[GandalfTheGrey]

Apparently it is illegal. However I know there are different legal interpretations to this sort of thing. For example, the movie industry lost a court case in the early 80s where they tried to ban the recording of movies on tv. Then around 2000 there was a big case between websites who distributed a crack for a particular type of DVD encryption - which allowed users to make copies. I'm not even sure what the outcome was with that, but the hackers mounted a strong case based on previous rulings on personal property rights (including the the famous VCR case). So these issues are not necessarily a simple case of theft.

Now to music/movie downloading. I was interested by this remark by CWAS in Gorkiy park:

Still I support p2p for the simple fact anyone who purchases a product has the right to do what they want with their property

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/view ... hp?t=52773

Good point, which was basically the argument used in the VCR case. However there is one problem in relation to p2p: namely that most people who make their movies/music available for download have themselves acquired it through p2p, and not through a legal purchase. So this argument of CWAS' is invalid because most people sharing these files haven't actually purchased them in the first place.

So what do people understand about this issue regarding what is actually written in the law (and obviously the law can be different from country to country, so state which country's law you are talking about)?

[Maxim Litvinov]

The first thing to say is that Australia's copyright law is quite different to the US'. In Australia it is still technically illegal to record something that appears on TV or to copy your CD collection to iTunes or even to transfer your LPs to CD. In the US all of these things are generally allowed through fair use provisions.

[Einherjar]

Good point, which was basically the argument used in the VCR case. However there is one problem in relation to p2p: namely that most people who make their movies/music available for download have themselves acquired it through p2p, and not through a legal purchase. So this argument of CWAS' is invalid because most people sharing these files haven't actually purchased them in the first place.

When you purchase music/movies, you do so with the condition that you will not record/exchange them with other people, no?

[Clausewitz]

Apparently it is illegal. However I know there are different legal interpretations to this sort of thing. For example, the movie industry lost a court case in the early 80s where they tried to ban the recording of movies on tv. Then around 2000 there was a big case between websites who distributed a crack for a particular type of DVD encryption - which allowed users to make copies. I'm not even sure what the outcome was with that, but the hackers mounted a strong case based on previous rulings on personal property rights (including the the famous VCR case). So these issues are not necessarily a simple case of theft.

I think it's always been illegal to distribute a copy of a copyrighted program without permission. The issue in the Betamax case was whether or not the creators of the technology (in that case, Sony) were responsible for the infringement that some users of the technology engaged in. The Betamax case held that it was legal for someone to record a presentation to watch it later, and that since this legal use was the primary use of the technology, the technology was legal and Sony was not liable. They found in Grokster that this was not the case for filesharing.

Individual filesharers have always been liable but it's usually not feasible to prosecute them since litigation costs are so high compared to the possible damages. Prosecuting the creator of the technology is, however, feasible.

The idea behind copyright is that you don't have certain rights to creations that incorporate intellectual property; you have an incomplete set of property rights. So I think it's unfair to develop an argument against intellectual property by arguing that such creations are your property in the general sense. The problem that economists see is that, in the first place, copyrights are a poor way of incentivizing innovation and artistry (it stifles derivative innovation and doesn't adequately incentivize certain levels of socially optimal creations) It's also extraordinarily costly to bend over backwards trying to develop arcane encryption, clunky licensing technologies, and litigation costs for infringement. So until someone comes up with a modern solution to copyright law I don't feel too guilty "owning" 200 GB of bootlegged TV.

[Mysterious]

Its hard to feel sory for 2 industries that supposedly lose billions to piracy yet still make nutball multi-billion dollar profits and millionaires out of smucks who have zero talent.


Anyone ever found it ironic that companies like Sony bitch & moan that piracy is bad, its killing their business, hurting their profits & that all people who pirate should be ashamed of them themselves.......yet then 2 seconds later - LITERALLY - they tell you to come buy their new SONY DVD-RW/CDRW and blank DVDR-W/CDRW media, etc that amazingly support all the latest svcd, vcd, mp3, etc formats that they claim are hurting them.

[| I, CWAS |]

However there is one problem in relation to p2p: namely that most people who make their movies/music available for download have themselves acquired it through p2p, and not through a legal purchase. So this argument of CWAS' is invalid because most people sharing these files haven't actually purchased them in the first place.

They are the recievers of someone's else property. Much the same way of someone who grows corn, then sells the seeds. Person B cultivates/havests crops and then gives away the product, and Person C does the same as B, and D as C. If someone gives me their property for free, it still becomes my property. However, consumer zero would have had to own it if he was the sole source. If he walked into wal-mart and stole a DVD he stole wal-mart property (and is distributing the property of wal-mart), if he purchased it then it's his property to do with what he wishes.