The problem with this is always rooted in the nature of digital media. It's not like an apple where you eat it and it's used. Lines are further blurred because you can legally purchase a CD and then burn it to your iTunes for digital use across your multiple devices, but you somehow can't share that with a friend or burn them a copy or burn them a mixed-cd of songs you feel you already purchased?

There's no use thinking about any of this morally. It's law and law is arbitrary and confusing and dictated by multiple motivations, the most decisive of which nowadays is usually greed.

The whole sharing vs piracy/stealing is a HUGE topic. Native media channels need to evolve with the new technology. It's same with movies, music, ebooks etc.

Last year was following the below discussions:-
- [perusingtheshelves.com...]
- [perusingtheshelves.com...]

But unfortunately nothing came out of it, pirate sites are still distributing content freely and genuine sites who want to find a solution are being shut down.

I think it's high time when media industry should realize that sharing is an evil necessity and is going to happen in one way or other. Solution is not trying to stop it but modify the way content is published so that it's cheaper, widely available and instead of earning per copy, earning will be per view via online Ads etc.

It's a huge issue and there's no easy solution, both sides (i.e. publisher and user) have to let some things go. Lastly, I think solutions like what's suggested by swa66 on pg1 could work.

steal (share, the word is share)

Calling it something else doesn't make it something else- it is still stealing. To steal- "Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it" Here's a decent discussion on the issue- Is it stealing or sharing [motherjones.com]

The problem with this is always rooted in the nature of digital media.

No, digital media just makes it easy. I work with a publisher who before the internet ever came along, built a spreadsheet to look at the correlation between falling photocopy prices and falling sales of his very expensive books.

With ready availability of copying equipment, his publishing house took a major hit and that has only accelerated as other pressures come to bear on publishers.

The impact of this, whether matrix_jan wants to accept it or not, is that this publisher is probably going out of business and the specialty books that he publishes will too. Thirty years ago this was the flagship publisher for a major area of scholarship and nobody is filling that void.

Because people "who couldn't afford it" were helping themselves to his intellectual property, that work is now becoming unavailable to everyone, whether they can afford it or not. That is the reality of this.

If their business model doesn't work the way they want, then they should fix it rather than making people to use it.

Well yes, it is a losing battle for most. But to go back to my publisher, it was a business model that worked for nearly 100 years and many people's lives depend on that business and it is not a model than can adapt easily. So of course you have to expect people to try to apply existing law to protect their livelihood.

If suddenly hotels found out that people were sharing room codes (not stealing rooms mind you, just sharing the entry codes), they would try to find ways to stop it. That's what's happening here. It may not be possible. Probably isn't possible and most of these business do need new business models.

But admitting that is not the same as saying that because laws are hard to enforce they are no longer applicable.

stealing is very different from sharing

Yes it is. And libel is very different from slander. And assault is very different from battery. That doesn't mean that as an individual in a society I can choose to observe the laws on slander and battery, but choose to ignore the laws on libel and assault because I have some contorted justification about how those laws are wrong.

Finally we are moving forward, thank you ergophobe.

Calling it something else doesn't make it something else- it is still stealing.

If John makes a copy of a song to give it to his wife does that mean she stole from the record label? So it IS different right?

Now my point is that the prices should be so affordable that your friend would feel uncomfortable asking you to land a DVD for the weekend. My point is that the internet should stay free and the business model should change. If a kid stole $0.99 worth of apple the sentence would be lot different then stealing a $0.99 song. But why? You can copy a song but you can't copy apples (at least in seconds). But if apple business [did I bring a wrong fruit as an example?:)] was on the same level as music business, apple lobbyists would work with politicians to push for more severe sentencing right? They would start checking every apple on the street and ask for a receipt, would that make you feel a free man? And how would you feel knowing that the farmer (Artists in song's case) had only two cents out of that one dollar?

Again, my point is that forcing is not working. They start monitoring, people will start encrypting, force is not the answer. Accessibility and innovation are!

If John makes a copy of a song to give it to his wife does that mean she stole from the record label?

Legally, yes (unless the terms of service that John agreed to when he made the purchase specifically allow him to make a copy).

I'm not a lawyer, but I think you're wrong. Legally it's not called theft. If you have an article for that too please share (I will not steal it).

You know, I think the stealing/sharing discussion is fairly unproductive because I don't think either term applies.

Both sharing and stealing imply depriving someone of use of something. If I steal your car, I have it and you don't. If I share my meal with you, the food on my plate doesn't magically double. The word "sharing" is used by advocates because it has a "feel good" air about it. The word "stealing" is used by opponents because it maps to a crime that everyone agrees is a crime.

Properly speaking what is happening is "copying" and before the law it is a violation of intellectual property rights, most commonly copyright (but it could also be a matter of trademark, service mark or patent infringement).

The discussion (not just here) hinges on 1) whether or not you believe there should be intellectual property rights and 2) whether or not you believe they are enforceable.

Personally, as I guess is clear from my previous statements, I believe such rights should exist. There have been incredible abuses lately with both ridiculous patent filings and an extension to copyright foisted by lobbyists for the publishing industry that had nothing whatsoever with rewarding creators of original art. Despite recent abuses, I believe we are artistically poorer in a society where copyright is not enforced.

I also recognize that enforcement is very difficult, but I think there is a cost to society of not enforcing this.

matrix_jan, we're not really talking about prosecuting someone for stealing a $0.99 apple or copying a $0.99 song. Point me to one case where someone was fined and convicted for copying a single song. Most of those convicted have made or allowed to be made thousands of copies of songs. So as a dollar value, we're talking about someone who hijacks the apple truck, not someone who grabs an apple and runs. Depending on the jurisdiction and the goods stolen, felony larceny is any theft over $300 to $950.

I am NOT trying to say that copying is larceny, merely that to dismiss is it as a $0.99 offense is not comparing... apples to apples (ba dum!).

I'm not a lawyer, but I think you're wrong. Legally it's not called theft. If you have an article for that too please share (I will not steal it).

Sigh. How about directly from the Copyright Law of the United States of America [copyright.gov]? Will that finally convince you?

Whether you call it theft or stealing or sharing or borrowing or any other name you want to put on it, it still violates the law.

This references U.S. Copyright Law, but you can also research the Berne Convention to see an international version.

not comparing... apples to apples (ba dum!).

Well, if you're talking about downloadable music/video, you could be comparing apples to Apple. (ba dum!)

[edited by: LifeinAsia at 8:52 pm (utc) on Feb 27, 2013]

Please. I hardly believe there are people who download just one song. If you know the source you're likely to download the whole album. But here's a good case, you can read it if you like, otherwise the title is clear.

Minnesota Mom Hit With $1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs [music.yahoo.com...]

I believe such rights should exist.

I believe they should exist too. But not at the expense of user privacy. CAS is not about trademarks or copyrights, it's about sharing copyrighted material. Users don't violate the copyright, they violate the way it is meant to be distributed. Don't get me wrong. What I mean is you don't present the movie to be yours, or the song to be sang by you. It's very different from trademark and copyright violation such as stealing copyrighted material and presenting it to be yours.

Will that finally convince you?

Heh... Of course not. Is there anything written about theft? The only "theft" I found was in titles in references. Since you like it to be called that way doesn't mean it's theft, let alone legally be called that way.

You can bring me an example of someone who downloaded copyrighted material illegally being charged for theft. Theft is just a wrong word in case of illegal sharing. If someone takes your copyrighted material and presents it to be his, then it can be called theft, they stole an idea, something you worked on. But watching or listening that idea is not called theft.

Here's a good example for you to understand. If someone entered the cinema without a ticket, is that called theft too? But the movie was copyrighted material right? But it was meant to be watched with a valid ticket.

Please... let's call things by their names otherwise this discussion is becoming biased.

Illegal sharing. And I'm against it. But you can't stop millions by eavesdropping and charging for hundreds of thousands. Again my point is that they should have found a better solution. I'm pretty sure sooner or later those solutions will come...

And we should also prosecute people who recorded songs onto casette tapes from the radio, right?

matrix_jan - the problem is the question of deterence. The mom in question was actually charged with downloading 1700 songs which is probably closer to the number and the amount she has had to pay has gone back and forth from $25K to $2.2M. These are all astronomical numbers, but think of it like a reverse lottery. The lottery is ridiculous. You know that the odds are that the more you bet, the more you lose. But the payoff on a small bet is so astronomical, people are willing to take the chance and essentially throw away a few dollars a week on the chance of a huge payoff.

These fines are meant to work in the opposite sense. The chance of getting caught is so low, most people will take the risk. If the fine were, say, $5000 and I plan to download 1000 songs, that's a good bet. It would not be a deterrent. So for the deterrent to be effective, it needs to be draconian.

Again, I am not in any way disputing that these companies need new business models and that they would be better off spending time thinking up those models. What I am saying is that they are within their legal rights to bring these cases and ultimately everyone copying content with no money going back to the artist is going to leave us with an artistically impoverished society.

There is a real cost to society (not just record labels) with rampant copyright violation.

If someone entered the cinema without a ticket, is that called theft too?

Yes. It's called "theft of services." Similarly, if someone goes to a national park campground that is completely empty, nobody is around, nobody is being deprived and sets up their tent, they are liable to prosecution for "defrauding an innkeeper." It's a real crime, with real fines and is considered a form of theft.

let's call things by their names otherwise this discussion is becoming biased.

Illegal sharing.

Please read my previous note. This term "sharing" is biased in and of itself. The proper term is copyright violation. There is no such thing as illegal sharing just as there is no such thing as legal stealing.

What I am saying is that they are within their legal rights to bring these cases and ultimately everyone copying content with no money going back to the artist is going to leave us with an artistically impoverished society.

Artists get pennies from that $0.99 itunes songs.

[huffingtonpost.com...]

[investinganswers.com...]

And that's why I think the system is outdated and needs an improvement.

Please read my previous note. This term "sharing" is biased in and of itself. The proper term is copyright violation. There is no such thing as illegal sharing just as there is no such thing as legal stealing.

I'll call it copyright violation here from now on if you like. But illegal sharing means illegal distribution. Legal distribution is through itunes, illegal is through torrent or file-sharing websites. How is it biased?

I understand artists only get pennies. Frankly, I get nothing from my books, but they are expensive for the publisher to produce. My money for my end comes from other sources, but without sales, the publisher would not publish them. Way back I suggested making the books available for free online, but overwhelmingly the readers want these books on archival grad paper with library bindings. That doesn't happen without people coughing up money. It is immaterial that little of the money comes back to me - without the publisher there to put print and distribute the books, the fact is I wouldn't be able to produce them and they would be lost to the scholarly world.

>>How is it biased?

Because as I mentioned, "sharing" is a feel-good term that makes it sound other than what it is. Remember, we were all taught in kindergarten that it's good to share. There's a positive moral connotation to sharing and that's why proponents like the term. Similarly, as I also said, there's a convenience-store robbery connotation to the word "stealing" and that's why opponents like that word.

Copyright violation has a boring, lawyerly sound to it which, if your goal is level-headed discussion, is a good thing.

ergophobe, I follow you, but the system is called file-sharing (P2P or websites), and some people share copyrighted files making it illegal-file-sharing. It's just what it's called in our words, in the court it's called copyright infringement. The problem with the latter is that some users of this forum may be confused thinking we talk about stealing copyrighted materials, yet we actually talk about CAS, which is created to stop sharing of copyrighted materials.

I'll quote from CAS website:

Consumers whose accounts have been used to share copyrighted content over P2P networks illegally (or without authority) will receive Alerts...

Now, [finally] getting closer to the topic, what does this give to the average webmaster of publisher? I personally don't feel comfortable being in a room with fat cats, let alone a union of fat cats. Something tells me that one day they will come after small and average websites and publishers, taking over the web, or should I say sharing (irony?) the web between them...