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 Electronic Frontier Foundation?
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.
"Today, more U.S. citizens use file-sharing software than voted for President Bush,"
So millions of people doing the wrong thing somehow makes it right. I don't think so.
Honestly, the point of groups like the EFF is to proactively seek to change things NOW.
But does anyone honestly believe we will see MAJOR change in the entertainment industry in even 20 years? It takes times for behemoths to fall.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Our work newsgroups went into a panic when the RIAA announced that they were going to be sueing people.
Amusingly it took them about 30 seconds to get around to Freenet and how it might be worth investigating it.
Evil contains the seeds of it's own destruction as they say - being over zelous with a bunch of basically honest people who like to share some music yet still buy lots has foced them onto a more efficient, totally untraceable (or rather plausibly deniable) network. It's certainly not pushed them towards legal services.
Beep beep.
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/
Congress needs to spend less time listening to record industry lobbyists [...]
...but the lobbyists are the ones taking our senators out for $250 steaks & donating millions of dollars to their respective party. With our current government, we need to convince congress that it is worth their while to listen to us 60 million americans. (FYI, 60M downloads != 60M users)
maybe we could start one of those pyramid schemes where you add your name to the bottom of the list & send $5 to everyone on the list; But we could do this with senator's names on the list instead of our own. Then we just give them a heads up that they'll be getting 10,000,000 $1 bills in the mail over the next 3 weeks & I bet our senators would even go so far as to make a law legalizing w4r3z.
Did anyone else notice that the EFF Executive Director, the person who is trying to encourage file sharing, is named Shari Steele? I cannot think of a a better name for a person defending sharing, Except Mr. P. Too Pee, that is.
Karma: Can there be a void?
.. -. - . .-. .-. --- -...
from the looks of this - it appears EFF is going to be running newspaper and magazine ads. wrong place. these need to be made into 30 second television commercials, where a much wider audience can be reached.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
"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."
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say this is flat our wrong. There are SEVERAL music services that allow one to download music, burn it to CD, carry it on portable players, and the like. I use two, emusic and iTunes (which appearantly is going to be available for Windows this year).
I get the feeling, that music "sharing" people are only interested in a service if it costs NOTHING. If that is the case there will NEVER be a way to pay artists, since noone wants to pay. Get of your ass, quit downloading music you didn't pay for, and quit bitching.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Making an arcade machine give you free games. After all, you didn't take anything tangible away from the owners.
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.
Copyright violation!=stealing. Damn some people are dense. Is it nice not needing hammers around?
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Sure it will. Thry're realize how good a deal it is, like the rest of us working stiffs.
Mod point free since 2001
Coyright reform will never happen. Our bill of rights is "tolerated" by the elite, but cheangeable
at thier whim. When it comes to intellectual property the elite class will put its foot down and
not budge an inch. To reform copyright and patent law will take away control from the elite class, and
they will not allow any such reform to happen.
It's about time Pirates started acting like them.
Yes, copyright is way out of whack today. (Personally, I'm for 20 years, and 5 for software with mandatory source code escrow.)
Yes, the content producers want to take away fair-use rights. (Meaning format-shifting, not what's commonly referred to as "file sharing" -- which is just unauthorized copying.)
Yes, it is true that spreading music files around can help lead to sales. (This is only right to do when the copyright holder authorizes it.)
Does that somehow make sharing copyright-protected material right? Most definitely not. I hope the EFF doesn't send the wrong message here.
Countering the suits against the infringers is exactly what should not be done. The copyright holders are finally doing the right thing by going after the actual infringers, instead of the service providers.
The music labels do add value. The thing that makes a song popular is not that it is good, it is because it is promoted. Of course not every promoted song becomes popular, but as a general rule, a song must be both promoted and decent in order to become popular. Being a good song only gets a very small minority of songs popular.
If we got rid of marketing, then it would perhaps be a good thing, but it would drastically change the face of music. Everybody would be looking for different songs, or would not know which songs to look for, whereas now everybody looks for only the most popular songs.
--SolidGold
Everything you know is wrong. Or more accurately, inaccurate.
Current P2P systems are being hampered by deliberately corrupted files, as well as music companies joining the network to get evidence against users.
Solution:
1) create new protocol for P2P sharing
2) patent that protocol (in as many countries as possible, or at least all those that the xxAA operates in), ideally giving the patent rights to somebody like EFF
3) release code/client with a patent license that prohibits the behavior above
If the RIAA/MPAA/xxAA violate the patent, charge them with DMCA or patent violations.
Just a thought... the DMCA can work both ways, you know.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Rather than trying to sue people into submission...
Suing is the American way! Hey, you don't like it? Sue me.
--- I'm Green Hornet's sidekick not Inspector Clouseau's!
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.
First p2p is legal and this is not what the RIAA is going after. They are going after individual mp3 pirates in their most recent legal rampage. Yes they tried to go after the p2p networks but failed. They are now going after the users.
.99c a song their is no execuse.
Swapping mp3's is illegal and unethical. Not to be flamed but the RIAA did offer an alternative via itunes. At
The RIAA is still bad of course but they are reforming. I agree that they have the right to go after big time pirates who make up %85 of piracy. Its that or go after the p2p networks which I oppose.
I can not wait for the new itunes store for Windows. I want the RIAA to know that this is acceptable and the only way to do that is with my dollars. I withheld purchasing cd's for 3 years now and also voted with my dollars. The RIAA just cares about the money. Nothing else.
http://saveie6.com/
If that were the case there would be anarchy in the streets and nobody would pay any taxes. No, sometimes the law is more than the sum of popular opinion for the good of the citizens, whether they understand that or not. Without a stable government telling people what to do it would be chaos.
The reality is that we (the techno elite) should be responsible for building a workable solution that would allow artists a way to make a living (not make a million). The old guard (RIAA et al) was terminally flawed and we engineered a consumer revolution. I think that is great - yay us! Our government failed to protect the consumer from evil corporations (as they always will until we find a way to take money out of politics) and we stood up for ourselves (and even joe/josephine sixpack) and showed that we really aren't as powerless as the media scares us into beleiving we are. Unfortunately, like most revolutionaries, we didn't build a sustainable new way. If we build compensation into the system and it makes good artists successful, then the artists will come. There are plenty of unsigned acts out there that are better than the crap the corps are selling, but they are all trying to get signed because it seems the only way to make a living. We're so smart and leet - we should be able to figure this out.
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...
The network will become fully sentient soon.
All the indications are clear. Within 10 years time, the consciousness of the people comprising the communications of the planet are combining into a common intelligence.
It is not only predictable, it is now inevitable. Just as Moore's Law predicts the doubling of circuit density every 18 months, the doubling of communications links proceeds at a geometric rate.
Copyright will fall to the network. The intelligence of the network is directly proportionate to the number of unique voices to which any individual may hear at any time. Copyright imposes a cost to hear each voice, as this cost reduces to zero, the entirety of the connected human population will hear one another, at will.
When this happens, a new Renaissance will flourish. Art will be promoted on quality, not on its profitability to the distributors. For if distribution costs nothing, there is no incentive to promote the latest Britney Spears album to the masses of people who do not know any better.
When you can hear anything, you will want to hear the best music you can find. Friends will recommend to you what they enjoy, and you will be able to listen at once and form your own opinions.
Artists will prosper under the new system. People will gladly pay people to produce quality, to perform, to entertain and enlighten them. And without the middleman distributors, 100% of the money going to such things will enrich the artist.
This is the new world, it will be here soon.
Peace and love, y'all
Stealing is a crime, you can go to jail for it.
Copyright violation is a tort, you can be sued for it.
There is a difference.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
What is the Matrix?
Who is to say we can't make up false files with the mp3 extension. I am sure someone could come up with a file that would either play nothing, or have gibberish text, or maybe some words of wisdom, (unlike Madonna). Then we could call these "fake" files all names of top 10 hits, then replicate them a hundred fold on our machines, then sit back and watch as the RIAA's legal fund gets whittled down to nothing when they try and prosecute and find out that all the files are actually bogus, and that no real mp3's were ever violating their precious copywright laws. Of course we would have to use a new file swapping program, that say... encrypts files between users, and still works like a p2p network...hmmmmmmm
Using that term would be incorrect. Sharing MP3's may be a violation of copyright, but it is not theft.
Copyright laws have been overextended from their original goal. They were established to provide creators the ability to profit for a limited time. With the changes that have taken place over the years, however, that limited time can now be extended almost indefinitely. It takes away the balancing act of rights of the individual (the copyright holder) and the rights of society to use that product freely.
MP3's and file sharing are going, in the end, to help swing the pendulum back toward society. It will then slowly swing the other way once again.
The problem, however, is that now copyrighted material is being "protected" in such ways that your legal uses under copyright might be blocked. If that happens, then the copyright holder has, in effect, secured permanent exclusive rights, which is not what copyright is designed to provide.
-- Mark Lyon http://www.marklyon.org
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.
When I went to the EFF website, I read about how the RIAA is planning on deciding whom to sue based on this:
"The RIAA has stated that it will choose who to sue by using software that scans users' publicly available P2P directories and then identifies the ISP of each user."
Now I was wondering, why is this tactic by the RIAA not considered "unlawful access" to all the p2p computers? I mean, don't p2p users grant other such users access to their shared directory for a limited, specific purpose (file sharing) ONLY??? And if the RIAA uses software to HACK INTO these p2p computers (unauthorized access), they should be held accountable! I am thinking that COUNTERSUITS against the RIAA might be warranted.
I admit that I use P2P apps a lot, to download music without paying. But at the same time I own quite a lot of CDs. And you know what? A lot of the time those CDs have been bought as a direct result of downloading music!
...but I hope not :)
For me, P2P is a great way for me to listen to new bands that I discover. If I like them, I buy the CD because frankly I feel guilty not paying for the music, and also the mp3s people share tend to have been ripped from a gouged CD, using some 3rd-rate software to encode it at 128kb/s CBR.
It is the same for most of my friends. Many of them seem to agree P2P is only necessary because the current distribution methods seem to be an anachronism. I would rather pay for a service whereby maybe I can stream a couple of songs from an album to see if I like them, then pay to download them. Yes, I know there are services like iTunes and emusic, but these services have their own problems, like regional issues (I live in the UK, so this causes problems with different labels having distribution rights and such) and hardware (I believe iTunes is still only available for Mac, although perhaps I read about PC support in the future perhaps? I forget).
So, basically I am in support of this campaign and I truly hope that they expedite the implementation of a more modern and more useful system for acquiring music. However, I have my doubts- sometimes I think that the large record companies feel such a great need to control peoples musical tastes that they might fear that the greater freedom that an electronic system could provide would cause them to lose control of being able to force certain bands down peoples throats as "the next big thing"...
RIAA: Now that millions upon millions of people have been exposed to the pleasures of filetrading... STOP IT!!!
[holds gun to own head]
RIAA: Don't make me pull the trigger now... Put down the MP3's or I swear I'll do something that I will regret...
You should read up on anarchy before you throw it around to describe chaos. More people have died under a governemnt or between waring governemnts than anarchy could have ever killed. It takes a large organized body to be that systematically evil.
Downloading mp3's is illegal if and only if I don't already own the song(s) of the mp3(s) I download.
Remember mp3.com, way back when, decided to buy a shitload of albums, rip/encode them and offer them as part of the MyMP3.com service? In a nutshell, registered users who owned the album could access the mp3.com encoded versions of those songs online (after being validated by some sort of hash match with their own purchased album).
Well, the RIAA said nope sorry bzzt. Court upheld it too. If you own an album, you may back it up. In other words, you can rip YOUR OWN mp3s from that physical media. But you can't legally download someone else's mp3s of the exact same songs that were encoded from a different physical media.
Yes it is the law, and yes it is stupid and non-intuitive.
We're talking about industries like the RIAA and the MPAA which operate under a specific business model. This business model has been in place for at least the past 50 years. Along comes a concept of the Internet and file swapping which is forcing these industries to rethink their business model.
The problem is...they won't change their model. People are very frightened of change, and the Entertainment industry has evolved from lots of smaller labels and movie makers that were interested in putting out good product to these HUGE MEDIA JUGGERNAUTS that are only interested in the almighty dollar/franc/pound/etc...
If you can get them to change the business model and prove it works (Gee, didn't Apple just do that?), they'll come along for the ride. Until then, they'll continue to think we're all crooks.
Music and movies are no longer art and entertainment, it's part of Corporate big business now.
Nuff said.
"...the shortest distance between two points may be straight line, but it is by no means the most interesting."
Consider: while the RIAA and MPAA have been stealing our elected political representatives from us, while we saw the media companies' propaganda universally echoed from every mainstream news outlet, our response to date has amounted to little more than wailing, rending our hair and gnashing our teeth.
We could not conceive of any effective way to combat their mindshare amongst the apathetic population-at-large, and without which we could never get sufficient leverage to move the politicians.
At the same time the EFF struggled valiantly on our behalf but their voice is relatively tiny, representing (as it appeared to be) only the tiny fraction of the population that is geekdom.
The answer was staring us in the face the whole time.
- * The EFF adopts the same media tactics as our enemies.
Go EFF! Why the fsck didn't anybody think of this before ?! (smacks head repeatedly on desk)* They effectively rebrand themselves as representing the much larger number of people who mainly use the internet to download music etc.
* The EFF becomes a truly popular movement with mass appeal - fingers crossed - and the pro-digital-rights community in general gets a significant mindshare at last.
* The EFF gets a big funding boost from new subscriptions - fingers crossed again - and at last, at last, the battle will be fought on a much more level playing field.
It's not stealing, it's copyright violation. Don't fall for their twisting of words, at least.
The MPAA/RIAA had a chance years ago to work *with* this wonderful new decentralized distribution system which obviously had consumer appeal. The rewards would have been enormous for corporation and consumer alike.
However, threatened by a new distribution method which would (necessarily) erode their absolute control over unit pricing, artist contracts, and royalty payments, they chose the ignorant and paranoid method of attempting to hold water in their fists merely by gripping tighter.
Instead of meekly returning to their easily-predictable demographic marketing boxes as demanded by the Media Masters, many consumers chose instead to exercise this new-found freedom. An economic downturn decimated the disposable income of hundreds of millions who could no longer afford to gamble on whether the contents of a CD matched the quality of the lone song pushed in heavy rotation by related radio stations across the country.
In a further effort to reign in the unmanaged masses, the RIAA/MPAA turned to ridiculous claims of speculative "loss of potential income" and outrageous lawsuits which only served to alienate higher numbers of consumers. Some who were merely curious grew bolder and some who like to sample prior to purchase became dedicated pirates. Too late, some industry entities released anemic and over-priced "services" that were mere shadows of the technology embraced and demanded by the consumers.
So now we have artists denied the ability to manage their own work (ie when Sony denied The Offspring the right to release their upcoming album via MP3), multi-million dollar lawsuits against private individuals, and blatantly illegal activities (release of virii into the wild, attempts to hack into suspected "offenders'" systems). The hypocrisy and greed of the corporations becomes more evident with every action and every press release.
The RIAA/MPAA made this a problem. They have only themselves to blame.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
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.
Copyright laws are fine. They make the GPL possible fer chrissakes.
If I write a song and don't want anyone to hear it, that should be my right. If I want to charge $100 per listen, fine. If I want to place it in the public domain, I can do so. I could even GPL it.
No. The problem is not with copyright law, it's with a bureaucratic elimination of competition. IMHO, it's insane that anyone should be demanding distribution methods that the free market can easily provide, as the argument goes, because it would be so damn popular.
But what I've recently realized is that the whole take on the issue is rather short sighted.
Ask yourself what the real problem is. Most will probably say 'I can't make copies of my music for my own use'. Or, 'I can't preview music for free'.
With regards to the former point, people in computer science must recognize that duplication of data (except for Backup/QOS purposes) is an evil thing. How much time, effort and storage media is wasted by storing a song in a gazillion places - by a gazillion people?
If any network administrator discovered that the file containing the company's phone directory was stored locally on 400 machines, he'd have a fit.
Much better is to have it stored in a central location where anyone can access it at any time. And, it can be backed up/mirrored to make sure it's always accessible.
So the solution is central storage. Streaming audio is very do-able over broadband today. Wireless shouldn't be too awfully far behind. Your current system with CD rack/jukeboxes and/or multi-gigabyte MP3 storage can devolve into a wired/wireless receiver that will be served whatever you wish.
You'll be able to create your own playlists in many different ways. In short, you'll be the programming director of your very own set of radio stations - each of which, you can select at will.
Yeah, it will cost something. In most cases it will mean (nicely targeted) commercials inserted by the servers. But it would be a trivial thing to allow/encourage commercial free programming for a monthly fee.
And the artists would get a micro-cent every time their song is selected. Seems fair. 'Course if the had a problem with this, the could release their songs (or just a demo song) as 'zero-credit'. In other words, no charge. And the end-user could select these exclusively.
I know that there are a lot of system administrators out there that actually like to manage data. I just want it to be there when I want it. All of it.
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
visit www.justablip.co.uk
our first full release, wtf the madonna remix project, is fully available for download on most p2p networks (kazaa, limewire, soulseek, KDX) & we encourage you to continue sharing it online & via word of mouth once you download it if you like it. (of course, we'd love you support if you'd also like to buy it from our site too!)
I would think most of the people on here would like it or at least get a chuckle from it...its electronic, collages, & samples. check out tracks 2, 13, & 14.
also, please read our articles, there may be something of interest to you guys if you are passionate about music.
ant
--
))
((
c[_] bLiP
www.justablip.co.uk
The EFF rocks! The RIAA sucks. Don't buy CDs.
How ya like dat?
Exactly, the whole concept of owning thoughts is an attempt to profit off of things which arent even tangible, and I honestly disagree with this idea entirely, infact its totally against my whole religion and belief system to believe someone can own information.
Also I look down the road, the way the world currently works, he who owns the money owns all the knowledge, imagine if you have no money, well you wont be able to get knowledge either, its like slavery. When there was slavery, slaves werent taught to read so they would stay stupid, its the same thing, why let the masses have access to information, the rich elite can keep all the information to themselves and always have the advantage on us.
I bet they hate the internet because now the playing field is leveled, a kid in nigeria can learn C, learn all the technology, and get a job as a programmer.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
i give the EFF a 50% chance of the RIAA police (ya know, the cops and politicians they pay for) indicting every member of the EFF (yep, even me for donating money to 'em) under RICO for being a criminal organization as they are soliciting crime (sharing).
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Of course not, modern society recognizes that human rights are not dictated by those who have the biggest stick, or the biggest constituency.
And it's this fallacy that has led to most of our problems. Human rights ARE dictated by those with the biggest stick - so long as I have the power to control you, and you do not have the power to resist my control, I effectively own you, and there's nothing you can do about it. All government is coercive force, and it's high time we own up to it and start working with it instead of pretending it ain't so while we manipulate it from behind.
The only reason we are given as many rights as we have been is because it's easier than fighting off the constant attempts at revolution and terrorism that would result from clamping down - and as those above us in the hierarchy find better and better ways to dupe us into complacency, those rights become less and less relevant.
The bottom line is, whoever has the most power and the strongest will to use it will make the rules, and this whole copyright fiasco is just a big play to see who has the most power and the strongest will to use it.
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
duplication of data (except for Backup/QOS purposes) is an evil thing
Later you write:
Streaming audio is very do-able over broadband today.
Broadband isn't affordable in all locations today. Where residential high-speed Internet access is affordable, this is because 1. throughput is oversold, and 2. the typical TOS considers several-hour outages acceptable. I find storing the data locally on a machine located within the end user's household a valid "QOS purpose".
Will I retire or break 10K?
What filesharers are doing isn't wrong, what the riaa is doing is wrong. Infact, before the printing press books were copied manually and when greed kicks in, the first copyright laws kicked in a well and publishers wanted to copyright the artists' works for themselves perpetually and forever. The sonny bono act came into being saying copyright should be for 14 years and all was good. There was no copyright before that and the incentive to write books came from boardem, if you were a farmer and you knew how to write you'd make a book and make a few copies for your friends.
What people need to undestand is that copyright law wasn't meant to be abused like this. First, copyright as it stands right now is forever, or rather, forever minus a day as congress has extended it 11 times thanks to disney. Copyright, patents, etc ensures artists have incentive in our society to get money and hence to be rewarded and make more art, they never had nor never should have the control the riaa says they should have. The fantisy that you make a cd and earn fabulous prizes, millions of dollers, women chasing after you etc is an outright lie and in addition stupid and it's something that damages our society as greed tears it apart.
At some point your art becomes public domain for others to build onto and to use. Why? Because capitalism is a system where you are rewarded at your level of ability and it needs to be understood that if eminem makes 30 million, he'd probably goto the bank and live out the rest of his life fat n' lazy and never make another piece of art. If enimen got payed nothing, he wouldn't make the music and if he got payed too much he wouldn't make it, so there's a point where copyright law should protect but not too much. Music and art are our culture, it barrows from past ideas and adds to future ideas and if we let companies pick apart everything to the finest detail nothing will be left and we'll stop advancing as a culture becuase as soon as you take 3-4 inventions, stick them together with other inventions you'll have large corperations on your ass within seconds asking for money.
Corperations want you to think making a profit and maximizing profit are good things, and a lot of people think they are but in reality the people who made copyright and pantent law never intended for things like microsoft to come into being. They never intended buisness to get so huge and for our school system to teach dependance to the point that almost everyone is dependant for a job on large companies and hence, subject to that companies abuse. What if the fortune 500 companies decided chipping their employees was manditory and if you didn't get a rice-shaped chip implanted into the back of your skull you were fired? That's a lot of influence these companies have to do very terrible things and copyright and pantent lawmakers never intended for that to happen and our goverment isn't handling these things very well, infact the fda approved chipping. Tells you what side they are on.
Copyright law hasn't answered how much money should someone be allowed to make, and the people have rather nicely. P2P is here to stay unless congress puts forth some serious cash to regulate the internet into hell. AS the OSS community has taught us they can do anything, and if someone want's their mp3's free bad enough they'll sit down and make some code that exploite some bug in the system that can't fix.
Now, back on subject, I think the EFF is doing an awesome thing here. Going on the p2p apps and spamming "hey, file sharing is legal have fun!" is a great way to ease some of the fud the RIAA has been spreading and they can do it cheaply. Writing letters isn't going to do much without a lot of punch at the voting booth so spread the word around college campuses. $20 worth of paper and ink now means you aren't in manditory slave labor later on becuase the riaa decided you downloading music not lisenced by them is a bad thing. Don't believe me? Listen to the tales of the afternow.
http://theafternow.com/listen.php
Candy-Coated Knowledge
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???
suppose coming up with this belief helps a lot to reduce the pangs of guilt while you are ripping off other working class people like artists.
Eminem is working class?
Not a single one of these people owns an expensive car. None of them jet off to london to jam with the stones. Only a few of them own their own house, something that has long been heralded as basic achievement of working class people. Many work part or full time in record stores, recording studios, restaurants and bars. When we go out to lunch most of the time it's at a place that a burrito and a coke will cost you less than $5.
Really? So how do musicians make their money? Thats right they get on a jet and go to London to play their music in front of thousands of fans.
Let me tell you the other side of the story. I know dozens of people who make their living either in whole or in part due to creating music on records.
Artists dont make money off records, record companies make money off records. What artist do you know who makes 100% of their income from record sales? Most artists i know make the majority of their money at the clubs and concerts, they call it the scene, and its the scene that produces income, not the records.
These are the upper class elite you're talking about?
Eminem, Dr.Dre, and the corperate CEOs who own most of the copyright and who sell most of the CDs. Most of the people you mention arent making any money because they are too stupid to go on tour, and use the internet to build enough popularity to have a big enough fanbase to go on tour.
Are these the greedy people bilking you out of your hard earned money to scam you with music? No, they are working class americans. Based on your arguments about the evils of capitalism and copyright one would assume that file swappers would not be sharing music by these people, right? Well, of course they are though. Search for any number of these bands on p2p apps and you'll find their whole albums ready to download.
Bullshit, the people who work for the RIAA arent creating any music, these guys are suddenly working class? Hilary Rosen is working class? Where do you get this bullshit from?
A few years ago, an old friend joined their band... Now this guy was a bit different, he had been in a popular san francisco band that had toured internationally and consequently had made somewhat of a name for himself. Him joining was probably going to help them all make more of a living out of making their music. They made a new album and played a few shows locally to introduce the new guy. The album was available for sale on their website. About a month after their cd release I was told a sobering tale from my friend the sound engineer. The band had recieved a large amount of positive feedback on the new album... over a hundred and fifty people had written to tell them that the new album was great, that they loved it. The problem? Between the CD sales at the concerts and online, they had sold less than 100 copies
Maybe if you and your band werent such idiots, you'd instead of worrying about selling your CD, you'd use it to promote your tours. Your CD is marketing, just like for movies, the trailers are marketing to get you to go to the theater, use the marketing, if so many people liked your music, why dont you go on tour and play before a sellout crowd, you'd make x10 more money than you'd make selling CDs, of course its more work to go on tour, and you are just too afraid to admit that you are lazy. Maybe if you worked hard you'd make money, but thinking people will buy your CD in this era, forget it.
More people had loved the album enough to write in an congratulate them on it than had bought the album in the first place. And we know most people who get an album (either bought or copied) aren't going to write the band. So here were working class guys with a shot at getting a bit more for their labor essentially shot down by music pira
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
No, it's really not legally theft. I refer you to the copyright code for details. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch5.html) Theft is a kind of larceny, which is deriving someone of property. The law distinguishes property from copies of copyrighted works.
It's up to each person to make up his own mind with regard to the ethical issue. But an ethical system that doesn't distinguish between appropriation of scarce goods (my car, my clothes) and abundant ones (air, digital bits, a public park) is pretty naive, in my opinion. There can be many good reasons to regulate the latter, but they're not the same ones as the former.
Unless I misunderstand what you're saying, the above is quite untrue. Copyright existed long before the Sony Bono act, which I think occurred in the late 1990s, and the act increased copyright far beyond 14 years; something like "death of copyright holder plus 50 years".
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Also, I think it's important to share that, while I have probably downloaded thousands of songs in my day, I delete the ones that I don't like, and I'll buy an album if there are enough decent songs on the album to buy it. Also, most of the MP3s I download lead me to (a) delete them because they suck or (b) buy the album -- thanks for letting me sample the sound! The few that do neither are either an isolated good song on a crappy album, or they are live performances, remixes, or otherwise rare tracks that can not be acquired on any album.
If I had to choose a side, I would choose the RIAA's side. I buy enough CDs and I have enough friends in the music business that I can see clearly why there is a problem with downloading as much music as some people do. At the same time, there is something clearly wrong with the way music is presented to society. It seems that only the artists that the industry chooses will sell records, and anyone they don't like get to suffer. Sorry, that isn't how it's supposed to work.
When you come up with a way to allow all music to be heard for what it is so the consumers get to decide what is good and what is not -- so good music is sold and bad music is not -- then I won't have to download music to figure out what's good or not.
p.s.-- Thank the powers that be that I was able to download a copy of Metallica's St. Anger before I rushed out to buy it. Ironic, isn't it, that their newest album is probably the best example of why we should be allowed to hear the music before purchasing it! I would have hated it if I had spent money buying that crap before knowing what it sounded like...
Meanwhile, we all know that these companies have been releasing less artists, pushing a smaller and smaller new product base of bland, lowest-common-denominator garbage. We know that there are millions of artists out there who can rival and best anything on the radio, who can't get radio play because the media is all in bed together and semi-legal payola is rife. We know that the world is full of people who are desperate to run web-based radio analogues who cannot because of the restrictive costs of royalties on copyrighted materials cleared through conventional resources like ASCAP.
It's time for the EFF to stop fighting the RIAA, which has the law on its side, and start promoting alternatives - the organization of a cooperative, non-profit copyright clearinghouse for independent musicians and labels to make music available for web-based "broadcasting" (we need new words for these things) and to set the stage for rationally managed file-sharing.
Music is not some stash of gold that the companies the RIAA represents have in a secret vault. Our goal should not be to force them to open that vault and make the gold available on our terms. Our goal should be to realize and take advantage of the fact that the ONLY limit on the amount of music we can get out there is the number of musicians we can support on the amount of money people are willing to pay for access. Even if we changed the law and convinced the RIAA to become a kinder, gentler corporate lobbying organization, we would still be wasting our money paying off shareholders, fat cat executives, and the mortgages on prima donna stars' summer mansions in the Bahamas. Better access to stupidly managed content is the booby prize of this ideological battle.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries