Slashdot Mirror
Filesharing Up 10% After RIAA Threatens Users
Moldy-Rutabaga writes "Technews says filesharing
has gone up 10% on some sites such as Grokster since the Recording Industry
Association of America's announcement on June 25 that it will start tracking down
and suing users of file-sharing programs. Wayne Rosso, president of Grokster,
commented 'even genocidal litigation can't stop
file sharers'."
They're considering suing normal people, people who for the most part don't shoplift, don't deal drugs, don't kill people etc..
You need to understand your market if you are to sell your product to it. With the Internet the market has changed, selling a song to the 'net generation is a lot more complex than a flashy video and radio play. This is the X factor that the recording industry hasn't really bothered to look into and I find it very interesting that one of the most successful online music sites is part of a computer company (Apple).
In summary the record labels need to send their marketing and product development guys off to college, study the success of e-commerce and redesign their business model cus CD is after all only a storage medium.
While I am a little suprised to see the numbers up 10%, I can't say that it wasn't expected. More and more people seem to want to taunt the recording industry, they want the RIAA to come after them it seems.
All the money they are spending on their lawyers should rather be dumped into iTunes or Rhapsodey like services. How much proof is needed that that is the way to go?
The industry needs to face facts. The full-format physical media isn't going to sustain their business model. With todays need for instant gratification, people want to buy only what they want and they want it now.
Removing dependance on full-length physical media will do a couple of good things. First it will force the industry and artists to put out more quality tracks instead of relying on a couple radio tracks to sell a disc made mostly of filler. Second, the consumer will no longer get stuck with a lousy disc.
tinfoilmedia
Interpretation:
We don't mind the RIAA making money... just make them get it from somebody except us
AKA, the "not it!" theory.
Davak
People generally don't respond very much to possible consequences. There is a high chance of getting a speeding ticket, yet almost everyone goes above the speed limit, often ignoring the safety of themselves and others. There's not likely much the RIAA can do to make even a slight decrease in file-sharing.
With the RIAA being in the news so much recently, is it possible that this is simply more people all of a sudden discovering that they *can* share files?
"What? We can do that? Cool. Look, there's links in the article to this software..."
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
It should be noted that this contradicts what has been reported in the main stream news, with one cable news channel reporting a 15% drop in file sharing.
(off topic, when I'm posting a new comment to an article, slashdot should include the article on the page where I'm responding so I can reference it)
> Seriously, if enough people blatanly disobey copyright laws, if there is enough civil disobedience, it almost HAS to force a change in the law. The question, though, is how much is "enough" and do we REALLY need to go through all of the heavy handed law enforcement attempts before this happens?
How many people do you suppose are in prison right now for smoking pot, and how long has that enforcement been going on?
> Can't the law makers see for once, that this is what the PEOPLE want and step up to the plate to do their job?
Most of them will take an interest exactly when they think the number of votes the current arrangement costs them will hurt worse than the number of lobbying dollars an alternative tack would cost them.
Welcome to the lobbyocracy.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Uhh, prohibition on alcohol is over with but drug prohibition is not.
We spend millions and millions of dollars on the "Drug War" and millions and millions more on holding people in jail because they do/sell drugs...
How many people smoke pot? How many states have made it a minor offense to smoke it? How many people are still being busted for it, having their cars and houses seized for buying a dime bag?
And you think that filesharing is going to continue because people do it? Get real.
Not stupid, greedy. Of course this is probably going to bite them in the ass anyhow. I'm also very surprised to see Green Day doing this, considering when "Dookie" was new you could get it for $10 at a record store here.
I could give a shit about Linkin Park, they don't even write thier own music.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Say that an album has 12 tracks. Usually only 2 or 3 of those tracks are the reason people buy the cd, since the rest is filler (in some cases good filler, in other cases crap).
Now if you pay full price for the CD, they make more money than if you just bought the two or three good songs off iTunes.
It makes perfect sense to them.
The thing they need to realize is now that the option is there, people will prefer to spend 3 or 4 bucks getting the songs they want off an album rather than pay 15 for castoff songs. And if they don't learn to embrace the internet, they will be left behind by it.
I think that the difference here is that civil disobedience can change -laws-, but we're not fighting laws here. We're fighting money.
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
I view the sharing of music now days as a form of political protesting.
Regarding the music industry, there is a lot to protest about in my opinion. Prices are too high, quality is questionable, and the RIAA are out of control. What better place to protest and get your points across than downloading music from the internet?
Once the filetraders are gone, the leechers will be also, because there will be nothing to leech off of.
RIAA threatens to sue dozens, hundreds, or thousands of file-shares. File-sharing increases, and we brag about it? "Woohoo! Look at us! You can't get me RIAA! Your threats and lawyers and lawsuits don't bother me at all!"
Look, I'm all for giving the RIAA whatfor, just on principle, but STOP TELLING THEM YOU'RE INFRINGING THEIR COPYRIGHTS (not stealing, as we all know... right?) AND QUIT FLAUNTING THAT YOU'RE NOT AFRAID.
Because they are going to drop the hammer. And they are going to sue some poor college kids and high school kids and ruin their savings and credit and quite possibily their future. This isn't funny. People should be switching to anonymous technologies ASAP. It's like a burgular going back to the same house after having a long conversation with the owner in a coffee shop about how he previously stole from the owner, and he didn't care that the owner now has some nasty looking guard dogs, a moat, and a team of lawyers ready to defend him when he shoots the burgular in "self-defense."
So shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's for your own good.
Your parents have a lot more to lose, like their house. If you get caught while using their internet connection, they're the ones who are going to pay the price.
It is marketing, but the RIAA knows the people who scare easiest are the ones with the most to lose.
Eighteen year old kids can afford to lose their life savings, because they can get it back in a week or two.
What 'artificial scarcity' are you talking about? There is nothing 'scarce' about music. You can go to any number of internet sites and buy CDs. Try buy.com.
The free market is in action. It's just that people would rather pay $0.00 for music rather than anything more than $0.00.
Sounds just like the "Do not click on this link!" found on my prof's course webpage. (And yes, I did click on the link.)
If you tell a person that they cannot do something, they are almost certainly going to try to do it.
I think it might have something to do with "It's not gonna happen to me".
The basic issue is that music and DVDs are not worth 20+ dollars anymore when everyone know that blank CD's cost less than a couple of cents, if that. In the Philippines, file sharing is not that popular because it is actually cheaper and more convenient to buy the excellently pirated and reproduced media (complete with liner notes, etc.) from the old women in the market than to deal with Kazaa, etc. (bandwidth isn't really an issue, for people who can afford PCs, affording broad band is not a problem.) If the record and movie industry's were to sell there product at the same price as the pirates (or a little more with the guarantee of quality) they would beat the inconvenience of file sharing very easily. They just can not accept that the days of overcharging consumers are over. Every Filipino gets with a CD player has all the Brittany, Madonna, CDs etc. he or she wants. (sorry, that's what they're into ...)
You can already get perfect DVDs of Terminator 3 Charlie's Angels on the street, not badly done copies made by some guy with a camera but real copies. Friends of mine send me these everynow and then (no ... I won't sell them here. Jail isn't fun.)
My point is that the record industry should learn from this example, that millions of people are willing to pay money for CDs and DVDs instead of downloading when the prices are reasonable.
Likely, the won't learn though. Now, every few months, the record industry pressures the State Department to enforce copy protection laws in the Philippines. The local authorities dutifully bulldozer some CDs from the market place.
What isn't mentioned is that the same authorities worked it out with the merchants the night before, saying that they have to put a show on for some stupid Americans at such and such a time and place and could the merchants have some old, defective or otherwise unsellable stuff ready for smashing on the evening news...
Not to give the bastards ideas, but it's only a matter of time before they start doing high profile random prosecutions. Right now people feel safe because they think, I'm not sharing a ton of files, they'll go after the big dogs and leave me alone. But if the RIAA starts doing random prosecutions then people will really get spooked. My recommendation, boycott RIAA affiliated products. Buy from indy labels. Right to your favorite bands letting them know why you are boycotting and try to persuade them to leave the label and/or speak out in favor of sane legislation. I think the last idea might be the most effective. If we can get the stars to back a balance between public domain and IP, we can declaw the RIAA and MPAA. This will require some meeting in the middle. Artists are very protective of the work. We must not come out saying everything should be free, but rather that both IP rights and public domain are both very important and need to be preserved. The other part of the problem, the punishment far outwaying the crime. This is harder to fix. Perhaps we need find ways to prosecute companies, congressman, branches of government and judges under the DMCA.
These same artists that have supposedly declared their albums are the "full picture" allow the radio stations to chop up the album in to individual songs, allow the DJs to chatter during the lead-in and lead-out, and allow the radio stations (or the labels) to censor their lyrics.
Artistic integrity is quite obviously not the prime concern for them.
This would affect songs, movies, software, books,... anything that is copyrighted.
The net cost to publishers would rise because they would not be able to reliably recover as much of their costs, so the publication of works would become increasingly rarer. Although any material may be freely shared, not all of it would necessarily be easy to find. Fans of artists or authors of obscure works would be entirely out of luck.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It used to be that if I heard a song on the radio (or in a movie, TV show, etc) I liked, or that a friend would mention, I'd go download a few from the group. If I liked them, I'd buy the CD, if not, I wouldn't. I bought _more_ CDs after the start of music sharing (eg: via Napster, usenet news (newscene rocks), and winmx, than I had before. The more BS RIAA speaks, the fewer CDs I buy - now I haven't bought one in almost a year.
Price CDs at $6-10, and I'll think about buying. Remember - they said CD prices would drop lower than tape.
--
+1 Karma Bonus due to RIAA love and low user ID.
I really hate it when different "groups" start lobbying for a new tax to solve all their woes. I will be outraged if I have to start paying a special tax on a new cd burner or internet access to offset the RIAA's losses. It's not MY fault they have an antiquated business model. And not everyone has internet access solely for the purpose of filesharing...hell, I bet nearly NO ONE does. Why am I going to pay the RIAA so I can read slashdot and backup my harddrive? This has all been said before, so mod me down if you will, but come on...now even the filesharing companies, who are supposed to be on "our" side, are showing their true colors...it's all about the benjamins.
When their numbers dwindled from 50 to 8, the dwarves began to suspect Hungry.
I don't think the RIAA is after every bloke who has ever downloaded an MP3. They're after people who are, in effect, wholesale providers. If they can successfully close down a few of those, they expect to see a ripple effect.
People copying a few CD's here and there are probably just noise to them, akin to passing around cassette tapes not so many years ago. But, when someone starts distributing most of a company's catalog, that's a different matter.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I have to say that I am partial to the long-playing album. The iTunes style of music distributionoffers a lot of freedom to the consumer to purchase as much or little content as he or she would like, but could this threaten the existence of the long-playing album? What insentive does the artist/music industry have to create albums when the model has changed so drastically? It seems like artists and labels would now want to get each track out as quickly as possible.
I was a little distressed at this idea at first, because I really think that the album can have some holistic worth that is not present in the tracks individually. This is most obviously true in the genre of progressive rock where concept albums are popular. Concept albums are albums in which the songs are tied together by a theme or plot that operates within the lyrics and often also within the music itself as themes are reprised and re-orchestrated in a manner that allows them to be expressive through their relationship to each other as well as their own intrinsic expression. And there are many other non-concept albums out there that stand as complete pictures that would not at all be the same were the tracks to be separated.
As the musical medium has progressed from live to vinyl to magnetic recording to compact discs and now to the intanbible realm of bits, I do feel that we are losing as much as we gain. Im only 19, but I know that back in the days when the Beatles were releasing vinyl, you would buy the album not just for the music, but for the art and other goodies that came along with it, and, perhaps most importantly, because you wanted to support the group and teh ideas they represented. Nowadays music seems to be as disposable as all of our other goods have become. Im horified by the idea that music could become as stripped down as it now is.
However, I fully support the new way that music distribution is going, not because I think that disembodies mp3s are better than vinyl or even compact discs, but because I think that it may challenge artists to create something worthy of our ownership.
I've really been nauseated over and over by the crap that is being pumped out of the music industry lately. From the boy band thing to linkin park and rap rock, music has gone from a medium of expression to a formulaic and mindless medium of moneymaking. This is not entirely true of music, but of most of the junk that teh RIAA is representing in its rampage.
As an artist myself, I look at an album as more than some sort of physical medium for the noise I make. Seeing the album as an arbitrary medium for music is analogous to the functionalist school of AI. The way we are demmanding our music to be served to us shows that we dont see the medium thorugh which we hear or acquire it as important to the music itself. while I do subscribe to a certain brand of functionalism when it comes to AI, I actually believe that the medium is very important when it comes to music. Music is art, and the musical release - the album - should be a work of art. The graphic art and words that come along with a physical album ought to contribute to the music, and the music itself must merit the words and grapgic art that accompany it.
so I am not protesting our lack of concern about how we acquire our music. Rather, I am hoping that the music industry might now be driven to create music that deserves to be embodied and owned in something more corporeal than a digital file.
I guess Im done ranting, but inconclusion, if Metallica and the Red Hot Chili Peppers are going to refuse to let peopel download their music because the want to protect the long-playing album, they had better get started creating an album that is not translatable into digital files as easily as they are now. Im talking abotu a different kind of copy-protection here. when more mainstream artists begin releasing albums that are worth more than the sum of their tracks, more people will shell out the bucks to own a piece of art. I'll still have my ipod loaded with music, but I will also have the albums of my favorite artists at home so that I can appreciate them as a whole.
Some bad things:
1) Instead of having one or two radio friendly songs to get you to buy the album, so you can then hear the more innovative stuff they really want to do, record companies may force bands to only release "radio" friendly music, since that's what sells. Leaving a lack of innovative music.
2) Selling individual songs on the internet could lead to bands being pressured to shorten their songs. If you get 99 cents a song, record companies would rather a 3 minute 3 Meg song to a 10 minute 10 meg song.
3) The death of the "concept" album. If each song has to stand or fall on it's own, what incentive does a band have to release something with a larger scope? No more Darksides, Quadrophenias, Red Headed Strangers, Kind of Blues, etc.
Buying music by the song may be the future of bubblegum pop, but I hope it'll never be the future of truly creative music.
This is the same damn argument that pro-"sharing" pundits keep spouting over and over again--and it's just wrong on many levels. You want to break up Abbey Road, or Dark Side of the Moon into singles too?
Abbey Road, Dark Side of the Moon. Yeah, those would be by the Beatles and Pink Floyd, artists with great enough talent to produce concept albums.
Tell me (and no fair using google): What album was "Come on Eileen" by Dexy's Midnight Runners released on? Many people like and enjoy the song, but I'd be willing to be almost NO ONE has the album.
My journal has hot
I remember reading about how something like 90% of the content on P2P networks is provided by only 10% of the users (I don't remember the exact figures). Those people are certainly the RIAA's biggest targets.
Some groups like that have been around for a long time, since the first "copy protected" CDs that won't play in a computer came out, such as Don't Buy CDs. and Boycott RIAA. An industry that presupposes that its customers are freeloaders and thieves doesn't deserve to have any customers.
How ya like dat?
even genocidal litigation can't stop file sharers
Although I'm not familiar with the case, I don't remember extermination camps being discussed as part of a remedy. The RIAA's efforts are punitive, vengeful, and certainly suicidal, but not genocidal.
I am very much against the RIAA in this affair, but ridiculous exaggeration like this severely damages our ability to make the case to Joe Sixpack.
the RIAA just keeps shooting themselves in the foot. Every major lawsuit just leads to more public attention.
I remember when mp3's were only found on IRC or FTP server or crappy porn filled mp3 warez sites or college network shares. the Dimond RIO suit put mp3 in the spotlight and the napster lawsuit made mp3 a household name. They may will according to the law, but thats all they are winning.
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
From the article:
When has it become our duty as US citizens to make sure that any business model succeeds? If a business cannot adapt its business model for each new generation, then it deserves to go down in flames. The sad thing is that something like the above could happen. The dirty RIAA/MPAA with their dirty money will bribe the prostitutes of congress and have them pass a bill that allows them to tax all internet usage or all cd burner purchases. As if the only possible reasons we dirty citizens use the internet or buy a cd burner is to steal their crapppy music. This crap makes me mad.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Everybody always has done it, up to now, legally.
Any musician and anyone else serious about music who's older than Britney Spears' generation grew up taping off the radio and swapping tapes. This was how people swapped music files before the Internet and personal computers.
Do any of us feel guilty about STEALING MUSIC and being PIRATES!!!
Of course not, tapes effectively extended the range of radio broadcast promotion of albums, i.e. taping songs off the radio helped sell albums, just as P2P and Internet radio helps sell CDs now.
The only difference between fileswapping and taping is that the RIAA paid Congress to make swapping songs via Internet illegal.
If you believe differently, you have been suckered by RIAA propaganda.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Amazing how a guy who's been dead for 10 years can still be on topic...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
>They have a snapshot of the files you shared along with a file or two or three that they received from your computer. They then sue you (or your parents or your roommate, whoever the isp has as the customer)
If easily fabricated evidence such as this can get someone in jail, how come I can't just say "Person x shot at me with a gun -- sorry, the finger prints have been wiped off and the room where he shot me demolished".
Seems to me a judge would need more than a screenshot and some pirate files coming from the accuser to blame you. Otherwise, this could make a very good insurance scandal: "Yeah, he stole the cash from the safe! See, I'm missing it! And I have his name and address! That should be enough! Now gimme my money!"
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
May I suggest taking a look at the US constitution
Perhaps I should make a disclosure here. I've memorized that clause. I'm working very hard towards practicing copyright law in a couple of years. I do know the foundational materials, the theory, all that jazz. But I appreciate the rhetorical device.
By giving people control over what they produce and, critically, the ability to make a living from it, you encourage them to create new and wonderful things.
But you're not quite through. You're so close. You ought to be able to smell it. But there's one step left. What do you do when those new and wonderful things are there? What's the purpose of getting them? How does their mere existence promote the progress of science? (N.B. if you read the clause carefully, and recall the 18th century meaning of words, you will note that copyright is intended to promote science, or as we would now say, knowledge. The 'useful arts' refers to the patent half of the clause, and refers to what we now might call practical technology)
We say to artists that if they produce new and wonderful things, we will give them control of that content. It is therefore wrong for us to remove that control, or expect them not to protest and not to take legal action when individuals remove that control, and do so in the most extreme way - redistributing their content, non-consensually, to millions of strangers.
Naw, not really. Congress can decide to raise the price of postage to $20 for a postcard if they like. It's done at their discretion. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with changing the rules on artists.
Because no matter WHAT copyright laws exist, those laws will usually be better for artists, and the public, in sum, than not having them at all would be. And that's a viable alternative too. Congress can always decide there shouldn't be any copyrights. And in the right circumstances, it would be the right decision to make as well.
The few cases where artists and the public in aggregate will be worse off with copyright than without it are, ironically, when copyright is at its strongest. A few artists will thrive; they'll basically have a license to print money. But most will suffer since the ogliarchy won't much care for the competition. And the public will be even worse off.
As for protest, I don't have a problem with that. I just don't care for their arguments, unless that argument is merely that the optimal point -- optimal for everyone -- of the copyright system lies elsewhere. Anything else would be arguing irrelevancies.
Remember: we didn't say that we'd give artists control in exchange for them creating new things. We said we would when it was a good thing for us. That I'll stand by. But we're the judges.
So far few are proposing fixes to copyrights beyond seriously disembowling it and removing the rights of artists completely.
Ok.
Without delving too deeply into the details -- I'm still thinking about some of the nitty gritty music and video licensing issues -- I'd say this:
5 year term; renewable five times. Except software, designs, and masks, which aren't renewable at all. Fees for renewals would likely be pegged to gross profits to raise revenue for the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office (see below for some uses of that money)
Existing terms would be retroactively shortened to fit into the new scheme.
Strict formality requirements in order to get a copyright at all; a "common law" copyright (really statutory, but based on the old ones) might exist for some works, but wouldn't be safe to rely upon, since I'd want to promote publishing. This would include strict deposit and disclosure requirements to eliminate protection on copyrighted works other than copyrights, e.g. trade secrets. So, for example, software would all be disclosed source, though still copyrighted.
Acts contrary to the ultimate public domaining, and fair uses would be grounds for voiding copyright; no copy
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.