File sharing = piracy? (Need enlightenment)

[13 Spider Bloody Chain]

So a bunch of anti-anti-piracy ads (not a typo there) on youtube are saying that filesharing/downloading films for free is not stealing.

I have absolutely no idea how the film/game/music industry works, so I'd like to know: how is this not stealing? No, you're not sneaking into a movie store and doing a Garret on hapless store owners, but by downloading stuff for free (say, you pirated a copy of M&B), you got something that you were supposed to pay/give something in exchange for but didn't actually pay for (aside from monthly internet bills, etc).

Am I missing something? Am I misunderstanding the term "file sharing"? 

 

[Bellum]

They say because nothing is actually lost (from a material standpoint) it's not theft. They're complete ****tards.

 

[Bulle]

File sharing is a legal technology with legal uses, however many users use it to give and accept copyrighted materials without permission or authorization, and this is piracy of intellectual property, also known as copyright infringement.

 

[pedrodiniz92]

If we wereto pay for every piece of movie or extract from tv shows we watch on youtube, we'd be completely broken fo' sho.

 

[Barry_bon_Loyale]

It is stealing, and it is illegal.  Of course, as with anything, this is a bit of a grey area. 

The major record labels lose money, but still, people still buy their albums and they still make money in one of the biggest areas; concerts and live performances.  You could also argue that although these downloaders are ripping off the record companies, record companies have been ripping off consumers for decades by making them buy an album with only one good song on it.

As far as legality goes, I think there's little debating that downloading is a form of stealing and infringement of copyright.  As to the ethical side of it, major record labels are probably the last group of people I would consider feeling sorry for.   

 

[thesneakster]

If we wereto pay for every piece of movie or extract from tv shows we watch on youtube, we'd be completely broken fo' sho.

Gee, i wonder how anyone survived before the internet

 

[fisheye]

The "no piracy talk" rule on this forum kind of makes it hard to have a balanced discussion.

But you have to be a moron to think it is not stealing. You've illegally acquired someone's intellectual property without their consent. It doesn't matter if they actually suffered a material loss from this, that's why the law is structured like it is.

 

[Archonsod]

So a bunch of anti-anti-piracy ads (not a typo there) on youtube are saying that filesharing/downloading films for free is not stealing.

I have absolutely no idea how the film/game/music industry works, so I'd like to know: how is this not stealing?

Because international copyright law defines it as copyright infringement rather than theft. It also envisioned such acts to be the realm of the corporate rather than the individual, so while they can't send you to jail for it they can demand millions in damages.

Theft on the other hand tends to be domestic law, usually a criminal offence and therefore prosecuted by the state, which usually means there's no inherent means of financial recompense.

 

[13 Spider Bloody Chain]

Ah, so it was legislative semantics. No wonder I was so confused 

 

[Archonsod]

Well, it's more the difference between IP and actual property.

  If I stole the crown jewels and gave them to you, you can still be charged with handling stolen goods.

If I upload Shrek 2 and allow you to download it, I'm the one breaking the law, not you. The actual legal issue is with distributing Intellectual or copyrighted property without the permission of the owner (i.e. a distribution license). You can be charged if you were fully aware that I was breaking the law (which would make you guilty of aiding and abetting), however unless I have specifically informed you that I am unauthorised to distribute the work you can always claim you had no reason to believe it was not a legitimate distribution.

With filesharing, because the client uploads as well as downloads, you are in effect distributing as you are receiving* hence you can be charged as such.

Downloading only isn't necessarily safe though, particularly software. Under the Digital Millenium act and similar acts worldwide the circumvention of DRM is defined as a crime. It may be possible to argue that if your download was motivated solely to circumvent the normal protections, i.e. you downloaded it free from me rather than buying it from the I Tune store, you are making a deliberate attempt to circumvent security and thus fall foul of this act. It's tenuous, but stranger arguments have been accepted. Of course, if the IP in question is a game and it's bundled with a crack, or you go download a crack, they have you bang to rights.

* This has yet to be challenged in court. Under IP laws you can only be prosecuted for distributing the whole or "significant portions" of the work. It's largely a common sense approach designed to prevent you writing a song which contained note D and then claiming anyone else who used the note D was infringing your IP.
The argument could be made that you are not making significant portions of the work available. For example, although I'm also uploading tiny portions of the code, these are rarely to a single user; while I may end up effectively uploading the entire work it could be in the form of a single byte to several thousand individuals. In other words, imagine if you took the lyrics of a song and gave a single word of those lyrics to everyone you met on the street. Are you in fact distributing the entire work, or are these individual segments of distribution small enough to fall under "significant portions" clauses?
It's particularly apt to filesharing cases. Most of the time a company simply seeds the file themselves and records every IP address which connects to download a portion. It's usually then assumed that the individual has also distributed the work due to the upload mechanism. However, what if I'm a leecher and haven't set my client to allow downloads? It could be argued that without the ability to show "significant portions" of the work being received from your IP to an individual the prosecution cannot prove that you have in fact distributed the work. Of course, if the seed happens to be owned by the IP owner or parties acting on their behalf, you can also argue they were legitimately distributing the work too.

 

[Nairagorn]

File sharing is not illegal. The electronic transfer of information is the backbone of many of today's businesses, if you weren't allowed to transmit data from one location to another the modern world would grind to a halt.

That said, sharing copyrighted work without permission is punishable by civil (not criminal... yet) action.

There are many legal uses for file sharing software. Music and books that are public domain are fine to share. Software with a license that permits it is fine to share.

My favorite site for public domain and creative commons works:

http://beta.legaltorrents.com/

 

[kurczak]

So a bunch of anti-anti-piracy ads (not a typo there) on youtube are saying that filesharing/downloading films for free is not stealing.

I have absolutely no idea how the film/game/music industry works, so I'd like to know: how is this not stealing? No, you're not sneaking into a movie store and doing a Garret on hapless store owners, but by downloading stuff for free (say, you pirated a copy of M&B), you got something that you were supposed to pay/give something in exchange for but didn't actually pay for (aside from monthly internet bills, etc).

Am I missing something? Am I misunderstanding the term "file sharing"? 

Varies from state to state. There are however two major "schools" : anglo-american copyright and continental "author's right" (which is for the sake of simplicity often called "copyright" too  ) I can't speak for the anglo-american, but in the continental, sharing without a license is illegal while downloading (and watching/playing/listening to) is not. So logically, P2P, torrents etc. are illegal. An author whose works have been have been infirnged can both sue for damages and ask a prosecutoting attorney that the prosecution be commenced.

 

[Archonsod]

Not how it works.

A copyright claim is valid only in the jurisdiction it was filed in. If I file for copyright in the UK, there's nothing stopping someone in the US copying my work, it simply means I can prosecute if they attempt to make use of the work in the UK. There are no international treaties or laws covering copyright as such*, nor is one jurisdiction obligated to uphold the copyright of another; in fact there are differences in what individual countries allow to be copyrighted in the first place. In the US you can file copyright on software and business processes; the UK explicitly rejects such copyrights.
Infringement can only occur if you hold the copyright for a given work within the territory. George Lucas cannot sue me for distributing Star Wars in Iran, because he doesn't hold copyright of the work in Iran. In fact, I could freely file for copyright of Star Wars myself (assuming the Iranian patent office doesn't have restrictions regarding the amount of content I must have contributed to the work).
If Infringement does occur then your legal recourse is determined by the jurisdiction the offence occurred in. If I was to infringe your copyright in France then it would be French copyright law which would apply. One of the reasons people use publishers rather than simply having a print shop run off a few thousand copies of their book themselves is that publishers tend to have the resources to file for copyright in all applicable territories.


* The EU is somewhat weird in this regard. There is a resolution to unify copyright and patent standards across the Union so in theory all one need do is register with the EU copyright office rather than each individual member. There's even an EU copyright office. However, as current EU law stands it's up to individual members whether they recognise an EU copyright or not. In typical EU fashion what began as an initiative to reduce beaurocracy has instead added another layer since people now feel they should register an EU copyright on top of those they would normally file just so they can be ready for the time the EU office takes precedence, which has been going to happen "any day now" since around 1996.

 

[kurczak]

Not how it works.

A copyright claim is valid only in the jurisdiction it was filed in. If I file for copyright in the UK, there's nothing stopping someone in the US copying my work, it simply means I can prosecute if they attempt to make use of the work in the UK. There are no international treaties or laws covering copyright as such*, nor is one jurisdiction obligated to uphold the copyright of another; in fact there are differences in what individual countries allow to be copyrighted in the first place. In the US you can file copyright on software and business processes; the UK explicitly rejects such copyrights.
Infringement can only occur if you hold the copyright for a given work within the territory. George Lucas cannot sue me for distributing Star Wars in Iran, because he doesn't hold copyright of the work in Iran. In fact, I could freely file for copyright of Star Wars myself (assuming the Iranian patent office doesn't have restrictions regarding the amount of content I must have contributed to the work).
If Infringement does occur then your legal recourse is determined by the jurisdiction the offence occurred in. If I was to infringe your copyright in France then it would be French copyright law which would apply. One of the reasons people use publishers rather than simply having a print shop run off a few thousand copies of their book themselves is that publishers tend to have the resources to file for copyright in all applicable territories


* The EU is somewhat weird in this regard. There is a resolution to unify copyright and patent standards across the Union so in theory all one need do is register with the EU copyright office rather than each individual member. There's even an EU copyright office. However, as current EU law stands it's up to individual members whether they recognise an EU copyright or not. In typical EU fashion what began as an initiative to reduce beaurocracy has instead added another layer since people now feel they should register an EU copyright on top of those they would normally file just so they can be ready for the time the EU office takes precedence, which has been going to happen "any day now" since around 1996.

You Brits have always been weird with all your fancy common-law and such so I don't know how exactly it works over there, but I think you are wrong about the nonexistence of international treaties. Bern Convention if nothing else.

Also you are confusing (at least in the terms of the continental law) copright on one side and trademarks/patents on the other. While trademark or patent indeed needs to be registered, copyright is protected by the law from the moment the  work is published and no registration is needed. That's how it works here on the solid land.


Edit: I did a little research on the British copyright law and yes, it is only Wikipedia, but still there is a remarkable level of reliability. Here it is:

Works eligible for protection: literary, dramatic, artistic or musical works, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording, a film or a broadcast.

Qualification for protection: British law states that an individual's work is placed under copyright law as soon as it leaves that person's mind and is placed in some physical form. The work qualifies for protection, if made after 1 June 1957, if its author is:
      1. A British citizen, British dependent territories citizen, a British National (Overseas), a British subject or a    British protected person or
      2. An individual resident or domiciled in the United Kingdom or another country to which the qualification clause extends or
      3. A body incorporated under the law of a part of the United Kingdom or another country which the qualification clause extends.

The work qualifies for protection if its first publication took place:

  1. In the United Kingdom or
  2. In another country which the qualification clause extends.

Lists of countries which trigger qualification by the various clauses are made by Statutory Instrument (SI) periodically as needed by changes in the accession status of countries to treaties like the Berne Convention.


Countries which signed the Berne Convention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Berne_Convention.png

So regarding the fact that the Berne Convention obligies its signatrories to enact similar standarts, you can expect basically the same legislation nearly all over the world. (But yes, you can probably distribute Star Wars in Iran, this particular long shot worked. (unless there is de facto the same legislation) )

Edited many times, because of the friggin' picture

 

[Archonsod]

You Brits have always been weird with all your fancy common-law and such so I don't know how exactly it works over there, but I think you are wrong about the nonexistence of international treaties. Bern Convention if nothing else.

Berne Convention I think you mean. The Bern Convention deals with the conservation of European wildlife

Berne merely states that art and literary works copyrighted in one of the signatory countries will be considered copyrighted in those of other signatories, which would be a reciprocal treaty. I thought I mentioned them but I must have deleted it There are individual agreements between various countries regarding universal copyrights. The EU push for standardised copyright across the Union is based on the Berne convention, but like I said it's ineffective due to the deferral to domestic laws. Berne for that matter has hardly been without problems.
As far as patent & copyright laws go the main difference tends to be in strength. Patents are more robust under law, as are trademarks, and don't expire. Copyright on the other hand is a kind of default protection. They tend to be intertwined however, and one can (and should) apply for a copyright on your work (basically, a copyright application if approved lends more weight should you ever need to defend it in court, since it's a legal document proving your ownership of the work and the work itself is applicable for copyright. Without it a judge may rule that the work was never eligible for copyright, or that the copyright doesn't belong to you, depending on the specifics of the case).

copyright is protected by the law from the moment the  work is published and no registration is needed. That's how it works here on the solid land.

It depends on the type of work and who is publishing it. It's the case with non-collaborative works, however for a collaborative work (such as a song written by a band) then the actual owner of the work must first be established before any copyright rights could be exercised. In fact it's one of the main reasons patent offices started processing copyright applications; nobody likes being sued for infringement by their ex-drummer.

So regarding the fact that the Berne Convention obligies its signatrories to enact similar standarts, you can expect basically the same legislation nearly all over the world. (But yes, you can probably distribute Star Wars in Iran, this particular long shot worked. (unless there is de facto the same legislation) )

Not really. It only obliges copyright be recognised. Amongst those signatories you'll find the actual rights and privileges accorded differ, for example in the UK copyright on a written work lasts seventy five years, while I believe it's only fifty years in France. Similarly the fair useage laws of a country tend to differ; in one country showing half an hour of an hour long work might constitute fair use, while another may only allow five minutes. As yet there is no universal standard.

 

[kurczak]

You Brits have always been weird with all your fancy common-law and such so I don't know how exactly it works over there, but I think you are wrong about the nonexistence of international treaties. Bern Convention if nothing else.

Berne Convention I think you mean. The Bern Convention deals with the conservation of European wildlife

Sure thing Stupid silent "e".

Berne merely states that art and literary works copyrighted in one of the signatory countries will be considered copyrighted in those of other signatories, which would be a reciprocal treaty. I thought I mentioned them but I must have deleted it There are individual agreements between various countries regarding universal copyrights. The EU push for standardised copyright across the Union is based on the Berne convention, but like I said it's ineffective due to the deferral to domestic laws. Berne for that matter has hardly been without problems.
As far as patent & copyright laws go the main difference tends to be in strength. Patents are more robust under law, as are trademarks, and don't expire. Copyright on the other hand is a kind of default protection. They tend to be intertwined however, and one can (and should) apply for a copyright on your work (basically, a copyright application if approved lends more weight should you ever need to defend it in court, since it's a legal document proving your ownership of the work and the work itself is applicable for copyright. Without it a judge may rule that the work was never eligible for copyright, or that the copyright doesn't belong to you, depending on the specifics of the case).

Well, copyright deals with artistic works while patent is designed for industrial inventions and trademark is a commercial logo or a symbol etc. They are not different levels of protection, they protect different "things". However a drawing for example can be an artistic work and a commercial logo at the same time and thus can be protected by both. Again, that's how it works in the continental law, maybe there is a diffent terminology in the common law.

It depends on the type of work and who is publishing it. It's the case with non-collaborative works, however for a collaborative work (such as a song written by a band) then the actual owner of the work must first be established before any copyright rights could be exercised. In fact it's one of the main reasons patent offices started processing copyright applications; nobody likes being sued for infringement by their ex-drummer.

I really am unsure about your usage of the term "patent office", as I said, maybe you have a different terminology in the common law or maybe your patent offices were given the copyright agenda as well...don't know, but it is definitely confusing. The common law concept (or is it a British concept exclusively?) of two levels of copyright (one automatic, statutory and one requiring registration) is unknown here. Our laws state explicitely who is (are) the entitled person(s) from copyright (you can't strictly speaking own a copyright in the continental law) in the case of collaborative works.

Not really. It only obliges copyright be recognised. Amongst those signatories you'll find the actual rights and privileges accorded differ, for example in the UK copyright on a written work lasts seventy five years, while I believe it's only fifty years in France. Similarly the fair useage laws of a country tend to differ; in one country showing half an hour of an hour long work might constitute fair use, while another may only allow five minutes. As yet there is no universal standard.

Really? That surprises me. It is 70 years in UK, 70 here....one would expect it is 70 years in France too. But yeah, the period of protection may vary as well as concrete rights (statutory vs. real damages etc.) but generally speaking my advice for those who want to be sure is: don't sell, don't share, don't lease. You are breaking the law in 99 percent of the cases you are doing it.


Edit: by the way, patents and trademarks do expire (once again: at least in the continental law), 20 years and 10 years (in CzRep) after the registration respectively, but can be re-registered and the previous "owner" is preferred if there are concurrent applications.

 

[Archonsod]

Well, copyright deals with artistic works while patent is designed for industrial inventions and trademark is a commercial logo or a symbol etc. They are not different levels of protection, they protect different "things". However a drawing for example can be an artistic work and a commercial logo at the same time and thus can be protected by both. Again, that's how it works in the continental law, maybe there is a diffent terminology in the common law.

They do, but infringement is infringement regardless of whether you're running off a copy of the Mona Lisa or swiping the McDonalds arches Common practice where possible is to patent anything you can (the method of painting with a wooden spatula), trademark whatever you can get away with (the font) and hope copyright will manage the rest.
Patents can be rather loose in some countries though. Sony for example hold a patent on "drawing the players attention to an object or item by having the character look at it" in the US, courtesy of Resident Evil. So if you're ever writing a video game be sure to make the character's stare woodenly ahead no matter what, else Sony may well sue. Similarly, the Xbox controller is both patented and trademarked by Microsoft. I believe one author even attempted to patent "making the reader tense and apprehensive through the use of descriptive language". They're not exclusively industrial and many companies do use them to lock down intellectual property, particularly when it comes to computer data. It's a bit more far reaching in what it allows, and it prevents you having to copyright every iteration of the software.

I really am unsure about your usage of the term "patent office", as I said, maybe you have a different terminology in the common law or maybe your patent offices were given the copyright agenda as well...don't know, but it is definitely confusing.

Probably the UK. They shunted it on to the patent office to sort out copyright claims on account of them already being used to the kind of work required. Technically I think all you really need is a solicitor's statement to the effect that you are the sole owner of the work and you didn't nick the idea from anyone else.

don't sell, don't share, don't lease. You are breaking the law in 99 percent of the cases you are doing it.

The owner can grant their permission to anyone to be able to distribute, replicate or do whatever with their work. Ideally you want it in writing, verbal permission does count but it tends to be a tad harder to prove. You also have to maintain your copyright by taking all reasonable steps to protect the work, including prosecuting those who breach it, otherwise you can lose it (I think it's five years. If you know about an infringement and fail to prosecute for five years then unless a judge deems there are extenuating circumstances the work is considered public domain). You also have a protected right of resale on physical goods, i.e. if you buy a book, CD or painting you are permitted to sell it on. It used to also be the case that if you bought a painting you were permitted to sell, show or reproduce the work, though I hear artists have got a bit more business savvy in recent years.

Edit: by the way, patents and trademarks do expire (once again: at least in the continental law), 20 years and 10 years (in CzRep) after the registration respectively, but can be re-registered and the previous "owner" is preferred if there are concurrent applications.

Patents lapse, but they don't expire. I think it's 25 years in the UK. All it means is you lose the right to exclusive use; i.e. people no longer need to seek your permission to use whatever it is you patented. They can't patent it themselves though, IIRC the UK patent office has records going back to 1801, and if someone already patented whatever it is you submit before you it's rejected. We also have a law whereby you can challenge a patent if the owner has not made any effort to use it, there's not a similar law in the US, not sure about Europe.

 

[Skyrage]

Whole DRM ruleset is getting too oldfashioned IMO - specially now that we have the internet. Music, movies and games are the biggest targets obviously, but it seems that it's only the game side which actually adapts with the technology. Movie and music industry remains rather oldfashioned and behind in times and instead of really adapting they shout and scream at people who download from the internet and whine about millions lost.

Authors aren't really too threatened IMO because whilst it is rather easy to scan and upload a book, nothing still beats reading the good old fashioned way.

 

[kurczak]

They do, but infringement is infringement regardless of whether you're running off a copy of the Mona Lisa or swiping the McDonalds arches

More or less, there are some minor differences (in CR).

They're not exclusively industrial and many companies do use them to lock down intellectual property, particularly when it comes to computer data. It's a bit more far reaching in what it allows, and it prevents you having to copyright every iteration of the software.

There was a minor controversy about whether software was "author's rights" (=copyright) or "industrial property" (= patents and co.) The parliament decided to classify it as "author's rights", so I don't think it would be possible in CR, but maybe there was some superdooper court decision which ruled that it can be "industrial property" under certain circumstances., but I find it highly unlikely as courts cannot overrule an explicite provision of a statute in the Czech legal system.

Common practice where possible is to patent anything you can (the method of painting with a wooden spatula), trademark whatever you can get away with (the font) and hope copyright will manage the rest.
Patents can be rather loose in some countries though. Sony for example hold a patent on "drawing the players attention to an object or item by having the character look at it" in the US, courtesy of Resident Evil. So if you're ever writing a video game be sure to make the character's stare woodenly ahead no matter what, else Sony may well sue. Similarly, the Xbox controller is both patented and trademarked by Microsoft. I believe one author even attempted to patent "making the reader tense and apprehensive through the use of descriptive language".

Absurd, that's what I say This whole IP thing has gone too far. By the way, it reminds me of a recent case - one Czech pop music composer sued another for copyright infringement. An expert who was asked to deliver his opinion on the extent of similarity between the two songs by the court, said something like "yes, there is a remarkable extent of similarity, but all the pop songs are the same. There is no real authenticity in the pop music."  Unfortunately , the court begged to differ....

Probably the UK. They shunted it on to the patent office to sort out copyright claims on account of them already being used to the kind of work required. Technically I think all you really need is a solicitor's statement to the effect that you are the sole owner of the work and you didn't nick the idea from anyone else.

Could be.

The owner can grant their permission to anyone to be able to distribute, replicate or do whatever with their work. Ideally you want it in writing, verbal permission does count but it tends to be a tad harder to prove. You also have to maintain your copyright by taking all reasonable steps to protect the work, including prosecuting those who breach it, otherwise you can lose it (I think it's five years. If you know about an infringement and fail to prosecute for five years then unless a judge deems there are extenuating circumstances the work is considered public domain). You also have a protected right of resale on physical goods, i.e. if you buy a book, CD or painting you are permitted to sell it on. It used to also be the case that if you bought a painting you were permitted to sell, show or reproduce the work, though I hear artists have got a bit more business savvy in recent years.

Well, of course, I thought we were talking about the not-having-a-license stuff.

Patents lapse, but they don't expire. I think it's 25 years in the UK. All it means is you lose the right to exclusive use; i.e. people no longer need to seek your permission to use whatever it is you patented. They can't patent it themselves though, IIRC the UK patent office has records going back to 1801, and if someone already patented whatever it is you submit before you it's rejected. We also have a law whereby you can challenge a patent if the owner has not made any effort to use it, there's not a similar law in the US, not sure about Europe.

True, that's what I meant and worder poorly. My bad.

 

[Jhessail]

Whole DRM ruleset is getting too oldfashioned IMO - specially now that we have the internet. Music, movies and games are the biggest targets obviously, but it seems that it's only the game side which actually adapts with the technology. Movie and music industry remains rather oldfashioned and behind in times and instead of really adapting they shout and scream at people who download from the internet and whine about millions lost.

Authors aren't really too threatened IMO because whilst it is rather easy to scan and upload a book, nothing still beats reading the good old fashioned way.

So true. Sure, there's plenty of books floating around the 'Net but it's way better to cuddle up on a couch with a book instead to stare at a flickering screen. But still, whole DRM issue is always just harming legitimate customers. Never heard of a game that had protection that actually managed to work and stop piracy.

I mean, EA pays Sony for SecuRom but their games are still cracked. How come EA doesn't sue Sony for malpractice? "You sold us a product which causes trouble for our customers while it din't stop crackers!" My mind boggles @ the corporation suits and their idiocy.