The Next Generation in P2P Lawsuits
There’s a lot of music content out there and a lot of ways to get it. Free music bombards us in all directions: from the radio, YouTube, Pandora, and Grooveshark — to what plays in a restaurant while you eat. But since P2P programs are so widespread and downloading music is just a simple click of the mouse, what happens when a Digital Native simply figures P2P to be as outright legal as listening to the radio? It turns out, you can still get hit with substantial penalties. Professor Nesson is working with other prominent litigators and scholars on the case that exemplifies this issue — that of Whitney Harper, who lived down in Texas. This recent graduate finds herself at the blunt end of the question of the Innocent Infringer.
In a filing submitted today to the Supreme Court of the United States, professors, scholars, and practitioners who specialize in the intersection of technology and copyright law filed an Amici Curiae brief asking the Court to hear the case of Whitney Harper, a digitally and legally unsophisticated minor who believed that downloading songs was equivalent to listening to them on the radio.
Although the district court allowed Whitney to claim an “innocent infringer” defense, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision. This reversal was predicated on the notion that a minor surfing the internet on a computer in her parents’ kitchen is beholden to a copyright notice she doesn’t know to look for and might not understand, located on a CD she’s never seen, at a record store she has never been to and may never go to. This decision effectively removes innocent infringement as a defense when the Internet is concerned.
The courts are clearly split on this issue. What do you think should be done? Sound off below in the comments section.
Whitney Harper should be imprisoned, executed and burned in Hell for her sins.
Your time will come, Tenenbaum.
[...] defense, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision,” reads a post on Joelfightsback, a site dedicated to coverage of Joel Tenenbaum, another accused file-sharer embroiled in a tussle [...]
Obvious troll is obvious.
Obvious troll is very obvious. FUCK YOU JOHN MENDES. Whitney Harper is right. IT IS THE SAME. Joel, I hope you beat the RIAA, even though your chances are slim. Either way, consumers everywhere will win. The RIAA/MPAA/MAFIAA will never stop us.
Trust me in the future, people will be able to communicate information telepathically. And then the next generation will be “Remember how the music industry thought file sharing would be the death of cinema?” (because our generation is saying that the music industry thought home taping would be the death of cinema)
Kubler Ross Model
Denial - Anger - Bargaining (RIAA here now) - Depression - Acceptance.
Accept and embrace file sharing, or go bankrupt.
Anyway, I don’t think we can blame all members of the RIAA. I think some of them are trying to adapt, but clearly the overlord Bitch Mainwol refuses. So when I refer to the riaa, or the industries, i don’t refer to each and everyone of them.
“what happens when a Digital Native simply figures P2P to be as outright legal as listening to the radio?”
In that case the digital native, whatever the hell that made-up term means, would be wrong. Songs on the radio are actually paid for.
“Whitney Harper, a digitally and legally unsophisticated minor who believed that downloading songs was equivalent to listening to them on the radio.”
Cue the legal maxim - “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
“This decision effectively removes innocent infringement as a defense when the Internet is concerned.”
As it was intended. The record companies placed statutorily appropriate notice as required by the law, past that point, nothing else matters. Case closed.
DOWNLOADING SONGS IS EQUIVALENT TO LISTENING TO THEM ON THE RADIO. It’s like taping. Now the common counter argument is that there is a decrease in quality, but what if I found a way to tape without a decrease in quality? Is that immoral? Illegal?
What if I give it to my friend? Is that wrong? If I transfer to CD then burn a copy, is that wrong? What if I do that on a massive scale? File sharing is neither immoral nor illegal.
The labels will have to adapt to that, as Patrick Kutcher said.
If everyone in the world were the jury for he P2P trials, I guarantee Joel Tenenbaum, Jammie Thomas and Whitney Harper would be exonerated.
Joel, why do you have to stop downloading music from Kazaa/Limewire anyway? What are they going to do? Downloading is not equivalent to stealing from a store. So it’s not recorded as a loss in the Income Statement.
I apologize for my mistaken views on file sharing. It is not stealing. It is supporting the artists while screwing the RIAA. I see that now. I’ll stop receiving blowjobs from Bitch Mainwol and Glan Dickman now.
Songs on the radio are actually paid for.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHY BORROWING OR LENDING CD’S TO YOUR FRIENDS IS EVIL. ONE CD PER PERSON. BURNING IS JUST AS EVIL AS BORROWING. YES, NO SHARING IPODS/MP3 PLAYERS. NO LETTING OTHER PEOPLE WATCH A MOVIE YOU BOUGHT BECAUSE THAT’S COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
Leif Williams, you are an idiot
The post at 8/21/10 7:37:am clearly isn’t me and just goes to show that those who oppose the view of the law have no substance on which to stand so they simply resort to juvenile ad hominem attacks.
Nor am I Leif Williams, whoever that is.
“DOWNLOADING SONGS IS EQUIVALENT TO LISTENING TO THEM ON THE RADIO”
Except that downloading songs is nothing like listening to them on the radio. To reiterate, songs played on the radio are authorized and paid for. Songs illicitly copies and distributed on the internet are neither.
“Now the common counter argument is that there is a decrease in quality, but what if I found a way to tape without a decrease in quality? Is that immoral? Illegal?”
Taping from the radio, regardless of the fidelity of the recording, for personal use is a fair use. However, making copies with perfect fidelity and distributing them to thousands or potential millions of people for free certainly is not. And to answer your specific question, the file sharing (i.e. reproduction and distribution) of copyrighted works without authorization is indeed illegal.
I’m always fascinated by how freepers like yourself try to justify your behavior by just saying that the companies involved have to adapt to the wholesale theft of their product. Perhaps you’d like to give us an example of anytime in the history of the business cycle that any business entity faced a situation where its consumers openly stole its product? I’m honestly curious.
“Downloading is not equivalent to stealing from a store. ”
It is in the sense that you are taking a product without paying for it and with full intent of depriving the owner of their rights of control over how and when it is sold or distributed. Call it what you will, but the underlying elements are the same to both.
“for personal use is a fair use” - then i guess lending tapes to a friend is illegal
“wholesale theft of their product” - so if I lend a book to my friend, then he/she reads the book without paying for it. by lending the book, i have deprived the author (and not publishing companies, it’s not like the publishing companies get most of the revenue) of a sale.
it’s the same thing with going to a friend’s house and watching a movie. i’m not paying for the DVD. therefore, I have deprived the author/creator (certainly not the distribution companies) of a sale.
It’s the same thing as watching a baseball game outside a stadium from the branch of a really tall tree
Here’s two good arguments I’ve read:
ONE——————————————————————————————————–
Dan on February 22nd, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Asked of any RIAA witness:
1) May I, without attracting the wrath of your organization, hand the copy I have bought of my favorite CD to my friend sitting next to me at the defense table for him to enjoy for the weekend? (Yes.)
2) May I, without incurring multi-million dollar fines, make a backup copy of the CD I just bought, in case my friend loses the copy I’m about to give him? (Yes.)
3) May I, safe from subpoena and threats of litigation, hand that backup copy to another friend if my first friend loses the one I loaned him? (Yes.)
4) Must I not, then, take on good faith my first friend’s assertion that he lost the CD? (Perhaps/I suppose/What are you getting at?)
5) If my friend in fact did not lose the CD, am I acting in bad faith when I listen to my backup copy and/or loan it to a second friend? (No.)
5a) Is my second friend, playing that CD, acting in bad faith? (No.)
6) What is the fundamental difference between loaning the original CD and loaning the backup CD? (None, except that the first and the second must not be “active” simultaneously.)
7) Define “active”.
Regardless of the reply to question #7 there’s always a perfectly-legal corner case. Effectively, the shared MP3 is a backup copy of the song, the original copy on CD having been long since forgotten in someone’s dusty attic. A significant portion of the filesharing community owns a CD of the song. The only reasonable answer to question #7 is that no more than one person can play the CD at the same time. Can MediaSentry prove that more copies were being *played* simultaneously than the number of legitimate licenses owned by the filesharing community? If not, the P2P network is effectively a very fast, free-to-use version of NetFlix, distributing well-liked CD’s amongst friends for their listening enjoyment.
Slightly-alternate argument: There is no difference between loaning someone an MP3 and loaning someone a physical CD because there’s no such thing as “moving” a file in the computer world–only copy and delete. Thus, everyone’s taking it on good faith that the file they’re receiving is being deleted, or at least never again accessed, after being sent.
Last suggested argument: Can the prosecution prove, based on the preponderance of evidence, that the accused never held a license to the songs, the sharing of which he is being accused? Can the prosecution prove that the accused accessed the file for his personal use after having shared it with others; i.e., that’s he’s not just offering a convenient backup service?
Let me know what you think; IANAL.
TWO——————————————————————————————————–
William Burns on July 29th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Just because something is deemed against a law does not, in fact, make it right. For instance, it is illegal to mispronounce Arkansas in the state of Arkansas. While it seemed like a good idea at the time of writing, and I am sure many have been prosecuted on that law, it does not make it correct. A more prominent example would be the case of Prohibition in the United States, whereby alcohol was made illegal for consumption. Again, a great many people were prosecuted under the law, and many more people were duped into believing that if it’s a law then they have no choice but to adhere to it.
It was only through mass civil disobedience that such a law was repealed.
The original intention of Copyright Law is to grant the holder of works (owner) a limited time frame by which to expect exclusivity and profit. Originally, this time frame was proposed as an ample fourteen years, after which such works were relegated to public domain in the interest of furthering innovation and competition.
It was concluded that to grant a holder of works an exclusivity into perpetuity would do more harm than good for future innovation and competition, virtually stunting said growth and expansion, and severely damaging the economy as time progressed as it became exponentially harder to create new works, thus removing the incentive to produce “new” works.
Within the United States, copyrights are common for 75 years after the death of the creator, with intermediary holders carrying exclusivity far into the future through the act of re-releases in many formats. The very idea of a “back catalogue” which spans nearly one hundred years is preposterous in light of the scope and intention of copyright as it was originally conceived.
Again, copyright is meant to foster a limited time frame by which the creator of said works may expect exclusivity and profit from their works. It is the threat of public domain which spurs said creator to continue their works in order to continue their revenue. Unfortunately, Copyright has been warped and twisted through lobbying factors in order to benefit both the creator but moreso themselves (being representing entities such as RIAA), in that the original scope and intention of Copyright no longer holds the value it was originally conceived to enforce. If copyright has the intention of limiting the exclusivity of the creator to a limited time frame by which they were granted sole distributorship, then what value does this have in an era whereby the death of a creator does not pass said works into public domain, and whereby such works are held in exclusivity by third parties for lengths of time which can feasibly be an entire generation?
I take into account the written works of George Orwell, specifically Nineteen Eighty-Four. This book was written in the year 1949, while the author passed away years later. The book, despite the death of the creator, is still held under copyright and will remain so under United States law until the year 2044, whereby such works will pass into public domain.
My date of birth is 1979, and as such, this work was created thirty years prior to my birth. For a written work that was created thirty years prior to my birth, I will not see such in public domain until I have reached the ripe old age of 65, or in a different light - this written work will have survived nearly the span of two lifetimes under current copyright. As originally intended, a span of fourteen years, this work will benefit from a span of exclusivity which is measured as nearly 600% longer than originally intended.
This is a far cry from the scope and intent of copyright law as it was put forth and conceived. If a work can be held in exclusivity for a span of time which makes the intention of the law which governs it negligible at best, then the law which governs it has been rendered without jurisdiction or justification and must be repealed in its current form.
The purpose of a law is to serve and protect the interest of a society as a whole, and not a select group of individuals. Within a democracy it is the will of the society which is to govern said laws which are created on behalf of the society, and to implement laws which directly contradict the will of the society which it governs has no place in any country which rules “For the people, by the people”.
For direct and incontrovertible proof that such laws are in direct contradiction to the will of the societies which they are established to govern, we need only look at the litigation firestorm that is the RIAA around the world, and to the population of this planet who continue to openly defy such laws on an escalating basis.
This is a worldwide civil disobedience against laws which have been abused and shaped in the benefit of the few while literally eroding the rights of the many.
No amount of propaganda or litigation will stop this civil disobedience, and it will only continue to get worse until such time as these laws are brought under control and returned to the state by which they were intended; Serving not only the creators of works, but doing so in the overall best interest of the societies by which they participate.
Joel Tenenbaum is an infringer aka Leif Williams, what is the fundamental difference between
a: buying a movie legally online and then downloading it and then watching it on your laptop with your friend
b: buying a movie legally online and then downloading it and then moving the file from your laptop to your friend’s laptop
c: buying a movie legally online and then downloading it and then copying the file from your laptop to your Flashdrive to your friend’s laptop
d: buying a movie legally online and then downloading it and then e-mailing the file from you to your friend
file sharing is simply 21st century fast paced borrowing
Whoa. Another good argument I found
I’m not arguing that it’s legal, I’m saying it’s not theft. The distinction is important. Reimbursement is not property. He does not lose his property, therefore it’s not theft. End of story. I don’t see how you can’t understand that.
Also, you can scream about how it’s illegal all you want, it’s still gonna happen. People are saying loud and clear that they do not want CDs. The record labels have failed to provide an alternative method of distribution and until they do, piracy will continue.
The legality or morality is irrelevant. It’s gonna happen, it’s inevitable. CDs are obsolete, people don’t want to buy them. Record labels have resisted internet distribution and have insulted customers with DRM. They are trying to suppress technological solutions rather than embrace them. They’re trying to milk every last dollar from a system that is no longer necessary and they’re failing. They’re sticking with a distribution method that no longer works. — Freecell82
The post at 8/22/10 12:25:am clearly isn’t me and just goes to show that I am an MPAA ninja who thinks I have a chance against BitTorrent Pirates…arrgghh!!
And lending a CD while burning a back-up copy is clearly different from from burning a CD for your friend to use. And of course I know how to calculate statutory damages as a result of file sharing. I’m just about to say it. Oh wait, i DON’T know how to.
“Perhaps you’d like to give us an example of anytime in the history of the business cycle that any business entity faced a situation where its consumers openly stole its product? I’m honestly curious.”
Never because nothing was actually stolen. In Accounting, downloaded songs are not recorded as expenses in the Income Statement. Hence, a downloaded song is not subtracted from revenue.
[...] group, calls this the “next generation of P2P [...]
Whitney Harper didn’t know what she was doing was wrong, but ignorance of the law excuses no one. Therefore, she should have a reduced penalty. How much reduction? That’s up to the legal system.
Still, file sharing is morally and legally wrong. It is crippling artists and destroying the music industry.
I absolutely agree. And just as mentioned above, borrowing is destroying the music industry. So is home taping. And MP3’s and the iPod. And whatever new technology comes passing.
“oppose the view of the law” - the law is subject to change. morally, i am not obliged to follow invalid civil law. Was the Holocaust ILLEGAL? No. Was it immoral? Clearly.
Home taping was considered illegal until Sony won that trial.
And as for illegal/immoral, refer to Borrowing/Lending’s #2 argument
This is nothing more than the exploitation of capitalism and copyright law.
The RIAA cannot stop file sharing. Therefore, it must adapt. That’s just how the world works. No matter how much one procrastinates for a test, he/she cannot deny the upcoming test. It’s like knowing an earthquake is going to hit your place. GTFO or die! Or death in general. You know it’s coming. Better prepare for it, rather than trying to fight it. It’s like in the Epic of Gilgamesh…or in Harry Potter 7
As Dumbledore said, “The real master of Death accepts that he must die, and that there are much worse things in the world of the living”
Wow, Borrowing/Lending is evil has posted so much nonsense that I’m not even sure where to begin. Let’s start with these fantastic arguments that you copied and pasted, which not surprisingly, is a copyright infringement.
The borrowing rationale is so full of baseless suppositions that it doesn’t even warrant a response. People are not downloading songs for material they already own. P2P is not even close to being like Netflix, which actually compensates rights holders for each copy transacted. And considering you never know to whom you’re uploading infringing copies, it’s nothing like a friends network. And yes, there’s a huge different distributing a copy of a file versus giving away your physical copy. By loaning your physical copy, it deprives you of the copy and of the opportunity to share it with anyone else, whereas uploading an infringing copy not only allows you to keep your copy but simultaneously give it away to numerous others.
What about the ridiculousness of the “it’s immoral to pay for music and movies and games and books so I’ll just steal it” rhetoric? Really? You’re going to rely on a defense of “well, everyone else was doing it?” I’m going to play your mom for a second…if everyone else was jumping off a bridge, you’d do it too? Fine, so you disagree with whatever part of copyright. I’m still not sure which because you haven’t cited anything but duration. Ok, let’s roll copyright terms back to the 28 years that they were nearly 220 years ago under the Statute of Anne. I would bet, with extreme confidence, that nothing in your misappopriated collection, or virtually anyone else’s, for that matter, is older than 1982. So, even under the regime that existed two centuries ago, the overwhelming majority of your activity would still be infringing.
And, instead of adding anything constructive to the matter, you just complain. Why don’t you enlighten us then. What copyright term optimally incentivizes creation and distribution while simultaneously satisfying the public domain? The leading minds in the world can’t come up with an answer, so I don’t imagine you have one either.
Let’s answer your differences question, because it’s really easy:
(a) is an infringement of the right to reproduce;
(b) is an infringement of the right to reproduce and the right to distribute;
(c) is three infringements of the reproduction right;
(d) see (b)
Honestly, the more you write, the more uneducated about the law you reveal yourself to be. On the one hand, you vehemently argue that the definition of theft doesn’t apply to infringement, but on the other, you insist time and again that the definition of borrowing does. It’s not only hypocritical, it’s just plain wrong. Borrowing presupposes that you part with whatever it is that you’re loaning and that the person taking it promises to use it for a duration and return it. Therefore, it cannot be borrowing when you never part with your copy and the other party never has to part with what it received either.
And of course something was stolen. Whenever you infringe on a piece of IP, you take the author’s right to control the reproduction and dissemination of that article. In the real world, where adults live, you have two choices. You can purchase an item and enjoy its use. Or, you can choose not to purchase it and go without.
And if you think this kind of behavior will do anything but lead to the strengthening of the copyright laws, you are crazy. Core copyright in America is one of the largest contributors to the gross national product, and the largest export this country has to offer. Any attack on that will be met swiftly and severely. So when the ISPs become copyright cops and shut off your access, don’t come crying to me.
And finally, I don’t know why you people continue to insist that the rights holders are resisting technology. You can buy your music and movies in any format you want from hundreds of vendors.
This is my last post on the matter.
If a person has been proven to have downloaded any thing copyrighted - provide the software, music, movie, etc PROVEN THAT IT WAS DOWNLOADED FROM THE DEFENDANT ( YOU OR I ) Computer then they should be required to pay for the media at normal retail value.
This is a win win for everybody ( I’d really like to hear from all these artists if and how much money they got out of all this SUING their FANS ) ?
I am NOT TALKING ABOUT PUTTING IT ON A TORRENT TO DISTRIBUTE TO EVERYONE ELSE..
THAT distinction has been deliberatly blurred by the RIAA and MPAA…
You hear ALL THIS COPYRIGHT MATERIAL from a RADIO everyday broadcast FOR FREE?
You don’t hear any DJ stating before the begining and end of any song it is copyrighted and YOU CAN NOT RECORD IT? Yet many people do record music from the radio ALL OVER THE WORLD.
Same goes for your TV; you have a VCR? DVR? you record your favorate shows? It is legal under the fair use of the DCMA?
YET when you download it using a TORRENT IT IS NOW ILLEGAL?
I can go on; but you should get the idea.
What is really under attack here is your RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY..
Confused? They want you confued…
Microsoft really started it all. You go and “Buy” thier operating system for your computer? You pay 200-500 dollars and think you own it NO YOU DO NOT. You only paid out your hard earned money to buy a license for the privelage to use this software and Microsoft can revolk that license if they think you “violated” it in any way.
Heck you buy any computer now days you always have to take the software with it.. Just try and return THAT SOFTWARE and see what happens.. YOU GET NO WHERE..
Another is the RIAA is dying due to the “Digital” age. Many people here have stated they don’t want CD’s yes that is true in most cases and the RIAA had fought that tooth an nail.
Some people can’t fingure out why they fight this/
Well they fight this is about CONTROL.. Period.
When more and more “artists” have gone digital; they do not need the RIAA - Record Company to produce and distribut their “music’ they do it themselves.
Take RADIOHEAD… Many in the “BIZ” Laughed at them when they released their album on the internet - TORRENTS.
All RADIOHEAD did was ask if you like the music we provide to you PAY US WHAT YOU THINK IT IS WORTH..
Know what happened/ They made millions of dollars IN ONE WEKK.
They were the one’s laughing ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK AND THE RIAA - RECORD COMPANY DID NOIT GET ONE CENT.
RIAA - Record Companies have been screwing these “artists” AND YOU AND I FOR DECADES.
That control is now gone and like a dying person drowning will grab anything in reach as they go down.
It is proven that out of every dollar $.87 goes to the record company- RIAA. JUST a measly $.13 goes to the “artists” and that they have to pay all their expenses - MANAGER FEES, PRODUCTION, ETC..
Would you work at a job where the boss paid you $.13 out of every dollar you earn? Not me..
Another point out of every $1,000.000 the “artists” concert tours get $23.60 average..
Watch Steal This Film. It would help
Common Sense,
You don’t hear any DJ stating before the begining and end of any song it is copyrighted and YOU CAN NOT RECORD IT? Yet many people do record music from the radio ALL OVER THE WORLD.
Same goes for your TV; you have a VCR? DVR? you record your favorate shows? It is legal under the fair use of the DCMA?
YET when you download it using a TORRENT IT IS NOW ILLEGAL?
I can go on; but you should get the idea.
What is really under attack here is your RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY..
This is what Karl Marx referred to as the Forces of Production resisting and lagging behind the Means of Production
taping was nearly illegal. try looking up Sony vs. Universal. Phew!
Common Sense, very good comment. It’s just…
“Microsoft really started it all. ” According to Steal This Film, this happened way before the digital age. Dating back to the printing press (Steal This Film).
“Another point out of every $1,000.000 the “artists” concert tours get $23.60 average..” - YOU SURE?? Don’t artists get more out of concerts and/ore merchandise than album sales?
“Since the dawn of time, human beings have felt the need to share – from food to art. Sharing is part of the human condition. A person who does not share is not only selfish, but bitter and alone,” Coelho told TorrentFreak, explaining why he decided to share his books for free.
I apologize for my mistaken views on file sharing. It is not stealing. I see that now.
In the past 24 hours, four separate writers have emailed me to tell me my books are being stolen online.
Well… no duh.
The internet was created to share and distribute data. It’s the whole reason the world wide web exists.
Of course some of that data is going to be copyright-protected work. If it can be digitized, it can, and will, be shared.
What continues to amaze me is how freaked-out authors are by this. The thought that someone is sharing their work–without paying for it–seems to evoke the same reaction as having someone hack your bank account and drain your life savings.
As you see by the recent picture, I’m being pirated. Google pointed to 8880 different sites where my work is being illegally shared. And these are just torrent sites. This doesn’t count file lockers, which I believe account for many more downloads than torrents.
And yet, I’m not worried. I’m currently selling 220 ebooks per day, and that rate shows no signs of slowing down.
So everyone needs to take a big, collective breath, let it out slow, and stop worrying about illegal file sharing. Here are some reasons why.
1. Copyright is unenforceable in a digital world. Period. Exclamation point. At no time in history has any individual, company, or industry been able to stop file sharing. No country or law has been able to stop it. No technology has been able to stop it. Which brings us to…
2. People want to share files. There is this much file sharing going on for a reason. It’s what people want. Fighting piracy is fighting human nature. This is a battle no one can win. Getting your undies in a bunch at the thought of someone copying your ebook is a waste of a good ulcer. Worry about some problem that eventually will be solved. Like world hunger. Or cancer. Or war. Those will be conquered before file sharing is.
3. There is ZERO reliable evidence that file-sharing hurts sales. A shared file does not equal a lost sale, any more than someone reading a library book is a lost sale.
My ebooks that I’m selling on Amazon and Smashwords are available for FREE on my website. As in “they cost zero dollars.” And yet the ebooks keep selling. Clearly, being able to get something for free doesn’t inhibit sales.
4. The more people who know who you are, the better. File sharing certainly helps spread brand awareness and name recognition, and it does so without any effort on your part.
Now we’ll take some questions.
Q: But Joe, if everyone steals your ebooks, how will you make money?
A: Show me an artist bankrupted by piracy, and we’ll revisit this question.
Q: No, seriously, in a future where everything is free, how will…
A: We’re not in a future where everything is free. But I’ll play the “let’s pretend” game. Let’s pretend that all ebooks are free. How will writers make money? The same way all media makes money. Advertising, merchandising, and licensing.
Addendum:
There are some dissenting opinions in the comments thread, so I just wanted to clarify and distill some of my thoughts. I’m not sure how I went from “don’t worry about piracy” to being a full advocate for piracy, but I’d like to make it clear that I believe piracy is stealing. I simply do not equate it with stealing something tangible.
I’d also like to offer my final (for the moment) thoughts:
1. You CANNOT assume that a downloaded free book is a lost sale. It isn’t 1 for 1.
In some cases, the pirate would have never bought the book in the first place.
In some cases, the pirate does buy the book, and other books by the author.
In some cases, the book languishes on a hard drive, never read at all.
In some cases, the pirate would have never even been aware of the book or the author without finding it on the file sharing site.
And so on.
2. It is impossible to prove the effect of file sharing on sales without actually interviewing every single pirate and having them answer truthfully about their sharing and buying habits.
3. Industries can lose money for many reasons. There is no study that clearly shows piracy is the only cause, or even proves it is part of the cause.
4. Piracy is big business for groups that make money studying and combating piracy. Fair, unbiased reports are hard to come by, especially when capitalism and politics are involved.
5. I have shown significant growth in the face of freebies and piracy. So have many others.
While it is impossible to prove a direct link between piracy and sales, showing rising sales in the face of piracy is a damn good indicator that piracy isn’t harmful. Or if it is harmful, it isn’t enough to impact growth.
This isn’t opinion. It is fact. And it is repeatable.
You cannot prove piracy has harmed you. But I can prove it hasn’t harmed me. Ergo, my argument is sound.
6. Don’t worry about what you can’t control. You’ll sleep better.
7. The only way to combat piracy is with cost and convenience, which I have blogged about before.
jakonrath(.)blogspot.com/2010/05/piracy-again.html
“And of course something was stolen. Whenever you infringe on a piece of IP, you take the author’s right to control the reproduction and dissemination of that article. In the real world, where adults live, you have two choices. You can purchase an item and enjoy its use. Or, you can choose not to purchase it and go without.”
This has to be the stupidest argument ever. Why in the first place would the author have a right to control if he/she does not have the ability to control? You can’t apply copyright law to private institutions. That’s like creating a law saying it’s illegal to have no one stand higher than the King.
How can such law be maintained throughout the entire sovereign area? It is absurd!
Q: Look, it’s stealing, no matter how you try to justify it. We need to create better technology to make sure that pirates can’t steal.
A: There’s a reason iTunes no longer uses DRM (digital rights management, the industry standard for copy protection.) Because PEOPLE DON’T WANT DRM.
Do you know who wants DRM? Artists and companies who don’t know what the hell they’re doing because they have knee jerk reactions to the word “piracy.”
If you really fear piracy, educate yourself. Read about it. Learn how it’s done. Hear both sides defend their positions.
If you have an ounce of brains in your head, you will quickly realize that piracy is always going to be here, that nothing can be done to stop it, that artists can still make money, and that you’d be much better off worrying about something you have control over, like writing more and better books.
And next time you see your ebook on a file sharing site, don’t say, “Oh no! I’m being stolen!” Instead say, “Cool, I’m being read.” That’s what I do.
Borrowing/lending is evil: a: buying a movie legally online and then downloading it and then watching it on your laptop with your friend
Joel Tenenbaum is an infringer: Let’s answer your differences question, because it’s really easy:
(a) is an infringement of the right to reproduce;
I don’t get it. What’s the difference between going to your friend’s house and watching the movie on a legal DVD and going to your friend’s house and watching a legally purchased movie on a laptop?
If file sharing hurts sales/kills music, then WiFi kills DSL. Home sewing kills fashion. Home sleeping kills hotels. Water fountains kill the water industry.
Joel Tenenbaum is an infringer is clearly missing the point. If copying something “illegally” is wrong because it hurts the artist/label (actually just label) because it deprives of a sale then borrowing something must be wrong since it deprives of a sale.
I watch the movie for free, whether or not a copy is made.
Joel Tenenbaum is an infringer, what’s with copy+paste? Even Socrates quoted others. In fact, he did it often especially in the dialogues because he knows that he does not know. Hence you are a Sophist, an enemy of Socrates. Hence since Socrates is wise, you must be dumb. Therefore, file sharing is legal.
And finally, I don’t know why you people continue to insist that the rights holders are resisting technology. - This line shows just how ignorant you are. I recommend
a.) watching Steal This Film and Steal This Film 2
b.) reading Wikipedia’s article on “mode of production”
c.) waking up to the real world, blue pill. Companies have always resisted new technology. New technology always kills old business models. E.g. Video killed the Radio Star or how the car made the horse and buggy business obsolete.
Recording using cassette tapes was considered illegal. It no longer is. What makes file sharing any different?
To the person who called Joel Tenenbaum an “infringer,” which my man JT isn’t, the RIAA, MPAA, CRIA, MAFIAA, etc always resist new technologies.
Here’s an analogy. When Betamax/VHS came out, the labels thought that since people would be recording movies, no one would watch them on TV. It would be the death of TV since everyone could borrow from their friends. Thankfully, Sony, who was sued by Universal, is fucking rich, so it won.
[Note: YES, they bought justice.]
But did it kill cinema? TV? radio? No! Those things have been brought down to us from generation to generation. What they feared was that they would lose money. But they’re not. Even though people wouldn’t watch TV for a certain movie, they would watch TV for more movies!
I.E. When Napster/Grokster came out, these companies feared. No one would buy CDs. The only way they could adapt was to post music online then rake in the ad revenue. So far, they have not done this.
But will this kill music? No! ThePirateBay and other torrent sites will actually become obsolete if the industry does this. By making movies and music free online, more people will be able to watch hence more people WILL watch, and they will not lose the money the fear they will.
Refer to Viacom’s last line in Hank Green’s YouTube vs. Viacom watch?v=usaOKXVErqc
There is something else that could be exploited here,the actual file of a Youtube video viewed ,and many flash based radios is on the computer and can be used again (played in just about any media player) without any restrictions so technically when using Youtube or plenty of other sites the user does download the file and the file remains on the HDD in the temporary internet files (or whatever the folder used for that,by different browsers, is called).So the question is what is illegal then?Downloading from a source that is not authorised,keeping the downloaded file,playing it more then one time?
To jjj:
This is exactly why copyright is subject to change and extremely ambiguous. The very concept of copyright is that the creators and/or distributors of intellectual property are buying the right to distribute content however they want. The problem is that THEY CAN’T. Once you post something on the Internet or radio or television, it is practically public domain and will be mass distributed.
What one shouldn’t do is make profit of it. But I don’t really see how that’s a problem because if people want free they won’t buy pirated CDs, although it is tiresome to download the movies compared to buying pirated DVDs…unless you got fast internet connection
[...] we blogged about last month, Whitney Harper, a minor who has been pursued by the music industry for downloading songs, was [...]
Stealing a mp3 is the same as stealing a car!
(The comment above obviously comes from a troll.)
To “Joel Tenenbaum is an infringer”: You obviously weren’t paying attention to Dan’s argument. A shared MP3 file is effectively a back-up. Pay attention.
And by the way, not all laws are just and valid. For example, Hitler killing the Jews, Romans killing the early Christians, extremist Muslims at 9/11 and Bush in Iraq were all in the name of so-called laws. Read William Burns.
Good article…
What Joel Tenenbaum is an infringer doesn’t understand is that the music industry CANNOT have control of the reproduction of intellectual property. In Psychology, this is the first stage of the Kubler-Ross model: denial. Currently, the RIAA is in the third stage: bargaining.
I love harry potter, becoz I love magic
That is As well good, when it comes in india hope it could possibly produce a Rocking place for youngster.. hope that come true.
It is truly an attractive together with invaluable little bit of important information. I’m comfortable which you distributed this effective knowledge around. Be sure to live u . s . advised like this. Thank you for telling.
Pretty insightful post. Never thought that it was that simple. Extolment to you!
Why would I want to use IRA funds instead of other funds to invest in trust deeds?
Partnersuche polen
Outstanding Slam tournament is often a big sport circumstance in Tennis. The event contains the four leading tennis tournaments within the year in relation to world ranking details, prize-money awarded, tradition or public recognition. US Open tickets
Regards for sharing Joel Fights Back » The Next Generation in P2P Lawsuits with us keep update bro love your article about Joel Fights Back » The Next Generation in P2P Lawsuits .
I like this web site very much, Its a rattling good location to read and get info .
I and also my buddies came reviewing the excellent helpful tips on the website and then immediately got a terrible feeling I never thanked the website owner for those strategies. Those young men ended up joyful to read all of them and have now very much been enjoying them. We appreciate you genuinely indeed accommodating and also for picking this form of exceptional useful guides most people are really desirous to learn about. Our own sincere regret for not saying thanks to you sooner.
This blog has lots of extremely useful stuff on it! Cheers for informing me.maple story guide
seasonepisodes.tv…
[...]Joel Fights Back » The Next Generation in P2P Lawsuits[...]…
Nice blog here! Also your web site loads up very fast! What host are you using? Can I get your affiliate link to your host? I wish my web site loaded up as quickly as yours lol
Utterly written content , regards for entropy.
I think this is one of the most vital information for me. And i’m glad reading your article. But wanna remark on some general things, The web site style is ideal, the posts is really great :). Great job, all the best, play video
Brown clearly has the momentum and the tide is demoralizing to Coakley supporters. No one wants to support a loser.
Normally visit new blog everyday and found your internet site
The fact that no one is forced to buy or read this doesn’t change the fact that it is a really ,really,re-ally bad idea!wow gold
Coucou tout le monde quel est votre point de vue de mon nouveau blog sur l’immobilier?
Nice blog !
You are my inspiration , I possess few web logs and often run out from to brand.