Illegal Downloads 150x More Profitable Than Legal Sales

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by drmaxx

Why do so many people believe that it is o.k. to put the burden of making legal judgments on the downloader. What facts do I have to decide if a specific download does not pay royalties or is not endorsed by the copyright holder?

People believe that because that's what the FUD campaign from the industry has been trying to make them believe. Yes, you are absolutely correct. If you actually read US copyright law, it is clear that the uploader is breaking the law. If you look at the cases which have been brought to court, they are always suing the uploader.

However, if the industry creates a fear campaign that cons people in to thinking that they're going to be punished if they download, then it helps cut down on filesharing without the burdens (like expense, and providing evidence) of using the legal system.

People download copyrighted material every day. If that were actually illegal, we'd all be guilty. The issue is whether the uploader was an authorized distributor. It has nothing to do with the downloader.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

With respect, in the United States, if you knowingly take possession of stolen property, in most areas, you have committed a crime.

When will people stop this nonsense?

Taking possession of stolen property has nothing to do with copyright infringement. Copyright infringed material is NOT stolen property. It's the perpetuation of idiocy like this that gets so many people confused about copyright law in the first place.

Of course it makes sense. You are taking possession of a book (or tune or movie) that you have not paid for and have no right to use; why should that be legal.

That's ridiculous. You just said that giving away things for free is illegal. I guess Baen is breaking the law every time they distribute material for free. How about downloading PD material?

Do you seriously expect the downloader to research the copyright status on every link they click on? People read copyrighted material all the time on the internet. There is no way that they can be responsible for deciding what is legal and what isn't. Not only would it be a tremendous burden, but in many cases it would be impossible. The responsibility is on the distributor, which is what the law actually says.

Unfortunately, many people have fallen for the lies that are spread by the content industry in a deliberate attempt to create confusion.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

We are not talking about a vendor putting a book up on its site as a freebie that they shouldn't have. We are talking about people going to peer to peer sites and downloading recent books.

With respect, in the United States, if you knowingly take possession of stolen property, in most areas, you have committed a crime. Further, the changes in copyright, though I abhor them, are not that hard to parse out.

As for figuring out if the Author got royalties or not... lets put it this way, if the book is free, and the author or his publisher were not the ones who posted it, it is probably safe to assume that it was done so without the author's permission.

No, it is the responsibility of everyone involved. To me, it sounds like you are arguing that you should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of illegal behavior.

Of course it makes sense. You are taking possession of a book (or tune or movie) that you have not paid for and have no right to use; why should that be legal.

Legally speaking, while receiving stolen property is illegal, media piracy is not theft. Theft requires taking something physical, or the rights to it. If I download a copy of it, well, the owner still has their copy, as well as the right to sell it to others. Theft would be depriving them of that ability, because they either don't have it, or are no longer able to use it. So you are NOT, legally speaking, taking possession of anything, since they still have it.

PS: why do you sign your name at the end of your posts? That is what the signature option is for.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

We are not talking about a vendor putting a book up on its site as a freebie that they shouldn't have. We are talking about people going to peer to peer sites and downloading recent books.

Legally, there is no difference. The distribution of copies without consent is illegal; the acquisition of those copies is not.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

People believe that because that's what the FUD campaign from the industry has been trying to make them believe. Yes, you are absolutely correct. If you actually read US copyright law, it is clear that the uploader is breaking the law. If you look at the cases which have been brought to court, they are always suing the uploader.

However, if the industry creates a fear campaign that cons people in to thinking that they're going to be punished if they download, then it helps cut down on filesharing without the burdens (like expense, and providing evidence) of using the legal system.

People download copyrighted material every day. If that were actually illegal, we'd all be guilty. The issue is whether the uploader was an authorized distributor. It has nothing to do with the downloader.

Just as a point of interest and with no intention of getting into another piracy debate.

It should be remembered that when using a p2p application one is engaging in both downloading and uploading. That is the nature of "file-sharing" programs afterall.

So whilst the burden of responsibility should indeed be on the uploader, once you begin downloading something and in turn, sharing that something, then that responsibility should fall on you as well.

Or you could go to rapihshare or any number of other hosting sites and download only.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[JohnDoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

It should be remembered that when using a p2p application one is engaging in both downloading and uploading. That is the nature of "file-sharing" programs afterall.

True, but what you're sharing is just snippets of meaningless datastream until the whole thing is assembled (particularly if you're using encrypted connections).

In some countries (Switzerland, for example), only sharing the whole shebang is illegal, not useless bits of it, and that's why most Swiss users I know simply configure their software to stop sharing as soon as they complete their file

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by JohnDoe

True, but what you're sharing is just snippets of meaningless datastream until the whole thing is assembled (particularly if you're using encrypted connections).

Like I've said before, anything can be rationalised away.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe

In some countries (Switzerland, for example), only sharing the whole shebang is illegal, not useless bits of it, and that's why most Swiss users I know simply configure their software to stop sharing as soon as they complete their file

Which makes them leechers and not sharers. I thought the whole "file-sharing" movement was about knowledge and information wanting to be free and the noble cause of ensuring creative works are shared for all to enjoy not about leeching free stuff.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[ahi]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Like I've said before, anything can be rationalised away.

And yet the thing rationalised away most often is consistently that 1) the actions of most casual "pirates" are not theft, and 2) in many jurisdictions not even illegal at all.

- Ahi

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Just as a point of interest and with no intention of getting into another piracy debate.

It should be remembered that when using a p2p application one is engaging in both downloading and uploading. That is the nature of "file-sharing" programs afterall.

So whilst the burden of responsibility should indeed be on the uploader, once you begin downloading something and in turn, sharing that something, then that responsibility should fall on you as well.

Or you could go to rapihshare or any number of other hosting sites and download only.

You really don't HAVE to upload while using file sharing apps. There are many ways to just simply download while using them.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

It should be remembered that when using a p2p application one is engaging in both downloading and uploading. That is the nature of "file-sharing" programs afterall.

So whilst the burden of responsibility should indeed be on the uploader, once you begin downloading something and in turn, sharing that something, then that responsibility should fall on you as well.

Not necessarily. It depends on the specific application, but some of them definitely let you do one without the other. The notion that everyone participating in p2p is uploading is false.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

You really don't HAVE to upload while using file sharing apps. There are many ways to just simply download while using them.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Not necessarily. It depends on the specific application, but some of them definitely let you do one without the other. The notion that everyone participating in p2p is uploading is false.

I chose not to mention that aspect for two reasons.

1: I would guess about 99% of people do not choose to only download and not upload at all when using a p2p client.
2: Those that do choose not to upload at all would fall into that category of leecher that "would never buy the book anyway so we shouldn't worry about them". They are not part of the "lets all share and let information be free and accessible for all" crowd.

Lets call a spade a spade and not quibble over technicalities. The vastly overwhelming majority of people who download books, movies, music etc using a p2p client are both downloading and uploading.

So to absolve them of all "wrong-doing"(for want of a better term) when it comes to copyright infringement(if such a thing is illegal where they are) because "it shouldn't be up to those that download to verify if something is under copyright, that is the sole responsibility of the uploader" is a bit of a furphy if you ask me.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I chose not to mention that aspect for two reasons.

1: I would guess about 99% of people do not choose to only download and not upload at all when using a p2p client.
2: Those that do choose not to upload at all would fall into that category of leecher that "would never buy the book anyway so we shouldn't worry about them". They are not part of the "lets all share and let information be free and accessible for all" crowd.

Lets call a spade a spade and not quibble over technicalities. The vastly overwhelming majority of people who download books, movies, music etc using a p2p client are both downloading and uploading.

So to absolve them of all "wrong-doing"(for want of a better term) when it comes to copyright infringement(if such a thing is illegal where they are) because "it shouldn't be up to those that download to verify if something is under copyright, that is the sole responsibility of the uploader" is a bit of a furphy if you ask me.

I don't have any handy, but from the stats I've seen, most people active in the P2P community have issues with people leaching, and it is a common problem.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

So to absolve them of all "wrong-doing"(for want of a better term) when it comes to copyright infringement(if such a thing is illegal where they are) because "it shouldn't be up to those that download to verify if something is under copyright, that is the sole responsibility of the uploader" is a bit of a furphy if you ask me.

That may be, for the purpose of casual discussion. However, for the purpose of legalities--to sort out what action can or should be taken against copyright infringement--the fact remains that people can download without uploading, and many do, and exactly how many is entirely unknown.

And (in the US at least) we have laws that say you can't convict or sue innocent people because they're doing something similar to lawbreakers. The copyright owner's inability to tell them apart is not the downloader's problem.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

That may be, for the purpose of casual discussion. However, for the purpose of legalities--to sort out what action can or should be taken against copyright infringement--the fact remains that people can download without uploading, and many do, and exactly how many is entirely unknown.

And (in the US at least) we have laws that say you can't convict or sue innocent people because they're doing something similar to lawbreakers. The copyright owner's inability to tell them apart is not the downloader's problem.

Absolutely. That's why I started out by saying it was merely a point of interest and I have no intention of getting into a debate about the technical points of the legality of the issue.

My point is that the overwhelming majority of people who download by using a p2p program(by far and away the most common form of downloading today) also upload that material at the same time. To suggest otherwise in order to absolve all downloaders of any participation in the act of copyright infringement is simply ridiculous in my opinion.

Of course there are people who leech only, there are those who use rapidshare and other hosting sites, there are those who use Usenet, etc etc. They, as far as I know, are doing absolutely nothing illegal regardless of whether the material they are downloading is under copyright.

Cheeres,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

I don't have any handy, but from the stats I've seen, most people active in the P2P community have issues with people leaching, and it is a common problem.

Actually the vast majority of "leechers" are people who download a file without in turn uploading that file to a ratio of 1:1 rather than someone who downloads without uploading at all. In most instances they will simply stop uploading once the download is complete, however whilst they are downloading they are also uploading. Generally this is referred to as a hit a run and the person doing it is referred to as a leech.

That is different to not uploading anything at all which in reality extremely few people do.

Cheers,
PKFFW