Slashdot Mirror
NYT Promotes File Sharing
aisaac writes "An article in today's NYT comments intelligently on filesharing. Key points: downloading music is not illegal, peer-to-peer enables this useful and legal activity, and a list of good places to find good music online (including the American Memory Collection at the Library of Congress. The Induce Act is briefly mentioned without analysis, but the article does not mention that some of the Act's sponsors and cosponsors have expressed a willingness to consider ammendments to restrict the application of the Act. (This according to a letter I received from Senator Sarbanes.) Let's keep the pressure on!" A Congress call-in day is being organized.
Within Epitonic's huge roster is at least a song or two from some major-label acts, among them the New York band Secret Machines, the Texas band Sparta and the English bands Radiohead and Spiritualized. But independent bands like Bright Eyes or Godspeed You Black Emperor are every bit as good.
Whenever I see the word "intelligent" included in the summary of an article linked from Slashdot I cringe. This time I was absolutely shocked to see that the article was not only intelligent but insightful and informative. I hadn't been directed to Epitonic before but I am sure I will poke around there some more. I have become a big fan of "alternative" bands that have been making it to the radio scene as of late (Secret Machines, Velvet Revolver, and Modest Mouse to name a few). Modest Mouse allows the taping and distribution of their live performances and it's apparent that the Secret Machines don't have much of a problem with getting their sound out there. Nothing gets me more interested in purchasing tickets to see a show than when the bands distribute their music for free.
The article mentions my all time favorite, FurthurNET, as a viable alternative to other P2P networks which harbor many files that probably shouldn't be there. FurthurNET is great when you are looking for something more "headsy" like DSO, Phish, or the Dead. You might have better luck looking for other stuff on torrent sites out there (like the now seemingly defunct sharingthegroove.org).
Support the bands that support the free distribution of their music. It's already working!
...but downloading copyrighted materials you don't have permission for that belong to someone else is. Let's not forget that a lot of the anti-copyright sentiment around here magically disappears whenever we have a GPL violation article.
It's nice to finally see a journalist who is at least moderately informed on this issue. More coverage like this will be needed though to bring greater understanding to the majority public. The Hatch'esque philosophy of absolute IP supremacy over legitimate use of technology will do great harm to innovation if it's adopted by the masses. The xxAA orgs would like nothing better than this, but ultimately the consumer would lose.
The RIAA also has been quite effective in making it sound like the Internet and P2P will end music. The reality is it may put an end to the current music industry where profits are reaped at the artists' expense but those who are musically talented will continue to create new music. The most likely end result is an entirely new music distribution mechanism, one that pays the artists fairly. More and more bands are starting to offer Mp3s online, both for free and for small payments. The more people who know about this and start taking advantage of it, the quicker the current crooked practices of the music industry will fail. It might even lead to more good music being out there. :)
If authorized downloads were all that was file-shared, file-sharing would be a non-issue.
The issue revolves around unauthorized sharing, and this article isn't about that.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
The debate over filesharing networks a close analogy to the gun-control debate. In other words, here they are saying that the means (e.g., guns or file-sharing) are not at fault, it's the motivation (e.g., for violent crime or stealing music). The opposite side of the debate is, of course, if we remove the means, then we disable the criminal.
I bring this up only to point out how Congress reacts to these types of questions. That is, the means can be held accountable (i.e., gun registration, bans on some firearms). We could see uncontrolled filesharing networks banned based only on how the RIAA is framing the debate.
How is it stealing? Stealing only occurs when you deprive someone of some type of physical resource.
"Actually, this article doesn't promote filesharing at all, but rather legal sources of authorized downloads and/or streams."
So, those aren't...um...files? And people aren't, well, sharing them? Could you possibly explain what is different between sharing files and filesharing?
The sites they hightlight are places where you can get music unhindered by RIAA and it's policies. They advocate things like trying the artists site, they point out sources of un-RIAA-tainted music.
The one thing the article is not justifying (and clearly seperates itself from) is unlawfully distributing property for which RIAA has exclusive distribution rights. In point of fact, the article points out that RIAA does actually have the legal rights, technology may have complicated the enforcement of them, but that does not change the fact that they have those rights...
What the NYT *is* pointing out is that there are many places to get music without violating RIAA rights, and validating their position that file-sharing is destructive to their industry.
As I've preached repeatedly over the last year or so, there are options, and you should be exercising them. Which action sends a clearer message to RIAA, forswearing music for which member organizations have the exclusive distribution rights, or participating in the unlawful distribution of said materials... Considering that the second does nothing but convince RIAA that they have a valuable product (which many deny, but continue to validate RIAA with their actions...) and that their rights as regard that product are being violated. The first gives them no legal leg to stand on, and sends a clear message, you won't support RIAA, it's member agencies or the artists they retain. That is a clear and succinct message.
Kudos to the NYT for mainstreaming the *only* reasonable way to send a functional message to RIAA.
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
The fact that people buy their crap doesn't make their gains "ill-gotten". And independent music won't be a "threat" to the RIAA as long as idiots sell their souls to the RIAA for promises of riches and fame.
"suing your customers ...it tends to piss people off and then they tend not to buy your products."
But of course, the people who are copying and redistributing music they haven't paid for aren't the RIAA's customers. That would be like suggesting that someone is a customer of GM after stealing a Buick.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
We wish it were that simple.
For one thing, problems can occur where a compulsory license is required. For example, suppose you create and perform a song that I want to play on my radio station. Even if you give me full rights to play that song, I am still required to pay the compulsory license fee for using your work in that manner. Copyright law does not give you (as the copyright holder) the authority to authorize me to withold the payment of that license fee. This means I can't start an Internet radio station even if I only use content released under the Creative Commons licenses. Crazy, huh?
For another, law can create an environment where it is physically impossible to execute legitimately owned rights. Using the example above, if you wanted to distribute your work on DAT tape, and wanted to allow anyone to make multiple-generation copies, you could certainly authorize that as the copyright holder, but people in some countries (the U.S) would find it impossible to purchase DAT recorders which would allow them to exercise that right without breaking the law. In other countries (Canada, I believe) the purchaser of a blank tape would still pay an extra tax (a fee above and beyond the cost of the tape itself) to compensate every artist (except you) whose rights (it is presumed) are being infringed, even when no such infringment occurs.
Certainly others can come up with additional examples.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
So far only a few people have signed up for the Congress Call In Day. Come on Slashdotters, shouldn't you all be protecting your right to own a computer? Where is the Slashdot effect on this one?
Actually you can hear a song for free in many other places (i.e. radio, TV). But how about this scenario:
No one downloads the song via P2P.
Radio plays it once. 10,000 people hear it.
Ten people buy it.
Instead of:
Million people download it via P2P.
Thousand people like it, so the they buy it.
Not to mention that it cost $100,000 to get it played on the radio in the first place.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
An awful lot of people are heavily into music, but are completely detached from the free music and more importantly the Indie scene.
Two Canadian websites you need to look at:
- http://www.newmusiccanada.com/
- http://www.cbcradio3.com/
Look at broken social scene, or the Unicorns, neat stuff like that. Have fun.
-chase
[ a directive occured while processing this error ]
They figure if they appease the slashdot crowd they can get us to register to view the articles.
In reality, they're just encouraging more folks to use BugMeNot... now available as a FireFox plugin as well.
1) You shut down one road, they'll just use another. Blocking isn't apprehending or interdiction.
2) Of the illegal drugs sold around the U.S., much are sent through FedEx, UPS and like services. Should we shut down those companies because they facilitate the transport of illegal drugs? Because they are the "road" on which the drugs travel into cities?
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
Wow, you are so completely wrong that I'm amazed you can feed yourself. Well, maybe you don't...
> For the past years since Napster, filesharing has been used in a sense that refers to sharing copyrighted files without having the copyright holder's permission.
It has been used BY YOU to mean that. Just because you push a word into narrow terms, not everyone does. When I say filesharing, it has nothing to do with copyright, legal, or illegal. It means SHARING FILES, regardless of content. I use KaZaA to download legal, free software when the distribution site is down, slow, etc.
> When people talked about filesharing, they talked about Napster, Kazaa et al.,
Because those are the programs that do the sharing. What the hell else do you expect them to be called?
> nobody gives (or gave) a damn about legal filesharing,
Again, just because YOU view the world so narrowly, don't assume everyone else does as well.
> No doubt this is just one meaning of the word
Which goes contrary to your previous statement that "filesharing" means only "distributing copyrighted material illegally."
This is stupid. File sharing means file sharing. If you want to talk about "illegal file sharing" or "sharing copyrighted files," fine, but file sharing is about sharing files.