How about we just record ourselves singing the songs we like, and distributing that across the internet, just to fuck with RIAA. Let’s see them sue us for that.

Posted by nunya bidness:
you are in posession of something that you did not pay for,and were supposed to, that is stealing.

No, this is at best called possession of stolen property, assuming you can’t be proven to have done the taking of it.

Posted by nunya bidness:
stealing
n 1: the act of taking something from someone unlawfully;

This may be the definition of the word stealing and you’re closer to the mark than nunya bidness was. Here’s the thing, though: stealing is not the same thing under the law as theft. The law has several clearly defined aspects of “stealing” which we would all consider “stealing” but are technically different crimes. As an example, in Washington State “theft” is defined very clearly here. What it boils down to is in Washington State theft requires the thief to deprive the owner of something. When it comes to copyright violations, you aren’t deprived of your work; rather, your right of exclusive control over distribution has been violated.

Here’s a real world example: I am the current copyright holder of much of my father-in-law’s original photographs, for example. I, as the copyright holder, license certain magazines and publishers of calendars to reproduce and distribute copies of the works. They pay me royalties for extending them this privilege. If someone were to redistribute a digital copy of one of these original works of art via P2P, copyright law would be violated. If someone stole the original negatives, however, then that would be theft under the law.

This is really the cause of all the confusion over what the Supreme Court decided. When Mike states (and rightly so) that sharing out copyrighted music, or whatever, over peer to peer networks is not the same as shoplifting, he is absolutely correct. It may be “stealing” as popularly defined but it is NOT the same as shoplifting (Theft, 3rd Degree in WA State).

Hope that helps. As a copyright holder myself, even I was confused at first.

If spend a considerable amount of time to produce an item, be it a song or anything that I intend to sell to provide income to me and mine, it is mine. Regardless of how I decide to distribute it for sale, whether through “Fat Cat Company” or independently, that?s my prerogative. If my intention is to sell individual units at a given price, nobody is forced to buy that product. If an individual buys that product they my use it personally any way they want, even keep a personal backup, or share the original unit with other people. When someone buys my product and makes it available to others so they can all make copies, that is stealing plain and simple. No play on words can make this right. It is definitely not sharing, like sharing a sandwich, or lending a cd that you own to a friend. If I only sell one product and millions are using it by obtaining copies of it, that means lost sales and I won’t be doing that again. Why would you do that to someone? Didn’t your parents teach you right from wrong? This whole file sharing thing will hurt everybody in the end, it is sad that many people are too short sighted to see what is happening. If you like music that much, how about supporting the people that make it available to you. Please stop hiding behind legaleze like “sharing” and “copyright laws”, etc…you sound like criminal defense lawyers. Record companies aren’t perfect and I am not defending them, but this is what we have and that will change too, hopefully for the better. There is still going to be financial consideration in music distribution, maybe directly to the artist, but it cost money to produce it. If there is no money to be made there will be significantly less music available to everyone, and I personally do not want that to happen. Let’s look toward the future, feed and nurture it, so it may grow.

nunya bidnes