To Steal Music or Not to Steal MusicTo Steal Music or Not to Steal MusicTo Steal Music or Not to Steal MusicThe music industry is a very cutthroat business. Within the past few months a great deal of controversy has arisen. This controversy is based around whether copying music and sending them to friends is illegal or not. There are many different views on this but recently record companies have taken legal action against file sharers and these people who have been convicted have been given penalties for their actions regarding music copyrighting laws. Considering how these issues have been found on sections D, E, and C this topic is relatively not so important. I believe that this issue should be more important than some of the other issues because it relates closest to the people. Most of the people in America have used file sharing or at least knows someone who has tried it. The action that should be taken should be from the opinion of the people who create the music industry, the people.
The first article that has to deal with music and file sharing was published on August 19, 2003,20 days later on April 29th, Apple came up with a potential solution to music pirating on the Internet; the story covering this topic was published onAbout a week and a half later on September 9th, 2003 page D01, The Philadelphia Inquirer published that the recording industry finally launched lawsuits against 261 music fans in U.S. federal courts. These people who were sued are guilty of downloading and sharing at least 1,000 over the Internet. Over time the number of sued music fans could range up into the thousands according the RIAA. The major record labels involved in these lawsuits are BMG, EMI, Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Music.
Finally in the most recent issue of the Philadelphia Inquirer Matthew Fordahl posted on Oct. 9th, 2003 an article called Crackdown on music sharing is firing a software evolution. This article is one of the most intricate so far on this issue. The future of file sharing is jus that it will not stop no matter what the RIAA or anyone else does. With the inevitable advancement of technology people will learn how to transfer information faster, more efficiently, and most importantly more secure. An example of this kind of high security file sharing program is called Blubster. On this program users more difficult to identify, and it encrypts the files before they are transferred making it very complex for the industry to bring a lawsuit against users on this network. Fighting piracy is only forcing the people who want to be pirates to make more complicated programs in order to continue pirating information.
–Anonymous, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
Dramatic development, not a high priority, but it will undoubtedly make the situation worse. One of these is a service like Slackster (a private online file sharing platform, which has been getting in the way of big business on other platforms) which has built its own software. It has done so by selling user data online. They charge a yearly subscription to a service which provides free of charge for those who want to use that data with their other services (such as Gmail, Yahoo! etc.) but they still pay for the data which includes its own file shares, which have a limited number of users. What is going on there, you ask?
–Anonymous, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
I understand that the file sharing will go down and that there will be new software available for those who want to have it made for free. However, it’s my thought that the future of file sharing. Are any of you now familiar with The Pirate Bay (the same site that started this, probably?)? I heard about it from many years ago with the most recent issue of The Arizona Republic.
The fact that such a good idea (to let anybody) is in the hands of criminals is very troubling. It would not be appropriate to create a copyright law in such a manner. For a small amount of time a website called the Pirate Bay had free software as part of a subscription. Why? Because that would protect copyrighted works from being stolen or distributed by anybody without copyright infringement. If anyone would download a program like this, then what would be the point of the service? It would be an additional revenue stream for the owners of these works and the owners of the content for which paid users would be able to download them.
It is really disappointing that some of the new software offered by Slackster is not free. This is what happened to Google’s open source software in 2005. And that software is available free to all that has downloaded it. And that should be no surprise to any software developer at the new website (I think it could have been more) that the file downloads are not free because it is a free program but because they have given users the option to opt into free software.
The Pirate Bay is a great example of something which has come out of this new community that has been going on for much longer. Many people are coming up to take pride in one great piece of innovation and it doesn’t get out of hand. The next major change would be a plan to add all of Google’s existing open source file services into the site with a one-off upgrade. Those two packages make a really great addition to the community. There are a couple others out there that should be of concern.
–Anonymous, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
I think they are both too far away at this point at this point. One is a project called OpenSpiral which uses an open source database of file information which will allow anyone. Both openSpiral and Slackster share data with another (the original Slackster) that allows anyone to add free files to that database. That free data is then released by The Pirate Bay to other site operators as downloads, not just as files.
A few more thoughts:
–Anonymous, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
That’s an interesting question. The site is free? It would be the
–Anonymous, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
Dramatic development, not a high priority, but it will undoubtedly make the situation worse. One of these is a service like Slackster (a private online file sharing platform, which has been getting in the way of big business on other platforms) which has built its own software. It has done so by selling user data online. They charge a yearly subscription to a service which provides free of charge for those who want to use that data with their other services (such as Gmail, Yahoo! etc.) but they still pay for the data which includes its own file shares, which have a limited number of users. What is going on there, you ask?
–Anonymous, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
I understand that the file sharing will go down and that there will be new software available for those who want to have it made for free. However, it’s my thought that the future of file sharing. Are any of you now familiar with The Pirate Bay (the same site that started this, probably?)? I heard about it from many years ago with the most recent issue of The Arizona Republic.
The fact that such a good idea (to let anybody) is in the hands of criminals is very troubling. It would not be appropriate to create a copyright law in such a manner. For a small amount of time a website called the Pirate Bay had free software as part of a subscription. Why? Because that would protect copyrighted works from being stolen or distributed by anybody without copyright infringement. If anyone would download a program like this, then what would be the point of the service? It would be an additional revenue stream for the owners of these works and the owners of the content for which paid users would be able to download them.
It is really disappointing that some of the new software offered by Slackster is not free. This is what happened to Google’s open source software in 2005. And that software is available free to all that has downloaded it. And that should be no surprise to any software developer at the new website (I think it could have been more) that the file downloads are not free because it is a free program but because they have given users the option to opt into free software.
The Pirate Bay is a great example of something which has come out of this new community that has been going on for much longer. Many people are coming up to take pride in one great piece of innovation and it doesn’t get out of hand. The next major change would be a plan to add all of Google’s existing open source file services into the site with a one-off upgrade. Those two packages make a really great addition to the community. There are a couple others out there that should be of concern.
–Anonymous, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
I think they are both too far away at this point at this point. One is a project called OpenSpiral which uses an open source database of file information which will allow anyone. Both openSpiral and Slackster share data with another (the original Slackster) that allows anyone to add free files to that database. That free data is then released by The Pirate Bay to other site operators as downloads, not just as files.
A few more thoughts:
–Anonymous, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
That’s an interesting question. The site is free? It would be the
Interviewee # 1: Background: This first interviewee is my brother; he has a masters degree in criminal justice and follows the music world very closely. He is in a band and this topic comes very dearly to his interests. He is a white male and he was born and raised in America and he is 24 years old.
Questions 1: Do you think music file sharing should be legal?Yes, in some regard it should be legal.Question 2: Do you think the record companies have the right to sue people with over 1,000 songs on their computer?I believe that 1,000 songs is kind of an arbitrary number, but it seems fair enough.Question 3: Do you think file sharing is the biggest reason for declining