Legalise not-for-profit file sharing
p2pnet news view P2P | Politics:- I’m the 98th person to have signed Zoe Blade’s online 10 Downing Street petition calling for the legalisation of the not-for-profit sharing of copyrighted media, “also known as filesharing,” in Britain.
You have to be a UK national to sign, but I have dual Canadian/British citzenship, so no worries. 
Says Zoe »»»
The law should reflect what the majority of persons are doing with current technology, not the interests of a minority of persons working for corporations. The majority of persons seem to freely share copyrighted materials whether directly or indirectly. This should cause corporations to update their business models accordingly, not to use valuable police and court resources enforcing laws written before such technology was available, that were intended for professional bootleggers rather than the public at large.
The cut-off date is March 7 next year and every now and then, I’ll remind people about the petition.
10 Downing Street is the official residence of whoever’s the current UK prime minister, and the site is in turn the official site of the PM`s Office.
Stay tuned.
Jon
(Cheers, Quartz)
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
October, 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.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:44 am
“Legalise not-for-profit file sharing”
I will buy that as long a any commercial scale copying without paying royalties to artists (not record companies or publishers) is banned.
We must anyway recognize that words “share” and “copy” blur into each other and the words “commercial scale” and even “artists” are tricky to define and require additional work.
Better put, Legalise mon comercial scale copying and sale.
If I charge a person money for borrowing something from me, say a patented product, or a CD or a DVD. that should be ok.
Surely I may profit from the lendind.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Thinker,
I used to think the same way, but I’ve started to change my tune. Think about it this way: if you are okay with giving your infinitely reproducible digital files away for free, where is the “market” for paid copies? If some commercial scam artist starts selling your work, and people are buying it, it means you haven’t distributed your actual, original (free) work widely enough.
IMO the market for digital copies is dead. Any commercial infringer trying to make money off of digital copies is just as stupid as the original creator trying to do the same thing. If you’re giving your stuff away, the best way to combat commercial infringement is to make sure your free stuff is everywhere and easily accessible.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
As I tried to explain on FreakBits, ‘non-commercial’ is a redundant and unconstructive qualifier – probably spawned by its provision in Creative Commons licenses.
There’s nothing wrong with letting people sell their work, or with people re-selling it. Half the problem we’re facing today is people worrying about making money when copies cost nothing to make, and these petitioners come up with the half-baked idea that it should still be illegal for artists to make any money from copying another artist’s work – as long as file-sharers don’t get prosecuted for doing it for free.
Sure, feel free to bankrupt and imprison folk such as Kutiman for what they do if they make a single penny out of their work, but don’t fine people who simply share for free.
It’s free as in speech not as in beer. The GPL doesn’t say “You can make copies or derivatives as long as no-one pays you anything for your work”. That’s the sort of hobbled license the likes of Microsoft would come up with.
It’s like the difference between being allowed to sing Happy Birthday at a party if you do it for nothing, but being subject to heavy penalties if you’ve been paid to sing it and haven’t first obtained a license.
The petition is a crock.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
@Crosbie,
That’s a SAM’s Teach Yourself C++ license model. Using Visual Studio 6 C++, under MS licensing, you can’t create any works that will generate revenue.
They’ve since changed their minds as you can download Visual Studio Express and do whatever you want, but you won’t get MFC, that you have to pay for. Winforms require the .NET which is all you get with the Express edition, but at least you can create something and give it away or even sell it, so I think, I’ve not seen any compiler “don’t create release versions” warning/message during each compilation as with the SAM’s version of Visual Studio 6.
I think the point of the petition is to get some sort of legalized protection for filesharers which can hopefully prevent those silly three-strikes laws from wide UK adoption. If you are protected as a non-commercial file sharer then you can’t be subject to infringement punishments, like cutting-off your internet.
Once that’s in place you can extend it and say “well, we don’t have any bootleggers anymore, so let’s scrap the whole sue-em-all or cut-off-Net campaigns” or at least maybe that’s what the petition organizers are thinking.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Crosbie’s distinction is critical. I think if Bragg wanted to make a new album, and put up how much that would cost, a lot of his fans would gladly pay for him to work and create a new album. But create the album and charge for downloads of the songs, saying that by doing so you enable him to create more music, and you get a lot less support.
I do not want to pay for something that cost nothing to make (copies). But I would gladly help support the creation of new works.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
I think their are a few extremists in the thread, I have met hundreds of p2p users during the last few years and discussed this matter with a site of thousands and none of them disputes that artists need cash to live on like the rest of us, we can if possible help them discover fair and equitable ways to earn a living without cutting our on throats in doing so and thats the way ahead, the world isnt generally fair and equitable and any dramatic change will take a long time to propagate through to the places its currently needed.
Remember this at least, the artist is not telling you how you should be paid so give them some slack when it comes to how they want to be paid, or are some of you guys those hypocrites who dont believe in freedom for all but just your own narrow viewpoints ?
Anyone who is in the UK and is not wishing to sign need not do so but I would ask all those who have a voice to now employ it instead of allowing ourselves to become a “silent” majority of whiners.
Lets stand up for what we believe in, those who dont share media for profit or advantage should be left out of the commercial infringement arena nothing more or less.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Quartz:
If somebody sells something of value, people will buy it. What is happening today is that people are assigning monetary value to something that cost absolutely nothing to make and demanding they be paid for it. It’s not working, it hasn’t worked and it’s not going to work.
If you want to make money in the digital era you need to break out of the “plastic disc” style of thinking. Making filesharing work for you is more radical than putting a toll booth on downloads.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Quartz, please think a little further ahead.
The idea that file-sharing prevents artists making any money is pure propaganda spread by the cartel.
By diluting the market with cheaply (zero) priced copies, file-sharing prevents the producers of copies from selling copies at high prices. Obviously, publishers are going to kid artists that only the publishers can pay them, and that they can only pay them if they can sell copies at monopoly protected prices.
Artists (just as publishers) aren’t going to make any money selling copies. Let’s get that cleared up for a start.
Artists make money by selling their music to their audience.
However, if some fool gets a law passed that makes it legal to share music for nothing, but still illegal to share music for money, then artists can’t sell their music to their audience (unless they get the appropriate copyright licenses).
Think about it. Lily Allen says to her fans “I’ll sing ‘My Way’ for $1,000 and deliver the recording to you via BitTorrent”. Unless she gets the appropriate license from the cartel, she’s going to end up fined big bucks, because file-sharing hasn’t been legalised for commercial purposes. This means that the cartel effectively obtain control of the file-sharing networks for anyone who actually wants to get paid for their work by their audience directly, instead of via the record labels.
File-sharing isn’t just about making free copies, it also enables an artist to deliver their work directly to their audience – in exchange for their audience’s money.
It would be pretty perverse for copyright to end up preventing artists getting paid for their work – simply in order that publishers could get paid for copies that no-one needs to buy any more.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Ye gods… Someone starts a petition to try and stop average Joe Bloggs member of the public from getting prosecuted… and its a bad thing?
I am in awe….. Seriously WTF?
Well I am in the UK, and I don’t want to be prosecuted… I signed.
As for other comments above about donating to an artist before a work is made, I sure as crap wouldn’t want to be a musician with some of the people here deciding just how much I should earn, having to debate the cost of creating the work that is depending on donations to get made.
Its somewhat like the posts in other threads, someone from the FAC board actually comes here and talks with us with honesty and respectfully yet doesn’t seem to be getting much of that in return, I find it a little saddening.
Do some of you actually want to make headway, or are you so blind and argumentative that you just cannot see past your own ideals and visions of a “perfect” world?
October 7th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
“…Someone starts a petition to try and stop average Joe Bloggs member of the public from getting prosecuted⦠and its a bad thing?”
You obviously haven’t read the details in between.
Kinda reminds me of the famous “If you’re not with us, you’re with the TERRORISTS!” way of thinking.
October 7th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
@Devils Advocate
I did indeed read the petition. Could you explain perhaps the bit I don’t understand with regards to its intention. Or does “details in between” refer to me not reading between the lines and trying to infer things not mentioned and perhaps beyond the scope of its intention ?
October 7th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Look, all that’s required is an end to corporations being able to sue members of the public for ANYTHING, whether infringing their monopolies or anything else, and without qualification, whether any money changed hands or not. I don’t want to see anyone like Jammie Thomas sued for millions on a technicality that she received money for sharing the wifi connection that people used to download files from her.
I’m criticising the lack of thought that went into the petition, not the sentiment behind it.
The petition is more a statement from its signatories that they think it’s proper to sue people for sharing and building upon mankind’s culture if they get paid for it.
That’s not a statement I’d want to support.
October 7th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
I sat for a few minutes trying to formulate a reply… I am speechless.
If you can manage to find fault behind a petition like that because of what may or may not happen, then frankly I don’t envision Billy Bragg or anyone trying to continue talking to us and searching for a resolution. They will just throw their arms in the air and turn away. I am Joe Bloggs member of the public who uses bittorrent, and even I cannot understand you, what hope has “the other side” got.
If we ever meet I don’t think I would even bother to offer to buy you a beer, I would be concerned about the argument and debate we would get into about my intentions o_O
October 7th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
cqb, if you want to change the law you need to do so on a principled basis, not simply to get yourself off the hook.
October 7th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
I just downloaded COPIES of 13 Billy Bragg albums in one go.
It’ll most likely be years before I ever get a chance to listen to them, and when I do, I might not like them at all.
I don’t pay for something I don’t like, especially when it’s being given for free by a p2per who took the time to buy them and copy them.
In 10 years’ time or more, when I’ve had a chance to listen to all these copies, then I might decide to go and buy the CDs – if they’re still available through Billy Bragg’s website (if that’s even still around by then).
October 7th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
I have to say Cqb your with me on this it seems, I operate a fair sized site where talk like I,m seeing here is not ever seen, all I can agree in with the chaps here is that in the future we all want a great change, however I,m open to a change that is maybe small steps and meeting in the middle, not one of imposing my dreams of utopia on another chaps right to earn a living, its all well and good stating your demands, now how about laying out some flesh on your skeleton so the artists can see how you are going to keep them fed and clothed, and btw stop with the old-time rhetoric of the riaa involvement in this whole episode, we all know the artist gets 10% and nowt else so lets hear how your going to make sure they get at least that before you tell them they have to make yet further sacrafices before you budge from your comfy armchair.
Talk the talk of practicalities please or your wasting breath.
October 8th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
copyright is theft plain and simple, the government is taking your right to your property to give “copyright holders” a pseudo property right for their benefit. granted no property right is absolute, but there is no justification for copyright. there are other ways to encourage creation and innovation, if encouragement is even necessary. if a creator wants to make an income off of copyright they can gather pledges before they make the work and release it on the delivery of the pledges or even have them held in advance. it is up to the public and the creator to agree on an amount and conditions for release. they can provide incentives to make higher pledges. they can also setup ways for people to donate directly to them after the release for people who actually want to give them money. none of that requires copyright and there are sure to be other ways to encourage creation of culture without copyright as well.
October 9th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Adam,
Copyright is quite important to an artist as it ensures that we get paid when we are played on the radio and used by other media outlets to make money. Where it becomes oppressive is when it is used to stop people from copying a CD onto an i-pod. Copyright should be restricted to commercial exploitation, rather than interfering with personal use.
Crosbie,
“Artists (just as publishers) arenât going to make any money selling copies. Letâs get that cleared up for a start.”
You’ve said this a few times in your posts since I joined the debate and I have to disagree. I sell copies of my recordings all the time. People still want clear, well made files of songs they enjoy. I’m willing to accept that you won’t be buying copies any more, but don’t imagine that, if p2p becomes legal, the industry won’t find a way to make copies desirable again to the average music fan.
RW,
13 albums?? I can only think of 12.