Which is illegal - File Downloading or File Sharing?
 

From what I understand, it's the people sharing files that are getting sued by the RIAA. But if you have Kazaa set to not share files, can you be nabbed for downloading only?

And I know, I know, I'm a bastard for taking but not giving....

its both

I believe technically the uploading and sharing of the file is the illegal part.

They use the term "file sharing" to cover any sort of P2P network use. By downloading music, you become a "music pirate" (yarrrrrrr!) because you are "stealing" music that the RIAA assumes you would otherwise buy from them. By sharing the music, you are helping to spreading the dreadful plague of music piracy. (This should be read in the "dripping in sarcasm" font, by the way).

They both are.....

It seems, however, that they are targetting the sharers, not the downloaders. The woman who was sharing over 1000 mp3 files, for example, who is being sued right now.

What I'm saying is that someone like me who downloads one live track or rare B-side a week isn't likely to catch the RIAA's eye, as opposed to people who have 40GB of music they are sharing...

They should be targetting the people downloading music, but as they can't do that as easily, they are going after the people making it available.

It's like going after a store owner for putting the chocolate bars in easy reach rather than going after the person that steals one.

I doubt this is correct, but if you have the cd that the mp3 is to, then you might be sued, but you can probably get out of it. But the RIAA will probably dig deeper and see if they can find that you've dl'ed before and such. Did they totally get rid of the rule that you can have an mp3 for 24 hours but after that you have to delete it, or was that made up?
Right now though, they are going after the people that are sharing. They say though that they will eventually go after the people dl'ing I believe. It's just easier to go after someone that is sharing the files when that's not legal. With the dl'ers you probably need to sift thru things to find out if they own the album or not.

Derwood is correct.

Presently they are sueing people that are offering a large amount of files for download because they make easy targets. It is easier for the RIAA to find the people that host the files. When all the hosts are gone then there won't be anything to download, on Kazaa/WinMX/etc. at least.

RIAA is claiming that both hosting and downloading is illegal.

I am allowed to make a copy of a cd that I own, that much I know. But do I have to personally make a copy from the actual cd I bought, or can I DL a previously made copy off Kazaa?

the RIAA can trace the digital fingerprint of the mp3 to know how you got it

No, it's like going after the people selling pirated DVD's on the street instead of the people purchasing them. The store owner isn't breaking the law by selling the chocolate.

LOL, I just got an instant message off of Kazaa from the CRIA....the Canadian version of the RRIA. It only mentioned about file sharing though, but if you go to the website, they bitch about D/L also.

Does anyone know about the "five artists" that they're paying attention to? I know that one of them was ludacris, and I just dled one of his songs :lol:

Avril Lavigne was another, I hope people download her career into the freakin' gutter.

I personally don't see how this can be considered illegal. Since no one is making money off of this. I'm not aware of any law that says you can't share something with someone. It's just like a mixtape you make for someone. I mean it's like the FBI warnings on VHS tapes. If ya read carefully it doesn't say you can't copy the tape. It says you can't copy it and/or sell and redistribute it. So if no one is making money off of sharing these files how can it be illegal? Just cause they aren't making money because of people who would rather download the good tracks off of a half assed album and save the 10 tracks for the ones stupid enough to buy them because they're trying to pay their way through college while the execs take more than 50% of the profit from the artist himself and give him a few nickles for each CD he sells? I think it's all stupid. This is like when the postal service lost business with the invention of the e-mail. If they were smart they'd find a way to profit off of the downloading rather than trying to stop the inevittable. Ah blah all this bullshit confuses me.

Asta!!

It's not, because when you make a mixtape, you are going down a generation in quality, so you are not getting "as good as the real thing." These are exact digital copies.

An MP3 isn't an exact digital copy. The compression method used to make an MP3 discards parts of the soundwave that won't have a detrimental effect on the playback.

A mixtape is illegal. Recording a movie off television and watching it with a couple of friends is illegal. At least in my country (not America)
Making a digital copy of a song is legal, as long as it's for your own personal use. Giving it to somebody else is illegal. Downloading a song is illegal, whether you have the cd yourself or not. Making an mp3 of a song on a cd you own is legal.

illegal or not, i think all this bru-ha about file downloading and all that is just a fad. I think that this kinda thing has been around forever, and now that it's so much easier and it's available to everyone, people act like this is a threat to our economy and culture.

people will never pay what they can get for free and don't UNLESS they really appreciate what they are getting. Like this forum, you can choose to donate if you like using it and you want it to get better.

how can they expect to enforce this sort of thing anyway? will it eventually be illegal to hum a song for someone or even to remember how a song goes? where are the thought police when you need them?

You can never get busted for dling off of kazaa or any other file sharing service. The only way it could work is if the RIAA themselves hosted files and took names of those who downloaded, but as soon as the RIAA puts up the songs for dl, they are either breaking the law or giving permission for those files to be downloaded and that evidence cannot be used in court. If they put up fake files, then no actual crime has taken place as nothing real was downloaded. This was determined by a US court during a child porn case several years ago and has held up for copyright issues too.

Recording a bunch of songs you like on a tape for a friend is not illegal. Thats what I mean by a mixtape. See the funny thing is like I said sharing has never been illegal (at least in America) and you can't make an mp3 to share with your friends without first having a copy of the original work. So nobody is really "stealing" anything it's all bullshit they're just fuckin greedy. They purposely over price CD's so they can squeeze more money outta the suckers. It doesn't cost that much to make them some people don't have 20 dollars to waste on a CD that they only want for the 4 out of 15 good songs on it. There was a website put up a while back because the record companies were called out for over pricing their CD's and ya signed on and gave em a claim and if your claim was reasonable they would ship you 20 bucks. They made them do this because they owed the public a very large sum of money that they were forced to pay back and we're the ones "stealing" money from them?? What a fuckin crock.:mad: I wrote a paper about this very thing for college. I got an A :D Sorry that has no relevance and is nothing very special either I dunno what I was thinking...oh well..

Asta!!

In Canada, downloading music, movies, softwares is A-ok. However uploading is a no-no. Said a lawyer, who deals with patents.

I am curious though, in America, some kid downlaods a Bif Naked song or another Canadian artist who's music was produced in Canada, by a Canadian recording business. This kid is caught by the RIAA. He's american, the content's canadian. Will he get his ass sued off for this particular song? What about a Canadian artist but an American recording company?

Um....I dunno....But I'd prolly do Bif Naked :D

Asta!!

I gotta agree with K-Wise.
oh and Music CDs cost almost as much as DVDs.... so the LOTR comes with two DVDs and the movie itself cost millions a double cd album can cost just as much for two cds.... now how much did it actually cost to record the songs? I understand that the audience for the CD is more limited than LOTR but come on.....

Im confused..
I mean, I got most of my albums off of FTP's, which I accessed via IRC channels. Why doesn't somebody simply log onto irc.undernet.net and join #freealbums or whatever and then sue those who are offering hundreds of albums for nothing?
I mean that would be so much easier for them :lol:

Shhhhhhhh... don't let that secret out! :)

Both are

On a (somewhat) related note, is it considered illegal to download classical music? Stuff like Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, etc...

It's shady in the same way copying playstation games is... Some people will tell you it's allowed, others won't. I have yet to see a court case make a definitive call on this. (not that I'm an expert)

The thing they seem to be taking offense w/ is if you are making that album that you legally own available across the network to others who don't own it.

In other words, if the RIAA can't get anything from you, they have no proof that you have anything and thus no case. They are trying to scare everyone into not sharing, which would solve their problem.

Although the music itself is public domain, the specific recording is protected under the usual copyright laws.

So yeah, it's illegal.

At that point it's sort of an odds game. Because a lot of international labels own a lot of smaller labels, and so there may be some ties to BMG or some other giant record label, at which point you are still fucked.

If you can find a band on a small indie label w/ no major label connections, you are probably in the clear. But you are also kind of a dick for not supporting the poor guys :p

The "five artists" whose songs are being searched for by the RIAA's lawsiut team are:

Avril Lavigne
Ludacris
Madonna
Michael Jackson
Marvin Gaye

The musicians who are making music for the fun of making music generally don't care as much. The musicians who are making music just so they can make money and be greedy are generally the ones who make a fuss. I say, if they are just making music to get rich, then generally, they aren't very good, putting 1 good song on each album as bait, to lure people into buying a whole CD for 1 good song that gets overplayed and then loses all value.

It's usually those artists who don't care about making money that make the best music anyway. I mean lets take for example Missy Elliot a sucky artist who had a huge year and got video of the year on MTV. She openly admitted to the general public that she half-asses all of her lyrics on her albums these days because she doesn't even have to try and people will still buy her albums so therefore why try at all? Basically she's calling all of her buyers a bunch of idiots on some "Haha I'm making crappy music on purpose and you stupid bastards are still buying it" and of course the idiots don't even realize it cause they're too stupid to know thats what she meant. 50 cent (granted he's actually pretty good and much better than Missy) said the same thing but for different reasons he thinks they like the music better because since it's so slow and poorly done it's very easy to understand (his example was Lil Flip who sux ass) as opposed to a true lyricist like Black Thought, or Deck, or Monch where you'd actually have to look up a few words to understand. What the hell can you do about it? Oh yeah! Not buy their music! But no we can't do that then we won't be "cool" Jackasses...I'm embarrased to be human.

Asta!!