Spring Break
RIAA requests file-sharing info from UA
Eric Evridge
Issue date: 4/30/08 Section: News
The argument continues saying that legal downloading is hindered by the fear of downloading illegally by mistake. The "automatic and severe" punishment of innocent downloaders makes Internet users wary to download legal content.
"Internet users who are aware of the law or who have fallen victim to a 'copytrap,' are much more wary of sites purporting to offer legal downloads," Snow said in the article.
The reluctance and wariness to download formulates Snow's argument. "Copytraps" might inhibit users from downloading legal material, and that inhibition is a clear restraint on speech protected by the First Amendment, according to the article.
Snow said most Internet users trust Web site operators to determine if their content is legal or not.
"Most Internet users continue to download without inhibition," he said in the article. "We haven't seen significant decreases in legal downloading. But that fact doesn't matter in the eyes of the law. First Amendment law makes it clear that the possibility of inhibition is sufficient to find a law unconstitutional. And that possibility is glaringly evident in the download context."
"Sounds solid to me," Hunter said. "It makes sense. Then again, I download music illegally and am a considered 'criminal' by law. Pretty ridiculous in my opinion. There are way better things to do with the time and money spent on this."
The recording industry loses revenue based on two forms of piracy: street piracy, the manufacture and sale of counterfeit CDs, and online piracy, illegally copying and downloading media, according to the RIAA Web site.
The Institute for Policy Innovation concludes that music piracy causes $12.5 billion in economic losses every year while more than 71,000 jobs are lost.
Though the RIAA admits calculating losses for online piracy is difficult, it states the "pirate marketplace currently dwarfs the legal marketplace," and that means investment into new music is compromised.
"Internet users who are aware of the law or who have fallen victim to a 'copytrap,' are much more wary of sites purporting to offer legal downloads," Snow said in the article.
The reluctance and wariness to download formulates Snow's argument. "Copytraps" might inhibit users from downloading legal material, and that inhibition is a clear restraint on speech protected by the First Amendment, according to the article.
Snow said most Internet users trust Web site operators to determine if their content is legal or not.
"Most Internet users continue to download without inhibition," he said in the article. "We haven't seen significant decreases in legal downloading. But that fact doesn't matter in the eyes of the law. First Amendment law makes it clear that the possibility of inhibition is sufficient to find a law unconstitutional. And that possibility is glaringly evident in the download context."
"Sounds solid to me," Hunter said. "It makes sense. Then again, I download music illegally and am a considered 'criminal' by law. Pretty ridiculous in my opinion. There are way better things to do with the time and money spent on this."
The recording industry loses revenue based on two forms of piracy: street piracy, the manufacture and sale of counterfeit CDs, and online piracy, illegally copying and downloading media, according to the RIAA Web site.
The Institute for Policy Innovation concludes that music piracy causes $12.5 billion in economic losses every year while more than 71,000 jobs are lost.
Though the RIAA admits calculating losses for online piracy is difficult, it states the "pirate marketplace currently dwarfs the legal marketplace," and that means investment into new music is compromised.
Viewing Comments 1 - 5 of 5
Adam
posted 4/30/08 @ 10:11 AM CST
I say good. Students who think stealing intellectual property is wrong and that thanking artists is good won't be punished, only those who try and justify theft will. (Continued…)
Remembering Napster Times
posted 4/30/08 @ 2:44 PM CST
Remember the good old days of Napster in the dorms? Ahhhhh.
Adam, this file sharing is not about money not going to the artists, it's about it not going to the fat coorp exects. (Continued…)
Adam
posted 5/01/08 @ 2:12 PM CST
If the artists want people to have their music for free, they can do what Radiohead did. If they don't, they don't have to sign with a label. They own their intellectual property, not me, and I don't have the right to steal it whether I think its good for the artist or not. (Continued…)
Ridiculous
posted 9/01/08 @ 2:50 PM CST
Eric, thanks for the article. IMO it's just ridiculous the steps the RIAA is taking in all their greed.
Gentry
posted 9/05/08 @ 7:43 AM CST
The only people who are worried about the RIAA requesting the owners of IP addresses are those people who have violated copyright laws. Here's an idea: if you don't want to be held liable for copyright infringement, don't steal intellectual property. (Continued…)
Post a Comment