3 ms·

In this case the piracy didn't hurt the artist as they couldn't get the working files and went out and bought the cd. So even though it started with piracy they

by hfsktr 14y ago

In this case the piracy didn't hurt the artist as they couldn't get the working files and went out and bought the cd. So even though it started with piracy they bought the music legitimately. That kind of makes me wonder how it works, or the logic. If you download something to try it (pirate) then go buy the same content you'll still get in trouble? I understand that the law was broken then the legal way to obtain the content came but doesn't that sort of deter you from bothering to buy in the future? My idea above really would matter most for say downloading one song from an album then buying the album (books/movies you'd have the entire content anyways). Just a curious thought as I'm sure I have a lot of the details quite wrong but following the logic here: if you've downloaded any part of an album you might as well download the entire album rather than buy the rest.

tripzilch 14y ago
Well, (and I'm not defending what happened here, just explaining what I suppose may be the reasoning), the problem with BT is that you're not just downloading the album, but also uploading and sharing it back to the BT swarm. Compare with the reasoning why downloading is/used to be[1] legal in the Netherlands: Copyright consists of exactly two rights: the right to make public and the right to make copies. Since Dutch law already allows to make "home copies", this means that only the uploader is breaking the law, not the downloader, because the right to make these "home copies" is not contingent on how you obtained the works in the first place. Unfortunately most filesharing networks, and BT in particular, won't let you download without uploading and sharing back. Of course the details of copyright and IP enforcement in Finland would be very different. Still, the point is, if you use BT to download a copyrighted music album, you're violating copyright not just by obtaining a copy, but also by redistributing it back to the BT swarm. Buying the album may make right on the former, but not on the latter. [1] I'm not sure but I seem to remember they reverted that decision a while back. It was all based on a stupid error by BREIN's lawyers in the Kazaa vs BREIN case a long time ago. (BREIN is basically the representative of RIAA in NL, as well as a rather shady organisation)

by hfsktr 14y ago

tripzilch 14y ago

Well, (and I'm not defending what happened here, just explaining what I suppose may be the reasoning), the problem with BT is that you're not just downloading the album, but also uploading and sharing it back to the BT swarm. Compare with the reasoning why downloading is/used to be[1] legal in the Netherlands: Copyright consists of exactly two rights: the right to make public and the right to make copies. Since Dutch law already allows to make "home copies", this means that only the uploader is breaking the law, not the downloader, because the right to make these "home copies" is not contingent on how you obtained the works in the first place. Unfortunately most filesharing networks, and BT in particular, won't let you download without uploading and sharing back. Of course the details of copyright and IP enforcement in Finland would be very different. Still, the point is, if you use BT to download a copyrighted music album, you're violating copyright not just by obtaining a copy, but also by redistributing it back to the BT swarm. Buying the album may make right on the former, but not on the latter. [1] I'm not sure but I seem to remember they reverted that decision a while back. It was all based on a stupid error by BREIN's lawyers in the Kazaa vs BREIN case a long time ago. (BREIN is basically the representative of RIAA in NL, as well as a rather shady organisation)