Talk:Legal aspects of file sharing

message: The article only refers to copyright controversies, shouldn't it be 'File sharing and copyright law'?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.230.23 (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The name

message: Still waiting for input. Should I include material on (a) procedural issues and (b) counterclaims?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.149.34.242 (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Still waiting for input

message: Hope I haven't stepped on any toes but I agree that (a) the subject, the legal issues surrounding file sharing, deserves an article of its own, and (b) the initial article needs a lot of fixing up, and so I stepped in and rewrote most of the section on caselaw.
I was trying to (a) take out stuff that was wrong or offtopic, and (b) put in a more meaningful structure. 
I have tons of additional material I can add but need input on 2 questions before I do:
(1) Should I include material on procedural issues, such as discovery, evidence, etc.? (This has a lot to do with how the cases will turn out, especially since much of the controversy surrounding these cases is that so many of the defendants never even heard of, let alone engaged in, file sharing.)
(2) Should I include material on counterclaims? (Some of the counterclaims might have nothing to do with the substantive copyright law issues, but may have an important bearing on the outcome.)
24.199.110.5 13:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My September 2nd edit

message: The bulk of this material was dragged over from File sharing; the subject is worthy of its own article on the legal aspects, and fragments of the topic are scattered on almost every file sharing and P2P related article. 
But now created, the article needs a lot of tidying up, feel free to join in !!! :) FT2 (Talk | email) 18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially, the case and case law sections need fixing... FT2 (Talk | email) 19:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article creator's note

message: Am I the only one feeling this article is unnecessarily USA-focused, at least in the beginning? Lejman 16:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Focus 

message: In Poland copyright law (1994-current) allows for downloading publicly available materials for personal use and swapping of them with people with whom you have "personal/casual relations" (don't know how to translate it. family+friends). So people can download from p2p networks but can't upload unless it's a f2f network. The Police actually need to know that a person uploaded data to the network to take any action. EU isn't putting any "serious" pressure (no one is talking about changing the legislation in the media or on the net) and only ZAIKS's lawyers (artist protection agency) are claiming that downloading is illegal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.53.234.243 (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no downloading without uploading, because you have to contribute to make P2P work, that is the essence of such systems. Uploading is clearly illegal. The only reason the EU does not much is because the old continent media industry is a mere fraction of what the USA produces. Even the combined italian + french + german cinema sector is just a drop in the barrel of Hollywood + US national TV productions. Europe is envious of the US "pop-cultural hegemony" and therefore wishes ill luck and profits for the american media investors. Also, many europeans think any money spent on american music and film is going to end up in jewish pockets, so they try to get it bootleg. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU law. 

message: The entire article is un-encyclopedic and uses a speaking tone intead of being neutral.  Also it's against NPOV.  I'm going to be bold and fix some of these problems. Vscel4 (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Un-encyclopedic 

message: Copyright exists so that creators solely can benefit from their creations, singers from their hit songs, directors from their blockbuster movies and inventors from their gadgets (dealt with under the patent system). Copyright makes sure only creators and lawful purchasers can benefit from creations, so that disgruntled creators do not stop creating and making progress for common good.
This assertion is simply flat out false. Copyrights are being used to expand the power of the mafia-like corporations represented by the MPAA and RIAA, allowing them to assert undue power over their users, chipping away at end user rights and corroding the free dissemination of information and works on the internet. The recording labels and studios do not produce anything, they are the antithesis of creative, honest work. They have imposed themselves as a third party that artists have to go through to share their work, effectively monopolizing and controlling all musical talent. The labels aren't making any music, they are pimping their artists and coming after us for their supposed "dues." When you buy a $20 CD, 19 of those dollars go to people other than the artist. Once recording techs, etc are accounted for $15-18 go to the recording labels and associated corporations. 
If there was no copyright nobody would create anything, out of fear of being robbed of his/her creation without due compesation and the world would be like the gipsy or the redskins, sitting around miserable their tents totally unproductive, stuck so primitive literally little more than apes. 
Again, another opinionated assertion with no basis in a reality outside of the poster's head. If every recording label went out of business tomorrow, the music industry would be untouched. A new paradigm shift would have to occur so that artists can share their work and get paid for it through entirely new mediums. For someone who obviously has no idea about the sophistication and importance "redskin" culture, your claims are little more than racist, elitist banter. They are neither miserable nor totally unproductive, they live a life free from needing fancy gadgets and material objects for "happiness," and their productivity is of a completely different kind than such a dense, ethnocentric perspective can possibly grasp- it is sustainable, one with nature and the universe. It is totally unlike the cancer (pollution, destruction, war, famine, mass ignorance, subversion, corruption, extinction) that we call our civilization. 
The cyber-anarchist, basement dwelling, P2P loving spotty nerds want to abolish copyright and then nobody will create anything significant and the free world will be like the USSR in 20 years. Nobody will make Titanic2 or so for 355 million dollars, if it gets pirated on the first day, spewed onto bittorrent and almost nobody goes to see it at the movie for a total loss of investment for the creators.
More baseless spin and scare tactics. No one is going to abolish copyright laws, nor is it desirable or necessary to do so even if music and other media were shared on the internet at no cost. Artists need to be more flexible with their copyright laws and more assertive in maintaining their copyrights instead of selling them off to corporations. Artists that publish their albums online independently make more money charging $3 for the whole album than they would selling albums for $20 while being pimped by record labels, which terrifies record labels and in their eyes justifies hard handed tactics to continue to monopolize the recording and dissemination of music. It also remains completely unproven that because someone sees a movie or listens to an album online that, given the material is good, they will not spend money later to watch the movie in higher quality or to secure the album with better sound. Most big losses are movies and music of poor quality that people would not buy or watch anyway unless they are tricked into it by things like "trailers" and "singles," which are purposefully constructed to paint a picture that is many times quite deceiving to consumers. In many ways being able to sample copyrighted material freely online actually protects capitalism and the art of music and film by giving more power to the "invisible hand" that guides the market. 
Movie piracy actually has a pronounced destructive effect on the very fabric of society. People watch for-free P2P bootleg material leaning over on their own monitor alone, instead of going to the cinema, where the silver screen was a common gathering place for the the community, where love relations formed, etc. P2P viewership atomizes the society, people seldom come out of their basement, a country falls apart into a heap of many million isolated individuals. This is probably intentional, the secret powerful supporters of P2P want to destroy bonds that holds nation-states together, so they become fragile and easy to rule over.
Yet, this wikipedia article is trying to supress all these basic truths by flooding the reader with a plethora of minor technicality details.''
82.131.210.162 (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article glosses over the very basic premises. 

message: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/c20082008-b.pdf
That's the link to the proposed legislation in pdf format. It's an official document to be used in the house of commons. Here's the link to where it came from:
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/new-e.html
I'm not sure how to add the reference/citation myself, so if someone would be so kind. . .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.52.60 (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A Reference for the last "citation needed" tag

message: What happened to generosity?
So where do you draw the line between Unethical Laws & Unlawful Ethics ?
Where do you draw the line between sharing/giving and pirating?
As as it stands, giving and sharing, the concept of generosity will be illegal in a few years!
Response - The line between sharing/giving and pirating is that if you made it, then go ahead and give it away for free, but if someone else made it, then it isn't yours to give away. Ask yourself this question. Would you give away your hard work? It's only easy for you to use this argument because you didn't make it and, therefore, haven't put any effort into creating it.
:Thanks to your "Response", We have come up with a new License: Knowledge & yes, from now I would gladly "share" my hard work for the good of others, and only for the good of others... for Free. No payment or credit required. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Well, atleast until this account is banned or deleted for advertising something we're not even aware of. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unethical Laws Vs. Unlawful Ethics 

message: I believe this article is a great example of POV violations. It was clearly written to push one view. And the misuse of terms indicates that the writers do not understand the subject. For example, "fair use" is used incorrectly multiple times. There is also an inane, first person, anecdotal statement "justifying" illegal action. Further, court cases have been cherry-picked to favor one side of the argument. I tend to doubt that the article can be salvaged and don't think this is the correct medium for this type of argument. Objective3000 (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Well, duh. Does that template really need to be there? --Arperry (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US section is US-centric 

message: I'm wonding if i upload content that was issued to me by record companies to promote as a radio disc jocky and i have those promo copies.would it be an infringment of copy right.being they issue them to me  to play to the public and are label for promotional use only does this constitute infringment?
This is a very good question which i would like an answered.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.110.159 (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should not ask for legal advice here. Objective3000 (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what if your content was issued by record companies to promote 

message: Quite unexpectedly, this image of file sharers demonstrating against file sharing laws was deleted by Objective3000, who claims that it has no relation to the text. To me that is completely incomprehensible; it is a fact that the demo occured and it is obvious that the image deals with the subject of file sharing and the law. I will reinsert the image once more, and if Objective3000 still disagrees I suggest we take it to Wikipedia:Third opinion to avoid an edit war. Äppelmos (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is already marked neutrality disputed. Adding as the sole image to the article a picture of a demonstration by people that wish to change the law does not help the situation.Objective3000 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the image does help: it's a highly relevant image in an article which desperately needs images. If you think the text in this article is POV, then fix it the hard way by improving the text and finding good sources, not by deleting an image that adds value to the article. Äppelmos (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How does an image of people that deny the very existence of the law contribute to an article of law? It's like putting a picture of flat-Earthers in an article on the Earth. This article already has NPOV problems and you are adding to them by adding, as the sole image, an image of a few protesters that deny file sharing violates any law. This is not a dispassionate article.Objective3000 (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I would add that there are many people that disagree with many laws. This is not a good reason to spread pictures of the skull and crossbones around Wikipedia.Objective3000 (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Are you kidding? This article is a perfect example of how to violate NPOV.Objective3000 (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, man, you need to actually read these policies before stating them.  This picture depicts something that has actually went on in respect to this article.  Its not a matter of neutrality. JeremyWJ (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Again, if you don't like it I urge you to find a picture protesting piracy.  The picture remains. JeremyWJ (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My name is not dude or man, and I have read NPOV. This article is not neutral. Clearly you are showing your bias. You are suggesting that I find an additional picture to somehow press an opposite agenda. I have no interest in coflicting pictures pushing conflicting agenda. This is an encylopedia, not a food fight.Objective3000 (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image dispute

message: The legal information by country needs attention. It's a summary section that provides links to other articles where needed, so it doesn't need to recap the entirety of copyright law, just summarize the law and its key cases. 
There is also considerable duplication in some countries (Spain, US, EU) where content was merged.
FT2 (Talk | email) 10:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Pro piracy demonstration.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: This page has serious problems. I checked two cases mentioned in the article, Atlantic v. Howell and Capital v. Thomas, and both decisions used to make an argument were reversed. It's bad enough that the article is dead wrong on the disposition of these case, it shouldn't be arguing a case in the first place. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversals 

message: For some reason User:Nosdan feels that renaming the article to Legal aspects of copyright infringement is a better title.  Well, frankly that name is absurd. The article was originally created to remove the legal discussions from an article about file sharing, and this is the subject matter of it still.  To broaden the aspect to all copyright infringements is counter intuitive and does not reflect the intent.  It is also a bizarre, unencyclopedic title as both copyright and infringement are entirely legal subject matters, and so the title makes not much sense. What are the other (not legal) aspects of copyright infringement?  The practical manner of doing it?  That title only adds to the poor presentation of the subject. Kbrose (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The new title sounds redundant. The original clearly states the purpose of the article. Objective3000 (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Article renaming activity

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Legal aspects of file sharing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100925033052/http://pressoffice.talktalk.co.uk:80/news/item/music_fans_will_sidestep_filesharing_clampdown_says_talktalk/? to http://pressoffice.talktalk.co.uk/news/item/music_fans_will_sidestep_filesharing_clampdown_says_talktalk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Legal aspects of file sharing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100430180932/http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy.html to http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Legal aspects of file sharing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110423102648/http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?id=58185AFD-5525-19D4-FFD2-4233518393AD to http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?id=58185AFD-5525-19D4-FFD2-4233518393AD
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110226013817/http://gigaom.com/video/rapidshare-wins-in-court/ to http://gigaom.com/video/rapidshare-wins-in-court/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141220090040/http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf%3Bjsessionid%3D9ea7d2dc30d5306c74c20c5b45538245c60808b63951.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxuNbxr0?doclang=EN&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=DOC&docid=153302&occ=first&dir=&cid=93105 to http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf%3Bjsessionid%3D9ea7d2dc30d5306c74c20c5b45538245c60808b63951.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxuNbxr0?doclang=EN&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=DOC&docid=153302&occ=first&dir=&cid=93105
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081027000900/http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2008/Norwegian%20Consumer%20Council%20calls%20for%20Internet%20complaint%20board to http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2008/Norwegian%20Consumer%20Council%20calls%20for%20Internet%20complaint%20board
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081026090128/http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2008/ISP%20liability_Norwegian%20Consumer%20Council%20warns%20consumers%20not%20to%20sign%20letter%20of%20guilt to http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2008/ISP%20liability_Norwegian%20Consumer%20Council%20warns%20consumers%20not%20to%20sign%20letter%20of%20guilt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407090817/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-06/08/north-korean-filesharing to http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-06/08/north-korean-filesharing
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402172820/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/digitalbritain/2009/11/copyright/ to http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/digitalbritain/2009/11/copyright/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120124195331/http://www.talktalkblog.co.uk/2009/12/14/our-don-t-disconnect-us-petition-passes-30-000-signatories/ to http://www.talktalkblog.co.uk/2009/12/14/our-don-t-disconnect-us-petition-passes-30-000-signatories/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Legal aspects of file sharing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301211321/http://www.thelocal.se/16148/20081205/ to http://www.thelocal.se/16148/20081205/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130420185652/http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2011%2F6%2F11%2Fnation%2F8879884&sec=nation to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2011%2F6%2F11%2Fnation%2F8879884&sec=nation
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201045853/http://hacktivistas.net/content/downloading-files-p2p-networks-legal-spain to http://hacktivistas.net/content/downloading-files-p2p-networks-legal-spain
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527060536/http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/digitalbritain/digital-economy-bill/ to http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/digitalbritain/digital-economy-bill/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105094452/http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elektra_barker_memooflaw to http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elektra_barker_memooflaw
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105110410/http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elektra_barker_replymemomotdis to http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elektra_barker_replymemomotdis
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105095430/http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elektra_barker_oppositiontomotion to http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elektra_barker_oppositiontomotion
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105094238/http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elektra_barker_mpaabrief to http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elektra_barker_mpaabrief
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105084354/http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elektra_barker_effamicusbrief to http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elektra_barker_effamicusbrief
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105074723/http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elektra_barker_amicusbriefcomputercomm to http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elektra_barker_amicusbriefcomputercomm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118183028/http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elektra_barker_usstatement to http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elektra_barker_usstatement
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118183028/http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elektra_barker_usstatement to http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elektra_barker_usstatement
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified