 Navigation
|
 |
Connect
|
|
|
Forums: Copyright: AGAIN, File-sharing is NOT Theft, at least according to the U.S. Supreme Court
lawguy74
|
Subject: AGAIN, File-sharing is NOT Theft, at least according to the U.S. Supreme Court
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
For those of you insisting that file-sharing is theft, I will post a portion of a United States Supreme Court decision that states in detail why copyright infringement is NOT theft:
Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985)
*** In contrast, the Government's theory here would make theft, conversion, or fraud equivalent to wrongful appropriation of statutorily protected rights in copyright. The copyright owner, however, holds no ordinary chattel. A copyright, like other intellectual property, comprises a series of carefully defined and carefully delimited interests to which the law affords correspondingly exact protections. "Section 106 of the Copyright Act confers a bundle of exclusive rights [473 U.S. 207, 217] to the owner of the copyright," which include the rights "to publish, copy, and distribute the author's work." Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 546 -547 (1985). See 17 U.S.C. 106. However, "[t]his protection has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all possible uses of his work." Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 432 (1984); id., at 462-463 (dissenting opinion). For example, 107 of the Copyright Act "codifies the traditional privilege of other authors to make `fair use' of an earlier writer's work." Harper & Row, supra, at 547. Likewise, 115 grants compulsory licenses in nondramatic musical works. Thus, the property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," for the copyright holder's dominion is subjected to precisely defined limits.
It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "`Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner,' that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, `is an infringer of the copyright.' [17 U.S.C.] 501(a)." Sony Corp., supra, at 433. There is no dispute in this case that Dowling's unauthorized inclusion on his bootleg albums of performances of copyrighted compositions constituted infringement of those copyrights. It is less clear, however, that the taking that occurs when an infringer arrogates the use of another's protected work comfortably fits the terms associated with physical removal employed by 2314. The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful [473 U.S. 207, 218] appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us &vol=473&page=207 |
CommanderChaos
|
Subject: Re: AGAIN, File-sharing is NOT Theft, at least according to the U.S. Supreme Court
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
Lets see what those saying It is theft have to say now. Finally, cold hard proof that theft and copyright infringement are NOT THE SAME GODDAMN THING. |
kneo24
|
Subject: Re: AGAIN, File-sharing is NOT Theft, at least according to the U.S. Supreme Court
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
A person shouldn't need this example to see that they are clearly different. If a person does, then they aren't worth the debating time. |
LicketySplit
|
Subject: Re: AGAIN, File-sharing is NOT Theft, at least according to the U.S. Supreme Court
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
So infringement is a violation.
Theft is the act of stealing.
Different, yes... but:
In an economic system where the creator/seller has the right to choose the price, location, and general means of selling the product, all of which are factors influenced by the consumer (or lack thereof), non-paying file sharers represent a gray-colored third party. While the actions of this third party isn’t technically mass theft of a product, it is clear that these acts are an infringement of copyright laws that is indeed a punishable offense. If left untouched, this third party could grow into a crippling lump for the recording industry and the creators of music; if online music sharing and/or distribution is completely abolished by law, then the recording industry will have failed to grasp an opportunity that could revolutionize the way music is sold, and the way profits are collected and efficiently dispersed.
A good solution for this emerging problem must be one that benefits the creators and consumers alike. It must be built around the acknowledgement that P2P networks are popular for many genuine reasons, including convenience and variety of choice. A good solution cannot be one that is geared to specifically benefit the gray lump of “infringers”, but must represent a viable alternative to current P2P networks, thus also serving as a deterrent from music piracy since there exists another option. Since this solution deals with a product and its consumers, it is the role of the creator/seller to best target the product to the consumer while being protected from unlawful duplication of the product by the gray lump that will accept it in only one fashion… for free. In other words, the best solution is one that includes the fantastic technology found with P2P networks while offering protection for the creator/seller from the gray lump. If implemented, the best solution will certainly meet the demand of the online consumer, and in turn, those still acting within the gray lump will be isolated as criminals, similar to those that insist that cars should be free since it is possible to hotwire them.
|
Jefrystube
|
Subject: Re: AGAIN, File-sharing is NOT Theft, at least according to the U.S. Supreme Court
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
Here's a different question: So, just how does the RIAA get these subpoenas? I thought the DMCA required action to be taken by the copyright holder. Unless the member record companies have transferred their rights to the RIAA, I don't see how these subpoenas are even legal. |
Righton
|
Subject: Re: AGAIN, File-sharing is NOT Theft, at least according to the U.S. Supreme Court
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
Good question...and many are waiting for an answer...cough, cough still waiting for an answer to Jefrystube's question. LiketySplit, many are waiting for you to respond. |
thumbtack
|
Subject: Re: AGAIN, File-sharing is NOT Theft, at least according to the U.S. Supreme Court
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
Jefrystube,
The labels make the RIAA their agent. Much as if you go to a lawyer, and have them act on your behalf...
The RIAA is basically a lighting rod to deflect the criticism away from the labels, Sony, EMI, Vivendi/Universal, Bertelesman (BMG) and AOL Time Warner and their subsidaries.. |
LicketySplit
|
Subject: Re: AGAIN, File-sharing is NOT Theft, at least according to the U.S. Supreme Court
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
As a spotlight shines... Lickety's knees begin to tremble... wait, is that urine dripping to the stage floor???
Righton, I doubt "many" are actually waiting on what I have to say regarding Jefystube's question. My post didn't touch on subpoenas because I sure as hell don't know a good answer... I am sure somebody will post with a good one. I am not pro-RIAA so please don't make the mistake of thinking that I believe the RIAA is always right and downloaders are always wrong... Re-reading my post above, I feel that I made my stance known; I beleive that the current situation can be solved, maybe Voluntary Collective Licensing will be the solution (I know that "many" here agree with me that VCLic. is a good way to go). But RIAA is resisting, and I don't understand why. But as long as they have a product, they choose what price and where/how to sell it. RIAA views p2p as a threat, but with VCLicensing p2p will serve as a great market place... go figure. In the meantime, I suppose they will continue to pursue sharers through the law and sue. For the record, I think it is a bad choice for their own business to continue this trend... and I think that puts me somewhat on the same page as many others on this site, right? |
LicketySplit
|
Subject: Re: AGAIN, File-sharing is NOT Theft, at least according to the U.S. Supreme Court
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
ps- I was joking about the urine... I think. And hey, I don't even own a spotlight!
|
Idontcareican
|
Subject: Re: AGAIN, File-sharing is NOT Theft, at least according to the U.S. Supreme Court
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
damn man, you know how many times i recorded a movie on my VCR, and then let a friend watch it. good god, capitalist pigs arent getting rich!!!!! lets throw my evil VCR out on the street and smash it! |
|
|
