Views on illegal downloading

[SuperDude]

So what are they?  There may be a bunch of future or current lawyers on this board, but according to the stats every one of you is a dirty law-breaking pirate  . 

My views are pretty complicated, as I would think most of yours are as well.  I personally think that illegal downloading is indeed wrong since artists or software developers aren't being compensated, but I also think that both the industry and the IP law out there have not kept up with the changes in technology. 

The definition of fair use should be more clearly defined, and with the way we are able to quickly distribute data, music shouldn't cost $12-20 per album and software shouldn't be very expensive either.  Free is pretty hard to compete with, but "legal + easy + cheap" might.

[Astro]

"Reasonable" and "updated" should be the two working terms.

Unfortunately, status quo demands that neither of those two terms are going to come into play any time soon.  Too many dinosaurs protecting antiquated bottom-line schemes predicated on expired technology.

Until then, they'll just have to continue butting their heads against the unstoppable force that is peer-to-peer sharing.  In the meantime, alternative models keep cropping up (see, e.g., Creative Commons licensing, among others).

[mason123]

Copyright infringement of digital media will not be curbed by almost any law, except for statutes that establish lengthy incarceration sentences and capital punishment for these offenses (which I hope will not be the case).

In all seriousness though - bootlegging/unauthorized access and the sale of ripped music, video and software had been prevalent even before the notorious Napter. AOL warez rings, Asian peddlers, replicated tapes, duplicated cassettes, and the hotbox were all primitive forms and methods of mass copyright infringement.

I believe that downloading copyright material should not constitute copyright infringement, but it should still be prohibited by law. Let me clarify. The general public is well aware that speeding is illegal and the general public is well aware that excessive speeding can promote increased rates of bodily harm. But many choose to speed anyway. Going 55 MPH in a 50 just feels good. We know it is wrong, but we do not explicitly see the harm (until you crash obviously). Although illegal, speeding is not deviant, which is similar to modern digital copyright infringement. It is easily attainable and easy to break the law - it is also an acceptable norm. The risk and consequences also seem very distant.

I think that searching for copyrighted material does not constitute intent to infringe (speaking from a defense standpoint). The material is usually freely available with minimal effort. Ordinary citizens should not be expected to understand the limits attributed to every single copyrighted document, novel, movie and software title available. It does not seem reasonable. However, those that provide copyrighted material on a large scale should be held to account if the material in question had safeguards in place to prevent duplication and the person in question had circumvented the protection of said material. This would undoubtedly prove intent to attain and illegally distribute copyrighted material. I just hope that many foreign countries continue to ignore this little tidbit. (Evil cackle)

Well, that's my two cents.

[I am Penny Lane]

I got into my views in this thread:

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,89707.0.html

I think there are a few others on the subject as well.

[t...]

Ordinary citizens should not be expected to understand the limits attributed to every single copyrighted document, novel, movie and software title available. It does not seem reasonable.

You're joking, right?

----

I've yet to see an argument that is convincing on this issue.

[mason123]

And why would I be joking?

Young children use the computer, many of whom I am sure go crazy with the peer-to-peer sharing network. Parents are not always able to spot their children's legal transgressions on the computer, arguably due to their lack of technological know-how.

Are these kids expected to understand and abide by copyright limitations? Are average Americans supposed to be able to tell the difference between public domain material and copyright material? I am not so sure.

For Example:
Friend tells another friend,
"Dude, download Metallica - Enter Sandman"
Friend responds,
"Never heard of them or that song, maybe I can find it on the limewire."

Once this person finds it on limewire (with a slighty different file name) and is unaware of any associated copyrights (since each song does not come with a blatant copyright sticker), should this person suffer the wrath of RIAA lawyers? This person does not know of the band, and is not necessarily unreasonable to think that this song may be public domain. Who knows? This person surely does not.

Ignorance of the law is not a defense, but we are discussing this issue from both a legal and ethical standpoint I presume.

[Astro]

Ordinary citizens should not be expected to understand the limits attributed to every single copyrighted document, novel, movie and software title available. It does not seem reasonable.

You're joking, right?

----

I've yet to see an argument that is convincing on this issue.

Oh shut it.

[t...]

And why would I be joking?

Young children use the computer, many of whom I am sure go crazy with the peer-to-peer sharing network. Parents are not always able to spot their children's legal transgressions on the computer, arguably due to their lack of technological know-how.

Are these kids expected to understand and abide by copyright limitations? Are average Americans supposed to be able to tell the difference between public domain material and copyright material? I am not so sure.

For Example:
Friend tells another friend,
"Dude, download Metallica - Enter Sandman"
Friend responds,
"Never heard of them or that song, maybe I can find it on the limewire."

Once this person finds it on limewire (with a slighty different file name) and is unaware of any associated copyrights (since each song does not come with a blatant copyright sticker), should this person suffer the wrath of RIAA lawyers? This person does not know of the band, and is not necessarily unreasonable to think that this song may be public domain. Who knows? This person surely does not.

Ignorance of the law is not a defense, but we are discussing this issue from both a legal and ethical standpoint I presume.

Lulz.

I'm quite confident that anyone with the wherewithal to obtain music via p2p networks has at very least a cursory understanding that they are obtaining music illegally.

At any rate, stripped of all filigree, your argument boils down to "they didn't know better."

Ordinary citizens should not be expected to understand the limits attributed to every single copyrighted document, novel, movie and software title available. It does not seem reasonable.

You're joking, right?

----

I've yet to see an argument that is convincing on this issue.

Oh shut it.

Still waiting.

[blupblup]

I've yet to see an argument that is convincing on this issue.

Here's one: Who cares that it's illegal? Downloading copyrighted material may be a form of protest against a broken system.

[blupblup]

To elaborate on my viewpoint, I actually think an act of protest is a legitimate defense. We all might admit, yes, artists need to be fairly compensated. They should get compensation when we enjoy their work. There is a more ideal system -- once in which we do not have to illegally download. But the defense, as it stands, is that we do not have a better alternative. I (generally) refuse to support major record labels. I may still like bands/ artists that are under these labels. Do I stop listening to their music? No... I may download it, enjoy it, share it with friends, go to their shows, and engage in activities that otherwise might actually help the artist.

It's also hard for me to see why it's so wrong, because it relieves artists/ labels of having to host their albums/songs on their websites, and for a lot of people (not all) it serves as promotional tools. I often will go buy an album -- but not without being able to download it first. Really. I rarely buy albums w/o listening to them first.