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
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
Here is why this won't happen:
Scale - 261 out of 5,000,000 is 0.005%. Those are slim enough odds for most people to think it won't ever happen to them.
Small-Timers - If 5,000,000 people each share one different song that leaves still 5,000,000 songs available. The RIAA would never be able to go after these small-timers. Even if they did the fines would be far less than the legal fees.
International - P2P exists outside of the US. All you need is few guys in Kazakhstan with a fat pipeline to share every song he can get his hands on.
Downloading - The biggest change that has occured since these lawsuits is that people are just clicking off the upload option and becoming leeches. This would shut down the system if not for the few that still don't realize they are sharing and the international users (see above).
Anger - People are never going to get over the anger they feel towards the record industry. Years of overpricing and the current war against the little guy have destroyed any goodwill they had.
Alternatives - When they shut down Napster they didn't kill file-sharing. It evolved. They can fight and fight but it will continue to evolve. People will move to something more secure, more anonymous - perhaps Freenet or something like it (and hopefully better).
The truth is that until a viable alternative is created people will continue to share. And $1 per song from a limited selection is not an alternative. People want variety, they want a fair price, and the want the freedom to do what they want once they pay.
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
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.
I don't think that the mentality is "take what you can get for free" from everyone. However, to take your analogy between software and music a step further...
/. before, I have purchased only two CDs in the past few years, and that was because the artist in question is consistently turning out good music that I enjoy listening to. He releases his music when he wants, not when a recording industry president says he has to. I do not download much from P2P either, as I already have much of the music I like (I am a big retro fan). I mostly use P2P to download those television shows which are not yet available on DVD. If it is available on DVD in a higher quality medium, I get it there; and many people do the same with music.
With Linux, an individual can download it, install it, and see if he or she likes it. The same goes with Shareware programs that are widely available on the Web. With P2P, an individual can download music from an artist and see if he or she likes it before purchasing it.
It's more of a "try before you buy" mentality, and many individuals hold to that fact. Like you said, the artists went to a lot of trouble to record their music and distribute it. But, were the artists hearts really into that music or did they have to do it because of a contractual obligation? Usually you can tell which of the two it is by listening to the music. Most times, a contractual obligation album (no reference to the Monty Python album of that name intended) is full of smaller songs or songs the band does not like as much, and it is these albums that the industry promotes... to death. They know it is not as good as the stuff the artists wanted to write, but it will sell because of: 1) the name of the artist, and 2) their mass marketing campaign of it being "hot" or "great" will always sucker some people in.
As I have said on
Given that God is infinite, and the Universe is also infinite, would you like some toast?
Actually, the US government recently reported (illegal) drug use to be down to it's lowest point of the past 20 years. The "drug war" feds have claimed full credit.
My Bass idol Mike Watt always said,
"There are Tickets and there are Flyers"
I've always seen the tunes as a way to get people to the shows. I know I'm nobody, but all my tunes are on my site for free... getting paid would be cool, but Live Shows is the unknown artists Money, the recorded tunes are only the "Flyer" to get the body to buy a ticket for the show.