File Swapping is Both Legal and Moral

[James Gillice]

READ THIS:

http://www.politechbot.com/p-04000.html

"The Campaign to Have Copyright Interests Trump Technology and Consumer Rights"

Speech by Gary Shapiro, President and CEO of the Consumer Electronics
Association.


I know it is a lot to read but this is very important stuff to be aware of. It is nice to see someone with some influence in the industry taking a reasonable and sensible stand against the RIAA and MPAA.

[richiebee]

I don't think it is reasonable or sensible. The reason CD sales and legal downloads remain that way is because downloading illegal files is both hit and miss and because you "might" get caught.

If downloading becomes legal, it suddenly makes it okay. That means those with the means will exploit it - free higher quality and reliable downloads will be the order of the day, with the originator getting rich on advertising revenue, and the artist getting nothing. New artists will be fine with this, but people who need to sell their work to live won't be. This WILL stiffle the industry.

I don't support P2P. I don't think its moral regardless of whether its legal or given license by government bills.

If people want to give their own music away, great. Let them. If they don't, they shouldn't be forced to.

Internet based services like Napster and iTunes provide the RIGHT service. You pay, the artist receives. And if they don't want to give the right to download, they don't have to. I subscribe to Napster, and I'm fine with the fact that artists sometimes choose not to make their work available for download. That is their right in my opinion.

The guy says its not the same as stealing... it is.

[James Gillice]

I think the main point is that regulating innovation and restricting use of content that has been legally purchased and bullying paying customers is not the answer.

[brandondrury]

The problem with the whole P2P issue is that there are an extremely limited number of people who understand what is really happening.

In some ways, P2P isn't all that different than email. P2P allows you to send a file to a buddy or someone you don't even know. Of course, P2P makes the process automated and is a little more optimized for the process.

The problem occurs when some asshole senator who still can't work his VCR starts flapping his jaw about internet technology and can't see the difference between email and P2P.....so he fights to ban both.

The confused congress has no right, in my opinion, to vote on issues they don't understand just as the public shouldn't have the right to vote on issues they don't understand. In both situations, the voter is easily swayed by propaganda because there is no understanding of the facts the either accept or deny this propaganda.

I think there is only one solution as the dude mentioned in the article. The solution is personal accountability online. Thus far, the internet has been a place where you can could do whatever you wanted and the odds of getting busted where almost zero.

I have no problem with the world knowing that it is Brandondrury going here or there. I do it all the time on forums already. So, when I upload the next Brittany Spears album, I should get busted just like a guy selling stolen goods in a parking lot.

P2P technology in and of itself is quite harmless, but since 99% of its use has been for swipping copyrighted material, the situation is tricky. If we stop P2P totally, we do a lot of damage to the future of innovation. If we don't stop it all, we live in a place where buying a cd is more like giving to a charity. I think we lose either way.

It's got to be personal accountibility.

Brandon

[richiebee]

Originally Posted by James Gillice

I think the main point is that regulating innovation and restricting use of content that has been legally purchased and bullying paying customers is not the answer.

Its funny how we read a totally different article from the same words!

I guess I couldn't get over the fact that the guy has no respect for artists. That was certainly the attitude he conveyed to me.

R.

[brandondrury]

I actually took the time to read the whole article, for whatever reason. He didn't mention the "imparing innovation" thing until the very bottom. It clearly wasn't a main topic, that's for sure. In fact, he didn't even mention any possible pitfalls (that I can recall) from panning P2P, for example.

Unfortunately, artists only get paid when the RIAA gets paid. So, if you are 100% anti-RIAA, you are also 100% anti-artist. Bummer, because the RIAA hasn't handled this that well.

Brandon