Slashdot Mirror
KaZaA Collapses
MikeKD writes "according to SFGate, KaZaA has announced that it will fold due to the cost of defending itself against the RIAA & MPAA. The timing is notable since on Monday, Altnet (owned by Brillant Digital) announced plans for "sponsored listings in peer-to-peer search" on its "separate [and] secure P2P resource-sharing network"."
Being on the Internet does not make one immune to copyright laws!
I have been pwned because my
Which servers? The supernodes (which holds up the net IIRC) are the users themself. Or are you talking about the DRM stuff (which nobody is interested in..)?
It never ceases to amaze me that the major record companies don't see *free advertising* when it's in front of their faces. Those folks who pirate content and don't end up buying that content wouldn't have purchased it in the first place, so there is no net loss. Those who would have purchased the content that they download can access a wider variety of content online, and will end up purchasing more. MP3 quality is a far cry from CD quality, afterall.
Just look at what videotapes did for the movie industry (and when VHS/Beta first came out, the movie industry feared that these would kill the movie industry). They took the technology that they feared, ran with it, and ended up making MORE $ from video sales than from the box office.
Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
...that "organizations" (they act more like companies like MS, don't they ?) like RIAA and MPAA are able to force other companies out of business simply by filing lawsuits until the company in question is running out of money.
And it's a shame that no one stops those a******s at RIAA and MPAA. They both have far too much power at their hands and play us consumers for a sucker...
Their pricy hands even reach us here in Europe... scary thing.
And IMO it's not even about their experience with VHS time-shifting and video sales making them more money after they complained, as you correctly pointed out. (Of course, they also get a tax on blank media, still, for some reason...)
I think the real conflict is about control. Control of artists, users, and any possible bottlenecks between them are therefore a GOOD thing, to the RIAA, because that's control and they fear losing control even more than losing money -- even if it would lead to a better product for consumers (or better compensation-levels for musicians, who must also be controlled).
JMR
(My opinions only, nobody else wants 'em anyway.)
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
Um.. how about using FTP?
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
... yet another indicator that if you want to start an innovative business, don't do it inthe USA, or in anywhere with strong treaties with the USA.
I mostly agree.
If you clarify by saying "innovative and disruptive" business, then I think you are 100% correct. You can be innovative, but you can't disrupt revenue streams of larger corporations.
Innovation may be tolerated, depending on circumstances. Disruptive technology will be eliminated at all costs.
Software Wars
ummm, it's called FTP. set up an ftp server, give the address out to your friends, and have them set up ftps and give the address to you. simple. if you want to chat, fire up an icq/irc...
>Ok, how about I create a website which allows people to submit houses that are worth breaking into and also lets other people
Yes, go ahead, I think you should have all the right to do it. Your system could be used to post anything, for example the best clip from your porn collection. It could be also used to post stolen credit card IDs, or a picture of you and your dog doing something kinky.
Still. THE SOFTWARE IS NOT TO BLAME. Software does NOT know whether the data posted there is criminal or not. The people who post it do know it. People are to blame, the people who break into houses, sell the goods, or other stolen information such as credit card data, or house key info.
Even how hard it is to catch these individuals, you cannot start blaming sunpoints for stealing you copyright.
Your argument is void.
Using your logic here are RIAA's next targets:
Every web server creator since they allow people to post listings of songs they have
Sue wc3 for their html that allowed you create the html used on the formentioned web server
Perhaps IEEE and IETF and whoever else is responsible for tcp/ip without which these web servers couldn't run so we must stop the use of tcp/ip
Come to think of it, the cable companies and phone companies and every ISP in the world for providing the physical transport for these evil p2p networks, yes I realize that some people actually use the internet for real work, sucks for them we have people stealing songs here people.
You have to go after the users, its the only way that anythign will be accomplished. YOu shut down one p2p network, 3 more will spring up.
--"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
Ok, so after Napster, Morpheus/KaZaA, people will now use Direct Connect...
Or usenet, or message with FTP upload/downloads.
When will RIAA and co understand that there is NOTHING they can do about P2P and data exchange!
Unless they manage to somehow stop the internet as we know it, but I don't think they can get away with that kind of murder...
Black holes occur when God divides by zero.
Questions/points of interest:
1) If you buy a CD when did you get the right to distribute copies of the contents?
2) Granted, making a copy of a song for yourself or even a friend is one thing. But is it not something else to make the entire contents of a CD available for who knows how many people to download? The scale on which this happens changes the perspective. It may be a simple act to copy a song but that act does not exist in a vacuum.
3) Perhaps someone should copy your credit card number, SSN, name, birthday etc etc. After all, it's just a copy and you've lost nothing. So it doesn't hurt anyone if other people use that information too. Yes, this is an extreme example and not exactly the same thing. My point is that just having a copy of something is not always harmless. When you say no one loses anything when a song is copied it seems as though you forget what's lost is the artist's power to decide how their music should be distributed. If they don't want to give it away for free why do you get to decide that they should? (Keep in mind that format/space-shifting or a copy for a friend is not the same thing as en masse file-sharing.)
4) Copying a song and not watching TV ads aren't exactly the same thing either. The tv networks sell spots to advertisers. The advertisers only make their money back if the product is good and people buy it. I feel this has little to do with whether or not I see an ad on TV. It has more to do with the quality of the product. If it turns out to be something I need I'll buy it but it won't be due to some stupid ad. Conversely, I see lots of ads on TV for things I'll never buy. Am I still stealing the TV broadcast? Nope. The difference here is doing without. If I don't buy something adverstised on TV (whether I see the ad or not) I'm doing without the product. When someone copies a song and doesn't pay for it they get to enjoy the song without rewarding the creator.
5) What is so strange about this: Product exists. See/hear product. Pay money for product. Have product. That's been the basis of our economy for how long now?
6) It's worth repeating the radio stations pay by the bucketful to get to air songs for us to hear. That's how the RIAA justifies your ability to tape songs off the air. As well, blank cassettes cost what they do because some of that money goes back to the labels to make up for supposed lost sales due to copying. Your cassette recorder has a charge like this buried in its cost too. And, the quality of taping a song of the radio is nothing like buying a CD or even a cassette. Sound quality is low for radio broadcasts anyway, plus you have to listen to dumbass DJs talk over the songs.
7) How many people would use P2P file-sharing systems if they had always been on a few-cents-per-song-downloaded fee system?
Of course, I'll get ripped to shreds for "being on their side" even though I am not. I just think this is a sensitive issue. And because some people want to just download songs and not reward the artists the rest of us have to make up for it. The more people engage in what the RIAA feels is illegal behavior the less they will feel we have anything valid to say.
-r
Just because something is free does not mean you have to take it.
You have to go after the users, its the only way that anythign will be accomplished.
And this got a score of 4 for insightful?
Think about this for a moment, we had roughly what, 50, 60 million people worldwide using Napster at its height? At any given time, Kazaa has a couple million on, so we can assume their average daily user list is somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 - 30 million people. Morpheus/gnutella has good numbers, as do several other networks. Then we factor in IRC, usenet, etc.
So you, a large corporation, are going to begin suing some 20 - 60 million people? Ok, let's assume the RIAA and MPAA join up in some joint venture created specifically to pool all their resources for this.
Lawyers needed? Somewhere between 40 - 100 million. Assuming they'll work for a sum of $75/hr (a bargain) on average, that brings us to an approxamate cost of $5,250,000,000/hr. (yes, that's billion with a B) The newest star wars installment made about $130million on the first weekend, and that would cover your legal fees for about 9 minutes. So then you say, "well, silly, they wouldn't sue them all at once, they'd spread it out!" What a great idea. Assuming 70,000,000 lawsuits at 100 lawsuits filed each month, you would spend the next 58,000+ years prosecuting people. Now, I'm no doctor, but I don't think people live that long. In any event, the cost in legal fees for suing even 1% of the users is so astonomical that not even Bill Gates could fathom doing it in his wildest dreams. But there's more.
Two problems relating to one another: 1) Consumer backlash, 2) government backlash.
Now, when you and about half your friends are being sued by a major corporation, I don't think you'll be jumping to buy their product. The roughly 70 million people (a good 40 - 50 million are US citizens) that you're suing are going to be pretty pissed, and will start organizing to fight you. This brings us to our next problem. If I were running for office, (let's say... President?), I could get myself somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 million votes simply by taking a strong stance against "the evil corporate empires" of the entertainment industry. And if I were going for re-election, I'd start issuing EO's (executive orders) like they were candy effectively putting an end to major media companies. But just in case you thought that might not do it, next we move to Congress. Same thing, they all want re-election, and with millions being sued, this becomes a major issue. Now, do you go to your district and tell people that it's all their fault and they shouldn't have been stealing content? Well sure, if you don't like your job. What will really happen? They'll take a firm stance against the media companies and legislation will be passed 10 times faster than the laws passed following Sept 11. The entertainment industry will be so incredibly screwed by the new laws that they won't be in business for long. No amount of money talks to a congressman when their constituents are up in arms about something.
So where does this leave the entertainment industry? At an impasse. They have a few options here: 1) continue suing P2P networks, which after a while they'll start losing the cases, but no matter what, it will never end file sharing. 2) Come up with better digital rights management technology, which will cost millions in research and be broken by a 15 year old kid. 3) Sue ISPs, server owners, etc, whose legal teams in many cases match those of the RIAA and MPAA. 4) Lobby for legislation, which is getting less and less likely to work, seeing as tech savvy folks are now mainstream for the most part, and will fight things like the SSSCA whenever they come around. 5) Relinquish all rights to copyrighted works and go into immediate Chapter 13 liquidation, (just kidding). 6) Change their business models to use the internet for their benefit.
I'd like to take option 6 a little further for a moment. Assume this, the entertainment companies offer reasonable licensing terms to webcasters, somewhere around the middle between CARP's recommendations and what the webcasters asked for. They then set up internet sites with both streaming and downloadable music and movies, offering them in secured formats, but giving the OSS community access to the information about the formats required to build players and ask for their help in building secured players for Linux/*nix's. Offer these movies and music at either pay-per-use prices or as a straight download price. Say a dollar per song downloaded and $3 or $4 per movie downloaded, with the streaming PPV costs being mere fractions of that. Offer a complete linup of music, starting with the most popular and adding music as quickly as possible with easy to use searchs for song names, artists, and lyrics. Do something similar for movies, allowing searchs for movie titles, stars/co-stars, producers, etc. Offer the movie for download before it's even out on DVD, thus steering many people towards the internet service. Offer a simple web interface similar to P2P apps currently out, and use a simple account management system allowing for an easy download/stream of content. (ie. you point, click, watch) You'd instantly see a drop in piracy to the tune of probably 70% or better for music and movies. At the same time, the amount of money coming in would be incredible, and lawsuits against P2P networks etc could be dropped, thereby lowering legal costs. Easy to get, readily available, reasonably priced content is the way to stamp out piracy. Who the hell would search for 20 minutes to find the right version of a song they want to download when it's just $1 to get it from the music company, giving you a legitamate, high quality copy of the music? Who would spend 10 hours downloading a lousy copy of a movie when they can find and get what the want for $4, not have to worry about poor quality, and have it download much faster? Just an idea, but I think it's one that would make billions for the entertainment industry, and would silence most of their P2P-using critics.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."