Slashdot Mirror
43 Million Americans Use P2P Software
robl writes "If the NYTimes article is correct then somewhere around 1 in 6 Americans apparently are unindicted felons. In the eyes of the public file swapping is as morally wrong as speeding on the NJ Turnpike. The rest of the article talks about the RIAA's carrot/stick/education approach and how they may find themselves entering into negotiations for some forms of file sharing. Also the EFF will be running ads in Rolling Stone next month asking if enthusiasts are tired of being treated like criminals."
You would be suprised as to how many people know how to use napster/kaaza then know how to check their email.
My roommate hires many Latinos for construction work and shows them how to use the internet. The first thing he does, is shows them how to download porn off of kaaza.
TruePunk | Games
File sharing is the only "killer application" for broadband, and most people with BB use file-sharing at least some of the time.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Dear /.
Please stop linking to NYT articles. You know why, Thank you.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
I do wonder how much if the sharing leads to actual buying. I know there are a lot of people who would rather "Try it out" then actually buy the game to take full advantage of it, like online playing. Many don't have the know how on hacking the programs, they just want to get a taste.
Perhaps a test to see if their system will handle it, becasue you really don't want to drive out to CompUSA, find it, wait in line, buy it, wait in traffic, install it, trouble shoot it, trouble shoot it, re configure, pull out some hair, get back in traffic, and arrive at the store right when they close before a holiday...
Call it optimisim on my part, but people aren't that inherently evil... so they tell me...
"This is you left and that's your left. This is your right and that's your right. You're gonna die!
Copy protected CD-like discs, encrypted DVDs that are not legally playable under open source operating systems, and games that require you to keep the god damn CD in while playing even though you install the entire thing to the hard drive all drive me insane. These people are forgetting the number one rule in business: the customer is always right. ALWAYS! If you forget that or start to justify arguing this point then you might as well not be selling stuff to consumers.
IANAA but I know plenty of people who can use P2P software but haven't got the first clue about computers.
Typical conversation:
"I downloaded this file but I can't play it.."
"Just install these codecs"
"Are they a virus?"
"No..they'll let you play your file"
"Where should I install it? My dad will kill me if it's a virus."
"..."
I'd like to see the RIAA step up to the plate on those statistics. ...And now they're in too deep to change.
The shame of it all, for the RIAA, is that they probably could have been *very* successful with an online campaign, had they embraced mp3 and sharing technologies instead of dissmissing them and taking action against their users.
I don't even think that it's just greed that made them act the way they did -- they probably just didn't have enough in-house expertise to properly advise them on a proper strategy to deal with all the new technology.
-Tom West
Its debateable if file swapping if morally wrong at all. Some of us believe its a personal freedom, like freedom of speech, and that its not morally wrong but morally right.
The only few who think its morally wrong are a few guys who happen to own copyrights, the average American does not own any intellectual property is cares more about defending their freedom to share files than defending some unknown CEOs freedom to own them.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
When one person owes you {money,stuff,etc}, it's bad for them. When you feel that millions of people owe you {money,stuff,etc} it's bad for you.
So, the RIAA, and the MPAA to a lesser extent are in the second category. While I don't like the MPAA's practices with DeCSS, at least thy have taken to pricing their products in a range that I as a consumer don't feel bad about paying. I'll gladly buy DVDs from the bargain bin for $6.00.
The RIAA on the other hand isn't playing so nice. When a CD is $17.00, the musician might see a few pennies, and discounts on the products aren't forthcoming, it's understandable why people copy music and don't feel bad about it. The soundtrack for many movies on CD costs more than the movie on DVD itself. There is something very wrong with the world when this is the case.
The MPAA has been lucky, since movies are large enough that copying them isn't nearly as big a no-brainer as CDs/mp3s are, but at the same time, if they keep movies cheap, we'll be more inclined to buy them instead of copying them. The RIAA's problem has been around much longer, is much deeper entrenched, and does not appear stoppable by legislation, threats, civil suits, or any other means that they have come up with. If they don't significantly change their business model it'll only get worse, to a point where artists find new labels that don't play by the RIAA's rules, and the RIAA as an organization will cease to be. If they aren't willing to change, they'll get what they deserve.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I fear for the future of Slashdot.
*raises his hand, moreso than most* :)
And if you think for a second I'd admit it publicly, you're a fool
You're the "fool". Slashdot does track the IP address on posts, even when anonymous. The good old DMCA says they can subpoena that information without a judge's order.
Whoever dreamed up the idea of bypassing the judge when getting a court ordered subpoena should should have all his constitutional rights revoked. And I don't exactly have much sympathy for the idiots who passed this law either.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
If you dont like the laws, buy new ones, it works for Disney.
The constitution is fake, no one ever follows it, freedom of speech? You dont have it, profit comes first.
Its funny how 1% of the population who owns the information can force their rules on the 100 million or so file sharing people who dont own any intellectual property and who dont think its morally wrong to share it.
Since when did capitalism decide the concept of right and wrong? I guess some peoples religion is capitalism, and I suppose this government is run by capitalism and not democracy.
If this is the case why should normal working class people stay in the USA? Its slavery if you cannot even get to vote on an issue such as this, no you are automatically a felon.
You get labeled some wicked name like a "pirate" when sharing has absolutely nothing to do with being a pirate, because sharing sounds so morally right they make up new words and terms to put a negative spin on it, now you are a pirate, a cyber terrorism, and every chance they get they try to compare sharing information with robbing a bank, or running into a CD store and stealing CDs at gunpoint. No you arent stealing the CD you are copying the CD, stealing means someone is missing something, either a physical object or a profit.
You can steal a profit by selling someone elses Cd, you take eminems CD, burn it and sell it, this is stealing a profit, this should be a crime.
However, if you just copy it and give it away, theres no stealing and theres no way you can convince any sane person that its morally wrong to share when it benefits society to share.
SHARE, but dont STEAL, if someone wants to pay for Eminems CD, Eminem made the music and should get to profit from his work, however if someone refuses to pay for it and just wants to hear it, why not let them?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
only outlaws will use filesharing.
I have a hard time believing that pay per download will solve anything. I still RARELY am able to find the CDs I want when looking through my local music store.
Admittedly, I rarely listen to or buy music from major record labels. But try going into a music store and finding a CD by Juno Reactor. Or VNV Nation. No luck? How about DreamTrybe, or Thirteen of Everything. Or Kenna. STILL can't find it? Six Mile Bridge maybe? Probably not. So, I either have to hunt down those CDs on ebay or some obscure indie site (and no, not all those bands are indie) OR - I simply have to enter the band into KazAA and badaboom! I have the music I want.
Is it stealing? Probably - although I always end up buying the CD when I can find it. Is it illegal? Well, according to the RIAA - yes. Do I share my MP3s? YOU BET I DO! Who am I to be able to tell if that person downloading my file is trying to get another copy of that CD that was stolen out of his car, or if they just want to get it for free?
Kyndar: Exotic Imports, Jewelry, Candles, and Incense http://www.kyndar.com
Why not call it by its true name.
"The No Electronic Information Sharing (NEIS)Act"
Why? Because thats what it is.
Define theft,, heres theft
a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
You cannot STEAL information because information by design is not physical and cannot be contained.
This is like me getting mad at someone for stealing my thoughts! Should I be able to copyright facial expressions and then sue anyone who makes that expression? Well?
If you use it you are STEALING my face right?
Thats what I thought. But believe it or not, intellectual property exists simply to protect stupid abilities and rights such as these which dont even matter while removing our personal freedom.
So we lose personal freedom in exchange for someone to have the right to "own" facial expressions, let me ask you all something, how much intellectual property do each of you own? Unless every American owns tons of intellectual property, why do we give up our personal freedom which we all currently own in exchange for something of absolultely no value to us? Sure it matters to a rich CEO, if you are one of these guys then yes you care but to me and to the average person, it only reduces our creativity and freedom.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Ummm. No.
It's more like, you sell me an excellent copy of your prized Picasso (think DVD), I take a reasonable quality compressed digital picture of it (think divx movie file) and give copies of the digital picture to my friends. You still have your original painting. What you have lost is the potential income of selling additional excellent copies to my friends because they are satisified with the version they received. On the other hand, they might not be satisfied with the reasonable copy and, instead, purchase the excellent version. So it is arguable that anything is actually lost. As much as the **AA would like us to believe p2p file trading is theft, it isn't any more than exceeding the speed limit or jaywalking is immoral.
Seeing as USA has 2mil imprisoned, this is not that far off.
fucktard is a tenderhearted description
When a business ceases to add value naturally to society they will try and find artifical means of doing so such as copyright. What value is the record industry currently adding? Not a lot, more cookie cut bands to fill a focus group identified niche that the record industry probably created though branding in the first place. Screw that, the record industry needs to add value by supporting new and interesting bands. Failing that it needs to make it easier for me to access my music whereever I am. Hey, this is what they used to do, distribution and discovery.
----
Nobody is saying it's not a crime because a lot of people are doing it. They're saying that it shouldn't be a crime because lots of people are doing it.
While that's not a perfect argument, it is still legitimate. The whole idea of a representational democracy is to give "the people" a say in the way their country is run. If a majority of people (43 million isn't a majority of Americans, but, as an earlier post pointed out, it's half of those with internet access, including those with dialup for whom file trading is less attractive) disobey that law, it would seem that at the very least the law should be examined.
If everyone speeds along the NY Turnpike, the speed limits should be examined to see if they really are realistic. If 80 million Americans smoke pot, the anti-pot laws should be re-examined. If half the people who have the opportunity to break copyright in this particular way (for personal use) break it, the copyright laws should be examined. More importantly, they should be examined with an eye to the well being of citizens before the well being of the corporations.
Of course, none of this makes those 43 million criminals less criminal. It just makes them the victim of a hypocritic government. Welcome to America, the worlds first Corpocracy.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Despite what you may have thought musicians dont make a penny from CD sales most of the time, they also dont own any intellectual property most of the time.
Their contract says the record company owns anything they make,the record company keeps about 95% of what their CD makes from sales, Musicians end up getting a $30,000 a year salary from CD sales after selling millions of copies, they only make real money from tours, concerts and so on.
Do musicians care if you buy their CD? No they dont because most of them dont make any money off their CDS, CDs are marketing to get you to go to their concerts.
Learn how the music industry works.
The software industry is the same way, programmers dont own any copyrights, everything is owned by the company, programmers get paid to make the software, they dont get paid when each copy of windows or whatever is sold, those profits go to Bill Gates.
You see, the people who do all the work and who create the information, do not own the information, so why does it matter if we rob the thieves?
Because the true owners never owned anything to begin with and the current owners steal from the true owners using their monopoly power to do it.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Apples to apples please troll.
Your description is of someone committing theft. Downloading music over P2P is copyright violation.
These are different crimes, with different results, different consequences, different punishments, and different courts even (Theft = criminal, Copyright violation = civil, I believe)
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
The 43 million is secondary (or even tertiary) to the story. The real story is about the changing tactics of the industry and how it continues its attempts to force music-lovers to listen to music how the industry wants them to, instead of being responsive to customers as any good business should.
Now that a direct sales model is viable (iTunes, Prince and others) because the means of production and inexpensive distribution is widely available for a low cost, the industry has lost its main competitive advantage.
The oligopoly that the record companies have had is coming to an end and instead of embracing a new business model they keep trying to force everyone to adhere to the old broken model.
Also, please refer to the following articles from 2 days ago, paying special attention to the editorial:
Music Industry Changes its Tune on Sharing ... Sort Of
The NYT has a pair of stories about online music today. The first is a long article about how the music industry is trying to transform its image and its business by embracing online music and sharing ... within limits. But at the same time comments about filesharing like ''We're going to continue to address this with harsher and harsher means,'' by Universal's CEO aren't encouraging that the attitude has changed. The NYT Editorial page comes down firmly on the side of music-lovers with this gem: ''You don't have to be a 19-year-old college student to sense that there's something indecent in the concentration of the recording industry...''
* 2003-06-07 19:15:59 Music Industry Changes its Tune on Sharing ... Sor (articles,music) (rejected)
For good or bad, IP is an artificial construct which only works if everybody buys in. I think its niave to think that it will always work or even be around considering it (like laws against recreational drug use) are a microscopic blip on the radar of human history. Art, music, writing are _our_ culture - if you don't want to contribute to our culture keep it to yourself. If you do want to contribute to _our_ culture then you have to release it and accept whatever deal _society_, as a whole, has agreed to give you (which could be nothing more than being able to perform it, along with everyone else).
It worked for Mozart, Bach, Ug the Caveman, the USA 100 years ago, China, the Queen of Sheba, etc,etc. Why is the 'morality' of some CEO's in Corporate America 'better' than that of 5.99999 billion other people? And why do we owe them a living?
Sure, swapping MP3s is illegal -- but the point of this is that it SHOULDN'T be. America is a democracy, after all, and people are voting through their actions. If everyone in America started practicing bigamy, that'd be legal too. Don't believe me? Just look at the Gay-rights movement. That was only 1/10 people, far less than the number of file-swappers -- but they've been getting a LOT of laws changed over the last few decades. Besides, you can whine and complain all you like about it being illegal, but a law that no-one obeys is no law at all.
Analog taping off the radio and swapping tapes is covered under standard fair usage.
What's the difference between taping to cassette (or for the older people, to reel-to-reel) tape and to your hard drive?
What if your FM radio is an adaptor plugged into your PC that records to the HD? What's the difference between this and a portable AM-FM-cassette player which allows recording off the air by punching a couple of buttons?
The RIAA bought enough politicians to make taping to a hard drive illegel.
Only tards like you and the RIAA are capable of confusing this with any sort of moral imperative.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I have read so many half baked arguments about this really important subject on slashdot that i wish people would start to really get thinking: here is a very interesting book about the subject: INFORMATION FEUDALISM by Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite, EARTHSCAN - http://www.earthscan.co.uk. just a few citations: "Intellectual property rights began their life as tools of censorship and monopoly privileges doled out by the king to fund wars and other pursuits." Looking at England in the 16th century - the first intellectual property fights were being fought over printing, the then copyright holders were the craft guild known as The Stationers. They were fearing competion and loss of their monopoly status and thus asked the state for measures to be taken against Piracy (everybody who printed books had to be a member of the guild). Eventually the Stationers ended up as an arm of the state, having their own court and the powers to search and seize pirated material (books printed by independent printers). Does that sound familiar? ....The "pirates-printers", Bourne and Jefferson, argued in 1586 that the privilege system kept prices high, deprived the public of choice and was contrary to the common law.
--- From this point on intellectual property law keeps returning in its different guises.
What i find most alarming in this context is basically how the different distracting - "re-educational" arguments keep
coming back from people who are most likely to be hurt if the current intellectual property laws are not fought.
There is no moral element in intellectual property rights unless you adhere to the sermon that keeps coming from the copyright holders. Consider the option to be born as
an untouchable in india 100 years ago - it would have been morally wrong to take part in society and rebel against being outside of human society. Fortunately these moral forces were fought....
uff - i am getting carried away ...
check out the book mentioned above - gives you lot of insights into a problem that lies at the heart of postindustrial economy.
You must be new to America...
Here is the short, short version. America was created by people, for the people, as a sanctuary from overbearing governments. It was designed to be a low upkeep entity. Everything was spelled out in black and white in the Constitution. The Constitution had one fatal flaw. It counted on politicians doing what was best for the nation, not their wallets.
You're the "fool". Slashdot does track the IP address on posts, even when anonymous. The good old DMCA says they can subpoena that information without a judge's order.
/flamebait
Sure, you can subpoena my IP from slashdot. But you won't get my identity from my ISP without filing for a court order, and whose validity has been evaluated by a judge. Some of us live in countries where privacy is still protected.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Its debateable if file swapping if morally wrong at all. Some of us believe its a personal freedom, like freedom of speech, and that its not morally wrong but morally right.
Each of us have our own judgments about the morality and immorality of various acts. We don't have to agree about any of your points, however, to be able to mutually function in a society.
You don't need to agree with America's social norms to conform to them -- we don't have laws to make immoral things illegal, moral things immoral or immoral things moral -- we have laws to adjust and govern our conduct in accordance with the will of the majority, tempered by the Constitution.
You needn't agree with the principles for which these laws exist to be subject to them. That is the entire point of democracy. You may vote for representatives to pass or repeal laws you dislike, and are subject to them until you have so succeeded.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
That's probably what Jon Johansen (DVD Jon) thought. As a Norwegian, he is not under US jurisdiction and therefore not subject to the DMCA. And Norway isn't part of the EU (and hence subject to EU Directive 2001/29/EU). The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) just had a quiet word with the authorities, and Jon was in trouble.
[insert comment about American Imperialism here]
Oh yay, another idealistic "everything in the world should be free" post that hasn't thought about the consequences of what it advocates, preferring to take cheap shots at non-representative straw men. Let's see...
Bull. Most of these people agree that it's morally wrong, and know that they should be paying for it or not having it at all. They do it because they know they can (probably) get away with it.
Since most of your population decided to vote for the guys in the two big parties who put on a snazzy show, rather than investing a handful of hours doing their homework and voting for someone who might actually act in the best interests of the population. Until you do that, you're going to get a lot of rich people in government who get richer, and the stand-up guys who put moral integrity ahead of their wallets will be in a small, cherished minority.
The problem with democracy is that in its purest form, it only works in the presence of an informed and rational population (for some values of "informed" and "rational"). Your informed and rational population in the US spends more time watching American Idol than the news. Go figure.
It's curious, actually, that 1/6 figure mentioned in the original story, and the comparison to speeding made there. Statistically speaking, although many people speed, it's about the top 1/6 who speed dangerously enough to cause a higher accident rate. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they're also among the most vocal advocates of their own driving ability, and the fact that, as they see it, they're not doing anything wrong. It's only after the accident when they've taken a life and wrecked a family that they realise the consequences of their actions.
Mass copyright theft isn't, I hope, going to have such dire consequences, but the people who think they can carry on regardless without doing long term harm are kidding themselves. The big guys are big enough to play these games with them, but the small guys in the music biz are getting hurt already.
Because you didn't put the work in to make it, so you have no right to let them, maybe?
I love this bit from the original story the most:
They're not enthusiasts. They are criminals. You have a legal system that says so, and those laws are there for a good reason. Get over it. If you don't like it, lobby for someone to hit the price-fixing monopolies who abuse the intellectual property laws, but at least aim somewhere near the right target.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Dear RIAA,
The problem is not that the world is full of greedy people who all want to steal your product. The problem is basic economics.
You make a product that can be duplicated on a massive scale for close to zero cost. Simple supply and demand tells us that as the supply of your product increased, it's cost decreases.
After a week, your product is worthless. Changing laws will not change this basic fact. It is up to *you* to find a new business model.
-Z
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Aren't they really a trade orgination which represents the combined/similar interests of its members (who are conventional businesses).
A corrupt and monopolistic business to be sure,
Aren't those big 5 labeles a cartel. To be a monopoly, you really need to be one company controlling a market (eg, Microsoft). But the market is controlled by a group of 5 labels who collude to control the market.
but they are out to make money and survive.
Maybe you can't blame them, but plenty of others do.
Their "survive" strategy (so far) has largely been to attempt to stifle new technology... same basic story as radio and the recordable cassette tape. Short sighted then, short sighted now.
On the "make money" front, the highly unfavorable contracts that artists have no option but to sign, and the widespread crooked accounting they practice hardly gives them the moral high ground.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools