Re: file share vs tape as gift

[Bob Maxey <written_by@xxxxxxx>]

>>>We need to separate the law and "what we think the law should be" and
still a third thing, "what we think is *right*" (I don't think the
law should try to ban absolutely everything that isn't perfectly
righteous; sometimes there's too much collateral damage.)>>>

 

We do not need to separate the law. It is what it is. Good for some people and quite often, bad for others. What we NEED to do is seek a change if we do not like some provision in the law. We cannot tell the judge we think the law is silly and that is why we violated it Ever cracked a law book?

 

I disagree with many laws, but until I am successful in getting a law changed, I am not free to disregard the law regardless of how I feel or what I think might be "right." I certainly hope you are smart enough to understand we cannot have a legal system based upon what each individual might feel is right because eventually, we end up in the same place: with a law that is not to some folk’s liking.

 

We have laws that by and large serve to protect the majority. Most certainly, a particular law might hurt some people. Most certainly, sometimes there is "collateral damage."

 

By the way, who decides what is righteous? And, just so you will know, the law does not ban everything.

 

>>>I'm talking solely about the last, what *I* think is "right", in the
next three paragraphs. Often in terms of relative benefit rather than
absolute and simple "yes" and "no".

I see two important differences between making a file available
publicly in a file-sharing network and making a tape (or CD) to hand
to a friend. >>>

 

So if you are my friend, and a dozen other people on my file share network are my friends, is it still illegal to "make a tape (or CD) to hand to my "friends?" How many friends does the law say I can have? How long must I know someone before they are "legally" my friend? I have mailing list friends. Do they count? Never met them, after all.

 

If my "friends" number in the thousands would you agree or disagree that it would be wrong to send these new friends copies of yours or your wife’s digital works?

 

You are correct when you draw a distinction between making tapes to give to a few friends and the general idea behind a file share network; which as we all know is to make hundreds of thousands of files available to potentially millions of people. I get it. You are saying that there might not be a problem giving Joe, Sally, and Linda a copy of my mix tape, but making the tape available to absolutely everyone on the web is wrong.

 

Suppose for a moment that the courts said sharing music files is legal. Can you imagine what would happen? Almost every bit of music ever produced would be freely available to absolutely everyone. Can you see the damage that would cause? So isn’t it better to simply have a law that says all file sharing is illegal and all abusers will be prosecuted, be it one file or one hundred thousand files? I think it is.

 

I do not care if some heartless and cold recording conglomerate uses their money and influence to get laws passed and to go after abusers. The alternative is something no right-thinking person would welcome. Remember when Metallica went after file swappers? Lots of their fans turned nasty, which tells me their were interested in getting the music for free and they did not understand this simple fact: Metallica produces a product and they intend to sell it for profit. The band went after abusers just like any other business with assets to protect would.

 

When we visit a particular web site and we depress the "I agree" button, we must follow the TOS. Would adding a TOS to my file share site that includes the words "Unless you are known to me and you are a friend, you are not allowed to download my mix tapes…" Would that make any difference or is an illegal copy and illegal copy regardless?

 

The courts might indeed draw a distinction between giving a mix tape to a tiny group of close friends and putting the entire Apple catalog online. But where should the line be drawn? Can I post my large collection of music online and make it available to my "friends?"

 

There is no real difference between making files available on the net and burning CDs to mail to friends and family. Is there? Granted, making tapes and burning CDs takes more time, but where is the real difference? I could easily post ten thousand songs on my friends and family only web site.

 

I have friends that might like any of a thousand LPs or CDs, so can I make them available? Or is there a law that says I can only copy X numbers of albums and give them to X number of friends? Or should the law be no copies allowed, regardless of the reasons, or numbers?

 

>>>Number one, making a tape to hand to a friend is me pushing something
on them that they probably weren't actively looking for previously,
whereas on a file-sharing network the other guy has to go out looking
for the work. It's not crazy to argue that my pushing an artist/work
on a friend is much more likely to result in future sales for the
artist than somebody going out looking for it on file-share. Or, to
put it another way, if somebody is actively looking for the work, it
seems somewhat likely that he might be an actual possible customer,
that an actual sale might be lost when he finds the work on a
file-share network. >>>

 

Lots of people are arrested because some sting operation or perhaps a decoy offered them something they were not specifically looking for. You might not start out your evening looking for fine ladies and other pleasures, but if you are offered a chance to buy and you do, you are likely to be aressted.

 

Friends might not be looking for music by Danny Gatton and they might welcome my copies "pushed" on them. If they accept, aren’t they just as guilty as I am for making the copies in the first place? We cannot assume that making files available to anyone that wants to DL them will result in sales for the record company. In my case it often does, but in many cases, it likely does not. An FS system is designed to circumvent the payment/royalty process and the courts would laugh at you for suggesting that your file share system is helping the record companies.

>>>Number two, my pushing mix tapes on friends is much smaller-scale and
more manual than making the file available to anybody in the whole
world who looks for it. Thus my decision to make the mix tape seems
to have much smaller consequences for the overall financial picture of
that work. >>>

 

I agree, but the law does not say you can make copies as long as you keep the quantities reasonable. I cannot grow pot for my personal use or set up a meth kitchen. The law says no drug, period. I feel certain if I made copies of some albums and "mass produced" fifty copies for shipping to close friends and family, I would be found guilty of something if I were challenged.

>>>In current legal terms, they seem to me equally illegal, but I'm not a
lawyer. And I don't consider the current laws automatically
definitive on what's "right", of course (does anybody?). >>>

 

I also believe that some laws are quite foolish and quite often, they make no sense. Regardless of how you or I feel about a particular law, we must obey it or challenge it in a court of law and seek to get it changed. There is no other way.

>>>I think a lot of the recent movement in copyright law, to extend terms
and restrict more and more what rights people have with a copy of
something they have purchased, are bad public policy, not to the
overall benefit of society and not to the benefit of the creative
people who actually produce works of art (in addition to
photographers, I know many authors including the one I'm married to,
and quite a few musicians), but only to the benefits of corporations
holding old rights. >>>

 

I agree to an extent, but if you accept that making copies of music for friends is OK and file sharing is bad, then you must agree that my making copies of your photography to give to friends so they do not need to purchase copies from you is acceptable. Is it? Can I freely to copy your images or your wife’s writings and make them available to friends? I mean, why should my friends buy your wife’s book, when I have copies available?

 

Can I put your family’s property on my friends and family only web site or offer them framed and/or printed for a low price to cover my costs? Or would you (rightfully) reject my use of your property, regardless of if I profit from it or not? I hope you say ABSOLUTELY NOT, BOB! Most certainly, the law says no, I am not allowed to copy and distribute someone else’s property.

 

You seem to think the law is designed to benefit only large corporations and you would be wrong. Sure, large corporations benefit but so do the little people. Large corporations must abide by the rules just like you and just like me. You have access to the same courts the Microsoft’s of the world have access to. Granted, Gates and the gang have plenty of money to fight an endless battle in court, but that is another topic.

 

I take the side of the musician and record company that wants to shut down file sharing services. I am very much on the side of Microsoft and the other "giant, heartless corporations" that want to go after those that make copies of software and music to give to friends or the world regardless of the delivery method or media. By the way, stealing is exactly that. It is wrong.

 

Can I copy the "Vista OS Beta" and freely give pass the copies on to my friends, or is that somehow inappropriate and wrong? If you wrote a hot game, can I give copies to friends or is that wrong? Can I pull twelve images from your web site and give hundreds of copies of calendars and framed images to my family and friends, or is that wrong? Where does one draw the line?

 

>>>Note that I have avoided saying what I think the law "should" be; I
don't think I have any good clean magic solution. As one point, I'd
like to greatly cut back the term of copyright, at the very least back
to the previous-world-standard of life+50, but I'd really prefer to
cut it back further to say life+25. Or I can see lots of arguments
for a complete revamp of the system along completely different
principles, but revolutionary change is always extremely disruptive
and controversial; and I don't have a particular revolutionary idea
driving me.>>>

 

I agree that the system should be changed, but like you, I have no solutions to offer. Perhaps a lowering of the fees is a good place to start. My solutions might not be to your liking, or yours, to mine. I might suggest to you and everyone on the list that if you do not like something in the law, seek a change.

 

By the way, have you actually bothered to read the entire copyright law and the DMCA? Or for that matter, have you investigated the personal property rights laws in your state that in some cases add additional protective measures to the federal copyright law?

 

Bob

…

---

Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com