The War on Sharing: Why the FSF Cares About RIAA Lawsuits
Written by Ernesto on May 13, 2009In one of RIAA’s high profile cases the Free Software Foundation backed defendant Joel Tenenbaum, much to the dislike of the music industry lobby. John Sullivan, Operations Manager at the FSF explains in a guest post why they think these cases impact not just music, but also free software and its technology.
Guest post by John Sullivan Operations Manager, FSF
We don’t make (much) music here at the Free Software Foundation, so it’s natural for people to wonder why the FSF has been standing up for individuals targeted by lawsuits launched by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Most recently we filed an *amicus curiae* brief in the case of *Sony BMG Music Entertainment, et al. v. Joel Tenenbaum* showing the RIAA’s theory of statutory damage awards to be unconstitutional.
Some would prefer that we refrain from fighting these lawsuits, suggesting that they are a distraction from the FSF’s core charter. But opposing them is actually an important part of our mission to support free software. First, these lawsuits represent a concerted attempt to rewrite copyright law in a way that threatens to undermine the ultimate goals of the free software movement. Second, a vocal minority in the entertainment industry uses these lawsuits as warrants to justify DRM technology and other measures to monitor and control the flow of information over the internet. Third, if unopposed, these lawsuits create a culture in which people are afraid to share, presuming sharing to be theft.
In their response to our brief, the RIAA says, “The FSF is not a neutral friend of the Court. Rather, FSF is an organization dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, and modifying computer programs, classic intellectual property, much like the sound recordings at issue in this case [*sic*].” It’s unclear what legal aim the RIAA lawyers from the firms of Holme Roberts & Owen and Dwyer & Collora think they are accomplishing with this attack. Having an interest in the outcome of a case is the reason organizations file such briefs. William Rehnquist defined *amicus curiae* as, “a phrase that literally means ‘friend of the court’ — someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court’s decision may affect its interest.”
But here, it is the public’s interest that we are defending, not our own. While we don’t agree — as the RIAA claims — that we are more “virulent” than an organization that intimidates everyone from the elderly to college students to the severely disabled into either paying “settlement” money or facing the crushing expenses of defending against unwarranted prosecution in faraway jurisdictions, the RIAA is correct that the FSF does have a position on copyright. Although we are primarily concerned not with music, but with how software can be made and shared so as to benefit and empower everyone, neither are the impacts of the RIAA’s actions restricted to the distribution of music. Their lawsuits are a deliberate campaign to rewrite copyright law through the courts. They are attempting to set precedents which will affect all works governed by copyright law, including software.
The RIAA, which in its litigation campaign represents exclusively EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and their affiliates, would like to change copyright to be an ordinary physical property right. Through these lawsuits, they seek to establish near exclusive permanent control over each and every use of the recordings their members distribute, expanding the power of copyright owners to include things which are not part of the existing body of law, and extracting financial penalties from the largely defenseless individuals accused of disobeying them.
But copyright is not and was not intended to be a right like this. In fact, copyright requires that the public give up some of its rights, such as to free speech and free association, in order to promote another of its fundamental interests — progress in the sciences and useful arts. In “Misinterpreting Copyright,” FSF president Richard Stallman draws an analogy between this tradeoff and government procurement. When doing any kind of purchasing necessary to do the public’s work, the government seeks (if imperfectly) to minimize the amount of taxpayer money spent to obtain the needed goods. This means paying a price that suppliers will find acceptable, while avoiding being gouged by those suppliers who may claim that the goods are worth a lot more than they really are. When the U.S. Navy was accused of paying Lockheed $640 per toilet seat for some of its aircraft, people were understandably outraged, because the government had squandered the public’s money.
In the case of copyright, it’s the public’s freedom that the government is spending, to obtain in return for the public scientific and cultural goods. Right now, governments are squandering this freedom. They are spending far too much and getting far too little in return. Plenty of authors and artists are telling the government that works can and will be made without such expenditure. The international free software movement has been proving this for many years now, having successfully produced a fully functional operating system in GNU/Linux that can be freely used, shared and improved upon by anyone who wants to do so; and more recently there have been people doing similar things in encyclopedias, textbooks, and the world of the arts (including music).
Previously, because the required equipment was large and expensive, normal readers and listeners did not have the means to easily make copies. Restrictive copyright did not negatively affect them. But now, because so many more people do have the ability to easily exercise this freedom, the burden imposed by copyright restrictions on our society has become unacceptably heavy. Even while these restrictions have become more burdensome, they have become less necessary — with the cost of publishing so much lower now, less incentive is required. Instead of acknowledging this, the government has been taking the side of those who, out of greed akin to selling us $640 toilet seats, see an opportunity to freeze what should be a contingent and evolving bargain into a permanent and natural right for themselves, expanding ownership powers under copyright law far beyond its current and historical borders.
In the U.S., the new administration continues to side against the public. Vice President Joe Biden recently spoke at a MPAA luncheon. He adopted the entertainment industry’s loaded “piracy” language, saying, “It’s pure theft.” Biden also assured the MPAA that President Obama would find the “right” copyright czar. His attitude is not surprising, given his past eagerness as a senator to sponsor and support RIAA-backed legislation. He was, after all, one of four U.S. senators invited to a champagne celebration of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) hosted by the MPAA, RIAA, and the Business Software Alliance. Obama himself has already appointed Tom Perrelli and Donald Verrilli, both former lead attorneys for the RIAA, to be associate and deputy associate attorney general.
If we are going to achieve sane copyright law, we have to avoid confusing this institutionalization of corporate greed with “art.” In fact, it seems most artists disagree with the RIAA. Sony artists reportedly earn a tiny $0.045 for each song sold on iTunes, and most of them will never receive even that much from Sony. As one example among many, singer Courtney Love answers the charge of piracy by saying: “What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist’s work without any intention of paying for it. I’m not talking about Napster-type software. I’m talking about major label recording contracts.”
The RIAA doesn’t stop at manipulating copyright law to gouge artists and the public. They also use their lawsuits as leverage to argue for control over any technology that could be used to distribute music. For example, they have pushed to require all wireless access points to be encrypted and closed, to restrict technologies like BitTorrent and other forms of peer-to-peer distribution, to impose bandwidth caps on home internet users, and to monitor traffic through service providers. Such efforts directly hurt free software. Because free software authors around the world work by collaboration, they rely on open distribution networks to move software, data, and conversation around. In particular, peer-to-peer technologies make this easier and cheaper for people with less bandwidth, and so are a powerful means of boosting grassroots free software distribution and development efforts.
The RIAA further attacks free software when they use these filesharing cases as ammunition to advocate DRM under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). It was the RIAA that attacked Princeton scientist Ed Felten for wanting to publish useful mathematical information, because this generally useful information might possibly be used to decrypt their specific DRM scheme. Sony saw no problem with secretly installing a rootkit on users’ computers, to facilitate spying on them and blocking certain activities. These efforts to turn computers against their users and to restrict technical information are on-face incompatible with free software. If we allow the RIAA to win outrageous damages in these lawsuits, then we are letting them manufacture evidence of losses due to illegal copying, which they will then use to demand from Congress more control over our technology.
Among both the government and the public, the RIAA lawsuits create a culture which frames these issues in terms that make it harder for free software to succeed, by creating a culture that fears sharing. This leads to confusion like the recent case of a schoolteacher who assumed that a student handing out GNU/Linux discs in class was breaking the law. One can hardly blame her for having this impression when the RIAA lawsuits and propaganda thoroughly permeate the news media, encouraging everyone to assume that sharing is wrong unless they are told otherwise.
The RIAA’s framing of the issue as “intellectual property” is another key way they foster this fear. They cite our opposition to this concept in their reply to our brief, and they are correct. The use of “intellectual property” language threatens to undermine the free software movement. The term lumps together disparate concepts like copyright, patents, and trademarks, which are legally distinct. The RIAA would like to lump them together because doing so increases the size of the gouge they can extract. By drawing an analogy with physical property, they erase the actual histories behind these specific areas of law and rationalize the obscene damages they are demanding. It skews discussion of the issues involved so that good solutions can’t be found, and if it is used in place of a clear discussion about copyright in the arena of music then people will accept it when discussing software as well.
The bottom line is that for art and software alike, sane copyright law should facilitate and promote sharing so that everyone can benefit from what is produced, and participate meaningfully in making it. For software, the easiest way to share is to put source code in the public domain, and not require any End User Licensing Agreement (EULA) or patent licenses. Anyone can then study and use the software, make changes to it, and redistribute changed versions to anyone they want. However, this leaves the door open for other people to use copyright law to make some changes to that software and strip away the freedom, redistributing their version without the freedoms that were originally there. Copyright law allows people to play middleman like this, intercepting works that are intended to be free and turning them into proprietary programs to control users.
To ensure that software written to be free remains free, the FSF uses a copyright license called the GNU General Public License (GPL). The GPL says that anyone is free to use, copy, change, and distribute modified versions of the software to which it is attached — as long as they pass on those same freedoms to whomever else they give the software. The GPL can do this because copyright law gives copyright holders the authority to outline those terms. Instead of using that authority to make copying illegal, the FSF uses that authority to make it illegal to make copying illegal.
Despite this, the FSF will continue working to reduce the power of copyright restrictions by fighting these lawsuits, filing briefs in specific cases, and collecting contributions to the RIAA Expert Witness Fund. We do not intend to shoot ourselves in the foot by supporting proposals to reduce the scope of copyright that would weaken the way the GPL protects freedom without simultaneously weakening the way companies like Microsoft and Apple use it as a weapon to take away freedom. But neither will we support the RIAA’s expansive approach to empowering copyright owners at the public’s expense on the grounds that it would make the GPL “stronger.” We will not accept losing the GPL as an effective shield unless as part of a plan that we could be confident would make software generally free. But neither will we confuse it with the end goal, which is a world where people are not called criminals when they want to see what the software on their computer is actually doing, or to share a copy with their neighbors, or to improve it and share their improvements.
Executives like Rolf Schmidt-Holtz of Sony Music Entertainment should get the message and back off. Although they claimed in December that they would stop filing lawsuits against individuals, the RIAA filed 62 more in the month of April alone. Citizens are tired of watching their governments squander their freedom to enrich this handful of corporations, and they are tired of being intimidated. We will continue our work to support this opposition to the War on Sharing, and to restore or replace copyright law for its intended purpose — progress in science and the arts, for everyone.
Previously: Top 10 Most Pirated TV Shows on BitTorrent
Next: Copyright Group: No Need to Hear P2P Site’s Defense
85 Responses
Good article =)
Recently I found a hot club
– Seekingtall.com –
Just for hot tall gals and guys to find their cupid. Come on, tall singles. Don’t miss your lover.
GREAT article! This will be a huge help in illustrating the controversy accurately.
Good read, agree with nearly everything stated. For pirates who still want to pay artists, a tip I have for you guys is to set away a certain standard amount of money every month and donate it to an artist, actor, or culture creator you think deserves it. In this way, you cut out the middle man and the creator is given 100% of the original money instead of a mere 5-7%. Thats a 2000% increase! That’ll give the RIAA a hard time argumenting that they are defending the artists interests when filing a lawsuit!
Very very well written article, tip of my hat to the author.
Now if only this was read and picked up by more of the “mainstream”…
An excellent and well written article. Anything I write, music, software or craft patterns are always released under some open licence. It’s just better that way! ;-)
The RIAA are just the thugs working for the bosses at the big labels. I am still hoping that despite Obama’s appointment of Biden at vice and these RIAA lawyers to the justice department, that we will see a more balanced approach to copyright from this administration. We will know for sure when the new Copyright Czar is appointed.
Agree on #1, Very good :)
Damd good read..
Very nice article. I will be copying this! ;)
Excellent article – I agree with it totally. Note U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, who was the former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is totally in the pocket of the RIAA/MPAA and will push their agenda to President Obama. And people said former V.P. Dick Cheney was evil…
@2
Fuck you, don’t spam!
But yeah, it was a fine article.
FSF are HEROES.. Thank you :)
Enjoyed reading this one. Good job Torrentfreak.
Good to c more people working against the RIAA/MPAA
http://www.wannabets.blogspot.com
Who’s awesome, FSF?
You’re awesome, FSF!
@10
Dick Cheney IS evil. He even shot a man in the face.
i think i have ADD or something, i got halfway through the second paragraph then scrolled down to the last.
might want to think about condensing an article of this size to cut to the chase quicker. i’d say the majority of torrentfreak readers are kids who want to feel “in the know” and they wont be interested in reading a life story just to get a point across.
call me an educated philistine, whatevs, but im probably right.
Very good article! Fight these bastards and give the artists what they deserve!
tl;dr
good article guys..
yes it was a long one but deffo a great read….
good article, mailed it to the court/mpaa yet? ;)
sidenote @TF: i know you utilize blocklists on offensive words, that then kick it to a mod or something to approve the post; could you add that spambot-motto ’seekingtall.com’ to it? much appreciated!
Hear Hear! Although perhaps a bit onesided towards the free software side of the debate, it certainly points out some of the core points of the historical reasons for copyright.
1. The commons, or public domain, is the natural legal location of all ideas.
2. When legal protections for an idea are sought; ideas that are copyrighted, patented and trademarked are taken out of the context of the commons and temporarily placed in a legally created area where use of the idea is significantly controlled by the entity seeking such protection and exclusionary use.
3. Most ideas regardless of their legally created status as copyrighted, patented or trademarked retain some of their public domain characteristics via fair use. Everyone may still use aspects of the protected idea under certain constraints as established by the laws concerning copyrights, patents and trademarks.
4. The legal protection of any idea is temporary after which time the idea reverts to the commons.
When time limits for copyrights, patents, and trademarks are continually extended an outright theft from the commons has occurred without any legal mechanism for recovery except civil disobedience.
Well written article that explores and explains many things I feel about copyrights and patents in clear way. I would recommend people to read it.
@16 ju
I do not agree. Yeah it is long and little bit overlapping but in each paragraph it explores the question from little bit different but very important view. Both case of “fear of sharing” in future RIAA and alike want, then rights of freedom of speech and possibility to fully control stuff we buy and use, then point of view on intellectual properties and physical properties differences and why those copyright laws were introduced in first place and how it is now abused… Yes long but you just can’t make it any smaller without throwing out important facts and views. I would even say that in some places it is little bit short and points are not fully explained.
@ Mankey Wanker. Exactly! :)
Lets hope it doesnt get to far out of hand or copyright as intended might not recover..
Great article!
@16 – ju:
I totally disagree. Lets for once try and appeal to the intellect of potiental readers, instead of assumming that the general public is dumber than a cement brick!
If we expect people to understand complex articles (not that it’s that complex, mind you), they will become eduacated to do so, and vice versa. Eduacated people are the ones making a difference usually in this world, NOT mindless bored masses!
I’ve always admired Courtney Love. I know she has never been taken seriously because of her public antics, public image and obvious addiction problems. However, I’ve listened to her music and have always felt that she is clearly an artistic and intelligent woman.
Her comments regarding her personal involvement in the music industry is dead on; the music industry is exploiting it’s artist and under the guise of “defending” the artist they are using their names so that the greed of the executives and the lawyers can get the lions share leaving the artists with very little.
I truly have no clue why no one is trying to stop them. Obviously there must be some people out there with the brains and the means to fight them head on, but they don’t.
I personally have nothing against the lawyers, though I do have something against those who are paying the lawyers. The lawyers are puppets, but the true evil comes from the RIAA and MPAA. They are The Beast.
Someone has to stop the RIAA/MPAA. I’ve known for a long time that they are going way too far in their attempts to strip everyone of their freedom and liberty.
Kids, listen up. This is an interesting time to be alive. Your life probably revolves around the internet. You are witnessing a war between the RIAA/MPAA and people like you. One day when these guys have taken away everyone’s freedom and liberty, you will be inheriting the world and the mess they’ve created. Sit back and enjoy the show and pay attention. We’re going to have to rely on you to unravel this mess when your time comes to takeover from us.
REVOLUTION NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am not a fan of the FSF, but have to commend John Sullivan for writing this excellent article. I find the analogy between copyright and taxes especially relevant.
Wow. Best article I have read on here so far.
too much words
yup, and then some say downloading = stealing. Geez. Lets steal free software! Of course it is unfortunate. Copyright laws are so … specific, linear and restrictive that no one knows they are infringing it most of the time. Whats worse is that they also tend to be very vague and the best part is that everyone believes they are working. Is the U. S. treasury or even the national commission going to sue me because I had given a friend 5 bucks for lunch? How many people have you heard of being put into jail because they were carrying counterfeit money. Yes, it is not accepted on stores or the like, but if a friend gave you a dollar and it was counterfeit… there’s no court case, there’s no lawsuit, there’s NOTHING. There’s not even a claim from them for damage. So obviously these people have gone too far too quickly and what is scary is that most people indeed will do NOTHING about it. If only the same principles of the gpl would have been done to music I think many interesting things would happen. I love to explore different styles, learn different songs and who knows youhave your own versions. Perhaps most musicians will not see the point, but at least electronic musicians (DJ’s, remixer, ETC) can apreciate that point of view more closely. Many artists and local bands play the “cover tunes” (I.E. their own version, or an identical version of a song) every single night at some kind of club in the United States. Do the original artists get paid? no… and worse, the composers or arrangers never get anything. It is actually the composers that suffer the most. An artist can sure go and perform live andlive much better than trying the old slow way of selling cds, but a composer hopes to make money with something that they have created. NOtice how these private, uncontrolled organizations say they are protecting the interests of artists. The word itself is really broad and vague. We can say that artists are people who interact and make art.. but they just dont say what kind of artists they are trying to protect… if only at least these entities would get some kind of oversight it’d b a really nice thing to happen. Notice how those cowards don’t want their case against them broadcasted on the net… but when they think they have won against a torrent site there are all kinds of ridiculous, horribly written statements all over their news section without even the propper terms and sources. I am surprised and always have been wondering what and who gives them the right to think they’re so elite. Furthermore, hwo is it that they are where they are now? through lies and deception for the last century I would imagine. THe problem is again not with torrent sites or “stealing” digital things or even piracy. The problem is of course very thoroughly explained on this same article. Congratulations torrentfreak.
Despite the gigantic hypocrisy of FSF in saying that copyright should be free (why use GPL, and not the CC or BSD like licences that trully respect freedom them?), and the fact that they don’t really care about piracy, just their political agenda, a very good article indeed, that explores the roots of the whole copyright question.
Incredible article. What a manifesto!
The significance of the FSF weighing in on the debate is in my view, cosmic.
FSF: you are heroes, defending rights and freedoms and reacquainting humans with knowledge of what collaboration and community can achieve.
Save us from the hell of a proprietary world. Be more vocal, just like this! Take control of the “open source” movement, which is every day being subverted and misrepresented. Provide the rallying cry to all uncorrupted peoples – stand together, work together, and achieve the unimaginable!
Where are the trolls today then?
Notice when there are articles like this, the trolls are nowhere to be seen.
Fantastic read, cheers TF
@ TF Whats happening with #2 salawhite. Thats every day with spam. Get your finger out abd delete that shit.
Now that was an excellent article. My only comment is on what’s written below the comments:
“Please be advised we will not tolerate off topic posts, spam, trolls or personal attacks. Please help us to help you by NOT responding to such posts. ALL posts which fall into this category will be removed, including those responding to such posts.”
If that is true, why hasn’t #2’s post been removed yet? Thank you.
excellent article
in light of recent events it is heart warming to see a mature and relevent precis of digital sharing
http://www.h33t.com/ where we do NOT skew and bias the discussion by confusing sharing with piracy
This is probably the best article that I have ever read on TorrentFreak, it’s a shame only bittorrent users and MPAA/RIAA spies will actually read this though :(
Bravo this was a really goo article. No doubt a bit long and dry for most of your largely insipid 12-yr old reader base. Though, it really does illustrate how the RIAA on its rampage is causing collateral damage in other areas that arent relate to their proclaimed goals.
The Free Software Foundation isnt new in this realm. They’ve had battle before and I must say keep up the good fight!
I encourage all those who can to aid this organization however they can.
Again good article. (Even if it is just a reprint of someone elses editorial skill as we all know TF editors are alot more biased and ill-defined when it comes to presenting an insurmountable defense. Not much offense intended.)
i think it would still be easier just to start bombing some of these assholes’ homes, and work place. the organization cant operate if all of their workers are dead.
Superb article from our heroes at FSF and ofcourse great work by TF
Where are all the anti piracy trolls.
They are no where to be seen when p2p is shown in positive light
The labels through active campaigning have brainwashed everyone to the point that sharing = stealing.
Don’t be afraid of sharing.
Sharing is not stealing. Sharing is caring. Instead of feeling that you have committed a sin , realize that you have done your part for the greater cause.
Go ahead. Share and care. Nothing can stop you.
Piracy is stealing and everybody knows it! Each time you are making a mere copy of something without removing the original you are stealing! Sharing with others is wrong and evil! Corporate greed and draconian laws are good for society and personal freedoms! Long live the greedy copyright industry! Death to individual rights!
Oops, it time for me to take my reasoned “mind” meds. :/
Dubbeldubbelplusplusgood. :)
Brevity is not the FSF’s strong point…
Copyright has failed.
NO COPYRIGHTED WORK RELEASED IN MY LIFETIME WILL EVER BE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. Has that ever happened? If corporations can completely control cultural works of art, music, movies, books, etc in perpetuity, even to the point of letting them go out of print and withholding them from the world, then what is copyright for?
nice…
i was wondering when the FSF would step into this…
@9
Don’t, you’ll be sued :(
gnu/linux all the way, go FSF!
I praise the FSF for stepping up and fighting against the corporate criminals who have bribed our politicians and judges to take away our freedom to share our artistic cultural values with one another.
Great article and very well articulated with logic of reasoning. I totally agree and support the FSF’s view on the corrupted copyright laws to feed the few greedy corporate criminals.
Let us fight together to protect and defense our civil liberty, so our children will continue to live in a friendly and healthy civil society where people can share their love and passion with one another.
Perhaps the best article I’ve ever read on TF.
Nice to see a plug for Linux… I’m a Ubuntu user myself.
FSF FTW!!!!!
Damn, no trolls so far??
I am speechless…
i am massively relived that there are some sane rational and organized people out there that are opposing the one sided debate of the riaa/mpaa
hopefully they get there voice heard at every government champagne benefit where the riaa/mpaa get there’s heard at. but somehow i doubt it
Fighting for the basic freedoms that are being eroded bit by bit each day is an honorable cause.
Using misinformation to justify actions is nothing new and in the casr of the RIAA they have made it an art form.
It’s attempts to control, along with any other entities that want to force their ideals on others, must be challanged at all levels.
The FSF has stepped into the debate and rightly so. Well done.
Well, I wrote a program years ago that we made so that schools that didn’t have money could have a music program. With any simple MIDI keyboard students could learn music….
I have seen now 4 patent extentions on my work. Did I get a cent? No, but I didn’t do it for the million dollar payoff… I am a BBS, Unix, old timer that the internet was originally created to make sure that information flowed freely and the in an event of a bad thing happening that it would remind…
I completly agree with copy holders in their works for making money on their works but in my experience once it hits the Internet, you have to rely on the goodwill of the people.
With the lawsuits and crap from industry and the problems of the crap copy protection that they apply that only harms the honest ones of us that a decade from now will change.
I would guess that if in the infancy that if software and programs wern’t distributed over the BBS or early internet that Microsoft or the 386 wouldn’t have taken hold…back then it was archie and Veronica…even Betty…Gopher was the search engine for things and telnet was the connection..
Business models change and again I will say if someone comes up with a TV model with HDTV through the internet within commercials…I will buy it.
Thanks
Old Man now.
Nicely put! +1 to the author
FSF, EFF, ACLU and other are fighting but they fight on their own territory, there should be other organizations around the world.
I know the EFF have an international participation and they assist people to organize in other places.
They can win battles in the United States but the MAFIAA is global and needs a global aproach
FSF:
If you wanna volunteer and be part of it here:
http://www.fsf.org/volunteer
and if you wanna help there is a donation button somewhere in there LoL
Volunteer to be part of a global effort to fight back if you can.
Damn good article torrentfreak, well done.
@32
Have you ever READ the GPL? It is aimed more at software than music or movies, but it empowers whoever has a copy of that software. It specifically grants the freedoms to copy, modify and distribute the software. What it does NOT allow is anyone to take away those freedoms and make the software proprietary.
one of the best and most sensible articles i have read. riaa etc would do well to read and inwardly digest this info. perhaps then they would see what being able to share things is all about and the good it does.
Finally, some interesting article shows up on TF.
@24
Well said
We need more articles like this Torrentfreak. This is where it’s at.
Very good article! And which also explains why I prefer free software over proprietary stuff, even if the latter is technically great.
Any help to prevent brand lables writing history is a good thing.
Also if the music industry has its copyrights enforced then no one but the music industry would be able to speak or emit sound without priour written consent. Well done FSF!
Just as a thought, why not establish a separate organisation where artists can distribute their works (music, books etc) that is not linked to the big music. Invite other artists (including established ones) to join. Offer better deals than the crippling ones the the big music companies do…
I would gladly see my dollars go to something with more integrity, values, and ‘value’ than spend them on the bad guys…
@ HotPepperMan
Well mininova is doing that, i know a few private trackers that are doing that, i think TPB is doing it.
If there was a managed effort and one place it would be a done deal :)
There are also a few non-torrent sites aimed at artists who want to share their works directly, with more poping up all the time it seems.
great read, thanks
Man, this just needs 1 word…
AMEN ;)
Long as hell, but a worth while read. Ctrl+F Courtney Love for the best quote of the article.
Great article, good read. I hope some mayor newspaper will also publish it, so not only “TorrentFreaks” read it.
The current copyright situation is hugely destructive, and only getting worse. I agree totally with FSF’s stand. Case in point:
Recently I purchased “The Art of War” for $3 (USD) as a tiny book. It is long since out of copyright, and there are numerous publishers.
Recently I purchased the collected works of Oscar Wilde (the exact title of the book escapes me, and I don’t have it handy). Again, the book is long since out of copyright, and there are numerous publishers.
I purchased and enjoyed the various works of Douglas Adams. There is almost zero chance that people 50 or 100 years from now will have any opportunity read his works, because almost certainly they will still be under copyright and the main publisher will likely not see any financial benefit to continue publishing.
Essentially, these greedy ****s are destroying our cultural heritage so they can line their pockets.
This is a cancer, and much like cancer it can spread to otherwise unaffected areas. IMHO, those of you that think that the FSF should not be involved are not seeing the larger picture.
Given the chance, do you think that they will stop with books, music and films? Because I sure don’t, and it scares the heck out of me.
Great article. @John Sullivan Did you try publishing it at some tech magazines, newspapers? This one would be easy to understand by non-tech people and it gets to the point. I would love to see that it’s not only internet community that is against RIAA but also to make non-internet people aware of what’s happening.
I wrote a translation to spanish. http://ur1.ca/4b9z
Hice una traducción al español http://ur1.ca/4b9z
30 May 13, 2009 at 19:04 by Hom3r
too much words
This made me cringe and then laugh. People like you are the problem nowadays.
this is a picture of what could happen if the maffia gets their way by some chance
“http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6055022735714006569″
remove quotes
Excellent article.
I commend the FSF for fighting for all of us.
I personally refuse to buy any commercial music cd’s knowing the money goes to greedy corporations and very little to the artist, but I do support the independents.
If we all did this and the artists started earning nothing, how long would it take for artists to start making the leap away from these greedy a-holes. Only then, when they can no longer gouging everyone, will we be rid of the RIAA/MPAA for good!!!!
p.s. right-on #75
Excellent article!
Since I became aware of these attacks on our rights, I have refused to buy anything from EMI, Sony, Universal, Warner Brothers, Microsoft and Apple.
I refuse to support companies that actively poisons our society like this!
Soooo, if sharing music is illegal unless paid for….What can be done about Nightclubs? Charge each customer a dollar a song? Charge the DJ? What about elevator music? or supermarket music?
And What if I dont want to hear said music: can I get a refund?
Why not make our own music, video, software, newspapers, books and magazines in a free software format so we can tell propitiatory assholes goodbye.
We all need to stop funding our own demise.
They’ll change their ways if we change our buying habits ;)
@33 Anom
You don’t anything about the Free Software Foundation.
This article is CC-BY-ND, and as you can easily see, they use “CC licenses”.
They don’t use only the GNU GPL for programs either.
The only freedom “BDS like” licenses give more than the GNU GPL is the freedom to convert a free program to a non-free one.
You are using a very old flawed argument.
That’s like arguing that slavery should be aloud for people to be truly free.
Also, most of the CC licenses are more restrictive than the GNU GPL.
I meant:
That is like arguing that people should have the freedom to enslave others.
Sometimes I wonder about voting for Obama. I still hold that it was the right choice for ME to make. But now its more a “The lesser of two evils” case. Obama for oppression and McCain for WWIII.
US politics aside, this article was very VERY well written. I will recommend it to all my friends to try to do my own part in “fighting the war”.
The Quality is bad,Then people dislike to grab one.
I guess,We should not join any clan like RIAA. I noticed that there are groups of independence of the HollyWood and RIAA,I guess they will replace the dumb
13 references to this post
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.