Slashdot Mirror
Kazaa Launches Legitimacy Campaign
Beolach writes "The Washington Post has an article on Kazaa launching a $1 million advertising campaign promoting itself as a legitimate media distribution tool. From the article: 'The campaign is the latest push by the Kazaa file-sharing service and its parent company, Sharman Networks, to counter a multi-million-dollar legal and lobbying effort launched by music, software and movie firms convinced that peer-to-peer (P2P) services are a major source of online piracy'."
Kazaa is a major source of on-line piracy - they cannot deny this. However, P2P file sharing does have legitimate uses, and the tool cannot be blamed for what it is used for. Rat poison can be used to kill people, but that is about how it is used, not what it is.
Sharing files is not against the law.
Distributing copyrighted works is.
The various P2P networks are a major source of online piracy.
Now, I'm not saying that that's all they're used for, or that they don't have legitimate uses (distribution of Linux iso images is one that springs immediately to mind), or that the various lobbying groups should succeed. But I can't see how anyone can deny that P2P is used a lot by pirates, both casual and probably organised.
Of course, so is ftp, http, etc, and I'm not saying that they should be banned either. I'm just questioning the tone of that part of the summary, is all.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
If you think taking what cannot be legitimately considered yours with compensating the creator is not immoral, you are working with a completely different set of morals than most people.
There's a reason people view using Kazaa as "a little bit wrong" and it has to do with their conscience.
The MPAA estimates that file sharing has cost the film industry more than $1 billion in the last year.
I estimate that the MPAA overestimates 125% of the stats that they estimate.
Because somebody watches a pirated movie does not directly mean that anybody lost money over it. Money is only lost if that person would have paid money but instead watched it for free.
Apart from the question of who is actually financing this and what they hope to get from it, the idea is good.
The next year will see a massive publicity campaign from the top 5 music companies as they try to exaggerate the impact of p2p ("try" is what I mean, cause I believe the impact is really huge), in the hope that this will allow them to merge into 2 or 3 companies.
Without some anti-publicity, it means a lot more of the "hacker pirates stealing music" stories. Kazaa are not my choice for a champion, I'd prefer someone like Michael Robertson of mp3.com fame. But it's a start.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
They should just say:
"Tell your lawmakers that you want free copyrighted material or you won't vote for them."
That's just not a very tasteful way to promote your service, IMHO.
You seem to believe that copyright is a God-given impeccable right.
It isn't. It is a man-made construct that can and should be changed if society as a whole benefits from another model.
Of course, with any change of order comes fierce resistance from those who will lose from the new order. That has always been the case; already Machiavelli knew this.
I mean when you really think about it... We should ban IRC as well. I mean even though you can talk over it, you could trade files. FTP is really a rude protocal as well, since 0day warez (I hope i spelled that right) also resides on these evil ip's. Piracy is going to happen, whether it be a neat package, or a barebones one.
:)
I think Jim Carey once said "SomeBody has to Kill the BabySitter" applies here
Sharman's been playing the "us vs. the recording industry" game way too long to try to create any impression of legitimacy now. Maybe if they'd made a concerted effort (and not just a hide behind enough legalese to cover their asses) from day one to discourage copyright infringement, they might have a shot at it.
But they didn't, and they don't. And if they had, they certainly wouldn't be in the position they were today as the household name in file "sharing".
Sharing files is not against the law...
Distributing copyrighted works is.
Sometimes... if you're not the author, if you're not a librarian or a lawyer, if the copyright is valid in your country and hasn't expired, and there's no implicit permission or explicit license... and if you do actually make copies, rather than distributing the same copyrighted work that you received...
Why do people make out that copyright is so simple as the DRM people say it it? It's a complex subject, and contains more information than you can contain in a 1-bit "copyrighted? Y/N" flag.
This text I just wrote is copyrighted. Your browser just copied it. Why? because there's implicit permission.
The same way --- more features and no spyware.
Just like the primary function of P2P networks are to allow sharing of digital content, regardless of copyright.
Umm, no other method of sharing files deals with copyright issues either. P2P isn't unique in this respect, it's the same as everything else.
Kazaa is a lot like LSD:
1. Designed by scientists in search for cure.
2. Found to be useful in getting high.
3. Agencies experimented with it to see if it's suitable for their own evil needs.
4. Although some legitimate (medical) uses were possible, it was determined to be a drug and thus declared illegal and prohibited for any use.
5. Still wanted by end users and therefore still around in pure form or in variations.
6. Variations, shall we say, vary, therefore it's very difficult to say which is original stuff and which is not.
Like it or not, but it's there and it's not getting away easily. Some publicity sure helps.
I like my outfit, it's inexpensive, but cool -- April Ryan
I'm not sure about this. My bet is that the problem is caused by ridiculous costs for media. People don't have the money to buy all they want to have.
To me, the solution is either find a way to make people loose faith in their p2p system to get copyrighted material (corrupting copyrighted files comes to my mind, and it would probably cost less than all of what they're doing right now) or offer them some really good alternatives that will make them reconsider sticking to the laws (easy ways to pay for a great low cost service of media distribution).
Just my 2 cents,
Diego Rey
diegoT
It is exactly the same argument as "guns are not made for killing people" - and both arguments are correct.
Blaming a gun for a murder is senseless and sophmoric and blaming a file distribution technology for piracy is as well. People have "warez" ftp sites where piracy occurs, does this mean ftp needs to be abolished? How about the internet in general?
It is a simple mathematical case of failing to find the common denominator. People pirate files using ftp. People pirate files using http. People pirate files using P2P. Do you see the common denominator here?
People kill with knives. People kill with vehicles. People kill with guns. People kill with clubs. Did you find the common denominator in this one?
In case you missed it - the answer is "people". If you want to stop piracy you have to make "people" stop doing it - not disable or outlaw the technology and if you want to stop murders you have to make people stop killing each other, not outlaw or abandon guns, knives, etc.
But that's not easy, is it? It's easier to abolish guns than address the *REAL* problem of dealing with people. It's a cop-out.
reminds me of a story: One night a woman is on a street corner looking for something when a man wanders up. He can see the lady's distress and asks what the problem is. The lady tells him that she lost a hundred dollar bill and is looking for it - so the man starts helping her look. After a bit of searching he asks the lady where she thinks she may have dropped it and the lady responds by pointing down the street through the darkness a block away. Puzzled, the man asks the lady why she is searching here? Pointing to the overhead streetlamp above them the lady responds "because the light is better".
We cannot, as a society, try to find the answer to problems where it is easiest to look because, quite simply, the answer simply isn't there. It is far more difficult to find the "answer" to murder is in people, the "answer" to piracy is in people. A far more daunting fix may be in order but it is the correct one. Anything else is as futile as looking for lost money in a place where the light is better.
I have used Napster,gnutella,Morpheus and Kazaa lite.Why?Not to get anything that is legitimate but copyrighted music.Not because i dont want to spend any money but because i cant get here in london what i want.
I dont have a problem if i want to listen britney boobs and company.their music is everywhere.
But good flamenco and jazz is impossible to get.most of it is simply not available anywhere.
so what am i doing ? violating the rights of the artists or am i keeping their legacy alive, some of those artists long dead.
Wanted : A Signature.
it's also not quite clear that making an exact duplicate copy, where it does not degrade the original, is "theft".
it's infringement of copyright. just like when people used to tape albums for their friends, just on a different scale.
There are no trolls. There are no trees out here.
Just because there is no central authority moderating the content on the network doesn't invalidate the 'p2p has legitimate uses' argument. In fact, I think it strengthens it. Instead of a central authority that can censor and control things that it disagrees with as well as what might be illegal, it simply can't control and lets the userbase decide was gets to be heard and seen.
Then again, we're talking about the Kazaa network, and I'm pretty sure it'd be easy enough for them to block certain filenames/CRCs/Filesizes.