Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the thats-a-lotta-legal-fees dept.
este writes "According to an article in the Inquirer, if the RIAA maintains its rate of lawsuit issuance, it will take more than two millenia for them to sue evey P2P file trader. The author accounts for many additional difficulties facing the RIAA in this daunting task."
Sounds like a profit model to me...
by
EvilTwinSkippy
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Hell one could make a career from dragging out litgation. Look at the folks at Caldera, er, SCO.
-- "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
RIAA is turning me pirate.. arrr
by
KrancHammer
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I am a strong supporter of property rights, intellectual and otherwise (yes I know the IP rights situation is a bit more complicated). However, the RIAA's strongarm, bullying tactics are pissing me off. I would not vote for any politician who supported that organization. Yes, people have a right to make a dollar or thousand for their intellectual contributions, but people also have a right to such as "innocent until proven guilty," and "freedom from unwarranted search and seizure" and a dozen other rights the RIAA, MPAA, and their highly funded Washington lawmakers would trample on in the rush to stamp out music piracy. I used to have sympathy for the RIAA's viewpoint. No longer.
-- Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.
Re:The real reason CD sales are down!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It's not loss of profit that the RIAA is worried about anyway, it's always been about loss of controll
I've been saying that since they started complaining about Napster.
It seems rather obvious to me because they want to sell one artist's music to a million people, not a million artist's music to a million people. People claim they buy the music of the artists they like, but the RIAA doesn't care if you buy those albums they want you to buy the flavour of the month.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid.
by
EvilTwinSkippy
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Actually traffic fines are also a significant form of income for small towns. In PA it got so bad they passed a law that forbade anyone but the State Police from using RADAR.
-- "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
That's better than winning the lottery
by
NetDanzr
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The chances of winning the jackpot in Mega Millions are 135,145,920 to 1. With $5 spent per drawing and 104 drawings per year, it will take me 259,896 years to win the jackpot.
In a sense, RIAA is betting on the right horse. They'll win their big jackpot 118.58 times faster than I'll do.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid.
by
Cyno
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well, here's how I see it. In a democracy the laws are supposed to be by/of/for the people. If everyone wants to speed them what's the point of setting a speed limit? Isn't that against the will of the people?
Similarly with the RIAA. If a majority of the population uses P2P networks then shouldn't the rights and freedom of the public overthrow the rights and freedoms of the corporations? Afterall their actions do not cost the corporations anything, except perhaps forcasted profits, which is impossible to prove in this economy.
Re:At that rate...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
People have kind of missed that fact that (at present) they are only able to sue American P2P users). As the world stands today, they can't sue everyone.
Many of us outside the USA are increasing what we make available via peer to peer -- out of sheer vindictiveness.
Re:Stupid analysis
by
jbottero
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
This is what happens when you trade in copyrighted material that you have no right to trade. And look you "I Think I'm As Smart As A Lawyer" types, "theft" or not, it's the same thing.
It is unethical for *anyone* including record companies to profit from ill-gotten gains. Sure, the artist may only get a penny on a CD, and you may not like the corporation. But if it's wrong to steal, it's wrong to steal.
Re:Why is 75 a magic number?
by
Snags
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This is exactly what I want to know. Is there some legal limit to how many lawsuits you can start at once? All the articles I see say that there are approximately 75 subpoenas filed per day. It is also written that the court is having trouble with the paperwork. I wonder if all of this is making it more difficult for more important federal cases (like antitrust, kidnapping, tax fraud) to be processed.
-- main(O){10<putchar((O--,102-((O&4)*16|
(31&60>>5*(O&3)))))&&main(2+ O);}
LN2 is cool!
Re:I told ya so
by
Snags
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
But maybe the judicial system will get tired of the same organization starting so many civil lawsuits at the same time. Remember, these are not criminal cases, and calling the defendants criminals may be slander. Even if they lose and have to pay RIAA money, that doesn't mean they're (legally) guilty of any crime.
-- main(O){10<putchar((O--,102-((O&4)*16|
(31&60>>5*(O&3)))))&&main(2+ O);}
LN2 is cool!
Re:Why even try?
by
felis_panthera
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I read a while back that their has been a dip in kazaa usage since the start of the lawsuits
On the contrary. Although there was a short dip in Kazaa useage after the RIAA announced their new program of suing the pants off of everyone who even looks at copyrighted material, yesterday WinMX came back on-line with a vengeance. Something in the nature of 4000 trillion (is that a quadrillion?) songs went on-line for download over WinMX. My room-mates and I went on a DL/UL spree, filling many gaps in our respective collections (combined total somewhere in the 50 GB range).
As mschoolbus said (quoting Rage, all hail Rage!!): "You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution."
--
The chains are broken
Loki is free
Ragnarok is at hand...
More Realistic Analysis
by
Kaz+Riprock
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There are several variables missing from the equation that they propose.
First is the one that everyone picks up on...the intimidation variable (sue enough people and win and others will panic and leave). There is also the number of people that will stop pirating because they have what they need and don't want any more. Then there are those that finally get a fast connection and learn how to use the software...more than enough to negate those leaving by choice. Next, you have those that have been sued, but damn the consequences, they return to share more files. Finally, you have those that light themselves on fire in protest...and die.
There are a number of off and on rates not in the steady-state calculation that led to the 2K+ years to get them all. There are also just those that die of natural causes while file sharing.
My guess is that the on-rate of swashbucklers is more than the off-rate and rapidly increasing (for now), which means the population is in an exponential growth and 2000 years is only going to cover about half or 1/3rd of the people still sharing in 2000 years' time...
-- Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
File Sharing will Evolve
by
merkel
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Like everyone else, I first thought all this legal hoopla by the RIAA and other private, quasi-governmental and the U.S. Congress would eventually put an end to file sharing, but thinking about it more I realized that file sharing will just evolve. It is simply becoming too easy to transfer bits of data for file sharing to stop.
What are some of the likely outcomes?
1. Anonymous file sharing. I think the technical challenges to this are pretty huge. There are legitimate reasons to allow anonymous information exchange, and even the US government seems to desire this to promote favored political dissidents. If someone can geninuinely overcome the challenges, I imagine peer-to-peer networks will survive, but I'm not very sanguine about this.
2. Private networks. Rather than letting just any yahoo search the files on your computer and suck down your precious bandwidth, I forsee private networks where friends and family can share files, but strangers can't. As long as you keep your list of buddies under reasonable control, it's going to be difficult for anyone to track file back to you.
3. Local exchanges. Even more extreme than a private network, people might make direct device-to-device copies. Go over to a friend's house and download their entire music collection to your laptop. Meet someone at the library and sync up your iPod. Whatever - by cutting out the middleman, there are no sticky subpoena issues with your ISP. Think about it - as data storage and data transfer rates improve, it'll be feasible to exchange files with any person you casually meet. Instead of meeting for the coupon swap, you can bring your PDA/iPod/laptop/hard drive and swap with your friends.
I really don't see how encryption, watermarking, or stronger enforcement of IP laws is going to put this genie back in the bottle.
The music industry, just like every other content provider, is going to have to adapt their business model, by providing a reasonably priced service that provides consumers what they want.
I think the only viable business model is subscription based access to a music catalog. For something like $10 or $20/mo., subscribers will have access to the entire catalog - and maybe special features like "webcasts", web radio, etc. But the current distribution system is done.
That and the music indutry needs to turn out something better. Honestly - I haven't downloaded ANY music and I've still only bought about 2 CD's in the past year. It's all crap.
Re:File Sharing will Evolve
by
MImeKillEr
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I think the only viable business model is subscription based access to a music catalog. For something like $10 or $20/mo., subscribers will have access to the entire catalog - and maybe special features like "webcasts", web radio, etc. But the current distribution system is done.
I'd buy that, but only if it were a conglomorate site (eg. has more than one label's catalog) and didn't require a contract.
If consumers had to pay separate fees to each lable's site in order to get music that they want, this would cut out some of their potential clientel.
-- Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Re:Why even try?
by
ahfoo
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I personally did notice what looked like a dip right after they announced that subpeonas had been served and they started posting screen names. At one point last week my client was showing only about 3.1 million but then this weekend I glanced at the screen and saw 4.3 which is about as high as I've ever seen. I was surprised to see it pop back so fast, but then again not too surprised. I think one thing the RIAA is failing to perceive is the utter lack of attention span amongst the people they're trying to shock.
I think this is a real obvious flaw in their strategy. Their biggest artists are best known for their shock value. Using the "scared straight" tactic on a group of consumers who are specifically self selected as seeking out shock as entertainment is questionable.
Re:Buying the CDs after they sue you
by
MImeKillEr
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
But they're suing those that are sharing not those downloading. So buying CDs for music you're sharing won't protect you.
So, you get a subpoena. Whats to stop a user from simply low-level formatting their drives, writing zeros to the drive, re-formatting and reinstalling their OS? Sure, the RIAA can show that you were sharing, but what is the court going to do if you no longer posess the 'pirated' works?
-- Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid.
by
I8TheWorm
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Sorry... I just have to say this. Songwriters don't make a dime unless a physical cd sells. So to them it is stealing. Of course the sales model should change, and it appears to be, but I know several songwriters who have had to alter their lifestyles considerably, without having changed the number of cd cuts they get.
Of course, the economy is in the tanker right now too, but who at the RIAA has time to listen to Greenspan when they have all these filesharers to sue?
-- Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Devil's Advocate
by
gwydi0n
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'll play DA on this one for a sec...
However, the RIAA's strongarm, bullying tactics are pissing me off.
How so? Admittedly, maybe you weren't one of them, but the masses here at/. have been crying for so long to the tune that the RIAA needed to start going after people stealing music by using existing copyright law. They are, and people are still whining, or saying "yea, but" and generally trying to backup a few steps and justify their downloads. (again, you may not be one of these, just using your post as a kickoff point)
... people also have a right to such as "innocent until proven guilty," and "freedom from unwarranted search and seizure" and a dozen other rights the RIAA, MPAA, and their highly funded Washington lawmakers would trample on in the rush to stamp out music piracy.
Yes, they do, but they also waive that right to privacy with the 'thou shalt not do anything untoward or illegal on our network' clause of the ISP's TOS. This fiasco with the RIAA could also turn into a test of ISP TOS agreements on the side, with this particular point. I wouldn't be too surprised to see a few attempted lawsuits against the providers for giving customer information to the RIAA. Although Verizon lost, some private citizens agains a provider may get somewhere.
The whole point is to (hopefully/not likely) get people to stop and think about arguments similar to yours. Frame the objections in terms of changing the infrastructure, instead of a knee-jerk reaction & blaming the RIAA (evil bastards that they are). They are operating within the law, as many people have been screaming and challenging them to do for the longest time, instead of their groundless suits against the p2p companies.
final disclaimer: I personally hate the RIAA as much as the next person, but more for jacking the prices on cds more than is justifiable, than going after people illegally sharing music on p2p networks.
Re:i was wondering
by
MImeKillEr
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I've suggested before that someone do the following:
1. Record yourself dropping some friends off at the pool. 2. Find out the track length for the latest Madonna album 3. Make copies of your recording, all with the name, track info, etc. like it was ripped using CDex. 4. Share them. 5. Wait for the RIAA to subpoena your records 6. Wait for your courtdate. 7. Ask the RIAA lawyer to play the tracks in open court 8. Bring your copy for comparison 9. Sue the RIAA for malicious prosecution and have them labeled as a vexatious litigant (I'm sure I misspelled that..)
Of course, there's nothing saying they couldn't simply supply the legit version to the court.
-- Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Why do I owe damages?
by
SirChris
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm not sure why they can sue me. They are not losing any money off of me. If i didn't download I just wouldn't listen at all. Whether I download MP3's or not has no affect on the money I spend on CDs. I will not buy them either way. So they are not losing any revenue over me. However, if I do end up listening to the music (mp3) then at least i'm more likely to go to a concert that comes to town becaues i'm familiar with the music. So by me downloading, i'm more likely to spend money towards the artists. So where is the loss of revenue?
How ong until they sue someone who can fight back?
by
markh1967
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The RIAA seem to be playing a very dangerous game and we have to make sure that they can't back out if things don't go their way. What I mean by that is that they are picking IP addresses at random and starting legal procedings against the people these IPs belong to without knowing who they are. We should really be making sure that every IP that is listed is followed up on. We can't let them discover that one of the IPs belongs to someone with power and money and let them quiety drop that case while still prosecuting people who are unable to defend themselves.
If they want to play Russian roulette like this we have to make them suffer the consequences if they pick the wrong IP. We can't let them find out who these IPs belong to and then cherry pick cases to fight - it should be all or nothing.
-- Input error. Replace user and press any key to continue.
Re:Buying the CDs after they sue you
by
merkel
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think this is why it may be more difficult for RIAA to go after file downloaders instead of file sharers.
If you already own a legitimate copy of a copyrighted work is it wrong for you to download another?
What do you get when you buy a CD? Is it a bundled license to listen to the music plus a single physical copy?
When you scratch your CD and need to replace it, why should you have to pay again for that license? Why not just pay a media fee -- or make things more efficient for all involved and just download it off the net?
It is a very curious question what a judge would think if RIAA sued a downloader who was able to provide a physical copy of a CD for every song he allegedly downloaded. Particularly if he could provide a store receipt dated earlier than the alledged copying...
Re:if their objective is to sue everyone
by
felis_panthera
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I see it as a neverending cycle though. They knock off a huge sharer (say 500 GB of shared, copyrighted material). The next in line is someone with 400 GB, who has most of the same files the 500 GB sharer had. The new big fish downloads like mad until he has 600 GB. He gets sued and the next in line already has 500 GB since she was on a DL spree.
The only thing this will accomplish in the end is a slight and temporary vacuum at the top end of file sharing. No one has managed to stamp out crackers (the guys who break copy protection, not the pasty white people) yet, because for every one at the top that gets knocked off, three more rise up and take their place. For serious file sharers, the ammount you have to share is status, just like 0-day warez.
"You may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all... after all, we're all alike." --Mentor's Last Words
--
The chains are broken
Loki is free
Ragnarok is at hand...
sueing grandma
by
bobsalt
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I hope they realize that about %60 of the people have no idea they're sharing mps's. When I used to do cable installs I would ask the customer if they wanted to leave kazaa running. Most of the responses would be "whats that? oh my nephew/kid/grandkid installed that last summer." so they installed it then downloaded some music, then they go home leaving a nice little sharepoint of mp3s.
What happens when this happens to a big fish? A technically clueless senator's nephew installs kazaa on their computer and it runs for 6 months and then THEY get sued!!! One can only hope...
Imagine if the Scriveners tried to sue?
by
asscroft
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Remember scriveners? They used to hand-copy important legal documents because there was no other way? They were paid fairly well too, and had great skill and talent to copy with speed and legibility. Imagine if they sued to prevent Carbon Paper or Type Writers or Xerox Machines or scanners or Magnetic Media. I mean, hell, you can copy a 1000 page document in a matter of seconds on most modern HOME computers. There's no way even the fastest scrivener can compete. They could have formed an Association of America back in the 1800s and passed some DMCA-styled legislation making carbon paper illegal and we never would have progressed past the 1800s. Sure some people in free worlds would have used carbon paper, but the Interpol treaties and such would have made it clear that they were rogue states full of pirates. No God fearing American would have ever been caught using such a terrible device. Not only that, but these laws would have saved and entire industry and tons of jobs nation wide. Instead, look at the way things are. Most of you didn't even know what scrivener meant and those that did owe it all to Melville, not because you have ever met a scrivener. Can we allow the RIAA to go the way of the scriveners? I think not. We need to legislate their existence for eternity. After all, that's what this is all about. They are as obsolete as the scriveners. I need to pay the RIAA to make a CD as much as I need to pay a scrivener to make a copy of a document. All I need is talent and an IMac and I can record, encode, market world-wide and distribute world-wide and the RIAA doesn't need to be involved at all. That's what this is all about. It's not piracy and never has been. It's about losing their stranglehold on the market, and losing their usefulness all at the same time.
Face it RIAA, you're dead as you exist today. You can sue all you want and claim Piracy all you want and hire as many republicans as you can afford, but you'll never ever ever be the necessary evil you were for most of this century. Take your money and get out of the cartel business. The world is wise to you, and all it wil take is a few brave musicians who won't use you to make millions and you'll never survive the blow. The people you're calling theives today are the musicians who'll drive the nails in your coffin tomorrow.
-- because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
Don't be naive!
by
werdna
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This is a well-understood problem: enforcement of intellectual property rights at a large, national scale. ASCAP and BMI have been doing this for decades (except for a brief 4-5 year hiatus while successfully challenging a statute outlawing the practice).
BSA has been doing likewise.
This kind of litigation becomes a commodity practice, easily executed because of the verisimilitude of the litigation facts. Indeed, with a decent database and document assembly program, you can pretty much automate this, and train lawyers to do it at relatively low cost.
Because prevailing plaintiffs collect attorney fees almost 100% of the time, the hammer of this kind of litigation is significant: "Here's the deal, you can settle this case in advance for $XX,000. We can do this today, if you like, or if you would rather firght, tomorrow. I'll leave this offer open until a week before trial. The difference is that the clock is running -- the offer goes up as our attorney fee bill goes up. Let us know when you are too tired to go on."
Oh, and by the way, a judgment for Copyright infringement is not dischargable in bankruptcy.
The RIAA's daily income
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
$4,522,500,000,000 now divide this by 2191.78 and you should get $2,063,391,398.77 now if you take out about lets just say 700 million for the lawyers you should get 1,363,391,398.77 now divide that by 365.25 you get $3,732,762.21 a day that is a shit load of money ppl. There is no way they have lost that much money on files sharing. Oh yeah this isn't precise but it gives us an idea on what kinda money the RIAA is making. Well I'm off to go invest in some music stocks.
Re:It's the deterrent, stupid.
by
ryanwright
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You're allowed to shoot someone for breaking in to your house, even without being threatend.
Not in most states you aren't. They can break into your home and if they don't have a weapon, you can't harm them. I shit you not. The family can come back and sue you: "Oh, he was just drunk, or stoned, or lost and confused. He didn't know where he was. He thought he was in his own house, and then the defendent shot him!" And if the police report doesn't show that the guy had a weapon, you're SOL.
This is why most cops will tell you: Shoot the bastard, and if he doesn't have a weapon, grab a knife or whatever from your kitchen and put it in his hand. If he crawls out of your house after you shoot him, drag him back in.
-- -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
finally i can calculate my probability of ..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Finally i can calculate my probability of being sued!
For an average user it would be something like that:
probability of being sued = (1/2191,78 - years/2) * years
GREAT!!! This will hopefully be the next feature implemented in DC!
But i still haven't looked at the increasing number of users of p2p networks, so i think the probability will get smaller and smaller, instead of greater and greater..
Just say no
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
First: I just don't understand why all the people who are fed up with the RIAA don't just quit buying CDs/DVDs for 6 months. Just don't buy anything! The drop in revenue would be so great that the RIAA would have to back down, and 6 months is such a short period of time, that nothing you would have bought during the period would not still be available at the end.
Second: I don't understand why you couldn't run these P2P networks with PGP-style encryption. That way, the RIAA and sleuths would have a massively harder time determining if one mass of seemingly random numbers was equivalent to a file originally found on a CD/DVD.
Third: as for myself, I don't buy things from thugs (and the RIAA certainly qualifies as a Thug).
Are those "cops" of yours ...
by
jotaeleemeese
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Slashdot Mirror
Hell one could make a career from dragging out litgation. Look at the folks at Caldera, er, SCO.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
I am a strong supporter of property rights, intellectual and otherwise (yes I know the IP rights situation is a bit more complicated). However, the RIAA's strongarm, bullying tactics are pissing me off. I would not vote for any politician who supported that organization. Yes, people have a right to make a dollar or thousand for their intellectual contributions, but people also have a right to such as "innocent until proven guilty," and "freedom from unwarranted search and seizure" and a dozen other rights the RIAA, MPAA, and their highly funded Washington lawmakers would trample on in the rush to stamp out music piracy. I used to have sympathy for the RIAA's viewpoint. No longer.
Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.
It's not loss of profit that the RIAA is worried about anyway, it's always been about loss of controll
I've been saying that since they started complaining about Napster.
It seems rather obvious to me because they want to sell one artist's music to a million people, not a million artist's music to a million people. People claim they buy the music of the artists they like, but the RIAA doesn't care if you buy those albums they want you to buy the flavour of the month.
Actually traffic fines are also a significant form of income for small towns. In PA it got so bad they passed a law that forbade anyone but the State Police from using RADAR.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
In a sense, RIAA is betting on the right horse. They'll win their big jackpot 118.58 times faster than I'll do.
Well, here's how I see it. In a democracy the laws are supposed to be by/of/for the people. If everyone wants to speed them what's the point of setting a speed limit? Isn't that against the will of the people?
Similarly with the RIAA. If a majority of the population uses P2P networks then shouldn't the rights and freedom of the public overthrow the rights and freedoms of the corporations? Afterall their actions do not cost the corporations anything, except perhaps forcasted profits, which is impossible to prove in this economy.
People have kind of missed that fact that (at present) they are only able to sue American P2P users). As the world stands today, they can't sue everyone.
Many of us outside the USA are increasing what we make available via peer to peer -- out of sheer vindictiveness.
This is what happens when you trade in copyrighted material that you have no right to trade. And look you "I Think I'm As Smart As A Lawyer" types, "theft" or not, it's the same thing.
It is unethical for *anyone* including record companies to profit from ill-gotten gains. Sure, the artist may only get a penny on a CD, and you may not like the corporation. But if it's wrong to steal, it's wrong to steal.
This is exactly what I want to know. Is there some legal limit to how many lawsuits you can start at once? All the articles I see say that there are approximately 75 subpoenas filed per day. It is also written that the court is having trouble with the paperwork. I wonder if all of this is making it more difficult for more important federal cases (like antitrust, kidnapping, tax fraud) to be processed.
main(O){10<putchar((O--,102-((O&4)*16| (31&60>>5*(O&3)))))&&main(2+ O);}
LN2 is cool!
But maybe the judicial system will get tired of the same organization starting so many civil lawsuits at the same time. Remember, these are not criminal cases, and calling the defendants criminals may be slander. Even if they lose and have to pay RIAA money, that doesn't mean they're (legally) guilty of any crime.
main(O){10<putchar((O--,102-((O&4)*16| (31&60>>5*(O&3)))))&&main(2+ O);}
LN2 is cool!
I read a while back that their has been a dip in kazaa usage since the start of the lawsuits
On the contrary. Although there was a short dip in Kazaa useage after the RIAA announced their new program of suing the pants off of everyone who even looks at copyrighted material, yesterday WinMX came back on-line with a vengeance. Something in the nature of 4000 trillion (is that a quadrillion?) songs went on-line for download over WinMX. My room-mates and I went on a DL/UL spree, filling many gaps in our respective collections (combined total somewhere in the 50 GB range).
As mschoolbus said (quoting Rage, all hail Rage!!): "You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution."
The chains are broken
Loki is free
Ragnarok is at hand...
There are several variables missing from the equation that they propose.
First is the one that everyone picks up on...the intimidation variable (sue enough people and win and others will panic and leave). There is also the number of people that will stop pirating because they have what they need and don't want any more. Then there are those that finally get a fast connection and learn how to use the software...more than enough to negate those leaving by choice. Next, you have those that have been sued, but damn the consequences, they return to share more files. Finally, you have those that light themselves on fire in protest...and die.
There are a number of off and on rates not in the steady-state calculation that led to the 2K+ years to get them all. There are also just those that die of natural causes while file sharing.
My guess is that the on-rate of swashbucklers is more than the off-rate and rapidly increasing (for now), which means the population is in an exponential growth and 2000 years is only going to cover about half or 1/3rd of the people still sharing in 2000 years' time...
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
Like everyone else, I first thought all this legal hoopla by the RIAA and other private, quasi-governmental and the U.S. Congress would eventually put an end to file sharing, but thinking about it more I realized that file sharing will just evolve. It is simply becoming too easy to transfer bits of data for file sharing to stop.
What are some of the likely outcomes?
1. Anonymous file sharing. I think the technical challenges to this are pretty huge. There are legitimate reasons to allow anonymous information exchange, and even the US government seems to desire this to promote favored political dissidents. If someone can geninuinely overcome the challenges, I imagine peer-to-peer networks will survive, but I'm not very sanguine about this.
2. Private networks. Rather than letting just any yahoo search the files on your computer and suck down your precious bandwidth, I forsee private networks where friends and family can share files, but strangers can't. As long as you keep your list of buddies under reasonable control, it's going to be difficult for anyone to track file back to you.
3. Local exchanges. Even more extreme than a private network, people might make direct device-to-device copies. Go over to a friend's house and download their entire music collection to your laptop. Meet someone at the library and sync up your iPod. Whatever - by cutting out the middleman, there are no sticky subpoena issues with your ISP. Think about it - as data storage and data transfer rates improve, it'll be feasible to exchange files with any person you casually meet. Instead of meeting for the coupon swap, you can bring your PDA/iPod/laptop/hard drive and swap with your friends.
I really don't see how encryption, watermarking, or stronger enforcement of IP laws is going to put this genie back in the bottle.
The music industry, just like every other content provider, is going to have to adapt their business model, by providing a reasonably priced service that provides consumers what they want.
I think the only viable business model is subscription based access to a music catalog. For something like $10 or $20/mo., subscribers will have access to the entire catalog - and maybe special features like "webcasts", web radio, etc. But the current distribution system is done.
That and the music indutry needs to turn out something better. Honestly - I haven't downloaded ANY music and I've still only bought about 2 CD's in the past year. It's all crap.
I personally did notice what looked like a dip right after they announced that subpeonas had been served and they started posting screen names. At one point last week my client was showing only about 3.1 million but then this weekend I glanced at the screen and saw 4.3 which is about as high as I've ever seen. I was surprised to see it pop back so fast, but then again not too surprised. I think one thing the RIAA is failing to perceive is the utter lack of attention span amongst the people they're trying to shock.
I think this is a real obvious flaw in their strategy. Their biggest artists are best known for their shock value. Using the "scared straight" tactic on a group of consumers who are specifically self selected as seeking out shock as entertainment is questionable.
But they're suing those that are sharing not those downloading. So buying CDs for music you're sharing won't protect you.
So, you get a subpoena. Whats to stop a user from simply low-level formatting their drives, writing zeros to the drive, re-formatting and reinstalling their OS? Sure, the RIAA can show that you were sharing, but what is the court going to do if you no longer posess the 'pirated' works?
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Sorry... I just have to say this. Songwriters don't make a dime unless a physical cd sells. So to them it is stealing. Of course the sales model should change, and it appears to be, but I know several songwriters who have had to alter their lifestyles considerably, without having changed the number of cd cuts they get.
Of course, the economy is in the tanker right now too, but who at the RIAA has time to listen to Greenspan when they have all these filesharers to sue?
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
I'll play DA on this one for a sec...
/. have been crying for so long to the tune that the RIAA needed to start going after people stealing music by using existing copyright law. They are, and people are still whining, or saying "yea, but" and generally trying to backup a few steps and justify their downloads. (again, you may not be one of these, just using your post as a kickoff point)
... people also have a right to such as "innocent until proven guilty," and "freedom from unwarranted search and seizure" and a dozen other rights the RIAA, MPAA, and their highly funded Washington lawmakers would trample on in the rush to stamp out music piracy.
However, the RIAA's strongarm, bullying tactics are pissing me off.
How so? Admittedly, maybe you weren't one of them, but the masses here at
Yes, they do, but they also waive that right to privacy with the 'thou shalt not do anything untoward or illegal on our network' clause of the ISP's TOS. This fiasco with the RIAA could also turn into a test of ISP TOS agreements on the side, with this particular point. I wouldn't be too surprised to see a few attempted lawsuits against the providers for giving customer information to the RIAA. Although Verizon lost, some private citizens agains a provider may get somewhere.
The whole point is to (hopefully/not likely) get people to stop and think about arguments similar to yours. Frame the objections in terms of changing the infrastructure, instead of a knee-jerk reaction & blaming the RIAA (evil bastards that they are). They are operating within the law, as many people have been screaming and challenging them to do for the longest time, instead of their groundless suits against the p2p companies.
final disclaimer: I personally hate the RIAA as much as the next person, but more for jacking the prices on cds more than is justifiable, than going after people illegally sharing music on p2p networks.
I've suggested before that someone do the following:
1. Record yourself dropping some friends off at the pool.
2. Find out the track length for the latest Madonna album
3. Make copies of your recording, all with the name, track info, etc. like it was ripped using CDex.
4. Share them.
5. Wait for the RIAA to subpoena your records
6. Wait for your courtdate.
7. Ask the RIAA lawyer to play the tracks in open court
8. Bring your copy for comparison
9. Sue the RIAA for malicious prosecution and have them labeled as a vexatious litigant (I'm sure I misspelled that..)
Of course, there's nothing saying they couldn't simply supply the legit version to the court.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
I'm not sure why they can sue me. They are not losing any money off of me. If i didn't download I just wouldn't listen at all. Whether I download MP3's or not has no affect on the money I spend on CDs. I will not buy them either way. So they are not losing any revenue over me. However, if I do end up listening to the music (mp3) then at least i'm more likely to go to a concert that comes to town becaues i'm familiar with the music. So by me downloading, i'm more likely to spend money towards the artists. So where is the loss of revenue?
The RIAA seem to be playing a very dangerous game and we have to make sure that they can't back out if things don't go their way.
What I mean by that is that they are picking IP addresses at random and starting legal procedings against the people these IPs belong to without knowing who they are.
We should really be making sure that every IP that is listed is followed up on. We can't let them discover that one of the IPs belongs to someone with power and money and let them quiety drop that case while still prosecuting people who are unable to defend themselves.
If they want to play Russian roulette like this we have to make them suffer the consequences if they pick the wrong IP. We can't let them find out who these IPs belong to and then cherry pick cases to fight - it should be all or nothing.
Input error. Replace user and press any key to continue.
I think this is why it may be more difficult for RIAA to go after file downloaders instead of file sharers.
If you already own a legitimate copy of a copyrighted work is it wrong for you to download another?
What do you get when you buy a CD? Is it a bundled license to listen to the music plus a single physical copy?
When you scratch your CD and need to replace it, why should you have to pay again for that license? Why not just pay a media fee -- or make things more efficient for all involved and just download it off the net?
It is a very curious question what a judge would think if RIAA sued a downloader who was able to provide a physical copy of a CD for every song he allegedly downloaded. Particularly if he could provide a store receipt dated earlier than the alledged copying...
I see it as a neverending cycle though. They knock off a huge sharer (say 500 GB of shared, copyrighted material). The next in line is someone with 400 GB, who has most of the same files the 500 GB sharer had. The new big fish downloads like mad until he has 600 GB. He gets sued and the next in line already has 500 GB since she was on a DL spree.
The only thing this will accomplish in the end is a slight and temporary vacuum at the top end of file sharing. No one has managed to stamp out crackers (the guys who break copy protection, not the pasty white people) yet, because for every one at the top that gets knocked off, three more rise up and take their place. For serious file sharers, the ammount you have to share is status, just like 0-day warez.
"You may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all... after all, we're all alike." --Mentor's Last Words
The chains are broken
Loki is free
Ragnarok is at hand...
I hope they realize that about %60 of the people have no idea they're sharing mps's. When I used to do cable installs I would ask the customer if they wanted to leave kazaa running. Most of the responses would be "whats that? oh my nephew/kid/grandkid installed that last summer." so they installed it then downloaded some music, then they go home leaving a nice little sharepoint of mp3s.
What happens when this happens to a big fish? A technically clueless senator's nephew installs kazaa on their computer and it runs for 6 months and then THEY get sued!!! One can only hope...
Remember scriveners? They used to hand-copy important legal documents because there was no other way? They were paid fairly well too, and had great skill and talent to copy with speed and legibility. Imagine if they sued to prevent Carbon Paper or Type Writers or Xerox Machines or scanners or Magnetic Media. I mean, hell, you can copy a 1000 page document in a matter of seconds on most modern HOME computers. There's no way even the fastest scrivener can compete. They could have formed an Association of America back in the 1800s and passed some DMCA-styled legislation making carbon paper illegal and we never would have progressed past the 1800s. Sure some people in free worlds would have used carbon paper, but the Interpol treaties and such would have made it clear that they were rogue states full of pirates. No God fearing American would have ever been caught using such a terrible device. Not only that, but these laws would have saved and entire industry and tons of jobs nation wide. Instead, look at the way things are. Most of you didn't even know what scrivener meant and those that did owe it all to Melville, not because you have ever met a scrivener. Can we allow the RIAA to go the way of the scriveners? I think not. We need to legislate their existence for eternity. After all, that's what this is all about. They are as obsolete as the scriveners. I need to pay the RIAA to make a CD as much as I need to pay a scrivener to make a copy of a document. All I need is talent and an IMac and I can record, encode, market world-wide and distribute world-wide and the RIAA doesn't need to be involved at all. That's what this is all about. It's not piracy and never has been. It's about losing their stranglehold on the market, and losing their usefulness all at the same time.
Face it RIAA, you're dead as you exist today. You can sue all you want and claim Piracy all you want and hire as many republicans as you can afford, but you'll never ever ever be the necessary evil you were for most of this century. Take your money and get out of the cartel business. The world is wise to you, and all it wil take is a few brave musicians who won't use you to make millions and you'll never survive the blow. The people you're calling theives today are the musicians who'll drive the nails in your coffin tomorrow.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
This is a well-understood problem: enforcement of intellectual property rights at a large, national scale. ASCAP and BMI have been doing this for decades (except for a brief 4-5 year hiatus while successfully challenging a statute outlawing the practice).
BSA has been doing likewise.
This kind of litigation becomes a commodity practice, easily executed because of the verisimilitude of the litigation facts. Indeed, with a decent database and document assembly program, you can pretty much automate this, and train lawyers to do it at relatively low cost.
Because prevailing plaintiffs collect attorney fees almost 100% of the time, the hammer of this kind of litigation is significant: "Here's the deal, you can settle this case in advance for $XX,000. We can do this today, if you like, or if you would rather firght, tomorrow. I'll leave this offer open until a week before trial. The difference is that the clock is running -- the offer goes up as our attorney fee bill goes up. Let us know when you are too tired to go on."
Oh, and by the way, a judgment for Copyright infringement is not dischargable in bankruptcy.
$4,522,500,000,000 now divide this by 2191.78 and you should get $2,063,391,398.77 now if you take out about lets just say 700 million for the lawyers you should get 1,363,391,398.77 now divide that by 365.25 you get $3,732,762.21 a day that is a shit load of money ppl. There is no way they have lost that much money on files sharing. Oh yeah this isn't precise but it gives us an idea on what kinda money the RIAA is making. Well I'm off to go invest in some music stocks.
You're allowed to shoot someone for breaking in to your house, even without being threatend.
Not in most states you aren't. They can break into your home and if they don't have a weapon, you can't harm them. I shit you not. The family can come back and sue you: "Oh, he was just drunk, or stoned, or lost and confused. He didn't know where he was. He thought he was in his own house, and then the defendent shot him!" And if the police report doesn't show that the guy had a weapon, you're SOL.
This is why most cops will tell you: Shoot the bastard, and if he doesn't have a weapon, grab a knife or whatever from your kitchen and put it in his hand. If he crawls out of your house after you shoot him, drag him back in.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Finally i can calculate my probability of being sued!
..
For an average user it would be something like that:
probability of being sued = (1/2191,78 - years/2) * years
GREAT!!! This will hopefully be the next feature implemented in DC!
But i still haven't looked at the increasing number of users of p2p networks, so i think the probability will get smaller and smaller, instead of greater and greater
First: I just don't understand why all the people who are fed up with the RIAA don't just quit buying CDs/DVDs for 6 months. Just don't buy anything! The drop in revenue would be so great that the RIAA would have to back down, and 6 months is such a short period of time, that nothing you would have bought during the period would not still be available at the end.
Second: I don't understand why you couldn't run these P2P networks with PGP-style encryption. That way, the RIAA and sleuths would have a massively harder time determining if one mass of seemingly random numbers was equivalent to a file originally found on a CD/DVD.
Third: as for myself, I don't buy things from thugs (and the RIAA certainly qualifies as a Thug).
... Taliban or members of the Ba'hat party?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.