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."

Comments

yay for legalized bribery!

[lordkuri]

great.. more laws BOUGHT to prop up an obsolete business model.

when do we start enforcing the constitution and putting a stop to legalized political bribery?

-lk

Re:yay for legalized bribery!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I may screw this up...

[trainsnpep]

I remember a quote from a book I read abuot 5 years ago....or something like it.

To make a pig go forward, tie a string around its leg and pull it backward.

The basic instinct of anyone or anything - pig or human (or as the RIAA seems to consider P2P users pigs) - is to go the opposite of the way you're being directed. Now, I'm not saying the RIAA should encourage P2P, I'm just saying they are definitely going about it the wrong way. I've gotta agree, they're doing it all the wrong way. Perhaps some positive campaigns, not negative ones?

Re:I may screw this up...

[vDave420]

The basic instinct of anyone or anything - pig or human (or as the RIAA seems to consider P2P users pigs) - is to go the opposite of the way you're being directed.

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-

Canada not afraid

[jeepee]

Pretty logic Canadians are not afraid....
File sharing is legal here...

http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5182641.html

Re:You US'ians sure have a twisted law system

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we don't have enough money to get our government to listen to us. Don't worry about us, though, it's only a matter of time before enough people realize that guns are a hell of a lot cheaper than lobbying.

That proves it....

[Kenja]

File sharing is legal in Canada and its had no effect on the quality of music and art, just look at all the high quiality IP comming out of the land up north! I even hear that Shatner is back in the recording studio.

Neither of the NYT articles get it..

[CashCarSTAR]

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.

The silver lining in the falling sky...

[Mr. Neutron]

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.

List of those to sue so far

[f0rtytw0]

I hope this passes since it could be great at generating income for me or at least be a great investment. First off I can sue Dell since I have a computer from them and it was really easy to get and they gave me no warnings on how easy it was to use a computer to commit fraud. Then I can sue Microsoft for making an operating system that allows for easy copy right infringement. Their "copy" and "paste" methods have cost trillions and trillions of lost sales and IP revenue. Then I am going to sue my ISP for giving me internet access. Finally I am going to sue the government for inventing ARPA Net which evolved into the IP stealing networks we have today. There are pleanty of others on this list but I think this is a good start. All I need is a couple hundred million dollars to start the lawsuits but the return on this inventsment is quite substantial.

If it passes, write this letter...

[k4_pacific]

Dear Senator Hatch,

In order to comply with the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004, I am turning in my now illegal devices which can be used to infringe copyrights to you so that they can be properly disposed of.

Sincerely,

[Your name]

Now, round up a bunch of broken VCRs and old 486 PCs (think thrift stores), and send them, along with your letter to:

Senator Orrin Hatch
104 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510

Funny timing

[I8TheWorm]

I just got off the phone in a lengthy conversation with a friend who is a widely recorded songwriter. You can imagine the arguement between a programmer and a songwriter regarding the issue or piracy. He brought up some interesting points (and I like to think I did too)...

• Songwriters feel the RIAA is going about it all wrong. The RIAA is funded by labels, so of course that's the drum they'll beat the strongest. The NSIA believes the RIAA's PR is attricious, and will (already does) hurt the performing industry. Nobody cares that record labels with a bad business model (read, spend too much money on production and marketing per cd) are either not making as much money or losing some. The NSIA (and others) have and continue to pressure the RIAA to change it's tactics.
• Songwriters are in a different situation than programmers. I can charge whatever I like for my time or my programs. Songwriters are beholden to federal law (in the US) regarding what they can charge which is $0.085 per song per album cut, and $0.015 per song per radio play. Songwriters cannot charge a salary and forego any rights to what they write legally.
• Songwriters love the idea of iTunes and other paid services. Part of reason is their pay per download is likely to go up from their pay per cut. The only downside is the copyright law has to be amended (again) to allow this, and until that happens, iTunes etc.. will have to put the artist money in escrow.
• The media hasn't been any help in that corporations going after the little guy are front page news (ala the McDonald's coffee burn woman), while details that emerge later (also ala the McDonald's coffee burn woman) make small print in the back pages. The little girl that was sued by the RIAA got seven messages from them telling her to stop sharing files.
• 
  
  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.