What is "sharing" music

[divgradcurl]

1) When someone uses a P2P site (Limewire etc). HOW COME/ or WHAT MAKES some people want to use the feature that the site offers that allows "sharing" the music. Thus, WHY do people WANT to "share" music. What's the trend here? Do they KNOW the risk of being the "drug dealer"?

Two reasons. First, the "social" reason, is that without people to share, there wouldn't be anything to download. Sharing is the reason P2P system exist. Second, the practical reasons: novice P2P users may not realize that the default settings on the software is to share the music they download, and power users will adjust the settings on their software to make it excrutiatingly slow, or impossible, for leechers to share from their collection.

Finally, remember that P2P networks are worldwide, and that users in some countries may effectively be immune from lawsuits or other efforts to stop them from sharing. Afghanistan, for example, does not have copyright laws, so someone sharing from Afghanistan would not be doing anything illegal.

2) Does all "sharing" of music INVOLVE uploading files to Limewire etc OR is it just simply "moving" the music (mp3s) to the "shared" folder WITHIN the computer. IE: When I sell a car on Autotrader.com, I need to upload photos to their system.

Most P2P systems do not have an upload to a central service. They work by making files available to other users directly from your computer.

3a) What would happen if someone got caught downloading only ONE SONG (not sharing, just being a leech). And RIAA has evidence of only ONE song downloaded. What charges/cost would downloader face for just that one song? 3b) What happens if "sharing" ONE song. (I think it would be close to $10000 each song for question 3b, I think I heard)

The "statutory damages" for a single act of infringement range from $750 to $30,000. If the act is found to be "willful," the damages can go as high as $100,000. The court will choose a number within that range based on all of the facts of the situation, should such a case ever get to court.

The $3000 number you hear is just a settlement number, and has no basis in or relationship to the statutory maximums.

 

[fueledbymusic]

VERY interesting Divgradcurl. You are very knowledgable when it comes to this kind law!

So in that case, it can be $750 to $100000 for just ONE song? WOW! SO that penalty is the same whether the SINGLE song is downloaded from a leecher OR someone who distributes (share), right? WOW!

I thought those P2P sites was like a MySpace website. Where people chat and submit photos of etc etc on there "screen name" so they can share the photo to friends etc. (Which includes music) That's what I thought Limewire is like.

FUNNY, justalayman! (1999999 cars) Some of those "screen names" are FUNNY here! I get a kick out of them!

 

[divgradcurl]

So in that case, it can be $750 to $100000 for just ONE song? WOW! SO that penalty is the same whether the SINGLE song is downloaded from a leecher OR someone who distributes (share), right? WOW!

Potentially. Unlikely that a single instance of infringement would warrant the maximum amount, but if it went all the way through trial to judgment, it could happen.

I thought those P2P sites was like a MySpace website. Where people chat and submit photos of etc etc on there "screen name" so they can share the photo to friends etc. (Which includes music) That's what I thought Limewire is like.

There is no problem sharing stuff the you have a right to share. If you wrote and recorded an original song, made an MP3 and shared it, no problem. It's yours, you can do what you want with it. Same thing with a picture -- if you took the picture, it's yours, and you can freely share it.

The problem comes when you are sharing stuff that you don't have a right to share, like a song that someone else wrote, or a picture someone else took. There is nothing really complicated here when you look at it from that perspective.

 

[JustAPal00]

Copyrights are rediculous! If you go to high school, then go on to college, then get a PHD, then do years of research and come up with a cure for Aids, you get a patent for 7 years. Then for those 7 years you will be called a heartless moneygrubber because you won't give your cure to the poor. Or on the other hand you can get high and drink all the time, learn to play an instrument, write a song and you can demand money from people that want to hear it for 50 years? where is the sense in that?

 

[justalayman]

while still not the protection afforded a copyright:

Information on Important Patent Law Changes
On December 8, 1994, President Clinton signed into law the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. This Act made several significant changes to U.S. patent law, including:
a change to the measurement of patent term in the United States (e.g., patents will now provide rights starting on the issue date and will expire 20 years after the earliest effective filing date of the application resulting in the patent);
creation of a "provisional application" system (e.g., a low cost, reduced-formalities patent application); and
changes to the provisions of U.S. law governing proof of invention to obtain a patent.
Information is available that explains the changes to the US Patent Law made through the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, including: a very brief overview, the Final Rule Publication: Changes to Implement 20-Year Patent Term and Provisional Applications, the patent section of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the notice announcing proposed rule changes to implement the Act, a slide presentation and a paper that explain the changes to US law and a list of commonly asked questions with answers. The full text of Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which resulted from the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations is also available here. You may also want to review our request for comments on 18-month publication of patent applications, although you should note that the comment periods for this and the 20-year patent term rule changes have expired.
If you need additional information, you can call our toll-free help line (1-800-PTO-2224) that has been set up to answer your questions about the Uruguay Round Agreements Act changes.

You also must realize there is a huge difference between the benefits of limiting patent rights terms that are not applicable to copyright situations.

A patent is intended to protect an inventors work for a period of time so they can control and profit from their efforts. Many patented products are very expensive to invent so it would only stand to reason the inventor should be able to attempt to recoup those costs without competition. If not, it would remove the benefit of spending time and money to invent anything.

BUT, by limiting that time period, it allows others to improve on that idea which is ultimately better for everybody. It allows a progression of improvements so the market acn enjoy those improvements. It advances society.

In contrast, if a copyright were not available to an artist, as an example, Winnie the Pooh, may have been originated by A A Milne but somebody such as Edgar Allen Poe could have taken the character into new realms. Not very appealing if you ask me.

As well, copyright protection does not stifle the progression of anything such as unlimited times on a patent would cause. Society would not benefit from Pooh Bear duking it out with the Raven but society does benefit from somebody taking a light bulb and improving on the original design.

 

[JustAPal00]

I repeat, coprights are rediculous! They should be 5 years max! I have no problem with an artist making money off their work, but the length of time should be much shorter. It's crazy that the beattles are still making money off music created in the 60's, while the inventor of Advil has to compete with other companies making a copy of their formula and selling it as a generic. I went to buy Prilosec OTC yesterday and on the same shelf right next to it in the same color packaging was the generic for less money. An artist should be able to register a song they record and for the first 5 years they can demand money for it, after that it should be part of the public domain!

I'm not saying we should lengthen a patent, just that a copyright should be much much shorter!

 

[justalayman]

personally, I believe a copyright should las forever. It is something that a person creates and does not alter society by allowing an eternal copyright.

There are fair usage allowances when dealing with copyrights but for any person other than the creator to profit from the artistry is taking away their rights as the artist.

How about we remove copyrights altogether? How many books do you think will be written? How many songs published?

Your idea will stifle creativity as it will prevent an artist being paid for their work, to a great extent.

patents are a totally different animal. Eternal rights would stifle creation of drugs and inventions that are used to improve the world. Copyrights cause no such problem.

If anything, I believe both types of rights should be lengthened, not removed.

 

[JustAPal00]

I didn't say remove them forever! I said it's rediculous to let an artist collect on their work for 50 years, but only let a scientist or inventor collect for 7. The artist's work is purley for entertainment, where the scientist and inventor make the things that make our lives safer and longer!