General discussion


Why the war on file sharing is far from over

By MaryWeilage Editor ·
How do you feel about holding ISPs and companies responsible for their users' file-sharing activities? Does your organization have a policy that addresses file sharing? Are you familiar with BitTorrent? Share your comments about the war on file sharing, as discussed in the Feb. 14 Internet Security Focus newsletter.

If you haven't subscribed to our free Internet Security Focus newsletter, sign up today! Click this link to subscribe automatically:

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


by mrafrohead In reply to Why the war on file shari ...

Holding the ISP's and companies responsible is like suing Remington for me shooting your brother. Remington didn't make me do it, so why would they be responsible???

A lot of filesharing that is done isn't even over files that the MPAA and RIAA have any right to talk about. They are open source files. Or they are files that have been LEGALLY downloaded!!! Or files that have no copyright.

These buttmonkeys think that just because there is an MP3 extension or AVI extension that they are being ripped off...

They are grossly wrong.

I can tell you this in regards to the RIAA. They dug their own hole.

They will allow crap to be sold at an horrendus price and expect us just to pay for it. I call BS. They think that if they put one or two good songs on a CD that they can fill up the rest of the space with filler and then charge 18-22 bucks for it. I don't know how they sleep at night.

The worse part is that the true artists don't even see most of that money.

Even worse than that is now they are finally starting to do legal download services and are raping their customers even harder and more often.

Now it costs them nothing in packaging and materials and they have the gall to sell the songs at a buck a piece. It is cheaper for them to offer downloads, yet they still charge the same price. They just don't get it.

I can tell you this much. I don't buy CD's anymore. Haven't bought them for year. Now I just listen to the radio. I've just been sitting by patiently waiting for the RIAA to get pissed about me listening to the airwaves that are flowing through my house and try to bill me for that too... I won't support companies the put out crap. I work too hard for my money to do that. And I sure as **** won't support a company that SUES IT'S OWN CUSTOMERS!!!!!!!! Not to mention little girls and dead people.

The MPAA isn't as bad, but they're trying to get there.

But the RIAA is like Satan resurrected.

P2P and BitTorrent are ingenious programs that are designed to move data. Next thing you know the RIAA will be going after the authors of the FTP protocol. And your grandma because the oatmeal raisin cookies that she made, she made while humming a song that they "own" and she didn't pay royalties for it...

Collapse - copyright???

by Jaqui In reply to RIAA and MPAA need to STF ...

there are no files with no copyright.
as soon as a file is created it has a copyright.
even if it isn't registered.

Collapse -

by mrafrohead In reply to copyright???

I'm not going to waste my time on that... Don't be difficult, you know exactly where I"m going with what I said.

If I make a song and release it to the world, I have the choice of adding rights to who can do what with it, if I don't then it's there for all...

Collapse -


by Jaqui In reply to

but you still have copyright, just by writing it.

making it's usage public domain / open / free is different

Collapse -

Not So

by waynee In reply to true..

Sorry but recording a song to tape does not automaticaly copyright it.

Collapse -


by apotheon In reply to Not So

Educate us on what does cause a work to be copyrighted. I'm curious about whether you're talking about a technicality or just misinformed.

Collapse -

A copyright exists ONLY IF ...

by deepsand In reply to really

the author CLAIMS such.

While the claim need not be filed & registered, it must still be claimed.

If a work, eligible for copyright protection, is publicly released without notice of the authors claim, it has no such protection.

Collapse -

not so

by apotheon In reply to really

An author's work is assumed to be under copyright, in common practice, unless circumstances or statements contradict that. A statement of copyright serves to affirm that, lending greater defensibility of copyright in a court of law.

Collapse -

Not according to ...

by deepsand In reply to really

the "Patent, Trademark & Copyright Law for Engineers" grad level course that I took.

Collapse -

You're right

by Oz_Media In reply to really

I have worked in the music industry for years. I have fought and won copyright suits, I have helped artists protect their work.

With music, you can copyright your material IF it is the only such material in a given area.

If I have a band in Vancouver that DOESN'T apply and pAY for copyright protection WORLDWIDE and another band in Germany releases the exact same work, there is no copright infringement. It's not quite as cut and dry and 'automatic' as suggested here. This also goes for band/company names, album and song titles.

You are only covered by copyright where you have market penetration. For this reason, most artists 'apply' for global distribution and copyright protection BEFORE releasing any work. Once the distribution channels are in place, you ship your work out and it is now protected in those markets.

BUT, IF you have recorded under a label that already has copyright protection of IT's own work, your music is protected automatically. THIS is why artists need representation and professional recording services befor ereleasing music.

I have seen a start-up/garage band bring out a home made CD, flaunt it around town and be horrified to find another band actually release a disk with an identical yet professionally recorded version of their music on it.

They quickly scream copyright infringent because they have a recording of it, BUT unless that is protected by a time and date stamp on the original DAT recording, which comes automatically with licensed studios, they have no leg to stand on.

It's a mad mad mad mad industry with too many loopholes, thus you need representation.

Most labels that receive demos from bands can't listen to them anyway if they are sent unsolicited, so all these people who keep working hard and firing off demos are completely wasting their time.

Stick to IT, it's FAR easier!

Related Discussions

Related Forums