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."
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.
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,
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
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 !
Ah, but the RIAA don't want informed shoppers, because that would mean that Indies would actually become a new, global competitor with the power of the people behind it, instead of just cash.
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.
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
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!!!!
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.
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.
Here's the kicker. Of course there is the classic, "What if I take a cd and make a copy for a friend?" argument. Well, that doesn't necessarily apply to file sharing. Think of it this way. What if I take and spend my own money and gave out 10,000 copies to people standing on the street? Do you know what that is called? It's called MARKETING and it didn't even happen at the expense of the artist or the recording label.
The RIAA should recognize file sharing as a medium for marketing. People who normally wouldn't listen to an album, may download it, like and then buy it. Even if that person doesn't buy it, chances are that they will tell someone about it and that person might buy it. It has a cascading effect.
I think file sharing has more positives than negatives. Rather than combating it, the RIAA should see it as a way of life and take advantage of it. The RIAA should use file sharing's own strengths for it's own advantages.
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
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
without advocating piracy, I'd like to point out a few facts about downloading music: (these points do NOT apply to assholes that sell pirated music in bulk)
-not unlike the whole "if a tree falls in the middle of the forest, does it make a sound?" argument, it is impossible to *harm* an artist or label by downloading and listening to a song you would never consider buying in the first place. however, you are most definitely harming the artist/label by downloading the new album put out by your favorite band that you would buy if it were not for your ability to download said album.
-The labels, while carrying on about harm to artists, demostrate very little care towards the artists. if the label cared more, they would certainly be paying artists a more appropriate royalty per cd. from everything I know, *normal* artists make anywhere from $0.01 to $0.10 per cd. this obviously doesnt apply to self-published artists and superstar artists who have long since passed their first contract.
-The artists have historically been unable to fill an entire album with decent material. There isnt a single person out there that hasnt bought a cd after hearing a song or two and found the rest to be crap. this really lends itself to people wanting to hear more than the current radio single before forking out $20 for a cd.
-there are people who dont feel obligated to pay for another copy of a cd that was stolen from them, or for that cassette they purchased 10 years ago. if you paid the price for an album once, why in the world should you pay it again? we know it's not media costs!!
just things to think about...
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.