File Sharing and Ethics? How do you know what is right?

[DanceMentor]

I saw over in the Strictly Come Dancing thread a conversation starting that relates to file sharing. There are many ways file sharing occurs:
1) Checking out materials from the public library. They are publicly sharing copyrighted materials with you including music cds and even instructional videos.
2) Loaning a friend a tape or CD
3) Making a copy of a tape or CD for a friend
4) Making a copy of a TV program using your VCR or DVD burner
5) Making a copy of a song you here on the radio
6) Listening to internet radio
7) Downloading files from places like Kazaa, Emule, etc. (full list at www.slyck.com )
8) Uploading files to those same places
9) Showing a movie at the studio party (copyrighted work)
10) Playing music at the studio (copyrighted work)

There are many things to consider when we talk about copyright laws. When you compare #1 to all of the others, why is it okay for the library to share materials with every citizen in the United States (or wherever you live), but not okay if you do it personally?

What about companies like DanceVision and Casa Musica that are trying to profit from copyrighted work only to have people sharing it freely?
(try searching for "ShareDance" on Emule and you'll see what I'm talking about...100's or music and video titles for the ballroom dancer available for free)

Why should a small dance studio have to pay royalties on the music they play at a public party?

I would love for us to have a discussion about both sides of this issue. The internet age brings so many different "spins" to copyright issues, and some things are not "black and white". There are huge gray areas.
What are your thoughts?

[Laura]

There's a saying..."copyright infringement is your best entertainment value."

But seriously, my thoughts are that the current copyright laws are very broken. See Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/) for a new type of licensing that is coming into use. However, this doesn't address the issues of pirated media via DVD rips, CD duplication, etc.

On a personal level, cases 1-6 above seem perfectly okay to me.

Case 7 is a little more problematic. From a mechanical standpoint, it's not really much different to cases 3-5. But on the other hand, the large numbers of people and files involved adds a level of indirection so that it's not just something being done between friends. The technology that exists that allows us to do this is extremely helpful in cases where you're trying to see something that you simply can't get any other way -- like with the "Strictly Come Dancing" show. If there were a DVD or a promise of a DVD I'd get it (or pre-order it). But there's not, so now what? The BBC could put their own rip of the show up on the web site and let people download it after paying a credit card fee if they wanted...that would make things really simple and give people like me a legal way to get what I want to see.

Case 9 is clearly illegal, especially if money is being charged to attend the party.

Case 10 is legal, assuming that the clubs or studio in question has paid their dues to ASCAP and/or BMI.

I have many friends in the music and film business and I hear over and over again about how it's the middlemen who are getting rich, not the artists themselves, even with all the current copyright and licensing laws. In other words, a good portion of the laws are there to protect the middlemen and not the actual artist.

[jon]

The law says one thing, the technology drives people to behave differently. Eventually, the technology will win, but there is no obvious incentive to most companies in behaving reasonably towards their customers - yet. So it will be a long painful transition with many people falling afoul of lawsuits and quite possibly with truly horrid constraints imposed on the computer and consumer electronics industries.

Re one of your questions, it's OK for libraries because libraries have a single copy of the product that can get used by one library patron at a time. If libraries were letting people bring in blank CDs and walk off with their own copies, they'd be in just as much trouble as everyone else. And of course, the RIAA and MPAA would like to control libraries just as they want to control individuals.

Bottom line: the DMCA is a horrible law that needs to die a horrid, quick death, and later initiatives are even worse. The content control the RIAA/MPAA are trying to impose is one of the stupidest ideas that have ever come out of an industry not known for its creativity or smarts.

But that does not relieve millions of individuals from their own immoral and illegal behavior in copying everything they can get their hands on.

My own reaction to this dilemma is that I more or less boycott the industry. I check out CDs and DVDs from the public library system, but don't purchase more than a handful of CDs in the course of a year now, and then usually only as gifts. I don't see my purchasing habits changing until the MPAA/RIAA get off their doomed kick of suing everyone in sight and trying to cripple my computer hardware, and instead offer songs and movies online at a reasonable price and without unreasonable constraints on their use.

Of course I am an extreme outlier, the real reason they're doomed to failure is tens of millions of teenagers who understand perfectly well what they're doing in file sharing, and will continue to do it anyway. You can't stop the tide from coming in.

[jon]

BTW, Baen Books (http://www.baen.com/) is running a very interesting experiment. They have got many of their authors, including the most successful ones in their stable, to agree to make their older works online, unecrypted, and freely redistributable, and also distribute CDs of parts of the "Baen Free Library" with some of their new books. So far the experiment has been successful, people are finding older works by authors they didn't know well, then buying new ones - or just buying hardcopies of the free books online! Scaling from a relative small number of SF/fantasy fans to tens of millions of pop music fans isn't clearly valid, but it's sure an encouraging example of a publisher with his head screwed on straight.

[ThatHaitianSwede]

BTW, Baen Books (http://www.baen.com/) is running a very interesting experiment. They have got many of their authors, including the most successful ones in their stable, to agree to make their older works online, unecrypted, and freely redistributable, and also distribute CDs of parts of the "Baen Free Library" with some of their new books. So far the experiment has been successful, people are finding older works by authors they didn't know well, then buying new ones - or just buying hardcopies of the free books online! Scaling from a relative small number of SF/fantasy fans to tens of millions of pop music fans isn't clearly valid, but it's sure an encouraging example of a publisher with his head screwed on straight.

that's a very interesting experiment. :idea:

I have to say that the system def needs to be reworked. I mean if I have 1,000 files on my computer (:D ) do I need to pay a grand just to listen to some of my favorite songs?

I read this NY times article about an idea for distributers such as I-pod or mp3 to charge a monthly rate for downloaders. That sounds like a good idea to me.

All in all, I think you have to get back to the basics. What is music all about? Yes you have to make a living, but don't you want to share the joy? Wouldn't you be absolutely humbled and honored that someone would want to listen to your music. I know you can't say that for everyone but that's how I would feel. (atleast I hope so) I def. wanna hear other's ppl opinion on this though. Because at the same time my files are downloading... it's tearing me apart :(






:wink:

[MacMoto]

1) Checking out materials from the public library. They are publicly sharing copyrighted materials with you including music cds and even instructional videos.

When you compare #1 to all of the others, why is it okay for the library to share materials with every citizen in the United States (or wherever you live), but not okay if you do it personally?

A friend of mine who had a book published a few years ago says that, at least in the UK, there's some kind of formula by which authors are paid royalties if their books are lent out a lot at public libraries. I assume this also applies to materials other than books. I don't know if there is a similar system in the US.

[bjp22tango]

Since I first heard of MP3 capability (how many years ago now?) I have been waiting for music companies to get off their duffs and open their catalogs to pick and choose capabilities.

It is amazing how they have become stuck in the "album" rut.

The only music I now buy is dance music. It covers a huge range, because I am a dance generalist and I like to dance almost everything!

I like the idea of going back into the catalogs of Benny Goodman and finding swinging music that didn't hit the top ten back in 1939, but is great to dance to. I like being able to go back to the original source for Dean Martin, Nat King Cole, Doris Day, etc. etc. and pull off selected songs, rather than buying an album that I don't want or a compilation from someone with no idea of dance tastes/tempos. etc. I like being able to pull that one song that was a kicka$$ swing off the hard rock or pop rock album from the 70's). I also like the idea of picking the one song off a current pop album that has any kind of dancable beat or non offensive lyrics that I can dance to. Does anyone remember Xtreme? They had one ballad that made the top 40. And for good reason. The rest of the album was mysogynistic rant.

I don't like the current set up where you pay a monthly fee and then $1 for every song you buy. I would rather pay a monthly fee for a certain number of songs with nothing else to pay, or just $1 per song.

I also am not very interested in someone's cover of a famous song unless they practically mimic the original. There is a reason I want the original. It swings, or it has latin soul....

Yes, it would take time and money to convert back logged masters to MP3, but what are they doing except gathering dust in music vaults right now? Or being compiled into lame "theme" CD's for sale at Walmart for $7.96

I think it would be interesting to have a Top 40 based on legal music downloads. There would still be the mass of teens and 20's downloading the current mass produced stuff, but it would also be interesting to see what "golden oldies" would pop up as well.

I like the book idea of putting a writers' past works on the web for free. I read a lot of fiction, and when I find a writer I like, I do the brick & morter version of this. I frequent Used Book stores to find copies of stories out of print. Then when new books by that author come out, I am on the look out for them in book stores.

If I could listen to a representative sample of a musician's works without having to pay for them first I might find music that I do want to invest money in.

(On another subject, I bought a CD a couple of years ago called "Summer Swing" and it turned out to be mostly SAMBA :evil: :shock: :lol: It's a good thing I like Samba, but what a hoot. I just about died laughing thinking about the dimwits who packaged THAT record for sale :oops: )

[etchuck]

I will probably have a bit more time to think this out, but I bought an upgrade to my MusicMatch program which allows me to purchase tracks online at $1 each. I don't have a membership fee otherwise. That being said, you probably have access to more tracks than I do.

I think it just depends on copyright law. As much as we would like to have even the "classics" be freely available, the estates and families of those artists want that work protected and respected for themselves too (i.e., money, royalties, etc).

[pygmalion]

Yup, etchuck. It's a balance.

btw, 31 dance? Do tell. 8)