Slashdot Mirror
The War Between p2p and Record Companies Heating Up?
the-dude-man writes "Securityfocus.com Reports that there may be a new nasty turn to the battle between the p2p networks and the RIAA/MPAA. recently, the RIAA has been trying to flood kazza with files that appear to be valid copyrighted material (movies,mp3s, ect) but are empty or, in one case, of Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone, contain a voice file asking, "What the f*ck do you think you are doing?". The p2p networks are considering a possible move agianst the RIAA in response to this by using recently enacted anti-spam laws."
Almost sad to see a portion of such a large industry going through its death throes. I imagine the horse & buggy manufacturers acted much the same about 100 years ago...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
RIAA members are going to see their sales shrink again this year. Kazaa is only one manifestation of the mp3 trading that will doom them. Many I know, don't use Kazaa, they just trade with friends via CD-R, DC++ and S-FTP.
I was driving near the airport in SF in Feb. I looked at the car next to me. I saw a teenage girl leafing through a 3-ring binder full of CD-R's with band/album names drawn on the CD-R with a black marker. With or without Kazaa and public p2p, these guys are going to lose another 10% this year.
Musicians will have to make a living from live performances.
Flooding networks with spam files will just result in networks becoming smarter to route around the garbage. Suppose for example that new p2p networks use a weighted reputation system where individual content files can be rated by the users of the network. Of course, positive ratings by users who have good reputations would indicate that the file is good, likewise negative ratings for a file by reputable individuals would indicate that the file is garbage. Similar to how these comments are rated on Slashdot.
It's their own customers they're risking alienating. If they fight fair, they'll win, and deservedly so. If not, then there will be consequences. It's as simple as that.
woxy.com - Bam! The Future of Rock and Roll
...P2P trust model infrastructures.
It looks like the RIAA/MPAA are driving innovation, for a change.
Any legal action taken by the P2P companies against RIAA would fail under equitable estoppel (aka. the "clean hands doctrine").
If the networks were simply being flooded with random garbage, they might have a case. But since the complaint is one of misrepresentation -- that the files appear to be valid copyrighted material -- the P2P networks clearly do not have "clean hands" with respect to people searching for those files.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Unlike spam, you solicit your downloads by choice. If they used a bug in a P2P network to fill people's hard drives with crap unsolicited, the anti-spam angle would seem workable. As it is you solicit their system to engage in obvious copyright infringement. Your claim for relief against fraud for an for an 'unpaid' service while attempting to break the law is going to be seriously weak.
I think you'd have a better chance asking the judge to prosecute someone for selling you a joint filled with oregano. At least in that case, you gave someone money and thus (in most states) there is an implied contract of fitness for the generally recognized use of the product.
On the one hand, you really can't FAULT the RIAA for trying to do something, but on the other hand the route they're taking amounts to essentially vigilante justice. Whether you think people SHOULD be allowed to share music or not, they AREN'T at the moment, so (technically) should be "punished." It is not up to the RIAA to dole out this punishment, however. What they're doing is also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right (my mommy taught me that, happy mother's day to her).
The RIAA should stick to legit services like Apple has started and stop the electronic goosing - it's hardly the high road.
The P2Ps should 'fess up, at least to themselves, lose the weak arguments (95 percent of what they claim as justification) and realize they are in fact trading in illegal-by-contract goods and should be grateful they're around this long.
Theyre really just treading water in "it's-only-illegal-if-you-get-caught land. Silly basis for an industry.
And remember, for the most part, you get what you pay for. It doesn't matter how scammed the traders get, and it doesn't matter what the RIAA does, it won't stop them.
A fair and well-managed system will. When it's reasonable, people will pay and use just like books. The VCR didn't kill the video rental or sales industry, and the copier doesn't stop a single sale at Borders or B&N. Granted digital copying makes things easier, and the ecoonomics helps, but that's what needs to be in the new model. Most people with most traditional media would rather have a legit copy than a pirated one.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
... or is the RIAA getting real desperate? It amuses me that their broad 'onslaught' of lawsuits against P2P networks, downloaders, uploaders, etc.. as well as more 'creative' activities such as these envisioned to battle illegal copying of shared digital media had almost zero effect on its proliferation. P2P file sharing is alive and kicking and I just bought myself a brandnew Sony car radio that - big surprise - also plays MP3s (what irony I might add). UPS is also in the process of delivering my shiny new KISS DP-500 from Europe, which plays DVDs and - you probably guessed it - DivX and Xvid files as well (and it has an Ethernet port - droool ;-)
So, I really wonder what the RIAA's vision of the future is - obviously they are paying a lot of people (i.e. lawyers) very high consulting fees to come up with something to preserver their 'interest' (pun intended) - and this is the BEST they can come up with? LOL
Seriously - a friend of my and I came up with a working, commercial P2P digital distribution model 3 years ago, that would kick illegal copying to the curb since it actually rewarded people for downloading. We actually pitched it to the usual suspects and got laughed at. I'm actually surprised that noone has replicated our effort up to this point - maybe I'll pick up on it when I'm done with my current company.
Maybe Rosen should buy herself a copy of 'Sun Tsu' (a book about the art of warfare which predates the bible) - and I quote: 'fighting a protracted war against an overwhelming and resourceful enemy should be avoided at all cost.' It is time that the RIAA fesses up to its evils and relinquishes these silly stabs against P2P downloaders - they just wind up pissing off their greates asset - the kids willing to pay good money for concerts and 'affordable music' (Rosen: re-read the last sentence three times).
After all, it now tells the RIAA which users are supplying "the best dope" to the p2p system.
Then now have an awfully good system to find just who to target... the users that are providing the best goods.
Imagine (bear with me) that all drug users had an online survey to report just who their favourite dealers were. Don't you think the Drug Czar would pay attention, and go after the providers of the best smack first?
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Maybe, in the long run, instead of wasting money on P2P control (in the short-run they should continue it), they could bring all the participating record labels together and make purchasing music easier. At the same time, they should push a campaign about how morally wrong it is to pirate songs. (Of course, they are already doing it, but this should go together).
Music labels working together could make custom CDs and, maybe, even DRMed music downloads (for MS Win and Mac users at least) from across music labels. This is especially beneficial for custom CDs.
For instance, I want songs A, B,...,K. Songs, E and G are owned by Klingons while songs F and K by Romulans. The rest are owned by the Borg. Furthermore, except for songs A and B, all other songs are from different artists or different albums.
A good part of P2P users are probably doing it because they find it difficult to buy 200 different CDs in which more than 65% of the songs are not what you want.
Thank you
GrimReality (The Idiot)
2003-05-11 16:51:54 UTC (2003-05-11 12:51:54 EDT)
Too many people don't get it. They are doing far more than just "destroying fair use." If they gain control with these laws and technologies, they will destroy free speech as we know it. If they can use a censorship system to stop someone from redistributing their copyrighted data, they can also stop someone from redistributing independently produced and legal to send data.
The "trusted" certificate authority organization(s) can use the crypto key registration / rejection system to censor naysayers and competitors. The "copyright holders" can use bots w/o human intervention and widen the search criteria to catch many innocent people in their trap, then claim it was an "accident" if caught. This has already been done with the DMCA. The BSA / OpenOffice incident is a good example. Microsoft's implementation will ensure only they can approve drivers and DRM programs.
In fact, I have heard talk of adding a system to reject specific files / communications so the "copyright holders" can eliminate "pirate material" after the fact. Obviously the dupes who believe DRM is designed to protect copyright will see these measures as a "legitimate" attempt to stop illegal activity.
Much more is at stake than just being able to listen to the RIAA's crappy music.
Until it's declared otherwise I don't think I should have to deal with obscenities screamed at me by one group that doesn't like what I'm doing.
Ironic, isn't it, how quickly we forget about the First Amendment when it's somebody else's speech being protected instead of our own?
Asking somebody "What the fuck do you think are doing?" is not in any way, shape, or form illegal. So yes, you do have to deal with them saying that. Why is this country so hellbent on destroying the idea of free speech?
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
I've submitted stories that were rejected, only to show up later. Don't take it personally, it happens.
I thought music was an art? All about the consumer?
Who gives a damn about selling CDs? No one but the RIAA, Musicians tour and give concerts and would make more money without the RIAA around, Fans would be given more concerts and better overall deals along with cheaper music.
Looks like both the creators of art and the consumers of art win with P2P, if we are a democracy and not a plutocracy, we should have a vote on it and if the people decide on P2P, the laws should be changed.
Outlawing P2P in my opinion does more harm to the industry than making it legal, musicians cant make money because of the contracts with the RIAA not allowing them to use P2P to advertise their concerts.
You see, P2P makes a musician popular enough to give concerts, and this is where the real money is made.
College students wont pay for music, but we will pay to go to a concert, I go to the movies more now that P2P exists than I did before it existed, I'll be going to see the Matrix, and I WILL buy software if its at a decent price,
People who think P2P makes the industry lose money, they are right the guys in suits who dont create anything lose money, and I hope they all go bankrupt, but the musician gains money and the consumer gains quality service, better concerts, and can get music at a better price.
What ever happened to democracy? the DMCA wasnt requested by anyone but CEOs and lobbyists who dont even make music.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I'll make music, so will every other musician, do you know why?
t ever-shut-the-fuck-up."
because true Artists, are compelled to create as a matter of their existance. It is not work, most artists would like to use their music to make a living -- but that is so that they can spend more time dedicated to the art itself.. not so they can get like "Jennie-on-the-block-who-has-big-diamonds-and-wha
There is music(art), there is then there is the product(RIAA).
I am reading through all these comments and no one seems to have nailed it.
The way I see it there are several reasons the RIAA is in trouble.
(in no particular order)
1. Todays music sucks donkey ass through a crazy straw. This is the oldest reason, and the reason why the RIAA loosing money predates Napster. On the surface it sounds like I am blaming the musicians, after all they are making the music. Wrong. Many years ago the RIAA realized that POP music is where all the money is. They have been ignoring decent artists for a while now in favor for people whom they consider low risk. It is those risky folks that put out great music.
2. Failure to acknowledge and take advantage of a changing marketplace. If the RIAA had been on the forefront of digital downloads this would be an entirely different, and I suspect legal marketplace. Instead they screamed and kicked like a 4 year old. No amount of wishing and suing will make the digital domain go away. For whatever reason that I cannot understand the RIAA refuses to even consider to adapt. My best guess is it is a poorly chosen use of 'pride'.
3. Abuse of there most loyal customers. I used to buy a lot of music. Something along the lines of 2 to 3 albums a month with the occasional splurge of a 5 album or a box set purchase. Then I began learning about my computer. Then I bought a CDRW drive. What I did next was to back up my investment. I am tired of scratching overpriced CD's and making them useless. I am tired of having them stolen. I am tired of having to track them down when I have misplace them. I am tired of having to decide what gets kept at work and what not. A PC and a CDRW drive (legally too I might ad) resolves all those problems. Now whenever I buy a CD I feel like a scmuck. I feel like I am being treated so badly by these people I must be out of my mind to spend money on the overpriced product.
That is no way for an industry to act. I should feel good buying there product.
The RIAA is dying and it is a death that cannot come soon enough.
Sooner or later a talented and smart musician will utilize the web and digital downloads to reach superstardom and cut the RIAA trappings out of the equation.
That day will be the axe to the neck of the RIAA and it cannot come too soon for the industry.
If people don't like the terms the record companies are offering them - and that includes the price - then what they should do is REFUSE TO CONSUME THEIR PRODUCT. Grabbing the latest Madonna tune off Kazaa and sanctifying your actions by saying "the album is overpriced" or "I only want to buy song Z, but I don't have that option" only gives the record companies fodder for working harder to fight AGAINST fair use. Here's an analogy: In my neighbourhood, at Christmas time, people can buy trees by depositing the requested money in a safe box and helping themself to a tree. If I thought these vendors were charging an unfair price, the RIGHT thing to do is not buy a tree. The RIGHT thing to do is emphatically NOT to take the tree without paying for it. If we do the latter, how is the vendor to know that we refuse to buy their product because it's not a fair price ? How can the vendor possibly trust these signals as market signals ?
It all depends on what needs filesharing REALLY serves. If P2P is primarily servicing legitimate fair-use needs, then the economics motivating the record companies will be far different than the economics that would motivate them if P2P is primarily servicing the desires of many/most people to have things for free. I know that some people claim to own CDs, but grab tunes from those CDs off P2P anyways because it's easier (which boggles my mind considering how easy it is to do). Do we really believe that constitutes more than a minority of the traffic on Gnutella/Kazaa ?
The obvious fact that so much P2P is NOT fair-use-motivated helps drive the record companies to seeking out protections that jeopardize fair-use.
Two wrongs don't make a right....and when the RIAA pulls this crap, all they do is hurt their cause. This is why ultimately they will lose. This is a desperate act, much like someone who has nothing to lose would do. Their problem is, the RIAA has already lost. They just don't realize it yet. They had a two year window to embrace the new technology; instead they tried to squash it. Problem is, though you can kill a server room full of computers, you can never kill an idea. Every time they win a court battle and out one p2p program offline, three replace it. In fact, the tide is beginning to turn and they're now losing battles in court. Their response now is to break the law themselves, killing any credibility or moal high ground that they ever had. As I said, a true act of desperation on their part.
...it just seems to be very hypocritical to me. I hate the fact that the **AA uses its seemingly infinite legal budget to stab at broke college students and and all the other users of P2P. At my school, recently the MPAA wanted to have the University kick the student out of school for sharing a copy of Austin Powers. I think that is a bit obsurd. The advocates complain that every new step in technology, the hackers (crackers) will be there to break and abuse it. The problem is as long as the steps continue to limit the features that people can use, people will revolt and just find a way around the new restrictions. Anytime you assume you are smarter than someone else, you will always eventually find an instance that you're wrong. That being said, if people are going to use "illegal" methods to crack their software, I don't see why they can do as much as possible to make it harder for them. The only people that are being hurt by a fake song on KaZaa are the people that are attempting to steal that song. (Okay, sure, you can say you're going to get a "back-up copy of a song that you own... Sure, that's what everyone is doing.... In that case, rip it yourself). Thus, you can't say "Heeey, the RIAA is making it harder for me to steal songs." Either you foot the money, or find a way to filter out the bad songs (checksums?) Anyway, how long can it be before the bands realize that they don't have to deal with the crap from the record companies. They get into a contract where the get $.50 (or less) on an album that is sold for $18. Sooner or later, they'll realize the record compainies are the enemy there... not the people who actually like the music.
You, sir, are a retard.
Look at regular TV, its free, thats the only reason why its so successful.
Regular (read: broadcast) TV is not free. The price of watching TV is watching advertisements. You might not have a problem with that. Some people do.
Cable TV is very much not free. It, too, is quite successful. While there are some people who steal service (although, from your posting history, you will disagree with my usage of the word "steal" here, but that's okay; you're a fucking retard anyway), an overwhelming majority of people who receive Cable TV signals pay for them.
Look at the internet, its free, and its successful.
The internet is not free either. Routers, lines, switches, and everything else all cost money, in terms of initial capital expenditure, maintenance, and personnel costs. While you yourself might not be billed explicitly for internet access, you are paying the price, as are other people.
Most websites are not free. They, like broadcast television, have advertisements, or are membership-based. There are very few good places for free content that do not attempt to recoup costs through advertising, or asking for donations.
The RIAA controls every type of music imaginable, and has a monopoly, they dont let independent music on MTV, so they wonder why people pirate their music?
The RIAA cannot prevent me from writing my own songs, and performing them in front of a live audience. Nor can the RIAA prevent me from distributing recordings (either live, or in a studio) containing my own songs either online, or direct mail, or in person. Sure, I probably can't get space at the local Best Buy, Tower Records, or FYE. But that's how business works. Grammy Malda can't sell her homemade jams at the local MegaSupermarket, either.
MTV is as much a monopoly as CBS or NBC is. NBC will not let me write my own TV show and put it on TV. I guess that means I should make copies of Friends and ER available online. Are you really as retarded as you seem? Yes, actually, it appears that you are:
Why not let some free Music get play on MTV and maybe people wouldnt pirate the RIAA so much anymore.
Because, by and large, most people do not want to listen to "free" or "independent" music. I personally find most popular music today to be horrible. Obviously, a significant portion of the population disagrees, which is why it's called "popular music" in the first place. That's fine. They're free to have their own opinion, and buy the songs. But they (and you) do not have the right to download music without paying for it--either out of protest, or for any other reason.
You, once again, are a completely and utterly nimwitted and retarded juvenile who lacks a superego.
A musician is not a doctor or engineer, you arent trained to do it, you can take a kid and give him a mic and this kid could be the best singer of all time (Think Michael Jackson),
If you think a good singer isn't trained, then you'll never make the big time... you may have raw talent, but even the most gifted singer has to train to sing properly - it's not just a matter of opening your mouth.
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------