Sharing music and movies: Is it really illegal?

[aragorn_109]

This is in response to a thread started by baroness, which was immediately closed by the mods. I honestly feel it should be open for discussion first. Let's allow some inputs by the members and if it is really deemed taboo, then close this too and we will abide by the rules.

FBI warnings prohibit "public viewing" of the DVDs, but we are allowed to use it for "private use". iPod viewing is still considered private use.

As for conversion, we are allowed to convert original CDs into AAC thru iTunes right? Besides, it's not like someone is making money out of this by selling stuff. What baroness is suggesting is that we help each other "convert" the DVDs (must be original) of course. There are websites which even charge us a fee for converting, and here is an offer to help each other out for FREE. If we want to be strict about it, maybe the one receiving a movie should even offer proof that he/she already has the original. That way, we just help each other out in converting, and not necessarily pirate movies and music.

[ishg]

Converting movies to iPod format and sharing them with those who didn't pay for the original DVD is illegal IMO. By doing so, less people would bother buying originals, and that would be like piracy. However, I believe sharing converted movies to others who have original DVDs of the same movie is alright, as all of them paid for it anyway (saves them the trouble of having to convert too). That being said, I agree with what aragorn_109's stand on this.

one of us is converting a movie which another iPodder would convert at one time or another.

This somewhat implies that the "other iPodder" also has a copy of the DVD. So if one paid for it anyway, I don't see what the problem is sharing the converted movies with others. I must stress though, that I only feel this is right if the one accessing another's converted file also has an original copy of the disc.

Just my two cents.

[Mad Mac]

I believe at the heart of the piracy issue is ownership of the materials. To gain ownership, one needs to buy the material in whatever form offered by recognized sellers.

Ownership to me is to the ability to have immediate use of the said material. This implies having it in either your home, office, or car, or some secret place you want to keep them. The official receipt whether a hard copy or in digital form is proof of ownership.

Now comes the grey area. Is sharing illegal? The obvious answer is yes. But, let's have an example...

My friend borrows my cd. He plays it in his car and enjoyed the whole cd. He then returns it to me. Should he be prosecuted? I think not. But had he brought it home and returned the next day, I guess the grey area grows darker or whiter, depends on which side is which.

Another example that got me thinking was the sale of used material, Let's say the used cds sold by Odessey Records many years ago. Once these are sold, you have two historical owners of on cd. One can argue that the authors lost a sale. But then again, the original owner ceased to have exclusive privileges as the new owner assumes "ownership".

The examples are primarily about music cds. The existence of video rentals and a governing body regulating it, strongly implies lending a movie media is illegal. Well, using are friends borrowing example, getting paid for lending is illegal. Again a grey area exists.

As for file sharing, the authors from most countries have legislation on their side. This explicitly says it is illegal to:

-to rip and share movies, proprietary software and content, and music
-to download movies, proprietary software and content, and music

In short, if an author doesn't want you to and they have the law on their side, you can't rip and share.

EDITED: Having read the the thread fully, I now realize that I responded in more general terms. The "sharing" mentioned is not captured by my post. Though in principle the legit owners are entitled to have converted copies of their media, unauthorized sharing across networks I believe is specifically covered by intellectual property laws of affected countries. This is a case where the end does not justify the means. DURA LEX SED LEX.

[sister isabel]

i think the keyword to be considered when talking about piracy is ILLEGAL REPRODUCTION. Piracy ultimately involves illegal reproduction of a finished product.

when we share files, ripped (even if from original stuff we paid for) or downloaded, we have created NEW copies. When other people obtain those files, they now have another copy in their possession.

This kind of REproduction becomes ILLEGAL when the product (software, movie, music, etc.) explicitly states in some sort of license agreement that reproduction or public viewing, etc. is prohibited.

SO, regarding the idea of sharing converted iPod movies, though it is convenient and cheap (in terms of resources saved: time, money, power, etc) for us, the consumers, it hurts not only the economics of creation/production but it also has a negative impact on our culture.

Exactly because of the benefits mentioned, we tend to try get everything for free as much as possible when we can, where we can, however we can; BUT in reality, NOT everything is free.

[numbdensity]

I have posted several months ago, about torrents which is obviously, sharing files through the internet, (links, seeders, leechers) though, conversion of files is another thing. Conversion, is generally, acceptable-different file formats for different devices. And yet, from that point on, everything is possible. From that point on-its mayhem galore. But if its for a good deed, sharing music and movies, is just plain sharing, analyzing it makes it more complicated. Everything is too mobile now, and easy, its like crossing the line without the pesky barbwires and stuffs. But think about it, in reality - the industry suffers, But with all the available apps now, could we really go against the flow? Technology rules talaga.

[Mad Mac]

I am willing to bet that there are more Macs in this forum with file sharing clients than those without. It doesn't make the act right but it does make some people hypocrites. That is why I understand the site owners for removing discussion of this nature. Some things are better left unsaid.

[ken]

I am willing to bet that there are more Macs in this forum with file sharing clients than those without. It doesn't make the act right but it does make some people hypocrites. That is why I understand the site owners for removing discussion of this nature. Some things are better left unsaid.

My thoughts exactly

[bacchus_3]

@ken/Mad mac, note that file sharing clients (e.g. BT) is not limited to downloading illegally shared multimedia. Note that a lot of mac users are developers or enthusiasts which can download open source apps that are available thru BT and legally distributed movies before they are officially licensed (there's a license out there that I can't remember what the name is particularly for new animes).

this topic always has a grey area as the first people doing this can be in good deed but once other people join in they misunderstand the original principle of sharing and just think of it as legitimate. I do understand why the forum prefer to close threads that offer these discussions. it is difficult to moderate and can go out of hand. so it is better to avoid it.

[KuyaKevin]

I really think the music industry in particular burned a lot of bridges back in the late 90's /early 00's on this one. Napster was the main place that folks used to download mp3's from. The music industry shut napster down, and everyone left it for peer-to-peer systems (which are harder to control legally). Not sure if the industry has ever caught up with technology.

[wpetrie79]

Converting movies to iPod format and sharing them with those who didn't pay for the original DVD is illegal IMO. By doing so, less people would bother buying originals, and that would be like piracy. However, I believe sharing converted movies to others who have original DVDs of the same movie is alright, as all of them paid for it anyway (saves them the trouble of having to convert too). That being said, I agree with what aragorn_109's stand on this.



This somewhat implies that the "other iPodder" also has a copy of the DVD. So if one paid for it anyway, I don't see what the problem is sharing the converted movies with others. I must stress though, that I only feel this is right if the one accessing another's converted file also has an original copy of the disc.

Just my two cents.

Very well said!!!! STOP PIRACY.

I can't wait for iTunes movie rental