Suing P2P users is like terrorism

So basically what Americans are saying is.If you play a CD in a club you are in violation,if you play a CD in a church,at a beach,a hockey game or any where there is a group of people you are a criminal.Because that is a public broadcast.And anyone who has ever taped with a VCR or PVR .I was extremely happy with things the way it was,bands and filmmakers were forced to make better products to sell their creations.If i download something and like it i will buy the original version.It stops bands from putting out CD;s with 1 or 2 good tracks,or movies that steal 2 hours of your life.

The artist don't get that much, the industry does. They are so powerful that it's cheaper to hit a policeman nose to bleed that P2P one track worth of 1$. and they even changed the law so that it's cheaper to by some artists full collection that just that one lousy track. The ability to pay or the real loss is not covered by the federal "law" but just the rip of money to the industry. Guess who has enough money to buy your congressman? the mafia? no, the music/movie industry!! and they already did that. I'm glad that I don't live in a "free" country like USA.

"The real problem here is an industry that can't see beyond its nose."

Pretty much spot on, and much better put then I managed.

"Yeah, shut down those big sharing sites that make it easy for people to obtain free copies of music."

-Actually, those sites does not contain any copyrighted material and violates no laws that google and bing does not already violate. You can't legally shut down a torrent tracker without shutting down google and all other search engines at the same time. Doing so, like the swedes did to piratebay, is nothing but hipocrisy or corruption.

To play the devil's advocate: there is a difference between buying a pair of shoes, and buying a CD. When you buy the shoes, you're buying the "shoes", a physical manufactured object. However, when you buy the CD, you're *licensing* the media (data) on the CD; the CD medium is merely a transport mechanism.

Even so, though some shops will take shoes back for any reason, in general, shops will not take used physical products back unless there is a defect in craftsmanship, and if the product is under warranty. Simply not liking the product is not a valid reason for a return.

This sale model also extends to media licensing: if you bought the CD (and therefore a license), and simply don't like the music, that's too bad. You've paid for the license and you've heard the music. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is defective. If the DRM doesn't allow you to play the CD in your machine, the *transport mechanism* is defective, but not the content itself. You are also able to resell your CD, which theoretically has no depreciated value, and the original producer will receive no part of that sale. Second-hand sales lose these content industries a lot of money.

Another question is: is this licensing model a valid one? Sure it is. Because you're licensing something to experience, like paying to watch a show at a carnival. They sell you a license that allows you to play the music as many times as you want for personal use, without the rights to publically broadcast it. The problem with licensing the media on the CD is that they give you a perpetual license, whereas your tastes may change over time. When CDs/tapes/etc. technology was introduced, there was no mechanism to license on a per-use basis. That's why only now you see subscription-based music licensing, and why it's cheaper than buying CDs.

The licensing model is also why it is wrong to call copyright infringement "thievery". You're not stealing anything; copying data does not cause someone to lose that data. It is, instead, illegally using something without a license. Prosecuting copyright infringers is something the music industry has to do. It's no fun, but if they didn't do it, the laws would be without merit.

The problem with the music industry is that they're prosecuting too zealously, while at the same time not providing viable means for people to choose to license music legally. Yeah, shut down those big sharing sites that make it easy for people to obtain free copies of music. Make it difficult to find free stuff, but don't waste time attacking customers, or other nonsense like paying to license DRM technology for CDs that will still be ripped.

At the same time they should be selling the tracks for $1 online, or investing in the subscription services. If people are still seeking out free copies, they are rarely potential customers. But at $1 a track? Most people will bite. What's the point of finding crappy 128kbps rips from slow P2P networks, when a good quality track can be had for $1? Cut your losses, and make money in volume sales. Even better, there's no CD to manufacture that can be resold. If someone shares that $1 track, who cares? It's advertisement, and will probably cause the sharer to branch out and buy other music.

The real problem here is an industry that can't see beyond its nose. It's not the licensing model.

The entertainment industry severely restricts the rights of users. If I buy a pair of shoes in a shop, take them home & after a day decide I don't like them/they don't fit/break, 90% of the time, the shop will happily take the shoes back.

I go into a film and it turns out to be not as good as the advert says, tough. If the CD quality is poor. Tough. Basically, once the industry has your money, tough so even though it is "illegal" I feel it is fair game to try before you buy as pretty much every other retail market will allow you too.

As I keep saying, the answer to piracy isn't the courts, it's to figure out why it happens and adjust the business model, which is now slowly happening but at a very slow pace and being hindered at every corner by very rich executives

Your comparison is not valid. Criminals that have been condemned and put in jail are supposed to be guilty, unless miscarriage of justice has occurred.
Customers buying goods are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
Thus, yes, I totally agree that the grandma who doesn't even have a computer will indeed find that being attacked by media companies must feel like terrorism.
There is, obviously, the case of people who pirate, but by considering that everyone does it and condemning them globally, you are, sir, a terrorist.

I think i'm going to go buy some viacom products and send the receipts as well as File sharing screenshots that I previewed the products before buying to them.

It is perfectly legal to sell media you legally bought. You can also rent, loan, or lease it (i.e. you can rent a DVD from blockbuster, or borrow a movie from the library).

You can NOT make a copy of copywritten work and then distribute the copies. You also can not make a copy, distribute the original and keep the copy for yourself.

Sharing electronic files is against the law because you are making electronic copies and distributing them.

It's ironic that you said you "pat myself on the back for 'good research'".

I suppose prison cells are like terrorism to criminals too? If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime.

Its not often that the columns of the inquirer doesnt contain another stab at anti-piracy. Granted, this article is kinda siding on the consumer, but is about P2P and prosecutions.
I am as confused as a caveman with a calculator, as I will explain.
All this court action is supposedly to protect the game/film/music producers and artists from loosing their entitled earnings... fair enough, good work deserves good pay. However, I wonder why there is no proceedings against ebay, Game (UK), Games Exchange (UK), or any other retailer allowing you to trade in your games or re-sell without paying royalties? The producers of the game never see revenue from this re-sale any more than from piracy.
Let me guess.... these retailers have the resources to counter the claims in court?...The producers dont want to cut of their supply chain to the public?... Bad publicity?....

I wonder if re-sold games/movies/music figures comes close to pirated? Anyone have statistics?

Relating to me personnaly... I like to try demos of games to see if they are worth buying, then I wait to either see the RRP price fall, store promotions or buy used examples. I dont have the finances to pay £44.99 plus for a new game, but I am happy to spend £25. I do admit to using P2P, but if I like what I download, I will buy it..... but more often than not from ebay.

Then again, if I download something and think its badly made, I keep my money and pat myself on the back for 'good research' to prevent being ripped of by a shoddy peice of work.

i hope someone listens to him.