My problems with illegal file sharing:
1. There is still a ton of money changing hands, but none of it goes to the artists. This is not about a "free exchange of ideas", this is about people looking to profit off of others work without compensation.
PirateBay makes $14 million per month. Kim Dotcom is a BILLIONAIRE, though thankfully he's an incarcerated billionaire. Sean Parker is worth $2.5 billion.
There's a big difference between these guys...
Google, Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc. all make huge sums of money by supporting illegal file sharing.
and these guys.
To make an analogy: the file-sharing sites operate meeting halls where stolen goods are exchanged, google sells maps of how to get anywhere (including to the meeting halls) and sells ad space on billboards (without caring what goes on inside the building the billboard is mounted on), and the carriers operate the roads that all traffic - legal or otherwise - drives on.
The big difference is in how much of their business is built on illegally sharing files. Google and the big carriers basically are neutral about it - one location on a map is the same as another, a car carrying stolen goods is the same as one taking someone's kids to school, a billboard on the side of a grocery store is the same as one on the side of a meth lab. You can say that they should care more and get actively involved, but to put them into the same category as the file sharing sites is unreasonable.
2. The notion that there's nothing that can be done about it. There is. It is a crime
Sometimes it is a criminal issue, sometimes it's a civil issue. There's a whole bunch of somewhat fuzzy factors that determine which side of the line it falls. (in the US).
and ISPs should be involved in fighting it. They should readily hand over the IP addresses of downloaders
The IP address is usually easy to find, it's the identity that's the problem. ISPs have a legal duty to protect their users' privacy so can't just hand over names and addresses to anyone who asks. There has to be a request from law enforcement / a court order to get the info, and 99.9% of the time, an ISP will comply when they get the correct paperwork. Without that paperwork, they're the ones in danger of being sued.
The ISPs like to say they are for the "free exchange of ideas" and they don't want to "limit free speech",
Some parties - usually the ones directly involved in file sharing - are using these kinds of arguments as a fig leaf. Others are basically saying that there are way more legitimate uses of the technology than illegitimate ones and damaging legitimate uses to eliminate illegitimates uses is an unacceptable degree of collateral damage. There's a trade-off and there are a bunch of very reasonable arguments for drawing the line in one place or another.
but see what they're saying when it's they're software codes that are being freely traded.
Just as a side note for clarity's sake, an ISP is usually not someone who writes software code. ISPs are more like people who build a toll road between your town and the freeway. Google is not an ISP, Megaupload is not an ISP, ATT is an ISP (and a bunch of other stuff besides).
The RIAA shouldn't have to sue anyone. If someone steals your car, the cops do what they can to figure out who did it and the DA does what they can to put that person in jail. Imagine if your car was stolen and it was up to you to find out who took it, and then you needed to find a lawyer and sue them to get your own car back.
There's a couple of differences between illegal file sharing and this scenario - first the "is it civil or is it criminal?" issue, and second that if your car has gone that's definite proof that a crime has been committed. If someone copies a file you don't know about it unless you're looking in the right place at the right time.
Why is it out of touch to regard morals as constant? In this case, to regard stealing as wrong?
(Please don't assume from anything I say here that I'm for or against "free music" - I make my living from intellectual property as well - in my case hardware and the software that runs on it so this attitude affects my ability to pay the mortgage just as much as it does a working musician)
It's not so much that people have stopped regarding stealing as wrong but they don't regard copyright infringement as stealing. Which, for about 94% of human history, it hasn't been. Physical property has been recognised since before recorded history, but this stuff? People just let an idea out into the world, and ... that was it. It was everyone's. So, morality - or at least law and social attitude - hasn't been constant here.
Copyright (and patents, and the suchlike) are a relatively new invention and they're generally good - it lets you and me pay our bills and lets society share the cost of the stuff we create evenly between the people who benefit from it.
But maybe, just maybe, things might need a little tweaking? Parties on
both sides are trying to use the technological change in their interests and get the line redrawn in their favor. It's not just downloaders getting stuff without paying for it, it's publishers selling stuff and removing people's right to resell it (or even read it out loud in certain extreme cases).
There's a lot of change going on. I try and stay on top of the issues as best I can but still haven't a clue where it's going to end up.
.
