Talk:File sharing and the law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for File sharing and the law: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    Contents

    [edit] Still waiting for input

    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)

    [edit] My September 2nd 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

    [edit] Article creator's note

    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)

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


    [edit] Article Focus

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

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

    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)

    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)

    [edit] EU law.

    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)

    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)

    [edit] Very Un-encyclopedic

    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)

    [edit] This article glosses over the very basic premises.

    Nothing of basic importance is dealt with in this Wikipedia article.

    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.

    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.

    Copyright is the heart of capitalism and capitalism is identically equal to material progress. There was no significant progress under medieval feudalism or the red star. When there is no copyright, like in USSR prior to 1973 there is no progress: all the moscovites got was via one-on-one copycat espionage against the free world (e.g. A-bomb, B-29 --> Tu-4, Concorde --> Tu-144, computers, etc.) When the USSR started to stagnate under Brezhnev even they installed copyright in 1973 to encourage progress!

    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.

    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)