Slashdot Mirror
P2P Music Sharing Remains Popular Despite RIAA
KarmaOverDogma writes "The New York Times reports that the RIAA's attempts to cut down on (music) file sharing are slow to show any effect, as much of the public still considers the activity to be useful and/or acceptable. P2P filesharing activity has decreased very little since they began their end-user legal campaign."
Here is a link that actually works
I've started hosting the article on Gnutella
Banaaaana!
Enough people will be prosecuted and then people will stop.
The key for the RIAA is to ingrain the meme that if you illegally trade files that you will be caught and fined.
I know how you can make it work, you just need to sue even MORE people cmon don't be wimps do at least 5000 at one time then I'm sure we will run scared from you.
from the article: "What we're trying to drive for is an environment in which legitimate online music can flourish."
Read as: "We want online music to be hosted by our business partners, protected by DRM and for which we get get paid every nickel we think we're due."
Trolling is a art,
It would be like negotiating with terrorists to stop. The RIAA is like a corporate al-quada. They go and ruin people's lives for their own perverted gain.
But copyright infringement remains illegal. So, if you want file-sharing (of the infringing variety) to be legalized, you need new laws -- but will they actually be better? Check out Derek Slater on the topic.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Y'arr, does any lad find this here news of pirates somewhat coincidental? Today be talk-like-a-pirate day, it be!
Offenders will get twenty lashes of the cat-o-nine tails or walkin da plank to Davey Jones' locker. Y'arrr!
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
people will run scared, straight to their local venue to buy self-produced CDs and support the small band scene.
Who am I kidding, most people are addicted to that popcrap like a heroin baby =/
Banaaaana!
I'd imagine the RIAA wouldn't think too kindly of this idea - but it is kinda fun to think about :)
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
If the RIAA wins a few decisions in a courtroom, I think it safe to say it will scare the crap out of quite a few folks. Thereby causing a decrease in the number of people sharing music.
JP
The facts expressed here belong to all, the opinions to me. The distinction between fact and opinion is yours to decide.
It's always been a fact that the worst way to tackle piracy is by nabbing the end users. Remember that humerous article a while back about the major detaining facility in Death Valley for file sharers? The problem is that they let filesharing get so widespread that everyone and their mother now download music. They're going to have to be a bit more creative if they want to stop people from using P2P.
I have a hunch that this is because programs like Kazaa are devious. Even when you think you're not sharing anything, you are. So, there are probably many many people who think they are only downloading music, not sharing it, too. For instance, only the most clever will point their shared folder to an empty directory, so as not to share anything. But only the cleverest of the clever realize that your download directory is automatically shared, so that each and every file you download is shared, unless you move it out! Ooops! Combine that with Kazaa's infamous difficulty to actually close, and you've got plenty of unwitting file sharers out there.
Of course Kazaa and others will remain popular they are sharing more than music (software, movies etc) on these P2P apps. The thing that worries me is that they will open up a legal door for all P2P to eventually be shut down. The RIAA lawsuit as a whole is ridiculous as they loose more money to blackmarket sale of music than they ever would on a P2P network. Who would want share any of the current top 40 music anyway? We are innundated with it daily on tv and radio.
In other news, crack cocaine remains popular, despite War on Drugs. No healthier or more legal, of course...
Boromir, son of Faramir, King of Gondor and Minas Tirith
Maybe this is obvious to most Slashdotters already, but I've been curious for a while now: how do people come up with these Google links? Searching for the story on Google doesn't turn anything up ...
Seriously, how do they compile these statistics? The only halfway accurate method would for the individual p2p clients to send usage data to some central server. All other methods would be just guess work not only in bandwidth (they can't monitor every avenue of the Internet) and in content (bearing in mind the nature of p2p would mean that they only see pieces of the whole file, unless they in collusion with every/most ISPs).
Can somebody give me the straight dope?
neither will their crippled CD's have a negative effect on filesharing..
Is this their own fault really? How long have we known about mp3s? Instead of adapting and changing their biz model, they persecute the technology and its users. Big mistake!
;)
I am curious about certain biz laws, that prescribe that biz that is irresponsible with their intellectual property should be help accountable themselves. I know this is true for some cases, not sure why it would not apply here...
Also, a fun thing to try is http://streamripper.sourceforge.net Last I heard, it was not illegal to record a radio station playing
photoplankton
You know what statistics would be interesting to see?
How much CD sales have dropped off in the period since all these lawsuits started targeting RIAA customers.
It's hit all the newspapers, even Senators are getting in on the act. I wonder if that's had an effect on the public.
-- james
... is to distribute pr0n! The record companies don't care, and the little production companies can't afford to sue anyone. Additionally, it's content you can't necessarily (easily) acquire without resorting to wandering around sleazy neighbourhoods where life is cheap and raincoats are a must.
Another interesting use is various oddball music and pseudo-illegal documents. You can hear enough pop on radio anyway.
because until the RIAA hunt down every single P2P filetrader, people are going to continue to do it. Certain drugs are illegal but people still sell and buy them because the government can't stop every single person. The RIAA has to realize that basically the only way to stop P2P is to pull the plug on the internet (which btw they might eventually try to do once they run out of other bright ideas!)
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
all that will happen is people will start to use more secure filesharing apps like EarthStation 5.
Actually, ES5 has so many security features the setup can be overwhelming to the average joe. So I wrote up a journal spelling out the important stuff.
Seriously, nothing short of the hand of God is going to stop those damn kids from swaping theirs shit online. It's like the whole "They can't arrest us all" theory that drives underage kids to drink on campus as well.
Life is offtopic.
What did they expect?
I mean the RIAA has only the reach in the US it seems, its up to individual countries appointed authorities to persue foreign traders.
The problem will come for the RIAA when the trading goes underground to private FTP servers and the like, it wasnt that long ago when it was the only way to find music online..
Napster changed things, it was probably the most significant 'killer app' next to Yahoo when Yahoo first started as somebodys bookmark page and grew to something thats been copied over and over and over (And which Google has perfected *grin*)
-- Jim.
-- If at first you don't succeed, lie!
Then the RIAA will likely scare you into ceasing all downloading. Folks like my mom were scared off KaZaa for fear of "getting sued." Of course folks like her aren't the flagrant violators, it's the younger set whose most valuble posession is probably their computer. No wonder downloading hasn't abated.
The Dutch equivalent of RIAA/MPAA (BREIN) does it smarter: Their official position is NOT to prosecute small "offenders", on the grounds that there is no viable legal alternative (in the netherlands anyway) for downloading music yet. Undoubtably this is better PR than the sue-a-12-year-old approach of RIAA.
Ofcourse how they define "small" is anyone's guess.
All errors in this comment are mine. Corrections are considered a derivative work, and punishable under copyright law.
It's a simple money matter : if you d/l a lot of music, at $15, $20 or whatever a pop at the music store, even if you get sued, you settle with the RIAA and you're still winning.
...
Besides, the chance of getting caught is minimal : there are dozens of millions of file swappers around the world and maybe 1000 at most get supoenaed, and even better, in the US only (for now anyway). I would think it's more risky to die crossing the street than getting caught sharing files by the RIAA.
So, why on earth would people stop swapping ? the risk/benefit ratio is tiny indeed. Which means that the RIAA's tactic is not effective, which also means that the only thing they achieve are (1) ruining poor students, single-moms's daughters and causing anguish and misery to all of them for nothing, and (2) generate a lot of shitty press for themselves. Not that I complain about the latter of course
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
This is just another case of an existing power structure being threatened by new technological and social realities, and, being unwilling to evolve, reacting with force. This has never, ever worked, except in cases of actual armed revolution, when the governing forces actually have the upper hand. But trying to prevent social change through jailing/fining people has never been an effective deterrent. What are they going to do, throw 20% of the country in jail? I don't think so.
I just don't get it why its acceptable, to take something someone has created (musican) and wants to be paid for and give it away for free?.
If musicians want to publish musical works they've created through the RIAA (via a record label) what gives people the right to give it away for free and deny the artists the little money they would have gotten. If you create something isn't it your right to decide what you do with it?
I've seen bands I really like fade into nothing because they couldn't make a go of it. If I like a band I want to support them so they'll make more music.
It seems slashdotters would understand that music and software are similar. They don't have "tangeble" form but never the less have value.
Yeah I know people will download music they won't buy (Its free), and the RIAA is a strong arm monoply etc. The RIAA doesn't represent you, they're not your friend (RI stands for Recording Industy)
It seems hypocritical the Slashdot readers who love file sharing and speak badly of copyright also seem to be the first to jump over any company that violates the GPL(which has copyright as its foundation).
If the sharing of music governed by copyrights held by RIAA members over P2P networks disappeared completely, CD sales would not increase dramatically, thus soundly defeating the RIAA's argument that music piracy is the leading cause of the decline of CD sales.
Good, all the brain dead pop fans will drop away, leaving only those trading the good stuff the RIAA members don't sell.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Downloading a selection of songs from an album to sample, I can see. But downloading entire albums? If you like it that much, why not buy it? Obviously it's worth something to you, if you require the entire album.
If the file is marked as copyrighted then delete it. Only share files when you cannot tell whether the material is released as free speech or released for profit.
Of course, since almost no files are marked as copyrighted that leaves just about every file out there to choose from.
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
It starts with a 'K', and is indeed a shit brit Alcohol free 'beer'...
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
This belongs in the "Well duh Gomer, what the hell did you think would happen?" department.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
>"Law, technology and ethics are not in sync right now,"
This one sentence sums it up well. Despite the massive propoganda , people are not convinced by RIAA arguments and they dont find anything wrong in sharing things they possess. These file sharers are not "crminals" as RIAA says. They are just normal human beings who are not convinced by RIAA arguments, period.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
Reports indicate crime still occuring despite existence of Police and Judicial system...film at 11.
Really, I'm against the RIAA action as much as anyone else (and likewise the DMCA), but experience shows us that making something illegal rarely prevents it from occuring.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
With Sharman pulling all their DCMA shenanigans I couldn't find the new kazaa lite anywhere; it's been pulled from google and the old kazaalite.com doesn't work. I mean I couldn't find it anywhere. Until i fired up my old version of kazaa lite and searched under software. They really do have everything!
What we're trying to drive for is an environment in which legitimate online music can flourish
But wait...wouldn't this involve actually releasing a online music service, or did they somehow find a way around that step?
Because he can get it for free?
Despite previous stories about this, file sharing (the kind RIAA cares about) isn't legal in Canada, however the RIAA equilvalent in Canada is on record as saying "we'll resort to a public PR campaign and just see what happens in the US first before considering lawsuits." This information should be enough to convince them that court action isn't going to stop anything, and the backlash from the media that has happened in the US certainly isn't helping them.
Of course, this is assuming that reasonable and rational people work for organizations like that, which is probably a bad assumption.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
When CD's came out, their high price was justified by the extra expense of new technology and the required investment.
/CD and the music industry is crying like a bunch of fucking babies.
In the early 90's the story changed and publishers were "pricing according to what the market will bear".
Now with the advent of P2P it is obvious that the market isn't prepared to pay $15
They should instead set the price to what the market will bear, around $5 I would imagine.
I mean, come on, you know they probably download music... We just need a RIAA letter sent to them. :P
With all that we have had to deal with from the RIAA we should boycott them, each song cannot cost more than about 20$ to make and with as many people buying it should cost about .25$ per song. Whereas now it is about 1.25 per disk. In addition to the lawsuits I am boycotting all products that even remotely support the RIAA and I encourage all readers to do the same.
don't they know that nobody tells a pirate what do to!!! Especially when it be talk like a pirate day!!! Arr...
If the music companies hadn't done anything at all to try and stop file sharing, who knows what would have happened? Would they have lost money?
Maybe, maybe not. At the very least, Money wouldn't have actively disappeared from their bank accounts.
But each dollar they give to their pet, the RIAA, is a dollar that disappears out of their bank accounts forever, something that even the P2Ps couldn't manage. And according to this article, all that money they flushed into the RIAA has gotten them.... next to nothing?
Of course, the RIAA will tell the music companies that the best way to make up for all the money lost to the RIAA is... to fund the RIAA some more! (RIAA Plan: 1.Give Millions (tens or hundreds of millions?) to RIAA. 2. Make Everyone Hate Us. 3. ???? 4. PROFIT!!) The RIAA will DIG them out of this P2P hole they're stuck in!
Makes sense though... if the RIAA found a magical way to make everything perfect, they'd be out of a job, wouldn't they?
va lairIE/robbIE's whoreabull pateNTdead PostBlock(tm) devise, attacks buy the phonIE payper liesense georgewellian fuddite corepirate nazi stock markup FraUD/walking dead execrable, etc....
.compliant. if you think that you are already compliant, & it's somebody else, consider this a chance to rat them out, to gain re-admission to the onLIEn wwwhirled again, (c SourceForgerIE(tm) all rights reserved, you have none).
/.puppets.
.asp on that. when the lights come up, there'll be no going back, & no where to hide.
that's right. we're hanging in there 'til the last postIE. lookout bullow.
coming soon to/already on, yOUR desktop/network?:
Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, comment posting has temporarily (permanently, if we could figure out how to do it) been disabled. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner. If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair, we don't care.
alert: you've been lax in yOUR payper liesense 'upgrades', you're out.
alert: there's a rumour that you've been badmouthing/lowrating the corepirate nazis, & the naykid furor of the felonious kingdumb, you're out.
alert: looks like yOUR kids have been listening to music again, you're out.
alert: although you appear to be browsing regularly, you've failed to make a purchase recently, you're out.
consider this a chance to stare at your monitor screen, & plan how you can become
etc... lookout bullow. these foulcurrs haven't a clue yet, as to what J. Public can do, once he's peaced off. they live in a tiny wwworld, consisting of only their owned greed/fear based goals. they should get ready to see the light.
we're building a vessel that floats on almost any suBStance.
as to the newclear power/planet/population rescue initiative:
it's all free (as in survival), & available immediately to you/all of US.
as you can maybe already see, yOUR survival/success is not the least bit dependent on the gadgets/combinations of the greed/fear based corepirate nazis, & their phonIE ?pr? ?firm? buyassed
consult with/trust in yOUR creator. more breathing. vote with yOUR wallet (somtimes that means not buying anything, a notion previously unmentioned buy the greed/fear/war mongers). seek others of non-aggressive/positive behaviours/intentions. stop wasting anything/being frivolous. that's the spirit.
investigate the newclear power plan. J. Public et AL has yet to become involved in open/honest 'net communications/commerce in a meaningful way. that's mostly due to the MiSinformation suppLIEd buy phonIE ?pr? ?firm?/stock markup FraUD execrable, etc...
truth is, there's no better/more affordable/effective way that we know of, for J. to reach other J.'s &/or their respective markets.
the overbullowned greed/fear based phonIE marketeers are self eliminating by their owned greed/fear/ego based evile MiSintentions. they must deny the existence of the power that is dissolving their ability to continue their self-centered evile behaviours.
as the lights continue to come up, you'll see what we mean. meanwhile, there are plenty of challenges, not the least of which is the planet/population rescue (from the corepirate nazi/walking dead contingent) initiative.
EVERYTHING is going to change, despite the lameNT of the evile wons. you can bet your
we weren't planted here to facilitate/perpetuate the excesses of a handful of Godless felons. you already know that? yOUR ONLY purpose here is to help one another. any other pretense is totally false.
pay attention (to yOUR environment, for example). that's quite affordable, & leads to insights on preserving life as it should/could/will be again. everything's ALL about yOUR motives.
that old tune title (hope we don't get 'busted' for using it) "make the world go away", takes on new/varied meaning in these times.
Thieving bastard, pay for the shit your selling you fucking leech! Where do you live? I'd like to "borrow" some of your shit, I'm sure you won't mind because you never paid for it in the first fucking place!
That's not stopping them either.
"How many people are "criminals" because they dared have a few grams of pot on them?"
All of them.
Because the law currently says pot is illegal, case closed. They may not be evil for smoking pot, and maybe pot should be legal. But until it is, using it is a crime. No debate here.
It never ceases to amaze me that so many people here rage at the fact that people get sued and prosecuted for doing illegal things just because they disagree with the law. What they need to be doing is trying to get those laws changed. And if you can't get them changed, and the majority of the public does NOT support your position on getting it changed, tough luck, you lose, move on. That's how it works in a democratic republic. Just because YOU don't support the law, that doesn't mean that you have a blank check to defy it. If we defied all the laws we didn't like, it wouldn't be much of a civilization, would it?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Kazaa (or any P2P) is not just a US bassed network. I am a canadian,a nd they are not trying to sue any of us up here (tho atleast not yet). And say If you download stough that RIAA has no control over, such as UK hard house and such (my style) why would RIAA scare Bs tactict scare me. Basiclay RIAA may scare some people to be a little more carfule what they downlod (IE avoiding the RIAA stough, to be honest I am not a brintney spares fan aeway).
The RIAA tells us that if file-sharing where to completely take over, it would hurt the record industry.
I think they are right. And I don't really see it as a bad thing.
The facts are:
* Downloading music for free is copyright infringment
* It does hurt the bottom line.
* I am even somewhat morally opposed to the idea.
However, just because the music industry "suffers", does not mean that we will stop the production of music. Musician will always want to get music out to the public, and they should and will be supported. If big labels "won't" support them anymore, because they are too "poor", then they will find other ways. In fact, I think we would all profit from that.
The thing that bothers me the most about my music taste is that I barely get any new songs from unknown groups anymore. Sometimes, friends introduce me to someone else's music, and often I find pearls. Albums were every song is at least of decent quality.
If the cookie-cutter music industry is about to die (which it is not), I won't shed a tear. Musicians who play with the heart, I have always supported by buying their music and going to their concerts.
In any case, while I feel morally opposed to file sharing, and know it is copyright infringement, I fail to see any ill long-term effects.
Delay. Delay. Delay. Demand a trial by jury, Delay. demand a hearing in your home town. Delay. pay your lawyer to nitpick. Delay. Mount the costs as high as you can... and if they ever get a settlement, fight it too, and if that ever succeeds, declare bankruptcy.
IF everyone they sue does this, the RIAA will run up horrendous bills trying to get blood from a turnip. their problems only increase, the more people they sue.
Set up a fund for people willing to do this. I'd contribute fifty bucks to it. the price of two cds in exchange for killing the RIAA... Hell yes.
If someone wealthy publicly offered to help back individuals being sued, that would stop this crap in a hurry.
Copyright Notice
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
All rights reserved.
All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of The New York Times Company. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
However, you may download material from The New York Times on the Web (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal, noncommercial use only.
For further information, see Section Two of the Subscriber Agreement.
To contact other Times departments, see the Site Help area of our Member Center.
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
I only recently started trying to use P2P under Linux.. Can anyone suggest some great tools?
I have tried mldonkey but my ability to download anything seems extremely limited (and Slow..).
I am behind a NAT firewall and that may be impacting d/l ratios, etc, though I do have many slots open.
Thanks!
... stay very much alive and present, altho there is a bazillion other laws and all of them are illegal somewhere in this world.
jeebuz, slashdot morons wake up, do u guys think some law will prevent something bad from happenin?
i thought your democracy was to guarantee some democratic elections and shit, and nevertheless some barbaric devil named gwb got president at your place.
The persistent lack of guilt over online copying suggests that the record industry's antipiracy campaign, billed as a last-ditch effort to reverse a protracted sales slump, is only the beginning of the difficult process of persuading large numbers of people to buy music again.
I had the feeling that sentence was explicitly intended to be dripping with sarcasm. I could see the subtext as if it were in bright blinking neon: "The record industry would be much more effective at persuading people to buy music if they didn't feel like they were constantly being taken advantage of at the register."
There is no way to prevent p2p by lawsuits, in the long run - it's costing them too much already, legal fees alone - the next step will be legislation, which can go two ways:
1) they screw it up by expanding on the DMCA theme, imposing draconian penalties such as massive automatic fines and jail time for sharing. this won't stop it, but will place it firmly in the criminal category, such as they've done with "hacking," something 12-year-old girls and decent soccer-moms wouldn't dream of doing. maybe a media campaign educating the public that sharing music funds terrorism would be a good start.
2) a universal charge placed on all residential broadband accounts in exchange for non-enforcement of copyright for non-commercial purposes. sort of a universal service fee to support the middlemen parasites. If this fee was within reason it might work.
They can't sue everyone. If it gets to the point where consumers don't want your product or don't want to purchase it the way you've packaged it, do you sue all consumers or do you re-evalutate your business model?
OK, so maybe a minority of people are put off by the (highly unlikely) chances that the RIAA may sue them. However, the feeling I have had through this whole P2P versus RIAA ordeal is that the RIAA are actually helping P2P.
I mean, everyone knew about Napster. After that closed down, Kazaa, Gnutella, WinMX, etc were *real* quiet for some time. And then the RIAA starting hamming it up again, turning up the notch. And Joe Public was informed (via the RIAA and news agencies) that free music was back on.
If they had put up and shut up, the re-growth of P2P would have been much slower, confined largely to geeks who had the impetus to go out and find Napster replacements. However, Joe Public has to be told about it from somewhere. And it was the RIAA who told them.
True enough.
There are too many ways to work around the RIAA's (or anyone else's) ability to shut everything down. Also there is something about the virtual isolation of working on a computer. Techniques for evading detection will evolve to meet the pent up demand for on demand music for individual tracks.
Also despite the fact that it is possible to track down IP address and then the physical address used for that IP most people still feel anonymous or at least too small to be noticed on the open 'net. The RIAA would have to take on a significant percentage of the file traders before there is a real dampening effect from their efforts. Given that there are millions of file traders and the RIAA will only have the resources to persecute a few hundred of even a thousand that makes losing this lottery fairly slim.
Even with the polls, I'll bet many Kaaza users don't read /. or any news site for that matter. Some may have school and full-time jobs and never watch the news. They may have never heard anything about lawsuits. That girl in New York thought she was fine by paying the Kaaza Pro fee or whatever. Where did she get that idea? Now, they'll make Kaaza put a warning on their pro version if it doesn't have one already. Even people that hear about it may ignore it or think it doesn't apply to them. What I'm trying to say is most people see this, think, "Wow, it's free!", and never think twice. I know I wouldn't if I didn't read /.
That's an interesting article, but it's not about what you say it's about.
(It's about the EFF's shifting legal stance with respect to file sharing, not about whether or not new laws would be an improvement.)
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Who cares about the law in this case? So if people don't care about the law, where is the difference to anarchy? I.e. it is a situation where there actualy is no law (yes, I belive that an unaccepted law, is the same as no law!) and many people like it this way and don't want to change it. No filesharer needs a new or changed don't "law", since the won't accept any law and continue sharing music, as everyone did, since recording audio was possible at home (i.e. tape-recorders). The it's RIAA who is in need of new laws and methodes to enforce "their" law! But there is nothing that will stop fileshare, since people won't accept any such law. The only viable solution seems like having levies on recordable CD media, and devices or your internet connection. (Like in Cannada and Germany, where this model works pretty good and everyone can accept it.)
The way I see it, the RIAA is helping file sharing. Firstly, they're giving it the best press money can buy. A lot of filesharing networks are noticing spikes in usage due to all of these RIAA press releases. The idea of thousands of 'criminals' distributing 'stolen' music for free just sounds too good for a lot of people for them to pass it up because of the miniscule chance they might be sued.
Secondly, they are pushing the software along. More measures are being taken to produce software that can not only handle the increased usage, but also can ensure the privacy of the users.
The only way I see for the RIAA to combat this is for record stores to have kiosks where you can burn a CD with songs you pick and chose, print out an attractive label and liner notes, for an affordable price. They may be too afraid of the new technology and the (temporary) profit losses to act however...
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Perhaps the P2P networks are still flourishing at least in part because they aren't exclusively US based (where this sort of thing is actually being worried about by lawmakers and lawsuit-tastic companies).
Sure, there may be concerns elsewhere in the world, but RIAA only has any power at all in the US, and there isn't another country on the planet in which litigation is a legitimate business model. Here in the states, it seems to be the new Vegas: Sue McDonalds for hot coffee, win millions. Sue retail stores for wet floors, win millions. Heck, they even advertise it on TV: Were you injured in the workplace? Do you suffer from mesothelioma as a result of exposure to hazardous conditions?
Honestly, how hard would it be to set up a subscription-based content database with unlimited access? Considering how little artists get from record sales, and how you're completely eliminating manufacturing and distribution, even $0.50 per song is a bit pricy, but I'd probably pay it for music I liked (of which there is dreadfully little past 1989, but then, I'm livin' in the past).
Of course, for me the real issue isn't that the music I want is easier to download than buy: It's just that I already have all the music I want. No, really. I don't want any more. I don't see anything that I enjoy coming down the pipeline, and I'm satisfied with what I have. What little I might be interested in getting is out of print or just plain tough to find new, like some of Steve Taylor's early stuff, or just about anything by Hokus Pick. Besides, that stuff's not really being shared on P2P.
Happiness is relative, Based upon the way we live.
Come on guy, are you really that broke, that you can't pay the $25 to get wineX - that's like the price of 4-5 beers in a bar when you go out at night! I mean the guys at Transgaming aren't exactly a big evil corporation and this is why Linux is having a hard time, and why YOU have to resort to unfortunate solutions like Transgaming. They need money! I'd like to see the company continue, because I like it! - but Transgaming, may not survive if peope like you continue to steal/don't support them.
..........FULL STOP.
It is clearly part of the RIAA's agenda to close off any other avenue to becoming known so that their slaves (the artists) cannot escape.
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Ahhh Canada, were fileshareing is legal. No worries. lol.
From The Register
Overall, CD sales did decline at the start of 2003. Compared to the first six months of 2002, retail unit shipments fell 9.8 percent to 245.2 million and revenue dropped 9.1 percent to a paltry $4.25 billion. Don't shed too many tears just yet though.
Over the same period, CD single sales surged by 162.4 percent in units and 173.5 percent in revenue. This raises an interesting question.
Most file traders go after songs one at a time. They pick and choose the tunes they like. Could it be the case that consumers don't see a good value in buying an entire CD for $16.99 when all they want is a couple of songs? The hike in single sales backs up this trend.
How will the music worm work?
It will be distributed as an email worm. The user installs it by clicking on an attachment that arrives in an email spam. A large number people will do this knowingly, but many will be innocent "victims". Knowing users will thus have "plausible deniability".
Once installed, it will do the following:
1) Email itself to everybody in the user's address book, just like any other worm.
2) Install a hidden peer-to-peer server.
3) Identify every music file on the users computer.
4) Make all of them available over the web via peer-to-peer sharing.
5) Begin silently and automatically downloading music files to the user's computer and adding them to his music library, favoring additional titles by artists already represented in the user's library.
6) An internal list will be maintained of the downloaded files, and the worm will monitor their usage. Any downloaded file that is not played within a certain period of time will be marked for eventual replacement, in order to prevent the music archive from growing too large (say 20% above the size of the permanent library or 80% of available disk space, whichever is smaller). Any file that is played will be deleted from this list and permanently added to the user's music library.
7) Knowing users will be able to "order" specific music via a web interface by accessing a web site (actually located on the user's computer) via a web browser. The worm will silently edit the browser's history file to erase the record of this access.
How could such a worm be combatted?
1. Legal assaults on users would become difficult; there will be continuous trading of music over the net. Much of it will be entirely innocent; the result of the worm running on the computers of innocent "victims." This will provide a smokescreen for the activities of knowing users. It will be extremely difficult to prove that somebody is a knowing user, since the patterns of download to any individual user will be similar to knowing use. Many unknowing victims will accidentally add some of the downloaded music to their permanent libraries, because a lot of people do not keep careful track of the contents of their music libraries.
2. Virus scanning software could be employed, but many users do not keep their antivirus software up to date. Attempts to eradicate spammer worms such as Sobig have not been particularly effective. And with the music worm case, many of the "victims" will actually be secret users, intentionally abetting the worm's presence on their computers.
3. The music industry could distribute counter-worms, which would infect computers and delete music, or gather evidence of intentional trading. However, this would require the music industry to engage in an ongoing illegal activity. Moreover, it would be relatively unsuccessful in targeting the technically sophisticated knowing user, who would have a strong incentive to block such worms.
Faramir is not the King of Gondor, he is the Steward and Gaurdian. Gondor has no King.
unfortunately being an AC I have no mod points
this is very insightful, and often overlooked by copyright "enthusiasts"
CDs without Anti-consumer measures have a lot better quality than any MP3.
If he's poor I can understand it.. if you have the money, the Cd is a CD (and not some crap with anticonsumer measures) and you want everything, you should buy the CD... unless you are boycotting the recording industry due to their methods (like I do.)
// instant - "I for one welcome our new Decaff Coffee-Flavoured-Coffee Overlords"
Maybe the RIAA is thinking, "any publicity is good publicity" and that is why they are suing kids and old people.
-------------------------------------
Technically, we are beyond survival.
Because he can get it for free?
...and give the RIAA more reason to scream, "Look at the piracy! That user agrees that the album is worth something, but doesn't pay for it anyways!" Great solution, kiddo.
Yeah...people are cutting down on music filesharing. Sure. Just like people stopped drinking during Prohibition. Riiiight. People just don't do it as blatantly and openly as they used to.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
There are two problems the RIAA face:
1. Every time a problem occurs with file sharing, the community of people who want free music will find a way to keep stealing music. Napster had central servers, so the next generation of file sharing programs decentralized the servers. Companies were sued in the USA, so they moved the file sharing companies outside of the USA. File sharing isn't anonymous? Just wait...
2. There have been and always will be people who are willing to steal - no matter what the gamble is for doing so. Software, entertainment, etc. it doesn't matter. The music industry needs to find better alternatives than sending the RIAA out to scare customers. Find a better way to distribute music. Create new revenue models. Cut production costs to make the entertainment affordable.
Off topic: here's one idea to get people to buy cds again. In the font software industry - one font company, House Industries (I'm not affiliated with co), doesn't just sell fonts (which can and are stolen), but they sell packages: so with a set of fonts you also get a cool product that is related to the fonts (packaging, pillows, chairs, etc. See their website for more www.houseind.com).
Why don't they do this for CDs. If you like the band, you get the music, but then you also get something band related (t-shirt, dvd, etc.)? The consumer not only gets the entertainment product, they also get something cool to show off to their friends.
Just a thought.
Stop giving the RIAA an excuse to whine to Congress for more mandatory DRM and laws against filesharing, jeez.
Boycott the RIAA and buy only 2nd hand CDs or independent artists. Look for free music. Don't go filesharing. Starve the RIAA until they drop dead in bankruptcy court.
(What am I saying? They'll just get a multibillion dollar bailout on the taxpayer dime!)
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
For me, the problem is not one of technology but of taste. When a p2p sharer launches a tirade against the music industry, and then uses p2p to find tracks by bands from the major labels, I fault this sharer not for illegality but unoriginality of taste. It is like buying a nice expensive $10,000 plasma wide-screen HDTV and using it to watch "Porky's 2" or episodes of Gilligan's Island. If the future involves people using anonymous freenet to swap mp3's by RIAA artists, doesn't this mean that the RIAA has still won?
I wrote an essay about this at www.sharethemusicday.com
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
It is prefectly legal to copy music which is released as an act of free speech, and any attempt by congress to infringe upon this right is constitutionally infirm. Since it is a basic right to propagate free speech, and copyright is merely a commercial issue, it seems to me that we must have the right to copy files as long as we do not know for a fact that the author intended to assert copyright protection.
The problem with the RIAA's dragnet is that there is no way for the filesharer to tell which files are free speech and which files are copyright infringement. We cannot allow an evil copyright monopoly to shut down an open marketplace where the right to speak and be heard by willing listeners is available to all simply because their poorly marked copyrighted materials may happen to be part of the mix.
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Great so you make a law to protect a business. Remeber artist the music industry have no inalaible right to copyright. They are supposed to have a limited right to exclusive copy's for a time to encurage putting things into the public commons. Having things tied up by copyright is not in the public interest because it stifle inovention to an extent. For a case in point rap and techno use a lot of samples and to get the rights to those samples they at times have to pay hefty use fee's, this is a hinderance to smaller artists that want to use samples but can afford liscencing but still want to put out and CD.
As an asside my persoanl feelings that if any law is not accepted by the general population it should be repealed. Domocracy is for the people by the people not for the special interests. Granted I relize that this would have ment the african american rights would have taken much longer to get into place.
No sir I dont like it.
because he has 12$ on his account and 2 weeks till he gets more and still would be pretty much holed? and don't say he shouldn't be paying for broadband then, or have a computer(getting a computer is fairly cheap in the long run and getting somebody to buy you a computer is much more probable than getting your grandma to buy you 300 cd's).
that's the fault in riaa's calculations.. they CAN'T gain the revenue by _any_ means from most of the freeloaders, because they don't have the money in the first place!
a lot of warez/mp3's/divx's is about getting something that you _can't_afford_ (and don't really need anyways either, so you wouldn't be spending your food money on it).
calculating losses from number of mp3's is totally bogus, and asking for bogus losses is evil, immoral and illeagal. they could just as well be suing the artists because they didn't show enough skin and so caused financial losses to the recording company(though, i guess they've already done this).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I already read it and will not pay you!
Fuck you, you and your fruity jazz listening ass!
I've seen lives ruined from the criminal charges associated with marijuana. As for the substance itself, well... I do know a few people who abuse it, but in the long run, it's doing less damage to them than the alcohol they would have used in place of it. The lack of addiction or especially bad long-term effects means that when they "go clean", they recover.
It's really no different from alcohol, except that it's not addictive and doesn't cause brain and liver damage (it does cause lung cancer, but like that ever stopped people from smoking tobacco). Some people abuse it, some use it responsibly.
Hardware, software, and blinking lights!
If it's legal in one place it's going to spread to others. Tis' the way with the internet. Attack the US servers, and the canadian ones will start servin' some more.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
" I already read it and will not pay you!"
.sig it changes everywhere. If you are going to respond to someone's .sig then you really ought to quote the .sig you are talking about. Otherwise your message will become meaningless at some future date.
.sig: "Is this message free speech, or do you have to pay me in order to read it?"
Um... On slahdot when you change your
The
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Here's a rule of thumb... Eminiem: infringement; Brittney: infringement; The Kinks: infringement; Steely Dan: infringement; Outkast: infringement; Liz Phair: infringement;
That about covers it. ;)
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
CDs without Anti-consumer measures have a lot better quality than any MP3.
I think it is important to note the difference between "quality" and "acceptable quality".
Yes, a CD is better quality than an mp3. For $20 it should be. But, an mp3 is often of acceptable quality to the consumer. A high quality rip is barely distinguishable to someone with consumer quality playback equipment.
I understand that Kazza usually doesn't provide high quality full albums and I'm not familiar with the program used by the original poster, but I have seen and used other distribution systems that delivered very high quality, properly tagged full albums for free.
People who can get acceptable quality for free will rarely pay instead, unless out of some moral concern. In the end, I think the RIAA is hurting themselves by pushing casual users away from Kazza and into other channels where they might be more likely to get files of an acceptable quality.
I haven't used kazza in about a year and a half. I didn't stop because I thought it was wrong. I stopped because I fould a better source for what I wanted. I wonder how much of the drop in Kazza is made up of users moving on to a better source.
I'm under no obligation to pay attention to the latest fad. I will acknowledge knowing of The Kinks existence, although I don't know what their stance on filesharing is or who might own any copyright to their material. I have no idea who the rest are. I also have no intention of finding out who they are.
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
P2P filesharing activity has decreased very little since they began their end-user legal campaign.
Given that all evidence was that P2P had been increasing nearly exponentially previously, and given that the quote above implies that activity has decreased at least a little, this result shows that the RIAA's actions have probably had a very great effect on P2P activity. But I guess the spin sounds better to state almost exactly the opposite conclusion.
And even if the RIAA's legal actions DIDN'T affect P2P activity, so what ? Would it mean anything if severely increasing the penalty for (to argue from the extreme) murdering your wife and kids failed to decrease the incidence of such crimes ?
The problem is that we may wind up with a legislated solution that's even scarier than the RIAA suing people for direct copyright infringement.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
You may define a criminal in different ways. In terms of law you are a criminal if you break the law. But law may be unjust/illegitimate and you may act completely legitimate and still break law. Hence, if you define crime from a moralistic point of view, breaking the law does not make you necessarily a criminal.
That's why laws change over time, because the feeling of legitimacy and moral in a society changes, making some laws obsolete and others, new ones necessary. You can not expect the legislature to make the changes voluntarily, and the majority may ignore the need for changes in areas that do not affect themselves. That does not make a law legitimate. Change, social progress and civilization starts with people who act how they think it's necessary, a civilization of law-abiding citizens is practically dead. The actual progress or change may not always be desirable but is still necessary. And finally, the infamous "the majority is always right" argument is utterly stupid. It depicts the lack of political and historical education. Hint: look up things like ochlocracy, american idependance, black rights movement....
I really do feel bad for the RIAA members (not the RIAA itself). They are stuck having to eventually face the fact that they are 80% of the way to extinction. Can anyone realy imagine a future 50 years down the road where anyone is interested in buying a piece of plastic with music on it?
Yes, storing it in a way that does not rot too fast or get deleted for video game space is valuable, but I see the future retailers of music being the clubs that host musicians. They should strike a deal with the performers that they host to sell the music via a Web site and via a kiosk at the show.
Here's one business model for that:
Club makes USB-fobs that contain the customer's name, credit info (or a key that they look up the credit info in their database with) and email address. The customer goes to a show and likes it, so they walk over to the kiosk and plug in their fob to order the "album" on the way out. The kiosk notes the purchase in the database and sends email to the customer with a link to download the music from the Web site.
Quick, easy, and here's the best part: you don't care about file-swappers because you get the customer at the exact point where they decide they like the music. You don't care if the 5 billion people who never come to your club swap this music around. What you care about is that your club (and the artist who gets a cut) made some extra money from a customer. You win, they win and the band wins.
But, I still feel bad for the labels who are doomed because they can't make a "star" anymore out of some semi-talented performer who they can stick on MTV. Or more to the point, they can make the star, but there's soon going to be no point in terms of selling CDs.
I am sure PayPal would love the idea.
Someone should create a paypal-like payment system that is only for recording artists. The backend could split the payment into the agreed-upon percentages for band members, song writers, etc. Gee, if only the RIAA didn't control the music industry, something like this could happen...
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Well, if your hard drive is full of their music, then I doubt a court of law would find this to be a plausible statement. BTW, music is copyrighted by default. The omission of a proper copyright notice does not grant you the right to copy it.
Tn the meantime they will succeed in breeding a smarter generation of file traders. Wireless AP's, encryption, private music rings...only the naive will get caught. Pathetic. Makes you wonder how stupidity seems to get such a grip on corporate entities. Talk to them individually and they're pretty smart, but group up and the collective intelligence takes a nose dive.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
To Share Files from any Artist who has advocated Anarchy, Anti-Capitalism, Theft, Attacking the Police, or Attacking the Government.
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
"Well, if your hard drive is full of their music, then I doubt a court of law would find this to be a plausible statement. BTW, music is copyrighted by default. The omission of a proper copyright notice does not grant you the right to copy it."
First, my hard drive isn't full of their music. I'm too busy protecting my free speech rights to have any time for actual downloading.
Second, Congress did a stupid thing by removing the copyright marking requirement. This put commercial copyright law into direct conflict with fundamental free speech rights. Want to place bets upon what is going to happen when this issue is finally placed squarely in front of the Supreme Court?
The whole "fair use" business is because of an earlier brush-up between copyright and free speech. The publishing industry lost that time, and the recording industry will lose this time too. There's too many precidents protecting the right to speak and be heard by willing listeners, and protecting the right to peacably assemble.
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
You cannot sue people and make them stop, the internet does not work like that. The internet works like a living organism, if you attack it, it adapts to you and becomes immune. Why do you think we cant stop spam?
You seem to think that "oh just sue a few million and they will stop"
No, what they will do is make it difficult if not impossible to sue them, which only makes then even harder to stop, its like with a virus or plague, when you make a vaccine it adapts and becomes immune.
So yes you'll catch a few thousand, then your methods for catching them will cease to work and you'll have to spend insane amounts of money figuring out how to catch them while they share files.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I'm willing to bet that he'd say that you are free to break laws as long as you are also willing to accept the risk of getting caught and being punished.
There are laws on all kinds of things that there shouldnt be. Me I follow morals before i follow laws. You democratic republic escuse is bull.
Actually your comments would suggest that you follow the lame platitudes espoused by your peers.
So you say most people use aol so all of us should. Great way to look at things
Actually your choice of ISP isn't a matter of law. So no, I don't think DesScorp would say that.
Also I think as much harm that has come from religion, thats where civilization came from not laws.
Ever hear of religious law? Oh right, they don't cover that in theosophy for asshats. Sorry.
The war on drugs never ends because its profitable, the war on piracy on the net will never end because of demand.
There is more demand for music than theres demand for copyright and intellectual property, meaning more people want music for free than people who want copyright law to exist.
In this case you have a situation more like, outlawing tabacco, or caffeine, when everyone drinks and smokes, if you dare outlaw it and expect everyone to suddenly stop you are out of your mind.
Now, people want to sue file swappers, it just doesnt work because these people in their mind know they are doing the morally right thing.
The drug dealer on the other hand knows what they are doing is morally wrong but does it for money, I dont think people choose to be a drug dealer, they just cant make that kind of money doing anything else.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I can sum up your arguement as this: Stay inside the box, and move with the herd. No thanks.
=========
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Way to make a stand mr... um... anonymous!
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
And this is why people will not stop sharing files. Their morals or belief system says its morally right to share, in this situation nothing is lost when they share files so why not?
Just because YOU don't support the law, that doesn't mean that you have a blank check to defy it. If we defied all the laws we didn't like, it wouldn't be much of a civilization, would it?
The only way to change laws in this country is to defy them. It worked for alcohol, at one point alcohol was illegal, it worked for porn too, porn was illegal at one point.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
The RIAA handed out about 300 subpoenas...there are about 200,000,000 users sharing on average at any given time...I'd say that their efforts have reduced the number of people sharing to probably around 199,999,843.
Only 157, you ask? Well, some people just don't learn their lesson the first time, I guess...
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
Why are you looking at me like that?
Funny you should mention watching Gilligan's on an HDTV. Mark Cuban, owner of HDnet broadcasting company (and the Dallas Mavericks and otherwise .com bazillionare) has announced that he is acquiring the rights to the original film stock for shows like Gilligan's and I Dream of Genie, etc and will be making high-def remasters of those show for broadcast on HDnet. Myself, I can't wait to see Mary-Ann's short shorts in hi-def.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
That is a pretty brilliant point, as is the essay.
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
tyre
I can see it already. The RIAA turns on the artists, screaming that they support this piracy. That would be kinda funny to watch though...
:)
(forgive the AC post, I'm too lazy to register!
First, my hard drive isn't full of their music. I'm too busy protecting my free speech rights to have any time for actual downloading.
I am also too busy protecting my free speech to download things. It's an 18-hour-a-day job posting "freedom of speech is great!" comments to Slashdot, which I think is a great use of my time because 1.) Slashdot is full of anti-free-speech advocates and it's important to win these people over, and 2.) the readership of Slashdot has a lot of political pull in Washington DC, and every "+5 insightful" comment probably sways a couple of senators.
I also rode a giant blue doggy to the Candy Planet.
"95% of all Slashdot
I am truly amazed. I have to admit, some of those episodes are worth saving (I remember with fondness one about NASA sending a space pod that mistakenly lands on their island, and when the Professor finally fixes it, Gilligan accidentally spills sticky feathers in front of a fan, causing all 7 of them to be covered with feathers, convincing NASA scientists that Mars was inhabited by feathered creatures.
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
Infringing on copyrighted works against the will of the copyright holder should -never- be legal.
what -will- happen, is that meatspace distribution of content will be relegated to the niche, and legitimate electronic distribution will take over.
given the democratizing power of the internet, the RIAA will no longer have a stranglehold on the process, and they will be forced to compete.
Prices will drop to the point that:
. enough people will buy digital music legitimately
. legitimate distribution channels will be preferred due to a guarantee of desired quality without the hassle of mislabelled songs, bad rips, radio rips, etc.
. artists will see more direct revenue from sales, and will be very hesitant to pursue those that still swap files not-for-profit (civil offense)
Filesharing by people who aren't looking to profit from it (eg. not selling the copies, selling is the criminal offense) will just be something that the industry will learn to live with, and compete against (via quality, features, etc), just as they do with people who copied VHS movies, or Cassette tapes from their friends.
Recent history has shown that free software will always find away around expensive proprietary copyright schemes, and no content company can afford to keep up technologically or litigiously with civil offenders.
Perhaps the law should be changed such that the civil offense becomes a minor crime, or even a legal extension of 'Fair Use'. But the laws against criminal infringement need to be defended stringently.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
via tipjars (hopefully not JUST PayPal tipjars, says the self-interested guy posting this comment).
Musicians will probably still split royalties and start splitting tips with their songwriters, to keep the songs coming. All the music industry needs is a less-greedy greedy-middleman that works internationally, and I volunteer to supply it (hell, I coulda saved "Napster" if they'd ever bothered to listen...)
Voluntary tips from fans who prefer to pay actual musicians instead of music-industry-lawyers -- even if they're small, and even if not-everyone gives them -- might be a better income stream for musicians than is currently-offered by the RIAA quintopoly. Musicians will never know until they try...
JMR
I speak only for Jim Ray (when he's sober!)
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but didn't we go through this in the 1920's over Booze? Constitutional amendment and all that? You can't legislate a morality the public does not embrace.
The not-for-profit sharing of music, copyrighted or not, is viewed by the general public as Fair Use.
Note to Congress: Get the message. Every P2P file sharer is attached to at least one vote.
So if I don't make any files available for download, the RIAA won't sue me?
Also, can we tape songs off the radio and make them available? Since the radio is distributing them in the first place, aren't I just helping the proess along?
Prices will drop to the point that:
. enough people will buy digital music legitimately
. legitimate distribution channels will be preferred due to a guarantee of desired quality without the hassle of mislabelled songs, bad rips, radio rips, etc.
. artists will see more direct revenue from sales, and will be very hesitant to pursue those that still swap files not-for-profit (civil offense)
Or prices will fall to 0 as I can't imagine any pricing scheme will also include the cost of signing up and paying for the service, which is as high or higher then just re-downloading a messed up free song.
The music industry is screwed.
When I was in kindergarten I was taught that sharing was a good thing. My society told me that letting others use a garden hose or a newspaper or a record was not just acceptable but highly valued ethos.
Look now at what corprate culture has done to us. Will preschool teachers now tell there students not to share, but to go buy there own? Imagine on child playing with a doll and another wanting to play with it. Now we must tell the second to When I was in kindergarten I was taught that sharing was a good thing. My society told me that letting others use a garden hose or a newspaper or a record was not just acceptable but highly valued ethos.
Look now at what corporate culture has done to us. Will preschool teachers now tell there students not to share but to go buy there own? Imagine on child playing with a doll and another wanting to play with it. Now we must tell the second to purchase her own doll because sharing is the same as stealing. Imagine you preschool teacher saying to you "If you share that toy with your friend, the toy company will not be able to make money and they will go out of business and then you won't have any toys to play with."
There is a child's parable about a magic penny that when given away doubles. I have found references to this story in literature as far back as the 1870's and as recently as 2002. These types of stories are a reflection of a culture's values. What happens now that we actually have a musical magic penny?
JFMILLER
Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
========
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
well here things are even more psicodelic, you have the right to do a personal security copy of for example the latest APC record(wich is protected). But then (for the money they lose when u dont buy a new record in case the original craps) they charge EVERY blank media (cds tapes and in the future even hard disks) with a tax, no matter what use u are going to do with that blank cd (even if u use them for fetish purposes or something). But the funny thing is that IN ADDITION to this u cant break copy protections by law(i dont know why but i supose u are evil if u do that, even if u have the right to do it, u are eveil indeed... so its banned). So in the end u have a right to make a security copy but its perverted so in the end u wont be able to make any backup, and they will charge you with 20% or 30% more in ANY blank media to allow you to make this "copy TRY" that is more trying that copying. :D
But the funniest part is that under criminal law whatever you do for personal and private use without commercial purposes is allowed. So in the end of all this crap we continue mass downloading with our little crappy conections whatever we want(and given the situation caused by this incredible contradictory laws that allow us the incredible feature known as "pay for NOTHING",we copy without any kind of remorse or pity for the poor old companies or artists, and i can asure you copying/downloading without remorse makes you feel really good), oh and yes, portugal, andorra and france blank cd market sales will soon see the benefits of this
aint it fun? HAHhahAHAHHaHa
Theres also some campaigns prepared to launch in x-mas to reduce cd sales as much as we can. We even have lists with artist that are in this group to "pimp their asses" when possible. Do not take that last one literally... yet
What they use as punishment for those they bust sharing files is to take their paychecks for a couple years. Let them see what feels like to have their earning solen from them. All these thiefs point to the RIAA and record companies, but its the artists they are hurting the most.
If you don't like what the record compaines and RIAA are doing BOYCOTT them. When their revenue drop they will flinch and drop prices. Stealing takes the focus on the high priced music and puts it on the theives so the records look like the victums.
Well, of course the entire retail music business is "people who aren't looking to profit from it" so expecting that "the industry will learn to live" with it isn't really productive.
As you point out, infringing on copyrighted works isn't legal, but note that some are now trying to make that legal, regardless of the will of the copyright holder.
Obviously, the cassette/VHS analogy doesn't hold up because it each copy is generationally worse, and, more importantly, it takes 45 minutes to copy a 45 minute CD.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Are the days of the mass subpoenas over? The article summarizes the RIAA's position that the lawsuits "had succeeded in communicating that file sharing is illegal..."
Mitch Bainwol was then paraphrased as saying that "shifting attitudes would be the next battle in what he conceded was more an effort to contain file swapping than to wipe it out."
First, why use past tense if you're planning on filing more lawsuits. And second, if the "next battle" is to shift attitude, where does that leave the current battle, i.e., sending subpoenas? It sure sounds to me like the RIAA has given up on the current battle. And third, it's quite obvious that even the RIAA admits that p2p will not simply disappear.
Let's face it, as the article shows, the lawsuits did not stop p2p nor did they increase sales. And not even including the bad press, the suits were utter failures.
I'm not saying that the RIAA will never sue sharers again, they'll likely go after egregious sharers on an individual basis, but I'm predicating that the days of mass RIAA subpoenas are over.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
If i could get the latest songs i was looking for, at my preferred bitrate, from a reputable, dependable source (no more hunting for bands that aren't top 40), with consistant (good) transfer rates, for $0.50/song - i wouldn't hesitate.
$1/song still seems fairly high to me. But once there is competition amongst digital distributors, as opposed to the digital competing with the meatspace distributors, that price should fall pretty fast.
particularly considering that the average recording artist is used to seeing $0.20 / CD, (vs $.50 / track on iTunes) i think they'll be more than willing to let that price drop by half again.
I'll agree that any monthly fee service is bound to fail though, in my mind. There just wouldn't be enough demand for ongoing unlimited access once people had recollected their favorite music.
Another problem with the electronic services now, is the oppressive disparate DRM on the data. I won't buy into content providers dictating my hardware purchases without a defined industry standard. And judging by Sony memoryStick sales vs broader Flash card sales - most digital consumers agree with their wallets.
vendor-specific DRM is why I didn't buy into that 'memorystick' or 'securedisk' crap, and got a nexIIe instead of an iRiver or Yepp. (iPod-ers better hope that the industry doesn't decide to go with SecureDisk.)
While the RIAA in particular, and -recording- industry specifically are in trouble - the larger music industry however, is in no trouble whatsoever.
The bulk of artist revenues (as far as the artists are concerned) has always been from touring and tchotchke sales.
CDs have been more of a marketing tool like radio, than a dependable revenue stream. Just ask TLC how much they made off 3 hit albums and no touring.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
"What we're trying to drive for is an environment in which legitimate online music can flourish" what is he talking about? iTunes has made a fortune already. Legit online music is flourishing when it is doen right.
"73% of quotes on the Internet are made up" -Ben Franklin
This may be off-topic, but I am wondering aloud ... If I OWN a physical copy of the albums that I am sharing -- every last one of them -- how can they sue me? Is the mere act of digitizing music and sharing it illegal, or is it the notion of actually downloading something you haven't bought?
(I'd love to bait the RIAA by putting a huge directory of legally owned music online.)
This is very similar to anti-Marijuana laws. Studies have shown that it is reasonable safe especially when compared to liquor and tobacco, and the effect of it being illegial has many negative consequences on normally law abiding people.
The punishment for a crime should not excede the harm caused, and in the majority of the states it is still a felony for possession of a small amount. Yet, similar to this Article on the RIAA, users all across the world continue to use regardless of local and national laws.
They need to fix the problem instead of covering it up.
The general public will never believe online music-swapping is a crime until it gets treatment resembling activities which are universally viewed as criminal.
Suppose a store owner watches his video survelliance tapes and recognizes the name of someone removing a crate of 500 audio CDs from his storeroom. He's not 100% sure who it is, maybe not even 50%, but has strong suspicions. If he informs the police, they'll have a search warrant printed up, enter the perpetrator's home, and then, if the goods are found, certainly arrest him. (They might also be able to arrest on other evidence, even if he's already re-sold the CDs).
Notice that upon discovering he'd been robbed, the shopkeeper didn't call his lawyer- he called the cops. Filing a civil suit against the thief didn't even cross his mind.
So why doesn't an analogous situation occur in the digital world? The owner of some product suspects strongly that it has been 'stolen' by individuals whose names and addresses it has learned. If they've really committed a crime, then telephoning the local police should give them grounds to invoke traditional investigative powers and search the guy's computer.
Why does the RIAA mail summons to the infringers it has discovered? Why not just call the police on them? That was rhetorical- I know the answer: The police aren't really interested in arresting a 15-year old girl for nonpayment on her Destiny's Child collection. They'd rather spend their effort on serious crimes.
Until the music industry can convince the police to recategorize nonprofit copyright infringement as worthy of arrest, their efforts to vilify filesharing will be hampered. As The Simpsons, put it, "Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral".
"lack of long-term effects"?
"no different from alchool, except that it's not addictive.."?
Oh my, you HAVE been smoking, haven't you?
Now, I might agree with you that the comparison to alcohol in terms of severity might be close to accurate, but come on! Which experimental results are you reading? The ones conducted by the "Potheads For a Better World" (motto: "A Pot in every Joint"), or the ones conducted by people who have actually taken university level courses in statistics and physiology?
I have an extremely difficult time taking anyone seriously who claims that the effects of marijuana, either short- or long-term, are negligible. I've seen its impact on too many of my high-school buddies (graduated in '92, btw), and read too many medical reports to buy into that load.
The easiest way to stop pirating of music is to make CD prices fair. Movies are more expensive to produce than albums, yet it's only 7 bucks to get into a movie theatre, it's at least double that for a concert.
DVDs are the same price as a CD, yet it costs much more to produce the content of the DVD.
I'll start buying CDs when they cost as much as a movie ticket. 7 bucks if fair for a CD, and for a movie ticket. If they up the price of a movie to twenty bucks noone would pay to see them, would you?
Learn something new.
GPL wouldn't work without the owners having the rights to give you. Changes to source must be returned.
BSD license is more like a world withough copyright
And yet, in a chart attached to the NY Times story ("Chart: Stealing or Sharing Music?"), it notes that the number of users on Kazaa has declined from 6.5 million to 4.2 million since the RIAA announced its intention to sue users (around June 29). That's a 35% drop, folks!
Sounds to me like people are turning off the file sharing!
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
I see one new business model for the RIAA as being the management of music. Even if file-sharing persists, who really wants to go through the trouble of setting up and running a file-sharing app, finding the file you want, finding a fast source, waiting to download it, being unsure about the quality, lacking some selection, knowing it's illegal, and then: storing it on your hard drive, backing it up, sharing your bandwidth with others if you want to share it, transferring it from computer to computer or from computer to iPod or whatever, etc. etc. etc.
Music downloading and management is a huge hassle. I think once RIAA music services like Listen.com and iTunes mature, they will offer their selection of music from anywhere. You will buy the rights to a song or a subscription to many songs, and be able to listen to your purchase in your car and on your portable wireless-Internet-enabled headset.
When you want that song on your cousin's computer, you will be able to download it instantly from multiple high-quality, high-bandwidth sources at varying bitrates. You will be able to get the song in WAV or MP3 format.
There will be no waiting, no worry about selection, no worry about backup or management, no worry about illegality.
And all this will be pretty cheap. Cheap enough that most people will buy it. That's my prediction.
We're heading there. And there will be very little incentive to fileshare, since everything will be available in such abundance.
most people like most of the laws we have, or are otherwise indifferent.
otherwise, why would we have these laws?
And as for McDonald's, read the actual details sometime. McD's was serving their coffee 20 degrees hotter than everyone else, even though that meant third degree burns in 3 seconds as opposed to 20 seconds. The victim was hospitalized for 7 days and required several skin grafts. They didn't bother to review their procedures even after they had previously been found liable in other coffee scald cases. They refused to take the $225,000 settlement recommenended by the court appointed mediator. Instead they offered the victim $800. McD's own employee testified that they decided not to warn customers of the likelihood of severe burns, even though most people would not think it possible.
The victim was awarded $160,000 in compensatory damages - compensation for pain, distress, medical bills, etc. The victim was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages - damages meant to punish a company for, in the words of one juror, "callous disregard for the safety of the people." In legalese, McD's was guilty of engaging in "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct."
But maybe you are right. Maybe big corporations shouldn't be liable for the callous disregard of the safety of their employees and customers.
Apple iPod
15 GB model, lightly used
167 songs loaded
The RIAA says it's worth about $25 million. I'll let it go for $5 million, plus shipping.
(From rec.humor.funny)
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
Nelson: Ha Ha
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
The RIAA keeps complaining that they can't compete with free, but apparently they've never heard of bottled water. I think Poland Spring and Dasani should take the initiative set by the music industry and start suing people everytime they turn on their faucet. That'll teach the criminal bastards! And while they're at it, they can agree to price-fix their water at $20 a bottle...
:)
What has happened here is that the music industry missed the boat when the winds of change picked up the sails. Their business model is outdated and flawed in an industry that will now operate on an abundance of music instead of a scarcity. Instead of throwing money at themselves and attempting to keep with the times, they've decided to only quicken their death. Starting with Napster, they made their first mistake of decentralizing the new market. Now, with Kazaa, they are alienating more and more of the people that might have stayed in their camp. I bet the makers of the horse-and-buggy probably wanted to sue Henry Ford in the same manner.
To borrow a quote from another post I read:
"Is that the sound of the RIAA's claws streaking down the cliff of a paradigm change?"
-Michael
miketwo@mail.com
Some years ago, a record store chain did exactly that. They had a machine that would make you a custom compilation album out of tracks you chose in the store. It eventually went away..
It might have been the Wherehouse, but I don't remember the exact chain. My point was that it's already been done and it didn't last. =/
Ice still cold, hell still hot.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
In yet other news, 90% of people on the road right now are going five to ten MPH over the posted speed limit, despite a standing army of ticket-writing cops on patrol every minute of every day.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
If i could get the latest songs i was looking for, at my preferred bitrate, from a reputable, dependable source (no more hunting for bands that aren't top 40), with consistant (good) transfer rates, for $0.50/song - i wouldn't hesitate.
Well as long as I would have to a) sign up for the service and fill out info etc. b) Have to re-buy a song if i accidentaly delete it. c) Can't get it in higher or lower bit rates if I like the song. d) can only get it from one source, rather then a buddy who has it on his computer i'm listening to here and now. I'll opt for free any day. Can't beat the price! I don't really have a problem finding the music I want at a decent bit rate.
particularly considering that the average recording artist is used to seeing $0.20 / CD, (vs $.50 / track on iTunes) i think they'll be more than willing to let that price drop by half again.
Well they're going to have to let it drop to 0. That's the way it's gonna be.
CDs have been more of a marketing tool like radio, than a dependable revenue stream. Just ask TLC how much they made off 3 hit albums and no touring.
Time to find a new marketing tool!
Maybe it's just me but I know far to many people who "sample" music, and don't buy cause it sucks. But they haven't bought a CD in years. So why do they have gigs of music on their computers/mp3 players if it all sucks.
The "changing stance of the EFF" on copyright issues indicates that EFF is paying more attention to what technology is doing than the RIAA. The currently legislated solution in the US is, well, not as much of a compromise as it should be. Several of the first few people indicated in the press as being targetted by the RIAA didn't have much say in the legislative process.
The RIAA has been trying, ever since the cassette tape came out, to come up with an uncopyable distribution medium, so that they can get the money they want from every listener. The CD was uncopyable when it came out, but not for long. The DVD was uncopyable when it first came out, but not for long. Since they failed technologically, they are now trying other means.
What the RIAA dreams about, as far as I can see from here, is a world in which every single bit of musical content is given a price. It might be, oh, 3 MB for $5. Given the actual cost of storage, as long as copying is possible, they'll never make it.
Law is the basis for much of our society. The problem remains that when law and justice are divorced from one another, both are hurt. The laws become less meaningful, and have less power for those for whom they were effective (those who would only do the right thing in the absence of law); the lack of power of law over those people corrodes the moral framework and then others break the law as well, because the underlying morals have been irreparably altered. When justice is illegal, people are forced to choose between society and right, and become cut off from a great deal of what makes it possible for them to evaluate the rightness of their actions and those of others.
Drug laws have not been effective at stopping the flow or demand for drugs. They may have lowered the demand (Prohibition decreased alcohol consumption for a long time in the US) but at a large cost to noncombatants and at very little cost to those who actually sell and make the stuff. The buyers pay a larger cost than they probably should, and the ends of the laws aren't achieved. What is the point? To sacrifice a few to change the behavior of many might be OK (it seems to be a general crim. justice policy), but to sacrifice many for a policy which is failing does no one any good.
The RIAA's enforcement of copyright violation is disproportionate to the crime. People don't want crippled content. The standard responses don't seem to work (loss of sales justifies further draconian suits and DRM to preserve content). Reasonable standards of justice are not applicable here, and given the choice between the content-protection laws and what conditions people feel are just, laws will lose, either legally (repeal or modification of the laws) or illegally (large-scale copyright violation, cracking of content, etc.). Since copyright is important to our society, and the large-scale violations make both bad and good copyright harder to enforce, it seems to make sense to distinguish between controls that most people will support while preserving the right of content providers and ones that people don't support and will disobey; otherwise, the corrosive effective of the resultanat lawlessness will make all copyrights harder to enforce, to everyone's detriment.
Laws that do not conform to the sense of justice of many will be disobeyed, weakening the effects of the law on others. Bad laws ultimately will engender bad behavior, and a diminishment of the harm that law can inhibit. Making lots of criminals for a purpose a large number of people disagree with is not a formula for success, unless anarchy is "success".
In "Atlas Shrugged" (Ayn Rand) one of the important exchanges is about the use of law to control behavior. Bad laws decouple people's moral sense and intellect from analyzing their actions - they know that if they do what their mind tells them they will be criminals and enforce guilt upon themselves. Eventually when enough of what they feel they should do is illegal, they either decouple themselves from law and accede to their own wills or thet accede their wills to the state. While I disagree with much of the book, this seems like a sound concept. Civilization is an act of will. If laws force many to give up their will to the state, the state loses its life's blood. If the people ignore the laws, the state goes away. Laws that force this situation are bad and ultimately worse than fruitless - not only won't they work, but they will make it harder for reasonable laws to work. Making people criminals is a last resort to reason, not a first resort.
Marijuana is against the law, but tens of millions of people still smoke it.
Hmm, i had an interesting thought.
Record labels are international, though separate companies in different countries (EMI Canada for example.) This would lead me to believe that EMI Canada and EMI US are financially and legally "autonomous" entities. As such, EMI canada is the protector of the copyright on all discs sold in canada. (supposing the artist allows the label to go with legal proceedings).
Now, for example, the new Iron Maiden album happens to be at number 1 in various european countries, and is indefinetly online, does the file sharing of mp3's from a canadian release apply to the US? If the original disc has a copyright by EMI CANADA, even though the same song was released in the states, does EMI US have any grounds to sue for an infringed copyright? Its the uploading thats illegal, and if the upload is of a song which originated as not having EMI US's copyright, then does the RIAA have any claim? I dont know much international copyright law, but it would be nice if someone could answer that!
From reading usenet posts, all of the 261 Subpoena's are Kaza/Gnutella/Shareaza users that leave the "SHOW ALL FILES TO EVERYONE" option on. That's the worst bunch to sue because they are typically non-techie types. It's easier to feel sorry for a single mom with a 12 year old daughter than some software developer who's been downloading Britney Spears.
I've been using Emule. In addition to keeping my shared directory smallish, I've implemented the ipfilter list, turned off the "SHOW ALL FILES" option, and automatically ban ip subnets from users who request to see all my files.
Paramount and Universal, among others, are paying companies like BayTsp to track individual files of movies. That's a tedious and semi-expensive process comparred to simply "showing all files" from a user and sueing them.
So my point is, you are pretty much safe if you leave the "show all files" option off in Kazaa or any other program.
It's not a solution, just an observation. You'll find it hard to get a customer that is willing to pay for something that used to be free, in any industry.
"If we defied all the laws we didn't like, it wouldn't be much of a civilization, would it?" Well, we'd still have slavery for one thing. Slavery was quite legal in the United States and during that time it was illegal to help escaped slaves. I say it's a pretty darn good thing that we defy some of the laws we don't like. Without doing so where would civilization be?
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
And a high quality rip is just as good on hi-fi playback equiptment. The r3mix website (now defunct & cybersquatted) had details on a test conducted by a German Hi-Fi magazine, where they encoded various mp3 files, then burnt them back to audio CD.
The blind listening test consisted (IIRC) of around 1000 Hi-Fi fans, who listened to the various material on some pretty hi-end gear. They concluded that a well encoded mp3 file was indistingishable for the vast majority of listeners.
They came up with a VBR setting that seemed to satisfy everyone. Most decent encoders have it as "-r3mix". I've since went back and re-encoded any of my CDs that were ripped at less than 192 kbit/s with it, and the results are pretty impressive.
The weak link is generally the sound card, especially if it's on-board sound. Buy a decent card, and you'll notice a difference. My whole system (low to mid-range hi-fi) is based of my mp3 library, and I'm more than happy with the audio quality
Well I'm done reading /. time to go listen to some mp3's
Doctors do Massage in Longview WA now, who knew?
I'm old enough to have purchased recorded music on vinyl, 8-track, cassette, and CD. I've bought the same music at least 4 times over due to the ever-changing "standard" of the industry. Does the RIAA (or their partners in crime, major record labels) offer a credit when you replace your vinyl recordings with 8-track tapes, then to cassettes, etc? No, they happily collect their money and are licking their chops, waiting for the next "industry standard" format to be introduced so I can have the **privilege** of buying the same recordings I've already bought 2 or 3 or 4 times all over again.
Well screw them!! I am currently ripping my entire CD collection to disk and replacing damaged tracks (due to worn Cd's) with replacement tracks I have obtained using P2P. Why the hell not...I've already paid for it.
Excessive drinking is fine...in moderation.
She has a website
From http://www.counterpunch.org/glahn09192003.html
---
The notion of copyright infringement as theft was clearly addressed in the 1985 Supreme Court decision of Dowling v. United States. While this case involved hard goods (phonograph records), Justice Harry Blackmun was most certainly speaking of abstract property (copyrights) when he wrote these words in his majority decision overturning Dowling's conviction of interstate transport of stolen property: "(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."
You shouldn't knock Gilligan's Island on HDTV wide-screen until you've seen it.
In other news...
Alcohol consumption remained popular during the prohibition.
Illicit drugs remain popular despite the prohibition.
Smoking remains popular despite the liklihood of long-term health problems, taxes, and targeted legislation.
Ad Nauseum
Draw your own conclusions here.
At least with prohibition, you could have some sembalence of an argument that drinking is harmfull for you, and has some unpleasant social consequences. Sharing music is anything but harm inflicting, and has very pleasant consequences both socially and artistically. At the very worst you could argue that it would bankrupt the music industry, but at this point I'm not too sure that's a bad thing.
According to the chart on the NY times page, Kazaa has dropped from about 6.5 million homeusers in May to a little over 4 million now, a drop of a full third in a span of just a few months. That doesn't seem a "very little" drop to me (unless some other service happened to gain 2+ million users in those same few months)
Publishing copywritten material without a license is illegal.
.sig
Speeding is illegal and dangerous.
Snorting cocaine is illegal, dangerous, and expensive.
Give that people continue to those things,
is it any surprise that people are still pirating music?
-- this is not a
The RIAA is trying their hardest to catch the "criminals", but the very nature of the industry is that it is very adaptable. So when they finally shut Kazaa down how long before an alternative pops up?
And here is the quick question, whats the name of the p2p filesharing program that claims to be anonymous?
P2P Music Sharing Remains Popular Despite RIAA?
Hm...I think the more accurate expression is "P2P Music Sharing Remains Popular To Spite RIAA".
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Step into the way-back machine. Hearken back to the 80's when people had their Amigas and they wrote songs for MOD trackers in their free time, and distributed them via dial-up bulletin board services that were ubiquitous through the 80's to early 90's before web browsers were developed and the net became commercialized.
These MODs, containing a number of samples and a playback script similar in concept, but different in structure to MIDI files, were to music what Linux is to operating systems- an open sourced, freely downloadable form of music, for which the artist earned no royalties. The MOD format was originally created to make game sountrack music on early computers with limited resources (such as the Amiga with it's 512 KB of memory) but has grown into a format of its own, with many offshoots such as Screamtracker (.s3m), Impulse Tracker (.it), and Fast Tracker (.xm), just to name a few. The vast majority of module music is of the techno genre, although some rock, pop, and even classical has been produced by music coders.
A tale of two KLFs
In the late eighties, there was a group called the KLF (Kopyright Liberation Front). They used to call themselves the JAMs (Justified Ancients of Mummu. Go read the Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Anton Wilson to learn more about the JAMs.) The KLF had a knack for getting in trouble for unauthorized use of samples from other people's music. They were forced to destroy all copies of an album they released (the 1987 album, IIRC) to avoid lawsuits. Because of this, they came to view the entire music industry as agents of the Illuminati, a supersecret organization hell bent on controlling what the world sees and hears.
Later, an unrelated KLF emerged, called the Kosmic Loader Foundation. They used to make the music for "loaders", or short demo programs that came up when you launched cracked games. (Remember the wonderful world of demos and the demo scene?) Anyway, they changed their name to KFMF, or Kosmic Free Music Foundation. Whatever music they produced, you could download for free, no questions asked. Or you could purchase CDs with their music for a nominal fee. Of course, the idea for their tracked music was the same as for open-source software: If you modify a song or "rip" the samples, at least give credit where it's due.
Sadly, the KFMF no longer exists, and pretty much the entire demo scene has fallen by the wayside, but is still alive with tracked music at places like Nectarine Radio. Nowadays, there are myriads of tracked formats, and even the mainstream music programs such as Cakewalk and Reason have their legions of adherents who create and swap music files, but the idea remains the same: If music was open-sourced, free as in speech and free as in beer, nobody could control it, no RIAA, Illuminati, or whatever.
There are governments which have declared the existence of ethnic groups illegal. (I'm thinking about Africa) Can mass murder be made moral by making it legal?
As for this being a democracy. . . all people are created equal, but in the transition between democracy and regime, some are much more equal than others.
Donate millions to a major political party and/or its elected public officials and like the *AA organizations, you become much more equal.
The ability to buy a law doesn't make disobeying it illegal.
Tech Public Policy stuff
It'll explain, for instance, how Fritz Hollings got drafted into helping a Hollywood cartel over 3000 miles against the interests of the people who elected him.
Tech Public Policy stuff
You still have to connect to get your file! You still know what files people have.
That's how they get your IP and then get YOU!
You have to make sharing THROUGH other sharing people's computers a POSSIBILITY, so that you don't know if it's direct sharing or not.
NO, NO, NO you don't HAVE to use the pass through, it just has to be possible!!
Get with it P2P people!
(and if you like ES5 so much, get them to do this NOW)
Ask a lawyer if you don't understand why this will work in court.
The whole music industry needs to learn from Invisible Records. 40 cd's for $100 + free t-shirt and DJ bag. People would buy a lot of cd's at $2.50 each. This is a record label with artists that deserve to be supported. Check it out Here
Prolonged inhalation of any smoke can cause lung cancer, emphysema, and other lung disease. This aspect of pot smoking really hasn't been studied enough to know to what extent, but it is safe to assume that inhaling smoke of any type is probably bad for you.
OTOH, quitting pot is easy. I can't say the same for the cigarettes though. Pot is not anywhere nearly as addicting as tobacco is.
Besides, with pot you can always eat some brownies if you're worried about your lungs. Eating a tobacco brownie is likely to make you throw up (which is a good thing as nicotine is well known as a deadly poison).
Read, L
Caffeine.
And I'd be willing to bet that caffeine is more popular than pot.
I am pretty sure that it is more addicting though.
Read, L
yuo rode taht blue doggyafter i did which mean sloppy secondss for you BIOTCH!`
but I'm curious. Was there a point to the diatribe or is it purely a soapbox to stand upon?
At least get your facts straight.
The Greek Democracy didn't last 30 years. The Republic didn't last 100 years. Look up the rule of the 30 tyrants in Greece and Caeser for Rome.
You were correct in that I was wrong about the history of the Greek Democracy and the Roman Republic.
But I was still not nearly as wrong as you.
In fact I had it backwards it was the Roman Republic that lasted a few hundred years, From 510bc (The expulsion of the kings and the Republic established) until 31bc (when the last vestige of the Republican forces, under the command of Mark Anthony are defeated). The Athenian Democracy lasted for 135 years, from 594bc to 431bc (when Athens lost the Pelopenisian War and the "Thirty Tyrants" were appointed by the Spartans to rule Athens)
Qtp, F (get your facts straight.)
Baldass_Newbie, F- (read the damn material, talk radio is no place to learn history.)
As for your other assertions, the Constitutional Convention in 1789 did not have the power to pass laws by it self, but the States were empowered to ratify the work of that comittee into law, which they did. The United States did have a federal government at the time, but with extremely limited powers, no right to issue a national currency, and none of the authority necessary to see that the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence are protected.
Your assertion that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights garauntees "NOTHING" hinges on a different meaning of the word "garauntee" than I know of. A garauntee is a contract, much as the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) is a contract between the citizens of this country and the government. I am fully aware that it is possible for the government or the citizen to break thier part of this agreement. But the citizen is not required by the Constitution to adhere to laws that are passed outside the guidlines of the Constitution, as long as he is willing to accept the consequenses and fight the necessary battle tghrough the courts (not a good bet) which are empowered to strike down law if they find that law to be unConstitutional. It's part of the ballance of powers that is laid out in the Constitution.
It's an agreement, along the lines of and styled after the Mayflower Compact.
It was styled after the Magna Carta, not the Mayflower compact.
It is a promise only as long as all citizens promise to abide by it. (Which you are effectively saying you're not doing.)
At what point did I say anything that would imply that I am not law abiding. I believe that marijuana should be legal. There is nothing illegal about holding such a belief. Being knowledgable about a controlled substance is not illegal. Supporting a change to the law is not illegal.
The greed is not coming from corporations. They're just people working to make money. The greed is from government who takes but doesn't make. Government doesn't produce anything but more government.
The political party that usually makes such assertions just took us from having a surplus in the budget to having a national debt that is growing at a rate of $1.6 billion per day. The people who are proffiting most from this deficit are the large corporations, who by selling you a bill of goods about "smaller government" and "lower taxes", thier media got you to vote for the people who will take more of our money away from us and give it to the people who need it the least. Where do you think that money goes, to welfare recipients? It goes to buying Halliburton control over another country's oil industry, it goes to purchasing $475 million dollars in Windows installs at $970.00 a pop, it goes to the defense contractors, the airline companies, intelligence operations designed to ensure American oil companies can control the oil industry in Venazuela.
I'm not saying there aren't bad companies or immoral practicies in business, but government is hardly the best solution to the problem.
What I'm saying is that bad companies and bad government go hand in hand.I would never be so foolish as to think that I could count on the one to save me from the other.
Read, L