America vs. Sweden in the File-Sharing Debate

said by grandpinaple:

The founding fathers originally put IP in because they were trying to protect books and the references were mostly to patents.

said by Linklist:

They want the state to own everything and private people and companies nothing. It is hardly surprising that they support the dismantling of copyright systems - which flow from the concept of private property.

said by grandpinaple:

How are the real rich taking from society? The RIAA are not a valid example since they steal from society they do not make tangible products they only extort money from people. As for "the rich" who do you mean specifically? As I recall the so called rich employ the "poor and middle class" to make the products that are bought.

The US was founded on personal liberty and the notion of being a slave to society is just as disgusting as any of the so called government abuses that go on today. The difference is that the redistribution of wealth factor has that nice little altruism going for it. If you could keep more of your taxes you could just pay for your own secondary education instead of having someone else pick up the tab. One way or another somebody pays for it, since there is no free money in the government. At best you are stealing the resources of those who have no interest in a higher education (higher education doesn't immediately mean a smarter populace, it just means a populace that can learn and be trained like a dog to do tasks).

said by JasonD :

Who comes up with this trash? File trading is more akin to anarchy, NOT Democracy. And file trading should be illegal. Now before somebody hoots and hollers about open source or the latest wow patch, there are exceptions. But until people stop stealing there needs to be a controlled and centralized non-p2p method to grant those who receive permission to use copyrighted content access to it, without them then exposing it to the world. Sure it sucks, but until peoples morals improve, it's what we're looking at.

We live in a permission based culture. And the laws around it protect all of us, not just media companies. If you create something of value, you have the protection of the law to keep somebody from stealing it. You can, of course, choose to share it with anyone, but the law gives that control to you. Not some pirate.

said by Jimmy1234 :

Authors of great books and educational reference have been getting ripped off since the beginning of time.

Schools re-use textbooks for years, we have public places called libraries that we build and maintain with public funds which are essentially a form of file trading, they are just not digital.

We need to tear down our public libraries and dispose of their books before we need to worry about music and software. Schools need to buys books every year for their pupils, pupils should not be sharing the efforts of this countries finest educators and their literary creations.

Books and writings have been around and have been illegally traded for much longer that music and software (ie. The Holy Bible.)

Once all of the public libraries are torn down, and we get rid of those pirate librarians, then we can worry about what to do about music and software file sharing.

First things first.

Jimmy1234

said by ph03n1x:

I wonder if you noticed that you kind of made his point for him there.

said by MyDogHsFleas:

You can't be seriously comparing libraries who lend books out to digital pirates?? Libaries respect copyrights, they don't violate them.

If you want to make a library analogy, imagine a library who buys one copy of a book, scans it into a file, then allows anyone to copy the file anonymously over the Internet and do whatever they want with it -- print a new copy, read it on a screen, whatever.

Or if you want to keep the network out of it, imagine a library who buys one copy of a book, makes paper copies of it, then gives the paper copies to anyone who walks in the door.

This would be a clear violation of copyright. Simply buying a book, then giving or lending it to someone else, is perfectly OK. You are not copying the work, simply transferring it to someone else, permanently or temporarily.

In fact, libraries now lend out CDs and DVDs, and obviously video rental places do the same thing for a fee, and this is all perfectly OK under the copyright laws.

said by elios:

Library of Congress is already doing this whats your point?
and wile you may not be copying it
the out come is the same
the person that wrote it only got payed once

said by DownTheShore:

Oh, I like that image - libraries as the forefathers of file trading! So true.

said by MyDogHsFleas:

It's as if someone told you that if you're going to make rape illegal, you should outlaw consensual sex too. What would your response to that be?

said by KrK:

That the law is flawed, and should be broken. As is our copyright laws.

said by XknightHawkX:

I haven't seen this guy lately. I suspect that one of the post here already is Taylor. Sounded like taylor. Posted from Comcast. Did we finally get the troll removed or is that him that already posted.

I'm not saying names. Want to see if anyone elses thinks that someone else that posted sounded like taylor troll.

said by UrMom :

It's about damn time someone stood up to the RIAA!! MANY artists are self-releasing their albums on the web or torrents/p2p because THEY ARE GETTING SCREWED BY RECORD LABELS!! If you download and enjoy something, donate or give money to the actual creator, not a greedy rep company!!

said by tshirt:

The difference being that the artist made a choice to release it directly, rather then sell the distribution rights to the record company.
You stealing copies from the record company, or from the artist outside the terms they present/determine is THEFT.
If you don't like their pricing or terms of use, buy someone elses product or do without.

Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

said by UrMom :

It's about damn time someone stood up to the RIAA!! MANY artists are self-releasing their albums on the web or torrents/p2p because THEY ARE GETTING SCREWED BY RECORD LABELS!! If you download and enjoy something, donate or give money to the actual creator, not a greedy rep company!!

said by alcom77:

Sweden is consistently ranked at or near the top of studies about the quality of life amongst the countries of the world.
Sweden, who offers free post secondary education

said by wentlanc:

@0 is way too long. 14 years Was sufficient when it took potentially YEARS to distribute material around the country. Now that we have the means to transfer goods immediately via the internet, and overnight for tangible materials, the need to keep something copyrighted for so long to allow for profit is excessive.

cw