Slashdot Mirror
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."
files.
to share.
Everyone... go download some Right Said Fred and Spice Girls. Let's see if we can get them back on the radio! I'm Too Sexy for Girl Power!
The RIAA is making the single mother of a 12 year old pay thousands to settle. Does anyone really think that they are just going to allow their plot to be undercut? Clearchannel and the RIAA run a tight squeeze on music and it won't change without some serious consumer action and hopefully federal litigation.
-ad105
If the labels acknowledge a legitimate use for P2P programs, it would undercut their case as well as their zero-tolerance stance.
I'm sure the RIAA will simply put a new spin on it, in a "we're not monitoring demand, we're monitoring privacy" kind of way. A legit use, but one that doesn't support file-sharing.
having a legitimate use doesn't really have any legal effect. File sharing programs already have many possible legitimate uses. They have already quit trying to outlaw the file sharing software. Guns have legitimate uses, however if I use it to kill somebody that doesn't limit my culpability.
Seriously now, they lose a lot too.
Sure, Joe Shmoe (haha it was funny on spike tv...but the guy looks handicapped so you feel guilty for laughing at him) anyways Joe Blow downloads some obscure song and buys the album...and it increases sales
But 100 other people download albums and burn them instead of buying the CD. It is quicker for me to download and burn an album then to go to the store...and cheaper...so there isnt even much of a reason NOT to (aside from morals...but we all lost those a long time ago).
Lucky I am Canadian...and pay that fee with my blank cds thats lets me more legally do that.
The recording industry is losing a TON, just based on common sense and my personal practices, as well as those I know. "Dont buy that cd! I have it! I will burn you a copy in 30 seconds!"
So, lets still feel a bit guilty, like laughing at the handicapped looking Joe Schmoe...but not guilty enough to stop doing it.
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
1- The RIAA can tell what is popular via a digital pulse on the wrist of P2P users.
2- The RIAA pushes stations to play songs that are popular downloads.
3- The RIAA members get listeners in cars and offices.
4- The RIAA members sell more discs.
5- The RIAA sues 12 year olds and tries to slash the wrist mentioned in 1 above.
No wonder there's no:
6- PROFIT!
Trolling is a art,
We kinda already knew this. Many people go out and buy music based about what they download from p2p networks. I myself have done that.
Again though, this isnt in the main stream media so it will make little impact against this constant onslaught of press the RIAA is getting. We need more stories like this to come up on 60mins and the local news to debunk the crap that the RIAA is spewing forth.
I have written to my local news stations around my area about the other sides to many of the RIAA and DMCA related stories and havent even gotten back a form letter reply. I have done this via e-mail and snail mail. Looks like they really don't care to be objective (I know, I know, Thank you Captain Obvious!).
My guess is that they'd be fine with losing this resource if it meant people would stop downloading music that didn't belong to them, but as long as the latter keeps occurring they might as well take advantage of the statistics they can generate from it. Lemons, lemonade.
There are certainly other benefits for the music industry from P2P sharing. For the artists, especially those who aren't part of the small handful of superstars who get massive marketing, it allows their music to be heard. Typically only a few songs by smaller artists are available via P2P, so if there if a downloader who likes the music, they must purchase a CD if they want to hear more. This theory is based only on my own experiences for a dozen or so smaller artists whom I "discovered" through Kazaa and then bought CDs for.
I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.
Lawsuit Filed Against RIAA Amnesty Program
Contributed by Mike on Wednesday, September 10th, 2003 @ 03:00AM
from the coming-from-all-angles dept.
Even more backlash against the RIAA. I'm really surprised that this hasn't gotten more attention. The story is being squeezed in on some copies of the AP report about the RIAA's settlement with the 12-year-old "threat to the future of the music industry", but a California lawyer has apparently filed a lawsuit against the RIAA (warning: PDF file) for their "amnesty program", claiming that it is "unlawful, unfair and deceptive". The lawyer points out that the RIAA does not provide any actual amnesty in their offer. If the offer really is deceptive, then it seems like the sort of thing the government should step in and point out - but it is nice to at least see a lawsuit bringing more attention to the ridiculousness of the amnesty offer. Found via JD Lasica.
This is a legitimate use for the network (maybe).
That doesn't make illegal uses (Copyright Infringement) legal, but it helps the case that the network itself has legal uses.
The RIAA would like to see the network removed, therefore may be shooting itself in the foot. This does not affect the moral, ethecial or legal status of Copyright Infringement.
For example, CDs are legal. if the RIAA attempted to outlaw them, then got caught using them, there would red faces.
ok?
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
The RIAA has the same problem as you. They think of downloading songs as the equivalent of stealing cars. Apples and oranges. File sharing can be made to work for the record industry. There is no way to make auto theft profitable for the auto industry. If the record industry is willing to make some heavy changes to their business model they will survive.
Escape Pod Films: Sketch Comedy and Web Series
Just let people download all the music they want.
Then, market CDs as gifts...nothing says "I love you" like a new original CD, instead of a home-burned one with a Sharpie-scrawl label. They could even go for the Hallmark market share, or perhaps go into Valentine's candy boxes with a CD inside, surrounded by chocolate. Employees can be rewarded not with a simple "You're #1!" keyring, but a "You're #1!" keyring which is also a mini-CD single with their favorite song!
"Say it with a CD," that's the ticket. Just watch out for proper etiquette: an "I'm sorry honey" CD-bouquet should not include the song "Oops! I Did It Again."
...
I don't know about you, but to me, YRO posts are the most important out of all tech stories. Privacy and speech are going to be the next huge battles fought in government, and it's going to be a big war, one that we'll all have to fight. I would hardly call any of the YRO posts "minor."
Or an even better analogy would be about which cars are copied in peer to peer sharing networks and then marketing data to the radio stations so they know what cars people want to hear.
Conserve Oil, Recycle, Boycott Walmart
I always thought that if a band didn't want to have their crap "shared", they should have a level of obscurity in their name and in the titles of their songs.
My band would be called "Jenna", my first album would be called "Jameson", and the songs would go like...
01 - Jenna - Jameson - Blowjob
02 - Jenna - Jameson - Cumshot
03 - Jenna - Jameson - Threesome
04 - Jenna - Jameson - Orgy
05 - Jenna - Jameson - Lesbian
Try to find these on kazaa !
it seems irrelevant if the labels cull trending data from P2P use. I think you would have a very hard time using against them in any way.
The record labels' "case" is that copying their products is against the law. The possiblity that they might extract some incidental compensation from it doesn't undercut their case in the least.
Similarly, if everyone who downloaded a song voluntarily sent 2 cents to the record company, that wouldn't make any difference either.
The record companies are a nasty lot. They illegally fix prices. They corrupt lawmakers. They try to ban useful technologies just because those technologies can be used in ways that are illegal and harmful to their business. They have gained legal powers of search which are an invasion of privacy and ought to be repealed.
But they've called their opponents' bluff and gone after illegal file-sharers, and I've noticed that on slashdot at least, I'm seeing a really poor hand. People don't care about defending freedom or privacy, they just want to copy albums.
It's not the selfishness I object to, it's the stupidity. Even if you do only care about copying albums, can't you see that you'd look better if you pretended to be like me and care about freedom?
Anyone who disagrees is clearly a criminal/pirate/terrorist! Mend your ways and submit to RIAA amnesty!=)
"You know why you do not see me styling wit my homies? Because I have no homies!!" -Mojo Jojo
You're missing the point. Your analogy doesn't really fit.
In your scenario, the insurance companies would be going to the car thieves themselves to get information on which cars are most likely to be stolen and then increasing the number of billboards or commercials for said vehicles, in an attempt to get car thieves to go legit.
What the RIAA is doing is scraping the lists to see whose stuff is getting "pirated" the most so they can increase marketing and airplay for that "artist" - thus making the case that there is actually a legitimate use for P2P -- something they've been campaigning against all along. So, if there's a legit use for it, this lessens the chance of P2P being outlawed completely.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
The RIAA will not take a step back with th rhetoric because they have gained too much power to turn back. With the power they now possess they will soon be a new goverment bureaucracy entitled "Ministry of Sound Sueing".
/.'s only. I'm talking about Joe Average. Everyone will start to boycott and our representatives will also get involved because they will see it as an opportunity to get new votes. The RIAA will have to back off and come up with a "fair and balanced" (don't sue me Fox) approach for copyright infringement.
We all know that everything they have been saying is in direct opposition of what's actually occuring with cd sales. Yes p2p plays a role but it isn't anything near what they claim it to be. The point is the RIAA will take this as far as they can or until the backlash is so severe that they have no choice other than alienating consumers and pissing off the goverment even more.
I will make the following prediction...
Due to the RIAA calous and careless approach on p2p and their so-called loss of sales they will continue to piss off consumers who will then come together in a massive boycott. I'm not talking about
We will beat the bad rap and the RIAA will continue to do business but in a goverment imposed andfair/legal manner.
The goverment has spent billions on the war on drugs and it hasn't done a thing so does the RIAA really think a few lawsuits will stop p2p? As the RIAA's tactics on finding, pursuing, and prodding p2p users come out in the open it will only help coders take it more underground and guarantee our privacy. The RIAA had their chance to make p2p work with Napster in a centralized server setup but they blew their chance and with it the centralization of p2p. Decentralized servers, new anonimity, and a general interest in going more underground are the way now.
The RIAA better enjoy these days because they are the best they're going to have. Reality is going to bite their ass pretty soon...
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
See this page for a peek at the amnesty form the RIAA wants you to fill out.
My impression is the whole thing was a publicity stunt.
For the mother/child to go to the media in the morning, then settle that night? Like I said before, if they went to the press legitimately, it'd be because they felt the suit was unjust, and they'd be literally flooded with lawyers willing to take the case pro bono just for the publicity.
The whole thing makes absolutely no sense, except to get people to read the "I'm so sorry I hurt the artists I love - please kids dont do P2P!" message.
I wish I had the free time to investigate and show it for the scam it was. I bet you'd find that the mom works for the RIAA or local Tower records or some such shit.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
IIRC, the original argument for pricing CDs at triple the going rate for LPs back in the early '80s was that the manufacturers had to recoup R&D costs. And shouldn't 20+ years be sufficient to recoup those costs? Seems to me that the "industry" has been charging grossly inflated prices for years as a group effort...
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
By matching partial IP addresses to zip codes
This sucks. When is a P2P app with good speed going to come out with good anonymity?
With all the lawsuits and shit, good ideas and code should be flowing.
I don't know why people always try to liken music sharing to property theft. It's just not the same thing. 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.
The one argument that you could make is that the label loses the opportunity to sell you a CD when you download their music, but that isn't true either. I would say half of my music downloads (and I don't download very much) lead to CD purchases.
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
Auto theft is already profitable for the auto industry. A car is stolen (and presumably chopped up for its parts) means the owner gets a fat cheque from his insurance to get - a NEW car from the auto maker. Why else are cars so easy to steal out from the factory with only a slim jim and perhaps a screwdriver? There is no business case for making cars harder to steal for the auto industry.
B-e-a-u-tiful!
Someone who understands about analogies.
One day, in a imaginary utopian world, less than 50% of replies will start "Ah, but that analogy is not exactly microscopically the same thing!!!".
Hmm. No. Dumbass. That's why it's an _analogy_. That's why I said "That's like..." not "That's exactly the same as..."
Anyway, pardon my rant. I'll wander back vaguely in the direction of the topic for my next post.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
If the Major Lables start reacting to what the public is actualy listening to, instead of trying to convince people to buy a product thaey have produced.
The major problem with most music lables is that they have become manufacturers of music instead of distributers of music.
The RIAA at al. knows that P2P could become the next radio, and they know that p2p is not the real reason for bad music sales. But the RIAA is not really sueing people beceause of loss of sales, it's sueing beceause of loss of control over what people listen to. The RIAA loves radio for the very reason that they can control it (and actualy own it in some cases).
The RIAA/Lables can't "own" p2p or force it play what they want, so they choose to shut it down. I have always thought that the RIAA/lables have been more worried about loss of promotional/playlist control then profits.
Prior to P2P a label could promote the shit out of an artist/group with out them having to be any good, and still be SURE it was going to make a profit. Now the Major labels have to wait and see if the public actualy LIKES the music before it can make a profit.
The RIAA has the same problem as you. They think of downloading songs as the equivalent of stealing cars. Apples and oranges. File sharing can be made to work for the record industry. There is no way to make auto theft profitable for the auto industry. If the record industry is willing to make some heavy changes to their business model they will survive.
Well let me then suggest that you have the same problem as a lot of
You say that file sharing can be made to work for the record industry. Fine. That's your opinion (and a pretty common opinion around here). But keep in mind that 5 years ago there were a lot of business cases that were pretty commonly espoused on
In the last couple of years, there is a quote that I see in a lot of people's sigs: "It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees." It seems to me that it's like that with companies too. The RIAA may know they are in trouble, but they are not prepared to merely roll over and accept the fact of piracy. They would rather go down fighting. And you know, I kind of admire them for that.
-a
"(and I don't download very much)"
:)
Just in case the RIAA happens to monitor slashdot.
Don't mind me, I'm not the P2Per you're looking for.
You have a very good point. During the late 90s in Atlanta, GA there was a huge spree of air bags being stolen from Honda Civics. Turns out the dealer cost for the replacement was in the neighborhood of $500, so many "independant" shops were paying thieves $100 for a stolen one.
From one report that I read a qualified thief could smash a window and take the airbag in something insane like 20 seconds.
Still, with a plan, you only get the best you can imagine. I'd always hoped for something better than that. -CP
I'm a television student.
Broadcast copy is written in a rather unusual format to make it easy for the on-air talent to read, because believe me, the LAST thing you want is to screw up on air. On-air talent frequently has to concentrate on several things at once (why don't YOU try reading from a teleprompter while listening to the producer in your ear while the floor manager is signaling at you), so the read becomes an automatic process that directly connects their eyeballs to their mouth.
It doesn't go to the extreme of "Em-Pee-Three," but typical broadcast copy might look like:
The R-I-A-A is claiming five (b) billion dollars in damages from file sharing on Kazaa (kuh-ZAH). Slashdot T-V brings you this story and more at 11 o'clock.
Only it's typically all uppercase, but I'm not going to tempt the lameness filter.
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
BigChampagne?
"Because the current active audience numbers in the tens of millions, and is made up of highly motivated "early adopters," we have been able to observe close correlations between online interest and offline sales. "
or the RIAA?
"Says an RIAA spokesman: "In our view, piracy is the primary reason for the decline in sales."
I know who I'd tend to believe on that. How about you?
Not that I think the RIAA's stance is a good one, but I'll take a questionable RIAA over a bad metaphor any day.
The CB App. What's your 20?
If you listen to a Clear Channel station (how can you NOT listen to one) you notice they play the same 20 songs all day and all night.
I don't know about you, but if I hear the same songs every time I turn on the radio, I have NO need to by the CD. I get burned out on it for free.
If they start using this info and get more artists on the air it can only help. This could increase their ratio of "listeners due to lack of choice" to "willing listeners" and help their advertisement revenue.
It will also help RIAA and non-RIAA affiliated labels sell more records by getting more airplay for lesser known artists. Less total air time for the current top artists would help them not to give away the need to buy while also not making people think of them as annoying.
IMHO, quite a bit of the RIAA's low sales can be traced back to the Clear Channel monopoly.
How can using these P2P statisics be a bad thing?
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
They say they use IMs to sound cool. They actually just say that someone requested a song when that song was what they were going to play anyway.
Why do they do this? Because they are owned by Clear Channel. The people you hear were recorded yesterday between 8 and 5 somewhere in New Hampshire. Or maybe Kentucky. They are voice actors who have probably never been to your broadcast area. And the people who call in? Same thing.
Get a grip people - radio is produced and managed as pre-recorded entertainment.
Actually, it does. There is a great deal of confusion on /. about the difference between a crime an a civil offense, so perhaps you can be forgiven. /me gets up on soapbox
Copyright "infringement" is what we might call an actionable offense. It falls into the same class of issues as contract violations. Breaking a contract is not "against the law" -- the police aren't going to arrest you. The law says that if you copy something without the author's permission then the author can choose whether or not he/she has been maligned, and if so he/she may try to seek damages from you by bringing the matter in front of a judge who also has to agree that damage has taken place. And even if they both agree and the judge makes you pay, you still haven't "broken the law." (Now if you refuse to pay like the judge asked, THEN you will have broken the law.)
Copyright infringement is neither immoral, nor unethical, nor illegal. It's merely actionable. The very excellent reason for this is that it cannot be determined whether you damaged a copyright holder by copying his/her work except by examining each case as it comes along. As we see in this case, unauthorized copying does not necessarily damage the copyright holder. No harm, no foul as we used to say.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.