Spanish Judges Liken File Sharing to Lending Books

[Psydney]

I'm torn, really.
On the one hand, awesome for freedom and all, on the other hand, artists can't make money off of things only a few people buy and the rest lend... or can they?

Maybe I'm looking at this all wrong.

Just think for a second about how libraries work - and yet writers keep going

Writers keep going because libraries are lending institutions, and fairly inconvenient ones at that. As several other people have pointed out here already, downloading a file in a matter of minutes and then having it available for permanent personal use is quite a different matter.

The current ebook model where, say, my husband and I can't read a book we've paid for without either (1) buying it twice or (2) passing a Kindle or Nook back and forth is clearly inferior to just having the print book on the shelf where we can get to it whenever we want, seems excessively restrictive. But that doesn't mean that making all books available for free download all of the time is workable if you actually want people to continue producing art.

 

[Angry Caterpillar]

Well God damn it.

Frankly, I don't see it as lending books, unless you could magically xerox an entire book in five minutes indefinitely for all of your friends whenever you felt like it.

Or, say, went to a library and borrowed whatever you wanted, and read it without even paying for it! And then your friend borrowed it from the library and read it without even paying for it!!

Ok, sure, you're not reading the same book at the same time (well, unless they have multiple copies), but unless it was a really good book you're not going to need to re-read it in the four week or so that he's got it out for, and if you do, you can just recall it.

There's very little real-world difference between that and playing through a shared game (just without needing to wait to replay it, if it's really good) - it's just a matter of convenience. That's literally it. (ooh, pun. kinda, heh)

See, I guess that's where our views differ. Because it's less like you're lending books, because that requires them to be returned to be lent out again. In this case you're making copies, and everyone with the copies can make copies, and copies of the copies of the copies, and copies of the copies of the copies of the copies, and so on. I'm not going to be one of those crackpots saying "BUT OMFG TEH SO MUCH MONIEZ!" but there is an unlimited future there for the taking. I'll never really be alright with piracy, because it offends me morally, but you do have a good point for those who actually only play a game a bit as a demo before buying it. All four of them.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

Artists make no money from recordings FACT!!!!

So, artists are boned, either way? Poor dudes...

Nah go see them live, cut a rug, have a wicked time and maybe even buy a shirt, all that goes into their pocket, just for the love of god don't throw your cash down the drain by buying a cd or mp3

 

[Flying-Emu]

A panel of three judges has declared that, because the site did not actually host the files and didn't make money directly as a result of copyright infringement, no actual crime took place.

Isn't this the EXACT same ruling given in the Pirate Bay case?

 

[Danpascooch]

Just think for a second about how libraries work - and yet writers keep going

How come record companies argue that file sharing is "destroying the industry", are they really just being ultra-greedy?

Maybe they are, but then again, people do still physically buy CDs.

I support piracy, but Libraries are not the same thing.

1.) A library has to pay for a book initially
2.) (this is the main point) That book can only be lent out to ONE person at a time, the Library doesn't make infinite copies of the book that can be lent out simultaneously for free.

How much of a difference is that, really? Is it not just a technicality, a feature of the traditional medium of books and their difficulty to reproduce?

Ok, so library buys a book (money to publisher and maybe writer), I borrow the book (no money changes hands), I read it and I return it. Fine, right? Maybe someone else wants it, recalls it, I only have a week or so with it.

On the flip side, someone buys a game (money to publishers and maybe some to the devs), shares the game on the interwebs, I download it (hypothetically speaking) (no money changes hands), I play it, finish it and uninstall it. In all likely hood I complete it inside of a week, and as shared games rarely support multiplayer there's no need to keep it on my hard drive.

Now, take a step back and tell me what the difference is. The same amount of money changes hands - a single copy is purchased. The only difference is that you may have to wait a week to get a copy from a library. And you will have to leave your house to get the book.

So, the only real-world difference is convenience? Is the whole 'anti-piracy' thing just a sense of entitlement from the games industry that their medium deserves to be purchased at full price for every copy? Personally, I challenge that attitude.

Obviously the pirates see a big difference, otherwise they would just be mailing the games around instead of working their asses off to crack games so they can be copied and distributed online. "convenience" is a very powerful force, and the ability to distribute the game to millions of people simultaneously is more than a little past "convenience"

For example, when Sims 3 was put on Pirate Bay, it got millions of downloads (over 2 million), let's say each person played it for a week, in that case, it would take 38,357 years to lend it out to all those people.

So yeah, it makes a pretty fucking huge difference.

That said, I personally support Piracy.

 

[RelexCryo]

huzzah for sense!! Over herer in sunny England, you can get arrested without trial over here if suspected of downloading anything deemed illegal...

Do you mean arrested without trial or sent to jail without trial? Getting arrested and then going to trial *after* you get arrested is normal.

And if you mean going to jail without trial...damn that is scary.

 

[Danpascooch]

A panel of three judges has declared that, because the site did not actually host the files and didn't make money directly as a result of copyright infringement, no actual crime took place.

Isn't this the EXACT same ruling given in the Pirate Bay case?

Pirate Bay actually does host the files.

 

[Flying-Emu]

A panel of three judges has declared that, because the site did not actually host the files and didn't make money directly as a result of copyright infringement, no actual crime took place.

Isn't this the EXACT same ruling given in the Pirate Bay case?

Pirate Bay actually does host the files.

Alright then.

People on this site need to read and realize that this isn't some major fist-pump for pirac- I mean, file sharing.

 

[Thurston]

I get the impression these judges aren't particularly computer savvy.

Or perhaps they like free movies too

 

[scotth266]

Erm... no. File sharing is NOTHING like lending books. In fact it is more like the exact opposite of lending books. -_-

 

[Scabadus]

A panel of three judges has declared that, because the site did not actually host the files and didn't make money directly as a result of copyright infringement, no actual crime took place.

Isn't this the EXACT same ruling given in the Pirate Bay case?

Pirate Bay actually does host the files.

The only thing the pirate bay hosts are small 'pointer' files that tell a file sharing application where to find an actual file. A company may hold copyright over their game, but they can't hold copyright over a line of code pointing to a network of computers which have that game installed. Therefor, the Pirate Bay doesn't break the law; they only facilitate file sharing, they don't host copyrighted files.

Erm... no. File sharing is NOTHING like lending books. In fact it is more like the exact opposite of lending books. -_-

Agreed, this is like teaming up with 50 friends to buy a book by paying 2 pence each, then photocopying it and keeping a copy each. I think any sane judge would see that THAT is 'wrong', why can they not see it when it's digital media? It blows the mind...

 

[Low Key]

File sharing could be construed as lending books. No doubt there is some rhyme and reason to the argument, but one with we do when lending books is give them back. That's why it's called lending. When a book isn't given back, nothing really happens, but it could be considered stealing.

As someone who lends books myself, I'll take it where I can get it, but I think there needs to be more substance to the ruling if it is going to stick on other cases. That, or the IP industries need to figure out a way to get a piece of the pie without raping their customers for their hard earned money. I mean, a movie ticket costs $10-$15 these days (which film companies tend to recoup their investment), then the DVD comes out and that's another $20 or so down the drain. Maybe what needs to happen is the film companies should get together and open their own site, where after the movie leaves theaters, they can put it up for streamed viewing with browser ads. Or they could put it up for free download, but the first five minutes is ads. It's a way to get all the revenue and give pirates what they want.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

If you'll excuse my offensively "weeaboo"-ish link.

 

[Canid117]

Ah yes, that bastion of internet freedom... wait, Spain? Huh, awesome. Good weather there... I guess I'll go brush up on my Spanish

The ocean there will supposedly melt your skin off. Or maybe that's Portugal...

Anyway Breaking News!

Spain just became the mortal enemy of the RIAA!!

 

[icypenguin117]

huzzah for sense!! Over herer in sunny England, you can get arrested without trial over here if suspected of downloading anything deemed illegal...

Do you mean arrested without trial or sent to jail without trial? Getting arrested and then going to trial *after* you get arrested is normal.

And if you mean going to jail without trial...damn that is scary.

you can go to jail without trial*, really need to proof read my posts lol. But yeah it is scary, basically people who download have the same rights as terrorists... some people just REALLY like money, so that's why I love this story as it is someone in the legal system applying some sense, though I know that not everything can be free, downloading gets you bigger sentences and/or fines than some physical robberies... and they get a trial. Something is clearly wrong.

 

[ManaTree]

Obviously the pirates see a big difference, otherwise they would just be mailing the games around instead of working their asses off to crack games so they can be copied and distributed online. "convenience" is a very powerful force, and the ability to distribute the game to millions of people simultaneously is more than a little past "convenience"

For example, when Sims 3 was put on Pirate Bay, it got millions of downloads (over 2 million), let's say each person played it for a week, in that case, it would take 38,357 years to lend it out to all those people.

So yeah, it makes a pretty fucking huge difference.

That said, I personally support Piracy.

Err, not quite. There's a giant misconception here, not to mention you forgot some numbers. Namely, that EA said that Sims 3 had the best PC sales launch ever, despite the leak. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sims_3]

Artists make no money from recordings FACT!!!!

So, artists are boned, either way? Poor dudes...

No, not quite. They actually get boned by the record labels, but by playing their shows live, touring, merchandise, they can make a lot more money, by far. File sharing or piracy (whichever the case) can help artists by word of mouth.

Let me give you some examples where piracy or file sharing has helped. One [http://news.slashdot.org/story/08/01/25/1335206/Pirate-Yourself-Become-a-Best-Seller]. Two [http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/05/12/2116236/Copyright-Infringement-of-Books]. Doctorow, in particular, is the person to look to regarding these matters, IMO.

File sharing and piracy is all about information, not the physical medium or convenience.

Piracy and file sharing are not simple issues to determine, as several people have noted here. It is not as simple as "1 download = 1 lost sale". It is far more complex, and people have to look out for false reports and assertions. And on top of that, it's a matter of information as well.

 

[Scabadus]

FUCK YEAH!! Finally someone standing up for what's right, about god damn time! Someone tell me where these guys live, I want to go repaint their houses, inside and out, in any color they want, all on my own dime.

sooo... let me get this: whats right is whenever someone create something that can be converted to digital media, he should be denied any reward for his/her effort?

how do you expect developers to create games/digital tools/etc anymore if this is the way the world will become?

the general idea of piracy is ok: information you dont have access to (because of either lack of money/geological boundaries/lack of time) becomes accessable, in a lesser state than the original material. fine. but what if all pirated information becomes top quality? we would reach a halt in technological development. just look at the blow pc-gaming have suffered, with all the DMRs.

the problem is that when piracy becomes so accessible its easier to DL a movie than actually go down to the shop and pick it up FOR FREE, weve reached a point were society will start to enter a depression. im all for being able to download stuff, but what you download should either be:
-of worse quality than the product you pay for
-be a real hassle getting a hold on

as long as at least one of these apply, piracy wont be a HUGE problem. the moment we reach a point where none of these applies, we should start banning piracy, big time. and were closing in fast on that point...

Get it out of your god damn head right now that piracy = loss of sale, cause that's a lie, most pirates either A)don't have the money to buy the game, or the game is a known piece of shite they intend to give to their child (any of those 20 dollar princess type games for the DS) or B) only intend to test teh game for a time before deciding if it is crap or good enough to buy. I'm a pirate, and I only pirate DS games, but I also talk about the games I play on forums and stuff so as to advertise the games I felt were good enough to talk about, shit will be left in the dust and good games will be spoken of, I talked to several people about the game Dementium 2 and at least five people I mentioned it to shown a real interest in playing it, they not being pirates themselves would have to buy the game, therefore I generated a potential 5 sales to people who had never eve heard of it. Piracy could be a really good thing. Also pokemon platinum has been downloaded at least 400,000 times on this one site I go to, but it has sold millions world wide, do you really think that the 400,000 really affected the total outcome? How many kids probably bought the game release day anyways even though they could have gotten it for free hours later? Fact, gaming industries are lying assholes who want you to think that piracy is going to ruin them, also fact, they are trying to pay their own incredibly huge wages while producing products that are normally sub par at best.
Also what if I miss one of those shows on like fox that they only play once and then you have to wait for reruns in about two years, is piracy so bad then?

However you rationalise and justify it to yourself, you're still stealing. You could read reviews and think carefully about which game to buy, but no: instead you decide to have it all, everything, for free and publishers' pockets be dammed. After your gaming gluttony you can weakly try to make yourself feel like the good guy by recomending a game to five friends, generating five potential sales, however if you'd bought it yourself that would be one definate sale right there, six sales if all your friends bought it. And if ten thousand pirates did that, it would be ten thouand more sales, right there, and all the sales by word of mouth and recomendations would still be there.

 

[Cavouku]

As an artist, I must say; I'm really glad, actually. Artists who care about the monetary gain don't have the artist's heart. It's all about recognition, respect, and display. Inflecting a mood on people and telling a story through whatever medium. I think it should be a hobby, rather than a source of income.

Besides, artists, musical artists anyways, who do it for the money more often than not just get a set of "Kickin' Beats Vol. 1" and then slop out a song that's 40% chorus, which is 70% repeating a phrase/word.

I think greed goes hand in hand with sloth. If my book/movie/song/etc. were being shared everywhere by everyone online, I wouldn't care about the money I don't make, I'd be asking anyone I could "What'd you think?"