Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Looks To Stop KaZaA, Morpheus & Grokster
John Hampton writes: "The RIAA is going to try to sue KaZaZ, Morpheus and Grokster, according to this story. Internal memos from within the RIAA outline the record label's findings and strategy going ahead. Great story. Hilary Rosen begging executives to talk about the issue and the RIAA issuing the lamest statement ever. From DotcomScoop.com."
I cant wait to see: :))
1. The moment when the industry realises how good they could have had it before they fscked up the server model of napster compared to a distributed self organising network
2. The moment when some dumb exec decides the only way to stop it is to take out EVERY supernode
3. The RIAA resort to hiring hundreds of consultants to try and fix the unfixable problem
4. The RIAA eventually succeed in closing down the big three and just as it happens, giFT is finished and goes mainstream, or even better fasttrak release the source (I can dream cant I
Kazaa/Morpheus/Grokster JUST broke functionality with giFT by causing the client to HAVE to contact a main server before it will participate in the network. This move makes this new network easily vulnerable to a shutdown since it relies on a few entry points. If they had left it alone the floating network would continue to float, but not now. Oh well.
"I know you want your new businesses to be successful. So do I. Given the overwhelming volume of these alternative services, RIAA can't handle all of the enforcement alone. If they are not controlled more effectively and consumers redirected to legitimate offerings, there won't be new businesses. That's obvious," Rosen continued.
What the RIAA and other big industry orgs fail to understand is that it's not about directing users to "legitimate offerings", it's about not being a dinosaur in a fast paced industry. They are struggling to maintain old ways of distributing music and they don't understand that they have been replaced by a new distribution model. The record industry used to exist because some band, say "Vibrating Sandbox", didn't have the resources to publish and distribute nationally. Duh. Today, ANYBODY can send their music around the world.
I find it so amusing that the RIAA claims it hopes for the success of other music related businesses, then talks about handing enforcement. Enforcement!? RIAA: You are a conduit for music, not the source! Enforcement is up to the artists. If "Vibrating Sandbox" doesn't want its music distributed on *ster, then that's their problem.
The thing with organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA is they don't know when to quit. They need to learn a new way to make money that works with the modern world, or just go away all together.
Of course, not to mention that these "illegitimate" file/music sharing services actually give listeners access to a wide variety of flavors. Try finding the same obscure, yet decent material on an RIAA services as you would find on Napster. It's a shame how something so big, greedy, and ancient can have so much control over the methods of medium they contributed absolutely nothing to.
Why bother.
Let's take a quote from the giFT page:
Can you say "Ooops?"
They've proved that an automatic two tier system can work (with user-node and super-node systems automatically finding the most efficient way of aggregating data).
Now we need a piece of software that will do all of this without the need for a central company. That way the RIAAA _can't_ shut it down.
Come on guys, we're one step away from success here - the power of Napster/FastTrack with the freedom of Gnutella - let's show them it can be done.
My Journal
The RIAA will pay many lobbyists to lobby (pay) for votes in Congress. Congress will then pass a declaration of war against the country of Nevis for IP crime. (Congress will however use the word piracy a lot, leading most newscasts to use stock footage of pirates looting ships on the open seas.)
Thousands of troops will be sent storming into Nevis from the air and seas, and after a 15 minute battle, the Island of Nevis will be no more. Grokster will be shut down.
For more information on Nevis, visit CIA Factbook on Nevis or your local library.
In a way, they're acting no different from the record companies in trying to stop an alternate method of distribution (of sorts).
It's ironic (did I use the word correctly?) that this protective action has openned them up to lawsuits from the record industry.
One thing that interests me, however, is that KaZaA is much more than audio file sharing. You can download audio, video, software, images and documents, and only one of those categories applies to the RIAA. I suppose it only takes one category, but it's interesting that no other companies or industry representives have become involved (yet, to my knowledge). I wouldn't be too amazed if the MPAA joined the fray, not to mention numerous software companies.
The thing is...how long can this go on for? Someone sets up a filesharing network. The RIAA sues them, bringing their vast financial resources to bear, which means that any other resources they require can be bought. They close-mindedly bring about the destruction or complete alteration of the network, not taking into account many technicalities like the way that Napster was demonstrated to actually boost CD sales, and that the server owners should not be held responsible for the traffic on their network, just as ISPs cannot. But in this time, another network has popped up in its place. In fact, several networks.
How long can this continue? Surely the RIAA must realise that it is a futile proposition (at present) to attempt to take down every filesharing network that may allow access to copyrighted material? I suppose that's why they are attempting to pass more and more fascist laws, and are encouraging other countries to do the same, in order to maintain their somewhat archaically-based real-world manopoly. Surely there must be an easier way for record companies etc to protect their copyrights, within reason, but to allow filesharing like this within reason as well (and I'm not specifically thinking of subscription). It seems that the RIAA, MPAA et al, rather than go with the flow and try new avenues of profit on the net, are attempting to stand firm in a present system that is rapidly becoming a part of the past. I am reminded of the SG-1 Archive, which was recently featured in Showtime's magazine (since Showtime produces Stargate SG-1), where the site was apparently hailed as a source of information on the series, and yet a couple of weeks later the webmaster received a CAD letter from the MPAA and was forced to remove the episodes available for download. This would not be a problem, legally speaking, if Showtime had objected to the site; but they hadn't. They had praised it. Apparently the MPAA is simply doing the rounds, attempting to scare everyone into submission, and sue those who are brazen enough to resist, despite the wishes of the people producing the actual material (who the Stargate SG-1 copyrights actually belong to I am not entirely certain, but I believe it is MGM/Showtime).
Having said that, I fearlessly and without disclaimer (partly because slashdot thinks my IP is a 203.97 subnet, which it's not) acknowledge that all the software and mp3s on my computer are pirated, and that I feel little remorse. Being what I hope is a morally upright person, this disturbs me somewhat, but when I see the sort of things that Microsoft, the RIAA, the MPAA etc do, and the tactics they resort to, I seem to feel a lot better. As a writer, I put a certain value on intellectual property, and I also accept that people will copy and distribute my work illegally. This doesn't bug me particularly, partly because I'd be a hypocrite if it did, and partly because people will still buy my work, despite those who pirate it. When I look at how bloated with money MS, RIAA etc are, I hardly feel sympathic.
disclaimer My ideas and arguments are subject to minor alteration depending on circumstances, and are probably slightly bigoted and not as balanced as those that I normally produce. Taken completely objectively, you may well be able to tear holes in them. If you feel the inclination to do this I would be appreciative, as I am still formulating my own opinions in this matter; however, I ask that you don't flame simply for the sake of flaming...it doesn't tend to be conducive to constructive conversation.
A word can paint a thousand pictures
The problem is the general trend. Each lawsuit that the RIAA wins strengthens their future lawsuits because they now have case history. I don't know if you read the articles, but when they pointed out the legal misdoings of KaZaA, the legal arguments they cited were all taken from the Napster case.
When KazaA is taken down, there will be even more legal precedence to take these networks down. Strictly speaking, the ability to share files is not and should not be illegal. The users who share copyrighted files are the ones breaking the law.
Rather than trying to screw us out of our fair use rights (backups, ripping, etc), the RIAA and related companies should work on hitting the individual users guilty of infringment. Once a bunch of people get fined for stealing, it won't be so prevalent.
Instead, they are trying to take out the technology that makes stealing possible. This may work in the long run, but does nothing to help the end user. If you think all of your customers are theives, then you should probably be in another business.
Captain_Frisk
Since filesharing networks like KaZaA are technically illegal in most respects, I hardly think this is surprising.
If I claimed that the internet was technically illegal because you could use it to distribute copyrighted music or child porn, you'd think I was an idiot.
And yet you've bought in completely to the "sending files from one computer to another is morally wrong" claim, just under a different name. And all of the implicit assumptions that could justify that claim, "A tool is evil if it can be used to do evil things", "The RIAA owns everything that can be encoded as a sound file", did they manage to convince you of those too?
So how should artists afford to prosecute multi-million dolar VC funded companies like Napster or companies that are outside the United?
:)
I can't speak for the first case, but for your second statement, it's obvious. They don't. You don't prosecute someone from another country doing things that are legal there and not legal here. Oh wait, we already do that. It's not right, is it?
If you are an artist with the choice of getting a major label deal and maybe making a profit if you sell over a million copies (or being in debt otherwise) or making no money from the spread of your music while being popular among the fans that don't pay for your music, what would you choose?
Hold it. Remember that from the sale of each record, lesser known artists get as low as 1% or less of the total profits, with the RIAA keeping the other 99%. Artists literally can get checks from the RIAA of 0.12$US for a 20$US record sale. Artists could make a LOT more money if they distributed online and took all the profits from said sales (and more power to them on doing this - I would buy music if my money was going to the artist, and not the RIAA).
Eventually, when CD burners, Minidiscs and car MP3 players become cheap and popular enough, how do you propose artists make a living in this new world order?
What are you talking about? They're already cheap and popular. I can buy a pack of 100 blank CDRs for 15$US. Mp3's are free (as in beer, and not the algorithm of course). Minidiscs are just about there. But going back on topic, remember an obscure, ancient invention called the "tape recorder"? Old dinosaurs in the music industry said the same thing and pushed the issue in court. The courts said that people making copies was fair use. I propose that we RETAIN fair use for everything we buy, including music. In a free economy, you have to figure out ways to fend for yourself. Artists will deal with it.
Last thought on the issue of artists getting big and rich, well, that just is kind of absurd, isn't it? Someone's motivation for creating art should be for the sake of art, not the money they can get from it. Sure everyone has to live, but how many painters, sculpters, poets, etc, are rolling in the big bucks? If you are really good, you'll find a way. Take a look at J.R.R. Tolkien's estate.
Why bother.
how do you propose artists make a living in this new world order?
Musicians have been making a living for thousands of years without the RIAA. Today, there are more professional musicians out there who DON'T have recording contracts with the RIAA than DO. Only a select few have the "advantage" of getting an RIAA-sponsored recording contract, and even fewer benefit from it, aside from the promotion that comes with it.
Non-american musicians make livings without the benefit of RIAA. Plus, other types of "Artists" (actors, painters, etc.) make livings without the benefit of the RIAA.
Without the RIAA, there will still be musicians. Musicians will still make money. Without RIAA, choices will increase, and quality will rise. Do not worry yourself about the plight of the "Artist" in a world without the RIAA--worry about the "Artist" in a world where their only option is the RIAA.
"... we have to get our customers back ..."
More like *drag* their customers back, kicking and screaming the whole way. Hello, maybe you should ask yourself why you've lost your customers in the first place?
I am NOT paying $17 for a copy of Eve6's CD.
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
Every so often, something happens that changes the rules by which the world, and in particular the business world, operates.
A few personal examples. My grandfather was a professional signwriter. Not so long ago if you needed a sign above a shop, for instance, you used to have to go to a signwriter, who would labouriously paint it by hand. There are of course very few of them about nowadays because there are so many other ways to create signs. A perverse way of looking at this would be to think that the signwriter profession has been 'robbed' of its rightful earnings because bad technology has made them irrelevant.
My grandmother was a double entry book-keeper, a kind of accountant's clerk. She would labourously enter figures by hand into big books, do sums and checks to make sure everything was correct. My grandmothers profession has also been 'robbed' of its earnings because it has been made irrelevant by those bad computers.
The men and women of the record companies have made money in the past by promoting music, making copies of it and distributing it. Their profession has been made irrelevant because the Internet means that anyone can promote, copy and distribute music at virtually zero cost. They are desperately trying to stop this happening, but being a record company is becoming just as irrelevant as being a signwriter or double entry book-keeper.
In the short-term the record companies will use their financial power to get bad laws passed which will slow this natural development down. But in the longer term, sorry folks, but you're history.