Slashdot Mirror
RIAA PR Efforts Examined
The Importance of writes "Yale's LawMeme has an interesting article pointing out that the RIAA is having some PR success with their anti-file sharing lawsuits. People being sued are not just angry with the RIAA, they are angry with Kazaa. The LawMeme article thinks this is bad news for innovation since Congress might be likely to pass a law making innovative software providers more liable for the copyright infringements of their customers in order to stop the public outcry over the RIAA lawsuits." And in other news, a P2P group is planning to pay off the RIAA for that 12-year-old's settlement, and the BBC has an article about another victim.
...using this logic means that congress should outlaw linux / pre drm microsoft os's as they are os's that allow people to play copyrighted mp3s ?! ...and is this the end of general purpose computers if the RIAA / microsoft can spin it right?
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
Peer-to-Peer is a book about an emerging idea. That idea is that the traditional model of participating in the Internet, in which a small computer operated by an everyday user (a "client") asks for and receives information from a big computer administered by a corporation or other large entity (a "server"), is beginning to give some ground to a new (new to the fringes of the Internet, anyway) model called peer-to-peer networking. In peer-to-peer networking, all participants in a network are approximately equal. Furthermore, the participants are usually ordinary computers run by everyday people. The ICQ chat service and the Napster music-sharing community are examples of what this book is about.
The chief advantage of peer-to-peer networks is that large numbers of people share the burden of providing computing resources (processor time and disk space), administration effort, creativity, and--in more than a few cases--legal liability. Furthermore, it's relatively easy to be anonymous in such an environment, and it's harder for opponents of your peer-to-peer service to bring it down. The primary disadvantage of peer-to-peer systems, as anyone will attest who's had an MP3 download prematurely terminated when a dialup user went offline will attest, is the tendency of computers at the edge of the network to fade in and out of availability. Accountability for the actions of network participants is a potential problem, too.
This is a book about the idea of equipping ordinary Internet users' computers with mechanisms that enable them to connect, more or less automatically and without human attention, to other everyday Internet users' machines. By forming networks of computers at the so-called "edge" of the Internet, it's possible to offer valuable services without the burden of building and administering large, centralized computer systems of the sort that host traditional Web sites. Napster is the most successful example to date, though nerds will note that it's not a completely peer-to-peer system because users register their file libraries with a central server when they log on to the service.
Don't approach this book expecting to learn how to build the next Napster system. It's not a how-to book. It's not even much of a why-to book. Rather, it's a book that aims to get its readers thinking about what happens when information systems shift away from the client-server model and toward the peer-to-peer model (that's one of the book's points, by the way, that this is not a one-or-the-other architectural decision).
Mostly, Peer-to-Peer makes its point by letting experts in peer-to-peer take turns in the spotlight. Any other approach would be kind of ironic, wouldn't it? In any case, David Anderson explains how SETI@home puts space buffs' idle computing cycles to use in analyzing radio noise from outer space. Gene Kan explains how Gnutella (a truly serverless environment) works. The architects of Publius explain how distributed computing is especially resistant to censorship and denial-of-service attacks. Other contributors discuss peer-to-peer chat software, anonymous remailing services, and other applications of peer-to-peer design.
There's no one from Napster represented as an author in this collection of essays, but Clay Shirky presents an essay called "Listening to Napster." In that essay, Shirky gives an opinion on why Napster has succeeded: It focused on providing something consumers wanted, and bypassed Internet conventions (like the Domain Naming System) because they weren't the best way to provide the service. This is not an earth-shattering revelation, but it's true, and it's something developers of any new service (Internet-based or otherwise) need to keep in mind.
Some of the technical proposals presented here will get readers thinking. An example: Require that senders of e-mail solve a moderately complex math prob
Anyone who cares what goes on their machines is already angry with Kazaa. If these suits end up hurting that spyware delivery vector as much as I believe it will hurt the RIAA, I won't be shedding any tears.
You steal, you get fined or put in jail.
Just because it's intangible doesn't make that any less true.
Note for trolls and other knuckle draggers: I hate, with a passion I normally reserve for SCO, the RIAA. I think p2p is a great technology, and I feel that song sharing is the future of the music industry. However, at this time, they do not want their product taken without compensation. Given that it is THEIR product, that is their choice, not ours. A choice I feel will put them and their bussiness partners in the grave faster, but it's their choice none the less.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I suspect this is the same mindset at the person who was angry at McDonalds when she burnt her legs driving off with hot coffee between her knees. Bottom line, file sharing *is* illegal. I'd imagine even the most ardent defender of filesharing knows this, and given that Kazaa itself is just a mechanism for sharing files, anyone actually being angry at them is a joke. Unless of course they mean angry for all the spyware and crap Kazaa (non-lite variety) installs, but that's got nothing to do with the RIAA anyway.
I think it's great the p2p community can stand with each other and donate to help those who are targeted but that's not what it's going to take in the end.
Given that most of our political leaders will not stand up to any of the privacy issues or heavy handed tactice given that most are bankrolled by entertainment and media companies it comes down to the end user being the empowered one to stop this nonsense. Is copyright infringement illegal? Yes. Does the resolutions need to be carried out this way in a 'I have more money than you so I will squash you over time in a legal system so you may as well just give me your life savings now' method ?? NO.
Unfortunately until consumers cease buying CD's completely to send a message - the RIAA will use file sharing as the cop out everytime for CD sales declining. The reality is if they updated their 10yr old business model they know full and well their usefullness would be at an end in the digital age. they are nothing more than a middle man and a bankroll sometimes and direct distribution would make them cease to exist
Fear Breeds Knowledge
I recognize that it is unthinkable to them that they might have anything to do with the sales declines. Unthinkable!
My first reaction to this was to scream & point out the obvious; that
MS should be held liable for Windows security bugs, but who will have
the $ and clout to win a lawsuit against MS if the DoJ couldn't sue
'em?
But then thinking further, I had a vision of a new virus that,
instead of trashing your hard drive, established your machine as a
Gnutella server, and made your whole HD visible.
I'd really love to see the defendents plead they didn't know their
files were visible then! Heck, I'd love to see what the judge thinks!
Practice Kind Randomness and Beautiful Acts of Nonsense.
I don't see why not - you live in America after all.
:)
If a daft woman who stuck a full cup of coffee between her legs, and drive off, spilling it all over the place, and they *successfully* sue mcDonalds because 'it was too hot', then anyone caught by the RIAAs can sue Kazaa because 'they made it too easy to steal'.
I'd be surprised if the RIAA didn't try this tactic themselves - "right Dave, we sue you, you sue Kazaa, win all their money closing them down, then we settle out of court for $5, ok?"
Someone should raise money to buy her a gift certificate to her local music store to buy legal CDs of all the music she had to delete.
Yes, fill the RIAA's war chest some more!
How about showing the girl that there are plenty of great artists that allow some or all of their music to be traded freely? Educate her on how Britney Spears and her cohorts are manufactured by the same music industry that came after her, only to make money. Show her how artists like the ones she was probably downloading and sharing have come and gone, only to be replaced by some newer fad, and all to continue to fill the industry's already deep pockets.
Obviously I don't expect a 12 year old to understand all of that. Arguing over musical tastes with somebody is pointless. But the remedy to problems like this is not to buy more pop garbage, but rather to introduce people to alternatives to RIAA-backed crap.
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
Rather hard when the computers come with Windoze, I think. And people don't YET have a reason to switch, but they should...XP's activation means I am no longer going to use Windows after 98, my next box will be running Sourcemage GNU/Linux. (And this one dual boots Headrat)
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Make software creators liable for copyright infringement but not other creators of software liable for damage done by their buggy software? Gotta love it ...
FLR
From a legal standpoint, what if you changed the EULA of P2P program X so read something like this: (i'm not a lawyer, so forgive the holes in the wording)
"By installing this software, using this software, or using the P2P network, you agree not to share your usage information with the RIAA, MPAA, or any other entity, person, or organization who will share your information with those parties."
Sounds simple, but then you can challenge HOW the RIAA collects information on you, since they would be violating the EULA, and could be counter-sued for breaking the EULA. Hell, we could even call it "breaking the law" since they insist on calling copyright infringement "theft".
For those in the legal field, would this provide a counter-attack tool against the RIAA? Could you litegate for damages in a dollar amount roughly equal to the amount the RIAA might sue you for, effectively negating their initial lawsuit? Can you legally name an entity such as the RIAA in a EULA, and discriminate against them?
Of course they're all going to say they didn't know they were doing anything wrong! What did you expect? That is the simplest and most straight forward excuse in the books -- blame someone else. While some are truely confused I find it hard to believe that 4 million people honestly believe a one time $30 payment gets them thousands of dollars of retail music for free.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
If a daft woman who stuck a full cup of coffee between her legs, and drive off, spilling it all over the place, and they *successfully* sue mcDonalds because 'it was too hot', then anyone caught by the RIAAs can sue Kazaa because 'they made it too easy to steal'.
First, the lawsuit was appealed and McDonalds won and then she appealed that decision and it was a big ordeal. I think the final payout to her was several hundred thousand.
Second, you cannot serve beverages over a certain temperature due to this. Unless the customer explicitely asks for it. McDonalds served her a beverage over that temperature, as was evident by the burns sustained from the coffee spilling.
She was asking for way too much money, but it was a valid lawsuit.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Anyway, whether my theory is right or not, I propose that we offer massive amounts of non-RIAA, legal-to-download music on PHP. I mean massive amounts - thousands and thousands of song, gigabytes and gigabytes worth - saturate P2P with it. Not just stuff you like personally but all kinds of stuff that potentially someone might like. And of course it would all be perfectly legal.
If everyone were to donate spare disk and bandwidth they're not using anyway, it might make a difference. Start a movement to swamp out RIAA songs. The independent artists will only benefit from it and thank us in the end.
If you agree with this theory, what are some good sources of freely-downloadable music you would recommend?
I was meaning that recording them myself is legal.
I realize there are some legal issues with downloading the same episodes i can record myself, but in a case like that, i really dont care what the law says.
I also dont think that if this exact case came up in court that it would be a problem.
( now if i was downloading DVD rips or something, then all bets are off. THAT is illegal )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I looked at KAzaa for the Mac some time ago and I have been getting email from them about 1/week. These emails are trying to get me to buy Kazaa so that I can get movies and music for free.
So Kazaa is trying to get me to buy the program by advertising it illegal benefits.
Kazaa is in trouble. Just because a technology can be used for non-infringing purposes, does not absolve the vender if they market the product for the infringing purposes. It seems then that if a significant number of common people are mislead by the advertisements of p2p venders (buy our stuff = free music & movies) then Kazaa could be sued by their customers for fraud.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
The RIAA has some definite legal grounds and concerns that I can sympathize with, and as much as many teenagers and college students feel or wished we lived in a social commune where one can share anything, we don't and music and art does need to be paid for. Also remember the old argument that sharing music is promoting the band, to go see them in concert or buy t-shirts etc... The labels don't get any of that action, which is probably one more reason why they're in a bigger uproar. I am not a big fan of huge corporations but this slices fairly equally between big and small, It may even hurt the smaller labels more.
And when it comes down to it the law says its illegal, so if you want to gripe then go change that particular law.
Yet the RIAA feels it needs to go on a witch-hunt, and as much as I feel bad for the recent 12 year old that got nailed for 2k (many thanks to the P2P United for paying their bill), last I checked the law is supposed to be blind and impartial, and not take any special cases so whether it's a 12 year old girl or a 24 year old college student the law is the law. Though the PR from this latest case has raised some interesting issues.
Much of this is still the fault for the RIAA in its lack of foresight and greed in not jumping on the bandwagon and working with organizations like Napster and KaZaa to create licensing deals, its not like radio has been doing it for years.
The fact that the blame is turning to KaZaa, is in my mind silly, and very dangerous, it sets legal precedence that could be very damaging. Which has been stated in many different ways within these posts so I am not going to go further into it.
What I see here is the real issue; common non-computer savvy people need to be educated on some basic principles. Here at slashdot we can argue about who is right and who is wrong, most of understand the implications of the technology. The people that need the education are the public at large, and not necessarily by big groups like P2P United, or the opposite group the RIAA. What needs to be taught to the public is how the system works, why it is ludicrous to blame KaZaa, because blaming KaZaa is akin to blaming the architect of a house for copyright violations because some person can go into a house and copy cd's without being seen by the public. Hence since the house can hide the identity and be a facilitator for the transaction to take place, the architect that build the house should then bare legal responsibility. Data will always be data and if we can't exchange that of which we own the right to for free in any means we feel appropriate we then have some serious constitutional issues to deal with.
I truly believe if you can tell someone how the system works and make the appropriate analogies so they understand the basic principals they will come to the same conclusion. That if you going to outlaw or put the responsibility of the law on the software developer then you are then going to have to do that across the board for all software. If someone makes a counterfeit bill in Photoshop than adobe is help partially responsible, if some one makes lewd and illegal comments on an instant message then it's the people who wrote the instant messenger responsibility that the action took place.
If we leave it to the newspapers to educate the populace it will simply be yet another political race that is poorly understood by the majority yet the majority will be called to vote on the subject.
Serenity|Chaos
There's absolutely no indication that the company is offering a service which, if purchased, could lead to civil and criminal prosecution. The California attorney general should go after them for this.