Is downloading illegal? Or isn’t it?
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- There’s considerable propaganda, “attempting to mislead the public into believing that downloading is a criminal act on the part of the downloader, eg, ‘Illegal downloads caused considerable losses to the music industry last year’ or, ‘If you download copyrighted music you are committing a serious crime’.”
Now, who would deliberately and knowingly mislead people like that?
Hmmmmm.
Crosbie Fitch is researching and developing revenue mechanisms and business models for producers of digital art and in the process, “has discovered that copyright is not only an ineffective anachronism, but is unethical and unconstitutional“.
Now, on his Digital Productions blog he says, “Let’s get the legality of downloading established once and for all.”
Downloading is, “the act of communicating a file from a supplier’s server computer to a recipient’s client computer, at the latter’s request, and at the former’s consent,” he says, going on »»»
- Downloading a file (containing or representing an intellectual work) involves the manufacture of a copy.
- The copy is manufactured by the supplier (by their server) because they (unlike the downloader) are in receipt or possession of the source work, or have access to it.
- The manufactured copy is communicated by the supplier to the downloader (the recipient) via a computer network (whether electronically, optically, or by radio transmission, etc.).
- The downloader receives the manufactured copy, but does not participate in its manufacture (impossible without the source) in the download process.
- It is possible that ephemeral, intermediate copies were produced by the network and other devices during the transmission of the copy and its storage by the recipient.
- The recipient (their client computer) may have had to assemble the final file if the copy was transmitted in small fragments rather than in one piece, however, the act of such assembly does not constitute copying.
If the intellectual work is not protected by copyright no infringement can occur.
If the intellectual work is protected by copyright, and the supplier is not licensed by all copyright holders to the work to manufacture and distribute copies, then the supplier may infringe copyright in the process of manufacturing and supplying copies to downloaders.
In no case does the downloader, the recipient of a downloaded file, commit copyright infringement.
Having downloaded, the downloader may then commence the manufacture and supply of further copies to others, which is of course a potential infringement.
Culpability for copyright infringement lies not with who requests an act of copying, nor with who receives a copy, but with who performs the critical act of manufacturing a copy (and who distributes/transmits it).
Fitch adds, “Downloading may involve copyright infringement, but this is not an act committed by the downloader.”
unethical and unconstitutional - The DMCA as a cultural sniper rifle, November 21, 2008
Digital Productions – Is Downloading Illegal? January 25, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Off-topic, but relevant to p2pnet:
“Mgeek added: “Journalists these days are frightened little rabbits told to print or pixellate press releases and taught not to challenge power and vested interests. We will prove that journalism is not dead and that readers want strong journalism and not wishy-washy pap dictated to them by multiple vested interests.”
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/625/1050625/tabloid-mageek-strikes
If this is anything like http://www.theinquirer.net which he founded, then this site will be telling it like it is and can only complement p2pnet.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Profits up a huge 23000% by *not* suing your customers and *giving* your content away.
Monty Python profits from sensible approach to tackling digital piracy
http://channel.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=16999
January 26th, 2009 at 10:40 am
” If the intellectual work is protected by copyright, and the supplier is not licensed by all copyright holders to the work to manufacture and distribute copies, then the supplier may infringe copyright in the process of manufacturing and supplying copies to downloaders. ”
Another article which fails to mention …
Actual distribution must tak place for infringement to occur, NOT simply having files in a shared folder.
Someone, not authorized by the RIAA memberm has to actually successfully download for any ‘distribution’ , to
have taken place.
That distribution must be proven.
So far the RIAA has no been forced to prove distribution, thats how dead people and people with no computer get sued.
The RIAA has no burden of proof.
The have the money to BREAK you.
Mr. Fitch should recognize that just having a visible list of files does not mean they are downloadable, ( some p2p users allow
viewing yet block downloading ). Otherwise, Mr. Fitch is perpetuating the myth the RIAA is selling.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:20 am
“Otherwise, Mr. Fitch is perpetuating the myth the RIAA is selling.”
Oh I wouldn’t go that far. Your right about overlooking how shared folders work of course and should be added to the original blog post (someone feel like writing to him? I’m just a lazy pirate lol). Otherwise I think he nailed everything right on the head about as perfectly as one can, and in a clear and concise manner that even my mother would likely understand.
I encountered this guy in passing who works at a donut shop. He knows a guy, who knows this girl who has a boyfriend whose brother knows this guy that is creating perfect duplicates of dollar bills. I passed along a request down this chain of people asking if I could have one. The answer was yes and I am now the owner of one shiny new fake bill, all for nothing but the asking. I don’t plan on using it to buy anything of course. I was simply curious about their quality and wanted to see one for myself, perhaps put it up on a wall as art so others could see it. So, am I guilty of counterfeiting? Would anyone who saw it hanging on the wall also be guilty? Food for thought.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Personally I dont think it matters if downloading is illegal or not, consider this and one might question if your not infact being led to believe its ok. On the comercial for sony psp , which ran before the will smith movie hancock was released they showed the words download complete stenciled on a shirt then him watching the movie. To me that signifies that it is legal to download movies. In fact encouraged to download them. We are told we cant do that but wasnt the same said during the Cassette age, then the VHS age and now CD and DVD? So far no difference . We have the big 4 cartel telling us not to download the music but yet each owns stock in on of the above recording industry and markets a product for recording CD’s and DVD’s plus the objects to record them on. How can you market a product and then complain when people use it. Imagine General Motors saying Yes buy our cars and trucks, but dont drive them. Same difference. Cable companies constantly show their commercials with people downloading music or movies, but not once do they mention you have to pay for the service, come on we show people of all ages its ok. Infact encourage it but offering higher and higher bandwidth, but get in trouble when it is used. Hypocrates , the hell with music and tv. The hell with the current business model adapt and give people a product they want not the same old repeated generic vomit. How many times can we see starwars and be expected to pay to see it in a theatre.. Starwars , starwars the extended edition, the new format , edited, directors cut, producers version. All cause someone adds 5 minutes of film and or cleans up some graphics. Want to impress me remove those damned green screen squares off the tie fighters, with all the advancement they havent even been able to fix that. HA
January 26th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Why should the taxpayers of the world fund this crap. Just TELL this industry (media)to go forth and multiply(fuckoff).
January 28th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
The question is whether a law that prohibits or regulates common sense actions such as
- being free (remember slavery?)
- voting (remember suffrage?)
- having a religion (please read history)
- speaking (get and read a few defamation lawsuits)
- reading (please read history)
- drinking (remember prohibition?)
- copying whatever for personal non commercial use
can really be enforced during any length of time and can be enforced without creating a judicial jurisprudence gridlock and having to arrest innocent children, descendants, friends of the very same lawmakers who made the law and the same politicians, officials and judges who were supposed to enforced them.
The answer is a resounding NO.