Downloading Pirated Anything Is NOT Illegal
I had an interesting discussion in an article thread on Plime about downloading pirated music that didn't start out that way. The other person said that he knew that downloading pirated music was illegal and that got me started.
In 2001, I spent hours and hours reading and researching this very topic, but for software. I had copies of the copyright acts and publications mailed to me from the Library of Congress (I couldn't find them on the Internet). I had a software program that I wanted to distribute and I wanted to find out what kind of legal protections I had from someone just taking the software and using it without paying for it.
I read every bit of information I could find, including case law. I studied the DMCA. Since then I have studied the NET Act. I have studied everything I could find. Guess what? I could not find a single line in any act that said that downloading anything was illegal, or even anything that could be construed to mean it.
There are organizations with websites that bluntly state that downloading pirated files is illegal but fail to cite a reference of any kind. I found one this evening and my discussion partner found another. They confuse the issues of file sharing and fair use with downloading as well as uploading.
I submit that there's a legitimate reason there is no law covering the downloads. I believe it's because you cannot know for certain that a file is pirated until it is in your possession. File names mean nothing. Fake music files planted on Kazaa prove it. Fake video files planted on torrent sites prove it. Even non-pirated files get named with titles that could be misconstrued as being pirated. I also believe that intent is insufficient to come to the conclusion that a person is attempting to download a pirated file.
I also submit that the videos preceding certain movies and other texts that state that "downloading pirated movies is stealing" are lies intended to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). If a lie is repeated enough and in enough places, it can become the truth for a lot of people (or sheeple).
I am not a perfect person and I never claim to be. If you can cite a reference to an actual law that says anything to the effect that downloading a pirated file of any kind is illegal, you will be my blogging buddy for life (or until I don't blog anymore, whichever comes first).
Addendum: I have a few simple questions because everyone knows how sue happy the RIAA is: There are many, many more downloaders of pirated music than there are uploaders. Wouldn't it be more profitable and send a stronger signal if they were suing the downloaders for copyright infringement as well as the uploaders (file sharers)? Have you heard of a case yet? Can you point me to it?
Update: I'm not responding to any more comments. Please read my Followup to the Previous Article.
Similar Posts:
Hello Blog Buddy for life,
I would just like to point out that laws do exist that clearly defines downloading any copyright work without the express permission of the owner is prohibited. 501(a) of the copyright act prohibits the reproduction of copyright material by way of phonographic, digital and other forms of duplication (that isn't clearly outlined in the act). So when you download software that you are not the owner of, and have not paid to use the software or made arrangements with the author (owner of said copyright) you are breaking the law.
Really? Where specifically in the following paragraph are you interpreting that?
§ 501. Infringement of copyright
(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. For purposes of this chapter (other than section 506), any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A(a). As used in this subsection, the term "anyone" includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
Wait let me go one step further. How do you determine the difference between a copy for personal use (a fair use backup for example) and an illegitimate download, specifically using that paragraph as the guide?
I am not a lawyer, and will speak in very layman terms, because that is the extent of my knowledge. It goes something like this:
Pirated items, music, games, etc, are items that were obtained without the permission of the owner of the item. So, if you buy a CD, you are entitled to listen to it, and make a backup copy for your safety. But, if you put the CD on the internet, and someone downloads it, that person was not entitled to listen to that music.
But things are not so clear in some cases. I could lend the CD I legally bought to a friend of mine, so this person would listen to the CD without buying it. And this is where things gets messy: because it is almost impossible to prove that you have a pirated item.
I think that what we need here is more a change of mindset, both from consumers and providers, than a change in the law. We need to change our model: we would pay the artist, not because it is the only way to get the content, but because we want to thank him for the content he provided. On the other hand, the distributors must learn that piracy works because it is a *lot* more efficient than the normal means: piracy doesn't require activation, registration, forms, double-checks. Piracy doesn't have DRMs, serial numbers, pass-codes, or any other nuissance. So the only way to beat piracy is the oldest solution that you have in any other business: be better. Be more efficient and treat the customers better than pirate stores and you will beat the pirates. And look, I am not saying you have to be cheaper than the pirated items, I said better. Like and old friend of mine says: "If you book them, they'll come". It's the same thing here, if the distributors and providers treat well and with respect their customers, the customers won't have any reason to pirate.
Ok, this has turned out to be a monster comment, but I got inspired, and this is a very important topic to me.
Frank
"Wouldn’t it be more profitable and send a stronger signal if they were suing the downloaders for copyright infringement as well as the uploaders (file sharers)?"
I'm guessing it wouldn't be more profitable. When someone downloads a song, the RIAA is out of a whole $.99. The cost of a song "legally" purchased. Big deal.
When someone is sharing a song, the RIAA can make the case that at least 1,000 people downloaded the song, so the person sharing the file owes them $990.
Actually…I am a lawyer, and I will put it very simple.
You are breaking the law if you become the uploader (the person who is reproducing) the copyrighted material.
You are not breaking the law if you are downloading IF you have written permission, or already bought a license to the software/digital media.
(if no license) You are not breaking the law if you only have a copy of the media for less than twenty-four (24) hours on your computer, and you delete it afterwards (you cannot burn it to disk. Once burned, you are reproducing, and that IS illegal.)
The law does not distinguish between physical transfer of recorded medium or digital transfer. If you make a copy *including downloading a digital copy*, you are infringing the copyright owner's exclusive rights.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
First a definition: “Phonorecords” are material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “phonorecords” includes the material object in which the sounds are first fixed.
Section 106 states: "the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:"
…
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
[this covers basically any kind of copying, including digital file sharing]
…
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
[this covers streaming digital audio by internet radio]
The bottom line is, when you download a piece of music from anyone other than the copyright holder or the holder's agent (the rules are simliar for audiovisual works), you are making an unauthorized copy, and thus violate the exclusive rights of the copyright holder:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#501
(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.
Doesn't get any simpler than that.
While I fully agree that downloading copyrighted material is morally wrong, who hasn't downloaded a song? Pretty much everyone with a computer and an internet connection is guilty of this crime. So, shouldn't the RIAA, and the MPAA be charging everyone, what, $5,000, or whatever the fine is? I mean, seriously… I believe if the recording companies, movie industry, and software companies charged something reasonable (for instance Windows Vi$ta), the rate of downloaders would decrease significantly. I also blame high gas prices.
-Johnny
The internet is for porn. Don't copy that floppy. meme etc
There is no way to establish that a "pirated" work is indeed that work until it's viewed or played. Having it sit on a hard drive somewhere does not mean that it is the proper file. I can make 700MB text files of just ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ repeated innumerable times, then renamed to harrypotter.avi and there would be no discrimination between the two before the files were used.
extension of your point:
if a person downloads a ton of files named A.mkv, B.ogg, C.dat, D.ts, and E.avi, until they actually try to play them, they have no idea what they are.
Similarly, there can't be the determination that vista.iso or osx.iso has any material difference between A.mkv file until either of them are attemptedly used.
That's the silly thing the RIAA and MPAA are trying to presume – that these filenames and bits of 0's and 1's actually mean something. If that information gets straight burned to a disk, and never touched, someone tell me where the stealing is. How can there be the stealing or thievery of something that is never consumed?
They're making gross declarations that a bunch of bits mean something, and they're declaring that it's theirs. They've already made mistakes that disprove the use of names. Until the RIAA Mafia comes to everyone's home and attempts to open every single downloaded file and match that correctly with another that's documented by them from another host, there's no way they should have a case.
I agree with your interpretations, and we need to put a stop to this arbitrary facade and abuse of the law. People around the world are dying from lack of food and these rich deskjockeys are trying to protect their solid gold humvees and diamond studded swimming pools.
Well, I think they're seeing it from the murdering a dead man principle.
If you walk into a bedroom and shoot someone. Murder. But what if they had a heart attack the night before? Attempted murder.
Now, if you download HarryPotter.rar the RIAA is trying to say that, at the least, you "attempted" to steal the audio book. If the series actually happens to be in there? Now you did.
Note: That's their point of view. Not mine.
Brent2's last blog post… Make Artists Sound Better In Your Studio Than Anywhere Else (Part 2)
Another reason that downloading isn't illegal is that it's hard to prove it's illegal in your posession – for instance, I have like 4,000 CD's but I'l sometimes grab something I know I have on CD just because I'm too lazy to go look for it or if it's something from broadcast TV, it's on the airwaves – what's exactly the economic loss if I record it myself or download it?
BTW, it's not illegal to buy a bootleg LP.CD but it is illegal to sell it – I think it's also because it's easier to prosecute – I could argue it looks like a legit CD while a seller should know the difference.
In the case of suing the downloaders of songs, I've heard (I have no source, sorry) that proving (in a court of law) the downloader didn't legitimately own the CD at one point is difficult, more difficult than just suing someone who is uploading.
@billy the lawyer
can i get a citation on that or some proof because this is how i hear it is like it?
i can borrow something for for 23:59 minute but if i get rid of it in that last minute it isnt illegal?
Right?
Billy, the one who says he's a lawyer confirms, without stating it, that the ACT OF DOWNLOADING is not illegal. What happens afterward is open to debate.
This boils down to morals:
1.) The RIAA shouldn't pressure the artists to produce crap and then try to sell it as the best thing since sliced bread.
2.) You shouldn't take things that aren't yours. And when you do, you damn well shouldn't feel good doing it.
(more morals are involved, I just don't feel like writing it)
Ok, so maybe most people have illegally downloaded music. That doesn't make it right. And the RIAA doesn't sue everyone because they don't want people to hate them more than everyone does. Miss Daisy or Mr T. don't make an appealing target to make a point out of… but kids these days, we have to teach them morals! So they go after college students and younger that just think its acceptable because "everyone has downloaded a song." No, its not right.
I'm pretty sure that included with every CD and software package that you agree to an EULA that says in some form that, "You do not have express permission to do whatever you want at your discretion." Maybe with more words, I dunno…I haven't bought a CD in years.
But what you agree to when you crack that impervious plastic saran-wrap coating is that you will not use the materials encased other than for the intent of the producer. That is where the laws come in. You may think this applies only to the person using their magic to distribute it on the internet, but the person downloading does not have the express permission from the first producer to complete that download. Thus, more indirectly, you are breaking the EULA, but are at fault as well.
But, I'm in as much fault as anyone I guess: those CD's make hellova frisbee's! So I guess they have the right to sue me as well??
And Johnny's right… its those gas prices!
A'kinda on the subject' question…do the re-sale cd/dvd shops pay a fee to RIAA? I mean it is reselling an already sold music/movie item for a profit…right?
On the ethics and logic of piracy litigation…
I shouldn't have to lecture anyone in the know about how the RIAA has gone about dealing with illegal music downloads ever since the advent of Napster. I've come across a blog post by Richard Cunningham, who writes on this issue and raises…
As someone posted on digg, explains it perfectly, it is illegal, as much as you would like to think that you can find some technicality or loophole there is none. Downloading is illegal. Credit to jacobsor from digg for this.
"Downloading isn't illegal. You're simply accessing something that was out there on the Internet. SHARING (uploading) is illegal."
Absolutely, totally wrong. I'm sorry, but anyone who believes in this day and age that downloading copyrighted files off P2P networks is legal must have his head buried in the sand. You can disagree with the law all you want and try to change it, but none of this changes what the current law *is.*
Copyright infringement is making a copy of a copyrighted file (or other recorded work) without the permission of the author/owner of the copyright. When you download a file, you are making a copy. Before there was one copy on the server and zero on your hard drive. Now there is one on the server, and one on your hard drive. This is copyright infringement.
FAQ from the United States Copyright Office:
"Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
"Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights. … Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks."
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html#p2p
The law is right here.
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/index.html
Summaries are right here.
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/index.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/piracy/
Yes, there are limited exemptions for "fair use." No, they don't apply to garden-variety file sharing. Every court that has considered the issue has concluded that ordinary file sharing of copyrighted materials is copyright infringement (uploading or downloading).
Anon wrote:
"if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed"
Damn … those 3000 tracks on my hard disk are looking expensive …. mind you … it's gonna take me a while down the mine to save up the $450 million fine … better load them all on my mp3 player to while away the time.
http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Downloading_Pirated_Anything_Is_NOT_Illegal
Read the post by jacobsor, couldn't be any clearer than that. You are wrong.
How about the fact that most music and video on the internet is not in it's original form (mp3, avi, ogg, FLAC, etc.)? In order to rip a CD to an mp3 you have to actually change the recording and remove data, hence the term lossy compression. Interestingly enough the RIAA is suing for possession of a sound file that simply sounds like an original recording. If the data isn't exactly the same how can they be sure that I'm not just a very good cover artist?
Well, Mr. Anon, I already barked up that tree and there ain't no cat. The author of the post neglected to read the Home Audio Recording Act which covers one archival copy, without regard to the source of the media. So no, downloading a pirated file is still not illegal based on the cited sources.
What about torrents?
Is downloading torrents (which includes also upload) illegal?
ju
this issue is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. you people think that the media producers really care about this downloading issue or better yet the corporations that market them. let me remind you these are the same people selling us Tivo, VCRs, PDAs, cell phones with multimedia.. etc. etc. you think one song/movie/application makes a difference in thier bottom line. come on i just bought a new laptop costing $1400 with features available to copy media and marketed as such.
a buddy of mine had a nice collection of VCR tapes and now is expected to buy replacement DVDs to accommodate his DVD Blueray player to go along with his DLP 50' HDTV which cost him back a pretty penny. Oh yeah its fair that these media corporation make more profit of off him after purchasing thier big ticket item.
Right, we are stealing from the artist that created the music/movies/games that we love.
And its not Sony, RCA, Microsoft etc, etc, that are the ones that profiting more from the media content.
Shit. I sat for two hours watching a really crapy movie for $10 and wow did i really feel ripped off. Or ,this is a really good one, buying a CD for $15 that i only really like one song in. and i know that you would suggest i only buying the single, but for $5 i rather buy a blank CD and copy 15 songs.
yeah right, illigal downloading of media really hurts the industry. more like shipping our jobs overseas for cheap labor(which most of this media is manufactured and are illigally copied and distributed)and no environmental protection is hurting our world.
[...] out the case law and the laws on the books. Downloading pirated ANYTHING is not illegal!read more | digg story Posted in Uncategorized | RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack [...]
Where does it say a backup copy is not copyright infringement?
I know in Ireland it is against copyright law to put music bought on a cd onto an mp3 player as this is making an illegal digital copy. You do not own the information on a cd you only own the rights to listen to it form that medium. Obviously this is not acted upon, yet.
Mr T, perhaps I should have specified this was in the U.S. According to the Home Audio Recording Act (a U.S. law), Americans are allowed to make an archival copy of the media they own. This is to allow them to protect their investment.
The following release from the US DOJ seems to indicate that at least 3 of the persons mentioned here were arrested based on their "downloading" of pirated software and music/movies to a work computer.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/sarnaCharge.htm
Six Formerly Associated with Fox Cable Charged with Copyright Infringement for Running Warez Site that had Pirated Movies, Software Six former employees and consultants of Fox Cable Networks (FCN) in West Los Angeles were charged with conspiring to commit criminal copyright infringement for establishing and using a “warez” site on Fox’s computer network that contained copyrighted movies and computer software.
A criminal complaint filed in federal court in Los Angeles accused the six of using computer equipment at Fox to upload, store and allow the distribution of pirated copies of software, games and commercial films.
The six charged today are:
- Kevin Sarna, 36, of Lomita, formerly an infrastructure consultant at FCN
- Jonathan O’Brien, 30, formerly of Tustin, a former network engineer at FCN
- Christopher Willis, 31, of Los Angeles, formerly a network engineer at FCN
- Lisa Yamamoto, 45, of Los Angeles, a former message system and services administrator at FCN
- Peter Mariano, 25, of Reseda, formerly a network administrator at FCN
- Garry Martin, 32, of Hawthorne, a former manager of desktop/user support at FCN
All six are charged together with a single count of conspiracy count and separately with overt acts of uploading and downloading copyrighted software and movies. The defendants will be summoned to appear in United States District Court in Los Angeles in the coming weeks.
This case began with an internal investigation by Fox, which in late 2003 found a “file transfer protocol” (FTP) server on its computer network that contained pirated material. Fox contacted the United States Secret Service at the LA Electronic Crimes Task Force for assistance, and special agents from the Secret Service and FBI investigated the case.
According to the criminal complaint, Sarna, O’Brien and Willis were the alleged leaders of a “warez” group, which is an organization that duplicates copyrighted software, including pirated computer software, console games and theatrical movies. Sarna, O’Brien and Willis allegedly operated and maintained the FTP server, which contained illegally duplicated material, such as the movies “Daddy Day Care,” “Blind Date,” “The Matrix Reloaded,” and “X-Men 2.” The FTP server allowed others to download the pirated material via the Internet.
Yamamoto, Mariano, and Martin allegedly downloaded large amounts of data from the warez server while they worked at Fox. This data included movies such as “Windtalkers,” “Jimmy Neutron,” and “Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood.” The charge of conspiracy carries a maximum possible penalty of five years in federal prison, while each count of criminal copyright infringement carries a potential penalty of three years in prison. A criminal complaint contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
This case is the result of an investigation by the United States Secret Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which received the assistance of Fox Cable Network.
Release No. 04-072
I would love to see what they were actually charged with.
I want to make something clear. I'm arguing that downloading pirated files ISN'T illegal. I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong, ethical or unethical.
There seems to be a lot of confusion here, some of which, at least is due to terminology rather than statute and case law interpretation. I hope to be able to clarify one or two points.
There is a difference between possession, copying and downloading. We may possess, say a CD, legally (i.e. purchased from shop) or illegally (purchased on the black market). We are able to make a copy of the CD (i.e. burn), and the copy may be lawful (such as when ripping the CD into iTunes) or it may not (such as when we burn hundreds of CDs without authorization to sell them for profit). Finally, the act of downloading may very well be legal (such as when we download a copy we bought from iTunes or when we download a copy of a CD we have lawfully purchased) or we may download it illegally, such as when we use a torrent search and get hold of music we do not have the right to use. Copyright law in the United States covers all of the above situations. A couple of points worth making.
1) Protected subject matter: Copyright applies to literary works, musical works, dramatic works, movies, derivative works, sound recordings, computer programs and databases, among others.
In addition to this, and irrespective of the outcome of the civil dispute, the state may institute CRIMINAL proceedings against copyright infringer. This is normally done for wilful infringement for commercial advantage or profit.
2) Conditions of protection: works must be original but need not be officially registered.
3) Duration of protection: life of the author + 70 years
4) Copyright holder: the owner of the copyright (author or person to whom the author has transferred, e.g. sold, the rights) has moral AND economic rights.
5) Economic rights include the right to reproduce (make copies). Making copies includes making digital copies. Digital copy is made as soon as a work is downloaded into the memory/hard disk of the computer. Therefore, strictly speaking, a violation occurs whenever a copy is made without a previous authorization of the copyright holder. Therefore, when we download and we have the authorization, we do not violate copyright. When we download and we do not have the permission, the infringing act (violation of the "exclusive right to copy referred to in §501) occurs at the moment when a copy of the work is made, i.e. when it ends up on the hard drive.
6) Even if there is, strictly speaking, a violation, certain acts may be permitted. The most typical is the so-called “fair use”, such as reproduction for criticism, comment, teaching, news reporting, research, etc.
7) Infringement procedure: if there is an infringement, the copyright owner may institute CIVIL proceedings. They may ask for an injunction (to stop the infringement), for seizure of goods, for damages suffered, any additional profit, any statutory damages and any costs and fees incurred.
9) The NET Act 1997 also introduce criminal penalties in cases where, in any 180-day period, a person has wilfully reproduced or distributed one or more copies for the total retail value of $1000. Similar provisions exist for computer programs.
10) Copyright law in the USA is very complex and very difficult to understand, even without thinking about digital copyright. Those who are interested in why this is the case may wish to read Jessica Litman’s excellent “Digital Copyright”, published by Prometheus Books in 2006.
11) Copyright law as currently applied to the Internet is very restrictive and has been extensively criticized by many. The books, papers, web sites are too many to mention. A good start is to look at Electronic Frontier Foundation’s page.
For reference, the American law that applies to copyright includes:
a) Copyright Act 1976
b) Visual Artists Rights Act 1990
c) Anti Circumvention Consumer Protection Act 1996
d) No Electronic Theft Act (NET) 1997
e) Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998
f) Copyright Term Extension Act 1998
To summarize, weather something downloaded from the Internet will be legal or illegal will depend on a number of factors. At present, it is safe to say that it will be illegal whenever the perpetrator has not obtained rights from the copyright holder AND is not covered by one of the exceptions he/she may raise as a defense in proceedings (fair use, libraries, etc.). This is true of anything that forms subject matter of copyright (music, videos, books, software).
I know many kids get caught downloading from torrents while on campus but I was wondering is their anyway a network admin can figure out that you're downloading pirated movies through http means like rapidshare or will it just look like a large download?
He could notice that it's coming from a file sharing site/IP, that it's being pulled from multiple IPs at once (which is unusual) or just take a look at the file itself. If you're pulling through their server, they can get it too. Assuming it doesn't keep a temporary copy.
I'm sure there are more complex options, but those should be enough.
rt cunningham, are you even reading some of these posts? people have clearly explained why its illegal to download copyright material… and you seem to just be choosing to ignore whats been said.
[...] read more | digg story [...]
Please see the following case law:
See Napster at 1014; In re: Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 645 (7th Cir. 2003)(hereinafter “Aimster”); Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 259 F.Supp. 2d 1029, 1034-35 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (hereinafter “Kazaa”).
Since there seem to be a lot of people on here who know a lot about these laws, I'd like to ask a question. Where does the law stand if one is downloading, say music, that at one time was sold, but cannot be found anywhere anymore. It is out of print. Used copies cannot be found. It cannot be downloaded from any legal site (iTunes, etc). Is that illegal? I would buy it if I could, but that isn't an option.
I believe everyone is missing a fine point here. In the examples give all the people where uploading as well as downloading. What the original post was about was that downloading is not illegal. I believe what the original post was tring to say was that if you download something and it stops there and goes no further it's not Illegal since your not sure if it's pirated or not. Also if it where it's near impossible to prove that the downloader did not own a copy of said file that was legal before hand.
Do you ever look at the profit some movies make in a single week at the box office? These actors and musicians are over payed and worshiped like gods in the tabloids. The companies that produce the material are just as over payed. If they stop charging us so much and started making better quality then the piracy would slow down (it will never stop).
(sorry if this double post i got an error the first try)
To the letter of the law, downloading a file is not illegal.
However, that is not the only thing to be considered. Consider the INTENT of the law. Do you have a reasonable suspicion that what you are downloading is copyrighted material that you are not licensed for? Does "Harry Potter.avi" give you any reasonable clue that the file might contain copyrighted material? I think so, watch where you tread, intent to commit a crime is not a good moral thing, but then again I think the copyright laws are morally wrong as well.
To the letter of the law, downloading a file is not illegal.
If you just download something say "a.avi" and you do not look at it, it does not protect you from having downloaded some copyrighted material.
So, if the police comes and checks the material and it is copyrighted and you were not allowed to copy it, you are guilty.
The fact of not knowing what you have downloaded, even while downloading, does not help.
Law is an ambiguous thing, no matter how much it protests to be otherwise.
Copyright means that you control the rights to all the copies of your work. So the only way to infringe on copyright (outside of derivative works) is to make a copy. So let us look at a peer to peer network or warez site and figure out the ramifications as best we can.
1) Warez site/P2P has an unauthorized copy. You have an authorization to make a copy (personal backup, fair use, etc). You download the file.
The "unauthorized" part will follow all copies derived from any unauthorized copies. Your downloaded file should be unauthorized by that logic. But you could argue that since this is simply a copy of material that you are authorized to copy, your copy is in compliance even though the source copy was not.
Expect a legal battle on this issue.
2) Warez or P2P site has an authorized copy. You have no authorization to download. You download the file.
Now you are in possession of a file that you know does not have a copyright. Knowingly being in possession of this sort of material will look very bad to a jury. You personally made the copy from the authorized copy on the warez site (leaving out the legality of THEIR actions, YOU are on trial here…
. Does anyone really think they can get 12 people to agree with their point of view?
You can TRY to throw the blame back on the Warez site. You can say, "Look, it is like they had a big machine with a button that said "FREE MOVIES." I pushed the button and got my free movie. How was I supposed to know that their machine was illegal?
That will be a legal battle as well.
So the act of downloading could be EITHER illegal OR legal, depending on your circumstances and how well you argue your case in court. But you won't get a judge to throw out a case by saying, "But I was just DOWNLOADING, your Honor!"
? I don't know why my other post got cut off, but here is the whole thing:
RT, you mentioned the following in a post above: Billy, the only lawyer here, said that downloading wasn't illegal. Well, that is not what Billy said at all. He said it was not illegal IF…. (yes IF!!!) It is not illegal if you meet certain criteria. It is, therefore, illegal if you do not meet the exceptions. So, stop stating that downloading is not illegal or a form of copyright infringement.
I'm not an attorney (yet), but I am in my last semester of law school, and I can tell you that it is illegal in almost every circumstance.
My understanding is that simple downloading is a rather gray area legally (I'm not a lawyer) and becomes a crime only if certain other conditions also occur. One such condition would be verifying the downloaded file actually contained copyright protected material whether or not it was accurately named.
The key I think is that "file sharing" virtually by definition involves uploading portions of a file while simultaneously downloading it. You may not be liable for the as yet unverifiable file you are downloading but by uploading a file with the name of some copyrighted material you are assumed to have knowledge and intent of what you are doing. Technically you still don't know for sure what's in the file but the fact that you are abetting the unauthorized distribution of a file which at that point can only be presumed to be accurately named makes it hard to claim ignorance or innocence.
Then too, with bit torrents your IP address is recorded in the torrent making you an easy target and providing evidence of uploading.
In summary then, it strikes me that pure and simple downloading is not illegal although it may lead to illegal use of the material afterwards. P2P file sharing which involves ANY reciprocal uploading is where the legal problems occur, although the RIAA et al seem to blur their terminology as much as possible to group downloading in with uploading and sharing violations. This is evidenced by RIAA (and MPAA for that matter) lawsuit practices. They don't just look at the trigger violation, they browse your shared directory for other files. They then assume that since these files are in a shared directory you are implicitly sharing/uploading them automatically upon request and they will sue you for the total number of appropriately named files they count in your directory.
At least this is the best sense I've been able to make out of this mess….
"Well, Mr. Anon, I already barked up that tree and there ain’t no cat. The author of the post neglected to read the Home Audio Recording Act which covers one archival copy, without regard to the source of the media. So no, downloading a pirated file is still not illegal based on the cited sources."
"Mr T, perhaps I should have specified this was in the U.S. According to the Home Audio Recording Act (a U.S. law), Americans are allowed to make an archival copy of the media they own. This is to allow them to protect their investment."
In reference to the Home Audio Recording Act, which is it, legal to download media with no regard to the source of the media or media you own. Make up your mind. You have no arguement here and you keep trying to make up a new defense when someone proves you wrong. Face it, you are wrong.
I just reread what you wrote. I didn't contradict myself. I just used the wrong word of "source" instead of "type". The word "source" was too general, meant to mean the type of media (CD, downloaded form iTunes, etc.). When you look for contradictions, you'll find them. Does it make you feel better to think you're right about something?
The real crime is the tariff that countries like my native Canada charge on every recordable media, regardless of what will be recorded on it, for the purposes of reimbursing the artists for their supposed losses. No, that's not it, but the funds NOT going to the artist is! That's the case here. That's why downloading music files is NOT illegal. There is no applicable Canadian law for other types of download.
Uploading is not legal here.
I put my $0.02 in (its actually more than that for the tariff, BTW) to illustrate that there are differences between nations regarding this issue. RT was referring to US law, and I don't see any evidence that there is a law that disallows or claims illegality for downloading, either. Just be sure you don't share, as that's distribution.
actually when you download a file, you are indeed making a copy of the original. (unless the one that resides on the uploader's computer is destroyed as you download) so if copying is illegal then downloading must also be illegal. end of debate I would say
FIRST: I am NOT an attorney—or lawyer, just a person who has dealt with law at the grass roots level.
To prove that what is asserted is true (that Downloading Pirated…I NOT Illegal)—well, look at WHOM the cited act (§ 501. Infringement of copyright)applies to:
501-Subsection(a) "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 …"
OK—so WHO is "Anyone"—remember this is a LEGAL document—well it tells you WHO "anyone" is, in regards to the act.
The word "includes", used in legal construction is a means of limiting the application. The priciple is best expressed as such:
Common Law Maxims:
The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. 11 Coke, 58b.
"expressio unius est exclusio alterius" – A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.-Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
From Black's Law Dictionary:
Include. (Lat. inclaudere, to shut in, to keep within.) To confine within, hold as in an enclosure, take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve. Term may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a particular thing already included within general words theretofore used. "Including" within statute is interpreted as a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as well as a word of limitation.
(apologies for the legalese here, but it is necessary).
So—having established that, WHO is "anyone" within this legal purview?
501-Subsection(a)-continues: "As used in this subsection, the term “anyone” includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity".
Soooo—while the law SEEMS to reference something called a "nongovernmental entity" (who knows what that is) this law would, by legal definition apply entities ascribed as "State".
Don't know about you, but I am not any of the entities described above. I would be a "man" or person as a legal definiton. I presume most here would also.
This is not legal "nit picking" statutes must be constructed precisely and language, as presented by Mr. Black is, the currency. Most cases will apply to CORPORATE entities under commercial law, and not individuals.
This why RIAA is now losing cases, and have turned from suing families, whose children downloaded songs, to trying to convince hapless dupes, such as college students, to voluntarily "settle" with them. When you volunteer to "settle", you aquiesce to jurisdiction—even if it does not "include" you!
Applying "Work for Hire" Laws to Software
=========================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire
Most software companies are misusing the "Work for Hire" copyright laws. Work for Hire laws are indented for companies to hire people to create artistic work or software for their own use, it is not intended for companies to resell the software created on "Work for Hire". To resell an artistic work as per copyright laws, entity selling copyright should pay royalty for each copy to the author of the work. If software companies are not paying author/s of software for every copy sold then the buyer of the software "automatically" get the right to make copies and resell them, because the software buyer is essentially buying software as "Work for Hire" form the software publisher and same copyright laws applies for the
"software publisher" as well as the "software buyer" isn't it?
For the software publisher to get the "right" for resale they should pay royalty to software author/s for each copy of the software sold.
Ok…. I think people are taking this too far.. the RIAA and other people who think copying data is illegal don't look at the fact that they are prohibiting us from using a set of 0's and 1's … thats like saying if you hear a song and play the notes on an instrument you are copying copyrighted information thus you are doing something illegal… now if you look at it its like you are taking a 1 and a 0 duplicating it many times and rearranging it the same way someone else did and now you are breaking the law.. wheres the justice? Welcome to America the "free states" HAH!
I know I said I wouldn't do it, but I can't resist. Too many people read way too much into this post. It was more of a personal rant than anything else.
The point is that DOWNLOADING in itself (regardless of what's being downloaded) isn't illegal in itself. If it is, then everyone on the Internet is constantly breaking the law since everything you receive on your computer is DOWNLOADED. And that, my friends, is just plain ridiculous.
mind control. they just want to take away our freedoms and enslave us. their ability to manipulate law to stay in business is disgusting and it shows how large and powerful they have grown.
if lawsuits and rewriting the constitution weren't an option, they'd be force to compete in the free market for the good of the whole just like every other business. what happened to 'the customer is always right'? now it's, 'cuff 'em, boys!' or 'hey this kid i pulled over for speeding has burned cds–lets confiscate them!'
our prisons are full enough.
fortunately i don't subscribe to hollywood. i rarely see movies, listen to music, or the radio anymore–it's just too disappointing. plus, there is more valuable stuff to be pirating than that… this is the information age–it's about the truth. the truth is not what you see on the tv. the truth is out there (on the Internet!)
Whoops did I say pirate? I meant download…
better stuff to download than that
Yeah im going to have to agree with RT how can u define downloading a persons files without their permission when every website we enter has media on it that we download. I can also see where he is coming from saying that How can we know at the time of download that what we are downloading isnt authored by the person who you downloaded it off.File names are meaningless on the internet and anyone who hasnt been tricked into downloading something they didnt want *cough* porn *cough* obviously hasnt had much experience on the world wide web.
All this said i live in Australia so laws are probably different
I wanted to take a moment and respond to Anon and paste what both I and he wrote:
“Well, Mr. Anon, I already barked up that tree and there ain’t no cat. The author of the post neglected to read the Home Audio Recording Act which covers one archival copy, without regard to the source of the media. So no, downloading a pirated file is still not illegal based on the cited sources.”
“Mr T, perhaps I should have specified this was in the U.S. According to the Home Audio Recording Act (a U.S. law), Americans are allowed to make an archival copy of the media they own. This is to allow them to protect their investment.”
In reference to the Home Audio Recording Act, which is it, legal to download media with no regard to the source of the media or media you own. Make up your mind. You have no arguement here and you keep trying to make up a new defense when someone proves you wrong. Face it, you are wrong.
My response: If you put something into the context that you want, you can make it sound like I said anything. If you own an original, the source of the copy is irrelevant. That is what is meant and that is all. By the way, I'm not trying to defend anything. I published my opinion. No one has proven anything here, on either side of the argument, because this isn't a forum with any authority. It's a collection of words, phrases, and sentences, nothing more.
Downloading itself as an act is NOT Illegal. It is what you download.
That's the point, in a nutshell. People tend to knee-jerk react when they think they've read something they haven't.
RT: Sorry to be so blunt, but if that is the point it seems to be a bit pointless (pun not intended). It is like saying: it is not whether you have a gun or not, it’s what you do with it. The really important issue is rather: should we be allowed to download even if we know that the material is illegal/pirated, because the overall benefit to society outweighs the harm to individual copyright holders (usually greedy and sometimes evil). That is what you should be arguing instead of all this semantic nonsense about the meaning of the concept of downloading. So, I think you are making an important and interesting point, just not very coherently.
Rapidmonkey: if the copyright holder is unknown and they have not explicitly given permission, you are still violating the law if you are downloading their (abandoned) stuff. It is just not very likely that there will be anybody around to take you to court. Some corporations go out of business and it becomes unclear who holds copyright. Some others explicitly put it into public domain (freeware software, etc.)
Randy Maugans: you are wrong. The word “includes” means exactly what it says: includes but is not limited to. S. 501 is not meant only to apply to states and indeed it does not. These words simply clarify that the section applies to individuals AND to states. Also, RIAA is not losing any cases. None of the cases against individuals even went to court. RIAA is using bullying strategy to force these people to settle, as none of them have the money to fight the case in court. Finally, a mistake was made when MPAA accused Shawn Hogan of downloading “Meet the Fockers”. He is claiming he did not and even if he had, he owned the DVD. More importantly, he has the money and will fight them in court. If he wins, this will establish a precedent that MPAA and RIAA would not welcome. So fingers crossed for Shawn. (www.shawnhogan.com)
Ethiopian: Early American digital copyright cases indeed held that downloading anything into the memory of a computer amounts to an illegal act of copying. According to that logic, browsing the web (where pages are cached on the hard drive and are in the memory) is copyright violation. Fortunately, we have progressed from there.
Dane: I'm sorry. I'm not a professional writer and if it seems incoherent, that's why. If I screw up the legalese, it's because I'm not a lawyer. I never intended this to be anything more than a personal rant because of what I could not find. I never argued for or against copyright infringement, but I did call the RIAA and MPAA attorneys liars and that seemed to be a Digg magnet that caught me unprepared. Had I thought it would be this controversial, I wouldn't have written the article.
You did well to write the article. If we are to regain any of the liberties we lost to RIAA, these issues need to be in public view all the time. All the debate just shows how complex these problems really are.
Copyright was initially intended as a very broadly defined right to which public was granted huge exceptions. In other words, we the public have said; you authors may have exclusive rights of exploitation for a limited time if we the public retain our right to fairly enjoy the works we have paid for. Instead of this, the limited amount of time is extended (Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act) every time Mickey Mouse ought to go out of copyright and technical measures are put in place to limit our fair use which the law grants us (DMCA Act 1998).
The good thing is that public always wins, albeit with battle wounds. The inventor of FM radio eventually committed suicide, harassed by the AM lot. That did not help them one bit, though, it just postponed the inevitable. If CD sales are going down, that is because electronic downloads are going up, whether they are legal or illegal. Instead of suing individuals, RIAA ought to have put their act together and competed like iTunes by providing a legal alternative. But they seem to be too slow for that.
[...] read more | digg story [...]
Can't we all just get along?
Excellent article Richard. Got a few people discussing it.
http://goldcoaster.wordpress.com
@dane
When you say that downloading anything to your computer is illegal i assume that the laws changed if im correct what did they change too. What im asking is how can u be sure when you download something off the internet who exactely the original author of that piece is. When you are downloading something Say it says its freeware from a site and you end up downloading say visual basic. How can you be sure that visual basic wasnt freeware if you had never seen it before. Does this mean you have commited a crime unwillingly obtaining a copyrighted program? Can someone be charged under US law wen their hard drive contains illegally downloaded media. In such a case wouldnt only the uploader be viable for prosecution and if not The system is pretty fucked up. Its like a person saying to a grandma heres some pension money and the police coming round saying that its drug money and arresting the grandma. Though this is an event for laughter here in the great land of Ozztralia. Its ok to do it here since no one remembers us since Steve irwin died. Ok sorry bout off topic but wouldnt u say prosecuting the downloader is quite cruel.
-Ethiopian (Australian)
I am working on a project where I must download music and movies to use in this project in a fair use manner, of course manyI find nothing suitible in them after review and delete it within 24 hours, sound kinda safe, plus i might have heard the song on the radio or seen the movie in a theater, prove otherwise. (or I was given the cd, lost it and now the download is my 'backup')
How come article has dropped from 20,000 down to 1,000 and a heap less comments?
http://goldcoaster.wordpress.com
If you look at the last line of the post, you'll see "[21018/10]". The first number is the number it was at when I dropped it to 10 manually. It has risen to 1003 since then. The number of comments didn't change. You may just have remembered more from here as well as the Digg comments.
[...] Downloading Pirated Anything Is NOT Illegal – I read every bit of information I could find, including case law. [â?¦] Guess what? I could not find a single line in any act that said that downloading anything was illegal, or even anything that could be construed to mean it. Talking about can of wo [...]
You people that are saying downloading is illegal, are fucking pissing me off.
Given:
1. The constitution supersedes all law.
2. It guarantees free speech.
3. The upload/download transaction is speech.
Therefore,
1. The first amendment guarantees upload/download.
2. Upload/download is legal.
Assholes.
Oh, is that not enough to convice you retards?
Look at the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA).
From wikipedia: "The language of the act protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings regardless if the copy control technology is present or the royalty has been paid."
Interesting viewpoint and a very thought provoking article. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the subject.
Great comments too. What a mixed bag…
This one has some really pissed off folks shouting at each other. I remember being so amuzed by this post. You really stirred up a hornets nest here and I enjoyed the ride. Peace to you and yours RT.
Well, I'm no lawyer, so I'll just open a beer and watch while all of you fight it out. Whether or not downloading is illegal is a moot point to me. Stealing is morally wrong, I think downloading something without paying is stealing (unless offered to you by the creator). I try not to steal.
And then on into the gray area….. if someone emails you a joke or article and you put it on your blog without knowing the original author, but the piece has changed hands a thousand times and been modified and who knows where it came from, are you stealing?
This topic has more "legs" than a centipede. One final thought (for Tim):
Morality and legality are two separate issues, as anyone who has been inside the world of law knows well. With the advent of digital recording, now almost 20 years ago (remember Digital Audio Tape (DAT)?), the recording industry KNEW they had a problem.
Napster and the rise of MP3 drove home that point, so the monolithic record companies did what any good predator does: they tried to use brute force to KILL it. The problem pre-dated digital: 25 years ago the RIAA was bloody screaming over the now-defunct audio cassette.
Fact is, change is opportunity, IF one is willing to adapt (call it "Corporate Darwinism"). The recording giants squandered precious time and capital battling the inevitable—the END of analog media and licensing as we know it.
It took a (then) struggling computer company, Apple, with a product that resonated with millions to show the recording industry how to sell their own product to a new generation who wanted to get music without buying plastic boxes. It took hackers and ad-hoc networks across the 'net to show them how music is just 1's and 0's.
It is now too late for the old world of the recording business. A new generation of artists (and a few of the last generation, such as Paul McCartney)will now show these corporate dodo birds HOW to get people to BUY the music instead of using peer-to-peer "sharing".
Like the hackers who exploit security weaknesses to demonstrate weaknesses in computer system, the 'pirates' are the best friends the music industry has—IF…IF they would learn. They didn't…they die.
Now I go to an artist's website or MySpace, listen to their offerings, get involved in the social network, emotionally buy in to the vibe and an artist sells music—and they get PAID for it.
Karma is a horrible teacher, For well 80 years the big record companies royally screwed artists and composers (Google "musicians, royalties and lawsuits" to see a small fraction of the litigation). Justice is inexorable, operating through, sometimes, circuitous means. When the last corporate giant fires its CEO and locks the door th battle will be over.
#
Tim on June 7th, 2007 at 7:20 am (Reply)
Well, I’m no lawyer, so I’ll just open a beer and watch while all of you fight it out. Whether or not downloading is illegal is a moot point to me. Stealing is morally wrong, I think downloading something without paying is stealing (unless offered to you by the creator). I try not to steal.
And then on into the gray area….. if someone emails you a joke or article and you put it on your blog without knowing the original author, but the piece has changed hands a thousand times and been modified and who knows where it came from, are you stealing?
[...] appeared on the Untwisted Vortex blog (March 20th, 2007, circulated through Digg), entitled "Downloading Pirated Anything Is NOT Illegal" by RT Cunningham. I took the time to add my own twisted take to the article, and have [...]
[...] Maugans on June 7th, 2007 at 9:34 am (Reply) This topic has more "legs" than a centipede. One final thought (for [...]
whoo..lot of comments here..
I just wanted to add that in
Switzerland isn't illegal to download anything, but you can't share upload stuff.
You don't find a lot of info about in on the net and that's ok. Legal != Moral
(even if "some-music/film" != moral/decent too)
Food for thought, you download files constantly while you are on the internet.
Ever listen to (legal) online radio?
Well you've downloaded every one of those songs you listened to.
Ever watched a movie, listened to a song, looked at a painting, etc, online?
You downloaded it.
I'm not claiming anything here in the way of whether or not downloading is illegal, just stating a fact you may want to consider.
Well, when talking about piracy, isnt taping a movie off TV or making a tape of your friends CD also piracy? I mean there has to be a lot of people that have done that. The RIAA is not taking an equal stand on piracy and seems to only be going after those who download songs illegally on a computer. Hell im sure that many RIAA employees have either taped a move from TV or one of their friends CDs. Piracy has been going on for years, but the introduction of the internet has made it much easier, so more people do it, and it is more noticeable. I think that piracy is illegal, yet I still do it. I dont have the $20 to go out and buy a new CD. All I want to do is listen to some music.
Joining in the brawl
Hi, all… this racket over "downloading" boils down to what LAW is. I always consider LAW as something the big Money uses to protect its interest when faced with a possibility of losing profit. Due to its nature, LAW always come *after* the emergence of a new possibility, an opening up of a new horizon where a lot of people will be able to take a bite on the lionshare of wealth currently deposited in a handful of Powerfuls.
Thus the LAW will always be OBSOLETE. The case presented by Randy Maughans is but a simple proof of this. When progress is made, the Big M will scramble to protect its interests. But when the Law is written, new ways are already in the making. Like a cat that is endlessly chasing the ball of twine.
And there is no point in debating what is right or wrong. I live in Indonesia, where LAW is regularly used to repress human rights. Is following the LAW to the letter an expression of justice?
Isn't it stated in the US of A's Declaration of Independence that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. … That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Thus, abusing the unjust LAW is just
– so to speak.
Where I live, LEGAL or ILLEGAL is a matter of POWERPLAY – even when your rights are clearly protected by LAW, you still could lose your case in the court.
I don't pretend to know black from white. To do that would be preaching, and I hate preachers. But I do what I feel just. And brave the consequences should it falls on me.
So, let's just lend our full support to OPENSOURCE and FREEWARES. That would solve all the legit problems in the world, I hope so….
[...] the controversy that has again spiked massive hits at Untwisted Vortex under the "Downloading Pirated Anything Is NOT Illegal" thread. Today I got a notification of a response to my comments : Author: TripleSeven Comment: [...]
I like the use of language in legal documents and since you've studied this subject in depth…
You say downloading is not illegal but does that also apply to using what you've downloaded?
i.e. is it legal to download a movie but illegal to watch it?
Unless you know before hand that you're downloading an illegal copy, it's not illegal (a copyright infringement) until you watch it/listen to it.
Until you're sued by the copyright holder (or in the case of the NET act, caught by the authorities) it's all a matter of perspective.
Good notes. Thanks, RT!
These laws are certainly made to spread fear and confusion. Originally meant to protect the interest of the content producers, but have gotten to the point where the organizations are using lawsuits to fatten their wallets instead of protecting the content.
I think pirated software is the most common in the world, Software release, and immediately the pirated version is released too, I don't know this is legal or not.
I think it is not legal RT.But I don't sure.
Goonie
[...] users to post information about the show. As RT from Untwisted Vortex pointed out in his articles – Downloaded Pirated Anything is not Illegal, and Followup to the Previous Article – the followup's included so that the whole story is [...]
Downloading movies/music isn't illegal in all countries, but in countries such as USA, it is definitely illegal to download and share unless it is for backup purposes.
You have to be always protected when downloading illegal stuff from torrent sites.
I gotta say, I downloaded all these comments on to the screen of my computer, and it sure took me a long time to read them
I make it a habit to buy my music and movies, and they give me a convenient hard copy.
Robert's last blog post..Research Before Buying an Outdoors Wood Stove Boiler
It all depends whare you live
In holland its legal to download movies and music but not software or games.
there are lots of site that offer music downloads. The unclear law would have allowed these site to operate.
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. This is stating a mere fact that downloading the music will def.have a way of catching up with you. It is a form of stealing
I download when I feel its worthless to buy..
mr.eims's last blog post..SEO – Total Search Engine Optimization Strategies
Nowdays you can sell your own music CD or DVD online with shipping from a company called Kunaki.
All you need is hosting, your own PayPal account and and some real music or DVD's that you can legally sell. The disks are drop shipped for you – anywhere in the world basically.
So I suppose this is opposite to what you're talking about here, whereas you can actually turn the tide and make money out of CDs and DVDs rather than download pirated stuff.
Brad Smith
DVD Distributor
I consider DMCA ineptly enough made
File sharing will never die, corporations will have to rethink their strategies to make their profits!
Newsgroups are by far the best way to download movies, music etc. You get the fastest downloads and its totally secure. Why use bittorrent?
easynews’s last blog post… Downloading with Easynews Global Search
Uhhhhhhh…. pirated means illegal, dodo head!!!!!!!
So you never mention exactly what is illegal. Who has the burden of proof. Would a user have to find out if a file was copyright protected before using it.
It is an interesting point though since all of the adds are targeted at the end user. I find it a bit disconcerting that they would use lies in their propaganda. It would seem that it would make them an easy target.
Phil
I may download music occasionally, but if I like the cd I usually end up buying it used off amazon or something like that. I mean I can get most of my favorite cd's of there for 4.50.
Well i can tell you that in recent days ive received several notifications from Charter Cable about Copyright contect being downloaded from illegal websites in torrent format, i pretty much dont pay any mind im moving anyway, and the internet service is going to be canceled, but what i want to say is that im Pro-Download what ever i want, wether to download pirated work is each persons responsiblity (this coming from a man with a collection of over 2000 AVI dvd rip movies). And no they never have proof that your downloading copyright work because a file may say Jumper.avi but not necesarilly is what its called, they are just seeing what youre downloading and assuming that it is a illegal copy because of the name and thats a serious legal accusation for an assumption, has anybody heard of any cases of somebody suing back. Well gents remmenber its your responsibility what you download so download at your own risk, but if you want the most up to date collection of torrent movies in perfect dvdrip quality go to http://www.superfundo.org the rippers i trust are AXXO (world infamous), FXM, FXG, BUGZBUNNY has good classics.
TATA
Downloading Pirated Music is not a good move any way you look at it.
@John Morgan: Yes, we all know that downloading copyrighted materials is illegal, but still the media companies lose billions from pirating. The question here should they ask is why do people prefer to download movies and music from the internet and not buy it? Isn't it because it is easier? Yes, there are cases where people intentionally don't want to give money in order to buy a product, but in case I download anything something from the internet, it is because I believe it is not worth the money and it is just for testing purposes.
At some point in the whole piracy saga…. it a little known fact that you could actually DOWNLOAD for free…. storing it for more than 24 hours on any type of hard dismk or storage device such as a DVD or CD was illegal, but not the actual act itself.
But I have no clue know… it's along the same concept as you mentioned, with regards needing to be able to test/preview the downloaded file before knowing it is truly pirated.
I'm reviewing the DMCA in my head and realizing, despite it's stringent rules in other areas, it doesn't talk about receiving copyrighted materials. Only distributing or creating a way they could be distributed (such as a VCR or DVD player).
Brent2’s last blog post… Make Artists Sound Better In Your Studio Than Anywhere Else (Part 2)
It depends where you live.It is not illegal at Hong Kong
@Games: No wonder that China is top in illegal CDs and pirating.
I totally agree, a friend tried to get on me about downloading tv shows? Seriously I like TV, but hes downloading torrent movies, etc..Which got me started and found this article.
downloading a file is not illegal.
god's last blog post… Fringe
My blog is music related.
I try not to put links to websites that promote piracy, but links to free songs and remixes.
Respect the authors and its works!
DeeJay – Dance Music Blog's last blog post… UEFA EURO 2008: DJs Like Football, Too
I agree with the idea that downloading a file is not illegal. Downloading is the way to go….soon we will be able to download lunch as well. Lol
My latest blog post: Who is Successful in Life
Thats funny brook i dont know how you are gonna dowload lunch man, but way to go dude…
Lol, I wonder who would own the copyrights for a downloadable lunch….
I do agree with your statement: [...There are many, many more downloaders of pirated music than there are uploaders.] So my response to your next question would be YES [Wouldn't it be more profitable and send a stronger signal if they were suing the downloaders for copyright infringement as well as the uploaders (file sharers)].
I download music all the time. I don't think it's illegal. Occasionally I'll buy a CD at full price but that is rare.
I download music and video too. But usually, if I going to download that file, I will buy a cd or dvd copy too. May be some people might think it's not a good way to do so, but I think the industry should change their way of doing business. Like let some people to review the videos or music first.
This is stupid but whatever: Is it illegal to give someone a "copy" of a plant that you bought which grew through vegetative propagation resulting in two copies? Whats the difference with a music file or downloading and copying that file?
Or.
What if that copy of the plant is taken from someone elses garden and distributed to others. Idk I'm trying to look at it in a different way..
Been awhile since I first read this. Looks like you really touched on a sensitive subject. I've found that when I want some music I ussually go to download it first but then soon realize I don't want to spend the time organizing it or whatever and end up buying it the next time I'm in town. Just lazy or spend so much time on a computer I don't want to spend anymore I guess.
Phil
Nice article with good tips and comments about (illegal) downloading and copying!
For all the readers from The Netherlands I have translated this article into the Dutch language. Just visit our website and send me an email (with a reference to this blog) to receive your free of charge copy.
very informative wish there could be more information as I like the point of view.
Of course it is illegal.
Well argued Madrid. I love it when people put that kind of thought into life.
My latest blog post: DUIs, Busses and 8 Year-Olds
[...] read more | digg story [...]
I still consider using anyones right for to make a living is steaing, there isn't a need to have a law just a very well reherssed argument in court
ya its illegal but who hasn't downloaded a few songs
Here in our country, that would be a no brainer. Everyone downloads and share mp3 freely.
Yeah of course it's illegal. If you do not know what you are downloading, you must not be very bright, and that is your own fault. Saying this in court will not work either, sorry. I know what you are saying about different file names, this does happen, but usually for viruses, not pirated material.
If you claim you were by intent trying to download a Britney Spears song which can't be any larger than a few megs, and you by accident downloaded a 400 meg program, installed it by accident (it happens to be Microsoft Office 2007, wahoo!), went through all the processes of cracking it with its detailed step by step instructions, the court will just laugh at you.
My latest blog post: Modulation
So you might not think it's illegal, but if you're unlucky you'll be litigated to an inch of your life…
My latest blog post: Bloglines Sucks
Other guys are hypocrite, not admitting that they have downloaded copyrighted stuffs in the net for free…
Good to know they got a lot of scared down loaders to pay up already. maybe if they knew this they would not of settaled
My latest blog post: Will Busby SEO Test links help our other serarch phrase’s?
Copyright laws need some serious reworking. What we've got now doesn't seem to be protecting anybody.
The copyright office itself needs some serious reworking. I remember writing a proposal in one of my corporate issues classes a few years ago.
Basically, I wanted to see them only show copyrighted information on a computer, with government issued photo ID and log of who looked at what. I also think it should only be accessible in the office itself, despite the computers.
Personally, I'd add a $1 charge for everything looked at and give 6 months for books to be released. That way Harry Potter doesn't have to wait until the last minute to get an official copyright (and risk someone else hitting it first).
My latest blog post: Cell Phone Support Sucks
This is all new to me. But what you presented certainly makes sense and I will definitely look into it more myself. Perhaps they really just need to go after the intentional file sharers rather than curious downloaders who may or may not be using the downloaded content.
I think Pirated music helps the original sale. The people who anyways buy originals won't turn to Pirated no matter what, and pirated music help to spread the word like forest fire that people come to know whats the hottest selling album and buy it.
My latest blog post: Maldives Islands – Pearls of The Indian Ocean
I think it's not illegal to download pirated anything. This is a new insight to me. THank you for pointing it out.
My latest blog post: Telluride Attractions – for Families Who Enjoy the Outdoors
Does not sound right concept to me. As I believe anything pirated is illegal. There is no way it can escape from the definitions of piracy, what say!
I believe you when you say you couldn't find anything law that said downloading is illegal. Much like how there is no law that states you have to pay your taxes in the states. Look it up.
My latest blog post: Maria Ozawa Lesbian Movie Released on…
I'm closing comments on this post as of right now. It's ridiculous to argue ethics and morality against a discussion about what's illegal and what's legal.
Copyright infringement is a civil matter and only illegal in the context of a lawsuit. It has nothing to do with criminal law except when the US NET act is involved (piracy rings).
In essence, with civil matters, illegal isn't illegal until the court decides on a specific case. Individual acts of piracy are not covered by criminal law and every lawyer who reads this should know that. This is why the RIAA and MPAA have to sue people to stop it from happening.
Think about it. You won't get arrested for downloading "Hancock" via a torrent file, but you might get sued.