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."
1 in 6 americans know how to use their computer?
If you're not using firefox, you're not surfing the web, you're suffering it.
---
the other 5 of 6 just look at porn sites
You know, believe it or not, P2P software has some legitimate uses...
:)
Like backing up all my stuff on random stranger's computers.
If anyone is guilty in here, raise your hand...
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
It's named Mandrake, yet you went for the "racist" angle?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
So much for a representational government - I wonder how many Senators have kids with a pile of 'illicit' mp3s/warez/mp4s.
Ah...they're probably all out drinkin' and pukin' with Jenna.
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!
According to NORML's website, 80 million Americans have smoked pot, that horrible life-ruining plant. Additionally, Marijuana laws are enforeced much more than those that pertain to P2P programs.
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.
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
As a perfect example of P2P: Lets show some legit usage.
You can get 5.1-RELEASE i386 ISOs right now -- before they're publicly available on the FreeBSD FTP mirror at
glow.rh.rit.edu
May this post be indexed by spiders, and archived for all to see as my Internet epitaph.
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.
If an election were to be held for the president today, and Ms.Clinton sided with the P2P sentiments, she's assured of atleast 43 million American votes! Maybe much more, if the article is accurate enough.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Under US copyright law, it is only a crime to download copyrighted works if you reproduce more than $1,000 in goods within 180 days. Or if you infringe copyright for financial gain.
It would appear that it is only a felony if you reproduce or distribute 10 or more copies with a total value of at least $2,500.
5 in 6 slashdotters are amazed that 1 in 6 americans can operate a computer AND use it to go online. The other 1 in 6 slashdotters didn't read the story yet.
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
Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight
In Battle Over Online Music, Industry Offers A Carrot
When you steal CDs from a store, the store loses those CDs. When you copy music, the original remains.
It might be a copyright violation, but it's certainly not "theft".
First off, I have nothing against the RIAA really. They are a business. A corrupt and monopolistic business to be sure, but they are out to make money and survive. I can't blame them any more than I can blame ebola for trying to do the same... except about the money part.
I have a shiney new dvd writer. It has a nice button on the front. A tray that goes in and out. Oh, and it writes dvd's. Aside from archiving the family footage, and making great backups I like to do some authoring with dvd's.
Although I believe my flash animation skills are beyond question, others don't seem to think 2 hours of my artistic creations are worth the dvd they are burned to.
What I love to do is snag music videos off various newsgroups and p2p programs, and put them together on my own mtvdvd. I make custom menues, do different transitions, cut the crappy intro screenes for #lamevideos on pir8net, put the whole thing together, and everyone I know loves them! Every single person I've showed them to has begged me for a copy.
You know what else is interesting.. there is NO legal way for me to obtain the videos. Heck, the ??AA would make a killing selling these things. I know that I have seriously considered getting one of those in-dash dvd players just for this purpose (don't worry, I'm not a stupid driver).
There is obviously consumer demand for this stuff. So much demand in fact that consumers have resorted to less than legal means to obtain them. Its a shame that so much revenue is wasted.
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
all those musicians could always go out and play live again, can't they :-)
The music industry have created their own downfall and I have no sympathy at all for them.
But the music won't die, just the RIAA, managers, agents, publishers and all the middleman hangers on who create nothing but take their cut anyway.
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)
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.
Not only that, but I have serious doubts as to whether 'copyright' as we know it today will exist in the future.
I especially love the blatant statement that belies the fact that the industry is built around intellectual property, and that you get very little when you buy a CD. Information as a tradable entity is ok, but freedom to use that information in any way I see fit (including redistribution) needs to come with my trading rights.
Perhaps this means a change in business model for the entertainment industry, and perhaps it means that artists will not be in the running for mega-millions anymore. But none of this is earth-shattering.
Languages aren't inherently fast -- implementations are efficient
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.
Everyone in Canada put together. I bet in Canada though the percantage of p2p users is alot higher since more of us can read!
Yeah, we know all your schools are still like Saved By the Bell.
I never make a serious post, but really how seriously can you take an article that assumes to have known how many p2p users are out there?
I think there are probably more people using private servers or private channels (see irc) to obtain illicit data "STEALING".
I don't believe its stealing but corporate America and likewise those golden lined suit wearing CEOs believe they own everything, including ideas.
But hey the world we live in sucks, nobody wants to change it so we can just complain on a webpage that probably has more intelligence than the USA congress, but probably alot less productivity.
-CHEERS
[cx]
The fatal flaw is that the Constitution counted on a watchful populace that cared more about what their government was doing than on who was going to win American Idol and The Bachelorette. Or how much beer they had in the fridge. Or if they were getting enough sex. Pleasure is the real American idol.
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.
Just yesterday there was an article on /. lambasting for allegedly (though this word seemed to have been dropped from teh accusations) violating the GPL and people were calling for the death of Linksys. How dare a company steal the work of the OSS community. Oh, wait, you mean it's morally OK to violate copyrights now? Is this one of those days of the week things? Sunday it's bad to violate copyright, Monday it's OK?
I wish people would start calling this what it really is and stop all the bullshit. You are basically too fucking cheap to purchase movies and music and instead of simply doing without you resort to violating copyrights. I say this, what goes around comes around. The next time Linksys or some other company uses GPL'ed code remember your stance here.
I am not surprised by this figure, I was discussing filesharing in the pub on the weekend with some of my friends who are not at all geeky and have never heard of /.
The five of them have widley varying careers and none of them would consider themselves criminals. 2 of them were annoyed about the DeCss saga, 1 was buying a CD Burner to download stuff and burn CD's, another was getting Broadband to download stuff faster and another was already downloading stuff. The other 2 don't have computers.
All these people and most other people I have spoken to do realise that they are probably committing a crime but quite frankly they don't care because (a) they are getting music for free and (b) who cares if the record companies are losing money over it.
Some justifications for those reasons:
People have been getting music for free off their friends for years, there are some favourite albums which have at various times been passed around 10+ people in our extended group over 10 or more years.
In the UK the record companies seem only interested in setting up the next Pop Stars / Pop Idol / Shit manufactured act they can squeeze money from. Very rarely are they promoting any band which people like me are actually interested in - last night I saw on TV that Morrisey is unable to get a new record contract when bozo bands like One True Voice just have to turn up at an audition looking nice and sign away any artistic control over their 'career' from that point on.
The record companies really are bringing this on themselves and no amount of whining and threats from them are going to stop this kind of behaviour.
I've learned how to vote on the subject. I look for the Compact Disk logo. No Logo, No Sale. So far I've managed to escape the cripled CD. Only the kids managed to pick up one. When it couldn't properly be ripped for the MP3 player, they learned to look for the label also. Remember you do have a vote that they will hear. It's called dollars. If no logo stuff doesn't sell at all, the artists will push for their stuff to be on a format the consumers will buy.
Have you run into any indie recording with DRM junk? I've not seen it yet. So far it's been mostly EMI and SONY that most often has the Compact Disk logo missing.
The truth shall set you free!