Illegal downloading

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The purpose of torrents is not for commerical use, so not barred.

Please read it again. It doesn't say that non-commercial use is allowed, it says that this may be a factor in whether the use is "fair use" or not.

And you aren't actually downloading 30 second clips. You are downloading 2000 seperated 1/4 second clips from all over the complete video. You fill in the blanks from other users.

And your computer stitches all these together to create a complete version of whatever it is you're downloading. You still end up with a complete version. The fact that it was assembled from many pieces doesn't change this fact.

Certainly, people sharing books is an 'educational' use, not a commercial one.

Personally, I'd say that acquiring a free copy of something to avoid paying for it is a commercial use.

Maybe it would help if you read the examples of fair use that they give:

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Note that there is nothing in this list that's anything like "getting a free copy from someone else because you don't feel like buying it."

 

[YmirGF]

I would go as far as saying that if you are downloading copyrighted material, by any means, that allows you to avoid paying for said material IS illegal. The only way around this is if the material is placed into the public domain and given without charge and that will always be written in rather bold letters on any site that contains such goodies. Frankly, beware of P2P networks. You are playing with fire.

 

[dust1n]

Please read it again. It doesn't say that non-commercial use is allowed, it says that this may be a factor in whether the use is "fair use" or not.

Fair enough. I will abstain from regarding said activity as legal.

And your computer stitches all these together to create a complete version of whatever it is you're downloading. You still end up with a complete version. The fact that it was assembled from many pieces doesn't change this fact.

I didn't imply that it did.

Personally, I'd say that acquiring a free copy of something to avoid paying for it is a commercial use.

Personally, I'd say that giving out a free copy of something to spread the information provided by said copy is a educational use.

Maybe it would help if you read the examples of fair use that they give:



Note that there is nothing in this list that's anything like "getting a free copy from someone else because you don't feel like buying it."

Fair enough. It's not legal. It's just impossible to enforce.

 

[Aquitaine]

Hmmm, interesting discussion going on.

I'd just like to add, how far should copyright laws go? Like how on YT at the moment many videos of people talking to the camera are getting their audio removed because a song may be playing in the background. Als I believe YT allows third parties to flag up any video they wish as breaching copyright.

Surely that's a bit OTT don't you think?

 

[Wieldthescythe]

You'll find all of them too on Soulseek.

i know i've been using soulseek for quite a while.

 

[Gunfingers]

Hmmm, interesting discussion going on.

I'd just like to add, how far should copyright laws go? Like how on YT at the moment many videos of people talking to the camera are getting their audio removed because a song may be playing in the background. Als I believe YT allows third parties to flag up any video they wish as breaching copyright.

Surely that's a bit OTT don't you think?

This is one of those weird topics where Newtonian physics end up applying to human behavior. Copyright infringement has always existed. I can imagine people were having this exact same argument when the printing press was invented, in fact. But the push against copyright infringement was always minimal because copyright infringement was always minimal. Now, however, more people pirate than buy, and the equal-and-opposite reaction has been an extreme jealous crackdown of all use of copyrighted material.
So yeah, a lot of it is an overreaction, but it's an overreaction that wouldn't exist if piracy hadn't become so common. But, of course, those overreactions leave pirates convinced that they are fighting the good fight and sticking it to the man. Again, equal and opposite reaction. :-/

 

[dust1n]

This is one of those weird topics where Newtonian physics end up applying to human behavior. Copyright infringement has always existed. I can imagine people were having this exact same argument when the printing press was invented, in fact. But the push against copyright infringement was always minimal because copyright infringement was always minimal. Now, however, more people pirate than buy, and the equal-and-opposite reaction has been an extreme jealous crackdown of all use of copyrighted material.
So yeah, a lot of it is an overreaction, but it's an overreaction that wouldn't exist if piracy hadn't become so common. But, of course, those overreactions leave pirates convinced that they are fighting the good fight and sticking it to the man. Again, equal and opposite reaction. :-/

Well to be fair, we are ultimately sticking it to the man! :yes:

This over complicates it a little bit. I just refuse to pay for art.

 

[Gunfingers]

I just remembered, Penny-Arcade did an amusing comic on this recently.

Penny Arcade! - A Cyclical Argument With A Literal Strawman

It doesn't go in depth into the issue (though in the news section Tycho rants about the entitled nature of pirates), and deals more with games than music, but it highlights the point i make about it all being reactionary. Invasive DRM and hyperbolic legal restrictions are a response to excessive piracy, not an arbitrary addition.