apr 8th, 2006 @ 12:31am
way to bag out copyright. imagienths situation: ur an author who's spent the last 10 yrs of time&effort on some novel. then sum dumass steals ur idea and takes allt h credit n yu get nothing. ud b ticked off 2 >
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Johnny on Oct 12th, 2006 @ 11:49am
Imagine you're an author/artist. You get brutally murdered by a file sharer... who's side are you on now?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
You're tools. by Capt. Obvious on Oct 13th, 2006 @ 2:04am
Comments 4-6 are just plain uninformed.
4) Woe for the college campus CD store, that can't continue to rip off students. And woe for the lack of new bands getting 'signed' (wherever that fictitious statistic came from).
Bands don't actully NEED large record labels. The cost of distributing and popularizing a band has fallen drastically. Yeah, you may never be on TRL, but at least you'll get there without the taste of cock in your mouth.
5) That's just plain stupid. Someone profiting off of a stolen novel (which took a shitty writer 10 years to churn out) and someone downloading your music because they like it are vastly different. Copyright Infringement damages are based on the degree to which the infringer profited. Selling someone else's lifes work is not the same as uploading a video of you singing along to some shitty rapper to YouTube. Get a clue, and pull the iPod out of your ass.
6) I can't even tell if you're joking, your point is that bad.
Serriously...what the hell? Do you even think before you type?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment