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'."
I was speaking to a lay-person friend of mine last weekend, and he mentioned to me that he had heard about the threat of lawsuits, and decided to quickly install Bearshare, download all the songs he wanted and then uninstall it. Apparently at least some people are spooked.
G=C800:5
I'm just curious..
How exactly do they go about finding these people? It's not like they openly give out their names on things like KaZaa?
96% or so (+/- a couple due to frequency distribution) of file-swapping system users realizing that their last names do not start with 'A'
they decided to print out the article and come have a serious talk, and how I should realize filesharing is wrong.
you know when your non-technical parents get it on the action, one of two things:
1) my parents are androids from the future sent by the evil RIAA
2) this is more of a marketing campaign then anything...
VISIT http://www.napsterbits.com for the hillarious adventures of the napster kittyhead!
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.
What a pointless statistic. I bet you would find a month-on-month increase in P2P usage as more non-techy people out there discover how ridiculously easy it is.
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
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
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? 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? Rant over.
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.
And from the "they keep shooting themselves in the head" department, Metallica says no iTunes do to principles. :
.. I have a great idea. Let's tick off our customers. They want this, but let's not give it to them. In fact, let's prosecute them. Works for me.
"Artists hold out on iTunes on principle
Reuters News Service
LOS ANGELES -- The Red Hot Chili Peppers and Metallica are refusing to make their music available as individual downloads on Apple Computer's iTunes online music store.
That move comes in response to Apple's decision to allow users to buy single tracks and is intended to protect the future of the long-playing album, said Mark Reiter of Q Prime Management Co., which manages the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica and several other artists.
Green Day and Linkin Park, according to a source familiar with the situation, have also refused to make their songs available as individual downloads on the Apple service, which has sold over 5 million songs. "
-- Hey
Idiots.
Has anyone tried Earthstation5?
supports SSL, Proxys, tunneling of UDP though port 80 and some other goodies to hide from ISP's, RIAA, etc?
I've downloaded and tried it and was quite happy with it. You take a speed hit for your privacy but when the RIAA is screaming bloody murder it might be the only alternitive. Now all we have to do is e-mail them like made to get it ported to other OS's!
-- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
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)
My Gnutella node was loaded down with Linux ISOs, Cygwin software, and free ebooks (mainly PG texts). I say was because when this announcement came out, I decided getting caught in the crossfire was too high a risk (even if my offerings are 100% legitimate) and removed myself from the P2P scene. Given the RIAA's violent thrashings here -- for example, suing the college students for running mere indexing services -- I'm standing as far back as I can to watch the dinosaur's death throes. I'm sure I am not alone in that attitude, and the P2P traffic went up 10% anyway. I'm sure when you start seeing the stories entitled such things as "10,000 file traders arrested" we'll start seeing the boycott movement start in earnest.
Do you like Japanese imports?
This is free market in action. The artificial scarcity created by government regulation (copyright) is way out of touch with the reality so the free market, even when it has to operate as a black market, will take care of the customer demand.
What needs to happen is serious consideration of how the supply can be kept running under these circumstances. One solution would be to allow unlimited music distribution as long as you don't charge any money for it. If the commercial exploitation of copyrighted material would still be an exclusive right of the copyright holder, I believe there is a big market where the copyright holder can make good profit. This would pretty much legalize the current practise where individual people can trade music online freely while the commercial distributors (e.g. CD sales) would have to pay.
Lot's of search sites has emerged so you can pick and choose what you want, and leaving a few uploads open all the time as quid pro quo.
You can even rate the stuff out there.
Help fight continental drift.
"Weiss said the recording industry should lobby for special taxes on CD burners and Internet access as a way to recoup losses incurred from file sharing, an idea that Grokster's Rosso also supports."
Yeah right, so you can't properly secure your own cd's or whatever, so go ahead and put a tax on internet access and cd burner's to make up losses because of your own incompetence. And as we all know, no one uses CD Burners for say....backups, or transferring legitimate files from one person to another. No one uses the internet to do do legitament things like research. So of course everyone should Pay the RIAA and help them. Never mind that if they really want to stop piracy they should be better protecting their own media.
The worst thing is that the RIAA probably has enough influence in Washington to pull something like this off!! What's next, Microsoft builds an internet monitoring meter into windows to send usage statistics to the government so they can bill you monthly. Then Linux is outlawed for not having the US government metering package?
The RIAA does not own the copyrights to anything. According to the DMCA only the owner of the copyright can sue for infringement. The owner first must communicate in writing to the user's ISP, demanding that they take action.
The ISP is bound by law to inform the user, who has the right, under penalty of perjury, to deny that he/she is offering infringing material.
Now it gets interesting.
If the user denies that he/she has been sharing, the ISP must inform the copyright owner, and that copyright owner has a limited amount of time during which it MUST bring suit against the alleged infringer, or the ISP MUST restore access.
So, someone please tell me how the RIAA has the right to sue, since they own no copyrights?
Also, if every person sued denies they are sharing, forcing the actual copyright holder to bring suit, wouldn't the sheer weight of litigation costs make this a really bad strategy?
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
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?
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.
Make Backup copies of your stuff like you've never done before!
Heh, yeah, OFF-SITE backup copies. Lots of them! :)
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
This, ironically, is what many of Napster's defenders said they should be doing back when the RIAA was threating Napster instead.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
reminds me of my mom - I told her that Chillean Sea Bass is an endangered species and that restaurants that do serve it are breaking the law. Since then it's the only thing she orders whenever it's available...
While this article is total fluff, It made me wonder what kind of effect this news might have had on anyone. So I did an informal poll of people here at work, only about 15 people of varying tech knowledge and general-informedness but all of whom I knew used filesharing programs. What I found was:
6/15 knew what the RIAA was.
1/15 knew about any RIAA lawsuits.
7/15 became/at least acted concerned when told about the lawsuits, and the potential for themselves to be sued.
The numbers are way too low to really mean anything, but it seems to follow that just MAYBE people don't act like they care because they really don't know. We'll see what happens when the RIAA actually gets a file sharer in court.
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.
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 dunno if somebody knows about e-Mule, but this exellent P2P proggy allows one to leech blocks from different sources, even when a source itself does not have the complete file yet. So these sources are in effect not necessarily sharing media, just parts of it.
The only thing e-Mule now needs is a tedency to distribute complete files over different parts of the network, so that very few access points share the complete file. Once the file is downloaded, e-Mule then just shares parts of it, but never the complete file. Depending on the required parts, the shared parts may even vary over time.
Seems like the perfect nightmare for any DMCA groupie-lawyer to me.
With great power comes great electricity bills.
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.
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.
If any, definitely Kazaa.
Naturally when you say "Kazaa" you mean Kazaa Lite. (All the file sharing, with none of the spyware or adware popups.)
I'll stop calling it "genocide" when the scumbags at the RIAA quit referring to copyright infringement as "piracy," which involves the robbing and killing of people on the high seas.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
According to the logs I keep of kazaa's traffic, usage has declined by something like 2%... Maybe I'm not getting the whole picture. The way I sample the data to make the pretty plot is simply by reading from my kazaalite client's status bar, and logging those numbers (users, files, GiB) to a text file which I massage with php+gd every once in a while.
Let me know if you need more data, I have over a years worth.
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.
Of course. I was talking about the network, not the client. I use both of the networks above, neither with the "official" clients. The only way to use Kazaa is Kazaa Lite, and for eDonkey I use eMule.
void*x=(*((void*(*)())&(x=(void*)0xfdeb58)))();
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
In the UK case they can go to an ISP to get the information having gathered enough evidence to get a magistrate to ok it (which isnt a huge barrier when you can show the time, the data, the files, a video of the download, the music playing and a signed testimony you own the copyright). Data protection law is not a right to do illegal things anonymously. In fact an ISP is permitted to give such data to the police without them even asking if it has good reason to believe a crime is being committed.
.
I'd expect people in the UK to be dealt with by UK law, just as large scale UK video pirates were. Large scale video piracy was stopped by basically targetting the big pirates and giving them nowhere to advertise their wares either. Now its a hand to hand market or dodgy street market stalls and that keep the volume of piracy under control
As regards file names - given a few downloads that are verified as pirate and the relevant paperwork done and affidavits filed I suspect the rest would be resolved by seizing the equipment in question and seeing what else is on it.
I approve of the RIAA approach this time, its the first sane thing they've done for a long time. Go after the bigger copiers, instead of harassing everyone, screwing up the law and building unusable systems actually go after the criminals for once.
What should be the real limits on "fair use" is another debate, but it will be a lot easier to have when large scale copying of copyright works is under control, and also may actually go back to the old ways - as video has where small scale copying/lending isnt a threat, helps everyone and the law is conveniently ignored by all parties
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?
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.