IFPI 'First Wave' Sues 247 In Europe & Canada

securitas writes "AP and many others report that the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry - IFPI - has sued 247 accused file-sharers in Germany, Denmark, Italy and Canada as part of an unprecedented, coordinated attack. The IFPI represents the global recording industry through its members - national associations like the IFPIG, DRIA, FIMI, CRIA and RIAA - and says it will launch more international lawsuits in the months ahead. You may also want to read the official IFPI 'first wave' press release/related documents and a statement by the IFPI's chairman and CEO. Lots of coverage at AP/AJC, USA Today, the New York Times, Reuters/CNN Money, ZDNet/CNet, Bloomberg , netimperative and the BBC. The timing of the international legal attacks is especially interesting in light of the recent study that indicates file-sharing has a negligible impact on music sales."

Comments

Phonographic...

[Mick Ohrberg]

On first read, I thought it said Pornographic! That has got to be the only media that's probably shared more than music...

Re:Phonographic...

[tvh2k]

Heh...I read that too and was thinking "oh no...now they're cracking down on porn sharing too!" It wasn't till I RTFA that I realized the word was "phonographic". LOL!

Re:Phonographic...

[Anonymous Coward]

ehehehehe... I did too ... wow...

Re:Phonographic...

[spellraiser]

Pornographic would actually be quite appropriate, since the number of links in the post is, well, pornographic. The post might even actually have more text inside href tags than outside ...

And this on a forum where no one clicks on the links - what a waste.

Re:Phonographic...

[happyfrogcow]

ha! me too, until i read your post. doh!

Re:Phonographic...

[Ryan Amos]

Actually, the porn guys are a lot less forgiving than the record companies. They won't sue you, they'll just break your legs.

Damn my dirty mind!

[Gangis]

For a second there, I thought it was the International Federation of the Pornographic Industry. Maybe I need this little thing called a life? :-P

Re:Damn my dirty mind!

[bbrazil]

Maybe I need this little thing called a life?

You're posting on /. By definition...

Re:Damn my dirty mind!

[The I Shing]

This might be offtopic, but I'm annoyed.

I think it is really unfair for moderators to moderate the first four or five replies after the first one as "redundant" just because they all make the same observation. The fact is that people posting in /. aren't seeing real-time posts go up as they're quickly composing their replies.

Heck, I made the observation about my own misreading of the name of the organization in question, and then went on to make a point about the arguments used by that organization, and got modded redundant!

About 10% of my reply was devoted to my misreading of the name of the organization, and I even prefaced it by saying, "that happened to me too," yet my entire reply is redundant? How about reading my entire post before moderating it, okay?

Re:Damn my dirty mind!

[IWorkForMorons]

Heheh...if you think that's bad, I've been modded redundent for being the first person to post a reply. And a legitimate one at that...

What's funnier is that I'll probably get modded Off-Topic for this post...

Re:Damn my dirty mind!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, welcome to the wonderful world of moderators. The problem is that mods like this, even if they get metamoderated, won't ever lose their mod points because the average person wouldn't bother to look at the context of the comment and see that it is in fact a bad moderation.

Have you also noticed the trend that the first 5 or so replies to a story get modded down, regardless of what they say? There's a bunch of stupid mods out there who moderate down just because they _expect_ the first few posts to be offtopic, even if they aren't! (this story seems to be an exception actually)

When I get mod points I no longer moderate AC posts (unless it says something that I think should REALLY be seen), and I don't mod Funny (because the poster doesn't get any karma, but they sure as hell lose it when some mod with no sense of humor mods down).

And I'm posting AC so I don't lose karma when some mod that I'm talking about reads this and decides they don't like it.

Re:Damn my dirty mind!

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get it. The whole pornographic thing was redundant even in the first post. Nobody gives a shit about your incompetent reading skills.

Re:Damn my dirty mind!

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me? Who's the mouth breather that downmodded him? Any idiot can see that the time exactly matches the one above. Therefore one can only surmise that this person posted at almost the same time.

Re:Damn my dirty mind!

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Don't Feed the trolls.

Ignoring a Common Cause?

[The I Shing]

Same thing happened to me! When I first looked at the summary of the post, I thought it said "International Federation of the PORNOgraphic Industry"!

I was like, "Oh, no, they're suing people over sharing porn! What are we going to do?!"

All kidding aside, I'd really like to see chart showing the so-called "decline" in CD sales displayed alongside the trends in other aspects of the young person's financial life, such as increases in college tuition and the price of textbooks, the price of gasoline at the pump, and sales of designer clothes, video games, and other luxury items. I bet there are correlations all over the place.

Remember when Bart Simpson encounters the inventor of Spirograph, who glumly points out that there's a direct correlation between the decline in sales of Spirograph toys and the rise in violent crime in our nation's schools?

I think that the RIAA is using the same kind of logic... CD sales went down as P2P usage went up, therefore P2P usage caused CD sales to go down. I have this cool program on my Mac called "Fallacy Tutorial," which was made by some logic professor, and it lists this type of argument as "Ignoring a Common Cause." The RIAA and its buddies are doing what politicians have been doing for centuries. Go back and look at how Prohibition came into being in 1920, and you'll see how spurious arguments can be used over and over again until a tiny group of overly-influential people (often very wealthy to begin with) get their way.

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[Shakrai]

Go back and look at how Prohibition came into being in 1920, and you'll see how spurious arguments can be used over and over again until a tiny group of overly-influential people (often very wealthy to begin with) get their way.

Prohibition came into being because the wealthy people wanted it? I'd of figured the wealthy would have been the most opposed to it. Ya know, like the CEOs of the beer/wine/liquor companies? Overly-influential people to be sure and probably a few wealthy ones to boot but I think it's a leap of faith to assume that most (or even many) wealthy people wanted prohibition.

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[RAMMS EIN]

The point is not whether the copyright infringements cause loss of sales. The point is that copyright infringement is a crime, and the recording industry associations have the duty to find and prosecute those who commit it.

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, when file sharing got its big boom with Napster, CD sales went up about 30 percent...

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that copyright infringement is a crime, and the recording industry associations have the duty to find and prosecute those who commit it.

Since when does a collection of business owners have a duty to uphold the law and prosecute violators? Did you skip class at law school the day they taught law?

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[RCO]

Actually, the wealthy people you speak of (...like the CEOs of the beer/wine/liquor companies?) made a lot of made a lot of money on prohibition.

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[The I Shing]

Prohibition came into being because the wealthy people wanted it?

Well, of course not all the wealthy people wanted Prohibition, just the ones who were convinced that alcohol was the cause of (and not the solution to, as Homer points out) all of life's problems. I think Henry Ford is a good example.

The late self-help author Peter McWilliams wrote a wonderful book called Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, and it has a great chapter on the Prohibition movement, which the author posted online in its entirety before he died, along with all of his other books. Check it out... it's a cautionary tale whose lessons we would do well to review in our present age.

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[Shakrai]

Actually, the wealthy people you speak of (...like the CEOs of the beer/wine/liquor companies?) made a lot of made a lot of money on prohibition.

And the RIAA members would make a lot of money if they embraced the Internet and P2P. Oil companies would make a lot of money if they embraced alternative energy sources. It doesn't mean they want to. Eventually they will be forced to (as the CEOs of the liquor companies were) but it doesn't mean they won't be dragged kicking and screaming into doing it.

Nobody likes a worn out old paradigm more then big business. Nobody changes direction slower.

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[Anonymous Coward]

You get a +1, Insightful virtual point from me but also get -0.5, used the word 'paradigm'. That's still a net gain of half a point, well done!

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[MoonBuggy]

The point is that copyright infringement is a crime, and the recording industry associations have the duty to find and prosecute those who commit it. (emphasis mine)

Why? The recording industry association don't create music, the recording industry association aren't needed to get the music out to the public anymore, the recording industry don't give the settlements to the artists and finally the recording industry lobby the fines up to rediculous amounts that would bankrupt any normal person and then offer to settle displaying that they don't need the fines to be as high as they are (the average settlement is just a few percent of the original charge, if they can afford to carry on this way then the fines are disporportionate) and that they are purely extorting money since nobody can afford to risk the full fine.

If the artists submitted the songs straight to ITMS, Magnatune, Napster or a similar system they could sell them at half the price and still make a greater amount since the middlemen who take most of the profit are gone. In the past artists couldn't set up CD presses or advertise themselves, but now they just need some studio time and a website - the RIAA and co. are redundant. With this system the artists could also, quite fairly, sue copyright infringers for the value that they deprived the artist of (say $50 per song to account for repeated uploads, and force them to pay legal fees if they loose).

If there's a gaping hole in this argument feel free to point it out, but I don't see anything that the artists can't do themselves/pay for independently rather than signing their rights to the RIAA's companies.

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[RCO]

And the RIAA members would make a lot of money if they embraced the Internet and P2P.

And they probably will embrace it, right after they have made all the money they can in court. And, while they are dragging everyone through court, it gives them the time to develope their own business plan for the internet and P2P world

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[cyberbob2010]

actually - i just started college last year and am 18 years of age and I had not bought a single CD until i started dloading music. now i buy 2 or 3 per month. i know many other who do as well. this isnt caused by a bunch of immoral and uncaring teens. it is being caused by the record industry themseves and their greed and the fact that they are selling cds for as much as they are. plus the fact that they are in cahoots with the radio stations who have made concert ticket costs go from 8 bucks per show (that i used to go to) to the same bands now being in the lower 20s for tickets.

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[RAMMS EIN]

``Why? The recording industry association don't create music, the recording industry association aren't needed to get the music out to the public''

Not _needed_, but it's convenient to have someone to do distribution, marketing, etc. for you. Also, it's practically impossible for artists to detect, not to mention prosecute, every case where their music is illegally performed, distributed, etc. This is why the RIAA and its ilk exist.

The flaw in the system is that, at least in some countries, the RIAA-equivalent is the _only_ entity allowed to enforce copyrights. This allows them to charge ridiculous fees; they know the artists can't go somewhere else.

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[MoonBuggy]

it's convenient to have someone to do distribution, marketing, etc. for you

But for the sake of that convenience to some, who get multi-million dollar contracts, the others are essentially shut out and if they do get signed they get miniscule royalties. It'd be easy enough to do something like combine the iTunes store with audioscrobbler thus handling advertising and distribution, with the added bonus of lowering prices and increasing profits to the artists.

I didn't think of how hard the legal issues would be to follow up for the individuals without the industry, but do they really get much benefit from the RIAA suits anyway? If not then why would them not chasing every last illegal copy result in less money?

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[Anonymous Coward]

CD sales dropped after P2P usage went up.

Therefore CD sales dropping was caused by P2P usage.

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc"

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[baudilus]

Good argument. Personally, I think there is a direct correlation between the decline of record sales and the quality of the artists on the big record labels that constitute the RIAA. Personally, I think record sales would go back up if they stop distributing crap. I think it all started with the Britney / Boy Band era where several "cookie-cutter" artists appeared. There is no more originality; nearly all popular artists today sample from a time when music was music. It's such a shame.

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that copyright infringement is a crime

Crimes are prosecuted by the state, when one private party brings a case against another it is under CIVIL NOT CRIMINAL LAW! For a company to bring a case against an individual with the backing of the government would be... what national socialism? Admire the way I avoided Godwins law ;)

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[SillyNickName4me]

The gaping hole?

Wether you agree or not, there is a whole bunch of artists who deal with record companies that are part of the RIAA.

While I agree that those artists have better means of distribution available now, the consumer can still not force them to use those, and implying that refusal to use other means of distribution somehow legitimizes copying without proper license is imho not right.

Compensating for the music industry 'stealing' your money by means of levies and taxes is another thing.

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is called "Correlation not causation" and it is a major fallacy. Just because A is correlated with B doesn't mean that A caused B. Not only is the RIAA and the rest of their ilk making seriously flawed judgements about this, they are ignoring any other potential cause in favor of blaming the more convenient and profitable avenue, P2P applications.

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[Shakrai]

what national socialism? Admire the way I avoided Godwins law ;)

The problem is that most /.'ers probably won't know enough about history to know what National Socialism is -- until you pointed out Godwins law anyway. Then they'll go "Oh yeah! Nazis!"

I admire both the way you avoided Godwin's Law and the way you used it to convey your point ;)

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[krunk7]

Ummmmm, one word: Advertising

Do you really think 'artists' like Christina Aguilera, Brittany Spears, or NSYNC would have gotten anywhere without a multi-billion dollar industry telling millions of kids how "super cool" they were in between Cheerio Ads on Saturday T.V.?

I love music, but I feel much of the popular music today neither demonstrates talent or uniqueness (case in point is the 'boy-band recipe for success....there's one every generation now). I encourage EVERYONE to use p2p and mail the artists $2 dollars for every album you download (2x the amount they would get otherwise). Hopefully this will eventually bankrupt the mega-advertising industry that that the RIAA really is. That way artists will again have to make it on their own merrit.

That it is illegal doesn't impress me, legality != morality!!

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[NineNine]

That's also how the US government "justifies" their argument that marijuana is bad. They say that most criminals tend to smoke pot. What they fail to mention is that most people smoke pot, so it's inevitable that most criminals smoke pot, too. Also, that thing about pot being a "gateway drug" because hard core drug users smoke pot. Again, complete and utter bullshit (I mean, I'm sure it's true, but the "logic" is bullshit)

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[SillyNickName4me]

In fact, it shows the idiocy of how godwins law is used. Calling someone nazi is entirely different from refering to a historical fact. Godwins law should definitely not apply in the later case unless you argue for suppressing information about, and references to a rather nasty but very important little bit of our history.

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[the_mad_poster]

And the RIAA members would make a lot of money if they embraced the Internet and P2P.

And, I suppose you have plenty of market research in your dresser drawer to back that statement up, right? Oh, wait. Of course not. This is Slashdot. What a stupid thing to say. I forgot that we're full of marketing/investment/legal geniuses who all happen to know just what would be best for all these companies that don't know those things themselves.

You know, call me crazy, but I'd say that the statement above is just as intelligent as the statements from the RIAA saying p2p is the cause of their woes. Hmmm.... Slashdotter presents a wild postulate with no rhyme or reason? +5 Insightful (though, I note that at this very moment you, in particular, haven't been modded up thankfully). RIAA spokesman presents some wild postulate with no rhyme or reason, Slashdot screams about how illogical and fallacious it is.

In other news, did I happen to mention that I could run this country better than anybody else anywhere just because I said so on Slashdot just now?

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[The I Shing]

I mentioned this elsewhere... if you haven't seen Peter McWilliams' book Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, it's a great read, and available to read online for free, in its entirety, at his website. There are chapters upon chapters about gambling, drugs, and other consensual crimes, and how they came to be crimes. I read the book way, way back when it came out in print ten years ago, and I've never been the same since.

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow.. you both reached Score:2.

Be proud.

Wankers.

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the artists submitted the songs straight to ITMS, Magnatune, Napster or a similar system they could sell them at half the price and still make a greater amount since the middlemen who take most of the profit are gone.

I did a little research recently. Anybody know how much a copy of a song officially costs, according to the government? Anybody know how much a royalty for making a copy of a song is?

6.25 cents American.

If Apple's only breaking even at around a dollar a song, you have to wonder where the rest of the money is going.

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[BlueStrat]

A copy of my post re: "MP3 Sharing Not Serious Threat To CD Sales"

"I think what the RIAA is really scared of is the fact that P2P distribution might allow an artist to gain fame and make money without going through the "major label system""

Being a musician (blues guitarist here) myself, I can see the logic to this argument. I've known a couple of bands/artists that had high hopes when they got "signed", only to have their work "deep-sixed" because the label saw their work as possibly taking away from one or more of their "cash-cow", heavily-promoted and marketed artists. I think the real way out here is independent online marketing and sales by the artists themselves, marketing through P2P, and sales through an online service like Taxi or mp3.com. After several decades (I'm 46) of watching the labels screw artists, they couldn't pay me enough to sign with them. Granted, I might not ever get a grammy or a gold/platinum record, but at least I'll have more control of what gets released and when, and a larger chunk of whatever money is made. Plus, it might get a few more butts filling seats at gigs, which is what I live for anyway (there just isn't _anything_ like the feeling of connecting with a live audience, and riding that energy!).

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[ratamacue]

not all the wealthy people wanted Prohibition

Just the ones who stood to gain from it: those in power (government), or those with close connections to those in power. Alcohol prohibition, like drug prohibition, is a very efficient way to expand the scope, cost, and power of government -- and that's exactly what it accomplished. Not only does prohibition itself require increased costs and power over the people, the widespread crime which naturally results from prohibition (when's the last time anybody was murdered over coffee?) provides "justification" for even more government. And of course, the fact that it doesn't work provides "justification" for even more expensive prohibitionist policies.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but nobody can dispute the fact that government stands to gain from prohibition.

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[pipingguy]

I don't see anything that the artists can't do themselves/pay for independently

Publicity via the MegaMarketingMachine.

Re:Ignoring a Common Cause?

[perlchild]

Since the RIAA did buy the trademarks, copyrights, and signed up the artists with contracts under which the artists no longer directly collect those rights, it's the RIAA's member companies job(and as a consortium, they can gang up) to defend the rights they bought. Whether such rights should be buyable is irrelevant. Whether such rights being bought is against the public's interest is also irrelevant, since the public isn't censoring politicians strongly enough when politicians attack those interests.

On another note, that the artists no longer have any incentive to sign those rights away in future contracts(and they shouldn't IMHO) doesn't exonerate the record companies from having to defend those rights, and record execs could be sued for not respecting fiduciary duties to their shareholders for not defending rights they bought rigorously enough. That those companies hide behind the RIAA to do its dirty work shows just how the thing works(using AOL-TimeWarner as an example):
-AOLTW's copyrights are threatened, AOLTW gets the RIAA to sue, RIAA wins suit, demands 1 million from a college student, RIAA is the bad guy. AOLTW doesn't get boycotted for attacking a college student.

I agree with you that a direct-artist system would be more efficient, for the artists and the public, and we wouldn't NEED records anymore, we could just burn them ourselves. But that system is far in the future, with copyright terms being extended, etc... it keeps getting further and further away(that could just be part of the RIAA's plan: they've been obsolete for about 2-3 years already, but they managed to legislate themselves a grace period).
An artist that signed a record label could be sued for submitting directly to ITMS, by the way, breach of a contract's exclusive clause.
Paranoid people from outside of the U.S. might just say that the proportion of record labels from the US vs the proportion of artists from there means the current system protects US interests(it siphons money inside the USA, away from the artists) and that's why the RIAA has such clout, not only is it a huge industry, but it's a net importer of money for the USA.

--
The world needs more independant artists and less corporate ones

Pornographic!

[Anonymous Coward]

I could expect a lot of filesharers to really get scared if it was Pornographic, my interpretation :D

Jose Padilla

[Anonymous Coward]

Jose Padilla - good Americans say "who?"

Just wait till term 2 starts. You people will get the mother of all wake up calls.

To bad it will be to late to do anything about it.

I don't share.

Re:Jose Padilla

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you, you mexijewniggerwetbackdagowophonkychink

Ye gods...

[fbjon]

... am I the only one who first misread:

"...the International Federation of the Pornographic Industry - IFPI - has sued 247 accused file-sharers in Germany..."

Maybe I just don't understand it...

[GearType2]

but does this mean in the entire area they can cover, they only found enough proof to accuse 247 of them? I'm sure more are to come, but why not just file suit against more? also, yes, I thought it said pornographic...

Re:Maybe I just don't understand it...

[Maestro4k]

• but does this mean in the entire area they can cover, they only found enough proof to accuse 247 of them? I'm sure more are to come, but why not just file suit against more? also, yes, I thought it said pornographic...

Well realistically they probably can't afford to file suit against all the thousand (perhaps millions) online sharing music at any given time. Even if they could financially (and what am I saying, they probably can), logistically coordinating it would be a nightmare.

In the real world one would expect those 247 sued to be the biggest sharers they could find, but history (RIAA suits last year into this year) have taught us that the recording industry doesn't seem to share our reality. I will not be surprised if the IFPI finds itself in the same quagmire that the RIAA did. It'll be quite amusing if it's worse and over half the sharers are little kids or grandparents whose grandkids put the software on their computer without them knowing. Now that'd be a public relations nightmare! (Not that the IFPI and/or RIAA seem to care what anyone thinks of them anymore though.)

Re:Maybe I just don't understand it...

[JaredOfEuropa]

In the real world one would expect those 247 sued to be the biggest sharers they could find...

Of course not! They aren't really out to get all the file-sharers... they probably realise that that's a battle they cannot hope to win. What they can do is scare as many ordinary people as they can to stop them from becoming file-sharers or even downloaders. They do this by convincing them that it is a crime and that they will prosecute even the smallest file-sharer.

It's common terrorist tactics: make people believe that no place is safe. By the same token, if I were a terrorist I would make my next target not New York, not Madrid, not London and not Amsterdam, but some crowded place in a piss-ant little town somewhere in a stable but otherwise uninteresting European country. If you're terrorising people, the last thing you want is to suggest that you'll only go after the big fish.

Someone clue me in here...

[oldosadmin]

How can they sue file sharers in Canada? I thought they had a media tax to make it legal to share files?

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[I confirm I'm not a]

I think the tax only applies to copying onto CD for personal use.

Disclaimer: not Canadian, not a resident of Canada.

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[Anonymous Coward]

even though you're trolling I will respond:

Yes, you can legally trade to other Canadians. You cannot legally trade to those outside of the taxes' jurisdiction.

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Media tax doesnt make it legal to share with anyone and his mother. It makes it legal to make some copies for personal use and for friends.

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[BabyDave]

I think the tax only "allows you" (in some sense - I don't know the details) to download files, not to share them yourself.

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[Jameth]

Nononono!

They have a media tax to fuck people over. All it really does is puts money in the pockets of a corporation.

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[Zweistein_42]

You can legally _download_ music in Canada - it is covered by the levies we pay on the media (yay!:). You cannot legally _upload_ (i.e. share) music, as that makes you a "distributor" (and thus not covered under any form of personal use). It's the same reason why it is legal (in Canada) for me to borrow your CD and make a copy of it... but NOT for you to copy your CD and give me the copy. Same end result of course, but in first case, I'm copying for my personal use - in the second case, you are distributing something you don't have a right to distribute. IANAL, but I've followed Canadian copyright law for a while - the particular statute is reasonably clear once you understand the distinction between personal use (copying for myself) and distributing (copying or making available to others)

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[Mordaximus]

It is illegal to distribute copyrighted materials. You Can download an mp3, you cannot share an mp3 (Distribution).

You can make a personal copy of a CD, you cannot make a copy for someone else (Distribution)

Assume that when they say they are suing file sharers, that they are after those who make the files available...

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[ezh]

You can legally _download_ music in Canada - it is covered by the levies we pay on the media (yay!:). You cannot legally _upload_ (i.e. share) music, as that makes you a "distributor" (and thus not covered under any form of personal use). blah-blah...

Now there is a question: since almost all the modern p2p file sharing makes you an uploader as well as downloader, e.g. KaZaA, *Mule, DC++, Gnutella2, etc... would that make you liable even if you only "download"?

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[PhilippeT]

You Sir hit the nail on the head...

Only problem is are those that do not know they are "sharing" still liable... ie those that serve up 1000000 of songs and download almost none are guilty as sin.

But lets say someone that is very computer iliterate uses Kazaa or something else, and they unknowngly share out a file they downloaded. Does that still cauze them to be guilty as sin.

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[AndroidCat]

Just because they got a media tax (called a levy), doesn't mean that they agreed that copying was legal. It just meant that they couldn't track or enforce anything on people burning CD copies for each other.

It didn't require Nostradamus to predict this First Wave.

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[Anonymous Coward]

In all the software I've used, you get to pick which folders you want to share for uploading. If you don't select any, you are not a distributer, just a leech.

Just the other day, my roommate wanted to give me a soundtrack for a game that he owns. So he copied all the mp3's, called me over, and told me to hit 'paste' into my folder. That way, it was me downloading them, and he didn't give them to me :P

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is exactly what is being discussed in our court system with regard to having ISP's give out personal info of file swappers. The argument from the ISP's seems to be that just because you leave a file in a shared folder, it does not mean that you uploaded it (same view as, just because I have music files in a folder called "burn to CD", doesn't mean that I ever did). And in fact, since the upload is initiated at the "other" end, that you in fact never clicked an "upload this" button, you are not actually an "uploader". We will have to wait and see what the courts say.

The funny part of this, is that the Canadian version of the RIAA, in its infinite wisdom and greed, by pushing the "media tax" may have screwed themselves out of any ability to sue, since the tax was put in place to compensate their artists for the copies that were/are being made. So far the courts seem to be taking the view that you can not have your cake (get the tax)and eat it too (sue people for doing the exact thing that the proceeds of the tax compensate you for). Lets hope that the Canadian courts give these litigious bastards a resounding "fuck off, eh".

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[freeweed]

All it really does is puts money in the pockets of a corporation.

You mispelled "Federal Government".

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[Zweistein_42]

The levy itself doesn't make copying legal; however, the levy and the copyright clause that does, go hand in hand - one couldn't exist without another.
In US and most other countries, there is virtually no levy, and copying (for the purposes of this discussion) is illegal.
In Canada, there is a levy, and personal use copies are legal

... while there are those who will complain against anything without second thought, I personally believe Canadian system has more benefits then disadvantages. The levy imposed is minor compared to the convenience of trying out music before you decide who and how to renumerate (which I still highly encourage).

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[strike2867]

Pleast do not say litigious bastards without the word SCO anywhere near it. It may decrease our google standings.

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[Dexx]

They can't, yet.

It's an older story - for recent updates, hit google or check www.canfli.org which seems to be keeping on top of things.

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[AndroidCat]

In Canada, there is a levy, and personal use copies are legal

For fuzzy values of legal. The language of the actual law was kept vague for political reasons. Personal copying is legal. Copying for others .. while it's true that if you pass your original to friends, they can make a backup copy for themselves and be legal by part of the law, that's "gaming the system". CRIA can't sue for something that can't be enforced--so they got a levy (which is a tax that they don't want to call a tax). How legal copying is will depend on interpretation by bureaucrats and court cases. As usual.

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[mdielmann]

Hmm, this is interesting. In the US, you're sued for DOWNloading music, and in Canada you're sued for UPloading music. Clearly, you should locate your ssh server for uploading in the US, and your ssh server for downloading in Canada...looks like it could be advantageous having buddies on opposite sides of the border, and doing file transfers between them in a less-observable manner than P2P...

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[Zweistein_42]

For fuzzy values of legal. The language of the actual law was kept vague for political reasons.

Actually, the legal values are not that fuzzy. However, most Canadians don't believe their luck (sounds too good to be true:), so by all means check out the actual Copyright law, Part VIII - Private Copying.
The particular clause/statute/statement (IANAL:) is #80.

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

Not that fuzzy... copying for others is illegal - copying for yourself is legal.

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[Zweistein_42]

In US it is illegal to both download and upload. RIAA promised that it would go after the uploaders only - but we all know how that ended;).
In short, filesharing in general is not safe in US.

In Canada, arguably, downloading is OK, Uploading (distributing) still isn't. As such, there would be no real advantage for setting up any servers in US - if you're really that concerned, and have capability to place servers where you want to... may I suggest Cayman islands? :>

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[Ozric]

It is not illegal to share your "backup" mp3's. If they are yours. The person dowloading it the one who is breaking copyright, now it could depend on where you share your "backups". If there are warnings about downloading copyrighted material where your files are. I really don't see how they could blame you. After all you might need access to your files when you are away.

The whole thing is just silly. If they dont want people to have the music then dont put it out.

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[AndroidCat]

Only until someone decides that 80 (2)(b) covers the intent of passing all those CDs around and copying them, and gets a court to agree with them. It's not exactly legal, just unenforcable. Give them a situation where they can enforce it, and I know which way I'd bet. (Because it's happened before in previous situations.)

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is questionable for you to download music in Canada because the copyright extension only allows for copying from an original source. If someone ripped a song to mp3, it's questionable for someone else to download the mp3. It may be legal if you download from the original CD.

This new given right doesn't come without cost, and is questionable because downloaders don't get sued, only uploaders. This is a huge cost to freedom as well as monetary cost. You no longer have the freedom to use your levied medium without paying the music cartels for non-musical use, and you have no vote as to which artist gets the money, and so on. Next, the more the music cartels can prove of copying through these medium, they will have better chances at raising the rates and add new medium and devices to the list.

The music cartels' logic is the higher the sales of these medium, the more copying of their music go on. Basically, with discarding their downed sale figures, all they have to prove to increase rates and add new technology is show increasing sales of blank recordable medium and devices.

Solution? Boycott these cartels (stop sharing and stop buying) and support Free alternatives. If they have nothing against you, they'll have no case. They can try, but it won't be easy.

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[Dexx]

Quick update - they can't - not enough evidence so no court orders. This means ISP's are not required to provide the usernames of the customers.

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[Zweistein_42]

It is questionable for you to download music in Canada because the copyright extension only allows for copying from an original source.

This is incorrect, and in fact the Copyright Board of Canada has specifically clarified that it is only concerned whether a copy of musical audio work is made for personal copy or not. The source is actually irrelevant. (I posted a link in another post in this discussion if you'd like to check the source:))

As to your assertion that this levy is an attack on freedom, it is debatable. More importantly, while it is an imperfect system, it is (I believe) better then what US has. Public has as much choice in which artist gets $$$ and how much as it ever does - and in fact, the same metric is used (50% sales figures, 50% charts/requests I believe). Regular CD-Rs have much lower levy then designated Audio-CD-Rs (or cassete tapes etc). Meanwhile, for a bargain price, we get much more freedom. If you believe the price itself to be unfair, Copyright Board Canada is taking comments for considerations, and the levies are revised every 1-2 years (all this was found out in this morning's research - it's not that hard:)

Solution? Boycott these cartels (stop sharing and stop buying) and support Free alternatives.

I am not sure which "free alternatives" you propose (are we still talking music?). I can only get Sultans of Swing (my favourite song) from Dire Straits - any other alternative would be illegal or imperfect or both :->>>

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[salemnic]

Actually, in a ruling today, looks like Canadians can upload and download music legally.

If you read the article, there is a quote from the Justice stating that he sees no difference between placing files in a shared folder and placing a photocopier in the middle of a Library (for the possibilties of making copies of copyrighted materials)

s

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny this came up today, apparently the Canadian courts just ruled on this very topic, here is the good stuff

As part of his ruling, the judge found that simply downloading a song or having a file available on peer-to-peer software such as Kazaa doesn't constitute copyright infringement.

"The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution," Justice von Finckenstein said.

"Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying."



So that would be a very polite, "uh fuck off, eh"

Canada rules!

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[Dashing Leech]

That's quite interesting, because the photocopier could be used for illegal use. Since downloading is legal in Canada, placing them in the shared folder cannot be used for illegal purposes. It was the act of placing them in the shared folder that was illegal.

I understood this ruling was that names didn't have to be given out by ISPs, but I didn't realize the judge basically said sharing was (effectively) legal. Very interesting.

Re:Someone clue me in here...

[Anonymous Coward]

>> All it really does is puts money in the pockets of a corporation.
> You mispelled "Federal Government".

]t's the same thing -- too lazy to dig the links up.

One question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you have to dust that off before you used it? Or do you keep you old jokes filed away in vacuum sealed bags?

Re:Huh?

[johnlcallaway]

Everybody so far......including me.

Unprecendented Coordinated Attack!

[bcolflesh]

Damn those dirty Islamic extremists... oh wait, these are the good xtian terrorists - never mind.

Re:Unprecendented Coordinated Attack!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Muslim extremist who's dad was killed by your friend's mom - motherfucking christian dumbass.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

WHAT? PHONOgraphic? Damn. And I just deleted all my porn. :/

Re:Why now

[andy666]

No wait, i can do this too - I heard that it is for the same reason that the space shuttle wheels are the same distance from each other as on Roman carts...

Can you give some references ? Geez this kinda stuff doensn't add to the discussion at all. You just want to be modded up.

Isn't it unfair...

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it unfair that Western Europe and the U.S. (Canada included ;-) ) have to support the entire worlds intellectual property industry? I mean, from pharmacueticals to CD's we have to bear the brunt of the cost burden that undoubtably would be reduced if these companies went after real pirates, ie. those with factories in 3rd world nations selling generic's and pressed/packaged digital media packages? Just seems unfair to me.

Re:Isn't it unfair...

[Shakrai]

Isn't it unfair that Western Europe and the U.S. (Canada included ;-) ) have to support the entire worlds intellectual property industry? I mean, from pharmacueticals to CD's we have to bear the brunt of the cost burden that undoubtably would be reduced if these companies went after real pirates, ie. those with factories in 3rd world nations selling generic's and pressed/packaged digital media packages? Just seems unfair to me.

Why would they go after third-world pirates? Those guys are just increasing market-share when they would otherwise presumably be buying from local media/software vendors. Why would they want them doing that?

But you can bet your ass they'll go after us -- we don't have any other sources to buy their product from so why not? Whatever other sources we might have had they took away with the product design (DVD region codes) or DCMA.

Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't share copyrighted files. Why is that so fucking difficult?

File stealing?

[kryptkpr]

"This is our first co-ordinated effort to take this campaign over the range of countries where file stealing is a problem," said Allen Dixon, IFPI's general counsel and executive director.

Maybe I was asleep, but since when did copyright infringements become known as "file stealing"!?

These cartels have had it too good for too long.. they're trying to sell us both media, and a license, then claim the license is non-transferrable and the media is non-replaceable.

In effect, you're being sold a hunk of plastic along with a very limited set of rights as to what you can do with your hunk of plastic. This business model is now crumbling thanks to the Internet, and I say good riddance to them and their Executive Directors.. go back to the dirty holes you crawled out from, and make room for real musicians, that make music for the love of it.. they've have no trouble embracing the 'net as a distribution mechanism.

Re:File stealing?

[Shakrai]

Maybe I was asleep, but since when did copyright infringements become known as "file stealing"!?

It's the same reason Fox News and the Israelis call Palestinian bombers "homicide bombers" instead of the more accepted term "suicide bomber". It's the same reason SCO releases all of their crap. FUD. It's all about the FUD and the marketing with these people. If they can change the mind of John Q. Public they've won -- it doesn't really matter what us geeks think.

Of course I don't know how you win over the hearts and minds of John Q. Public by suing 12 year old schoolgirls either -- but I'm sure RIAA has people working on ways to spin that in a positive way.

(Disclaimer: I'm not trolling or trying to start an offtopic discussion about Middle Eastern politics -- just the first example that popped into my head)

Re:File stealing?

[JaredOfEuropa]

go back to the dirty holes you crawled out from, and make room for real musicians, that make music for the love of it.

Just stop buying from the big evil labels... but don't download their music either. It's not like there's a lot of worthwhile stuff there ;-) There's plenty of independently-distributed and affordable music around, that earn the musicians a reasonable cut off the sales price, instead of the pittance they would have gotten from the big labels.

By the way, I have no problem with musicians becoming filthy rich from selling records. I do have a problem with these middlemen who have become filthy rich on the backs of musicians, and are now struggling to retain their slipping stranglehold on the industry.

Re:File stealing?

[Shakrai]

Does Israel do that too? I thought it was just a Fox News affectation.

The right-wing Israeli press uses it -- as do some of their politicans. It's probably not as mainstream over there as it is here though (if you can call Fox News mainstream).

Re:File stealing?

[Dana P'Simer]

"This is our first co-ordinated effort to take this campaign over the range of countries where file stealing is a problem," said Allen Dixon, IFPI's general counsel and executive director.

Maybe I was asleep, but since when did copyright infringements become known as "file stealing"!?

Based on the current copyright laws any "copy" that you make, not matter what form it takes, is still covered under the copyright and therefore the property of the copyright holder. You might have a license to make a copy for personal use but you do not own the file that you copied it into. Therefore it is "file stealing".

These cartels have had it too good for too long.. they're trying to sell us both media, and a license, then claim the license is non-transferrable and the media is non-replaceable. In effect, you're being sold a hunk of plastic along with a very limited set of rights as to what you can do with your hunk of plastic.

While the "hunk of plastic" is certainly part of the COGS for a CD the purchase price is really just you license fee for being able to listen to the music. The media is replaceable if you copy the data to a back up CD before it is destroyed. The priciples of fair use definately give you the right to backup the licensed content.

This business model is now crumbling thanks to the Internet, and I say good riddance to them and their Executive Directors.. go back to the dirty holes you crawled out from, and make room for real musicians, that make music for the love of it.. they've have no trouble embracing the 'net as a distribution mechanism.

Even some of the "real" musicians that make music for the love of it want get paid for it. The only way for them to do so is to have some sort of control over the content. That control can be expressed in law or in restrictions in the media itself. The former is punative and latter preventative. Which would you choose? Let them violate your rights and catch them later or don't let them violate your rights in the first place. Attempting to maintain control over their IP is an obvious action to take.

You might be right that the industry is changing and that the record companies will be going by the wayside. If that makes you happy, fine. But that does not give anyone the right to steal IP from people who own it.

Since I am a software engineer I like to draw examples from the Open Source movement. Some of the same people that act like stealing music is justified because of the "evil" record company's behavior would probably vehmently argue for the defense of the GPL were it to be violated. The GPL is strong because copyright law is strong, any errosion of the copyright law in the music industry will affect the GPL as well.

We can't have it both ways, either IP is protected or it is not.

Re:File stealing?

[Dana P'Simer]

It's the same reason Fox News and the Israelis call Palestinian bombers "homicide bombers" instead of the more accepted term "suicide bomber".

This is totally off topic, but in what twisted reality is it considered more acceptable to give these murderers some kind of credit by calling them "suicide bomber" instead of "homicide bomber"? I say call things what they are. The people are murderers, so call them that. The people who "file share" are thieves, so call them that.

Re:File stealing?

[radish]

*yawn* first off people who swap files are not thieves. Go look up the definition in a dictionary - to "steal" something is to deprive it's owner of their right to use it, i.e. to take it away. Whilst someone downloading an mp3 is infringing copyright, which is illegal, they are not depriving anyone of the use of it (as it's a copy, not the original) and thus, they are not stealing it. If they are not stealing, they are not a thief. QED.

As for your other example, most bombers set out to kill people. It's what they do. So calling someone a "homicide bomber" is pretty redundant. However, a small subset of bombers set out to intentionally kill themselves too, rather than only their victims. This, in the english language, is called suicide. Thus, one can usefully distinguish those who seek to kill others and then escape to kill again from those who seek to kill and be killed in an act of (perceived) martyrdom by using the term "suicide bomber". Use of that term gives us, the reader, more information than if it were not used. It is, therefore, a useful thing.

Re:File stealing?

[SillyNickName4me]

> This is totally off topic,

I don't think arguing for use of proper words is that much off topic here ;P

> but in what twisted reality is it considered more acceptable to give these murderers some kind of credit by calling them "suicide bomber" instead of "homicide bomber"? I say call things what they are. The people are murderers, so call them that.

Calling them homicide or suicide bombers doesn't matter for that, in both case they blow up stuff and very likely kill people.

Why do you insist on using a word that is specifically meant to play on the emotions of the listener? You were asking to call things what they are, so try to be a bit objective then in how you describe them and instead of forcing your personal opinion on peopel, present facts and let them make up their mind.

You are entitled to your opnion and expressing it, just don't try to present it as fact because it is not fact.

> The people who "file share" are thieves, so call them that.

Same problem all over.
1. distributing copyrighted works is not stealing. If you think differently, turn up the exact law text that makes this into stealing, but till you do, it is NOT stealing. copyright law calls it infringement, and that is what it is.

So... maybe stuick to your own advise and call things what they are instead of trying to use words specifically meant to call on the emotions of the listener that happen to be desirable to you.

What you are doing here is a well known propaganda technique btw, it works for a little while..

Re:File stealing?

[aastanna]

Based on the current copyright laws any "copy" that you make, not matter what form it takes, is still covered under the copyright and therefore the property of the copyright holder. You might have a license to make a copy for personal use but you do not own the file that you copied it into. Therefore it is "file stealing".

OK, your logic doesn't follow. If the copy that you make is still covered by the copyright and therefore property of the copyright holder then all you are doing by making copies is increasing the property of the copyright holder. Therefore, it's the opposite of stealing, since instead of removing property from the owner (copyright holder), you are giving the owner more property. Therefore it is "file copying".

Re:File stealing?

[squarooticus]

It's the same reason Fox News and the Israelis call Palestinian bombers "homicide bombers" instead of the more accepted term "suicide bomber".

This has always irritated me about Fox News. I find Fox's conservative bias a refreshing alternative to CNN's liberal bias, but this one thing really irks me. The precise property of suicide bombers that makes them so unique is the fact that they kill themselves in addition to their targets. Fundamentally, all bombers are homicide bombers: the "homicide" modifier is redundant, and insufficient to describe these people.

Re:File stealing?

[jez9999]

people who swap files are not thieves. Go look up the definition in a dictionary - to "steal" something is to deprive it's owner of their right to use it, i.e. to take it away.

I hate to say it, but the word 'theft' *IS* appropriate to describe the unlawful downloading of music. I think it's about time this debate was settled once and for all. My dictionary (Collins) definition of 'theft' is 'the act or an instance of stealing'. So then we have to look at the definition of 'stealing'. Although the #1 definition of stealing isn't appropriate for downloading music - 'taking something from someone unlawfully' implies a physical loss for the original owner - the #2 definition is: 'to use (someone else's ideas or work) without acknowledgment'. eg. To play an artist's music without paying for its use.

I think you'll find dictionary.com & other dictionaries say pretty much the same thing. Illegal music downloading *can* be accurately called theft.

Re:File stealing?

[jez9999]

distributing copyrighted works is not stealing.

Perhaps not in legalese, but in casual English, it's an appropriate label. Look at my above post to see why. You can't assume people are always using the 'legal' definition of a word... the RIAA can easily call illegal file sharers 'stealers' and be using the term in plain old English.

Re:File stealing?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The people who "file share" are thieves"

You can't steal music. Impossible.

Re:File stealing?

[saforrest]

This is totally off topic, but in what twisted reality is it considered more acceptable to give these murderers some kind of credit by calling them "suicide bomber" instead of "homicide bomber"?

We want to choose words which convey precise meanings when this precision is desired by our audience.

"Murderer" doesn't cut it, because it doesn't distinguish a Palestianian with explosives strapped to his chest boarding an Israeli bus from Charles Manson. And I think this is an important distinction.

"Homicide bomber" doesn't cut either, because you can be a homicide bomber without blowing yourself up.

"Suicide bomber" does the job.

The fact that a suicide bomber is willing to kill himself as well as is targets is a very important and very relevant fact, simply because the human desire for self-preservation is very strong.

Obviously this distinction is important to most people reading the news, too, because otherwise the term 'suicide bomber' would never have been invented.

Re:File stealing?

[SillyNickName4me]

As many before me have pointed out, go check a dictionary on that. You cannot be stealing when you do not deprive someone of something.

In casual English, this action is called copying, not stealing.

If you want to poitn at the fact that it is illegal, then illegal copyign is entirely clear and proper English.

Why I object so strongly to using the word stealing?

First of all, it is simply not proper English to call ti stealing, that is not a matter of legal definitions.

Second, the word stealing is used on purpose to call on emotion instead of reason. Understandable that RIAA and friends try that, but don't make the mistake to believe that that makes the term correct in any way.

Re:File stealing?

[kryptkpr]

It may be technically correct, but when someone mentions the word 'theft', it's the #1 meaning, and NOT the #2 meaning, that comes to the front of most people's minds..

This is exactly what the purpose of the RIAA's FUD is.. They want to make it seem like we're taking the food directly out of the mouths of starving artists by downloading an MP3; where what we're doing is as the definition states, "using" their work without acknowledgement (in the form of monetary compensation).. However, it can be argued that the added publicity of having your music out there is an acknowledgement in and of itself, which would make downloading not theft.

Re:File stealing?

[Znork]

"Based on the current copyright laws any "copy" that you make, not matter what form it takes, is still covered under the copyright and therefore the property of the copyright holder."

No, not even close. The copy is not in any way or form the property of the copyright holder, nor is the original.

The limited right of being the only one allowed to grant permission for copying is what is infringed.

The sale of copyrighted material is in not in itself a licensing of rights. While software companies attempt to enforce such a 'licensing', that is done through contracts that may, or may not, be enforcable depending on your local laws. CD's, music, or books are (most commonly) not sold with an attached license.

"But that does not give anyone the right to steal IP from people who own it."

It is not 'theft' any more than someone camping on your lawn without permission is 'theft'. It's not legal, but it's a violation of a government granted temporary limited right to control copying, not theft.

"Some of the same people that act like stealing music is justified because of the "evil" record company's behavior would probably vehmently argue for the defense of the GPL were it to be violated."

It's not theft.

Even so, there's quite a difference between people making personal copies (of GPL software or music) and mass copying for profit in violation of someones copyright, which makes it possible to argue both sides with consistent logic. I dont think you'll find many people arguing that mass copying copyrighted material and selling it without permission should be legal.

The GPL violations that cause vehement arguing fall into the category of mass violations for profit. That would be comparable with someone setting up their own distribution chain and selling CD's with material they havent been granted permission to copy.

If someone gets caught sharing GPL software on Kazaa or DirectConnect, I think you'll find the level of outrage to be quite mellow.

Re:File stealing?

[iminplaya]

Is strong copyright going to force Microsoft to open up their files to see if it contains GPL code? There could be tons in there, and we'll never know. It does seem that copyright law IS being used to force users, ISP's, etc. to open up THEIR files. We only need GPL to counter the inequities the copyright law. Copyright law should only involve the creators and the public. Anything else is industry "featherbedding". Being a software engineer, maybe you should follow the Microsoft/Adobe/AutoCAD method. Let 'em bootleg your product until it becomes a standard and nobody can live without it. Then TA DA... Product activation! Then watch sales plummet as the OSS community scrambles to create an alternative.:-)

Re:File stealing?

[guiscard]

At this point they're going after the ones putting the music online, who presumably bought and ripped it, for illegal distribution (and thus copyright infringement).

Whether 'theft' is the right word or not for ptp, it seems to me to refer to downloaders (who they're not going after yet), not the ones putting files on servers.

Re:File stealing?

[jez9999]

However, it can be argued that the added publicity of having your music out there is an acknowledgement in and of itself, which would make downloading not theft.

Mmm... I think that 'acknowledgement', used in that context, really is what the original creator of the work requires acknowledgement to be, so you can't say it's anything other than payment. I fully accept your first point, though. So, I suggest the 'music downloading isn't theft' brigade on Slashdot slightly change their mantra to 'music downloading isn't as cardinal a sin as the RIAA make it out to be' :-)

Re:File stealing?

[Anonymous Coward]

As many before me have pointed out, go check a dictionary on that. You cannot be stealing when you do not deprive someone of something.

1000 screaming slashmonkeys can't be wrong ? Oh yes, they can. Tell me something: in "identity theft", do you still have your identity ? In "theft of services", is the service still there ? There is some confusion, because legal definitions explicitly state that property must be removen for it to be considered theft -- in the sense of that definition. But it could well be (and in fact is) theft in other common language definitions even if it doesn't involve removal of tangible property.

Second, the word stealing is used on purpose to call on emotion instead of reason.

Like "sharing" "information" ?

Re:File stealing?

[SillyNickName4me]

Identity theft, you are deprived of the uniqueness of your identity and the trust that people may put into it.

In case of illegal copying, recordign companies are also deprived of soemthign at times, they are deprived of the exclusiveness granted by copyright. while the illegal copy is being made.

It could be correct to talk about copyright theft along the same lines of identity theft, but that is not the meaning that is implied with stealing when the recording industry is using that word.

Last but not least, you agree it is used for emotional and not reasonal arguments, so why do you yourself go on using it like that? THat is clouding any decent discussion about the subject, and makes your opinion suspect beforehand.

Re:File stealing?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's the same reason Fox News and the Israelis call Palestinian bombers "homicide bombers" instead of the more accepted term "suicide bomber". It's the same reason SCO releases all of their crap. FUD. It's all about the FUD and the marketing with these people. If they can change the mind of John Q. Public they've won -- it doesn't really matter what us geeks think."

Criticize the use of the word "homicide" for being redundant (bomber implies it), not because it's not true. They set out to kill innocent people. That makes it homicide.

CCC calls for boycott

[Tom]

In reaction, the german Chaos Computer Club (CCC) has called for a boycott: German Page

This banner with the motto "Industry kills Music" is especially nice. The german text at the bottom translates to "And you are surprised that things are going badly?" and was part of a recent speech at a german music price ceremony where except for one indie band only badly casted, out-of-TV and largely joke-"stars" were on stage.
Oh, and the big bosses of the german music industry were present. According to news articles, they didn't exactly like being told the truth so bluntly and on live television...

Re:CCC calls for boycott

[WyldThang]

Not only the CCC is acting, even the party "Die Grunen" (part of the governing coalition in germany) started an postcard-initiative against copy-protection on CDs as it infringes the right to make your own copies (which is legal in germany).

Re:CCC calls for boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

Also install Freenet on evry computer you have

Re:CCC calls for boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

Beethoven didn't say ''if you don't give me $1000000, platinum disc and a contract for 2 movies, I REFUSE to publish my muisc (and compose further)''.

Barney Spears and the Wo-Wo-Duh boys band are definitelly killed by piracy. RIP.

Re:CCC calls for boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

The port for the CCC webserver is not 8080, but just 80.

German page

Banner

Maybe you were sitting on the internal network while you posted that :)

Effect of lawsuits on sales.

[Yartrebo]

I wonder how many sales are being lost because of the negative PR all these lawsuits must bring.

Personally, I've been boycotting the RIAA member companies for years now, and I have no intention of dropping it any time soon. Music is one of those things that if you don't know the band, you don't desire it. When you get exposed to it, you want more and more of it.

Re:Effect of lawsuits on sales.

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I've been boycotting the RIAA member companies for years now
you must listen to a lot of music then...

Re:Effect of lawsuits on sales.

[Maestro4k]

• I wonder how many sales are being lost because of the negative PR all these lawsuits must bring.

Even if it could be proven the lawsuits are having a larger negative effect than the perceived downloading has on sales, I doubt the RIAA would stop. They ignore studies which show CD sales have not been majorly effected by downloading (we had a post about that yesterday, and the RIAA just tossed it aside claiming all these studies that had shown a direct-link. The only problem is I believe the RIAA or someone in the recording industry funded the research of all the researchers who found that there was a correlation.)

It's not like the RIAA is even trying to hide that it's just sue-happy right now. Even people who haven't heard about the whole downloading bruhaha are starting to notice and think the RIAA is a bunch of idiots. That has to be effecting the industry, but does the RIAA even seem to consider the possibility? If they have, they sure don't act like it.

Re:Effect of lawsuits on sales.

[Maestro4k]

• Personally, I've been boycotting the RIAA member companies for years now
  • you must listen to a lot of music then...

He might listen to quite a bit. I also have been boycotting them, but I enjoy Japanese Pop and Anime Soundtracks so I import those. I listen to music everyday, but none of it came from the US.

Re:Effect of lawsuits on sales.

[MoonBuggy]

Maybe a dumb question, but how do I tell if a company is an RIAA member or not? It'd be nice to have a page I can just type a label into and see if they're RIAA or not :-)

Re:Effect of lawsuits on sales.

[kritanus]

Here you can find an international list of ifpi board members: http://www.ifpi.com/site-content/directory/member_ sites.html

Here is a list of the members of the "Deutsche Landesgruppe der IFPI" and "Bundesverband der Phonographischen Wirtschaft" on their german web-page: http://www.ifpi.de/liste/index.shtml

Re:Effect of lawsuits on sales.

[|/|/|||]

Here's a great site for checking albums to see if they're "RIAA safe."

RIAA Radar

Warez works the same way.

[BoomerSooner]

I generally use warez groups to find out about new software or software I didn't know existed. I try it, if it's good I buy it. As a software developer I find it extraordinarily hypocritical that people will steal (illegally copy) software but want others to pay for their offering.

I would have never purchased the Adobe Design Collection if I hadn't been able to learn to use Photoshop, InDesign and Acrobat Forms first. I have yet to use Illustrator but Freehand is easier for me, and I'm too busy to pick up that old book I bought.

I have a policy at my company that if you use a piece of software to enhance your productivity and contribute to your job, you will get it. Hell, I've even bought WinRAR, Textpad and VuePrint (which readily have keygen's available).

This is why I think the "stealing music" slant is bullshit. How are you supposed to hear new music when Clear Channel owns 1/2 the radio stations and someone else owns the other 1/2? File Sharing. I buy every CD I have an mp3 for because honestly I make too much money to waste my time trying to decrypt the slang used to name songs. Not to mention my bandwidth, etc. A $11.99 CD is well worth the time savings.

The RIAA, etc need to pull their heads out of their asses and learn that people like to test drive a product before they buy. I cannot imagine buying a car without trying it out. Why should music be any different?

Re:Warez works the same way.

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA, etc need to pull their heads out of their asses and learn that people like to test drive a product before they buy. I cannot imagine buying a car without trying it out. Why should music be any different?

Do you try out your chewgums as well before buying them? Underwear? ....?

Re:Warez works the same way.

[BoomerSooner]

Lol, chewgums?

Obviously this wouldn't apply to MATERIAL goods that are single or limited use. But to goods that are available to be used long term (music CDs, cars, etc...) it is very useful.

BTW I guess you don't try on clothes, shoes, or anything else you buy. Simply walk in, pick it up, and leave. Doubtful.

Re:Warez works the same way.

[Advan]

It's good to see an indidual with some integrity in the world today, to actually go out and buy a product instead of just cracking it. Trouble is, not everyone is like that. In fact, a good bunch of people aren't like that. Why would they go out and buy something they can get for free? I'm sure that if someone could testdrive that car then take it home without having to pay for it, they'd do that in a heartbeat. That's not to degrade the portion of people that do buy after downloading. It just seems, to me anyway, that they're fairly rare.

Re:Warez works the same way.

[BoomerSooner]

The problem is the people that would use a keygen wouldn't buy it anyway. With non-material goods there is not any physical loss. That is the difference in taking a car and copying a string of digital bits. It doesn't deprive the owner of the copyright from selling it again and again.

The music industry just needs to release every song at 96kbps bit rate (92 or whatever decent is) and let people listen for free. If they want to buy 192kbs or higher sell it to them. It's not rocket science, it's common sense. However, common sense rarely applies to our societies.

Re:Warez works the same way.

[Shakrai]

I cannot imagine buying a car without trying it out

Expect you have permission from the car dealer to take the car for a test drive first. If not I'm sure you'll be hearing from the police in short order.

Point being there is nothing that says they have to let you test drive a car. Of course they wouldn't sell many cars if they didn't but there is no law on the books that says they have to.

I'd like to see iTunes let me hear the full version of the song before I buy it -- not just a random 30 second clip. Do you know how many songs I've bought only to find out it was a different friggen version then the one I know and like? If they are worried about piracy they could broadcast these demos in really low-quality (mono-only perhaps?). If someone really likes it he is going to pay the $0.99 anyway -- why waste your time stealing a lower quality copy?

Ditto for the little Kisoks at Barnes and Noble. WTF is the reason to limit them to 30 seconds? Do they think people are going to tape record them with a hidden microphone or something?

Re:Warez works the same way.

[stubear]

"I would have never purchased the Adobe Design Collection if I hadn't been able to learn to use Photoshop, InDesign and Acrobat Forms first. I have yet to use Illustrator but Freehand is easier for me, and I'm too busy to pick up that old book I bought."

This is the oldest excuse in the book. As for your example of Adobe software, Adobe offers trial versions of their software that work for 30 days with ABSOLUTELY NO limitations to their use. This is more than enough time to become familiar with the software and determine if it will work for your situation.

Music? A lot of online stores that sell music offer preview clips of the songs on the album. iTunes does this and CDNOW (now owned by Amazon.com) did this for a very long time. You get enough of the song to determine if you like the beat and overall sound and you can listen to it as many times as you want. If you like these previews than buy the album.

Car dealers don't let you have the car for a year or two, nor do they let you really perform any everyday tasks with the vehicle during the test drive. Musicians and softwre developers shouldn't be required to either. If you like the music "test drive" offered on iTunes then buy the album or song.

Re:Warez works the same way.

[BoomerSooner]

Wrong. A kid in college generally cannot afford the design collection. Hell I couldn't afford college, hence the massive student loans I owe. However, I learned by using it over a couple of years. When I started my own company I purchased everything I use. Adobe had a net gain because I was using their software without license for the time I was in college. Since I have purchased it. 30 Days is not nearly enough to learn photoshop or anything that can be considered a professional tool. AutoCAD is a perfect example. If they offered a 30 day trial to me it would be just as worthless as a brochure (and probably more confusing). I'm considering buying the CS upgrade for my suite right now.

Learning how to use a tool and understanding how to apply a tool are completely different things. The primary difference is how will it benefit your company. I'm not going to waste my time on a 30 day trial if there is a warez version. The only area that I do accept a trial version is video games. Hell I pay for a fileplanet subscription so my brothers can download their patches without waiting.

Re:Warez works the same way.

[stubear]

Ahhh, the ol' "poor college student" excuse. This one is just about as old as your other one. Many companies, Adobe included, offer their software to students a much lower prices. Rolling the student version into your student loans would not be a stretch at all and you'd have a legit, full version. Also, Adobe allows student users to purchase future upgrades at the normal upgrade cost, there is no need to purchase a non-student version before doing so. Some Universities also purchase licenses so their bookstores can offer software at very cheap costs ($5-$25 is what I've read) to the students. You can also find very good bundled deals not offered elsewhere. I purchased Windows NT 4 Workstation for $100 because it was bundled with Visual J++. I didn't need VJ++ so I gave it to a friend in the CS department but my version of Windows NT 4 Workstation was a full version, no strings attached. It would have cost me easily more than 2 to 3 times this (I think a full version of NT4 was about $250 to $300 at the time) had I purchased it on its own.

As for your example, you couldn't have picked a worse eaxmple than Adobe as they work very hard to make sure students can get their software cheaper and keep using the software in the future (normal upgrades) without any extra cost to convert the license to a regular version. Their software is some of the most pirated software out there and there is no excuse for it except you're too cheap to buy it or you think it's cool to pirate software even if you'll never use it.

Re:Warez works the same way.

[BoomerSooner]

Black and White is not how the world operates, no matter how hard you try to shoehorn it into your view.

Copying isn't stealing, it's copying. I don't download warez because I think it's "cool" I do it to evaluate and learn (warez groups are more concise than most marketing and sales brochures I've seen).

I like the fact that you bought J++ to get WinNT 4.0. However, did you read the agreement when you purchased that software? You cannot transfer ownership ever, so you are a pirate in violation of the agreement. BTW I purchased J++, C++, Visual Basic all seperately so I could get WinNT copies for me and my friends. I think each piece of software ran around $100 as you said. So I too violated the agreement (but I'm not in a black and white world).

The point I'm trying to make about warez as opposed to student copies is this. I would have never missed the Adobe products in my job or life. However, since I had a friend give me a copy (of his academic version) and give me pointers over a few years I found a use for it. Without a free copy a trial/academic version was worthless to me.

I guess my perspective is an economic one. Someone else using their own resources to copy a bunch of bits in no way hurts my business (note: I sell several software products). In fact if you run a software company you'll find most clients pay less than 1/2 of retail when they negotiate with the company selling the product. Why is that? Because selling your product at 50% costs no more than selling it at 100%. You have a fixed cost of development regardless if you have 1 customer or 100,000 customers.

Do you really think $400 is fair for MS Office? What if you programmed Office for 1 client, do you think that price would go up?

I just disagree that warez and file sharing really hurts anyone.

Re:Warez works the same way.

[sprekken]

Their software is some of the most pirated software out there and there is no excuse for it except you're too cheap to buy it or you think it's cool to pirate software even if you'll never use it.

So it's cool to buy software even if you'll never use it? Hmmm... so if I buy lots of software that I don't need and will never use, maybe that will make me cool, and I might even get laid! Yeah, CompUSA here I come!

In all seriousness, cracke/warez software serves a very important purpose that the major software makers tend to understand and exploit for their purposes. They know that if piracy were rampant, and everyone did it, then it would be difficult to sell a product. On the other hand, if noone were able to get a copy of the software to try out (for more than the measly month trial) and really learn and understand, their sales would also drop. It is a very difficult balance, but one that they seem to have under control for the moment.

The steps are:

1. Make a cool software product.
2. Add decent software protection.
3. Charge license fees, and enforce it rigidly for businesses and commercial purposes.
4. Let cracked copies circulate to increase mindshare and trained user base, and don't enforce license for private use.
5. Profit!!!

You see, Adobe knows that if they were to crack down on the piracy and try to eliminate it like the RIAA is doing with music files, it would result in a decrease in the number of people who use and would potentially buy their products. Like I said before, it is a very delicate balancing game they play, but it is a must for the content industry to play if they want to remain competitive (unless they have a monopoly already).

Adobe makes their money from license fees paid by companies, who likely have a user base of people who learned the product from a pirated copy. What good would it do Adobe if they were to try to extort license fees from the average Joe who only wants to check out Photoshop because it looks cool and he wants to make a few "graphics" for his personal website? There are already many social factors in place that will influence many of these "Joe's" to pay the license fee which makes Adobe happy, but many will not... yet. Some of these Joe's will become very familiar with the product, and maybe even start to dabble in freelance graphic design. They will want to start charging for their work, so they will buy a Photoshop license to make the business legit. A few of them may try to get away with not buying a license, but that is where the ***BUM BUM BUM*** BSA ***BOOOOOOO*** comes into play. They will crack down HARD on the offenders to make an example and send a message that says "Hey, if you want to use our product to make money, pay us the license!"

So does Adobe lose money on warez? Maybe. But I believe that they more than make up for it in license fees paid by people who already use and love their products.

Re:Warez works the same way.

[SillyNickName4me]

> Why would they go out and buy something they can get for free?

That has been a good question for a few decades now. The first reason would be because of wanting more of the good stuff and realizing the only way that is goign to happen is by providing an insentive for making more?

I don't think there is a definite answer to the question, but there is the easy to observe fact that despite it being hard to explain, people do buy stuff that they can get for free.

Proof? games have been copied for decades, yet they get sold.

Shareware software, why would it exist at all, and actually work?

The recordign industry would do good to look at those things and try to fidn an answer as to why people buy such things. It might prove to be a lot more effective for saveguardign their business then trying to fight it like they do right now.

Re:Warez works the same way.

[hvt]

I agree. Permission is important in law as well as in life. Permission is what separate a guess from a trespasser, a consensual encounter from rape, an authorised distributor from a file sharer. If one is unhappy with the current law, one come up with a thoughtful alternative and convince enough people to change it. The current system is built on top of laws and rationalizations way more thoughtful and workable than anything I have read so far.

[OT] Re:One question...

[Mick Ohrberg]

No - I just like posting these things so that nitpickers who are sore because they didn't get to post it first get something to bitch about.

Re:[OT] Re:One question...

[Anonymous Coward]

First? I just came back from 1996 when that joke was already collecting Social Security.

And even when it was new it was only pun, dude.

You're meddling with forces you can't possibly comprehend. Believe me when I say joke necromancy is nothing to laugh at.

They don't care if filesharing helps sales

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not interesting that they are suing at all. If filesharing helped music sales increase 1000% they still would be suing filesharers. They care about control of the media not sales. Filesharing is a threat to their business because filesharing makes their class of middleman obsolete. If artists release their music over kazaa what purpose would RIAA members serve?

Re:They don't care if filesharing helps sales

[TheSpoom]

I think the point is that businesses have realized that litigation is becoming a primary method of revenue creation. Look at SCO, look at the RIAA, look at the hundreds of "Intellectual Property" companies out there.

New intellectual property laws, or the majority of them, are hindering any new developments, not providing a reward for innovation as copyright was originally meant. We need a critical mass of people to realize this before the laws are irrecovably changed to the point where we no longer have control.

This IS our freedom we're dealing with, and that's more important than a company's bottom line.

Re:They don't care if filesharing helps sales

[Arathrael]

I agree. I mean, they do things other than physical distribution (production, promotion, etc.), but physical distribution provides a nice way to charge for all that, and make a nice profit on it. And heck, might as well bump up the price a bit just for a bit more profit. Mmmm, profit.

They're totally spannered without being able to charge for that physical distribution though. People don't generally put a high value on advertising. So, they could either accept that there's an alternate form of distribution that costs them and the consumer very little and try to work out a way to charge for the services they do still provide - tricky - or, they could try to prevent that form of distribution and force the consumer to use their alternate, more expensive method. What would you do?

Re:Motherfucker

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a friend who first had anal sex on 9/11. Please cc: us on the reply.

Re:Motherfucker

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a friend who lost dozens of friends when your president Bush invaded his homeland to steal Iraq's oil in the name of "terrorism" and "weapons of mass destruction".

Too bad about your friend's mom but Excrement Occurs, this time it just happened close to home.

Re:Huh?

[JamesP]

I wonder how many of us read that as pornographic...

That's because of obscene lawsuits...

fud

[GillBates0]

"The message is the same," Dixon says. "You cannot put someone's music on the Internet without permission. That's theft."... Microsoft, Coca-Cola and British retailer HMV operate online European music services with limited selection and arcane usage rules.

*sigh* some people never learn...or they knowingly choose to use stronger language to frighten (or terrorize in today's overused parlance) the masses into submission.

And I don't want to fuckin' have to think twice every time I want to listen to the same music in my car, on my computer or on my living room. Is it that difficult to understand?

Re:fud

[Lucky_Norseman]

Ok, they call copyright infringement theft.
We have the same right to call their actions terrorism.

How about you take a look at your history book.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ass.

Care to guess what Al-Queda's CEO, Saddam, and Hitler all had in common? They were all ass-hats and thugs who spent time in prision before they upgraded to supervillainy.

Jose can fucking die. He want's to rock like a big boy. Fuck him. At best he's a petty thug, that's enough to cancel his check right there. At most he wants war with America. Fine. I will spring for the cost of the bullet, shipping included.

If you kill all the petty thugs problems disappear, sure a little good goes out with the garbage, but really very little. It's our wealth that is the source of our compassion, not the other way around.

Re:How about you take a look at your history book.

[SillyNickName4me]

> If you kill all the petty thugs problems disappear, sure a little good goes out with the garbage, but really very little.

Yeah... humanity only found out a zillion times over the last milenia that that attitude doesn't solve anything.. why not try it again....

Live with it, that view is simplistic and causes way more problems then it ever solves. All that made western civilisation had to find that oen out, they all did, they all got rid of the attitude. Ah well, go back to your stoneage mentality and be happy with it. Just please also go back to stoneage technology while you are at it so we don't have to get bothered with your idiocy.

Re:How about you take a look at your history book.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Mongol and Roman empires would disagree with you.

Re:How about you take a look at your history book.

[SillyNickName4me]

> The Mongol and Roman empires would disagree with you.

They might.. if they'd still be around..

Re:First post.

[Anonymous Coward]

ya! Cancer in her cunt. Her festering cunt should rot and fall out on the ground. That cunt's fucking cunt should be fed to wolves! Fucking cunt, get cancer in your fucking cunt and fucking DIE!!!!!!!!

Phew!

[Anonymous Coward]

At first I read International Federation of the Pornographic Industry

Re:Phew!

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, so did the fucking other first 20 posters,

Find like post first asshole before you fucking post.

God these dick weeds

Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

Why the fuck should we have to wait to fucking minutes...God damn mother fuckers i want to post it fucking NOW

Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck, I don't care who you lost on 9/11, or who your friends lost. I'm sick of seeing 9/11 paraded around as if it's a fucking badge to wear. Shit happened, it sucked, and now we're three years past it. I don't say we shouldn't continue talking about terrorism in general, but isn't it time to give 9/11 a rest?

Terroristic attacks can take all different forms. And this guy was just making a fucking joke against SCO, not 9/11, and you have to scream 'DUMBASS 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11'.

"Motherfucking dumbass."

Re:Huh?

[francium de neobie]

me, me, me

me too :)

no science

[HarveyBirdman]

The timing of the international legal attacks is especially interesting in light of the recent study that indicates file-sharing has a negligible impact on music sales."

I share music with wild abandon, and think the lawsuits are BS, but you're basing this on one NON peer reviewed study that, if you read the PDF file linked from yesterday's story, makes some rather dubious assumptions.

Re:no science

[shark72]

"I share music with wild abandon, and think the lawsuits are BS, but you're basing this on one NON peer reviewed study that, if you read the PDF file linked from yesterday's story, makes some rather dubious assumptions."

...and there have been dozens of studies and analysts' reports which have had unique takes on the situation. It is yet one more study, but watch as it becomes Holy Writ for many Slashdotters, along with:

1. "copyright violation is a civil offense, not a criminal one" (I think this one is finally dying)
2. "More people pirate MP3s in the US than voted for George Bush"
3. "Radio stations must pay the record company to play music, and little or none of this goes to the artist"
4. "The blank audio CD-R tariff goes to the RIAA"

On Slashdot as with everywhere else, if you repeat something three times, it becomes a fact.

I, for one, welcome our new IFPI Overlords!

[slipnslidemaster]

I, for one, welcome our new IFPI Overlords!

How much compensation?

[Cooper_007]

asking them to stop illegal file-sharing and pay compensation - or face legal action.

I wonder if the IFPI will be asking equally ludicrous amounts as the RIAA has.

The chairman's quote seems rather funny in this context though:
"People are at real risk of being sued or prosecuted if they continue to rip off those who make music."
Pot. Kettle. Black. I guess he's got a good lawyer...

Cooper
--
This truth probably doesn't come as shocking news to any of you,
and if it does then you're stupid and I hate you.
- Everything Can Be Beaten -

Oh Crap...

[Bobman1235]

AP and many others report that the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry

I gotta stop reading so quickly, I thought they were suing over stolen PORNOGRAPHY..... that was a close one....

Good to see that the CRIA still doesnt get it.

[PhilippeT]

They waived their rights to sue people who use file sharing to steal music.

Yes it's stelling and yes it's wrong but the levy counts as cost recovery in other words if they sue they cant ask for money since they have already been compensated for their loss.

But i guess someone would have to explain that to them.

Re:Good to see that the CRIA still doesnt get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone should explain to you that it is not stealing or 'stelling', it's copyright infringement. Pick up a dictionary, dumbass.

Not as easy in europe

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have the DMCA over here, so they're are going to have a much harder time getting convictions.
If it turns out that I'm one of these 247, I will not crumble ... I plan on fighting their tyranny in court.

a bit off-topic

[PYves]

I was wondering if there were any statistics between RIAA's drop in sales and independant labels' increase in sales.

Not ever record label in the states is an RIAA member, and to be honest, since I started downloading mp3s, I've bought more cds but nearly all of them were from non-RIAA members (not as protest, but because that's the music I like!)

I don't think the RIAA could even come after me for trading these files, since it's not even their intellectual property :P

Are record companies loosing or winning?

[bitchell]

I don't get it. On one hand we here stories that say that downloading isn't harming CD sales. Time after time we see the sales of albums going up. It was even reported here yesturday that thats the case.

But on the other had we see that EMI is making 1500+ people redundant and dropping a shed load of artists.

Whatever.

[eddy]

Sue the world if you will, I still won't buy from the people you represent. Also, I saw a Swedish IFPI-representative on the news this morning and she said that they (Swedish branch) wouldn't get involved in litigation just yet.

On a positive note (for music-distribution-done-right lovers), the forthcoming album of Machinae Supremacy (1:st of May release date) will open for pre-orders tomorrow at distributor MBD Records.

Re:Whatever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since we're promoting. A friend of mine makes very good music all available for free at MiaowMusic .

I really recommend you give it a listen.

Re:Whatever.

[Anonymous Coward]

<follows link>

"To view the Flash site you need to have the Flash 5 Player installed"

Yeah, like that'll happen. Sorry, your friend failed the first test.

In other news ...

[LittleBigLui]

In other news, the IFPI announced that for their Second Wave they plan to eradicate all illegal file sharing from all major US cities, starting with Los Angeles.

(The second season of 24 is running over here at the moment, so to me that joke seems hilarious.)

Re:Motherfucker

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a terrorist, and I dance on her and 3000 more graves. haha I say to dead infidel pigdogs.

What are they suing for?

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems a bit confusing when you're dealing with so many jurisdictions. I've seen reports that say downloading music, but it must be uploading because even in the US it's questionable whether downloading is really copyright infringement.
If they're only going after uploaders, then I think the whole thing is completely doomed to failure as if it wouldn't be otherwise. The reason is that I seriously do not believe that Kazaa is genuinely decentralized. I think the answer to that questions really depends on who's asking and the truth is that there are well placed Kazaa funded servers filled with massive data stashes that aren't going to go down and there's no way to prove they exist because they're paying decent sysadmins to keep it that way.
And if that's the case, all these guys can do is ruin their public image bashing their heads against the wall and paying lots of lawyers salaries.

I'm sooo scared :O

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so scared. But they don't own the internet so they can kiss my ass. Get out of the internet!

Study results do not make it legal!

[morzel]

Repeat after me: just because the study proved that filesharing does not have a noticeable impact on CD sales does not make it legal!

Copyright law in many countries prevents you from distributing somebody elses work, plain and simple. These people are not being sued because they had some kind of tangible impact on sales, but because they were distributing copyrighted material to anybody (ie: nothing to do with fair use rights here).

These are the people that are making it bloody hard for the rest of us to get non-crippled CDs, because the recording industry thinks this is the way to fight them (which it incidentally is not, but that's a whole different story).

I'm glad the record industry is suing, because this is the way copyright conflicts should be dealt with: in court. Not with half-assed technological countermeasures that are making it a pain for the rest of us, and certainly not with lobbying legislation that will obliterate 'fair use' for their works.

Re:Study results do not make it legal!

[liquidsin]

And suppose all illegal file sharing instantly stopped this second. What makes you think that CDs would be released without copy protection? What makes you think that online distribution channels would suddenly become DRM-free? The RIAA has absolutely ZERO interest in stopping P2P because it hurts their profits. They only want control of distribution. If I felt so inclined I could be recording everything off of the radio. But they already make their tax on cassettes, and the only thing that gets radio play is what the RIAA says should be played. It was just as easy to copy a CD before Napster as it is now. I was trading and burning discs with friends even then, and burners were far enough along to be not terribly expensive. But there was no copy protection on audio discs then. The RIAA fails to realize that P2P is essentially the *new* radio. It's probably got an even wider audience, since just about nobody I know (yeah, anecdotal evidence) listens to the radio at home, and most don't even listen to it in their cars or at work - they're all about CDs and mp3. Entirely free advertising, but they don't have a goddamn thing to say about who can get it, or when, or who ELSE can distribute the same way, so they don't want it. It's all about control.

Re:Study results do not make it legal!

[morzel]

And suppose all illegal file sharing instantly stopped this second. What makes you think that CDs would be released without copy protection?

Because that will take all wind out of the sails of their lobbying efforts regarding the legal enforcing of DRM (ie: DMCA et al.).

Their main argument for lobbying the introduction of DRM legislation is that their copyright needs extra protection from illegal distribution (ie: on-line filesharing). From that point of view, the restriction of fair-use rights is just 'collateral damage'.

If there would be no massively on-line sharing of their copyrighted works (and don't tell me this is not happening), they would not have a leg to stand on to get DRM legislated, because at that point it will only cripple our rights. And if they can buy enough politicians to get it introduced, we would still have a clear case through the court system.

I'm aware that the industry ultimately wants to control anything and everything, and illegal uses of filesharing are giving them the right ammunition to pull this off. As I said: I don't want DRM legislated a la DMCA so we're all presumed guilty of copyright infringement, I want individual copyright infringers to be sued in court on the merits of what they did (ie: distributed that many songs to that many people), instead of being sued by under a blanket law for 'copying a CD'.

Re:Study results do not make it legal!

[liquidsin]

I'm not arguing the massive sharing of music, or even that it's right. I'd like to see reform in the system. We can't entirely blame the RIAA for not embracing it - could you see a bar trying to tell the cops "sure, we could kick out 15 yr olds but they're good for business!". They're only trying to enforce the laws that are in place to protect them. I just believe that the laws are doing more harm than good to *all* parties involved. But since the RIAA doesn't really seem to care so much about the money as they do about the control, none of this will ever happen, since they'll buy...er..."lobby for" any laws they can that will help them keep control of all music distribution.

Re:Study results do not make it legal!

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeat after me: just because the study proved that filesharing does not have a noticeable impact on CD sales does not make it legal!

Agreed, but it does contradict statements the music industry has made. The purpose of these statements may be to obtain sympathy for their cause, or who knows, a government bailout in the future when their business model collapses.

Re:Study results do not make it legal!

[tre4lien]

Your comment contradicted itself, and may require some clarification.

You said that suing is how this Should be dealt with, but that obliterating 'fair use' is not.

Don't forget that court precidents are the dominant tool used to erode and re-define Fair Use. It is also practically the only tool used to decide what is legal and what isn't in the first place. For example - From what I've read so far - Copywrite was Originally meant to prevent you from distributing someone elses work For Profit - precident over the decades has re-defined it to mean "prevents you from distributing somebody elses work, plain and simple". Maybe that understanding is wrong - but the point about Suing serving the same function as Lobbying still stands.

BTW - Intuitively, Copywrite applies to industry - it should not restrict the technological development of what I can do with personal, hands on, skills. This is why average people complicate things with "Fair Use". We interpret law inuitively - not algorhythmically. And Laws must recognize that - you can't hold rules against someone if they are in-comprehensible to an average, intelligent person. You should Not even be able to hold complicated laws against below average people - If a law can not be understood by at least 75% of the population , something is inherently wrong. This is one of the biggest reasons why the rest of the world sees the USA legal system as corrupt - because only Lawyers are seen as qualified to understand Law, bizzare, when I stop and think about it!

From a different point of view, If no one practices civil dis-obedience when un-just Laws are being abused - then society adapts and the people begin to see that abuse as acceptable and, eventually, even justified.

And finally, a question - IANAL (Obviously) , so can someone tell me if the word "Legal" is defined by convention or by a specific state change? Many people say that something is not law until court outcomes can be generally predicted by most lawyers. Others say it is "Law" as soon as there is a precident - even if the precident is likely to be overturned. How do these terms work? Legal? Illegal? Even in the case of Statute law- Is something Still "illegal" if precident dis-agrees with statute? And is there no provision to overturn "laws" that are in violation of common social values?

Re:Study results do not make it legal!

[morzel]

I see your point, but I may have not made my point clear enough. If certain people are infringing on copyrights by doing things that are 'obviously' not fair use (ie: sharing a lot of copyrighted material to anybody who can install KaZaa), the only way to deal with them is to go through the legal system (ie: sue them). Suing these people is not 'obliterating fair use' since distributing a load of material to a lot of people is not exactly 'fair use'. It is up to the judge to decide what is fair use and what is not in each individual case.

Courts are not only the predominant tool to 'erode' and 're-define' Fair Use, they are the predominant tool to 're-define' any given law by setting precedents/case law.

Copywrite was Originally meant to prevent you from distributing someone elses work For Profit - precident over the decades has re-defined it to mean "prevents you from distributing somebody elses work, plain and simple".

One of the main issues why the 'For Profit' part is less important is that the costs of distributing copyrighted material on-line (ie: filesharing) is nearly zero. 10 years ago, it was cost-prohibitive to distribute a copy of a record/CD at large for free: I had to invest heaps of money to get it either on tape or on CD, and unless I had very expensive equipment the number of copies I could churn out was very low. Nowadays, hosting a simple MP3 for download costs me nothing, and if you have broadband internet access the bandwidth price for any downloads is in most cases negligable. This allows me to do massive distribution without a huge bill that needs to be footed.

You should Not even be able to hold complicated laws against below average people - If a law can not be understood by at least 75% of the population , something is inherently wrong.

For any law, the devil is in the details and it's a lawyers job to know every nook and cranny of it. Does that make the gist of copyright law difficult? I don't think so:

• You can rip all the CD's you have for your own usage (on PC, portable player, ...)
• You should be able to rip all copy-protected media as well for personal use if it weren't for the DMCA. Any judge with a shred of common sense won't convict Johnny for ripping his copy-protected CD so that he could listen to it on his iPod. And there are a lot if countries where there is no DMCA-alike so this is still a non-issue.
• You can lend/borrow the occasional CD to/from your friend. You can even give them an MP3 of one song you're particularly fond of.
• You can not rip all your CDs, put them online on KaZaa (ie: make them available for the world in full) and expect to get away with it. Even if you didn't rip the CDs yourself but just downloaded everything yourself you're still distributing copyrighted material without consent.

Civil disobedience is fine and dandy, but there's no guarantee that the judge will go for that. If you go that way, you either hope that the judge will sympathize with your views of how the law should be, or you are prepared to face the consequences to make the rest of the community realise how wrong the law is. It is just one way to fight an unjust law.

In the end, you guys live in a democracy, so if everybody would get off their collective butts and started to care about this issue, legislation would be changed in no time. Truth is that nobody cares enough when election day comes... A bit of a self-fullfilling prophecy, if you ask me...

For crying out loud

[Underholdning]

Damnit - I need to get this off my chest. If this much effort was put into catching the real criminals of the internet (spammers, child pornographers etc) the net would be a much better and safer place. All this is just due to a huge lobby and a horde of overpaid lawyers. I refuse to recognize this as problem worthy of this many ressources.
Ok - I'll get off my soapbox now. Sorry for the rant.

Re:For crying out loud

[Anonymous Coward]

well that's fine and great and all, but, as more perceptive people might point out to you, gently (as you seem to be harmless in a helen lovejoy sort of way)--the problems that you discuss involve _different_ resources altogether.

Re:For crying out loud

[debest]

Of course, you've already identified the reason that copyright infringment gets more resources than spamming and child porn. The parties that stand to benefit from the elimination of file sharing (the recording and software industries) have way more money and self-interest than any parties that are opposed to spamming and child porn.

Trust me, if there were any big corporate interests out there that, for some reason, would benefit from eliminating junk email or seeing kiddie porn gone from the net, it would be well under way. Amazingly enough, not a single one comes to mind.

Re:For crying out loud

[incom]

Thanks, from now on I shall tell people that helping the RIAA is helping child pornographers, ala the logic used in the anti-drug ad likening Marijuana purchasing to helping terrorists.

boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

The news says that file shairing has resulted in increase in the sales of CDs.

1) I suggest a boycott for all music CDs buy these industries. Money they are after, money they should not get.

2) Install Freenet on every PC you have. Lets see what they will do about that.

Re:boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

No, unfortunately FreeNet is going nowhere fast and even its rumored replacement --for filesahring anyway-- Mute is still to lame to be a major issue.
Here's a better idea. Use Kazaa to download everything you can as they're not going after downloaders. Then get a DVD burner and burn DVDs of all your Mp3s and then hand them out to people you know even those you don't know all that well. Now that's serious upload bandwidth.

Re:Motherfucker

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck can this be insightfull????

come on mods this fucker to flaimbate...

cuz he likes to masterbate.

Stop making cars!

[rainwadj]

...you're killing our buggywhip sales.

Re:Motherfucker

[Anonymous Coward]

No this time you fucking sand-monkeys found out 1) Might Makes the Rules, 2) Allah doesn't love you, and 3) Crusades seem like a good idea on a nice Friday afternoon outside the mosque, but in practice they suck if 1 and 2 aren't in your favor.

Too bad all you towel wearing fucks look alike.

Hey, as a Democrat who was against the war. I wanted to nuke mecca and kill your shit god, and follow with every muslim and arab city that didn't surrender unconditionally. So, hey, he got off easy. :) And seriously, no one is going to fight wwiii over your worthless hides.

If they have the cohones ex-USSR is next.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the "In russia blah...blah...blah" perenial post when you need a good laugh.

Really, no-one else did!

[Anonymous Coward]

If so, we would have seen someone comment on that at one point.

Thanks to Napster/Kazaa

[night_flyer]

Thanks to Napster/Kazaa, I purchase more CDs

Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...

Re:Thanks to Napster/Kazaa

[ShallowThroat]

Thanks to Napster/Kazaa, I purchase more CDs

I feel the same way, in fact i would go as far to say that Shawn Fanning and Napster saved my life. You see, I was just a very young impressionable teenager when Napster first came out. If it weren't for the huge variety of music i was given access to early in my life, i might have just become another 50-cent-pumpin', britney-spears-oggling drone. Now I instead listen to a huge selection of old school rap, punk, emo, emocore, hardcore, classical, classic rock, electronica, you name it, and my lif has been tottaly changed by it. I buy way more CDs than I used to, but most of them come directly from the bands, as i usually buy them at shows/events, instead of the money going straight into the pockets of the RIAA/CIRA/etc(wherever i happen to be).

but then again, maybe thats exactly what the RIAA et al doesn't want, and they would rather i be a pop-music-cd-buying-whore. Better get out the tinfoil hats....

Re:Thanks to Napster/Kazaa

[DR SoB]

That was one of the best 2 line posts I've seen in a long time!

You make an excellent point, and I plan on promoting used cd's to all my friends, what a better way to help the little guy! Most people I know that do download music also buy the cd's, I must push them to start buying them used.

Re:Thanks to Napster/Kazaa

[Anonymous Coward]

That would make a great sticker / T-shirt.

As long as they remember...

[Sebby]

...that downloading is legal in Canada.

The article doesn't go into details, but I assume 'file sharing' means allowing upload of your files, which isn't covered in CA's copyright act as legal.

hallmarks of Al Quaeda

[victorvodka]

Based on the co-ordinated nature of the attack, I have to suspect that Al Quaeda had something to do with this.

Sharing is civil disobedience

[Catamaran]

The media giants own our government. Boycotting and file sharing are two ways that the unrepresented masses can fight back. Also, anyone who really cares will support Downhill Battle.

Representing who?

[gr8_phk]

The artists are represented by their recording company. The companies are represented by the RIAA, and the RIAA is represented the IFPI? I think the artists are far enough removed at this point that the IFPI is a purely political organization only interested in money / power / self.

Re:Representing who?

[t_allardyce]

You mean a terrorist organisation?

better deal, still not good enough

[radoni]

audiolunchbox is the first seller online that i have seriously considered and followed through with the purchase of music albums.

my only complaint is they do not offer some sort of lossless compressed format of the original media. at oggvorbis quality 6 gt1b3, it doesn't really matter a whole lot. the files are tagged adequetely (title/artist/album/date (year)/tracknumber), and there is a very decent distribution system that is fair and reasonable. 24 hours to download that starts when you say it starts, though you may purchase music and start the countdown/retreival later.

what do i miss? not much.

i had 5 albums in my collection of about 10,000 songs that i purchased through ALB. the quality of the ALB purchases is superior to the crap i had in my collection, and it's the best 40 bucks i've spent in a long time.

my attempts to inform friends about ALB results in the "what are you, stupid? paying for music! that's a waste of money" counter. these are friends who pay for tickets and go to concerts regularly.

[opinion]
perhaps in the age of shitty popular record-label-produced studio young adult skanksville singers, and the overwhelming field of nu-molestal HI-EQ scenester heart throb poster-grungers for the new age, the only currency for the majority of top-40 listeners is to buy the album. all the hard life rockers on tour are to make do, perhaps, with being raped by ticketmaster?
[/opinion]

5 albums for 40 bucks. it's still a lot to pay for music that i don't own the rights to. say my computer crashes - or house burns down in the case of owning said chunk of plastic - i don't have the right to the music i essentially paid royalties to the artist for. in an ideal world of the super turbo mega zoom happy fun digital age, there'd be a repository of music these mega record company scum co-conspirators keep with a permenant backup of all music in existance. lose your copy? prove you own it, pay 2 bucks distribution charge, get what's rightly yours.

Blimmey

[jamiguet]

I though I was in trouble. IFPI could have meant International Federation of the Pronography Industry.... that would be worrying....

Re:Motherfucker

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks. Another example of why 5.7 billion people around the world hate us. I hope you never breed.

Re:Huh?

[Dayflowers]

I did. And I imagine alot more reas porn as well... does that mean anything?

Not until...

[NIN1385]

I am never buying another cd ever again, simply because of all the fuss they are throwing about it. Before lars from metalica started to speak out against downloading, I havent bought a cd since and I wont until cds cost 5-10 bucks for one. They need to realize that all they're doing by bitching about it is making people buy even less. Boycott the RIAA! Whos is with me?

Re:Not until...

[Catamaran]

I'm with you, and so are a lot of others:

• Downhill Battle
• Stop RIAA Lawsuits Coalition
• Boycott-RIAA
• Swarthmore Coalition for the Digital Commons
• Pirates Or Heroes

Re:Not until...

[t_allardyce]

Word! what they are doing now is just terrorism, now is the time more than ever to show them that we are a unionised buying force not to be fucked with.

Re:Not until...

[DR SoB]

As a previous poster pointed out you should buy them used. This helps the "little guy" and the artist in the end, but still takes money from the RIAA. Also, the cd's WILL only cost 5-10 bucks!

Re:Not until...

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as boycotting the RIAA I'm with you. But that doesn't mean that I stop buying music, just that I avoid the big record companies and distributors. Once I started looking around I found that there are an incredible amount of creative and interesting music released on small independent labels, sometimes you can even buy music on CDR:s directly from the artist. The feeling of paying for the music and knowing that artists I respect for their creativity get paid (as opposed to some RIAA related scum) is a reward in itself. Getting a CD in return with handmade covers makes everything still better.

I use to point out to record sellers that there are much more interesting music out there than I could ever have time to listen to, much less have money to buy. So, for me it's no big deal to take my money elsewhere. I do not need them, they need me! It's not like giving the finger to RIAA will have much of an impact on my ability to find interesting music (quite to the contrary!).

OK, it seems that people often find my musical preferences a bit weird so perhaps it's easier for me to find interesting music in the fringes. I honestly swear that I love Anna Planeta :-) Still I think that the argument "I do not need you, you need me" is valid, whatever your musical preferences.

Re:Not until...

[NIN1385]

Yeah, I have bought many cds from people that make thier own music and release the cd themselves. That is the way it should be done...like the RIAA was before they were the RIAA. It seem like the second a company becomes a huge corporation/organization they forget about the people buying thier products and focus more on the money(Microsoft, McDonald's, Walmart). These are all companies that started as nice little corner stores (except MS who came from the seventh layer of hell) and became huge companies. That is why we are seeing such a huge explosion in small business now, I work for a small web design company and we have hired probably 5 new employees a year for the past 5 years. We are living in a very exciting time, and I cannot wait to see the outcome.

Re:Not until...

[skyfaller]

The SCDC indeed supports an RIAA boycott, but not a general boycott of all CDs. There are many non-evil independent record labels, most notably Magnatune (they are not evil). We're in favor of supporting artists, we just think supporting the RIAA actually hurts artists.

Ugh, all that can be said is:

[jgrumbles]

Cartman, "God dammit!"

Will this work??

[SpermanHerman]

Ok, what if someone had a couple of servers in some other country that provided/shared music to the rest of the world - specifically another country that these monopolistic corporations can't touch? Is there such a country in the world?

Re:Will this work??

[pjt33]

AFAICT, any country which isn't a member of WIPO is a good candidate. WIPO only has about 180 members, so there are a few non-members. OTOH in many countries you can still be sued for infringement for downloading copyrighted material without a licence.

Re:Motherfucker

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh.. nice troll. Crusades, indeed?

Then again, if you wanted to sum up certain fundamentalist Christians' attitude to world affairs, you've just provided it in a nutshell.

Kudos, my friend. This is what happens when you suck the humanity out of religion. Perhaps you and your suicide-bombing friends on the other side deserve each other after all.

How You Can Fight Back

[MichaelCrawford]

I know that in the US at least, there are more people sharing files on peer-to-peer networks than voted for George Bush in 2000. I suspect the numbers are proportional in other countries.

If you work to reform the copyright laws, you can make the sharing of any file legal.

Here are some steps you can take to do this:

• Speak Out
• Vote
• Write to Your Elected Representatives
• Donate Money to Political Campaigns
• Support Campaign Finance Reform
• Join the Electronic Frontier Foundation
• Practice Civil Disobedience

In the US anyway, copyright is not a Constitutional right. I suspect that it's not a fundamental right in most countries.

The reason I ask you to googlebomb my article in my signature here is that I'm trying to educate the peer-to-peer network users. I attract the readers by offerring links to lots of free, legal downloads, but give them a political education while I've got their attention.

Re:How You Can Fight Back

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it is a constitutional right. See Article 1, Section 8, describing the powers of Congress:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Re:How You Can Fight Back

[Catamaran]

You left out Downhill Battle.

Re:How You Can Fight Back

[Catamaran]

Right, but the emphasis is on LIMITED. Here are the words of Supreme Court Justice Breyer, dissenting:

The U.S. Constitution's Copyright Clause grants Congress the power to "promote the Progress of Science ... by securing for LIMITED TIMES TO AUTHORS ... the exclusive Right to their respective Writings.." The statute before us, the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, extends the term of most existing copyrights to 95 years and that of many new copyrights to 70 years after the author's death. The economic effect of this 20-year extension, the longest blanket extension since the Nation's founding, is to make the copyright term not limited, but virtually perpetual. Its primary legal effect is to grant the extended term not to authors, but to their heirs, estates, or corporate successors. And most importantly, its practical effect is not to promote, but to inhibit, the progress of Science, by which word the Framers meant learning or knowledge...

Re:How You Can Fight Back

[pjt33]

Either the US would have to remove itself as a signatory to certain international treaties, or it would have to put a lot of pressure on other countries to get the treaties changed. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS

Re:How You Can Fight Back

[shark72]

Michael, on your page, you write:

"When compact discs first appeared, they were much more expensive than vinyl LPs because there were only a couple of factories in the world that could manufacture them. The equipment to make CDs was very expensive, and the factories' production was very limited, so the cost was justified. But years later, although the cost of pressing a "glass master" compact disc has dropped to a few cents, the retail price of CDs has not dropped at all."

This is entirely false. First, you completely ignore the effect of inflation. Those CDs that you paid $18.99 for in 1988 are the equivalent of $29 today. Yet, the average price of a new release has dropped to $13.42 according to NPD Musicwatch. CD prices have dropped by more than half and you state "the retail price of CDs has not dropped at all." I'm not sure if you don't understand the effects of inflation, or you're deliberately being misleading (naturally, I'm hoping the former) but for your article to be effective, you really should fix that.

Additionally, you imply that the pressing cost of a CD is the most important factor affecting the final cost. This is incorrect. Remember, in the case of typical CDs, at least 80% or more ends up going toward somebody's salary, whether they work for the record store, the distributor, or the record company. Most CDs don't even break even, and the recording industry as a whole operates on a net margin of less than 30% -- far less than many of the other industries we deal with each day.

Lastly, you state:

"I know that in the US at least, there are more people sharing files on peer-to-peer networks than voted for George Bush in 2000."

How do you know this? What is your source? I remember a while back Kazaa released some number on usership, but (famously) they counted only the total number of created accounts, and not active users. This means that if somebody had downloaded Kazaa twice and used two user names a few years back, that's two "users." This is bad statistics, but a lot of Slashdotters have gobbled it up. Do you have a more scientific source for your statement?

In short, you have a lot of great stuff on your page, but these huge errors stand to make you look uninformed at best, or outright dishonest at worst. I think most people here on the same thing -- artists simply have too many rights and we must put them in their place -- but this isn't the way to go about it.

Re:How You Can Fight Back

[shark72]

You're correct, which is why copyrights aren't granted in perpetuity. "Limited" is one of those absolute terms, like "unique" or "pregnant."

lifetime plus 70 years is not "virtually perpetual." It's a lifetime plus seventy years. That is the limit: a lifetime plus seventy years. The word "limited" does not become meaningless for certain values of limited. Stars such as the sort our planet orbits are limited to a lifetime of about a dozen billion years at most. The Pepsi iTunes promotion is limited to a million winners. A 401(k) contribution is limited to about $11K. All of these numbers are larger than the number of years in a contract, and they have not caused the meaning of the word "limited" to be weakened.

Re:How You Can Fight Back

[iminplaya]

In the US anyway, copyright is not a Constitutional right.

Absolutely. It's a service provided by the gov't. Unfortunately, the only ones benefiting from this service is the publishing industry. And, like a driver's license, it should be applied for and maintained by the owner if he wants to keep it. None of this "automatic copyright" crap.

Obligatory...

[Epsillon]

Sorry in advance...

1) Get filesharers to admit they share files in return for a promise the RIAA won't sue them.
2) Get larger, parent bunch of litigious bastards (new legal entity-not bound by agreement) to accidentaly get hold of these confessions.
3) ?????
4) PROFIT!!!

But for sharing porn...

[Slowtreme]

I haven't rented a porn or bought a smut mag in 8 years, not since I found free porn on Newsgroups and later P2P.

Maybe P2P does not affect my music purchases, but my porn allowance has dropped to zero while my consumption has gone... um... up?

Re:But for sharing porn...

[Anonymous Coward]

[Warning: link is not work-safe]

Does goatse.cx count as sharing porn?

IFPI Switzerland will go down the same road

[piquadratCH]

IFPI Switzerland seems to go down the same road according to this article (german).
As in Canada, only uploading copyrighted music is illegal here, not downloading. As Switzerland is not member of the EU, the laws between the EU and Switzerland are quite different in some points. Cracking copy protection for instance isn't illegal (yet) AFAIK.

Settlements (VISA,MC,US.DLLS,Euros) Accepted.

[cabazorro]

So many settlements
so little time.
Whats the difference between a lawyer and
a whore?
A whore stops screwing you once you are dead.
Perpetual copyright extensions anyone?

Re:Motherfucker

[Anonymous Coward]

... my bad, that's "fucking Republican", of course most Republicans can't spell, much less read, so it's sort of a moot point.

Doesn't the wording make it sound like...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the /. blurb:

"...part of an unprecedented, coordinated attack..."

"...says it will launch more..."

Doesn't this sound like the action of some terrorist group, or perhaps an overseas war? The actual articles themselves don't even come close to using such language.

- a.c.

Read that as "sues 24-7"

[dwalsh]

As in all day, all week?

I was going to say that it is not really news...

Yay

[f0rtytw0]

Another reason for me to continue my non cd buying spree! Coming up on year two or two and a half. I don't even bother looking at cd's in stores any more out of disgust. Money that before went towards say a new cd or two is now spent on video games. Maybe in 5 years or so I will buy another cd but until then screw em.

Re:Yay

[t_allardyce]

Ill beat that - 21 and never bought a CD! ;)

it isn't really about lost profits.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like every other game of politics the point is gross misdirection to the end of creating a false dilemma where the end result is favorable no matter what.

The RIAA et al are distribution cartels. Their members are distributors first and foremost. They aren't concerned about record sales per se, they're concerned about having their distribution monopoly hamstrung by new technology that does not allow them a chokepoint from which to strain profits.

This isn't a fight for a more profitable business, it's literally a fight for survival. Sure, RIAA members want more money, but what they really want is to not be obsoleted, to be able to extend and maintain the level of control held 15 years ago indefinitely.

Over 70% of American homes have Internet access this year; it was 30% just 5 years ago; now it's getting to be a problem. When most Americans are outfitted with hardware that allows them to access this new, unfettered "distribution channel", like other things in nature they will all flow to the area of least resistance.

I'm willing to bet that RIAA et al, no matter what their public face, are against even legal filesharing. Notice how the terms have shifted recently re p2p; "p2p COMPANIES" are now the problem, but anti-p2p legislation (not anti-p2p company legislation) will be the solution. Even services contracted to RIAA members like iTunes must be seen as a threat to them; they aren't involved at all in the distribution except contractually - their resources are completely unnecessary save their contracted talent pool. As legal download services grow and contracts get older, it's plain to see what will happen.

The common idea is to wait for RIAA and similar organizations to die out like the dinosaurs they are. But dinosaurs had a catalyst. These dinosaurs are making sure that no such catalyst will ever be able to manifest, by using their existing wealth to modify the laws repeatedly, vesting ultimate power in copy rights and declaring any threatening new technology criminal.

If true, then p2p is perfectly legal there

[FreeUser]

You can legally _download_ music in Canada - it is covered by the levies we pay on the media (yay!:). You cannot legally _upload_ (i.e. share) music, as that makes you a "distributor" (and thus not covered under any form of personal use).

So if I have a song on my hard drive (legally ripped from my own CD), and I open the door for you to come to my hard drive and download that song, I haven't uploaded anything. Therefor, under Canadian copyright law, running p2p software such as bittorrent should be completely legal. Everything is being downloaded ... nothing is being uploaded to a server (except perhaps a message saying "hey, there's a file on my system and the door is open").

Re:If true, then p2p is perfectly legal there

[Zweistein_42]

Everything is being downloaded ... nothing is being uploaded to a server

Any technical user will be extremelly quick to point out this is false: by using most FileSharing software, you are making your machine into a server.
In client-server architecture, definitions are extremelly simple: if machine requests services from another, it is a client. If it fulfills services of another, it is a server.

Running (say) KaZaA, your machine is client and server at the same time. If you are a wise dastardly leech, you will disable uploading or regularly clear your "Shared" directory. However, if you leave your files in a shared directory and somebody downloads them... well, technically and practically, that is absolutelly exactly the same as putting it up on a server.

Note, obviously, I'm not on RIAA/IFPA/whatever's side here; but understanding the law and consequences is the best defence. Trying to confuse issues will only give you a false sense of safety :(.

I'm sure that any decent documentation for filesharing/p2p software should indicate that your machine will work as a server and a client...

No, really it's not a Constitutional right

[MichaelCrawford]

Actually, article 1, section 8 of the Constitution says:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, ...

...To promote the progress of science

You see, Congress has the power to enact copyright laws, but it is not required to do so.

The first copyright act wasn't passed for some time after the constitution was ratified, it was very limited in scope, and the term was only fourteen years.

both sides of the fence

[chx1975]

I've funded the first CD of a small band. It cost us around 350 HUF per disk, but when it reached the stores it was at least 2000 HUF, and this is in-country. International hit CDs sell here for ~5000HUF. Average wage is 100 000 HUF. And Hungary is not a particularly poor country -- we are just about to join the EU. Could someone please tell how on the Earth could I sell this band's song in the USA without global digital delivery? How could I benefit the authors of songs that I've downloaded but the CDs are not available any longer anywhere? Time to ditch Berne convention and start again.

Re:both sides of the fence

[Anonymous Coward]

International hit CDs sell here for ~5000HUF. Average wage is 100 000 HUF. And Hungary is not a particularly poor country -- we are just about to join the EU.


April 4th 2003: Ft229.3 : US$1

kid.. your ppl make $436 per ..

day ? great !
week ? neat ..
month ? tell the UN that you want to be liberated by US forces NOW !

File sharing LEGAL in Canada

[diodeus]

Accoriding to an article I read:

"On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the (Canadian) Copyright Act dealing with private copying came into force. Until that time, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although, in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment to the Act legalized copying of sound recordings of musical works onto audio recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy (referred to as "private copying"). In addition, the amendment made provision for the imposition of a levy on blank audio recording media to compensate authors, performers and makers who own copyright in eligible sound recordings being copied for private use."

-- Copyright Board of Canada: Fact Sheet: Private Copying 1999-2000 Decision

See: http://techcentralstation.com/081803C.html

Re:File sharing LEGAL in Canada

[mobby_6kl]

No, not sharing. recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy this means you can burn your CD as many times as you want, but you can't sell it or burn it for somebody else.

The really unfair thing is...

[sploxx]

that I pay fees to the GEMA (www.gema.de) for every CD-R, CD recorder and IMHO also computers I buy nowadays in germany.

This GEMA was once invented to get the 'missing' money from the music listeners who (of course) shared the music with their friends etc.

IMHO a good thing in principle. Should be extended to consumer software as well.
This prevents the *massive* invasion of privacy and the enactment of cruel laws deterring people from sharing music but pays the artists for their work. Yes, it *is* somewhat injust because it collects the money even if you do not use your CD-Rs for copyrighted work. But face the consequences if you want to prevent patronage-style payment of artists... all this DRM shit that is now popping up.

But the current state in germany is that you pay this fee AND you are not allowed to do p2p sharing of your music!!

Re:The really unfair thing is...

[GlowStars]

This GEMA was once invented to get the 'missing' money from the music listeners who (of course) shared the music with their friends etc.

Not correct. GEMA's main purpose is to collect money for every public performance or broadcast of works of their artists/content creators.

Re:The really unfair thing is...

[sploxx]

Yes, but they also collect fees for recordable media.

See

http://www.gema.de/kunden/zpue/verguetungspflich t. shtml

Global Call

[WormholeFiend]

I call for a global boycott of non-indie music for a month.

We shall call it, the "Buy No Music Month".

Lets show them this agression will not stand. This will not stand, man.

Did anyone else read???

[dos4who]

Did anyone else read "International Federation of the Pornographic Industry"? I swear my heart skipped a beat. Man, it's early here on the west coast! ~m

Why:

[nagora]

The music companies see the net as a way to distribute without having to share the cover price with the retailers. They want to keep the cover price the same or even higher (eg iTunes' 99c per track gouging) and thereby increase their turnover by about a third at a stroke.

That's what this is about: control of the distribution channel, not sales. Effectivly this is a huge cartel actiion to make it illegal to use the 'net as a distribution method for music unless the price is fixed at the cartel's approved levels (and you've paid your cartel membership dues, of course).

Just thought I'd mention it.

TWW

My bad - link

[pjt33]

Wikipedia:TRIPS

Negligible impact is to MAJOR labels

[uqbar]

and small releases (like those from small labels) are still hurt. According to the same study releases that sell post on the above mentioned thread.

So if you want to help the majors sell more Hot Topic mall "punk" bands, share files - it's all free p.r. apparently.
And if you want to hurt indie labels, that generally share their meagre profits equally with the artists, share files.

The broad generalization that all swaping is ok, is a falsehood.

Already small indie labels are shut out of most sales channels. While internet sales of music can help small labels, if people decide to take for free what they can't find at Best Buy, it will only mean that the artists that everyone professes to support, will have a harder time making a go with the indie labels and will have to go to majors to just be able to make ends meet. Which is unfortunate, because on an indie label and artist should be able to make more money, even as they sell fewer copies and keep artisting integrity.

So please, pay attention to whose music you are swapping. Your favorite artist's next album might never get recorded otherwise...

Remove the tin foil hats please

[Luscious868]

The timing of the international legal attacks is especially interesting in light of the recent study that indicates file-sharing has a negligible impact on music sales

Oh please! The study was just released a few days ago. I'm no fan of any of these organizations or their tactics but come on. These lawsuite take a little time to prepare you know. It's not like they saw the study and decided, ok, now we'll sue some people. This has all been in the works for some time.

Re:Remove the tin foil hats please

[Anonymous Coward]

okay, but my tin foil hat stays ON.

There's a precedent for getting out of treaties

[MichaelCrawford]

A while back George Bush announced that the US was withdrawing from the anti-ballistic missile treaty, so that the US could deploy the Star Wars missile defense system.

Previously, it was forbidden for the U.S. or Russia to deploy a defense against incoming nuclear missiles, except that one city in each country could be so protected (Washington and Moscow).

Back in the early 60's, the US had Nike missiles deployed as interceptors, that were themselves nuclear-armed.

If the US can withdraw from the ABM treaty, then it can withdraw from the Berne Convention.

Re:There's a precedent for getting out of treaties

[Anonymous Coward]

If the US can withdraw from the ABM treaty, then it can withdraw from the Berne Convention.

The reason the US could withdraw from ABM was that it was in the interest of US business (the so-called military-industrial complex) for the US to withdraw.

The consequence of withdrawing from Berne would be that nobody else in the world would be obliged to respect US copyrights any more. This would not be in the interest of US business; therefore, the US cannot do it.

Then what?

[miffo.swe]

Imagine this:

The RIAA etc has succeded in stopping every possible way of sharing information.
Carrying information storage objects is as unlawful as spreading antrax on the White House lawn.

Not a damn difference in sales of music, who the f*ck are they blaming then? The artists? Will we see RIAA sue their own artists for not making enough dough?

How can you own thaughts and arts? We live in a society made up of the selling and buying of invisable, made up objects called rights. Its pretty insane if you think outside our world and try to see it from an aliens perspective.

Then again, when was humanity not insane last time?

Re:Then what?

[qzulla]

Neil Young was sued by his record label for making a record that didn't sound like him. Maybe Trans? He won the suit.

Q

yes there is

[mrsev]

..." Ok, what if someone had a couple of servers in some other country that provided/shared music to the rest of the world - specifically another country that these monopolistic corporations can't touch? Is there such a country in the world?"

yes try
http://www.sealandgov.com/

to quote from their site.... "Sealand was founded as a sovereign Principality in 1967 in international waters, six miles off the eastern shores of Britain. The island fortress is conveniently situated from 65 to 100 miles from the coasts of France, Belgium, Holland and Germany. "

There they have a ISP called HavenCo.

http://www.havenco.com

The policy is as follows........"Sealand currently has no regulations regarding copyright, patents, libel, restrictions on political speech, non-disclosure agreements, cryptography, restrictions on maintaining customer records, tax or mandatory licensing, DMCA, music sharing services, or other issues; child pornography is the only content explicitly prohibited."

They are not cheap but if it is what you want they will provide.

Fox News Follows Main Stream!

[Anonymous Coward]

if you can call Fox News mainstream

Right after the morning main stream, a big steaming heap of Fox News followed. I flushed, watched it swirl in the bowl and disappear.

current state - P2P - DRM = close to happiness

[QS6dot2]

I couldn't care less if the likes of Kazaa were shut down, but I want DRM-free music.
iTMS-like pricetags are OK, as long as the music is offered without "Digital Restrictions Management".
I think the problem for many people who want to buy music online is that not only the P2P-genie seems to be out of the bottle, but his DRM-cousin as well.
Any way to get rid of both would be most appreciated.

humans are like that

[Anonymous Coward]

Quoth the Oracle: "What do all men with power want? More power." It is a beast that grows more hungry the more it feeds.

Americans have been lulled to sleep...they let their freedoms slip away without a fuss....and those of us who care just complain on online forums because we have seen the futility of political involvement in a world full of sleepers....

Positive change always winds up happening the hard way. :)

Re:humans are like that

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose I should have said, "Paraphraseth the Oracle." Oh well. Close enough.

An argument FOR file sharing

[zapp]

I know most of us are probably familiar with this argument, but its been a long time since I've heard it said, so I thought I would explain it...

Popularity of music grows mostly socially, that is: if I own a CD my friends have never heard of, but they like it, they will probably buy it.

Our current only "legal" way to sample new music is the radio. Sure, our friends can expose us to some new stuff, but they just heard it on a different radio station than we listen to probably.

So I say, any song that is on the radio, should be free to download/share. Sometimes I just want to hear that new Blink 182 song a few more times or something, and as a plus maybe one of my friends will hear it with me.

This is especially true in my home town, where radio is Stupid and just play softrock from the 90's all day. People I know there can get what's current through the 'net, and have a chance to enjoy something they would have never been exposed to. (Point: File sharing allows people outside the Clearchannel monopoly to hear their music, whether that is good or bad I'll let you decide)

All that having been said, I don't think its right to download whole albums (nor is it an easy task). If Napster users had played fair and only shared out the "public songs" (those released for radio), maybe the RIAA wouldn't have flipped like it did.

Um no...

[Kjella]

In the real world one would expect those 247 sued to be the biggest sharers they could find, but history (RIAA suits last year into this year) have taught us that the recording industry doesn't seem to share our reality.

If the goal was to cut off supply, then perhaps. But it is in fact quite silly when CDs and DVDs are publicly sold. While the release groups may have ways to be earlier and thus get their "name" on the release, thousands of people could do it once it is in normal retail. Read a doom9.org guide and you'll be making them like the "pros".

Instead, the goal is to act as a deterrent. To scare and intimidate people using P2P, sending the message "You can be caught too". Including kids. Yes, they don't want to seem harsh on kids, but at the same time they don't want to send the message that it's okay either. They want them scared off P2P, not alienated from buying the music.

Btw, is it just me that noticed the 247 = 24/7 figure? [tin foil hat]I wonder if that was on purpose to trigger a subconcious "we're watching you 24/7" thought...[/tin foil hat]

Kjella

Re:Um no...

[Maestro4k]

• If the goal was to cut off supply, then perhaps. But it is in fact quite silly when CDs and DVDs are publicly sold. While the release groups may have ways to be earlier and thus get their "name" on the release, thousands of people could do it once it is in normal retail. Read a doom9.org guide and you'll be making them like the "pros".

  Instead, the goal is to act as a deterrent. To scare and intimidate people using P2P, sending the message "You can be caught too". Including kids. Yes, they don't want to seem harsh on kids, but at the same time they don't want to send the message that it's okay either. They want them scared off P2P, not alienated from buying the music.

I suspect this is the first step in trying to cut off supply, since the music industry continues to experiment with copy-protected CDs and legislation to try to defeat even fair-use of the music on CDs your purchase. Unless they're just flailing about on all fronts, I think a coordinated attack is what they're after, and given their resources it's probably what's really going on.

The lawsuits are failing as a deterrant quite a bit. Since they've started I know many people who've started downloading music just out of spite, and these were people who didn't before. A lot of people are feeling that the recording industry has decided all of its customers are criminals and figure if that's the case they might as well commit the crime they've been branded with. Going after kids (and refusing to back down when its discovered) is really hurting them. It's not going to scare kids, especially teenagers (remember, they think they're invincible, going to jail for sharing music certainly isn't going to occur as a "real" possibility to them), but it IS going to upset and royally piss off every parent out there who worries their kid knows more about the computer than they do, and they aren't sure if the kids are sneaking file-sharing behind their backs. Yes, good parents try to keep track of what their kids do (online and off), but it's especially hard for non-tech-oriented parents to control everything their kid does on a computer, and file-sharing programs are fairly easy to hide. They'll nicely minimize to the tray, only showing a small icon that unless you recognize it you may not even notice.

I think it's already too late myself, the massive negative publicity has even reached past the apathy of most people. Announcements of new suits get reactions along the lines of "damn it, won't those bastards ever learn" instead of the normal "ahh, who cares". Remember this has been going on for nearly a year now, people got apathetic about patriotism in less time than that after 9/11 even, and that was a LOT more serious an issue than the RIAA/Etc. music sharing lawsuits.

[Now hopelessly and utterly OT] Re:One question...

[Mick Ohrberg]

When I said 'first', I meant in this specific sequence of posts...dude. Or dudette - can't tell since you're an AC. And joke necromancy is what it is all about. Condemning old (dead?) jokes to death (again?) by not retelling them to future generations to come (so they can kill them too?), (when we start collecting Social Security - if there is any left by then) isn't good for neither health nor environment.

Imagine a world where this joke all of a sudden wasn't being told anymore:

-Knock, knock.
-Who's there?
-Boo.
-Boo who?
-Don't cry!

That's got to be one of the oldest joke in the book. But as such, we can't abandon it like a piece of trash on the highway shoulder, only to be picked up when some prison inmates are forced out on the roads to clean them, or shredded up even more when a snow plow thunders past it. No - old jokes has to be kept alive and thriving, both in mutated and pristine forms, making sure they survive and live on in our children, but not our childrens' children, because I don't think children should have sex (yes, another old joke). And I deal with forces beyond comprehension every day (aye, that would be my wife).

Geez, I need to quit. Now.

Italy - Homes Raided, Computers Seized

[__aamkky7574]

From the BBC:

In Italy, 30 people have already been charged with copyright infringement, while computers and files have been seized as evidence.

There seems to have been almost no comment on this disturbing aspect. Who performed the raid and seizure - police? If so, is uploading songs now not only a matter for civil action, but a criminal activity? Were the people raided counterfeiters, or simply your average garden-variety music uploaders?

Considering the fuss in the USA over people being sued, I would hope that Europeans will be outraged when grandparents and twelve-year-olds are having their homes raided and PCs seized.

P.

Who Wants To Be a Precedent The Hard Way?

[nightwing2000]

It's debatable whether opening up your computer is an "act" of file sharing. I also recall the RIAA head in (testimony to congress? Lawsuit?) saying that some filesharing happened automatically on install with some programs.

What a dumb thing to say. Give your defendants an automatic out by your own words.

Meanwhile, why would anyone want to be the first to find out whether the courts agree in Canada that initiating a download is the act of sharing, and allowing sharing is not? You know it will go to the Supreme Court, and you'll pay for lawyers all the way.

Of course, there has not YET been requirements to keep records, so the current court cases are still in the process of trying to discover who owned what IP addresses when. Several big ISP's are saying they don't have the history records, and there's no guarantee that the current owner of the IP has had it for very long.

Wait.. I got it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's create a p2p standard that once the file
is uploaded, erases it from the point of origin.

That way the file travels without being distributed.
Hold it one second! (you would say) How can it
be prevented from getting copied once inside a PC?

Spiders will see the file hoping but the never COPIED.

Ferengi's (lawyers) will then have the burden to proove that file was cloned once inside a box.

sounds cool eh?

Ferengi's rules of acquisition:
"A friend in need is twice the profit"

Just a form of terrorism

[t_allardyce]

Ladies and gentlemen, todays events were an attack on freedom. A terrorist organisation known as the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry made an unprecedented, coordinated attack, simultainiously on 4 of our allies. This is a cowardly act but we will not give in. We know that various sleeper cells oparate around the world such as the IFPIG, DRIA, FIMI, CRIA and RIAA. We will work together with these countries and make sure that those that are resonsible are brought to justice! Acts like this are terrorism pure and simple and we will not live with it.

Thanks for your comments

[MichaelCrawford]

I hadn't been aware of the effects of inflation, so yes I need to address that in my article.

Still, artists get very little of the money that one pays to purchase a CD, and I suspect those who are benefitting the most are the execs at the major record labels.

I don't have a reference handy for my claim that there are sixty million p2p users in the US, but I have seen credible statements about this, and expect I can find one and link to it once I get a chance to look for it.

Consider that the Lycos Top 50 says that the most searched-for search engine query is "kazaa", and now that my article is in the Google top 10 for "free music downloads", I'm getting 800 search engine referrals for that query each day.

Damn!

[ErichTheWebGuy]

I misread it at first and thought it said

International Federation of the Pornographic Industry

Damn you slashdot! :-)

Buggy whip

[StrawberryFrog]

Repeat after me: just because the study proved that filesharing does not have a noticeable impact on CD sales does not make it legal

And the converse - if filesharing does adversely impact CD sales, or even lead to the demise of the RIAA, then that, in itself, does not make it illegal. It's the filesharing of copyrighted material thus infringing the bought-and-paid-for laws that does that.

I will feel no pain if all boy bands suffer the same fate as buggywhip makers.

the race is just about to begin

[corban.elektrolite]

a part of the following is an anology.

the same pattern we know from the virus thing.

1) new virus
2) new anti-virus software
3) profit
4) goto 1)

in my opinion there is such a low number of people getting sued because the ifpi is not able/ has not the technology (be honest, they are not able) to find more people with 4 gigs of shared data. and the methods they use have not been tested yet by any european court[1].

and the other side did just start their engines yet while the ifpi is running out of fuel. this is literally just the beginning.

no need to get nervous.

[1] for example, in germany they first report an offence to the police by knowing that this criminal procedure will be appointed (therfor they had to aver every single download for every single shared file, which they can't) in order to get the ip address of their "target" (the providers must only reveal the ip address of a customer in connexion with a criminal procedure) so they can sue her at the civil court. one out of 68 defenders will argue like this or even better.
--
"should we blame the government or blame society? or should we blame the images on tv? no. blame canada." - someone popular

the mafia has gone international?

[MoFoQ]

looks like the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry has turned out to be just like (if not worse) than the mob that u see only on TV and in movies.

wonder if ppl who were extorted...^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsettl ed with the RIAA are vulnerable to the same actions by the international version of the RIAA.

Of course, I still stand by my thoughts that threatening individuals who don't necessarily have access to nor the finances to fund an army of lawyers with a big lawsuit with an army of lawyers at your disposal for the sole intention of getting a quick settlement constitutes extortion (as well as abusing the justice system for personal gains). Sadly, those "personal gains" also applies to a few politicians (as discussed earlier on /.), and politicians rarely bite the hand that feeds them gourmet foods, we, consumers who don't have an army of lawyers, are screwed. At least Attila the Hun didn't use an army of lawyers; just fire and sharp or blunt objects, and the pain was usually momentary.

Sounds like terrorism to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

The record companies are terrorists.

They use indiscriminate attacks against civilian populations in order to promote their own policies.

Here's some textbook definitions of terrorism:

Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or violence and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of persons whether acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation(s) or government(s) committed for political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public or any section of the public in fear.

The use of force and threats to frighten people into obeying completely.

the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

Can you think of a better term of what these litigious bastards are doing?

Actually no

[Anonymous Coward]

" CD sales dropped after P2P usage went up."

No, when Napster was at its peak, CD sales were at a peak. CD sales declined as Napster declined.

useless

[N3wsByt3]

The IFPI/RIAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.

First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?

It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare.

And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.

And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).

It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.

But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.

link fairshare

[N3wsByt3]

The link didn't come through: fairshare

In that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

"the RIAA can easily call illegal file sharers 'stealers' and be using the term in plain old English."

Is it okay to call the RIAA members "organized crime"? After all, they've been found guilty of price collusion, and ways to jack up prices for consumers by illegally consorting on pricing and squeezing margins on retailers.

But I suspect they'd object. A fine organization like the RIAA doesn't want to be "Organized Crime".

So which is it? If copying files is "stealing", then the RIAA is the "Mafia".

6 degrees of separation

[varslot]

With todays huge portable hard-drives, who cares about online P2P for sharing music? If sharing music is what you want to do you should rather take a harddrive over to your friend's house and copy his music collection. Then he can take it to another friend, and so on... Within a couple of links ... all music available to everybody!

Just a thought. It would be much more convenient than waiting hours for the next album of Britney Spears to download.

ah, yes, semantics

[N3wsByt3]

So, they could as well say 'Let's extend it to a billion years', and the courts would have agreed to it too?

I think there is a difference to the letter and to the spirit of things. Clearly, the founding fathers meant only to give a very limited amount of time, so that it would STIMULATE them for making more inventions. when it becomes so extended that it has the averse effect of stiffling, and when it is clearly nowhere to the original intentions anymore, then one has some right in saying that the true meaning has been corrupted, and the law should go back for what it was intended.

Apart from that, there is still the 'to the authors' phrase. I think the supreme court should have ruled that no copyrights may be granted after the death of the original author.

Re:ah, yes, semantics

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at it this way: It can be argued that ethically, if an artist wants to continue being paid for their creativity, they should have to keep creating. How in the hell does a 'lifetime plus ##' year copyright term encourage anybody to keep creating?

Re:ah, yes, semantics

[shark72]

I think a common view is that once copyrights are extended beyond a lifetime, they become a benefit exclusively to organizations and no longer become a benefit to individuals. But, individuals benefit from longer copyright terms, as well. For example, songwriters, just like IT managers or programmers, have the same desire to raise families and provide bounties for same (and let's skip the usual silly "if they're after a profit, they're not an artist" argument; the fact remains that many artists make their living doing so). For example, if you're a songwriter or a painter, if you know that the copyright system will provide for your offpsring if you should meet an early death, then this is additional incentive for you to remain a songwriter or a painter rather than, say, becoming an investment banker. Lifetime plus seventy years looks out for you if you hit that jackpot and write that hit song at age 28, and then you are run over at a bus at age 29 with a wife and infant daughter.

Do corporations benefit from longer copyright terms as well? You betchya. But there are tons of laws which benefit corporations as well as individuals. That in itself is not enough reason to change those laws. It would strike back at those "greedy corporations," but we must consider the collateral damage to those ordinary folks who rely on their arts to survive.

EMI just cut 1,500 jobs and 1/5 its artists

[Anonymous Coward]

My brother works IT for EMI in a really cool room that looks like the Enterprise Main Deck. I hope he doesn't lose it.

You Don't Matter

[serutan]

I don't think the big issue here is record sales or copy protection, it's the appalling eagerness of governments to cooperate with the slapdown mentality of the copymaking industry. I'm not talking about artists and creators, I'm talking about businesses that produce nothing original themselves but only make and sell copies of other people work, controlling the rights through well written contracts. The copymaking industry (music, film, paper) has achieved an amazing degree of control over governments throughout the world. They don't have to prove the costs of copyright infringement, or even that there is any cost. All they have to do is whine loudly and blame all their business problems on "piracy," and governments obligingly implement scorched-earth enforcement.

Crying fair use is not enough. The general public doesn't really care about being able to make backups of their CDs. They happily consume whatever is put in front of them. Copy protection doesn't bother them. What might bother them is the realization that the democracy they think most of the world lives in today is really a pretend democracy, sort of like Student Council. Ordinary people don't really have a say in what their governments do anymore. That privilege belongs to people with enough money to outbid each other for the attention of lawmakers.

That's the sad message that should shine through all of this -- that if you aren't wealthy You Don't Matter.

Newsgroups

[Anonymous Coward]

So they are pretty much going after Peer 2 peer users. How long before they go after irc? How safe are newsgroups?

The lesson here...

[Anonymous Coward]

The lesson is that sharing music (or other illegal but fundamentally moral activities) should always be done from an internet cafe without onsite video surveillance. Just bring your music on a USB memory stick!

Re:Motherfucker

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an atheist.

Religion never had humanity. But Islam isn't even that anymore. It's a political ideology.

So kill them all. Just like they want to do to us. The only difference is it's actually within our means should we decide to avail ourselves of the opportunity.

Re:Motherfucker

[Anonymous Coward]

People all over the world hate us for a lot of reasons. I'm none of them. FWIW they hated me first, I'm just returning the favor.

Most of the reasons they hate us, is they consider themselves our equals, peers if you will, but they see a huge disparity. We have, they have not. But they're not our peers. They haven't made the hard choices, like haveing 2-4 kids instead of 12, investing in much education, allowing their neighbors to do as they wish, seeing choice as an opportunity instead of a threat. The smart ones have left, or are leaving. The rest are a mob that can't be reasoned with. I say, fine, don't. Do unto them as they would do unto us. Blame me. Feel free. But without their point of view, mine wouldn't exist. And their point of view existed since before I was born.

well

[N3wsByt3]

that's all very well, but the spirit of the law did not provide for an income for the offspring. I would like to recall that, for the reasonings that were given to include copyright, it was meant to be very restrictive. It was NOT meant to be a nearly-perpetual income for corporations, nor a sustainable income for the offspring of the author.

Why ypour example would make bleed our harts, there are a lot of ppl after all, that are in the same position without that refuge. Copeyrights should not be a replacement for a solidarity icome for those left behind; that's what a state should care for in a social context. The law of copyright was never intended to be used for that, even if, in some occasional circumstances, one could see a proper use for it.

I think it's best when we let the original goal of the law supercede above the current speudo-income reason that is actually the root of the reasoning these days.

In other news...

[angedinoir]

The recording industries of the world have decided that it's much more profitable to simply make all music illegal and sue everyone than it is to try to market a product...