The Law and P2P

Anonymous Coward writes "Here's some interesting legal commentary on the continuing saga of copyright enforcement and Apple's attempt at a constructive approach."

Comments

Dragged kicking and screaming...

[Sanity]

The entertainment industry always needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into new business models. Look at how hard they fought against VCRs, and now 2/3rds of their revenue comes from video sales and rentals.

It is quite likely that at some point the music industry will end up making more money out of Internet distribution of their music than they do out of selling CDs. It is also entirely likely that they will continue fighting against P2P tooth and nail until they have exhausted all possible options.

The problem is that right now the lawyers are making the decisions. If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and if you are a laywer - you often assume that all problems can be solved with a law suit. This mentality will likely continue to persist until it is absolutely obvious, even to the lawyers, that it can't work.

What does this mean? Well, for one it means that we should fully expect legal attacks against users of P2P networks to continue. This will simply serve to encourage greater use of Freenet and other future systems which protect user anonymity (Freenet still needs work to make it well suited to this task - but if there is a demand, someone will create a suitable third-party app which uses Freenet as a back end).

After Freenet or its successors have finally demonstrated the futility of trying to use the law to halt progress in communications technology - the music industry may eventually accept that it needs to adapt, but don't hold your breath for it to happen any time soon.

Company execs could be jailed?

[dafoomie]

"And a recent article in the New York Times details quiet efforts by the major record companies to develop software programs that would interfere with - and, in some cases, damage - computers engaged in file sharing.

Of course, resorting to such extreme measures would almost certainly inflame public opinion. And, as George Washington University Law School Professor Orin Kerr has argued, it might even land a few record company executives in jail, absent Congressional immunity for such tactics, which (believe it or not) has been proposed."

I personally would love to see this happen, if they damage my computer, I want the bastards in jail. If somebody came into a music store and stole a bunch of cd's, they can't just break into their house and smash them - along with anything else they might believe is stolen, they'd have to notify the authorities. I'm not trying to defend copyright infringement here, but two wrongs do not make a right.

Re:Download AND Pay?

[JudgeFurious]

I don't think he'll mind you parking there since really, if you think about he's not out anything. His lawn's still there, albeit under your car and there should be ample time for the grass to get sunlight and water during those times you're at work or just out using your car. I say go for it.

Since Napster was cranking along I've been downloading what I wanted and just flat out not caring whether it was stealing or not. I'm 37 years old and the record labels have been bending me over for music for decades so right or wrong I just plain didn't give a fuck what they thought. I always said that I wasn't going to give them $15 or $20 for one song on a CD that sucked and that if I had a legal and affordable alternative I would be glad to pay for it. Well now I do and I am. .99 a song is fine. The quality is fine. The freedom to do what I want with my freshly bought track is adequat for my needs.

I'll pay to download from Apple instead of searching for it on Kazaa because it's the correct thing to do. Put-up or Shut-up time for those of us who said "we would if they would...".

Re:How it all works.

[NanoGator]

"Let me explain to you. In the back of their minds, most Slashdot readers ("Slashbots") know that they simply don't want to pay for anything which they can get illegally for free."

Then explain to me how Apple sold 1 million songs? Explain to me why a lot of people would pay $300-$400 for an iPod or similar piece of hardware when they don't want to spend $15 for CD?

You assume it's about price tag and it never occurs to you that what's really wanted here is to be able to make music more interesting and entertaining. MP3s have brought on an interesting revolution in music by making it more portable and more customizable to the listener. (Playlists, etc.) Meanwhile, in an effort to combat this on every level (including the legal uses of MP3s), the RIAA's gunning for sweeping changes to destroy the rights of individuals, instead of just doing the right thing and filling the demand people have. Apple's site proves that people are happy to pay for music as long as the service is good and prices are fair.

So yeah, nice troll. Congrats on getting your ill-thought comments modded up. Never mind that people want their music to be more interesting, no no, it's all about making it free. That's why MP3 players are making so much money when people could burn their MP3s to a music CD.