Slashdot Mirror
EFF Ad Campaign On File Swapping
miladus writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation is launching an ad campaign
to
counter the RIAA's lawsuits about file
swapping. There are more details available at the File Sharing: It's Music To Our Ears subsite." The press release kicking off this campaign says that "EFF's Let the Music Play campaign provides alternatives to the RIAA's litigation barrage, details EFF's efforts to defend peer-to-peer file sharing, and makes it easy for individuals to write members of Congress."
The RIAA/MPAA know how to manage our lawmakers - through their lobbying and campaign contributions. EFF's attempt to mobilize the voters is really the only chance we have against that kind of influence.
I like the Ad .
It's simple, and to the point. However the site with more information is waaaaay too complicated for most people. I've been trying in recent times to explain to people why I stopped buying cd's. Why the RIAA suing for 98 billion dollars is recockulus. But people in general don't understand. And this site is too complicated. People will read it, say wtf is "compulsory licensing" and go back to downloading porn. What we need is a good site with the whole idea explained simply. That would be excellent.
...it does.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
It's good to see that the EFF is focusing on getting them to create a way to pay people, rather then the usual P2P chant of making the theft legal.
Apple has it right, people will pay if there is a way to do so, otherwise they WILL just steal stuff.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
For those of you who do not feel the need to RTFA, and might easily take the slashdot story the wrong way, here is the important part of what the EFF is after (Paragraph 2 on the the EFF site):
The problem is that there is no adequate system in place that allows music lovers access to their favorite music while compensating artists and copyright holders.
This is quite different from the 'illegal-file-sharing-rules!! the RIAA-sucks!!' idea I got from the slashdot story. I very much agree and support the EFF in this effort. Give the artists what they deserve, give me what I want and stop artificially inflating the music prices.
Remember this quote?
"How do you eat an elephant?
One bite at a time."
(Aside: If someone could please attibute this properly, I'd be grateful)
IOW, we have to start sometime even if it does take 20 years, and now is as good as any to get change underway.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Copyright violation!=stealing. Damn some people are dense. Is it nice not needing hammers around?
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Bad reference. Copyright violation ( in truth ) would be playing a ROM you do not own using MAME.
Your reference is flawed because the arcade machine is OWNED by somebody, and if an arcade machine is on free play that's their problem.
Either they're being very generous, or they realize what you're doing and kick your ass out on the street.
In truth, electronic music/movie distribution HAS NO COLLARY because it is a system that has no personal enforcement, and thus encourages people to take advantage of the system.
You cannot easily go into a record store and walk out with an album, it's very likely you will be caught by the owner. But you can go online and download the album and burn it, with little likelyhood of prosecution.
Direct supervision keeps theives in check, and keeps honest folks honest. Indirect supervision is a field-day for theives, and tempts honest people.
WHY IS EVERYONE SO SURPRISED AT THIS? Just look at the percentages of people who violate speed limits whn nobody's looking versus the number of people who violate speed limits WHEN COPS ARE SPEED TRAPPING, and you'll see similar numbers.
I thought it was well understood by companies, after 20 years of trying to MAKE COPY PROTECTION WORK. If there's a link in the chain you cannot supervise personally, somebody is going to break it.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Unfortunately, a lot of powers at be have tried to enforce Morality. Take prohibition for an example, it's a law that NEVER should have passed because it was religious zealots trying to enforce their morals. And when you really think about it, many laws are based on morals, loosely or strictly. Patent law is an example. It wouldn't be right to let people steal my work, so I use the law to protect it. How about the ammendments? It wouldn't be right for us to force our beleifs on other people, so we have freedom of religion. (Did you know G. W. Bush actually had a Jesus day when he was a player in Texas? scary stuff).
Thomas Thoreau beleived as you did, in an expedient Gov't. However, the gov't we have today tries to enforce it's own morals onto other people.
YOU SUCK BALLS!
In a democracy the public should have a right to determine what is publicly acceptable and legal and what is not. Certainly where somewhat in excess of 50% of internet users are trading copyright files (and yes, I do know that it's an unrepresentative sample of the population) and no person has a qualm about swapping some CDs with friends (Can I borrow that CD? no, it's copyrighted. Ha, as if.) the law is probably outdated and should be reconsidered.
;o)
If the EFF can mobilise popular support to legalise file sharing, at least on a limited level (so keep it illegal, say, for commercial pirates or profit making entities to copy music), then I would be all for it. You opinion might be different, which is why I hope that more voters agree with me
Beep beep.
My point is that file-sharing and file-swapping serve a legitimate purpose. The RIAA would serve the interest of its affiliated artists far better by finding a way to legitimize file-swapping as a form of promotion, instead of trying to nail Kazaa users for offering a years out of press Bowie live club track for download. The genie is out of the bottle, and there's no getting him back in. But he can be harnessed and put to work in a positive way. The RIAA needs to rethink its business dynamic in a big way. Online music libraries for legal download can only help matters in the long run.
Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
This is the age of information, the age of technology. Anyone can get a computer, and a nice one too, on a months salary or less. It is very common to find multiple machines in a single household. With broadband you're seeing even more online and online often. The computer has now been put right up there with the television as an entertainment device. As more and more people adopt this mindset, more and more people are going to be using this so-called 'entertainment device' for, wait for it.. wait for it.. Ah! Entertainment! Music is one of the most basic forms of entertainment there is. And if people are looking towards computers to provide that, the RIAA needs to adapt to that demand of the market. Thus far, no one has responded well except Apple, but I'll get to them in a minute.
.wav files for a few seconds of audio. Granted MP3s were several megs for a full song, but this was much better than 50 megs for the same .wav file. I knew then, when I found myself 'collecting', that this was going to be a problem.
When I was sent my first MP3 on IRC back in '96 I thought it was pretty cool. No longer did I need 10 meg
In any case, the word about MP3 spread like wildfire amoungst people 'in the know' and FTPs were set up all across the 'net housing files. This was a some what underground thing until Napster showed up. Once again, proving that the more you yell about somethig, the more popular it gets, Metallica single handedly made MP3 a household name.
By now, the idea of getting music online was so entrenched in everyones minds, the thought of not being able to play music on your computer became an almost alien concept. In my opinion this is where the RIAA, if they were sensitive to consumer opinion, could have stepped in and made a killing. As of now, they're only alieniating potential customers. As was said on Slashdot:
"I don't get it! I've threatened them, sued them, and they still won't buy my products!"
Apple has the right idea. They're selling single songs. Not only have they made a few million so far from this, but its proving that people _will_ buy music online. Why? Because the computer is now an entertainment device. There has been some opposition to this by people like Linken Park (do people really listen to this crap?) and Jewel (who openly admitted to downloading music a few years ago). Basically they say that their work is art and should be taken as a whole. But lets look at that.
You make a CD that kicks ass in every way possible, every track has you giving 100%, every second is thought out and wonderful (like say, Tool ). And then say you're some corperate crap band that makes _one_ good song. You'll both make the same money on CD sales because the prices are all the same. I think this is bad. If you put your blood, sweat and tears into a full 10 tracks, people will download them all, paying you for every ouce of effort you put forth. If you make _one_ good song, you make money off that one good song and thats _it_. This model that Apple has created is the best system of 'natural selection' amoungst artists I've come across. Personally I'm all for it.
The RIAA needs to wake up. While, yes, its technically illegal to have music you didn't pay for, p2p by way of IRC and FTPs have been around since the early 90s. This isn't going to stop, even if every p2p network is shutdown perminatly. The _reason_ its not going to stop is because people have changed what they use computers for. As I said, they are now as much of an _entertainment_ device as a television. If the RIAA had responded at the time, or even takes Apples current model, people would not be downloading illegal music. I feel that as long as the RIAA uses these strongarm tactics against the very people that provide them with a living, people are going to pirate music.
I'm not going to pay "leives" or taxes or any other form of "presumed guilty" tax.
If they stick a P2P theft tax on my cable modem bill, I won't pay it.
If they stick a tax on blank media, I'll just order it from overseas.
I don't download music, movies or software illegally (or at all), as SCO, RIAA and MPAA would have you believe and I will not pay for the actions of others in a collective punishment manner such as they propose.
That's just as wrong as saying that because a *few* bad people used guns to kill someone that everyone that owns a gun is a bad person and a killer..
Wrong answer, collective punishment is wrong.
And when did these services go on-line? You have heard the president of Sony music saying the success of iTunes woke the industry up, making them realise they could make money this way?
The problem has been, and always has been, the record labels refusing to give the customer what they wanted: diversity, choice and fair pricing. If you want to hear the songs of a new artist not on the Top 40 or Clear Channel's Can-Play list, or just listen to the back catalog of a New Wave 80s group, you basically had no option other than piracy and P2P. Internet Radio stations were few and far between, and their diversity was limited (for reasons we all know and love). The demand was there, but the RIAA just didn't want to give their customers what they wanted.
That, my good sir, is why P2P exists. It stepped up to fill a void by music buyers to try and discover before they buy. The idea that "sharing" people won't buy has been debunked so many times, it's not even worth my time to look up the links for you. You are defend ing the RIAA's stupidity and avarice. Their arguments don't hold water anymore, and it's time to find a new whine other than "theives and freeloaders!"
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
Every time the file sharing issue comes up, some people bring out this old saw. Reality: under the current system, with the exception of a miniscule percentage of "stars," e.g. Britany Spears, musicians get nothing, or virtually nothing, from CD sales. The onerous contracts that the monopolistic recording industry imposes on artists ensures this.
Humans were making music long before the concept of "intelectual property" existed... and we will be making music long after the concept of "copyright" is a distant memory.
Artists have always found a way to make enough money to survive and to create, struggle though they may. The current system of granting special monopoly rights to the copyright "owners" benefits only RIAA excecutives, politicians, and a few mostly mediocre "stars." It harms the rest of us by forcing us to give up our freedoms to shore up a system that benefits only the few and is doomed to soon collapse.
Should 60 million people go to jail just so the RIAA can stay in business? I dont think so.
The law must be changed because the people want it changed. Thats how democracy works.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
However, RIAA can do things that EFF can never do. RIAA is a political action committee and can give money to congressional election campaigns; EFF is a 501(c)(3) charity and cannot.
What EFF needs to do here is follow the example of NORML: set up a parallel organization with separate accounting, except make it a PAC instead of a charity. NORML routes lobbying through the PAC and advertising through the charity. Donations to NORML Foundation are tax-deductible; donations to NORML PAC aren't.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The intent to compensate artists and copyright holders may be a good one, but like almost every argument over the music sharing issue it assumes that the 20th century profit model established by the music copy making industry should be perpetuated. This isn't necessarily true.
Before recording technology, musicians made money only by performing. Recording technology could have changed that but it didn't. Because record companies were in a position to dictate how the system would work, they set it up to give themselves all the profits. Standard ecording contracts are written such that all the expenses of producing and distributing a record are paid out of the musician's percentage, usually leaving zero. What musicians get out of a recording contract is exposure, which leads to them getting more and more lucrative gigs. They make a living by performing, just like in the days before records were invented. And that's the ones who have recording contracts. The vast majority of working musicians don't.
File sharing gives musicians exposure just like record sales do, and they make the same amount of money from it. The people who might stand to lose something from file sharing are the copymakers, whose role in the system is becoming obsolete. It's not at all clear to me why an obsolete industry should be kept on life support, or why the replacement system should try to implement the mythical concept of musicians being compensated when copies of their work are distributed. It didn't use to work that way and it doesn't work that way now. Why should it suddenly be a priority?
Let musicians benefit from the exposure afforded by file-sharing, the same way they have always benefited by the exposure from record sales, and they will continue to make money from live performances. Why can't we leave it at that???