File-sharing students fight copyright constraints

An organization sprouting up on college campuses advocates loosening restrictions of copyright law so information can be freely shared.
The New York Times

The story "File-sharing students fight copyright constraints" published October 10, 2007 at 7:11 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

[rdupuy11]

confusion by musicians

Free music has existed for generations. It was called radio. Today's musicians are confused, thinking that extremism in copyright law is equating to more income for impoverished musicians. It doesn't.

In fact some form of free music is an absolute requirement. Wide distribution is a key to eventual successs, and removing barriers to wide distribution (such as requiring payment) is absolutely essential...has been for decades, and will continue to be so.

Thinking about where to get paid, how to get paid, how to ensure reward for creative enterprise...is essential. But just stating copyright law ensures I get paid...is foolishness, it has no such power whatsoever.

Contrasting with free software is a great idea. Software is given away...the whole phenomena didn't require a change in law, just a change in thinking. Give away software, get paid for support.

Give away music, get paid for concernts. Give away music, get paid for t-shirts, accessories, some music, but not all music.

Etc. The problem with the whole debate, is people want to say such and such is CURRENTLY illegal...and get bogged down into 'punish the criminals' mob mentality.

Society gets to set the rules, not the RIAA...these people needs someone to save themselves, because whether they know it or not, their tactics aren't helping them...they are spiralling into oblivion, and can't see the way out.

[peteraltschuler]

Whose confusion?

Radio isn't free. Every time a song is broadcast, the station pays a royalty, and that royalty is payable because advertisers pay the station to broadcast their messages, and the amount the advertiers pay is based on how many listeners tune in. Stop listening, and the ad rates go down, and the station plays less music... or switches to a different format. Or look at it on a more personal level. Assume you work for the radio station when the ad rates decline. If the station managers were to tell you that you can remain at the station... if you're willing to work for free... would you stay? Probably not. You'd need the income to pay rent, buy food, etc. Yet downloading and sharing songs without paying the people who make the music possible is asking them to work for free. It may be great for you as an alleged fan, but it converts you into the station managers asking employees to work for nothing and, on no income, be able to survive. So if society sets the rules, make sure it's looking at all the ramifications involved in depriving one group to satisfy another.

[rdupuy11]

p.s. look at Microsoft

One thing the RIAA would have you believe is they cannot, through technology, stop the problem, so they use the Courts.

They are wrong, but lets, for the sake of the argument, take it is a true claim.

Look at Microsoft, a more tech savvy company, that had a problem with piracy. They set up the Windows Genuine program, and they blocked people who hadn't paid for Windows from using IE7.

They knew how to stop the piracy, and they did. They stopped the adoption of IE7.

It was only because they were successful, that they had to finally deal with the results of their success.

They elected to drop certification of IE7, and now pirates are allowed to install IE7 on their pirated copy of Windows.

They did it, because compensation sometimes comes from wide distribution.

This is directly relevant to the music industry.

It's because lawsuits are so ineffective, that the RIAA hasn't deal with the consequences of their behavior...if only they were effective!

If they were, they too, would realize they are shooting themselves in the foot.

[bobby_brady]

Downloading isn't illegal, sharing is

According to the article, the RIAA went after him because he downloaded songs. However, my understanding, is that's not illegal, right?

Either way, screw the RIAA. Download, share, email, whatever it takes to bring the RIAA down to their knees.

[dargon19888]

You dolt!

Dude!

When they talk about downloading they mean downloading copyright material without paying for it.

If you download a song from itunes, you've paid for the song.

You download it from Kazaa, you've broken the law.

[dargon19888]

All these right thinking people just don't get it...

The fines are too excessive?

Hardly.

If you stop and think about it, only a small percentage of those who commit copyright infringement get caught.

So the stiff fines are a deterrent.

If you knew that the fine was $800 per violation, would you risk it, or pay the .99 per song via itunes?

[ev61]

Excessive!

If you want an idea of what excessive is, remember what created file sharing, the constant exploitation of both musicians AND consumers by increasing the cost to insane levels and not increasing the amount given to musicians. If CDs and DVDs never got to the $20 level and stayed at the previously promised 9.99 amount, resentment and stealing never would have grown to such a huge level.