Around the time Napster was popular, in 2000, I wrote an article detailing the emergence of massive file sharing networks and the implications upon the internet society and the recording and motion picture industry. At that time the MPAA wasn't involved with deterring or persuing file sharers because the whole MP3 issue had cropped up rather recently and it was believed that flims were too difficult and unlikely to be transferred. In the original article I wrote, "Napster is only a precursor foreshadowning for things to come in the near future. The Motion Picture industry will soon experience the consumer shockwave of retaliation against the same old regime of 19.95 - 24.95 for a virtually worthless VHS of the latest released blockbuster. In the next few years DVD-RAM drives, as well as DVD-R's will become widely available and affordable. Broadband access capabilities will allow users to transfer data at 100 times that of today's Dail up allowing for downloading of Digital Movies online. " And now those words have come to be true in many ways, however the combined audiovisual entertainment industry has mounted a legally questionable and underhanded effort to assault innocent consumers with lawsuits in light of the surge in digital file sharing.
In the years since Napster the battle has grown incrementally more hostile as those who see a coming end to their monopoly on an industry. Try as it might, Napster attempted to stay online as long as possible, and finally succumbed to a hornet's nest of litigation and court battles for a company that had made no profit at all. Napster was then later shut down, and bought by a legitimate recording company. I doubt that Shawn Fanning would have invisioned that his simple creation for trading music between fans online would cause so much controversy when he first distributed Napster.
As prophetically obvious as my previous article on this topic was back in 2000, in fact, when Napster went down, people just moved to other versions of the same idea and there became a plethora of new kinds of software to trade, now not only music, but movies, software, images, and any file of any type that one person may own and allow another person to have for free. Use of Morpheus, LimeWire, BearShare, WinMX, KaZaA, KaZaA Lite, Gnutella, FileShare, Grokster, etc exploded. The trouble with Napster was that the service itself was acting as middle man between users, and thus the RIAA could pin it's contentions and profit loss on someone to sue. However the new File Sharing programs allowed for no middleman at all, and simply allowed for one person to connect to another person and vice verca. Anyone using this software was given the ability to grant access by other users to portions of their hard drives that may contian any kind of data including photos, text, software, software drivers, movie files, music files, or video games.
The idea of File Sharing is nothing new and goes all the way back to the earliest days of the internet in the form of FTP, or File Transfer Protocol. In fact this is the standard for transferring data from one computer to another computer online. File Sharing has been perfectly legal and legitimate since day one and still is, there are no laws that say you can't upload a file to a server, or download a file from said server.
The RIAA and the lawyers suing people who share MP3 files online are basically calling this act. Piracy. Now don't get me wrong here, but isn't the definition of a copyright pirate a person who duplicates movie, software, or music discs, creates fake covers to look like the legitimate thing and SELLS these items under the guise of them being legitimate for a substantial profit? Notice that the key contention here is the fact that the hypothetical pirate is selling these items for personal gain not giving them away freely or at a personal expense. Now, in the case of File Sharing programs you are neither selling or obtaining any profit of any kind by sharing something you like with other people who like it. I find that the stipulations and the contingents being applied by these lawyers and the RIAA and MPAA are in fact erroneous and are in violation of my rights as an owner of the property and consumer. If I own something such as a music CD that I paid money for, and I choose to let my friend borrow it and listen to it, under the same laws and rules that are being applied to File Sharing my friend and I could be sued for listening and "sharing" that music because my friend didn't pay a store, the record label, or the artist to listen to that music. What the hell kind of nonsense ethics is this?
As a consumer I have the right to do whatever means necessary to maintain the integrity of the product I purchased legally. If for instance I buy a DVD film or a Music CD and that disc incurs a serious scratch it can be rendered unplayable. It is unfair and offensive to me as a consumer to have to pay for the same thing twice, so logically under fair use I should be able to copy it onto my hard drive or another disc for safe keeping in case the original becomes irrevocably damaged. Now following the same suit, suppose that I maintain a library and an archive of this data on my own hard drive in my computer, there is no law that says I'm not allowed to let someone else look at or take things from my hard drive. If I bought and paid for a computer that means I own it, including the hard drive and the data that sits on it stored magnetically. That being the case, if I allow a friend within my house or a family member to access data over a Local Area Network to use files from my hard drive, I have chosen to do this, and this is entirely legal. Furthermore, if I should choose to share the data on my Hard Drive over a Wide Area Network, then I choose to do so, taking into consideration the risks to my own property to hackers and viruses, as well as the cost I must incur to gain access to the internet, and have every right to do so. There are no laws on the books that say I am not allowed to give someone free gifts. What I don't have the right to do, is use the same duplicated files, such as movies, music, and software, and SELL these items or charge a kind of download fee to obtain a profit for myself. Why? because this would be a violation of the copyright, however sharing or giving away something THAT I ALREADY PAID FOR AND NOW OWN, is not a violation of copyright law. Now suppose I download a file from someone who is giving it away freely to me, I essentially paid $0.00 for it, and thus I share that same file for the cost of $0.00. No funds have changed hands, and no one's copyright has been violated, furthermore, someone DID ORIGIALLY PAY FOR the master copy from which the file originated. So no one has stolen anything from anyone else despite all the whining and complaining that is made by the industry and the artists who are their puppets.
Are people arrested or sued for copying TV shows and giving the VCR tape to their friend? No. Are people arrested or sued for photocopying an article in a magazine and giving it to a friend? No. In fact you can do this perfectly legal at the local library! Are people being arrested and sued for playing a music disc from a stereo in a crowded house at a party because none of the people listening to the music paid for it right? No, and it will never happen. I shudder to think how many of us would be in "copyright violation jail" and sued broke if the same standards of the RIAA and MPAA were held on all copying and duplication of any kind and public distribution and performance of entertainment that they use with File Sharing.
From what would seem to be gross ignorance of technology on the part of lawmakers and the judicial system the RIAA has been able to pursue internet users who may have File Sharing Software on their computer, and allow other people to gain access to .mp3 files on their PC's Hard Drive that happen to have popular music on them. Following the letter of the law that the RIAA touts so resonnantly they themselves by sniffing out people to sue are enguaging in the activity that they claim is stealing. If File Sharing is "stealing" according to the RIAA, then they "stole" the files off of someone's Hard Drive to begin with and incriminated themselves in the very activity they are condemning, and as any judge knows, in a lawsuit both parties must have "clean hands," and in this case holding the same standard to the RIAA makes them have "unclean hands" and liable to dismissal of all of their lawsuits.
Another glaring legal issue that I haven't heard addressed is that if you plan to sue someone who you, the law firm working for the RIAA, alledgedly obtained the file from, how do you possibly know that the person who pays for the internet service and is utilizing a specific IP address on the ISP's server, is the same perpetrator who you "stole" the file from to begin with? In any Local Area Network, I could bring my Laptop and plug right into someone's router and be online virtually instantly with a library of 10,000 music files, I could download a pile of MP3 files, the RIAA could download MP3's off of my Laptop, then the innocent owner of the LAN and the one who pays the ISP bill would get a nice subpeona from the RIAA's lawyers. What kind of @#%$ is that? As well, many large ISP use dynamic changing IP's so an IP they downloaded MP3 files from a month prior could belong to an entirely different subscriber a month later. I can't imagine that something like this is even remotely provable in a court of law or for that matter enforcable? And what's more, with the coming surge of Wireless Hot Spots and Networks, and the explosion of Laptop use and WiFi 802.11b/e cards, how in the hell can you possibly tell who it was that is offering music downloads? With this information in mind, If the RIAA attempted to sue, any lawyer worth his salt could use these facts to mount an airtight defense. The judge would laugh at the RIAA's lawyers for wasting their time persuing ghosts and an empty case. My advice to people sued by the RIAA: DON"T SETTLE WITH THEM! Show your lawyer the paragraph above, and watch how fast the RIAA leaves you alone and turns tail in the other direction afraid of a countersuit for defamation of character and legal fees. The only way the RIAA can win this battle is due to people's ignorance of technology.
Both the RIAA and the MPAA claim that morally and ethically File Sharing is wrong and entirely equivalent to stealing, and people who make music or the artists that make music lose money. This pile of rhetoric makes me cringe and the fact that they can get away with shoving it down the public's throat is a travesty. As much as they like to stand on alleged moral high ground, they in fact have enguaged in an immoral monopolistic price fixing regime since the begining of vynyl. Most musical artists including bands, soloists, instrumentalists, didn't get to be known by CD production, rather they become promoted through going on tour or via the Radio, both of which are mediums where both the artists and the Record Label makes money and profit. The artist receives the LEAST compensation for a CD or Album, in fact only a small fraction of the price you pay for it on the shelf at a retailer. The Record Label takes the lion's share of profit from the disc, leaving only scraps for almost all artists except very popular ones who and negotiate a better deal because of their stature in the entertainment industry. Those who say that buying the CD supports the band or artist are in fact promoting the wrong thing. If you really like the band so much and want them to receive the most compensation for the work you appreciate so much, GO TO THEIR CONCERT! At the concert buy all their band merchandise, and they will receive the most advantage and profit from your support. However purchasing their CD only makes the Record Label and the executives who own it richer.
In regards to films, again more often than not, the people who worked on the movie are already paid before the film is debuted in theaters, and if it is successful some of the lead actors may receive some small royalty from this. When you go to the movies and see a film on the big screen the Production Company and everyone involved makes a lot of money, and if it's a blockbuster they make a ton of money, many millions and millions of dollars in box-office profit. As well vast profits are gained from DVD sales due to the large margins obtained by Hollywood Movie Studios on these. The price they charge the store is often fixed and just barely below what you pay as a consumer for it. The store that sells a DVD makes very little, however the Studio makes huge profit off of it. If you're favorite popular actor or actress is in a certain movie, don't worry, he probably got his multimilion dollar salary for that film regardless of if you buy the DVD or the Action Figure or not. Those commercials by the MPAA saying "if you download, how am I supposed to pay for college, or pay for my glasses" etc, are out and out hogwash and manipulative of people ignorant of how the whole process works. Even if movies are available for download over file sharing networks, many people are still willing to go see it on the Big Screen, and the studio, the actors, the support personell, and the movie theater, will always be able to make plenty of profit. Many people like DVD's for the extra features and the commentary anyway, and more afluent consumers may still buy these, but by no means should that garbage about downloading making people lose their jobs ever escape from Hollywood as having any truth to it all. It's just propaganda designed as "profit protection," and using consumers conscience as a tool to keep the share holders and the boards of directors happy.
Re: Possibly the Best Article on File Sharing Ever Im Cookin
Do you have any idea how saturated with file-sharing commentaries we all are? You probably won't get that many responses here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Bow let us win Kine, with Bow in battle, with
Bow be victory in our hot encounters,
The Bow brings grief and sorrow to the foeman; armed
With Bow may we subdue all regions.
Close to his ear, as fain to speak, she presses, holding
Her well-loved friend in her embraces;
Strained on the bow, she whispers like a woman -- this
Bow-string that preserves us in the Combat.
Re: Possibly the Best Article on File Sharing Ever Im Cookin
The RIAA are pretty much being cocks these days. They care not for the prices of their merchandise and the consumer gest slammed because their precious CD sales aren't like they were when the first came out. Most people wanna know what they are getting into before they blow 20 bucks on a CD. They need to pull their heads out of their ass.
Also they've resorted to taking copies of local band music from record stores. That's bull there. The more i hear about the organization the more i hate them. if they wanna act like that then fuck 'em, i have no pity if they go in the hole and all that's left are independant record companies.
Jim: You ok, Gene?
Gene: Yea. I'll take this over the inside of a spaceship anyday.
Jim: I guess your cherry is officially popped now.
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies