What The RIAA Gets Out Of File Sharing

ChrisPaget writes "Wired have a fascinating article about a company called BigChampagne which sells regional P2P download statistics to most of the major record labels. When the labels know what people are downloading, they know what to put on the radio, and sales in the area increase. The record industry's lawsuits against file- sharing companies hang on their assertion that the programs have no use other than to help infringe copyrights. If the labels acknowledge a legitimate use for P2P programs, it would undercut their case as well as their zero-tolerance stance."

Comments

Bullshit

[meshko]

I'm sorry, but this is bullshit.
I don't like copyright. I don't like RIAA. I don't like people who sue 12 year olds. I don't like the way they treat people. I think both we (customers) and artists will be better off when music industry as we know it is gone.
That was a disclaimer.

Now I find the attitude of most people to this question completely fucked up. Like this article for example. Sharing files is illegal. They have every right to prosecute. We need to change system so that it will be legal: direct music distribution from artist to customer, micropayments, whatever (if I knew the right way I would be a fucking billionare by now). Saying that RIAA can't sue people who steal (yes, yes) from it just because it uses the information about stealing is bullshit. You know, there is this statistic published -- the most stolen vehicle in the US. Does this make stealing cars legal?

I Will Comment

[tds67]

I, for one, welcome the (-1, OffTopic) score I will get for this post from our moderator overlords.

they used it to SPAM

[Elminst]

from 2nd page of article:

Allison built a program that sent anyone sharing a Toad song an invitation to join Phillips' mailing list, and they decided that if it looked promising they would start a business. "The opt-in rate was 20 percent!" says Zack's father, Tom. "A good opt-in rate is usually 2 or 3 percent."

Translation:
They SPAMMED the users downloading those songs!!!

We gotta be able to turn that against the record labels somehow...

Re:Right...

[poot_rootbeer]

I don't know why people always try to liken music sharing to property theft.

I don't know why at least five people feel the need to explain why it's different from theft in every /. thread about the RIAA.

When you download a song, you're making a COPY. That's different from taking the property of another person. In the case of theft, the victim sacrifices the thing that you took.

An spy breaks into a US military research lab and uses a microfilm camera to take pictures of sensitive documents, maps, and diagrams. Did the spy steal anything? I mean, the US military still has them -- but they're worth a lot less now that every other government in the world has them too.

I still don't get it...

[kannibul]

How can people think that sharing someone's intellectual property, without thier permission or control, is legal?

If for instance, someone put Microsoft Office 2003 on Kazaa, and people downloaded and installed it as often as people download music, Microsoft would be doing the same thing, JUST AS ANY OTHER COMPANY THAT HAS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THAT IS BEING VIOLATED BY ILLEGAL USE.

Sorry for the caps, but I want to make my point clear that this isn't a "Microsoft" debate, but just using them as an example.

Re:Right...Sig follow-up

[Nom du Keyboard]

Windows crashes. Blue Screen of Death. Ha ha. +5 Funny.

-1 Redundant