Jump to content

Talk:Legal aspects of file sharing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The name

[edit]

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)[reply]


i checked out the talk page for exactly this reason. this page has little to do with sharing of files, a file could be a picture image i took and sent to a friend, it could be a short video of my pets i took and shared online or an open source game or program uploaded to a file sharing site/torrent tracker. this article deals specifically with "copyright infringing" and not the broad gamut of sharing of files there for i believe the name needs changing. Nosdan (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for input

[edit]

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)[reply]

My September 2nd edit

[edit]

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)RayBeckerman[reply]

Article creator's note

[edit]

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)[reply]

Especially, the case and case law sections need fixing... FT2 (Talk | email) 19:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Article Focus

[edit]

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

Nope, I agree. 124.171.228.172 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an American site. You're luck there's mention of any other nations at all, and if they are, it's only because there's some connection to the USA. If you want an entry on German P2P, go to the German Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article could be greatly enhanced by adding the laws and regulations for file sharing in countries other than the US. It would allow for a broader understanding of the issues at hand as well as give other perspectives on the topic. Also, this is not just an "American" site. This section of Wikipedia is in English, but, that does not mean we should shut out information on the laws and cultures of other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnit999 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EU law.

[edit]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

Very Un-encyclopedic

[edit]

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)[reply]

This article glosses over the very basic premises.

[edit]

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)[reply]

Curtailment of free speech, destruction of privacy, corporate policing and the intellectual choke hold on art are far more dangerous and destructive to the fabric of society. This last paragraph perhaps makes the most ridiculous claims. People watch P2P bootleg material alone, or surrounded by family and friends, or with their girl/boy friend or however else they want to see it. Being a bootlegger does not preclude one from having friends or forming relationships, and to suggest otherwise is simply stupid. In fact, there are many reasons nowadays to completely avoid crowded areas such as movie theaters (swine flu anyone?) and the level of long lasting romantic relationships formed at a movie theater versus casual sexual encounters is undiscernable and cannot be called either "good" or "bad." P2P viewership doesn't atomize society or dictate the way people behave or what they find enjoyable, society itself does that. Blaming social woes on P2P is not only ignorant and ridiculous, it is downright scapegoating for the institutions in our society that are rotting it from within.

A Reference for the last "citation needed" tag

[edit]

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)[reply]

Unethical Laws Vs. Unlawful Ethics

[edit]

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)[reply]
...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)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

The article now makes an unqualified statement that downloading is legal in some countries. As I understand it, the Spanish courts ruled that subpoenas could not be issued to ISPs to obtain names of downloaders in civil court. They would have to be issued for a criminal case. Pirate Bay then circulated throughout the Internet that the courts ruled that downloading is legal in Spain. The court said no such thing. As a result, there has been much confusion in Spain and contradictory statements. A general encyclopedia should not be in the business of providing legal advice. In particular, flat-out statements that highly dubious actions are legal should certainly not appear here. Objective3000 (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish courts do have said that downloading is legal[1], the case you are saying is a different one and what The Pirate Bay could have said about the legality of downloading in Spain didn't have any significant effect on the opinion of Spanish people. I don't know what The Pirate Bay said or when they did it, but the right to make private copies in Spain exists even before there was Internet connection. I agree that a general encyclopedia should not be in the business of providing legal advice, but the statement about the legality of downloading in Spain is neither doing so nor asserting anything without a valid base or references. Saying the opposite (that is illegal) would be a flat-out statement without foundation, as there is no a single law or official entity or judicial ruling that say so. In Spain there is private copying right[2], that means you have the right to make copies of audiovisual content if it is done for private use and with no profit purpose. It is not required that you own an original copy to do so. Moreover, there is a private copy levy charged on purchase of recordable media to compensate the authors for the private copies of their work[3], so the authors even get money due to the downloads. The fact that downloading is legal in Spain is not a rumor spread by The Pirate Bay, the Spanish law[4] says it is legal, as well as specialized lawyers[5][6], consumer associations[7] and judicial rulings.[8] So far nobody has been declared guilty of downloading music or videos from the internet for private use and without profit purpose.
I think it will help to this discussion if someone could translate the articles in the Spanish wikipedia about the private copying right and the private copying levy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.172.242 (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So it is your "opinion" based on selected articles that downloading is legal in Spain. Do you have a ruling from the Supreme Court of Spain? Otherwise, why would you provide advice to readers that they can commit acts which are generally considered illegal as absolute statements without any qualification? This is an encyclopedia -- not a fan-boy site.Objective3000 (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is based on the law. The article is titled "File sharing and the law" so I think it has to reflect what the law says, and it is possible to check what the Spanish law says (Ley de propiedad intelectual Artículo 31.2). The Supreme Court of Spain is the last resort for issues not related to the Constitution and has not been appealed to in cases of downloading for private use with no profit purpose, as all these cases has been solved in common courts ruling that it is legal to do so. I'm not providing advice to readers, I'm saying what the status of file sharing and the law is in Spain. Maybe file sharing is "generally" considered illegal where you live but that doesn't make it illegal in Spain. What is your opinion based on? Do you have a ruling from any Spanish court (the supreme or a common one) saying that downloading for private use with no profit purpose is illegal? Any Spanish law that says so? Any official document?...
1. I don't have an opinion on the law in Spain. I am not the one that added text to WP giving legal advice to Spanish downloaders.
2. I don't know the legal definition of "profit" in Spain. Profit means advance in Latin. The first three definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary are 1.) advantage or benefit, use, interest, gain, good, well-being, 2.) advantage or benefit of or resulting from something, 3.) progress, advance, improvement. If you get something for free, you profit.
3. The discussion just added here contradicts the text added to article. The text added to the article states that you can legally download in Spain for your use all you wish. But here, you have added qualifications not in the text and in fact stated that there is a levy involved.
WP should not provide legal advice. Objective3000 (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I answer and comment your points.
1. Right, you are not the one who wrote it but you are the one who is questioning it, and what is written in the article is not a legal advice. The article has a section titled "More details by legislative regime" and what It's written states what the details of file sharing in the legislative regime of Spain are.
2. With no profit purpose basically means you don't use the copies obtained to get money. Anyway, this can be discussed for ages but the legal interpretation of "sin ánimo de lucro" (with no profit purpose or with no profit motive in mind. I'm not a professional translator) in Spain is neither your nor my concern, that's the business of the Spanish judicial bodies and they think that downloading for private use doesn't fall into profit purpose, as the "Fiscalía General del Estado" (Attorney General) says in the "Circular 1/2006" as well as the court rulings.
3. I don't know which contradictions you mean. The private copying levy is a scheme introduced by the government to compensate the developers of content for the private copies legally allowed, the right to private copying is not subject to the paying of a levy, you don't have to pay it to have the right to private copying (otherwise, it will dubiously be a right). The existence of a private copying levy doesn't contradict the existence of the right to private copying. Anyway, if you think this discussion contradicts what is written in the article, the contradictions can be remarked, resolved and the article modified and corrected if needed.
I agree WP should not provide legal advice but I don't think it is doing so. Nevertheless, if the article is about "File sharing and the law" and there are different laws in different countries it should have information about file sharing under the different laws and countries.
When I read the article there was no information about Spain so I decide to add it and I supported it with references as laws, courts rulings, consumer organizations, etc. If someone thinks it is not neutral or that it contains unqualified statements, or information based on rumors, or information that is being hidden, etc. And he/she has good references and knowledge, those references can be added to the article and it can be corrected/modified and more information added to it so the article grows and its quality improves. That's the way Wikipedia is built. But please, don't censor, criticize or question it with any foundations but your opinions. This is a encyclopedia and it is not built on opinions. Just the fact that you think file sharing is a highly dubious action or that it is an act generally considered illegal is not a valid foundation to question what is written in the article about the law in Spain and assert it makes unqualified and flat-out statements. Please, contribute with founded and constructive criticism.--87.198.172.242 (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I did not add the text to the article. So your continuing claim that I am expressing an opinion is irrelevant. Opinions are allowed on the talk page – they are not allowed in articles. Opinions are now in the article and worse, opinions that are given as legal advice to people that may or may not take them as gospel to commit possibly illegal acts. Look, this is a terrible article in general. It actually provides an absurd, first-person, highly questionable anecdote as an excuse to violate law. Now, highly questionable legal advice is added with selective legal statements in Spanish by unknown sources. And they aren’t even stated as opinion. This is not encyclopedic and the entire article shames WP. Objective3000 (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's what you think… I will just remember you one thing: Nobody is preventing you from amending it, you are free to do it as well as everyone else. So please, stop criticizing and start contributing. 87.198.172.242 (talk) 09:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just reread the entire article. It is unfixable. The bias is so extreme it should be removed completely. Murder is murder. The fact that you kill someone using a laser gun doesn't make it legal because the law does not specifically include death by laser gun. And copyright law is not moot because a new technology is used for the crime. The entire article attempts to argue this exact point. That the law is unclear because it does not identify the specific methods of violation. Law has never required this.
But this is even irrelevant. The point is that the article is designed to put forth a point of view. Even if it made sense, the article should not be in an encyclopedia. There is a reason that this article has been marked by others, multiple times, as violating WP standards. Objective3000 (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US section is US-centric

[edit]

Well, duh. Does that template really need to be there? --Arperry (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what if your content was issued by record companies to promote

[edit]

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)[reply]

You should not ask for legal advice here. Objective3000 (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image dispute

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I must agree with Appelmos here. This picture is a great depiction for that section of the article. The neutrality claim is dated (from 2007) and thus should probably be removed from the article. JeremyWJ (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? This article is a perfect example of how to violate NPOV.Objective3000 (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

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)[reply]

File:Pro piracy demonstration.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Pro piracy demonstration.jpg, 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)[reply]

Reversals

[edit]

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)[reply]


Article renaming activity

[edit]

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)[reply]

Agree. The new title sounds redundant. The original clearly states the purpose of the article. Objective3000 (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Legal aspects of file sharing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The European Union study

[edit]

The "Effects" section currently says:

"A study ordered by the European Union found that illegal downloading may lead to an increase in overall video game sales because newer games charge for extra features or levels. The paper concluded that piracy had a negative financial impact on movies, music, and literature. The study relied on self-reported data about game purchases and use of illegal download sites. Pains were taken to remove effects of false and misremembered responses."

Whereas the cited Newsweek article says:

"Your illegal downloads of video games, top music acts and even e-books don't harm sales, according to a landmark report on piracy that the European Commission ordered but then buried when the findings didn't tell officials what they wanted to hear.

The 300-page study offered the counterintuitive conclusion that illegal downloads actually help the gaming industry and have no negative impact on music sales by big stars or on e-book profits. Sales of movie blockbusters are negatively affected.

“In general, the results do not show robust statistical evidence of displacement of sales by online copyright infringements," according to the report. "That does not necessarily mean that piracy has no effect but only that the statistical analysis does not prove with sufficient reliability that there is an effect.”

The European Commission had ordered up the 2015 report to determine "the extent to which digital consumption of pirated materials displaces legitimate purchases is of fundamental importance for EU copyright policy design" and paid researchers about $428,000 for it. But its findings were not revealed until 2016, when two commission officials hailed a link between reduced sales for blockbusters and illegal downloads, without mentioning the report's main finding about the positive impact on gaming and its neutral view of illegal music and e-book downloads.

That caught the eye of Julia Reda, a German member of the European Parliament, who opposes an EU proposal that would crack down on companies like Google or YouTube for allowing people to illegally post the protected material on their sites. Reda brought the full report, and the fuller picture of the impact of piracy, to light.

"Why did the commission, after having spent a significant amount of money on it, choose not to publish this study for almost two years?" Reda said. She suggested that greater attention to the full report would have hurt the anti-piracy bill she opposes.

In the music industry, the lack of piracy impact applies mostly to big artists since "live concerts generate more revenue than all forms of recorded music." It's still unethical to download CDs illegally, but statistics don't indicate an overall displacement of physical or digital sales for music artists.

Regardless of the overall findings, major blockbuster movies are negatively affected by illegal downloads. For every 10 top films watched illegally, "four fewer films are consumed legally." The same goes for TV shows.

Buried in the report is an explanation of why piracy doesn't hurt the gaming industry—which basically made a game out of it. The report shows that the gaming industry successfully converts illegal users to paying users by "offering gameplay with extra bonuses or extra levels if consumers pay." "

I do not see how the current wording is not severely misleading to visitors. David A (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest something like this instead:
"A study ordered by the European Union found that illegal downloading may lead to an increase in overall video game sales because newer games charge for extra features or levels. The paper concluded that piracy had a negative financial impact on movies and TV series, but a neutral effect on music and literature. The study relied on self-reported data about game purchases and use of illegal download sites. Pains were taken to remove effects of false and misremembered responses." David A (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Newsweek says: In the music industry, the lack of piracy impact applies mostly to big artists since "live concerts generate more revenue than all forms of recorded music.". That is to say music sales ARE negatively affected. But, the top stars aren’t hurt as they make money in concerts. So, piracy does hurt music sales. It just doesn’t matter much to those artists at the very top. Your bigthink cite says: The paper concluded that piracy had a negative financial impact on movies, music, and literature. So, it may not affect e-books. But, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect books in toto. O3000 (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It seems like the articles give contradictory information then. Perhaps somebody should investigate the original report in order to find out what it actually says? https://juliareda.eu/2017/09/secret-copyright-infringement-study/ David A (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the primary source. Unfortunately, it seems to repeatedly indicate its results have high standard error rates. It uses phrases like: “There are no robustly significant findings.” That doesn’t mean there’s no effect. It means that the std. dev. of the data wasn’t low enough for definitive conclusions. The Newsweek article is very poorly written. Its title states that the study was hidden from the public and the text says the study was “buried when the findings didn't tell officials what they wanted to hear.” This accusation appears to have originated with Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda, hardly an unbiased source. The accusation was not repeated by ArsTechnica or BigThink. I can’t find any actual source that the study was buried. But if it was, likely because they spent €360,000 on a study that doesn’t actually say much.:) O3000 (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. It seems like I may have misunderstood the information then. David A (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

eyyghh



wgryut 210.14.97.156 (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legal_aspects_of_file_sharing&oldid=1203539087"