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."
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.
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,
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.
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
neither will their crippled CD's have a negative effect on filesharing..
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.
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!
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).
>"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"
"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.
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."
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 /.
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
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.
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!
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'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.
I just need to check my inbox to be reminded why I'm paranoid about things like this. :-P
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
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.
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.
I'm against buying anything from the RIAA and against p2p trading of music. The RIAA would see such a thing and blame the financial downfall of their member recording companies on p2p. But if people also stop p2p filetrading, they would be forced to realize that they are being targeted by a highly participative and angry democracy.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
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.
Ummm.... Your a product of a scare campain, their condition is from a lifestyle choice. You failed to provied fact, so here i go...
Substantial research exists regarding marijuana and addiction. While the scientific community has yet to achieve full consensus on this matter, the majority of epidemiological and animal data demonstrate that the reinforcing properties of marijuana in humans is low in comparison to other drugs of abuse, including alcohol and nicotine. According to the U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM), fewer than one in 10 marijuana smokers become regular users of the drug, and most voluntary cease their use after 34 years of age. By comparison, 15 percent of alcohol consumers and 32 percent of tobacco smokers exhibit symptoms of drug dependence.
According to the IOM, observable cannabis withdrawal symptoms are rare and have only been identified under unique patient settings. These remain limited to adolescents in treatment facilities for substance abuse problems, and in a research setting where subjects were given marijuana or THC daily. Compared with the profound physical syndrome of alcohol or heroin withdrawal, marijuana-related withdrawal symptoms are mild and subtle. Symptoms may include restlessness, irritability, mild agitation and sleep disruption. However, for the overwhelming majority of marijuana smokers, these symptoms are not severe enough to re-initiate their use of cannabis.
While there are indeed health and societal problems due to the use of alcohol and nicotine, these negative consequences would be amplified if consumption of either substance were prohibited.
Marijuana is already the third most popular recreational drug in America, despite harsh laws against its use. Millions of Americans smoke it responsibly. Our public policies should reflect this reality, not deny it.
In addition, marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. It fails to inflict the types of serious health consequences these two legal drugs cause. Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose. According to the prestigious European medical journal, The Lancet, "The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health. It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat than alcohol or tobacco."
No one is suggesting we encourage more drug use; simply that we stop arresting responsible marijuana smokers. In recent years, we have significantly reduced the prevalence of drunk driving and tobacco smoking. We have not achieved this by prohibiting the use of alcohol and tobacco or by targeting and arresting adults who use alcohol and tobacco responsibly, but through honest educational campaigns. We should apply these same principles to the responsible consumption of marijuana. The negative consequences primarily associated with marijuana -- such as an arrest or jail time -- are the result of the criminal prohibition of cannabis, not the use of marijuana itself.
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.
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.