The Only Way To Stop File Sharing Is To Stop Private Communications
from the good-luck-with-that dept
Christian Engstrom, one of the Pirate Party's elected officials in the EU Parliament, has a straightforward, but completely worthwhile read, about how copyright law today simply doesn't fit with what technology has enabled. He worries that the laws are making nearly everyone a criminal -- and worse, that the direction of change has to make it even worse, not better.It is impossible to enforce the ban against non-commercial file sharing without infringing fundamental rights. As long as there are ways for citizens to communicate in private, they will be used to share copyrighted materials. The only way to even try to limit file sharing, is to remove the right to private communication. In the last decade, this is the direction that copyright enforcement legislation has moved in, under pressure from big business lobbyists who see their monopolies under threat. We need to reverse this trend, in order to safeguard the fundamental rights.Furthermore, he notes that when you look at the actual details, it certainly does not show an industry in trouble. Perhaps parts of the industry -- the parts betting on distribution over plastic discs -- have had some trouble. But the rest looks pretty damn good:
In the economic statistics, we can see that household spending on culture and entertainment is slowly increasing year by year. If we spend less money on buying CD records, we spend more on something else, like for instance going to live concerts. This is great news for the artists. An artist will typically get 5-7% of the revenues from a CD record, but 50% of the revenues from a concert. The record companies lose out, but this is only because they are no longer adding any value.Finally, he compares the way the entertainment industry today reacts to file sharing to the way book publishers reacted to public libraries:
It may well be that it will become more difficult to make money within some parts of the cultural sector, but if so, it will become easier in some other � including new ones, that we have not even imagined so far. But as long as the total household spending on culture continues to be on the same level or rising, nobody can claim that the artists as a group will have anything to lose from a reformed copyright.
When public libraries were introduced in Europe 150 years ago, the book publishers were very much opposed to this. The argument they used was the same one that is being used today in the file sharing debate: If people could get access to books for free, authors would not be able to make a living, and no new books would be written.But rather than learning from history, the industry still seeks to deny it.
We now know that the arguments against public libraries were wrong. It quite obviously did not lead to a situation where no new books were written, and it did not make it impossible for authors to earn money from writing. On the contrary, free access to culture proved to be not only a boon to society at large, but also turned out to be beneficial to authors.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: christian engstrom, communications, copyright, file sharing, free speech
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Unfortunately, the tide will not reverse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But don't hold your breath. We'll need a few more years of human rights trampling before the industry will be put back at their place. And that's specially true when the Governments around the world are happily using the anti-piracy war to implement censorship and surveillance tools on a tool that enables free speech (often against the excesses of the Governments).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps a steam engine analogy is archaic, but so is the concept of distributing media on shiny plastic discs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @"fogbugzd" "steam engine analogy is archaic" --and flawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @"fogbugzd" "steam engine analogy is archaic" --and flawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @"fogbugzd" "steam engine analogy is archaic" --and flawed.
Except that the money for bread and circuses is drying up (cf financial crisis, sovereign debt, personal debt etc).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Any day now you could end up in the menu.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You got me there. I did mean "drivel." Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Say I wanted to remove speeding laws. Would you consider me to be an advocate of speeding? Not only am I not an advocate, but the fact that I want to remove speeding laws, should mean that I want to remove the idea of being a speeder.
I can't speak for Mike, and I'm not going to, but you sure seem hell-bent on throwing logic and facts out the window. Just because some one says X law should go away or be changed, does not mean that they advocate breaking X law, nor even that they advocate that people should partake in the activity X law prohibits. In this particular case, plenty of people and studies (not just Mike) have shown that copyright holders (and lest we forget, more importantly, authors, musicians, artists, etc) could benefit greatly if file-sharing* were made legal.
*Note that I said file-sharing and not copyright infringement. If you make file-sharing legal, it is no longer copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike has a vested interest. P2P / Piracy / "infinite distribution" suffers a hit, and his entire "work with piracy" business model thing sort of goes out the window. He knows it, which is why he pushes the piracy agenda as hard as he does.
No, Mike doesn't support piracy, just the results of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What Mike (and I) object to is that enforcement efforts against piracy cause collateral damage to legitimate businesses based on p2p and "infinite distribution".
It is like being against particular tactics in the war against Nazi Germany (eg carpet bombing) because they cause civilian casualties. Such a stance does not mean that you support Hitler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's hard to take you seriously when you conflate those things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How would you propose to stop piracy without stopping private communications?
Trying to make patterns of ones and zeros not copyable is like trying to make water not wet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
ULTRAVIOLET is a content manager and big brother, you need to connect to its servers to get permission to play something you bought and it will log your habits and how you use that media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Straw man. The goal isn't to stop piracy completely. It's to minimize it, while balancing other things as well. You guys think in extremes too much. The world isn't black and white.
Trying to make patterns of ones and zeros not copyable is like trying to make water not wet.
Yes, things are copyable and water is wet. If you guys want to change the law so that copyright is abolished, then go for it. Until then, realize that your views are in the minority, the law isn't what you want it to be, and just get over it. You're just being selfish dillholes with excuse after excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Tell me how that law will reduce piracy? you probably can't because a) you don't understand how piracy works b) you apparently don't even know how it happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Heh hehe haha muahahaha Bwahahahahaha!!!!!
Oh wait, you actually believe that?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, good luck with that. This is going to have an opposite effect. You just keep right on living in dreamland.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You wouldn't SHARE them like some freetard pirate would you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
y Just wait until ProtectIP is passed. THE PARTY IS OVER! YOU ARE GOING TO PRISON. See how you like sharing then, FREETARD!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think Mike's biggest fear is that he becomes so irrelevant that ACs stop giving him shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're not fooling anybody buddy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would like to see them try it.
Photo cameras today can store sounds.
http://developer.berlios.de/projects/wavextract
Guerrila tactics for the masses.
http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/2011/03/how-to-use-qr-codes-to-promote-your-music-in-the-real -world/
Barcode file transfer
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Barcode_file_transfer
Build your own network.
shareable.net/blog/a-low-cost-low-power-diy-cellular-data-network
Will they forbid all of that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you scared or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All hail thy leader.
Is that what you want isn't it?
Too bad is not going to happen in your lifetime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:35mm_film_audio_macro.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"remove the right to private communication"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "remove the right to private communication"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"
Major fail on part of Pirate M... I mean, Modernist Mike! The past is the past, today is today. You can't equivocate libraries loaning out books with freetards stealing music and movies. More FUD on your part! This isn't about Freedom of Speech, this is just a bunch of people attempting to sugar coat the fact that they're nothing but freeloading criminals. Update the site, Mike. Replace the banner with the TD logo up at the top with the Jolly Roger. Just show us who you are and what you really support already. We all know anyway.
/amidoingitright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"
Wow - wisdom for the ages. I really hope you operate on that principle throughout your lift, because I can imaging the following happening:
- You are surprised every day when the sun comes up
- You are shocked that water boils at 212 degrees F every time
- You continue to touch hot stoves out of curiosity
/amiright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"
The principle I do operate on, to quote Jim Morrison, is "The future's uncertain and the end is always near."
I don't worry about yesterday or tomorrow. Never have, never will.
I'm no fan of the sun and it never surprised me to see it come up, even as a child. I am rarely if ever around boiling water, even when it comes to cooking. I'm a fast food guy and have been since I was a child, so stoves and me rarely are around each other, thus I've never touched them. I was always interested in fire though, so I'm aware of what burns easily or doesn't, what I should avoid (as in may be hot), etc.
/youarewrongbutthismaynotbenewstoyou
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"
That's a relief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"
Or perhaps comparing stopping anything in general to Prohibition. And how all it did was make it more profitable for criminals and outlaws? All the while, the public flaunted the laws put in place, which were eventually repealed after being seen for the dismal failure they were.
That kind of past experience to shape understanding of current happenings? I might say silly/stupid things on occasion, but I'm not as clueless as I like to act. It provides good cover. Make people think you're an idiot, then blindside them with all the knowledge you do have that they don't and leave them stunned and sputtering, or watch them walk off mad they lost the argument, or see them resort to personal attacks. Either way, it's entertaining.
As for me personally, wtf are you talking about? I was making a joking/sarcastic post to start with, then you went off on one bit I said in it and here we are now. You still not even making much of a point, unless your point is to insult me (and you're doing a bad job of it, just fyi).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "remove the right to private communication"
You honestly believe having a government that spies on everything you say, do or think is the way to protect your paycheck?
Where do you draw the line? Or could it be that you are just trying to be a Internet bully and don't believe the totalitarian crap you are blathering about?
Sometimes this isn't about the small minded argument about IP but just how much control you are willing to giveaway to your government.
I simply just don't know what to believe from you and your peers any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "remove the right to private communication"
) Don't use witty names for Mike, just distracts from any point.
) Always disclaim NOT FOR big gov't or big biz. Audience has the memory of gnats.
) Expecting a post to be read and grasped entire is too much, just sigh.
) Even if were read, people don't care for the truth, not why they're here.
) On plus side, brief works better. Attention span of target is 140 characters, keep it snappy.
]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"
But sometimes, your rants are out of this world and you can't explain yourself without trying to ridicule your audience. Just sayin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"
While I may not be the smartest person to participate in this discussion, at 51 year old, I do think I have a pretty good grasp of the concepts. I appreciate a honest and well thought out comment.
I also want to thank you for your reply to my earlier comment. Your reply felt sincere and honest.
And I am here because I do care about and for the truth. I'm just willing to admit that what you and I may see as the truth, may not be the same. That's what makes the real discussions interesting and insightful.
Thank you for the reply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "remove the right to private communication"
*sorry I forgot one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"
That's odd, I remember a quote from you before where you complained about the length of the article.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111006/12220616236/lawrence-golan-speaks-about-golan-v- holder-his-fight-to-protect-public-domain.shtml
then do a CTRL-F for "out_of_the_blue". You said you lost interest because it was too long.
Hang on...you also promised in that comment to go away if Mike didn't provide you with interesting articles. Since he does, but you don't count them as interesting (so the entertainment industry's campaign to nickle and dime us each time we listen to a piece of music isn't interesting), you lied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "remove the right to private communication"
Hmmm. Not quite. Each can be bypassed with the following:
1) Don't use Facebook and only allow cookies and ads from trusted sources.
2) Use an encrypted VPN connection.
3) Use Linux
4) Use a "burn phone"
Isn't technology great?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"
5) Host your own email.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"
Add to these: use Firefox (never IE), do not use Outlook, use TrueCrypt, use Firefox extensions like NoScript and AdBlock, wipe your cache/cookies/etc., use encryption for email, nmap yourself and turn off everything you can. All these combined are just a beginning, of course, but they're a pretty good beginning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The content producers aren't trying to stop 100% of all piracy. There has always been a certain amount of play in the system (from lending of records, to ye olde mix tape, and so on) that while not "legal" in a perfect sense, was tolerated for the most part (and supported by the courts in general).
Since nobody is trying to stop every last iota of piracy, using that as the standard for success or failure is pure and unadulterated bullshit.
If you make it harder to pirate, make it something that is done only in your direct social circle and not with any dingbat online, piracy would drop dramatically. It would slow the spread, it would slow down distribution, and would certainly make it harder for the casual user to get the content via pirate sources.
So if you want to say "It can't stop ALL piracy", nothing short of killing all of humanity can do that. It isn't about elimination, it's about limiting.
Strawman posts always suck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Speaking of straw men . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Comments like these a show how little you (and people who post it regularly like you) actually know about piracy, copyright or anything remotely to do with distribution or even selling of goods and services. Its clear you haven't worked a day in your life. At least not in Entertainment or Retail.
The fact is, in your world view all of the above seems to be major problem when it clearly isn't, nor has it ever been. If it was, services that compete directly with things like "piracy" would not exist (they do) nor would they be profitable(and they are). None of this is new, the 'industry' has been whining about it for almost 200 years now, and yet they make more money year after year after year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It seems very unhealthy for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The content producers aren't trying to stop 100% of all piracy. There has always been a certain amount of play in the system (from lending of records,
to ye olde mix tape, and so on) that while not "legal" in a perfect sense, was tolerated for the most part (and supported by the courts in general).
Since nobody is trying to stop every last iota of piracy, using that as the standard for success or failure is pure and unadulterated bullshit.
If the copyright holders don't want to pursue private copying between friends, so much more reason to legalize what they aren't going to enforce.
If you're saying is that it's a strawman because no one would ever enforce copyright law against friend to friend sharing, sharing in these situations should be made legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you're saying is that it's a strawman because no one would ever enforce copyright law against friend to friend sharing, sharing in these situations should be made legal."
It's the same reason why the speed limit is set at 65, even if the police won't write a ticket under 75. It's the same reason why we have jaywalking laws, which are only enforced occassionally (or in the case of an accident).
You set the bar at a certain level, then you have some space for tolerance.
If the speed limit was raised to 75, and police attempting to enforce it hard at 76, they would be thrown out of court of not having some tolerance and common sense.
Sorry, modifying the copyright laws in the way you suggest is like the medical weed fiasco in California. What seemed like a good idea has just turned in to a way for dopeheads to get their drugs "legally" by having all sorts of aches and pains that only the weed doctors can "cure".
Tolerance is what makes the system great. Don't destroy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Eventually the absurdity of the 55 mph speed limit sunk in and in 2006 MassHighway traffic engineers recommended a speed limit increase. State Police vetoed the change, preferring the 99% violation rate that let them write tickets at will. Police have no legal role in setting speed limits. Somebody in the Romney administration weighed the risk of losing ticket revenue against the risk of being blamed for accidents. Police won.
After engineers lost that fight people began to worry about the high accident rate on Route 3. The state hired a consultant to do a Road Safety Audit. The consultant�s report blamed the low speed limit, among other factors, for the high crash rate. The report explicitly recommended raising the speed limit.
Three years later, state officials have not followed the advice of their engineers, their consultant, or 100,000 drivers per day. State police are still out there running speed traps and helping keep the road as dangerous and profitable as they can.
Pretty system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice attempt to deflect, but wow, you fail. Back to 8th grade history for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's the same reason why the speed limit is set at 65, even if the police won't write a ticket under 75. It's the same reason why we have jaywalking laws,
which are only enforced occassionally (or in the case of an accident).
Yes, overcriminalization is really great. I assume you like the state having the power to caste a wider net in order to catch the occasional bad actor, while leaving everyone's liberty up to the discretion of petty officials.
If the speed limit was raised to 75, and police attempting to enforce it hard at 76, they would be thrown out of court
If they could prove a violation, tell me how the court would have the power to dismiss the charge.
If the RIAA sued me for sharing 15 songs with 10 friends, tell me how the court could distinguish illegal distribution over the internet from illegal distribution to a small circle of friends.
If even friend to friend sharing is illegal, only judicial economy and prosecutorial discretion is the reason for not fearing the 'strawman'.
The argument is not that enforcement of copyright law is now happening in a manner distructive of privacy, but that the *only realistic* way in which copyright enforcement to the extend permitted is going to be eeffective is destroying privacy.
What you're arguing is actually close to the defense of sodomy laws not violating privacy.
Tolerance is what makes the system great. Don't destroy it.
No, the rule of law is what makes a free society.
Privacy depends on the law, and if the law permits invasion of private communication merely for noncommercial copyright infringement, it's a power granted regardless of how often it's being exercised.
I don't want my privacy having to depend on prosecutorial discretion when engaging an activity which is technically illegal even if the risk is near zero.
Copyright enforcement should either be driven to its logical conclusion or limited to commercial infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> seemed like a good idea has just turned in to a
> way for dopeheads to get their drugs "legally"
> by having all sorts of aches and pains that only
> the weed doctors can "cure".
I agree. It's nonsensical that we make people go through the charade of having to pretend to be sick in order to get the stuff. And I say that as someone who's never even so much as tried it.
It's ridiculous that 'boozeheads' and 'nicoheads' can walk into a store and purchase their recreational drugs of choice, but 'dopeheads' have to jump through these silly hoops to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
20 years ago, tobacco ads were everywhere, motor racing was awash in cigarette ads, and so on. They are getting more and more limits. The smoke companies are already moving themselves offshore, and at some point, someone in Washington will propose a law to severely limit or ban smoking altogether. It's something that has to happen, it's only a matter of time.
Booze? Plenty of legal restrictions, and we still face an epidemic of drunk driving and deaths as a result.
Weed? There is little to work with on the proof side that it is any more effective than other medications, and rather, it's consumption has worse effects than smoking cigs. If it was tested as a new FDA medication, it would be rejected outright because of it's dangerous side effects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, what the fuck are you smoking? Or eating? Or vaporizing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> limit or ban smoking altogether. It's something
> that has to happen, it's only a matter of time.
I'm sure the nanny-staters would love to do that. Hopefully someone will play them a few episodes of 'Boardwalk Empire', with the bootleggers raising toast after toast to Mr. Volstead, and they'll see the light.
Or we could just flush another several billion dollars we don't have down the shithole in another useless attempt to ban the populace from doing something it wants to do.
> Booze? Plenty of legal restrictions, and we
> still face an epidemic of drunk driving and
> deaths as a result.
And yet it's still legal, while pot, with nowhere near the bloody history of carnage from its use is not. Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the studio musicians how are they paid? What about musicians who are not performers but great recording artists nonetheless? If you like a song buy the song, I don't care if it's on physical media, or purchased from any one of the legal download sites, just BUY the song. That purchase pays royalties to alot of people who worked on the project.
The pirates have identified a nemesis and it is the record companies. This is really just propaganda, no one wants the record companies to go away, without them you would have fewer choices in music. And people may not like to admit it, but the record companies act as a filter for what is released, and sometimes that isn't a good thing, but I can assure you there are many many people who want to release music that have no talent.
As far as record companies not adding value, consider this... Record companies provide a great deal of value to the recording artist - engineering, collaboration, post production, marketing, promotion, distribution (digital and physical media). For these services they obtain a portion of the profits, the size of that portion is determined by the individual contract signed by the artist. These artists are bound to these record companies because they needed help establishing themselves.
The comparison to the hysteria over public libraries is laughable. Public libraries do not have unlimited copies of books which is the problem with rampant music/movie piracy.
Everytime you illegally download a song you are adding fuel to the fire, you are providing yet another example for the RIAA to cite in its arguments against piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Paid by the hour like they are today?
If you like a song pirate that song and spread it so others know where to find that website or store for that artist and can support him financially.
There is no need for copyright.
"The pirates have identified a nemesis and it is the record companies. This is really just propaganda, no one wants the record companies to go away, without them you would have fewer choices in music. And people may not like to admit it, but the record companies act as a filter for what is released, and sometimes that isn't a good thing, but I can assure you there are many many people who want to release music that have no talent."
You are probably right, Jamendo after all is a record company a digital record company and people do use it and like it. People just don't like the incumbents.
"The comparison to the hysteria over public libraries is laughable. Public libraries do not have unlimited copies of books which is the problem with rampant music/movie piracy."
You know, what you said there was said 200 years ago and it didn't change a thing, if I copy pasted the debates of the 1800's you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Now about modern libraries, I grew up going to them and copying text by hand xerox machines where not that common, after a time they become ubiquitous and I could copy anything, I even asked the librarians to make some copies, I do recall my teacher using a mimeograph and the smell of alcohol from the paper was so nice. Today I just use a smartphone to photograph the thing and can store hundreds of books in one small device.
If downloading a song is adding fuel to the fire, this world will burn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pardon MY Mistake with this one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pardon MY Mistake with this one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'music' 'industry' oxymoron
The industry does not really care about piracy, therefore, but sees no problem in cooperation with increasingly coercive government processes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The issue is not copyright...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why file sharing is bad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why file sharing is bad...
By "file sharing" do you mean p2p networks, or people generally sharing files with each other? Because your concerns sound (I'm not totally sure I understand you) like they're related to security, and not to file sharing as the term is commonly used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: why file sharing is bad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: why file sharing is bad...
Of course, that just has nothing to do with file sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: why file sharing is bad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: why file sharing is bad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why file sharing is bad...
Well, whether someone is able to gain access to a system they shouldn't have access to isn't related to sharing files on the internet with bittorrent, file lockers, or the like. It's just a completely different topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
should we keep file sharing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, the issue of piracy in the market of music and movies is very serious, but I would not blame file sharing. I think everyone needs to think of better policies and penalties for those who use copyrighted files. As for file sharing, I myself constantly use the site https://www.jetdrop.net/ and I'm glad it's on the market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]