Slashdot Mirror
P2P Bits
yohaas writes "Two Op-Ed stories today in the NY Times address music sharing. In one Kembrew McLeod says that the lawsuits aren't working and gives some alternate suggestions. In the other Harvard Law professor William Fisher says that the industry is going about the situation in the wrong way, concluding that 'the record industry's response to file sharing--trying to block the technology altogether--would generate the worst of all possible results'. Neither article is comprehensive, but they are good read nonetheless." Reader Brill Pappin points out that Canadians aren't afraid of the music industry. And reader The Importance of Being Earnest writes "The INDUCE Act, which would make it a crime to 'induce' copyright infringement, such as by inventing things like the Betamax, has finally been officially introduced. The bill has been renamed the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act [PDF]. In addition to the name change, there has been another slight modication: 'counsel' is no longer part of the proposed statute. Here is a line-by-line refutation of Hatch's introduction [PDF] to the Act. EFF has shown how broad the Act is by writing a mock lawsuit [PDF] suing Apple (for making the iPod), C|Net (for reviewing the iPod), and Toshiba (for supplying hard drives for iPods). Previous Slashdot coverage here."
"The INDUCE Act, which would make it a crime to 'induce' copyright infringement, such as by inventing things like the Betamax, has finally been officially introduced. The bill has been renamed the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act"...isn't a loophole for this simply making a multi-funtion method for *whatever* where one of the funtions happens to circumvent or break copyright protections?
sPh
Not a law yet, just a bill. And given Sen. Hatch's track record, I wouldn't worry too much about it becoming law.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Both assume that somehow the RIAA should play nice with alternative distribution/promotion methods, and somehow that they are trying to do that, just going about it the wrong way.
Frankly, that's foolish.
The RIAA has absolutly nothing to gain by releasing the promotional controls they have over the industry. Why? Because it completly removes all their power. P2P/Webcasting make the threat of the next big thing coming up outside their reach very possible...and possibly very likly.
The fight over P2P and webcasting is not intended to raise money in the short term, it's intended to monopolize the promotional channels to ensure their long-term relevence.
Let's say the EFF's worst nightmare scenario occurs, and legislation eventually gets passed making all sorts of things, from DRM-free hard drives to writing simple Internet clients, to "unprotected" ADCs in every possible consumer device, illegal. Eventually the people are going to realize that we've stumbled into Regulations Hell, and the people will demand a repeal of all of these stupid laws. "Load a program, go to jail" laws will not be popular, and when ordinary people start getting busted for doing utterly benign things, there will be a backlash.
The simple fact of the matter is that the existance of the Internet has made unlimited digital sharing a reality. The genie's out, people love getting free stuff, and nothing short of a police state is going to stop it. The content providers are either going to have to find a business model to take advantage of this, or learn to live with it. It's that simple.
dinner: it's what's for beer
Lawsuit brought against audio / video equipment manufacturers and the studios that bought them that allowed the music / movies to be recorded in the first place. Then the equipment manufacturers and companies that used them that created the CDs, cassettes, DVDs, and VHS tapes of the movies that allow people to see them and possibly record them. Then we go onto the chain stores who purchase the equipment to play them and the media that contains the information that can be copied. all of this before we ever hit the first end-user law-suit.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Does anyone know the cumulative total of all the RIAA lawsuits? These are just being instantiated in order to scare the general populus into thinking they get sued. Sure, go download music as much as you want but if you share it you get sued. It is definitely a one way street.
What I don't understand is that I can have an archive of music on a network and someone can "break in" and steal that music from me and then I can get sued by the RIAA. Where is the logic in that!
Aj
GroupShares Inc. - A Free and Interactive Stock Market Community
-------
artlu.net
The Vic newspaper said she was using Kazaa, which doesn't make much sense as we have our own UToronto-wide file-sharing network using DC++ that goes at like 7mpbs and has a huge selection...
The article you cite is dated March 31, so maybe the instance I'm referencing took place prior to that date.
Well, there's a fairly simple solution to that.
Expand the issue to not being merely file sharing (which is an issue of reproduction and distribution) but expand it to the entire scope of copyright (so that this scheme would also apply to creating derivatives, and some public distributions and performances and such), and then instead of paying a monthly fee, don't pay at all. But rather than make this available altogether, which would merely be the abolishment of copyright, instead only permit natural persons to be shielded by this, provided they are acting noncommercially.
Then things become pretty simple: ordinary people don't pay artists at all, unless either a) they want to (because they feel charitable, or can't find an alternative source for the works) or b) they're using it commercially. Businesses would of course have to pay regardless of whether or not they're using the work commercially.
How that money is allocated would be just as it is now: up to the various parties involved to hash out.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The RIAA is just another group funded by large corporations to pursue their interests, rather than the interests of individuals, and I could care less if they disappeared tomorrow. I know this, though: Sharing songs with no revenue going to the people that created them is financially harmful to the songwriters. Music isn't something that a person can't live without, and listening to radio is free.
Here's something else I know. If labels like RCA didn't spend $250,000 recording a CD (that could be done for easily 1/10 that cost) they'd have less to cry about in the profit news.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Political bribery need to be criminalized and a strict system set up to ensure that no bribery happens under the table. Even if that system involves something drastic like: having the state control all of the politician's money or monitoring them around the clock.
Just as the USA has a separation between church and state there needs to be a separation of industry and state.
back on topic: making it illegal to invent things is a very innovative way to stifle innovation.
Have you seen the MPAA commercials? They're showing pictures of the production crew, editors, etc... and that downloading movies affects these people and their families. Quite the opposite PR campaign that the RIAA is using which is "stop downloading or these large corporate executives will have to buy a smaller yacht."
I wonder if the MPAA campaign is appealing to the public any better?
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
RIAA bashing will get you your +5, despite being factually inaccurate.
I like bashing RIAA as much as the next /.er, and working at a p2p company, I have good reason.
However, the truth of the situation is that despite having reservations over being told what to do, most people merely accept instructions from authority without questioning them.
I would say that desipte RIAA attmpeting to shut down my business, that they are, in fact, going about the situation in "the right way(tm)", where "right" in this context means "likely to achieve the majority of self interest goals", if for no other reason than because most people don't question "authoritative answers" to issues they encounter.
I fairly recently had a discussion with a friend of mine, who fairly clearly demonstrated this principle. She had heard on the "FOX news" that downloading mp3s would cause you to go to jail. When I asked about this, seeking more details from her (remember, I make p2p software, so am interested in average people's thoughts on the subject) she actively avoided putting any thought into the subject, and instead rapidly retreated to the comfort of TV-delivered answers, as stated in passing moments across the "news" about it being illegal or being responsible for "starving artists" or "child porn".
To me, it just reinforced my oppinion that the average person (and this friend is truly an average American) would rather just accept the "Authoritative answer from TV" to nearly any problem or situation encountered.
What a long post to disagree with your off-the-cuff statement, eh?
-dave-
The pig browse. With Google. Sigh is to the chicken. Chicken is fool. Giggle. The DailyWTF giggle.
I'm not so sure that its legal, just that the CIRA has not come up with a viable copyright infringement legal case that works within our justice system...yet. Once they have a framework, I fully expect numerous lawsuits in a similar vein to the RIAA.
;)
We're in the midst of federal elections here. Unfortunately its the standard issue of compromised choices. I can vote for the Conservatives, who although state they are hands-off for business subsidies and want to eliminate CANCON, they also would override the canadian consititution in issues of gay rights, want to privatise healthcare, and have heavy backing by funadmentalist christian groups from the rural western provinces.
Alternatively, I can vote for the Liberals who have been plagued with spending scandals, are firm supporters of CANCON, and wish to strengthen copyrights rules. Unfortunately they're the more progressive party in terms of personal rights and freedoms and have a less aggressive tax-cut strategy.
The New Democratic Party would raise taxes both on the recording industry and on the CDs... no one would buy them anymore, and the recording companies would go bankrupt.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Even more frightening (and this may be slightly OT) is that if this bill passes and becomes law, it could (will?) open the door for similar legislation reaching to other types of technology as well.
Think about it - if they outlaw a certain piece of technology solely because it could be used to circumvent copyright (the iPod is a good example), then how long will it be before some capitol hill schmuck decides to author a law making other devices illegal? After all, a rifle could be used to shoot someone, a car could be used to race illegally, and a toaster could be used to electrocute someone in the bathtub.
I'm not necessarily saying that this would certainly happen; only that a bill like this would open the door for it. You just watch.
When you're not looking, this sig is in Latin.
Go to The RIAA's site where they make no bones at all about the fact that they represent the labels. They make an aside that they sort of represent artists, but only because they fight for freedom of speech so the labels can sell more CD's.
.com, rather than a .org ;)
Notice, also, that they're a
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Man, there's this great ad campaign in Vancouver, BC where a kid gets caught stealing a candy bar and just tells his dad 'but you steal satellite singals.' It's brought to you by the concerned statelite people of north america or something.o otleggers feel bad about themselves?!? I just wish the cable companies or record companies would flat out admit it's them who are frowning apon what you are doing
Man, i love those 'Concerened X's of Y.' Who are these people. Are they a a group of house wives (or husbands) who get together and say 'our society is falling to pieces, we must raise money to publish adds that will make satelite-single-stealers/internet-pirates/movie-b
At the end of teh day, I'm goign to give up UT because 'killing people online is still killing.'
And remember children: 'When you download MP3s, you Download Communism!!!'
The Neo-Bohemian Techno-Socialist
We are all presumed guilty anyway, as we are charged a tax on blank CD's for money to go to the "poor starving" artists. SOCAN has collected the money, but last I had heard none (or very little) had ever made it to the artists as it was mainly used to pay for the administration of collecting the fee.
This is not the sig line you are looking for... -- Old Jedi Sig Line Trick
This bill is so obvious that I wonder what they are trying to hide. ie Send this one up as a ballon to get shot down while they sneak some other laws thru underneath the "noise" generated by this bill.
Hell, if this crap passes, I say we sue Apple, C|Net and all these 'enablers', so that when we lose the suits, the law will be more or less invalidated by the courts.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
See, I don't have a television. The only place I have seen one of these ads was in a cinema.
The result of me having to listen to propaganda like that without the benefit of "mute" or "fast forward" buttons, while trying to "do the right thing" and actually *spending* $20 or so on admission to a movie on a non-discounted night, left a distinctly unpleasant taste in my mouth.
If it weren't such a cool movie (LoTR 3), I would have been decidedly dempted to leave, get my money back, and hit bittorrent.
The MPAA, though, is in very little danger from downloads. It will take a bite out of DVD sales, but the box office can never be replaced. I don't know many people with 8-point surround sound and 15-foot high screens, and those few who do aren't usually worried about the cost of a DVD.
Hardware, software, and blinking lights!
Maybe introduce a mandatory cap on campaign treasuries. If the treasury goes over the cap then the monies go to the State.
If bribery is found to have occured, then federal prison sentences should be imposed on both the elected official and the Company's officers.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
I'm seriously debating the idea of suing the entire membership of RIAA, if the bill passes, under the same rules that drug-crime victims are allowed to sue drug dealers.
Basically, sue them for contributory negligence by supplying the music in the first place.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Not a law yet, just a bill. And given Sen. Hatch's track record, I wouldn't worry too much about it becoming law.
Still, given the number of people in Utah who own iPods and CD burners, it makes one wonder why they keep re-electing that clown. Apparently they haven't connected the dots between their diminishing rights and their senator...