Meet ‘Download Legal’
p2p news / p2pnet: “Oberwager said he believes it is due to ignorance on the consumer`s part for not realizing the severity of the crime being committed when a user illegally downloads a song,” says a report in the Daily Nexus, UC Santa Barbara’s student newspaper.
‘Oberwager’ is Ted Oberwager, a senior at Georgetown University and one of the members of Download Legal, a new “student-led” organization that wants to, “pull the plug on illegal music and movie downloading on college campuses”.
However, speaking of ignorance, downloads aren’t “illegal” and no “crime” is involved. It’s a civil, not criminal, matter, and the worst of it is: a copyright may have been infringed.
“Download Legal, recently founded by Brooklyn Burgess, a third-year law student at the University of Alabama, is a grassroots group aimed at organizing student voices against media piracy,” says the story. “It also seeks to educate students about the dangers of illegal file sharing.”
That might almost have been uttered by RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) sophist Cary Sherman.
“Besides putting students at legal risk, illegal downloading hurts many small record labels and emerging artists, said Ted Oberwager, a senior at Georgetown University and one of the members of Download Legal.
“Oberwager said his knowledge comes from first-hand experience, as he has worked in the music industry for an ‘underground’ record company. These companies need more direct financial support from their small pool of buyers than do large corporations who enjoy more popularity. ‘[The small labels] don`t have the resources to make up for the loss,’ Oberwager said.”
Not only but also, “Besides the concern over business interests, illegal file sharing can spread viruses and pose other computer security problems,” Burgess said in another RIAA-like comment. “It also infringes on copyright and intellectual property laws, he said, hence its designation as ‘illegal’ downloading.”
“Though Download Legal was formed only recently, Oberwager said the group has received a good deal of positive feedback,” adds the post. “Those interested in learning more about the group can sign up for Download Legal`s mailing list at their website, www.downloadlegal.org.”
Associated organizations aren’t listed, but the site has that ‘professional’ look about it and one has to wonder …..
Also See:
Daily Nexus – National Group Aims to Reduce Student Piracy, February 8, 2006
February 9th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
I wonder how long before it’s reported that the RIAA is funding Oberwager’s education??
February 9th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
This is an obvious RIAA put-up job. Its pathetic how these students have been conned.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
or maybe he’s a “john doe #32767″
February 9th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Brooklyn Burgess should pull the RIAA penis out of his ass
February 9th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Where to go with this obvious puff piece? Guess we could start here…
“…illegal file sharing can spread viruses and pose other computer security problems…”
So can websurfing, uncautious opening of emails, or buying music cds. (as demonstrated by the infamous Sony Rootkit) That little piece of information is totally worthless as it is displayed.
“Besides putting students at legal risk…”
So if the US does the same in the long run as France, this would also have no bearing to the discussion, taking the teeth out of the illegality statement. In otherwords, it is all in the defination and definations have been known to change over time.
I could go on with quoting lines and tearing this missive up but why? It’s so obvious as to its source as to make it suspect from the beginning. If this student wants a real education in music, why doesn’t he ask why it is so hard for that small label to make money against the big cartels? Couldn’t be that the big boys are attempting to control both access and content and make sure they get the lions share, I am sure. (sarcasm included for free) It also couldn’t be that the music industry as a whole are not meeting customer demands resulting in those same potential customers turning away either could it?
This is hardly worth responding to, it is so full of holes.
February 10th, 2006 at 1:37 am
Maybe Ted needs to move to France and learn first hand what P2P can do to music sales???? I’m sure that in France the music sales are going to get better!!!! Just wait and see!!!!
February 10th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
I’m not sure if your post is meant with scarcasim or not. However I suspect you are more correct (literally speaking) than you may realize.
It was only after the closing of the original Napster that music sales started into decline. The original Napster did far more for driving music sales by allowing listeners to be exposed to new music they could not get from other sources. This was causing a blossum in sales as those that heard those songs wanted the better versions of quality only available with the physical product.
Now that the cartels are going on-line with their sales and only offering them as drmed files, there is no reason to purchase substandard products that so limit the customer. Sony has taught us that buying the physical cd isn’t such a good idea either.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:45 pm
This whole group just sounds like a load of evangelists pushing abstinence on anyone who gets too close to ‘em.
They need to mind their own business: make a club where you pay for songs, and shut up.
February 11th, 2006 at 8:25 am
If Mr. Uberwanker is going to be a ’spokeperson’ for this group, he ought to get his facts aligned with the truth and acquire a basic understanding of Title 17 of the United States Code (The section of federal law concerning copyright.)
The simple downloading of a copyrighted work by an individual who does not benefit financially from acquiring the work does not rise to the level of a ‘crime’. At worst, it’s a form of tort known as ‘infringement’. ‘Crimes’ are acts of behavior by an individual or group of individuals that have an immediate, negative, damaging effect on another individual, group, the community in which is occured, and/or society. In recognition of that, such acts are analyzed, investigated and prosecuted by professionals working on behalf of the community and are compensated by the community with funds collected from the community in the form of taxes. In addition, these professionals are also empowered to employ the coercive power of government to facilitate the rapid resolution of such matters.
A tort is a wrongful act committed against an individual (or group) that in some way injures or damages that individual (usually in a financial manner), but is not severe enough to merit employing community resources to resolve. The injured individual can retain his own counsel and initiate a lawsuit against the alleged wrong-doer(s). If the wronged individual prevails, a judgement is entered against the wrong-doer for damages. Such awards consist primarily of only money, but occasionally there may be other conditions, such as returning a specific disputed item, or an injunction against certain behavior. (Do not contact Mr. Smith EVER again, for any reason, etc…)
Criminal penalties only ever come into the picture if, in addition to infrigement, there’s a profit motive, such as selling the infringing copies of the work, thereby depriving the copyright holder of the benefit of a bona fide sale to a willing buyer.
The second point Mr Uberwanker should become clear on is that the mere act of downloading a copyrighted work in and of itself does not constitute copyright infringement. A judgement as to whether or not infringement has occured can only be made after determining what use was made of the downloaded copy. If it was a song to which the downloader did not have a copy of in physical media such as a vinyl record, magnetic audio tape, or optical media such as a CD and the downloader played the song at a party he hosted, it’s likely infringement. If he already owned the work on a CD, it’s likely not infringement (for now.) If he later gives away or sells the original CD, but retains and uses the digital copy on the computer, the use of the digital copy at that point is the infringing act. This may not occur until weeks or possibly years after the download is completed.
If it just sits on his computer and the file is never opened and he doesn’t own a pervious, legitimate copy? I would say it’s not infringement since that copy has not ever been put to ‘use’. However, this particular instance has not been tested in a court of law.
‘Danger’ is an overly dramatic word to be used in the context of a possibly infringing download. No one is going to get physically maimed or injured from a download. How many people, when they see a road sign that says ‘DANGER’! believe that around the next bend they will encounter a throng of lawyers waving subpoenas and brandishing law books in a menacing fashion while chanting “Guardian ad litem!”?
How about ‘consequences’? Even better, how about ‘unlikely consequences?’ Given the scatter-shot method of the lawsuit filings by the RIAA and their uncanny ability to sue people who don’t own computers, the deceased, and the technologically challenged parents of pre-pubescent children who haven’t a clue what infringement is or the consequences thereof, the latter would be the appropriate term.
Finally our would-be spokesperson should come clean and tell us:
1. To what extent the content industry is financially supporting this ‘grass roots’ <snicker> group, either directly or indirectly. (It sounds like the only ‘grass roots’ the members of this group will ever encounter is cleaning off their 9-iron after taking a big divot out of the fairway on 17 at their VERY exclusive country club.)
&
2. What his salary is going to be when he starts work for the RIAA after graduation.
–TurboGeek
February 13th, 2006 at 6:43 am
“Brooklyn Burgess should pull the RIAA penis out of his ass”
Brooklyn Burgess is a woman, and a rather silly name for a person who doesn’t live in Brooklyn (NYC), and probably has never been to Brooklyn. David Beckham, another brainless twit, named one of his kids Brooklyn too.
It’s an open secret that I have no patience for liars and idiots, and it looks like we’re dealing with both here. Everything associated with DownloadLegal.org reeks of the RIAA’s stench. The site and these “students” are obvious paid RIAA sock puppets. These poor miserable bastards. They’re either truly believe in the RIAA’s, or more likely, they’re opinion-less, spineless muppets who will happily taking the money in exchange for being the RIAA’s tape recorder.
from their press release:
“TUSCALOOSA, Ala., Feb. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ — Download Legal, a new nonpartisan student advocacy group, was unveiled today with the goal of providing students with a forum to discuss impending developments in the realm of intellectual property. Download Legal also hopes to educate students about illegal file-sharing and the impact that it has on emerging artists.”
who the hell “unveils” a student group? in my entire 4 years of college, i never had 1 student group unveil itself. You unveil a new car at an autoshow, where people wait in eager anticipation with oohs and aahs. It’s like the movies when the waiter in a fancy restaurant brings you a tray with a huge metal lid, and he sets it down in front of you and removes the lid, saying “Bon appetit”, revealing some absurdly big and mouthwatering chunk of meat. A person does not unveil crap!
went to the site. The website is not only crap, it is mammoth crap. Nice little forum they have there. By “nice”, I mean “not nice” and by “forum” I mean “total lack of existence of vehicles for dialogue”. Discussion? Heh! Now for my Yakov Smirnoff bit: In Communist Russia.. you don’t discuss music, music discusses you!
Where’s the discussion board? from their press release: âStudents should be provided with an active voice in the intellectual property debate”. Ironic, ain’t it? No message boards, “reader’s voices” or anything. Have they got something to hide? Afraid people will flood the site with porn link, flames, and anti-RIAA anger? I’m going to write an email to them right now, and so should all of you, if you care about stopping the RIAA’s lies. yes, students need a voice, and that voice is “STFU RIAA” and “FOAD!”
It can’t be any more obvious that this site is just more RIAA propaganda. Real students wouldn’t make a site like this. We’ve all seen what student org websites look like. they’ve got that noob look. this site has a crap corporate look that’s a dead giveaway. as a professional web guy, i can tell you whoever the RIAA hired to do this isn’t a very good designer. i’ve seen templates on eBay that have more creative sense than this. if you need a reminder of what student group pages like (Alabama U):
http://bama.ua.edu/~isa/
http://www.bama.ua.edu/~tccf/
.. for more chuckles, see other groups
http://www.ua.edu/academic/international/services/intl_student_org.htm
If they’re in law school, they wouldn’t have the time. I have plenty of friends who are in/graduated from law school. Every single one of them say it is hell. They didn’t have time for anything except studying. Nothing on the site identifies the principles involved, except an “about us” page, which has a photo that looks like it came from Corbis. (I will die laughing if someone finds it!)
http://downloadlegal.org/Contact/
the page lists 4 males and 1 female. The photo has some lamer wearing an A&F sweatshirt and 4 females. hmm…. and the fake hotmail account is a really sad and transparent attempt to look noobish.
that’s not even getting into an analysis of the language of the site. there’s no persona and voice in anything that is written on the site, just brainless regurgitation of the RIAA party line. No “how we became involved”, “why we feel so passionate about this cause”, anecdotal accounts, or anything. any idiot who has taken English 101 in college out to be able to point this out. It is WORD FOR WORD the same garbage propaganda the RIAA uses.
.. I need to thank Turbogeek too for this excellent explanation about the RIAA manipulating language to support their lies. They’ve got millions of dollars for their publicity war, but we’ve got millions of people with brain cells. We have to make the RIAA suffer for their unjust actions. Eventually, the backlash is going to reach critical and the RIAA will run out of money. As Bob Dylan might sing:
Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A p2p war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain
February 13th, 2006 at 6:45 am
oops.. forgot to sign my name on the above post about the downloadlegal site.
/zi.