Rather, if the original content was posted by a person who does not own it nor have permission to share, then it is piracy. On the other hand, if the original poster has copyright or copyright permission, once it is posted on FB or G+, the TOS is an agreement to allow sharing of ones posted work.
James Dodson isn't sharing more like opening movie theaters in every locale in the world and inviting everyone in the world into see it for free (unlimited times if they like)? It's the scale that is threatening. That being said, I have little sympathy for the movie and recording industry. They were caught napping. They need to change their business model, adapt, or die.
James Dodson Nobody is making sharing illegal. It has been illegal for a long time. This is not something new.
Bruce Farris The movie industry may have been napping, but the law regarding intellectual property has been around for a long time. Kodak napped and it is killing them (They recently filed for bankruptcy and have a 10th of the employees they used to have.) But just because someone/some company does not want to make their product available to us on more modern terms, does not give us the right to just take it. We have the right to not buy and not use.
Support the creative commons by means of abandoning the RIAA - even in terms of pirated content. Piracy is still consumption and consumption is support.
Dave Grega Consumption alone is not support. If I were a song writer, making my living of of the songs I write and you use my songs without paying for them, How am I going to be able to continue writing more songs for you to enjoy? I would have to quit and get another job to support my family. Your free consumption of my photos has not bought me one cup of coffee at 7-11. I suppose I should just go to 7-11, get a cup of coffee and walk out, letting them know that I am "supporting" them by consuming their product.
I'm pretty sure the legal definition of piracy is crimes committed at sea. File sharing is a different type of crime. And it is not violent like kidnapping.
I'm not saying it is right for people to file share and it is illegal. But it is reality. Sharing of music and movies has been happening since before they went digital. People have been sharing books, newspapers, and printed material long before that. Its the mass digital sharing with strangers that is impacting the industry. But like it or not, the old ways of distribution are gone. There will always be a market for art in all forms and artists with talent will be fine. Talented authors, photographers, musicians, and actors will always thrive (and starve) as they always have. The distributors of the art and other middlemen are going to have to reinvent their ways of doing business, though.
So, Minnesota would rather people not be able to advance themselves without the officiating organization paying a fee, first? Do libraries have to pay a fee to lend books? Do documentaries put together by universities have to pay a fee first? If I move into the state and give away old college text books, do I have to pay a fee first? http://www.forbes.com/sites/evapereira/2012/10/19/minnesota-bans-free-online-education/
Are you a terrorist? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-declares-all-atheists-are-terrorists-in-new-law-to-crack-down-on-political-dissidents-9228389.html
Comments
Edited to amend: oops, the other posts weren't visible when I posted this response, so it looks weird out of order.
Bruce Farris The movie industry may have been napping, but the law regarding intellectual property has been around for a long time. Kodak napped and it is killing them (They recently filed for bankruptcy and have a 10th of the employees they used to have.) But just because someone/some company does not want to make their product available to us on more modern terms, does not give us the right to just take it. We have the right to not buy and not use.
File sharing is a different type of crime. And it is not violent like kidnapping.