Slashdot Mirror
Korean Brothers Arrested For File-Sharing Site
HarlanC writes: "This story discusses the arrest of two Korean brothers who run a website [warning, page requires Korean language support] that allows peer-to-peer file sharing. Note that the Recording Industry Association of Korea reports local companies lost $154 million in sales in 2000 due to use of the program, even though sales increased to $31.5 million in total sales in 2000 from $29.2 million in 1999."
Just because sales went up does not mean that sales would not have gone up *more* without this "interference." Of course not a popular thing to say here.
/. posters who justify their theft with "Well I wouldn't have bought it anyway."
You're absolutely right, but just because 300 CDs worth of songs were downloaded doesn't mean that sales would have gone up by the total sales price of that 300 CDs.
The record industry's absurd claims about how much money is being lost to piracy is just as ridiculous as
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
Well, technically, I think it would go something like this:
Let's say they sell 2 million CDs, at $15 a piece.
Now let's say there's 10 million copies of the CDs floating around in Korean cyberspace.
Ergo, to the marketdroids, those 10 million copies at $15 each equal $150 million in CDs they should've sold.
Not that they would ever sell that quantity of CDs in the first place, but then marketing and logic don't always go hand in hand these days.
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
God damn it. Yet another Korea-centric article. When are the Slashdot editors going to realize there's more to the world than just Korea?
One time while portscanning for port 80 (out of boredom, not for any malicious purpose) on my former dorm's subnet I came across a directory that the individual probably didn't want to have shared: the one containing the history file for his browser.
His webpage portrayed him as a nice, churchgoing young man. But some of those URLs would suggest otherwise...
"But I was sure www.girlongirl was a scripture quote site!"
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
And people HAVE been arguing that one is less morally offensive than the other for as long as copyright laws have existed in this country. You clearly read
Information has the unique property that you *can* copy it without "destroying" the original. Why not harness this property, rather than make it look like a limited good?
The purpose of an economy is to distribute a limited good fairly and equitably as possible. Information is NOT a limited material resource. At worst, it is a common good (in the economic infrastructure sense), and at best it is a completely unlimited resource. In both cases, it has zero mariginal cost.
In short, the following is a valid *opinion*: "Copying information is not as morally offensive than stealing my physical property, or depriving me of my freedoms."
You may argue that this opinion is false, but you certainly can't tell me it is NOT a topic for debate.
Are you unaware that our founding fathers debated this topic as well?
So, do you refuse to listen to music now, since nobody "lets" you steal it, or do you just go and say, "Well, if I couldn't steal it, then I wouldn't listen to it..."
Fortunately, it's currently not difficult to "steal" the music I want to evaluate. The real problem is the threatened demise of private Internet streaming; that's where I usually become aware of new stuff.
My usual pattern has been:
1) Hear one song on MPEGRadio that sounds cool. Portishead's "Glory Box," to cite a real-life instance. That song was six years old when I heard it for the first time; I'm damned sure not going to stumble across it on eMpTyV or what passes for Top-40 radio ("All Britney, All The Time") these days.
2) Go to Napster/BearShare/whatever. Download every track by (again, e.g.) Portishead I can find. Say to myself, "Self, this r0x0rs."
3) Go to Amazon and start whaling on their Patented One-Click(tm) Button.
4) Go back to Napster and search the drives of people who had the good Portishead stuff, looking for similar music to "steal."
5) Discover Morcheeba, Lamb, Hooverphonic, Massive Attack, et al. Go back to step 3 above.
The problem I have is, if the RIAA actually does manage to shut down the streaming servers and the many heirs to Napster's throne, I will have no way to find new cool stuff to buy. I don't hang out in smoke-filled clubs, and at any rate, the examples I mentioned above probably haven't been played in clubs for years. The RIAA will have inconvenienced me, but what will really have happened is they'll have shot themselves in their collective feet, along with the artists they represent. No "stealing," no revenue. It really is that simple.
I can't speak for the "cheap" losers you refer to who make it a point of (dis)honor to use MP3 servers to avoid paying for music they enjoy. I'm not one of them; I don't know any of them; and frankly, I'm not sure they even exist in numbers large enough to warrant the RIAA's concern.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Note that the Recording Industry Association of Korea reports local companies lost $154 million in sales in 2000 due to use of the program, even though sales increased to $31.5 million in total sales in 2000 from $29.2 million in 1999.
So they're claiming that they were expecting $185.5 million in sales in 2000? A 535% increase over the previous year? And I thought the RIAA was stupid...
Stop this already! File sharing should not be illegal! At least not the technology allowing it! File sharing is SO MUCH MORE than just porn and copyrighted mp3s!
Find nice cocktail recipes @ www.spitzy.net
"Soribada is probably affecting our business, but there is no concrete evidence," said Cho Jin-bae, who handles online marketing at the Seoul office of the EMI record label. For an industry that claims to be losing to piracy 5 times more money than it takes in, all from one source, the lack of concrete evidence suprises me. Or maybe the South Korean RIAA wannabees are even more mathematically challenged than their American counterparts. Frankly, I'm suprised they can crank in $30 million or so a year, what with 2 college kids in their way.
War? Is that what capitalists that behave this way want? I mean, goddamnit. I'm a pacifist, but I'm also a realist. How many people can you harrass, deceive, and imprison before someone blows their fucking lid and torches a corporate office? In some countries, there are already riots inspired by this sort of abuse. I remember reading about a McDonald's being vandalized, and the golden arches becoming a hood ornament on someone's car. THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR WAS STARTED OVER LESS. Jesus Christ. This bulllshit is never going to end. The only solution is to make money obsolete.
But if our IQs were higher, would Slashdot exist?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
today is korean liberation day
cognitivedissonance = on
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I suggest reading the article located here which contains the more believable numbers
the industry says album sales in South Korea totaled $315 million in 2000, up from $292 million the previous year. .
This comment was generated by a Squadron of Ultra Ninjas
There is another way to change the law: Mass Disobedience. Gandhi led India to freedom from British rule using this tactic. Marijuana use was decriminalized in many states in the 1970s because of mass disobedience to the laws. When the legal system is corrupt, using legal means to change the system may not be sufficient. We need to call on all of our resources, the whole repertoire from lobbying to political organizing to protesting to encouraging mass disobedience. Any other response is self-crippling.