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."
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?
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
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.
Enough people WONT be caught and prosecuted.
Due to the enormous number of file sharers, you have a certain anonymous factor, even if they can try to obtain your IP. People will not stop trading music, they will just change the way they do it, if it becomes too "risky" under current conditions.
When you can download unlimited numbers of songs, from so many sources, with almost ALL of music history being found somewhere, it is impossible to go back to paying 20$ for 3 good songs on an album. People will still buy the classics, because they want the little extra quality, etc.
It is basically a natural progression...as technology advances, music is moving with it...and now instead of listening to your favorite music station, people download their favorite new songs.
Before you start complaining too much about people downloading music illegally, consider where the money from CD purchases is going, the majority of which is going to the record companies, not even the artist anyways.
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you create something isn't it your right to decide what you do with it?
Here's a more interesting question; if you buy something, is it your right to decide what you do with it, or is that the right of the person from whom you bought it?
William
When you're not looking, this sig is in Latin.
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.
If p2p file sharing does reach the kind of proportions which is capable of putting the record companies out of business (or into serious trouble), there will be a very rocky period, but then we might actually see a new kind of music distribution... one where the artists get rewarded properly for their work.
Shock! horror!
I can see the RIAA quaking in their boots at the very thought.
Miri it is whil Linux ilast...
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.
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.
I totally agree. I recently talked to an eighteen year old I know who was setting up a WASTE group with his buddies. How is the RIAA going to root out the many thousands of such private groups that are forming?
No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
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
this is directly aimed at you DesScorp.
"You might as well be a robot."
Input: do not do that.
Reaction: Compliant.
Hey guess what, no one will ever agree on everything . And dont sound so unforgiving, I doubt you follow all the laws. 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. So you say most people use aol so all of us should. Great way to look at things. Also I think as much harm that has come from religion, thats where civilization came from not laws.
Absolutely. You are perfectly free to lock it in a safe and never show it to anyone. Once you publish it to the world, however, you no longer have any natural right to prevent others from repeating it. We do grant this ability as a privilege, but the intent is to promote progress, not make authors happy.
There is a big difference between violating copyright for a profit and non-commercial sharing (which wasn't even illegal for a long time). I don't have a problem with cracking down on those who sell pirated copies.
If copyright laws were more reasonable, there would be no need for the GPL.
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.
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
"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.
The analogy I like to use in dealing with our population is "frog in the bunson burner". Society has gotten used to the concept of the "Patriot Act" and other forms of law which squash human rights and civil liberties, in addition to amplifying corporate interests. It has happened over time and very slowly, so as to allow society to become accustomed to them. Although tragic, it is not unlike our frog friend who is slowly scalding from the heated water. Revolution is not an alternative in cases like this. Believe me, I am a proponent for change in the record industry. However, unlike yourself, I do believe that the $1 track is a step in the right direction. Can you tell me what is wrong with this business model? I would be more than happy to discuss the various pros/cons of these packages intended to help consumers find more of what they are looking for.
It's difficult to refute the argument that downloading music from a P2P peer is akin to shoplifting. Consider that increased security measures coupled with increased consequences have helped to thwart many would-be shoplifters and has decreased the losses stores eat from these criminals. Very few individuals have made a scene about detectors being placed all around stores, and fewer have complained about the increased penalties for shoplifting. The same may apply here...
Anecdotal evidence suggests that my friends and colleagues who used to steal music are now refraining from doing so. Activity will statistically decrease as people continue to check the "don't share files", and further will decrease if Kazaa incorporates (or is forced to by a court order) a default "on" status for this checkbox.
I hope you are right about the fact that people aren't as easily scared as I think. I hope people rationally try to change the system from within. Judging from today's youth and their unique ability to accept ever more restrictive freedoms, however, I am not optimistic.
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.
And RHCP should rightly be concerned. The last good album they put out was "Mother's Milk"
/.ers arguments. The RIAA is perpetuating the progression of lousy music through their lack of advancement of their business model. They, the RIAA and certain big-name bands, cease to promote their product, but rather promote a famous name and profit on consumers' stupidity. Nike may emphasize a brand marking, the swoosh, but they design pretty good running shoes, and are constantly innovating to make the shoes lighter, more responsive to the runner's foot, and this is the same for all their products. However, the RIAA excessively promotes a garbage product (think Britney Spears), while at the same time ignoring quality products that they DO produce. The vastness of mistakes perpetuated by the RIAA cartel proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they deserve to die, and to be replaced by companies that actually know how to do business. Every /.er knows this, and that is why we are so dangerous to their garbage distribution business.
This is precisely the point of most
"No beer until you finish your tequila!"
-Leela's Dad
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad