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."

Comments

Agenda

[grub]

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."

Let's pay the artists intstead...

[pointbeing]

I vote for embedding artist PayPal addresses in mp3s. Then we can send the money directly to the artist.

I'd imagine the RIAA wouldn't think too kindly of this idea - but it is kinda fun to think about :)

No effects YET but,

[kunsan]

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

lets see them try and put everyone in jail

[mrfibbi]

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.

Re:It'll start working eventually

[grub]

Enough people will be prosecuted and then people will stop.

This approach has worked wonders for the "War on Drugs". How many people are "criminals" because they dared have a few grams of pot on them?

I have a hunch...

[RealityProphet]

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.

really

[Boromir son of Faram]

In other news, crack cocaine remains popular, despite War on Drugs. No healthier or more legal, of course...

Of course it's popular still...

[overbyj]

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!)

A very good point from the article...

[pirhana]

>"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.

Criminality?

[DesScorp]

"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?

Re:Criminality?

[Anonymous Coward]

If we defied all the laws we didn't like, it wouldn't be much of a civilization, would it?

On the contrary: if we spinelessly followed idiotic laws we disagreed with, it wouldn't be much of a civilizations. Dissent gives you progress.

Re:Criminality?

[lone_marauder]

If we defied all the laws we didn't like, it wouldn't be much of a civilization, would it?

Well, at least in the context of the history of the United States, this civilization began through defying laws we didn't like. Whether the opponents to laws such as the Stamp Act were self-interested rabble rousers or conscientious objectors, everything we hold dear began by defiance which was not only illegal, but ultimately developed into the most dire sort of resistance to state authority.

The idea behind this republic is that the government operates at the behest of and according to the will of the people, not the other way around. The glory of America is that no matter what attempts are made to socially stratify your viewpoints by categorizing you (extremist, right winger, left winger, etc.), or, as has become immensely popular around here - the lack of a business plan (horrors!), your opinion still counts. It is the government's problem to accede to the will of the people. Everything government represents, especially the law, must necessarily reflect that purpose.