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!
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,
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!
Originally read this as "caught and fixed," which may take on the RIAA point of view.
Have your filesharer spayed or neutered.
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.
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?
Trolling is a art,
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..
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
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!
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]
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.
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.
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.
Well, just about everyone I know (a lot of folk) smoke pot at least once a week, at parties etc. For most of us, we have been doing it for at least 10 years.
Where are these problems you speak of? Even my mate, the drugs councillor who works with 18 year-old heroin addicts, can't understand what "destruction" you refer to.
>"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"
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.
to paraphrase "If enough people are prosecuted for smoking marijuana then people will stop. The key for the DEA is to ingrain the meme that if you smoke weed then you will be caught and sent to jail."
Ummmm, next time think it all the way through before you post one of your brillent non sequiturs
Another day closer to redwood heaven
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
all of them
i sell illegal drugs
don't they know that nobody tells a pirate what do to!!! Especially when it be talk like a pirate day!!! Arr...
"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).
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.
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."
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.
The RIAA seems willing to catch and fine people who can't tell whether they are illegally trading files or propagating free speech.
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
"You're one of those people who would walk into a grocery store and walk over to the bulk foods aisle. You'd grab granola from the bin and stuff it in your pocket. You'd then grab raisins and stuff them in there"
Except that would cost the store owner money. I dont seem to recall reading anywhere where recording artists, or their labels, or the RIAA, buy the bits on your hard drive...
Nice logic...*cough*
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
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
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.