A week or so ago I pointed out to reader BSK that his practice of copying CDs to his hard drive and then trading thephysical disks on swaptree was both illegal and unethical. He didn’t accept my argument, so I contacted the Copyright Alliance to get a professional opinion.
The response I received was unequivocal: This practice violates federal copyright law. Excerpts of the reply, interspersed with my comments:
The RIAA explicitly states on their website that this is illegal. (Scroll down to the bottom under “copying CDs”).
The most relevant part on that RIAA link, about copying CDs you own for your personal use: It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.
You may, of course, trade a CD or book or DVD that you own (the “First Sale Doctrine”) as long as you do not make or keep a copy.
But, would someone agree that it is okay to buy a
book, scan it into your computer, and then sell the hard copy? Probably
not (I hope not). So, why is music different? It’s not – the law is the
same for all creative forms. Consumers have asked to be able to buy a CD
or a song from itunes and listen to it in their car, on their computer,
or ipod. So, with music it is generally accepted (though not technically
legal) that one can use music on multiple devices for personal use.
As long as you’re keeping all the copies, you seem to be in the clear.
It is also not legal to download a digital copy of a work and then print
it out or put it on CD and sell that. So, why would the opposite be
true?
Well, it wouldn’t, and I think this is just common sense.
I’ve run into a similar issue with people copying articles found online and pasting them into emails. Again, this is illegal, and no, it is not “fair use” – it is patently UNfair use. (It fails fair use on two grounds – the sender reproduced the entire work, and by reproducing and sending the entire work the sender impacted the market for the work because the recipient no longer has to click on the original site or pay for access to the article.) Pasting a link to the original article is legal. Pasting the entire article is copyright infringement, and while your potatoes are probably too small for the copyright owner to sue you, that doesn’t make it any less illegal. One longtime friend sent me an email like this, and copied so much text that he included the copyright notice at the bottom of the article … but sent it anyway. And he was offended when I objected to the practice.
In addition to being illegal, it’s completely unethical. If you make a copy of a CD, then sell or barter the CD (or even give it away), then two people have use of the copyrighted material while the copyright owner has only been compensated once. Isn’t it obvious that this is wrong?
Final point: BSK argued that this was about “freedom.” We do, in fact, have exceptional freedom in our ability to create, distribute, and purchase copyrighted works in this country today. If you want access to formerly banned books like Huckleberry Finn or The Grapes of Wrath, to hardcore pornography, to Pungent Stench’s Been Caught Buttering (if you’ve seen the album cover, you know what I’m talking about), you’ve got it. That freedom does not mean the freedom to make unlimited copies of these works and sell them or barter them or give them to your friends. We have laws designed to protect the rights of those who create intellectual property so they’ll be financially able to continue to do so. If you don’t like the laws – and I wouldn’t argue that they’re perfect, particularly the ever-increasing time of protection for copyrighted works – try to change them. But don’t steal from the authors and musicians whose works you enjoy.
Good stuff, Keith. Grappling with “fair use”, copyright, et al, is a challenge — at least for many in the blogsphere or in forums. On music… I make a copy of my CDs, if only for the fact that they get trashed in the vehicle. I make the copy, stash the original in the house, and use the copy in the car. No foul there, I can guess.
Well, I without a doubt, I guess I engage in copywriting. I download music ,but do not share. I take CDs out then burn them to my computer, then return the CDs. I also have give my ESPN insider account away many times. and/or taken articles off of it and posting on prosprtsdaily. Sorry Keith. get over it.
What about “roundup” posts on sites like MLBTR that summarize paid content?
Thanks, dad.
If you read further into the RIAA’s text they say “It’s also okay to copy music onto SPECIAL Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them)” (emphasis mine). What they’re saying is you aren’t allowed to copy music at all unless they’re onto RIAA licensed forms of media, which is a slap in the face of fair use. They don’t approve hard drives and further state that this process only “won’t usually raise concerns”, which seems to be implying that copying to your hard drive from a CD is illegal, but that they’re nice enough guys to overlook this. Bull hockey of course.
“particularly the ever-increasing time of protection for copyrighted works”
Definitely, Klaw. Images published in 1923 won’t be in the public domain until 2018! That is absurd. Will stuff like Steamboat Willie or The Beatles recordings ever get into the public domain?
So, if I purchase a CD put copies of certain song onto my phone, iPod, computer, etc… I cannot lend that CD to a friend, unless I destroy other copies?
Although I agree in general with your fair use analysis in this case, I should point out that fair use is a balancing test, and there is no factor that makes use “patently” unfair. There are circumstances where you can use the entire work (and/or impact the market for the original work) and still have the use constitute fair use.
Why even waste time talking/writing about CDs? What is it, 1993? The RIAA sees copying a CD as the equivalent of catcher’s indifference–you can’t steal something that really isn’t being protected anyway. MP3s and their dissemination is really what we should be looking at and as long as Studios are going to try to keep a single mp3 in the 99c range they’re going to encourage people to share/swap/steal them. Illegal or not, this problem could have been avoided with a little forward thinking and a new pricing model.
Next time I buy a PPV Boxing match (which would be never probably) should I not invite any friends over and tell them to order their own fight so as not to dupe Don King out of another $5?
There still seems to be grey areas here. What if you buy a CD and then load it up onto your iPod. Should your wife be allowed to load it onto her iPod as well? Probably not, but who actually buys two copies of every CD like that?
If you read further into the RIAA’s text they say “It’s also okay to copy music onto SPECIAL Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them)” (emphasis mine). What they’re saying is you aren’t allowed to copy music at all unless they’re onto RIAA licensed forms of media, which is a slap in the face of fair use.
It’s not a “slap in the face of fair use.” It’s the Audio Home Recording Act, which imposes royalties on recordable media sold in the US (similar taxes are imposed in the EU). You may have the right to an archival copy of your music, but you don’t have the right to tax-free recordable media.
Where you’re right about the RIAA’s bluster is when they talk about computer hard drives, which aren’t covered by the AHRA. They quote tons of court opinions on that RIAA copyright page, but not the Diamond Rio decision, which allowed music to be copied onto hard drives or MP3 devices to facilitate personal use.
I am an HBO subscriber and have been for many years. I often do not give a show (though not often with HBO shows) a chance until it has caught on and I know it won’t be canceled, so, I have missed out on True Blood. Now that I have a vague interest in catching up, would it be “wrong” to download previous episodes? I understand that this is illegal and that DVD’s are available for me to purchase but I have also already paid to receive this content and am not stiffing HBO any payment. I can TiVo the remaining episodes and keep them as long as I’d like, so, is it only considered stealing if I retrieve the programming after it airs? This makes little sense. A similar argument can be made for movies as long as I am not distributing them and I’ve paid to see them. Is there a time or place constraint on your purchase? I’d love to know your take KLAW, both legally and personally.
“Impacted”? Tsk, tsk.
Overreach by copyright holders not only damages consumers of copyrightable material, but it damages producers. Set prices per song or article read to $1,000,000, and penalties for copying to death. There won’t be much of a market for your services any more, I fear, not for any popular musician’s.
While not at reductio levels as above, prices are too high, which the volume of filesharing makes obvious. While not death, RIAA suits that would bankrupt small fry are the next best thing in a capitalist economy lacking universal healthcare. If you actually want more money for artists and journalists, then you are on the wrong side of this issue.
Your interlocutor sounds like something of a jerk, true. That said, I am not sure he has behaved unethically. He may not even have behaved illegally. I am not a lawyer, but I know what the Home Taping Act says. Do you?
There’s no question your legal analysis is spot-on, Keith. But at the end of your post, you brush aside more interesting issues: why copyright laws are construed as they are and why copyright laws are facing a moment of crisis in the digital age. I’m a professional musician, and the age of file-sharing, imho, has been EXTREMELY good to music, both in terms of the creativity it has engendered and in terms of the profits it has earned musicians. Yes, file-sharing does take money, but by and large, the people who are suffering are the dinosaur labels who depend on an outdated business model: albums that sell millions of copies and thus can sustain a superstructure of hundreds of executives and other sundry non-musicians. Independent labels, usually employing at most 10 people, are thriving in this environment (or at least the good ones are), because file-sharing can transform a band from unknown to celebrated in short order, with virtually no expenditure. And a small label earns huge profits on records that sell 50,000 or 100,000 copies–benchmarks that successful bands easily surpass, even with file-sharing. And the explosion of free (albeit illegal) music has made more people than ever before (in my subjective estimation) excited about bands (in all genres), leading to larger live audiences–and live performance has always been musicians’ primary source of income. Well, musicians other than those acts who relied on selling 4 million records.
All of which sounds like a justification for stealing music, but I should stress: I don’t mean it as such. Your analysis is correct, illegal downloading is…well, illegal. Unequivocally. If you get caught, you will face draconian punishments, as the Tenenbaum case in Massachusetts recently proved. NO ONE SHOULD DOWNLOAD MUSIC ILLEGALLY. IT IS FOOLISH–the benefits are seriously outweighed by the risks. All I mean to point out is that discussing the ethics of copyright is far more complex than a legal analysis, which is very cut-and-dried.
Finally, I can’t recommend enough Stephen Fry’s recent podcast on this very issue. His argument falls apart a little bit at the end, but like all things Fry, it is supremely erudite and funny. (I also recommend the Jeeves & Wooster with Fry and his old comedy partyner, Hugh Laurie. If you like Wodehouse as much as I do, it’s unmissable.)
Keith-
You mentioned that some people cite freedom as a reason that people should be able to copy music, but what about the argument that people should have the freedom to profit from their work? Or have the right not to be robbed from. Stealing intellectual property is no better than stealing someones personal property. Stealing is stealing and it is wrong.
You forgot one key component of this discussion: I don’t care and I’m going to keep doing it.
Funny how one can tell the age of an individual based upon this one central argument: should downloading information (whatever the media) be free or not?
Also the relevant law: 17 U.S.C. 501(a) has an interesting definition of “anyone”. (note “including” does not mean “in addition to” but “including” means “this is the final list”.) I might question whether or not the RIAA webpage references applicable law to someone like BSK. If one is going to quote the law one should at least read it and understand it. (I should admit here I am too lazy to look up the customer definition of “State” relevant to this section which is of course contingent to the entire argument).
Anyway I think most content is available through free legal means these days to bother stealing it. Hulu, Youtube and various other websites are readily available to one who wishes to participate in electronic forms of media- legally.
A Pungent Stench reference? Mr. Law you never cease to amaze me.
Maybe only I care but 17 U.S.C. 101 defines state: “State” includes the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territories to which this title is made applicable by an Act of Congress.
also relevant to section:
The terms “including” and “such as” are illustrative and not limitative.
I should point out a few “elephants in the room” here.
1. Why would a commonly understood term “state” and “includes” be defined?
2. The law always means what it says and should be defined as such – that is don’t assign meaning where it doesn’t belong. If a term is defined, use the defined meaning. And don’t assume what the defined meaning is, think about it!
3. The RIAA suggested we should learn the law…okay. Clearly any good lawyer would simply question whether or not the RIAA has jurisdiction to sue someone for infringing the law pursuant to title 17.
I have a much bigger issue with the sharing/bootlegging of written material than I do with that of music. Musical artists have other streams of revenue available to them than selling CDs. The Grateful Dead figured out years ago that you could give the music away (of course they sell albums but anyone can freely trade/tape Dead shows) and make money from concerts and merchandise. Authors do not really have an opportunity to make money in this manner, I’ve certainly never paid to listen to anyone read a book to me.
I don’t do a whole lot of illegal downloading anymore, but I did plenty in college 10+ years ago. I have absolutely zero sympathy for the music labels that this hurts as they spent years simultaneously screwing consumers AND artists.
The labels are reaping what they sowed and quite frankly I could give a tin sh*t about their plight, illegality of file-sharing be damned.
Lastly I would say that it is dangerous to conflate legality and morality/ethics. Not saying it is morally ok to share files, but I don’t think it is as cut and dry as you would make it out to be, KLaw.
Keith-
Thanks for the info. As I said, my POV was based on my understanding of the law involved in this situation, both the letter of it and the overall spirit of it. I noted I was open to having my mind changed, giving factual information on the specifics of the situation. I appreciate that you have done so, and am willing to accept that my initial stance was wrong, and was predicated on incomplete or wrong information. The tricky thing, I feel, with this particular issue is that it is hard to find the right information. I did my own (rudimentary) research, and found so much conflicting information, I went back to my original sources, which was a college professor.
However, something I find interesting is the continued insistence on what the RIAA says is illegal. Just because the RIAA says it is illegal doesn’t necessarily mean it is. Neither the RIAA, nor the Copyright Alliance, is a legal entity, or an unbiased observer in this situation. They both have a vested interest in the protection of copyrights. Naturally, they are going to advocate for the strictest possible limits on the use of copyrighted work. That does not mean it is right, ethically or legally.
Obviously, this is a situation that is constantly in flux. The law has trouble keeping up with the technology.
Keith, can you find collaboration that the RIAA and CA’s stances are honest, factual representations of the actual case law or legislation on this matter? That, I think, is the most important piece of this matter. Not what RIAA says/thinks is legal or should be legal, what I say/think is or should be legal; what matters is what actually IS legal. We could argue all day on what SHOULD BE legal, but the fact remains is we have a clear view of the RIAA/CA’s stance on this issue, but not necessarily all the facts on what actual IS legal/illegal in this matter.
brian-
Why would it not be relevant to me? Are you assuming I am under 17? I’m a bit unclear here, but I am most certainly over 17.
Not to get crazy with posts, but just to be clear, I’m not arguing the illegality of downloading copyrighted material. That situation has been resolved, as far as I know, but the law. My specific situation involves copying a purchased CD onto a computer and then swapping that CD for another good (via Swaptree). Is there specific legislation or case law that indicates it as so? The RIAA’s stance on it, or interpretation of the law, is not necessarily the final word.
I am a teacher at an international school in China, where the parameters of this discussions are, as you might imagine, somewhat skewed. My I have permission to copy this article and share it with my staff?
BSK: Go to the law I stated above 17 U.S.C. 501(a) which is mentioned in the link provided in the original post. Read the law. Then read the definitions of “includes” and “state” and figure out if the law even applies to you! It does not.
This does not apply to you because you are in no way (if i remember correctly you’re a teacher) related to a state entity as defined in the code. This particularly tortured definition of “includes” is meant to obfuscate the original meaning…but perhaps that’s my own annoyance with congress.
MUCH of law is predicated upon people assuming law applies to them when it fact it does not – this appearing to be case in point. (Only appears because I’ve not read all of the title…but you get the idea).
(Giggling) it’s so cute to see you seriously worked up about something. Of course global warming and such are all a huge joke. Never mind that cities will be destroyed and people will die. But if a writer sees someone encroaching on his work…uh oh…this is a real problem. Remind me where to send my $5 and color me unconcerned.
bradley: The “roundup” issue is controversial but I’m not sure copyright holders have much of a case on that one. The AP and a few publications are now demanding licensing fees for short quotes, but I wish them luck with that.
Personally, I love it when major roundup sites, especially MLBTR (which I read), link to my stuff with a one- or two-sentence summary. I don’t see how any harm can come from it. When I’ve seen one of my entire articles reprinted elsewhere, or even that of a colleague, I’ve sent it to ESPN’s lawyers. It’s actually their fight, not mine.
BSK: I agree that the RIAA is, sometimes, full of crap, and that’s the reason I didn’t call them, but went to the Copyright Alliance directly, who in theory are carrying water for enough parties that you’re getting a broader view. Not an unbiased one, of course, but a broader one. But who’s the group on the other side? I thought about Consumers Union but didn’t see any material from them on this issue.
I also wouldn’t say that I agree with the RIAA’s tactics in the courts or through Congress, like the aforementioned Home Taping Act. But they’re not wrong at a macro level to be concerned about copyright infringement. It costs musicians and labels money, and while I shed no tears for major labels (who refused to unbundle albums for years after the technology existed to make it cost-effective), I do support the right of musicians to profit from their works, if they so choose.
Jon: If a musician and/or label wish to condone file-sharing or other duplication of their releases, by all means, they can do so. (And seriously, I discovered more than a few bands by way of Napster, and then bought a bunch of their CDs/songs, including Coldplay and Doves.)
Tim: Click the GlobalGiving link on the right, and double the fine for illegal use of a strawman.
brian:
I completely misread your post. For some reason, I read ‘title 17’ as age 17. Combining that with your point about whether I am part of the targeted group, I conflated that to meant you assumed I was under 17. My bad. As for the law, I don’t really know how to make sense of the wording of the law. Based on what you wrote though, I’m guessing you’re not saying specifically that what I’m doing is legal. But, rather, that the law specifically being referenced might not be applicable. Perhaps there is another that is or isn’t.
Keith-
Thanks for the clarification. I think that is one of the hardest parts about this convo. So many statements and started with, “The RIAA says…” Who gives a flying fuck what they say? I care what the law says.
I was really intrigued by what you said about web articles. I suppose this is only limited to copyrighted work, right? Like, most blogs would not be entitled to such protections, but a site like ESPN might be, right? Where is the line drawn, though? Can nothing be quoted? Sections are okay, but not the entire text? Providing a link mitigates this or not? Only paid sites, or anything clickable, due to the way ad revenue is generated? This is very new to me, but I’m really interested.
BSK:
I just thought it to be interesting that the VERY LAW stated by the RIAA on THEIR webpage is not applicable to their rules which they cited ad nauseum below the law listed. They even stated it would be a good idea for me (the reader) to read the law and understand it. So I did. Good times.
Well played, sir. Part of me would love to see you point this out to them, if only it could be done publicly. Another part of me loves that you’ve allowed us faithful Dish readers to quietly laugh to ourselves about it. Thanks for the info. (And, yes, I am a teacher, in addition to being the inspiration for Keith’s postings.)
Brian–
No offense, but that was a pretty gross misreading of the statute…it clearly applies to “anyone” and “anyone” includes state actors in addition to regular joes such as you, keith and myself.
Keith, you might want to contact the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) based out of San Francisco to get the other side. If you are interested in exploring the issue further, I can give you some law professors/lawyers to contact.
Copyrights is an artificial constraint placed on the market in order to create scarcity where there naturally isn’t any. It is by nature anti free market. The framers were aware of this and sought a reasonable balance when they attempted to secure author’s rights for a LIMITED time in order to create an incentive structure for man’s creativity.
The Copyright Extension Act, paid and purchased for by Disney, the MPAA, the RIAA and the Authors Guild is a clear distortion of this. In effect it has stolen billions and billions of dollars of value from the commons in exchange for nothing. That it has congress’s stamp of approval on it does not change it’s nature, it was theft.
Until the Copyright Extension act is overturned, and a semblance of balance restored to copyrights, then all artists/authors/copyright holders that are members of or supporters of the guilds/companies that bought the Copyright Extension Act should be considered fair game, the distribution without consent of their material should be viewed as an exalted act of civil disobedience. The ultimate goal should be to render these entities bankrupt, or force them to petition congress for such irrational extremes of legislation that the rule of law as it pertains to copyright becomes meaningless.
So long as the CD’s weren’t published independently of the aforementioned entities then BSK was knowingly or unknowingly doing a good, moral thing and we should all thank him.
Thank you BSK. Keep up the good fight.
Other comments have touched on this, but it may be worth repeating. The Copyright Alliance’s take on fair use here is not an unreasonable statement of the law, but it is a reading of the law that is about as robust a pro-copyright holder interpretation as the law will bear. Those with skin in the game argue that format shifting of content is not fair use, but unless the law has changed since I took copyright that is actually an open issue and a very reasonable argument can be made that format shifting is a paradigmatic example of what should constitute fair use. The same goes for mix CDs or playlists that are passed from the acquirer of the content to an acquaintance. All of that said, deliberately buying CDs (or taking them out of the library) for the purpose of ripping them to a computer and then selling them (or returning them) is clearly NOT fair use and I agree that you don’t have to have the most finely tuned moral compass to realize that it is unethical.
Also, for the commenters who are not buying into the legal/ethical arguments against downloading/copying, there is an economic argument against it as well. Copyrights are designed, in part, to encourage musicians, writers, etc. to engage in their craft by protecting their ability to profit from doing so. When you take possession of content that is subject to a copyright, without paying for the right to do so, you are actually deterring (or, at least, failing to properly incent) the sort of content that you would presumably like to see generated. If you want a record label or publisher to put out more of the music or writing that you like in the future, you should pay for the stuff that you like now.
“is clearly NOT fair use and I agree that you don’t have to have the most finely tuned moral compass to realize that it is unethical.”
I take serious exception to this. To reach the conclusion that this is unethical requires buying in to a set of assumptions, not all of which prove to be valid.
First there is the law, and then there are ethics. You are dealing with ethics. The base assumption I think you make is that copying/distribution without consent is stealing, and we all would agree that stealing is almost always unethical.
However copying/distributing electronic media is not actually stealing, it is copyright infringement. Intellectual property is not real property. It is property created by the state via fiat. Copyright is a license for monopoly granted by the state to an author.
The distinction should be obvious and is important. When I “steal” your real property, I deprive you of something directly. When I “violate” your copyright, you don’t loose anything directly, but rather I indirectly deprive you of a right granted by a third party. Who is to say that I am ethically bound by the decisions of this third party? You have lost nothing real.
It takes a pretty big leap to assert that ignoring such a license is inherently unethical. One must agree that the actual grant of this monopoly, this copyright, was ethical in the first place.
I would argue that the current copyrights granted by congress are unethical. In order for the restriction of free markets and an individuals liberty to trade to be ethical, I would assert that it must be in the pursuit of a larger social good.
Clearly it would do society an immense harm if intellectual property never entered the public domain. Technology, medicine and the arts would stagnate. However at the same time people do need an incentive to create. This is the justification for copyright, a LIMITIED monopoly is granted to the author as incentive, but ultimately it is a license to what the commons owns. This balance no longer exists in copyright. Copyright has become an indefinite license that deprives us all of our rights for the enrichment of the very few.
Reasonable people should not feel ethically bound to follow unethical laws.
But Phil, Copyright is a creature of the Constitution. It has been given shape and definition by acts of Congress which passed both houses and were signed by the President. I happen to think that Copyright and Patents are necessary to properly incentivize the expansion of the world of ideas and things. That said, I know there are perfectlty reasonable arguments to be made that they instead unduly restrict markets and deter the very things they are meant to protect (Arguments that have gained footing as the limited monopoly granted by Copyright has been extended longer and longer, protecting not the original artists, but the corporations which bought them out). If you want to advance the Copyright-as-market-failure position there are a number of ethical ways you can do so. Petition Congress to change the laws. Run for Congress on that platform. Write op-eds and academic articles advocating change. Start a grass roots campaign to amend the intellectual property provision of the Consitution. Bring a lawsuit seeking to strike down the Copyright laws or seeking to advance a narrower interpretation of the Constitution. But individual statutory nullification is not ethical. You are in essence saying that you are allowed to take something for free that everyone else has to pay for because you don’t think you should have to pay for it. Not to go all Kant here, but if everybody did that where would we be. . .
Phil it would also do society immense harm if intellectual property was never protected.
I spent the afternoon reading and playing Nintendo. The quality of both these products would be severely compromised if intellectual property did nit exist. Furthermore it’s obviously wrong. Keith feeds his family by providing content that is often behind a subscriber wall.
Are you seriously suggesting that there’s nothing unethical with sharing that content and undercutting his ability to be compensating for prvoding a service you ( and whomever you may be sharing with) value?
Kevin- I acknowledge everything that you mention regarding providing incentives for creativity, and said pretty clearly that this is reasonable. The caveat and the game changer is recent legislation that in effect totally counters framer’s intent regarding incentives…
The constitution is pretty clear, congress has the power to secure exclusive rights for a LIMITED time in order to facilitate the arts and sciences. However congress has repeatably been extending the duration of copyrights and in effect has been making them unlimited in duration. This is the flip side of no copyrights, and just as bad.
We provide incentive so that society, the commons, eventually gets the output of the creativity. That no longer happens, the monopoly is effectively unlimited. Each extension steals from the commons, it is theft no different then unauthorized distribution.
Until this legislation is undone, unauthorized distribution of certain entities content can reasonably be considered civil disobedience, and is perfectly ethical.
Ronaldo-
Copyrights are great, i ever said otherwise. I am arguing on behalf of civil disobedience against entities that are trying to undermine the purpose of copyrights. I also only advocate this activity against the companies and guilds that have actively sought to destroy the balnce of copyrights articulated in the constitution by the framers.
FWIW, my practices with CDs are not some expression of a philosophical stance on the morality or ethics of copyright law. I’ve got feelings on the issue, but I am not attempting to promote a moral good. I am not keeping up any “fight”, and I don’t want to be mistaken as such.
BSK- Its ok, you are an accidental hero. There are many of us, doing everything we can to encourage people like you to keep doing what you do. In the end either the rule of law as it pertains to copyright will fail, or we will see the restoration of balance in the law. I hope for the later.
Seems unlikely, since even reasonable parties like our host can’t see that the status quo costs them money. It has ceased to baffle me that smart people won’t do the right thing even when it will make them more money (here see Jon’s excellent comment on how filesharing has meant more money for most musicians). Still, it continues to amuse.
wcw, you’re making some strong assertions without providing evidence. “Filesharing has meant more money for most musicians” … really? Don’t we need some supporting data for such a statement? (For example, the NY Times ran an article in January on declining album sales and rising concert revenues, a mixed bag for the industry as a whole.) Similarly, you argue that the status quo costs me money without explaining why or providing any data.
Kevin: I agree that CA’s take is pro-copyright-holder, which is why I stayed away from gray-area questions like copying for personal use (which she answered for me anyway).
JKG: By all means, if you’ve got a law prof or two for me, send their names along.
Also, let’s not equate filesharing with civil disobedience. I don’t think it quite measures up to the examples from the past we generally associate with that term.
Specifically, simply breaking a law that you feel is wrong or unjust does not necessarily equate to civil disobedience. The actions in question, whether legal or not, have to be intended to bring about the end of the unjust law; not to simply evade it.
Keith,
the NYT article that claims declining album sales, also mentions increasing digital sales. It does not provide specific number for digital sales (rather say “over a billion”) so it’s difficult to calculate whether one balanced out the other or not. However, I am not sure whether file-sharing / downloading really does hurt the artists. My understanding is that “big name” artists are paid upfront and small and up-and-coming performers make next to nothing on CD/mp3s but rather make their living through concerts, merchandise sales, etc.
This might not be considered moral in our society, but I rather spend the money going to a concert and buying merchandise (I do have a weird uhm let’s say habit of buying a t-shirt at every concert I go to), rather than paying $1 per song that mostly pays six (or more) figure salaries to the label’s execs, who in all reality got nothing to do with the music itself.
Also, I remember reading somewhere, though can’t locate the original source so I can’t link to it, that there is a flip-side to this whole issue. It is illegal for me to download an album, but it is legal for them to charge me $1 a song though I’ve already purchased a vinyl, a tape and a CD of the same album… I’ve paid for this album N times (I guess N depends on one’s age), so should not there be an exception for those who have legally purchased specific song/album multiple times in the past?
Lastly, as far as copy/paste of full articles – I think it only hurts the provider of content rather than the author (I don’t know but assume that you or any other writer at ESPN is not paid per click) and if said provider would like to, they can easily stop people – ESPN actually used to disable right-click and copy options on the Insider content. On a slightly separate issue, I’ve been a faithful ESPN insider for a few years but in a sense, I am paying full membership fee to get access to 3 specific columnists. I know you can’t answer this, but why can’t ESPN offer different level of membership? if full membership is $39.95, offer me any five columnists and/or features of my choice for $10 or something along those lines…
Why would ESPN continue to pay Keith to write for them if people are just going to steal the content. I’m not an on-line media expert, but it seems the two ways they would make money would be through advertising and through charging for content. If too many people are avoiding paying for content and/or are exerpting large amounts of content, resulting in less hits for advertising purposes, Keith is going to lose his job. If Keith loses his job, we don’t get to read him on ESPN, he probably has to take a new job, and he shuts down this blog too! I’m not sure how that can be read as a positive development for society as a whole, or me in general.
Brian, the arguement that s. 501(a) is only applicable to states sounds eerily similar to those people who claim that the federal income tax is unconstitutional and that you can refuse to pay it without fear of prosecution. It’s not a good idea to put too much stock into these myths.
keith, it’d be interesting to know what all the apologists for stealing music and movies do for a living, because one can most certainly make examples of every occupation and career where theft wouldnt be tolerable. but when it comes to art, its okay. ridiculous, because its the artists that probably need the funds the most (and im talking about the majority of artists out there that dont make 10 million per movie, etc).
Keith, I noticed you haven’t replied at all to any of PhillR’s comments … just out of curiosity, do you have any thoughts on what he’s written here?
Jason-
FWIW, there isn’t a direct comparison to all fields, because copyrights aren’t available in all fields. As a teacher, regardless of how new and novel an approach I may develop is, there is no way I could copyright it and prevent it from being used by others. I never WOULD do this, obviously, but even if I wanted to, I couldn’t. Theft and intellectual property piracy are very different things; that’s not to say that one is ‘less bad’ than the other. They’re just not really analogous with one another, the way the RIAA wants you to believe that downloading a song is the same as shoplifting. There are different laws at play and different interests to be concerned about. Both are illegal and wrong; we’re still just ferreting out exactly where the law is and, more importantly, where it should be as technological progress continues to challenge antiquated laws.
Also, just to clarify to everyone else, since my statements are want initially brought about this post, I am no apologist for the music piracy (technically it’s not theft or stealing, but it’s still illegal nonetheless). I don’t advocate breaking the law just because you don’t like the law. In my previous understanding, I felt it was both legal and ethical to do what I was doing, which was copying purchased CDs onto my computer and then trading them via Swaptree. I see that the issue is far more complicated than I realized, and I have ceased to do this until I have a firmer understanding. I have my personal opinions on the validity of copyright law, but that doesn’t matter if/when the law is clear on what is legal and what is not.
I just wanted to clear my (anonymous) name. Not that it really matters, but it seemed like people were misrepresenting what I was specifically doing and were talking about other different, but related, situations.