RIAA, MPAA Ask High Court To Review P2P Decision

The Hobo writes "It's official: Hollywood studios and record companies on Friday asked the United States Supreme Court to overturn a controversial series of recent court decisions that have kept file-swapping software legal." (Previous /. coverage here.)

Comments

Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

The story is here. It appeared then vanished again, just to show up once more before disappearing into the void.
But now it's here! Lets party!

Re:Finally

[punkin]

We can't party. Partying implies sharing a good time and since sharing is bad .....

Re:Finally

[danheskett]

This isn't bad. If the Court refuses to hear the case then the current ruling will work its way through different federal courts until (1) there a consenus on the side of file swappers or (2) there is a disagreemnet where at least one court disagrees with a peer or lower court. At that point the Court will either hear the case, or decline.

The only way this can be bad for fileswapping is if the Court hears the case and reverses the Betamax decision.

Re:Finally

[turnstyle]

"The only way this can be bad for fileswapping is if the Court hears the case and reverses the Betamax decision."

Well, not exactly.

Most all the rulings so far have been bad for fileswapping -- ie, they have all agreed that unauthorized copying is illegal -- this ruling just protects the software itself, and keeps the burden shifted over to fileswappers.

Re:Finally

[danheskett]

Most all the rulings so far have been bad for fileswapping -- ie, they have all agreed that unauthorized copying is illegal -- this ruling just protects the software itself, and keeps the burden shifted over to fileswappers.
There has never been any legitimate legal question to whether unauthorized sharing of files is copyright infringement. It is.

The only question has been are the companies/individuals who write the software liable for any potential secondary infringement claims.

Re:Finally

[Mattcelt]

So now do us the favor of defining "unathorized" sharing of files, would you please?

I figure we can start with the decision of the courts that companies are "authorized" to create and distribute software that facilitates sharing.

Then we can move on to the concepts of "fair use" and "first sale" which "authorize" users to make copies for their own use; let their friends and relatives read, listen to, or watch them; and resell copies they have legally purchased without paying royalties.

Oh, on the way I think we should touch on the "No Electronic Theft Act" which "authorizes" users to legally share up to $2500 worth of material with anyone*.

So, please enlighten us, oh great master of copyright wisdom!

--
*(Note: the DMCA may have superceded some or most of the provisions of the NETA. IANAL, etc.)

Re:Finally

[danheskett]

"Unauthorized sharing" is distribution of copyrighted works without permission from the holder of the copyright.

"Fair use" means you can use exerpts in other creative works.

"First sale" means that if you can resell the works you are allowed to.

Any other questions?

Can't they just...

[Mori Chu]

Can't they just slip the P2P ban into Patriot Act II? It'd be much easier for me; I could concentrate my hatred in one place.

Re:Can't they just...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you download music, the terrorists will have won.

Re:Can't they just...

[spottedkangaroo]

You know... I wasn't really creeped out by the patriot act until I saw this ultra creepy movie.

Re:Can't they just...

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

Can't they just slip the P2P ban into Patriot Act II? It'd be much easier for me; I could concentrate my hatred in one place.

Better yet, slip it into Patriot Act II, and put all of THAT into a Microsoft Longhorn EULA.

Re:Can't they just...

[momerath2003]

Woohoo, sharp rise in linux market share by terrorists.

Re:Can't they just...

[SlowMovingTarget]

I'm trying to figure out if that's like wrapping dead fish in crap, or wrapping crap in dead fish... And then lighting it on fire.

Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[Anonymous Coward]

The owners of copyrighted material often say they suffer "harm" and "economic loss" resulting from illegal copying. Like most arguments put forth by copyright enthusiasts, it holds little water - for several reasons:

The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copying individual would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.

The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them.

The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" got paid. That is based on the assumption that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not. In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[Dizzle]

Wow. Parent is astoundingly right.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[PigeonGB]

While I agree on most points, it is hard to say that copying in itself hurts no one without someone freaking out that you basically said it is ok to copy things because no one gets hurt.

You didn't say that. You're simply saying that no one lost money directly from a copy, which is the truth. Now if someone making a copy decides not to pay for something, the copyright owner has lost a potential sale, but it would be fraudulent to claim it as an actual loss.

Here's something that the RIAA and others don't like to admit. When someone downloads an MP3, or even an album of MP3s, it doesn't prevent them from subsequently buying the album. I know plenty of someone who downloaded the Dave Mathews Band album when it was prematurely released, only to buy the CD afterwards anyway. So by the logic put forth by many like the RIAA, the RIAA broke even in terms of losses in that case. That's absurd.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[LewsTherinKinslayer]

You're not wrong. But you're making the point they want you to make. P2P software is not necessarily for use for trading copyrighted material. And that's why they should be allowed to stay. Even if one were to admit that a primary reason for p2p networks is for trading copyrighted material. That does not make it the network's fault. It is an abuse. And it should be treated as such. Handguns aren't banned because people use them to hold up seven eleven's. The criminals are prosecuted. (Regardless of whether or not you feel that copyrighted material swapping is indeed a crime, either way, its NOT the p2p network's fault.)

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[ArbitraryConstant]

These arguments get made a lot, but the fact of the matter is that they actually do own the copyrights on the materials, and legally should be allowed to dictate what happens to them. Even though no direct loss occurs, their copyright is still being violated.

Unfortunately, the members of the **AA abused the market, and now the invisible hand is tearing them a new one. This is nothing more and nothing less than the market attempting to bring the price down to what people are willing to pay.

Anyone that knows economics knows that if the price is that far above what people are willing to pay, the situation is very unstable and it doesn't take much to bring the whole thing crashing down. Napster was the catalyst, but if it hadn't come along someone else would have done it, probably within a few months of the same time.

The market is built into human nature, The **AA's attempts to win a battle against human nature are evidence of the extent to which they are disconnected from reality. It's like trying to stop the drug trade or prostitution. You can spend an arbitrary amount of effort trying, but all you can do is drive up the price, and in the case of all 3, not by very much.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[mcrbids]

In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.

... and you'll argue this "no loss" defense until you have some significant work of your own, of intellectual nature - a book, music, software, database, etc...

Really, copyrights are not about removing rights of consumers, it's about offering producers choice about their works. They can give it away, license it, or keep it carefully to themselves.

With the exception of the rediculous term (~ 100 YEARS!) copyright is one form of intellectual property that our government got RIGHT. Either I have a right to dictate how my works are used, or I have no defense against larger companies who wish to steal my works for profit.

Copyright levels the playing field so that "little guys" can eke out a business without having to suck up to the big guys. Again, the only weakness is the term of copyright.

What makes this issue particularly relevant is that P2P is the fundamental structure of the Internet itself. Any IP address can "publish" materials online via HTTP, anon-FTP, BitTorrent, NNTP, and too many other protocols to name.

If all forms of P2P are illegal, then the Internet is, also.

Write a letter to your senator/representative today!

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[torokun]

Lost profits are considered a loss under U.S. law when someone has wrongfully caused a business to lose customers. In order to get damages for such loss, the amount must be reasonably determinable, otherwise the plaintiff business can likely only obtain an injunction.

The question is emphatically NOT "what should copyright cover?" The law says what copyright covers. The question in these cases is whether or not Grokster and StreamCast actually are liable for contributory or vicarious copyright infringement under the law. There are a very detailed series of questions the courts ask in order to determine this.

If the public decides it wants to violate copyright law, it had better get copyright law changed or be liable for infringement.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[idesofmarch]

You miss some points well.

1. It is true that individuals that download often would not have bought the works in the first place, but many would, perhaps not in the volumes they are downloading, but in some quantity. It is obvious they are fans of the subject. Moreover, mass downloading is fostering a new attitude in our youth - no one should ever pay for music. So it entirely possible that peer-to-peer sharing is changing people's perceptions toward buying at a psychological level - they may feel that to pay anything, even a dollar per album, is inherently a rip-off. If you think I am kidding, talk to some school kids.

2. A dollar not earned is still lost revenue. In the bookstore example, you forgot to mention that the bookstore owner bought the book from the publisher with the expectation of being able to sell it. If his stock does not sell because everyone has already illegally obtained a copy, that is a very real loss. You are just playing with words. A penny saved is a penny earned, after all.

3. In your last point, you seem to try to say that the concept of copyright should be changed to make it so that anyone can copy anything. If I am wrong, please correct me. So what exactly should copyright protect then? It seems you have taken away all rights. I think what you are really trying to say is "I want to copy whatever I want legally and screw everyone else." Surely, you realize that if people are not rewarded for their work (sometimes years of work on a single project), they will stop working. Sure, a few will do it purely out of love, but then they will realize their savings are gone and they have to take some other full time job, and hey, pretty soon they are down to half hour per day of creative work.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[mcc]

These arguments get made a lot, but the fact of the matter is that they actually do own the copyrights on the materials, and legally should be allowed to dictate what happens to them.

Not necessarily. Copyright owners don't actually have any "rights". What they have are privileges, granted by congress based on a mandate 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".

It may be some of the privileges granted to copyright owners may be in the best interests of promoting the useful arts and sciences; but if we begin to fall into the misconception that the copyright system exists for the copyright owners' benefit, we are making a big mistake.

I'd say artists have to a certain degree a right to be compensated for use of their work, but I'd say saying copyright owners get complete and total control over exactly how copyrighted material is used is something which benefits no one at all except the owners of the RIAA and MPAA corporations.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[cpt kangarooski]

It's probably worth pointing out here that you can't get a copyright on a database as a database in the US.

copyrights are not about removing rights of consumers

Despite doing precisely that.

it's about offering producers choice about their works

Sure.

But if I'm a member of the public, my rights are undeniably being limited in order to give you a choice.

To this, I must ask, why the fuck should I tolerate this? Should I let you come over to my house and eat my food just because you're an artist? You're already deciding for me what I can and cannot say or write.

Copyright levels the playing field so that "little guys" can eke out a business without having to suck up to the big guys.

And in the process, we lose the desirable effects of competition on the marketplace. We lose efficient production and inexpensive goods, because you are in effect asking for a monopoly.

Now all that having been set straight, I am nevertheless willing to suffer a copyright system. But never for any of the horrible reasons you suggested, all of which do nothing but screw me over for your own gain. Nor due to the silly hope that I might somehow benefit as an artist (though n.b. I've been a professional artist, and did support myself as such for years) because most artists never make any money of note.

Rather, I would only ever suffer copyright to exist if it left me, an ordinary member of the public, better off than I would be otherwise. Given that people have been pirating, there's obviously a lot of public benefit in getting stuff for free. (e.g. if manna fell from heaven, we could eliminate world hunger, which is probably better than propping up farmers who then would only be producing something no one needed anyway)

So you need to start convincing people that it is better for THEM to pay for stuff instead of trying to get it for free.

I think it's possible.

But you've done nothing but to undermine your own position by basically telling people to suffer for your advantage. That just won't stand.

Again, the only weakness is the term of copyright.

There are, in fact, many, many weaknesses. Term is just a noteworthy one.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[torokun]

If the copyright owner loses a potential sale due to a violation of copyright law, then it is a real loss, just as much as if you lose potential profits because someone you contracted with failed to observe the contract.

The law doesn't take the simple-minded view that a loss must be money taken away from someone, it can also be something of value that someone would have rightfully had but for another person's wrongful conduct.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

2. A dollar not earned is still lost revenue. In the bookstore example, you forgot to mention that the bookstore owner bought the book from the publisher with the expectation of being able to sell it. If his stock does not sell because everyone has already illegally obtained a copy, that is a very real loss. You are just playing with words. A penny saved is a penny earned, after all.

Except in this specific example, the bookseller simply rips the cover off the book and returns the cover to the publisher for a full refund. Haven't you ever read the fine print inside that tells you that if you bought this book with no cover, then you've ripped off the publisher?

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[anachattak]

I've actually been working on a project to make a legitimate use of peer-to-peer technology on behalf of aspiring artists. It's an idea still in development, but I've put together a website for the effort (called Distributed Development) at http://www.distributed-development.com. I just "launched" it last week and am looking for aspiring artists across the country and around the globe to collaborate on projects and make reputations for themselves. It uses peer-to-peer technology to distribute bandwidth costs among the user network, so large independently developed files can be shared without costing an individual server excessive bandwidth.

Another application I've seen is an article I received the other day, about the BBC using BitTorrent to distribute programming to viewers (http://www.hyperreal.org/~mpesce/fbm.html).

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[rpresser]

The law doesn't take the simple-minded view that a loss must be money taken away from someone, it can also be something of value that someone would have rightfully had but for another person's wrongful conduct.

Therefore, Sonny Bono should have been drawn and quartered, because "something of value" -- many, many works whose copyright was due to expire -- would have been rightfully the property of the public but for his wrongful conduct.

Alas, now that he's dead we cannot kill him again.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[gbnewby]

A good question is whether shared items are copyrighted, and if they are whether they're licensed for redistribution (as is often the case for individual artists & writers), and if they are copyrighted and not licensed does the RIAA/MPAA legally represent the copyright holder (if not, it's MYOB under Title 17 U.S.C.).

Project Gutenberg contributed an amici brief with Prelinger & the Internet Archive. We welcome the opportunity to show how the use of p2p for legitimate copyright-free works has grown since we wrote the brief (and it was large then, already).

With the help of Magnetlinks (an open standard), all of the Gutenberg content is now available for direct download to enabled p2p programs via the Gutenberg search page. This is very cool, and helps our free eBooks to get around. If you use p2p software, consider sharing Project Gutenberg content in your "shared items" location.

On a somewhat different note, to anticipate a frequent /. contribution: it is still quite unclear whether individual readers (or listeners) violate copyright when they view/read an item for personal non-commercial use in many situations. For example, if you own a print copy of Orwell's 1984 and are in the US (where it's still copyrighted), is it legal for you to view the online copy of 1984 from Project Gutenberg of Australia? Or, if you are in Holland, can you view James Joyce's Ulysses from Project Gutenberg even though it still has copyright protection in life+70 countries? What if you already own a copy of the book? The core issue, yet to be decided for any media I can think of, is what happens when you purchase an "item" - did you purchase a right to use the item in various forms, or some piece of plastic or dead tree? The MPAA/RIAA & like-minded companies want all the benefits, so that if you lose your dead tree you need to buy another one (because you don't have the rights to the intellectual creation, just the crud it was printed on), but if you want to put a CD on your MP3 player you can't (because you own the piece of plastic, not a license to the music). The intersection between fair use, licensing and Title 17 (particularly the DMCA extensions) has not been addressed fully, and overlaps with issues like the applicability of EULAs. There's lots of work yet to be done.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[torokun]

It's not considered wrongful under the law to lobby for a bill and get it passed. ;)

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[MoebiusStreet]

Your first two points are good. But #3 is insane:
> If the public decides it can share copies,
> then the publisher is not entitled to expect
> to be paid

No, a consensus of the public cannot take away something that is currently private property. The 5th Amendment says "Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." Even if you don't think it SHOULD be private property, the fact is that significant investments have been made in it, and declaring it public would be robbing the current holders of those investments.

(On my soapbox) This is the problem with democracy unbridled by Constitutional limitations -- it's nothing but mob rules. The reason we need government is to protect the rights of the little guys, but thinking as above is doing the opposite, enabling the majority to take what they want just because they've got the strength of numbers.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[n0tWorthy]

And, in fact any file sharing network would become illegal. Even private business networks would allow file copying and if I allowed VPN connections into my "private business network" people could (gasp) exchange files. OMG, we must stop all computer networking.

I'm sure you all remember someone who back in the 80s or early 90s who had a BBS (Wildcat rocks!) just chock full of games and software available for downloading. The only difference between then and now is that the GUI to exchanging files has become so simple that even the lusers can figure it out.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[Anonymous Coward]

P2P software is not necessarily for use for trading copyrighted material.

It isn't? Are you sure? Really sure?

Any work created by someone in the United States gets an automatic copyright. That essay you did for school, that poem you wrote at home, they're all copyrighted materials. You own the copyright in those cases.

The commercial producers do not have a monopoly on the production of copyrighted materials!

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[legirons]

"These arguments get made a lot, but the fact of the matter is that they actually do own the copyrights on the materials, and legally should be allowed to dictate what happens to them."

Well the debate here is, whether they should be allowed to overturn laws that they find inconvenient, to replace them with laws specially-designed to help them make money.

Nothing to do with copyright at all. They're asking for their competitors, their critics, and lots of innocent bystanders, to be outlawed. And the worst thing? This could only happen when someone with that much money gets involved. Anyone else has to follow the laws. The RIAA* follows laws where it suits them, and when one stands in their way, they demand that it be changed. Did any of the little girls whose families were sued into bankrupcy get the chance to make what they were doing legal? Did anyone who wanted to copy something have the high courts at their beck and call, falling over themselves to do the bidding of whoever paid the most to congress? No. They just got trampled upon.

* p.s. let's not say RIAA for now, it's one layer above the people who are relevant. Let's call them "Junior Boys Own, the publishers of all records by The Underworld"

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[ArbitraryConstant]

Your argument holds water and I personally agree with it, but when trying to persuade others I prefer the stronger argument even if it misses out on key points like that.

The assertion that there's demand that isn't being satisfied is very, very easy to back up given the numbers of p2p stuff; hundreds of millions of users, growth rates above 10-15%/day for months (slowed only by the rapid saturation of the market) at a time in 2000, etc.

Deffending it is hard. Saying "it's inevitable, deal with it" is easy.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[Anonymous Coward]

ok, the argument "If people are not rewarded for their work they will stop working." needs to be shut up right now.

Have you ever seen an old painting or heard the phrase art doesn't pay and the only way to get famous is to die? These are VERY real things in the art world, not everyone gets paid. There are literally thousands of people that do not get paid to be artists most of which are better than the "artists" that are being hurt. Bottomline, most real artists create to create, it's something that drives them, not saying it wouldn't be nice sometimes to be able to sell a painting or two. Without any money in it at all, art would still continue.

If copyrights were designed to help the little guy they wouldn't cost a lot of money and require a lawyer to get. They may have been designed for that, but they aren't now. Also, don't cry on a forum about copyrights and then not vote, it's your choice, vote and cry or shut your mouth, because you chose to remain silent.

Back to the REAL issue, Should kodak be sued because i can "steal" someone's work by pressing a button? Should the companies that produce the cd presses be sued because they can duplicate copyrighted material? These are apples to apples comparisons people, they may sound ridiculous, but once you're at the meat of this issue you realize just how ridiculous it is.

Copyrights, need to be fixed, we all know that and we need to put some of our own into offices where they can make this happen. Meanwhile cases like this should be countered by other law suits that make it look frivolous. If you're a painter, sue Kodak because they provide a means to copy your product. /rant

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[Anonymous Coward]

the public decides what is "Just"

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[Woody77]

I'd rephrase that to:

If the copyright owner loses a sale due to a violation of copyright law, then it is a real loss.

Ie, someone copied it instead of buying it. Potentially, i could buy any CD produced. It's just not likely, I have better taste than that.

But if a CD wasn't going to be bought new, at retail, then the copying of it doesn't constitute an actual loss. I've receive a ton of MP3s and copied CDs from friends which were of the "listen to this!" offer. Most have ended up in the trashcan (real or virtual). Those few I actually liked, I try to buy, although I usually end up buying used anyway, because I don't have the money for retail prices right now.

p2p allows someone to go browsing and finding interesting things, and decide if you want to own them or not. If you DON'T buy the CD, then yes, it's a loss of a sale, but if it was a CD you're weren't going to buy, as it costs too much, then it's not really a lost sale.

The problem is that they see 1mil downloads of britney spears latest hit, and 1 mil downloads of the hit before that, and if off the same CD, claim that 2mil CDs worth of goods weren't sold, and were stolen, and that that's $36mil in revenue lost.

When in reality, they might only have lost a couple hundred thousand sales, say (250K), for a real loss of $4.5mil.

Which is yes a loss. On the flip side, they probably also gained some sales by people finding new artists, and buying thier CDs. The problem is that no one has any statistics for how many mp3s are kept instead of buying cds, which percentage of those would have resulted in sales had the person not already had the mp3s, how many cd sales resulted in mp3s/cds copied from friends, etc.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[mcrbids]

It's probably worth pointing out here that you can't get a copyright on a database as a database in the US.

Wow! You're wrong on the very first line! Of course, you generally can't claim copyright on the CONTENTS of the database, but the structure or "compilation" of the database is perfectly copyrightable....

copyrights are not about removing rights of consumers

Despite doing precisely that.

Sort of like land ownership rights removing your right to walk on it?

To this, I must ask, why the fuck should I tolerate this? Should I let you come over to my house and eat my food just because you're an artist? You're already deciding for me what I can and cannot say or write.

1) Using profanity is a common tactic to strengthen one's words. In a debate, profanity seldom has an effect other than to make the user look foolish and stupid. Best to refrain from using them!

2) As an artist (note that I never claimed to be one) how has copyright allowed me to forcibly eat dinner at your house? If you listen to MY music, or use MY software, or wish to benefit from MY database, I have a right to demand MY dinner, or don't use my stuff. Simple, no? This way, we let the laws of economics determine the viability of my products, as with any other business or industry. It's amazingly fair and has withstood the test of hundreds of years of time...

3) How would such an artist decide what you can/cannot say or write? What, you can't COPY what I said or wrote? (Oh, but wait, that's not YOU saying it, that's you quoting ME.... a VERY different matter.) Note that the IDEA is not copyrighted, just my specific representation of it! If I wrote a book on, say, biodiesel, and you liked it, you could write your own book, and include the exact same facts and ideas as in my book. You can even cite and quote references from my work!

In all, I have to say, yours is a very poorly thought out argument. Come back when you've thought this through...

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the value of your product decreases because other people are offering your product for free, then you have lost something.

By your analogy, theft should be legal, since it is just an assumption that a seller must be paid for his product.

Saying copying hurts no one shows you are clueless about economic realities.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not. You are making a statement about all further actions by the rule-breaker.

As others have said, a short-term copyright violation, at least with music files, does have a pretty good chance at actually *generating* sales.

What this DOES penalize is the current "push out the crap" model of the RIAA (and to a lesser extent, the MPAA), and how they package and sell their product.

People in general get tired of disposing of or having to deal with a box full of crap just to get the one thing they really want, especially if they have to do it over and over. Think Pepperidge Farms cookies. They're great. But they keep getting smaller and smaller (and costing more) every year or two, yet the packaging remains the same size.

So should Pepperidge Farms get in a huff and sue Consumer Reports, or whoever, who adds these cookies to their "most overpackaged for the price" product lists, for the "loss" that these lists might entail?

Or what about boycotts? Should organized business boycotting be illegal, because, after all, it's an organized action by possible or recent customers that results in a loss of opportunity for a company, which could be construed to fit under the RICO Act? What about boycotts against book or media sellers?

Rather than figure out a way to make money off of the new model, the RIAA is struggling to keep the old model in place. Maybe if the RIAA realized that profits might go up in the much smaller, leaner business that P2P promises would actually be a good thing for their shareholders and shareholder value. If every other company in the US has such loathing for its non-executive level employees, why should the RIAA companies be any different?

P2P threatens to take out layers of recording middlemen above the actual production of the music: promoters, distributers, the CD manufacturers, advertising and promotion budgets, etc., while threatening to give the artists a little more leverage over their artistic product than they typically have today.

Oh well. Eventually it will all fall apart, one way or another.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[geekee]

"You didn't say that. You're simply saying that no one lost money directly from a copy, which is the truth."

This is a lie. Making copies available for free directly impacts the value of the product by lowering its worth. The seller than has to lower his prices to give people an incentive to not take the time to find illegal sources.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[ArbitraryConstant]

You're correct, but changing the law won't eliminate the demand any more than the lawsuits will.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[Yartrebo]

What about books whos covers have fallen off through use. Do you have to get it repaired otherwise it's illegal to resell it (though I doubt you'd get much for selling a book in that poor condition, unless it's very rare).

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[cpt kangarooski]

Of course, you generally can't claim copyright on the CONTENTS of the database, but the structure or "compilation" of the database is perfectly copyrightable....

No, hence my 'database as a database' comment.

You cannot copyright anything unless it is, among other things, original and creative. Facts are neither. Compilations of facts which are not original and creative in their selection and arrangement of those facts are not copyrightable even as compilations.

In the copyright world, when we talk about copyrighting databases, generally this means that they are copyrighted REGARDLESS of originality and creativity, and rather merely for the labor involved. This 'sweat of the brow' idea is unconstitutional in the US, however, as seen in the Feist case.

So I don't think I was particularly wrong. Terse, but not wrong. (C.f. The Copyright Office refusing to register copyrights for 'typeface as typeface.')

Sort of like land ownership rights removing your right to walk on it?

Yes, actually. Just like that. And again, the idea of land as property may be an acceptable one, but not inherently so. It needs to be justified.

If you listen to MY music, or use MY software, or wish to benefit from MY database, I have a right to demand MY dinner, or don't use my stuff. Simple, no?

No, not simple in the least. Only a simpleton would think otherwise.

There's nothing about the works you create that ties them to your person. When you, say, compose music, you cannot inherently prevent other people who come in contact with that music from spreading it. Nor are you diminished in your ability to use that music by their doing so. This is because, unlike real or tangible property, creative works are nonrivalrous. An infinite number of people can listen to a piece of music without causing harm to it.

In fact, it's very difficult to prevent this from happening, since once some work spreads, it generally cannot be recovered, quite unlike property.

You, I'm afraid, have no inherent right to demand compensation when people spread works around. Spreading works around is a function of the inherent right of free speech and press, and inherent rights don't really conflict like that.

This probably explains why copyright as we know it did not exist at all until the early 18th century, and why it was not widespread until the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Instead, you have only one route to go.

While you can predicate access to the work on payment, you cannot stop those people from spreading the work further, nor continuing to enjoy it, nor can you repair the 'damage' to yourself once they've done so.

Your only viable option then, is to make it in people's best interests to not do so. You can't police people, but they can police themselves, and they will generally act in their own interests. Hence copyright from the Statute of Anne has existed solely to promote the public good. The generally small number of people acting contrary to that are much more easily dealt with than the whole of society, which is what you'd be up against in your me-me-me system that promotes no one's good but the artist's.

This way, we let the laws of economics determine the viability of my products

Capitalism would demand the abolition of copyright. Once a work has been created, the marginal cost is generally nearly zero. It's easy to see the discrepancy: copies of popular public domain works cost far far less than copies of popular copyrighted works. This is because rather than paying the author, he can be eliminated. Rather than cater to the author's desire to, say, only sell in certain markets, or not invest in translation, all possible viable markets will be exploited.

Basically, you're trying to ignore the beneficial effects of having lots of competition for a single commodity good. And almost all the time, a healthy market is the one with competition.

Note that the IDEA is not copyri

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I'm all for a little bit of competition. Look what the forces of competition have done for innovation in other areas, and I'm not just talking about computers. It's a shame that competition is illegal in this case, but that doesn't make it entirely immoral. Competition is still a worthy goal to strive for. Progress of society as a whole is far more important than a single business.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[fatcatman]

If the copyright owner loses a potential sale due to a violation of copyright law, then it is a real loss

No you dumb fuck, what part of "potential" don't you understand?

If I buy a lottery ticket I'm a potential winner. But I can't claim that I lost $50M when I don't win because it was never guaranteed.

Just because I (wrongfully, you claim) download a CD doesn't mean the copyright holder would have had my money. There's a third alternative: I might have just done without the CD. This is why we use the word "potential".

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[Frizzle Fry]

The owners of copyrighted material often say they suffer "harm" and "economic loss" resulting from illegal copying. Like most arguments put forth by copyright enthusiasts, it holds little water - for several reasons:

The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copying individual would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.

That doesn't make it "mostly inaccurate". This makes it completely accurate. If it is "occassionally true" that people who would have bought the material now don't, then they have suffered an economic loss by losing those sales.

If you want to claim that they haven't suffered an economic loss, then you would need to say that none of the people who copied it would have bought it, and I don't think you believe that.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[AnotherDreamer]

Who cares? I'm not interested in moralizing about corporate profits. .

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[wickedsun]

Right. Basically anyone who is a potention buyer should be sued if he doesnt pay for it? Seems to me like its a very bad way to see things.

Everybody is a potential buyer, not just the ones who actualy listen to songs they have not paid for. Basically, you can't take money from people who don't want to give it to you.

If you go into a store without buying anything, can they sue you? If not, why? Because you didn't take anything from them, you just looked around.

I think the RIAA should just put out numbers like EARTH_POPULATION-PEOPLE_WHO_BOUGHT_THE_CD*PRICE_OF _THE_CD=DIRECT_MONEY_LOSS, that would work better.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[asretfroodle]

The law doesn't define right and wrong. Many laws are considered wrong if enforced. Copyright is only tolerated because the vast majority of infringers are never prosecuted.
Of course, TCPA should change all that.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[asretfroodle]

I thought contracts would usually have clauses in them to cover any breaches. If I fail to turn up to work one day, and the liquor store remains closed, my boss can't make me cover the earnings he would have made had it been open. A downloaded song doesn't fit into this category though, while it's a wrongful action, the record company doesn't lose anything they would have rightfully had if I didn't download it. My downloading it doesn't mean I would have bought it.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[mcrbids]

You need merely to supply me with my answer the perennial question of copyright: What's in it for me?

1) Well-though books at your local bookstore. (Perhaps you should buy a few on copyright to understand the concepts?)

2) Music on the radio? Or, on a CD that sound better than the garage band next door?

3) Software that works? (Even GNU is a license based on copyright law that enforces contribution in exchange for rights to use!)

Don't forget that "the deal" behind copyrights is to allow a monopoly for a limited time to the author/creator of intellectual works (books, etc) to encourage authors to produce quality works.

In exchange, that copyright is void after (originally) some 20 years, and the works are released into the public domain.

It's really a shame that you'd comment so vigorously on a subject about which you apparently know so little.

Many ask "What's in it for me?" because this other end of the deal, the cancellation of said rights in a reasonable period of time has been cancelled on you.

You might recall me mentioning this at the beginning....

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[YggdrasilOS]

So, in other words, the seller has to deal with competition. Pardon me if I seem ignorant, but isn't that the cornerstone of supply and demand economics? Personally, I don't have much sympathy for an industry that inflates the prices of its products to ridiculous levels, and then cries foul when the consumers refuse to pay.

If you are a business, selling a product, and the product doesn't sell as well, you don't sit there and whine and complain about it, you find ways to make it sell well again, or you move on to another product. Napster, KaZaA, et al. would not have become so popular if the average CD were sold at a price that more closely matched consumer expectation. I remember buying full-length albums on cassette for $10. This wasn't exactly cheap on a $5/week allowance, but I considered it a fair price for the amount of music I got. With most albums now retailing for a minimum of $15 for about 11-13 songs, most of them being repetetive filler, I no longer feel that I'm getting adequate value for my money.

The iTMS and similar are a nice idea, but the quality of these recordings is sadly lacking, and the licensing tangle required for any of these services to offer a decent selection makes it impossible to find all the music I want. So for now, I'm buying my music used, or obtaining it from alternative sources. The companies represented by the RIAA have indeed lost hundreds of potential revenue dollars coming from my bank account, but it's an entirely self-inflicted wound.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[Secrity]

IANAL. It is not necessarily infringement to trade or distribute copyrighted material. Some copyright holders grant licenses allowing the distribution of their work (such as some sort of copyleft or educational licenses). Some recorded material is not copyrighted and is in the public domain. It would only be copyright infringement to trade or distribute copyrighted material in a way that is contrary both to the license that is granted by the copyright holder and to applicable copyright laws.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you really call the black market "competition"? I mean if I was selling Xanax out in front of a pharmacy for less than the pharmacy sold it for, that wouldn't make me a competitor, it would just make me a drug dealer.

If musicians started giving music away on the net, and that was causing record sales to dwindle, then you'd have a point.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[syberanarchy]

I fail to see what this has to do with a contract - EULAs are not contracts, regardless of what the bought-and-paid-for courts say. Are you telling me I can now be held to some bullshit contract by refraining from purchasing something?

What about the contract they broke with the public? The one where they get their millions of dollars and lear jets and 37 bottles of a specific brand of water backstage at any given concert as long as they nurture the public domain?

They fucked us, broke the contract, why should I feel bad about fucking them right back in the ass? Because Orrin Hatch says so? Fuck him.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! My browser exchanges files with the servers - index.html, banner.gif...
Should all internet browsers be illegal then?!

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[shark72]

"But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got."

Correct.

"The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book."

The crucial difference is how one avoids paying for the book: if they get a copy of it without the rightsholder's permission, or by playing bridge. The former is gnerally illegal. The latter is not.

"In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them."

Correct, but irrelevant. Piracy is not part of a free market system. From the Wikipedia:

A free market economy is an idealized form of market economy in which buyers and sellers are permitted to carry out transactions based solely on mutual agreement without interventionism in the form of taxes, subsidies, regulation, or government provision of goods or services beyond simply the protection of property rights and enforcement of contracts.

Copyright is a property right.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[shark72]

If I understand you correctly, it's manifest that the right to a creative work belongs with the consumer, not the producer. Is that true?

As an aside, your arguments are similar to the "manifest destiny" paradigm of the 18th and 19th centuries in the US. It boiled down to "might makes right." "Rights" which are enforcable only through social contract don't matter to much when you encounter a large group of people who have advanced technology and the desire to use that technology against you. Today, an artist and his so-called "right" to how others use his work is irrelevant in the face of ten million teenagers with a P2P application. Likewise, history has shown us that it was futile for American Indians to claim their so-called "rights" to land when faced with a million settlers with rifles.

Naturally, I'm not calling you an "Indian killer," but just pointing out that human nature is constant. If enough people are united in wanting something and they have the technology to overcome social contracts, they'll take it, and rationalize it as they see fit.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[shark72]

"Even if one were to admit that a primary reason for p2p networks is for trading copyrighted material. That does not make it the network's fault."

Of course not; a network is simply a collection of computers that talk to each other, and the infrastrtucture to do so.

"It is an abuse."

Not true in the least. the eDonkey and Kazaa networks are being used in exactly the way their creators intended.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[wronski]

Most people know this, but it is worth repeating The **AA are not figthing piracy, they are figthing obsolecence. They do not *produce* music & films, they distribute it; and now there is way of distributing media globally that bypasses middlemen and connects artists and cosumers (almost) directly. Today most people have cd burners, and a lot of them copý and distribute copyrigthed stuff. In terms of (real) lost revenue, this is probably equal or larger than P2P. The **AA certainly aren't thrilled about it, but it is P2P that drives them nuts. Not because they lose money, but soon people will find ways of producing, distributing, selling & profiting from music without them. There will be a media industry then. But it will be different, and hopefully, smarter.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[ChuckSchwab]

So, you prefer we go back to square one, with zero intellectual property rights? Why should anyone produce any great literature if others are just going to be able to get it for free? What's the incentive? You're asking for a full-frontal assault on IP rights, and on culture for that matter.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[cpt kangarooski]

Don't forget that "the deal" behind copyrights is to allow a monopoly for a limited time to the author/creator of intellectual works (books, etc) to encourage authors to produce quality works.

In exchange, that copyright is void after (originally) some 20 years, and the works are released into the public domain.

If the quid pro quo were merely to encourage authors to create works, why would the copyright term expire? Surely an artist is more encouraged by, say, 10 year copyrights than by 1 year copyrights, and thus more by infinite copyrights than 10 year copyrights.

Furthermore, why are we interested in encouraging the creation of works? Wouldn't it be easier all around to say, put Shakespeare's plays back under copyright, and then sell the copyright to the highest bidder?

Who is it that is interested in having copyrights encourage the creation of new works, but not too much, since they also want it to expire? And why are they interested in these things.

Many ask "What's in it for me?" because this other end of the deal, the cancellation of said rights in a reasonable period of time has been cancelled on you.

Nope. Copyright is a wholly utilitarian doctrine. Self-interest is totally central to the entire thing. The most perfectly functioning copyright system will be that which most greatly slakes the unslakeable desires of the public.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[cpt kangarooski]

If I understand you correctly, it's manifest that the right to a creative work belongs with the consumer, not the producer. Is that true?

Mm, ultimately yes. But there's really a lot more nuance than that.

First, if the rights are in the public, then it's not as though they can exclude others from it, whereas when rights are held by an individual entity, those rights are rights to exclude others. So they're not really the same rights, though I suppose one might try to construe them in such a manner. End result seems to be the same either way.

Second, it's not that the public wants to take things per se. Really the public can be seen as having several independent, equal desires. Copyright is an attempt to satisfy all of those desires to the greatest possible degree, in the long run. Without copyrights, or with the wrong kind of copyrights, some desires might be more greatly fulfilled, others left wanting, and the overall public good would be less. Of course, we probably have the wrong kind of copyright now.

Naturally, I'm not calling you an "Indian killer," but just pointing out that human nature is constant. If enough people are united in wanting something and they have the technology to overcome social contracts, they'll take it, and rationalize it as they see fit.

That's more or less what I'm talking about, really. Copyright is a utilitarian system. It's intended to do nothing other than to provide the most utility for the most people. Because I think that copyright is capable of providing greater utility than no copyright would be, I support the general idea. I merely differ as to implementation. However, it's difficult to convince people that the current implementation is wanting in various ways unless they properly understand the overall point. From an incorrect point of view, the system is doing pretty well.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[Anonymous Coward]

OMFG! +1: First proper use of "begging the question" on /., ever!

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[arminw]

There was an informal survey here on/. a while back which showed that the vast majority of music files on computers were ripped from CD's that were owned by the people that also owned the computers. I wonder if the readers of these forums are much different from the general population in this regard.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[arminw]

If the sellers didn't charge too much, most people would buy it rather than spend lots of time looking for and downloading what they want. Also a lot of stuff being downloaded is no longer for sale, except maybe as used goods.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[arminw]

Handguns -- in fact all guns -- would have been banned long ago if it were'nt prohibited by the Constitution.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[Anonymous Coward]

The MPAA/RIAA & like-minded companies want all the benefits, so that if you lose your dead tree you need to buy another one (because you don't have the rights to the intellectual creation, just the crud it was printed on), but if you want to put a CD on your MP3 player you can't (because you own the piece of plastic, not a license to the music).

This seems to make sense. You say they state that you buy the CD not a liscense to it. So when you loose that CD you have to go buy another, no liscense. When you have it you do not have the right to make an mp3 of it, no liscense.

I understand what you intended to say, however your argument is less than compelling in its current form.

--AC

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[slaad]

P2P software is not necessarily for use for trading copyrighted material. And that's why they should be allowed to stay....Handguns aren't banned because people use them to hold up seven eleven's

Although I totally agree with your premise, guns don't make a good analogy because that is spelled out in the constitution. A knife or a crowbar might be a better example.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[crankyspice]

That is based on the assumption that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not. In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.

My sense is not the economic loss, but simply the lack of control; the loss of the vested statutorily granted exclusive rights (17 SC 106), that's primarily at issue. If you disagree with the [RI|MP]AA asserting those rights, then you agree that the GPL is null and void and anyone, including SCO, can come along and use whatever they want, modify whatever they want, etc., without repercussion or remedy. The GPL (which /.'ers seem to support) and the media industries (for whom /.'ers seem to cheer every court loss) both depend on copyright protection.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[goober1473]

If all forms of P2P are illegal, then the Internet is, also.

Not sure on this one, the file I recived this morning from Amazon was transfered with HTTP, they have a server I have a client we are not peers

The same would go for ftp, however bittorrent is a peer to peer network. That said I would rather keep peer to peer network as they distribute the load, I like to be able to download Linux distros as a bittorrent. This example actually helps the small guy as they don't need to buy a big ftp server and bandwidth to host their distro.

Peer to peer should not be illegal as it's a transport method.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[nanojath]

Your argument is not without merit, but recognize that the question of copyright is not wholly circular. In the USA, anyway, the broader constitutional justification of intellectual property laws is to promote creative and inventive activities. By providing a limited, exclusive license to profit from a piece of intellectual property, a greater incentive is provided to create such things in the first place. I happen to think this is a reasonable argument. I also think that artists whose work I want to possess copies of deserve the minimum of my respect that I purchase the copies they have sanctioned - even if I don't care for the agents they elected to transact such business (in fact I have ceased to purchase new works from some of my former favorite artists because I've become so fed up with the agents they have signed their property away to).

Even physical property is a legal creation. You could posit a total anarchic system where the only rule was possession: after all, all matter in the world being preexisting, and humanity being but a transient thing, nobody can really ever "own" anything. These legal creations help us coexist. What is VERY reasonable to point out is that copyright in particular has been pushed and extended far past its original intent, with little or no justification. Though in my opinion the proper way to address this is legislatively. But then I like Quixotic endeavors.

Meantime, a thought experiment: we know it is legal to buy a used CD. We know it is legal to transfer the data on this CD to, say, a computer so that it may be played on, say, an iPod. We know that it is legal to resell the used CD. Now, while the spirit of the law might suggest that one should delete all copies/derivatives of the information contained on the resold CD, the letter of the law contains no such injunction. One could imagine a totally legal method of "file sharing" mediated entirely by mail, like Netflix.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[scum-e-bag]

You have either charged to much, or you made a poor investment choice.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[Tokerat]

Not true in the least. the eDonkey and Kazaa networks are being used in exactly the way their creators intended.

As far as swapping files: yes. As far as destroying the music and movie industries as we know them today: God damn, I hope so.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[torokun]

Ok. Strictly speaking, that should have read "If the copyright owner loses a sale he would have made but for someone's violation of copyright law, then it is a real loss."

These are lost profits, and are awarded by courts all the time.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[torokun]

But your actually having it means that you received a benefit wrongfully, by violating copyright law.

Through legal means, you would have had to pay in order to get the song. Under the law, you're not allowed to just copy it because you don't have the money to pay for it, or don't want to pay for it...

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[torokun]

It was just an analogy to breaking a contract. When you break a contract you've agreed to with someone else, and thereby cause them to lose profits somehow, you're liable to them for those lost profits.

For example, if I pay you for a year's supply of widgets, for my computers, and you fail to supply me for the whole year, I can sue you for the profits I lost due to my inability to make and sell as many computers as I would normally have done.

Copyright issues are not contract issues, but the concept of lost profits is similar...

Go figure

[nurb432]

This is nothing new, and expected..

Re:Go figure

[Anonymous Coward]

At least a couple of moderators hadn't expected your revelation that this is nothing new, and was expected. "What insight!", they cried.

Re:Go figure

[Anonymous Coward]

Next they cried, "How funny!"

And continued, "But what people is he talking about?"...

Re:Go figure

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand

What part of "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" do you not understand? Sounds like the Founding Fathers wanted regulations about guns, and they intended only militias to have guns. What militia are you a member of?

Story

[KaSkA101]

This story needs to disapear again just like the RIAA and MPAA

Don't blame the tool

[Kethinov]

Knives are used to murder people every year, but they are not illegal. **AA needs a grip on reality. Their business model is failing. Quit tinkering with legislation and find a profitable venue.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[sangreal66]

Their business model is failing. Quit tinkering with legislation and find a profitable venue. Which part of their Business model is failing, exactly? Is it the fact that they charge money?

Re:Don't blame the tool

[DunbarTheInept]

Apple's iTunes is doing okay. It's not charging money that's the problem - it's enforcing inferior technology in order to protect a revenue stream with overinflated priofit margins that's the problem. These days it's just silly to get your music by buying it on a physical disk, and it's even sillier to be paying 10x markup for it.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Kethinov]

**AA gets their money by providing a service: the easy acquisition of media. Worked great for a while, but technology has evolved. Acquisition of media is now easier and cheaper than the **AA offers. The natural response from the consumer at this point is to circumvent their services. It would be like the state of Utah selling you air for three cents a minute. The people would just move.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Anonymous Coward]

The part that charges way to much for a CD/DVD/VHS whatever and forcing people to take things they don't want or need.

Don't be a moron. Their buisness is failing because they are holding on to a distribution system that is outdated by the advent of easy information sharing. If you would like an example of a beter system then just take a look at iTunes.

Video streams just aren't there quite yet because bandwith hasn't caught up. Trust me when I say that it will in the not so distant future.

MPAA/RIAA are a dying breed. Their members will be obsolete in 10 years if they don't embrace technology. Thus is the fate of ALL buisnesses.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[zurab]

Knives are used to murder people every year, but they are not illegal.

Playing devil's advocate here but RIAA would say that most knives are not used to murder people, while most P2P apps are used to share copyrighted works without permission - just like most cars are used to violate speed limits and other laws - so it's the auto manufacturers that should also be put out of business.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Jim_Maryland]

Could one argue that computers (operating sytem, hardware, and software) themselves are inducing people to commit copyright infringement? Without the PC, how many games/music/movies/software/etc... would be copied?

Just because a tool can be used for illegal actions doesn't mean the tool itself is bad (as you point out with the knife example). If tools are considered responsible for criminal activities, we might as well eliminate quite a bit of the technology we use (cars, guns, knives, PCs, VCRs, baseball bats, plastic wrap, rope, paper, fuel, etc...) as they can all be quite useful when applied incorrectly.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Kethinov]

"Most" is a very strong word that I think fails to factor in the numerous uses of p2p software that is 1. totally legal or 2. falls within fair use.

I think my downloading and posession of SNES roms for which I own the cartridge and CDs for which I own copies of is defendable in court, but IANAL. Even if illegal, it's certainly moral, and the law should be changed.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, but the **AA higher-ups use knives and other sharp edged objects to cut lines of cocaine.

Keeping these legal and banning P2P is all part of the same effort by their lobbyists.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Anonymous Coward]

I want my music on a physical disc, complete with (the cover and) a leaflet full of stuff about the album and the band, and you just called me silly. Sir, I'll call *you* silly if you don't stop that.

Needless to say, I miss the all-vinyl times. Those Led Zep and Uriah Heep covers were something...

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Anonymous Coward]

The part that charges way to much for a CD/DVD/VHS whatever

If it costs too much, then don't buy it. If you aren't willing to pay their price, then you don't get their product. If you can't live without their products, then it must be worth whatever they want to charge for it. Just because you want it cheaper doesn't mean that you can download it for free, or copy it from a friend.

I agree that they need to figure out how to make a 10 year jump in their distribution model. The problem is that they fell behind the curve, and now people expect their music/movies for free, and they are going to have a very hard time competing with that no matter how well they do it. They are afraid of copying, because it gives away their product for free, so they want DRM. "We" hate DRM, and break it every chance we get, so we are never going to like what they do.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Anonymous Coward]

find a profitable venue.

Yes, because people don't want music by famous professional artists recorded in quality studios. We don't want blockbuster special-effects filled movies.

We want garage bands recorded on a home stereo in between their day jobs. We want gritty art films done by amateurs. We want stuff that can be done cheaply so that we can get it free.

Right?

Re:Don't blame the tool

[CyanDisaster]

...I think my downloading and posession of SNES roms for which I own the cartridge and CDs for which I own copies of is defendable in court, but IANAL. Even if illegal, it's certainly moral, and the law should be changed....

As stated in one of my N64 cartridge manuals:

Copying of any Nintendo game is illegal and is strictly prohibited by domestic and international copyright laws. "Back-up" or "archival" copies are not authorized and are not necessary to protect your software. Violators will be prosecuted.

Now, it will differ from manual to manual, but for the Final Fantasy Anthology (PS1):

...No part of this manual or the described software may be copied, reproduced, translated, or reduced to any electronic media or machine-readable form without the prior written consent of SQEA...

I can't seem to find any of my SNES manuals, but I imagine they say pretty much the same thing. While it says right there in black and white, that you're not allowed to copy your games, or download the games you own, I don't agree with it. If im running into troubles with a console that is no longer available/supported, I should be able to download/copy those games that I had legally bought.

Back to your point about defending yourself in court. I don't think the judge would see it your way, as the manual stated that making copies for backup or archival purposes is illegal. I agree with you that it's moral to do such and that the law needs changing.

Hope be with ye,
Cyan

Re:Don't blame the tool

[zurab]

I don't think the judge would see it your way, as the manual stated that making copies for backup or archival purposes is illegal.

A judge may rule that making some copies of a game is illegal, but it won't be based on anything that a manual says - because manual is not law, it's not even a contract.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[zurab]

I think my downloading and posession of SNES roms for which I own the cartridge and CDs for which I own copies of is defendable in court, but IANAL.

I don't know about the downloader in that case, but it is likely to be illegal for the sharer to share the ROM without authorization. So an "illegal" act would still be committed on one part (if not both). IANAL.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Kethinov]

I can listen to all the professional studio recorded music I want for free on the radio. And I can watch all the blockbuster special-effects filled movies I want on broadcasted TV channels for free. Those get paid for without the systematic rape of customers. I see no reason why why **AA should even exist. Nor do I see a reason why we can't take free distribution to the next level: legalize copyrighted p2p on a controlled advertised medium and provide a subscription service for those who don't want ads. ITMS is such a subscription service. We just need the former and to do away with the archaic **AA business model.

You don't need to sell CDs and DVDs (especially at current prices) just to cut to profit off of media.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Anonymous Coward]

By forwarding this argument, you are by default agreeing to the notion that copying is as obvious of a sin/crime as murder.

Besides that, it's a bad argument anyway as far as legislation is concerned. Nuclear bombs can be used for demolition work or even as powerful engines, but they are not legal to own. There is no consistent principle you can extrapolate from historical weapon legislation, except that of "whatever people in charge don't like, gets banned".

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never in my life signed an agreement with Square, Enix or Squeenix to honor random legalease in the back of their manuals. (Enforcable) contracts are two way streets, and if they expect me to give up fundamental rights, they had better compensate me or shut the hell up.

In other words, realize you're wrong or give me the $5 you owe me for reading this comment.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know the details of money in the media industries, so I'm just taking some guesses here.

I think movies hit TV well after they've made their money at the box office, and sold most of their DVDs. The station makes enough from advertising to pay for one-time broadcast rights. The studio gets some advertising for their DVD. The advertising money from TV usage would not pay for a $200M film. Radio is almost exclusively used as advertising to sell the albums.

The RIAA, even in the broadcast world, exists as an intermediary between the artists/producers and the broadcast companies. There are lots of artists out there, and the radio station doesn't want to screen every single song available.

I do agree that they need to rework their distribution models. They are taking bigger risks by being conservative than they would by trying something new. They need to take the initiative back.

But, as much as we don't like their distribution methods and business practices, we still love their products (You can't please everyone all the time, but most people seem to find music and movies they like). I think they deserve credit for that.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Kethinov]

By forwarding this argument, you are by default agreeing to the notion that copying is as obvious of a sin/crime as murder.

No, in fact, I'm not. I'm merely stating that the tool should be held responsible for what it's used for. How I feel about the state of copyright is irrelevent.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[sangreal66]

If you would like an example of a beter system then just take a look at iTunes. How is that a better system when iTunes is part of the RIAA's business model?

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Kethinov]

They don't want to rework their distribution models because they would lose a great deal of profit. I won't deny that. All I'm saying is that it is still possible (for the artist) to profit under a more ethical business model. People shouldn't fool themselves into thinking it isn't possible.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[DunbarTheInept]

Is it the disc you want or the album cover art, and leaflet? I didn't call the other paraphenalia silly. I called the disc silly. What if music was distributed on a burned chip or USB 'keychain' drive, and had all that other paraphenalia too? It's the fact that the CD format is less useful than a computer file that makes it a silly way to distribute the file. The first thing I do with a new CD is burn a digitized version of the tracks so I can have the music on laptop or portable player (usually as MP3, but occasionally I use a larger less lossy format for stuff where that really matters a lot, like symphonies.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Frizzle Fry]

It's the fact that the CD format is less useful than a computer file that makes it a silly way to distribute the file. The first thing I do with a new CD is burn a digitized version of the tracks so I can have the music on laptop or portable player

Don't you think this is a bit arrogant? Just because something is less useful to you doesn't make it less useful to everyone, but that's what you seem to be saying. For me, an mp3 is much less useful than a CD. The first think I would do with it is burn it onto a CD so that I can listen to in my car. Or I could just buy it on a CD in the first place from a music store right by my house and be saved the trouble.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Frizzle Fry]

(Enforcable) contracts are two way streets

What are you talking about? What does anything have to do with contracts? Downloading ROMs or copying games is generally illegal. They point this out in their manual and are warning you that they may choose to go after you for it. This has nothing to do with contracts. Can I pirate all the movies I want because they merely include an FBI warning about it and I haven't signed a contract with the FBI? Your argument makes little sense.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[DunbarTheInept]

The subject is about the trends in the music business, and why there is a problem with making money on physical CD's. Therefore What I as an individual do doesn't matter, and what *YOU* as an individual do doesn't matter either. What matters is what are the majority doing. When the majority no longer want the physical CD distribution method, then it's going to suffer as a business model as a result. And that's already starting to happen.

Your decision to buy physical CD's isn't the silly part. The distributors decision to try to survive by continuing to make that the primary way for them to make money is the silly part. It's THEM that's being silly by emphasizing CD purchases, not you.

And this is why they are in trouble - not because of people's desire to be freeloaders, but because of their desire to get things on a better format for their needs, and the music industry's constant beat-down on any new technology that does this.

Not only is downloading a music file from p2p cheaper than buying a CD, if the goal is to end up with a music file instead of a disc, it's also a lot *easier*. And that's what the music industry needs to address if they want to survive - they need to make the money-making means of getting the files just as easy if not easier than the freeloader means of getting the files.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[shark72]

"Apple's iTunes is doing okay. It's not charging money that's the problem - it's enforcing inferior technology in order to protect a revenue stream with overinflated priofit margins that's the problem. These days it's just silly to get your music by buying it on a physical disk, and it's even sillier to be paying 10x markup for it."

That's a common misperception. Margins in the record industry are typically much lower than many other retail industries. Granted, most Slashdotters are engineering types rather than economist or marketing types, but this misunderstanding can be traced to a few reasons:

1. They're not aware of the inherent inefficiencies of a two tier distribution mechanism (the same mechanism through which many computer parts are sold). A typical new release is sold by the record company to the distributor for about $8 - $10, the distributor takes a cut (I believe less than 10%) and the retailer marks it up by around the neighborhood of 30% (again, by comparison, that same retailer might have a 30% - 50% markup for computer products and accessories). The last money the record company ever sees from the sale is when it goes to the distributor for $8 - $10, and in no point in the chain is there a "10x markup."
2. They're not aware of the cost of making the CD. Often Slashdotters think of bulk CD-Rs which they can buy for a dime or less each and incorrectly think that the cost of pressing a CD is similar. It's not: it costs more to press a CD, and audio CDs are typically produced in much lower quantities than bulk CD-Rs. And, of course, the cost of the pressing is one of the most insignificant expenses in the process of producing a CD. If a CD has a production run of 10,000 pieces, the check that the record company writes to pay the salaries for the engineer, the producer and other recording personnel (a check that the musician would have to write themselves if they'd opted not to sign a recording contract) is probably much larger than the check they wrote to the CD duplication house.
3. They don't understand that the delta between gross margin and net margin is all the difference in the world. It's net margin that determines whether you're profitable, whether you get to give your employees raises or perhaps lay them off, and whether you'll be able to grow your business.

Is buying CDs the old fashioned way inefficient? You betchya. Long live iTunes. Does the recording industry make better margins than most of the other stuff you see for sale at Wal-Mart or Best Buy or wherever you buy your CDs? No way in hell.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[shark72]

""Most" is a very strong word that I think fails to factor in the numerous uses of p2p software that is 1. totally legal or 2. falls within fair use."

This can be answered by the following thought experiment: what if you had a magic wand to wave, or a magic button you could push, that would make all the unauthorized content on, say, Kazaa disappear instantly? By what percentage would the traffic then decrease? Would Sharman Networks continue to be able to stay in business?

Slashdotters may tend to think of P2P traffic being largely Linux distros, but the reality is that the vast majority is music and porn. If that all went away tomorrow, traffic on Kazaa would evaporate, Sharman would no longer be able to generate ad revenue or charge for upgrades, and they'd be out of business.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Kethinov]

Not all the traffic on Kazaa is illegal and immoral. Downloading CDs I already own, ROMs I already bought, software I legally paid for but lost the CD or whatever you name it. Maybe some of it or even all of it is technically illegal, but easily defendable in court and most certainly moral.

Kazaa is not 100% illegal p2p and no figure you give me can be accurate. You don't have the statistics on just what every user using the service does and does not own the rights to.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[kubrick]

We want garage bands recorded on a home stereo in between their day jobs. We want gritty art films done by amateurs. We want stuff that can be done cheaply so that we can get it free.

Yes.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[DunbarTheInept]

Instead of refuting my point, your post merely detailed it out. Yes there is a 10x markup, and you explained the little steps along the way that cause it. I never made the claim that the 10x markup is coming from a single point in the chain. That's a false claim you put in my mouth. I merely said there was a 10x markup, without specifying where it came from, or how many steps it took.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Anonymous Coward]

"the check that the record company writes to pay the salaries for the engineer, the producer and other recording personnel (a check that the musician would have to write themselves if they'd opted not to sign a recording contract) is probably much larger than the check they wrote to the CD duplication house".

Actually, it is the musicians who pay the entire production cost irrespective of whether they have a contract or not - all the record company does is give them an advance which is later deducted from the musicians' royalties. Some of the things musicians pay for are as follows:

1. Studio costs.
2. Producers and managers.
3. Session musicians and equipment hire.
4. Any royalties for cover versions.
5. Promotion costs (videos, advertising, etc.).
6. Packaging and artwork.

The record company will usually pay for the following:

1. Travel costs incurred in attending promotional interviews and events.
2. Pressing and distribution costs.

Check out the following links if you don't believe me:

http://www.vocalist.org.uk/recording_contract.ht ml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onemusic/legal/recor dp 07.shtml

Note the bits about most musicians ending up in debt to the record company and therefore not being able to rely on CD sales alone as a form of income (while the members of the xxAA have been able to rely on CD sales alone to make them billions).

Now tell us all again about how we /.ers are not aware of the vast costs that the poor old xxAA have to bear...

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Anonymous Coward]

No, in fact, I'm not.

According to the logic of your analogy, you are. But another explanation for the contradiction here, is that maybe you post things without thinking?

This is the direct form of your analogy:

Knife:Computer::Murder:Copying

Regardless of any mealy-mouthed objections... "Copying" is not an obvious crime (i.e. derivable from so-called 'natural law' rights of humans). Murder is the most obviously criminal activity anyone can engage in. This is called the "Fallacy of Extremes" and you have thoughtlessly engaged in it.

I'm merely stating that the tool should be held responsible for what it's used for.

Well, aside from your ignorance of your own analogy's construction -- the secondary point remains: it's a dumb idea as far as legislation is concerned. It's been argued before, by people much smarter than you or me. Tools can be held responsible - preemptively, even - for crimes. And the government can restrict access to such tools it deems threatening to national security or welfare - or even those it just deems scary.

HAND

Re:Don't blame the tool

[shark72]

I'm not sure I follow. The average price of a new CD is now $13.29 in the US. A 10x markup would require that the cost of sale is in the neighborhood of $1.33. It's nowhere near that.

"Markup" is an imprecise term but it generally refers to the delta between the cost of sale and the retail cost. If we look at the cumilative markup between the manufacturer and the end user, with a cost of sale of about six bucks, that's about a 100% markup, not a 1,000% (10x) markup. Is that what you meant?

Re:Don't blame the tool

[DunbarTheInept]

with a cost of sale of about six bucks

This is already a markup in the first place right there. 50 cents to the author, 50 cents to press the CD. The rest is advertising and marketing.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[shark72]

"This is already a markup in the first place right there. 50 cents to the author, 50 cents to press the CD. The rest is advertising and marketing."

FYI, cost of goods for a CD (including the case and the booklet) is typically north of a buck. Royalties are typically north of a buck as well (particularly when there are multiple composers and songwriters, and something known as "compulsory royalties" are paid). At least in the computer industry (my profession of choice), royalties are included in what's known as the bill of materials cost and are an "above the line" charge to the gross margin. The salaries of the people involved in making the recording are included in the cost of sale, as are shipping costs, return reserves, and, as you mentioned, sales and marketing. The cost of sale is the cost of sale... there's no profit there. "Markup" starts after the cost of sale.

This is all Accounting 101 stuff, and it applies to goods in the computer industry as well as the record industry (and every other industry). As I mentioned earlier, lots of Slashdotters just don't have a background in this type of stuff. Likewise, most accountants don't know Thing One about serializing call-back functions.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[DunbarTheInept]

You're not getting it - anything not directly related to the cost of making the music is something I am considering markup because I'm comparing CD sales to electronic sales. Case? Markup. Booklet? Markup. Sales and Marketing? Markup. The fact that there is all this extra pointless stuff embedded into the price of the CD is precisely the problem with the MPAA trying to use it as their primary means of revenue.
It might not look like markup to the industry, but it does to the consumer interested in just a digital music file. To that consumer, the jacket and case is useless markup. The sales and marketing are useless markup. The shipping cost is pointless markup.

When the product being sold to the consumer is "stuff the consumer is trying to get, plus a bunch of stuff the consumer doesn't want bundled with it", then the cost of that bundled stuff is markup, from the consumer's point of view.

If I want to install Windows so I can play a computer game, the fact that a good portion of the purchase is going toward paying developers writing internet explorer is, to me, markup, since I don't use internet explorer.

This is the same kind of situation.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Kethinov]

You're the one who posts things without thinking here. You also read posts without thinking. Let me spell it out for you.

Obviously copying is not a crime as serious as murder. (IMHO it's not even a crime at all. But that's irrelevent, remember?) My post is stating that even in the most SERIOUS of crimes, the tool is not held responsible. Why should the tool be held responsible in this case?

Good fucking lord.

Id10ts

[ProudClod]

"This is one of the most important copyright cases ever to reach this court," the groups said in papers filed with the court.

Yes, but not for the reason the RIAA may think. The point is that filesharing by P2P, as demonstrated by Bittorrent distribution by many companies, is a solution to a major bandwidth problem, and as such it'd be madness to ban it because it can be used to infringe copyright - there's about as much grounds to do so as there is to ban all net file transfer activity.

Re:Id10ts

[MoonBuggy]

I'd be suprised if they draw a judge with the technical expertise to differentiate between P2P and Client-Server if they were to write up something overturning these ideas.

As an illustration (using a public domain file as an example here): if all Mozilla mirrors were to go down just as Firefox 1.0 final was released, but I managed to get a copy onto eDonkey, I would be running a computer uploading to many people who wanted the file but not downloading from anyone. Am I still transferring peer to peer or am I now classed as a server due to the fact I am a central hub for many people who happen to be accesing my machine through software originally designed as P2P?

I'm sure that in the eyes of the law it would be very difficult to prove the difference between a peer and a server - vague wording seems to be the norm here...

Re:Id10ts

[mog007]

There's no guarentee that the SCOTUS will even SEE this trial. A very small percentage of cases brought before them actully get viewed, and the majority of those are cases involving the Constitutionality of a certain law that got them arrested or fined. The Supreme Court isn't bought and paid for by the **AA's lobbists like Congress is. There's still hope that we won't even have to WORRY about these fuckers doing something stupid like ruling in favor of the **AA.

Re:Id10ts

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be suprised if they draw a judge with the technical expertise to differentiate between P2P and Client-Server if they were to write up something overturning these ideas.

Hhhm, I think the members of the SCOTUS are all pretty well known quantities.

Re:Id10ts

[sribe]

...there's about as much grounds to do so as there is to ban all net file transfer activity.

Shut the fsck up now! Good grief man, what if a **AA suit reads your post? Have you thought about the potential consequences???
;-)

If the software has a legitimate use ...

[hattig]

Then it should not be able to be banned because a person uses it for an illegal use.

* standard comment about guns here - people kill, not guns, etc etc *

Some of the software out there is clearly written to share music and video files that will most likely be breaking copyright. Regardless, it is still the people that are doing the music copying that are breaking the law, not the software.

Re:If the software has a legitimate use ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The question would be if all music/video sharing software should be made illegal. What if amateur musicians and filmmakers decided to create software or utilize existing software that would let them share their creations? I could see this as being a slippery slope, but I don't see where all music and video sharing is illegal.

Re:If the software has a legitimate use ...

[haeger]

If the software has a legitimate use then it should not be able to be banned because a person uses it for an illegal use.

Not even if the software if primarily used for illegal stuff?
Not trolling here, just curious. Should a single legitimate use for a tool render it free for anyone to use, even though the vast majority would use it for illegal purposes?

.haeger

Re:If the software has a legitimate use ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Should a single legitimate use for a tool render it free for anyone to use, even though the vast majority would use it for illegal purposes?

You mean like handguns?

Re:If the software has a legitimate use ...

[freakmn]

That is a very thought-provoking question. I can't think of a single program that could not have a legitimate use. Granted, there are other ways to accomplish most of those goals, but even the most destructive program around could be placed on a cd, and people could use it as a: paperweight, mirror, frisbee, etc. Personally, I don't think any software should be illegal because of its functions as a piece of software. If it is a direct copy of someone else's work, I think so, but not simply because it has a use to do something illegal.

Re:If the software has a legitimate use ...

[dnoyeb]

Perhaps not. But is there a single use for anything on the internet?

Re:If the software has a legitimate use ...

[bs_testability]

yes. a single legitimate use is enough.
tools need not be banned.
tool banning isn't effective anyway.

can you conceive of an existing intarweb app that can't be used to violate copyrights?
squashing p2p would push pirates back to ftp, http, usenet, etc.
squashing those? still got IRC, email
squash those too?
now expect to be playing whack-a-mole as new variants of torrent, kazaa, edonkey get invented to meet the demand...

I can't offer a solution other than pointing out that the old world business models are dying.

Re:If the software has a legitimate use ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the handguns out there are clearly created to kill peoples. But we all know guns don't kill peoples, peoples kill peoples.

Oups!

I would have thought RIAA and NRA are very similar. But I discover they are on oposite positions.

Re:If the software has a legitimate use ...

[captwheeler]

Not even if the software if primarily used for illegal stuff? Not trolling here, just curious. Should a single legitimate use for a tool render it free for anyone to use, even though the vast majority would use it for illegal purposes?

Thats a fair question: hunting rifles are OK, hangrenades are not. The potential utility, common use, and general intent of actual users, all go into our deciding whats OK.

P2P (as we all know) has many legitimate uses. But what of its common use?

If its only copyrighted MP3 music files we are discussing, P2P is in a bad way: The common use is for stealing (and helping the terrorists win.) It has little potential utility since central control is desired. And as to the general intent of users: well, mostly its to get music you don't have.

We may know how crazy it is to ban P2P for specific file types (its all just bits) but that does not mean the courts will. We ban gun use for many things (like opening beer cans,) and that works. So why not demand it of tech.?

Re:If the software has a legitimate use ...

[LnxAddct]

If the internet was designed as a p2p network (yes, technically it is, but not in the sense we are talking about), more specifically following bittorrent's protocol, then the net would be a completely different place. Information could flow freely from any computer and just about anyone could host a site whether it had a million visitors a month or just 5 visitors a month (assuming they has the hardware for it). That of course is just theoretical. In practice however, many (all?) Linux distributions use bittorrent to distribute their ISOs simply because otherwise the bandwidth would cost them too much. Also, a few game companies release demos as bittorrent links. I personally think that firefox needs to be able to natively handle bittorrent links like regular downloads, then you'll see some massive legitimate migrations to folks using it.
Regards,
Steve

Re:If the software has a legitimate use ...

[back_pages]

Not even if the software if primarily used for illegal stuff?

How many digital cameras are used for producing porn? How many registered domain names are used for porn?

How many handguns are used (as in fired and hit something living) for hunting or self defense versus committing a crime?

How much marijuana is (debatably) purchased according to state laws versus illegally purchased in states that have legal uses?

How many people are killed by drunk drivers? Beaten by drunken spouses? How many people are really better off after a few drinks?

What's the point of making nicotine a legal drug?

How in hell is it legal for the fast food industry to sell us the unhealthy crap they do but an elderly person with a terminal illness can be court ordered to take medication to prolong his life|suffering?

I'm not refuting/supporting the implications of your question, but trying to show that without a MUCH broader context, the question cannot have much meaning. In fact, I'm inclined to agree that P2P filesharing is on shaky ground based on its "legitimate use", but then so are handguns and liquor. The bigger question, to me, is why this ought to be even considered at the federal level.

If you made a product out of coathangers, and it turned out that people discovered that they could replicate your product with their own coathangers, is it right to get a federal law preventing people from bending coathangers?

I'm more than happy to pay for copyright media if I feel like I'm getting a fair value. Throughout the whole MPAA/RIAA/P2P controversy, I've continued to buy plenty of DVDs but not a single CD. I really thought about getting The Roots latest CD, but since that group makes such a fuss about P2P crap like hookers for their record label, I just downloaded it instead. I'll still go see them live, though.

Blah, anyway, I got Columbus Day off, sat home drinking beer, and wrote a rambling 5 page response to a 2 sentence Slashdot post. How about you?

Re:If the software has a legitimate use ...

[metlin]

Yes.

If the majority of the people are branded criminals by the law for that "illegal" usage, as you so put it, the system is flawed - not the people.

Tools are just that - tools. They are beyond good or evil, legitimate or illegitimate use.

Naturual Progression

[powerpuffgirls]

With so much at stake, it's not surprising that this will eventually involve the Supreme Court. However if this is once again ruled against them, they will have serious problem.

Re:Naturual Progression

[Gryffin]

With so much at stake, it's not surprising that this will eventually involve the Supreme Court. However if this is once again ruled against them, they will have serious problem.

Problem is, if the court rules for them, fair use as we know it is dead and buried. The Betamax decision has been the cornerstone of our fair use rights in the electronic age.

From the original article...

[neuro.slug]

In a joint petition to the Supreme Court, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) said that letting the lower court rulings stand would badly undermine obscene profit^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H the value of copyrighted work.

Re:From the original article...

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, you need to get a new terminal.

We already have a decision...

[prozac79]

It was in the BetaMax case. Very simply, a company cannot be held responsible for illegal activity if the product has legal purposes. I think going after the individual file swappers made a lot more sense (although I have issues with the shotgun approach they are using). In any court case, someone doesn't get their way. The RIAA and MPAA have to decide... are the users at fault or are the tools at fault? They can't have it both ways!

Re:We already have a decision...

[DaHat]

You are half correct. However the concept was 'substantial non infringing use' as said by the court has become the bar from which other products have been judged.

And yes, they can have it both ways. Not only are burglars who break into your house at fault, but so are the companies that manufacture and sell lock picking tools and make their tools widely available to the known felons.

Welcome to the world of Tobacco Trial style liability.

Re:We already have a decision...

[Hatta]

Yep, we should keep in mind that the SCOTUS has not accepted this case, and doesn't have to. But since IANAL, I'm wondering what happens if they decline. The original ruling was in the 9th circuit court, what if I'm in the 5th? Can the RIAA sue me for writing an app they don't like? Will the precedent from the 9th circuit court generalize to others?

Re:We already have a decision...

[Peyna]

You don't need to be a lawyer to know how the legal system works. If it is appealed from the 9th circuit and the writ of certiorari is denied by the Supreme Court, then it means that the decision of the 9th circuit court stands in the 9th circuit. It has no bearing on the other federal courts, because the Supreme Court did not make a decision on it. Refusal by the court to hear an appeal should in no way be construed to constitute approval of that decision. There could be any number of reasons they have not choosing to hear it, and they don't have to give any reason at all.

Re:We already have a decision...

[torokun]

This is not what the court said. It considered whether there were substantial non-infringing uses to the VCR, and found that there were, specifically mentioning time-shifting.

Posner in the Aimster decision in the 7th Circuit took the position that the Sony court had put forth a balancing test. He said basically that although the p2p networks want ANY potential non-infringing use to avoid contributory infringement, and the MPAA wants ANY infringing use to do so, neither is correct under Sony.

Also, the MPAA doesn't have to decide whether users or p2p software authors are at fault. They can obviously both violate copyright law if they do something prohibited by the law. Contributory and vicarious infringement are clearly prohibited in the law, and the courts have a long set of things to consider in finding those types of infringement. If they are met, it's definitely possible that users are direct infringers and p2p software authors are contributory infringers.

Re:We already have a decision...

[tepples]

It has no bearing on the other federal courts, because the Supreme Court did not make a decision on it.

A decision in one circuit does not directly limit what the judge may rule in another circuit, but circuit court judges do often follow other circuits' reasoning in relatively new situations because a judge whose decisions are regularly overturned by the Supreme Court may lose his job. Besides, the other circuits are still bound by Betamax in the same way that the Ninth Circuit was in its ruling.

foo.

[garcia]

In a joint petition to the Supreme Court, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) said that letting the lower court rulings stand would badly undermine the value of copyrighted work.

And I say that the changes to copyright law have made copyrighted works worth more for longer than they should be. It's just as ridiculous.

"These companies have expressly designed their businesses to avoid all legal liability, with the full knowledge that over 90 percent of the material traversing their applications belongs to someone else," MPAA Chief Executive Dan Glickman said in a statement.

Sounds like any business out there. Being able to avoid getting in trouble when their product fucks up. Isn't that what lawyers are for?

"That case was based on the principles established in the 1984 Betamax case, which has led to the largest and most profitable period of technological innovation in this country's history. Consumers, industry and our country have all benefited as a result."

Exactly. Current law (and the DMCA) have stiffled innovation as everyone is fearful of being sued. Let's end this non-sense and let the corporations realize that they cannot buy everyone.

Re:foo.

[pinkocommie]

Thought they had proven that they can?

If P2P is made illegal, then..

[xeaxes]

If P2P is made illegal, then a lot of other tools should be made illegal.

Here is a short list: Guns, hammers, rocks, knives, forks, spoons, sporks, drills, axes, saws, chainsaws, javelins, baseballs, Windows, Linux, Office, pillows, electronic devices, sheets, bath tubs, lawn mowers, mail boxes, etc.

What do they all have in common with P2P? They all have legitimate uses because they are simply tools, but at the same time they can also be used for crime.

Re:If P2P is made illegal, then..

[Anonymous Coward]

A baseball? WTF?

Re:If P2P is made illegal, then..

[Anonymous Coward]

huh. I tried to buy some distilled water recently (to clean some equipment - pure water is a kick-ass solvent). But lo and behold no one had any chemical supplies even of such a basic nature. Someone had come in to the pharmacy and hinted strongly that any basic supplies shouldn't be on-sale or the pharmacy would be helping the terrorists, now the pharmacy only sells glossy packaged corporate cough remedies and lip gloss etc.

Re:If P2P is made illegal, then..

[shalla]

Here is a short list: Guns, hammers, rocks, knives, forks, spoons, sporks, drills, axes, saws, chainsaws, javelins, baseballs, Windows, Linux, Office, pillows, electronic devices, sheets, bath tubs, lawn mowers, mail boxes, etc.

What do they all have in common with P2P? They all have legitimate uses because they are simply tools, but at the same time they can also be used for crime.

Er... what are YOU doing with your lawn mower?

Re:If P2P is made illegal, then..

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. Well, it's been said before, but here goes.

There's an inherent problem with this argument. If all the tools on the list were used for crime as much as P2P apps are used for copyright violation they probably would be illegal.

But as it turns out, the vast majority of spoons are used for eating. Almost every chainsaw is used for cutting wood, not teenagers lost in the woods. And every lawn mower I've ever seen was used to mow lawns.

It's not that I think that P2P apps should be illegal, but the argument given really doesn't hold much water.

Re:If P2P is made illegal, then..

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't move, beotch! I've got a spork, give me your wallet!

Re:If P2P is made illegal, then..

[Anonymous Coward]

Then use the ISP analogy. They're not responsible for the data that's transmitted over their networks; how is a P2P network different?

Re:If P2P is made illegal, then..

[default luser]

Havn't you ever seen Sleepaway Camp?

You bury your victim in the ground and use the lawnmower to decapitate them.

DUUUUHHHHHH

Re:If P2P is made illegal, then..

[red floyd]

mail boxes, etc.

Aren't they "The UPS Store" now? I didn't realize they changed their name to avoid liablility from the xxAA! :-)

Re:If P2P is made illegal, then..

[cavemanf16]

No, I don't think there is a major problem with the argument. After all, one could argue that the Internet itself is a HAVEN for criminal activity. Terrorist cells have used it in the past to plan attacks, child pornographers, credit card number thiefs, identity thiefs; the list goes on and on. But we don't ban the "Internets" (as George W referred to it) now do we? Why not? There is billions of dollars LOST and people's lives ruined because of the Internet. Why not ban all computer connectivity?

Because there are positive uses of the Internet, that's why. Even if the bad outweighed the good (which judging from some email inboxes these days, that is the case with all the spam and phishing schemes), the Internet would still be useful as a tool.

Lastly, the kind of copyright that the RIAA/MPAA is fighting to keep is the right for a middleman dealer in artistic talent to exist, not to compensate the artist. No one has the "right" to a paycheck of a certain size. We all have rights to liberty, freedom, and justice for all, but I certainly don't see "right to a middle-class lifestyle or better because of the earnings off of my or other's copyrighted material" in those values anywhere.

Re:If P2P is made illegal, then..

[Sick Boy]

Mowing dirty words into the lawns of people I don't like. Just because it's petty vandalism doens't mean it's not a crime.

Re:If P2P is made illegal, then..

[Anonymous Coward]

If all the tools on the list were used for crime as much as P2P apps are used for copyright violation they probably would be illegal.

Has anyone, anywhere come up with documented, scientific, and incontrovertible evidence that "a vast majority" of the files on P2P networks are copyrighted material?

How many files to you think are being shared on Kazaa, Bit Torrent, et al? 500,000,000? 1,000,000,000? Even if 90% of those are copyrighted, that still leaves fifty to a hundred million files that are in the public domain, free software, or music/movies whose creators want on P2P, etc.

That sounds like "significant, non-infringing use" to me.

Re:If P2P is made illegal, then..

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, the telephone system is a P2P network, or at least there is a part of modern telephone switches that implements P2P communication. I'm sure telephones are constantly used to "copy" music playing in the background. So I suppose with the same logic, telephones should be banned as well. With newer technology, you can even send digital sound via the telecom network. I haven't seen anybody propose we should ban that technology. I wonder why?

Re:If P2P is made illegal, then..

[Cellshade]

He is mowing all the lawns of his neighbors for free, thereby ruining the business of the local gardening company... they lose a bunch of potential sales.

INDUCE Act

[PigeonGB]

The INDUCE Act is related and should be a concern as well. Check out http://www.eff.org for more info on this bill making its way through the Senate.

Al Gore?

[AvidProToolsDoc]

So when's the RIAA/MPAA going to try to sue Al Gore for inventing the Internet, and causing them to lose profits? Let's just litigate some profit back into their business model!!! Yay!!!

Re:Al Gore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Gore introduce the Senate version of the bill to mandate one of the DAT copy protection schemes (CopyCode or SCMS)? If so, the RIAA would love him!

Now Tipper, who wanted to hold the record companies responsible for cleaning up the foul language in certain records, might be another story. :-)

FTP, HTTP, etc

[Hatta]

"Defendants distribute and support software, the users of which can and do choose to employ it for both lawful and unlawful ends," federal Judge Stephen Wilson wrote in his 2003 decision. "Grokster and StreamCast are not significantly different from companies that sell home video recorders or copy machines, both of which can be and are used to infringe copyrights."

It will be interesting to see what the arguments of the RIAA will be. What fundamentally distinguishes FTP or HTTP servers from other file sharing programs? By what critera can a programmer know if the program he is writing is illegal?

Re:FTP, HTTP, etc

[Kethinov]

There is no difference. I can share loads of copyrighted material on my webserver if I wanted to. The only difference? It's easier to shut that activity down. Dedicated p2p systems are harder to shut down. The technology to do this has existed for decades. Only now is it becoming mainstream. The **AA has been sitting on a failing business model for a long time. Their meddling with US legislation is merely an act of desperation out of fear of change.

Re:FTP, HTTP, etc

[tsarin]

By what critera can a programmer know if the program he is writing is illegal?

Well, obviously, the programmer should ask the **AA for their permission, endorsement, blessings, and kindly to take possession of the programmer's soul, first through nth children, yea unto umpteen generations, copyright on and any and all profit, goodwill and positive (but not negative) repute derived from all such programs for which permission is given and souls, &c, are taken, and ... his neighbor's dog, too. Just for good measure.

Re:FTP, HTTP, etc

[Anne Thwacks]

Perhaps its time to ban gloves in case burglars use them to conceal their fingerprints.

Re:FTP, HTTP, etc

[roystgnr]

I can share loads of copyrighted material on my webserver if I wanted to. The only difference? It's easier to shut that activity down. Dedicated p2p systems are harder to shut down.

Why? If I download a copyrighted file (or even chunks of a copyrighted file) from your P2P program (with the possible exception of Freenet), I've got your IP address. What more does a webserver give me?

There are some technical differences. The biggest is probably that P2P filesharing systems (except for bittorrent) have built-in searching capabilities, so people can find filez without Google. Since Google exists and doesn't filter out search terms like "Parent Directory" yet, this isn't a big difference.

The real difference is social: it's easier to share files by installing a P2P application while searching for other people's files than it is to share files by installing, configuring, and getting Google to spider a webserver. The Web became respectable before it became popular, so nobody would think of suing Microsoft for all the MP3s you can find in IIS-generated indices. P2P became popular before it became respectable, so Napster got sued into the ground.

Re:FTP, HTTP, etc

[Kethinov]

IPs can be spoofed, proxied, or otherwise obscured. My entire ISP operates behind a firewall, forcing all its users into a little intranet. My IP within the network is 192.168.x.x. All customers on the ISP register exactly the same IP.

It is very difficult for **AA to determine exactly who is responsible for copyright infringement behind our their IP. Until **AA starts suing ISPs themselves for the activities of their customers, they're shit out of luck until my ISP starts forking over names. Which they're very reluctant to do.

My webserver however very public. It's quite easy to treace exactly who owns it and if I began distributing copyrighted material en masse on it, it would be shut down in short order.

Re:FTP, HTTP, etc

[Inda]

We recently did this.

A group of us chipped in some money to pay for a webserver with FTP access for a year. We've installed a forum on there and we chat about music on it. The outside world cannot gain access without the proper passwords*. Good albums and tunes are uploaded to the server and this is how we share our music.

I see this as the future if P2P clients are killed.

*FTP access requires a password. HTTP downloads require authentication. Albums and tunes are encrypted. Extremely short filenames are used. Not even our host can tell what the files are.

I don't understand...

[FiReaNGeL]

I don't understand how things would change if, somehow, they would win their case. OK, P2P apps are declared illegal. Majority of people who trade on these networks already know it's illegal, and do it anyway. Sure, it'll let them sue the p2p apps developpers... but they should know it's the modern version of Hydra : you cut off a head, it grows up 2 better ones. Do they really think they can get out of this without changing their (failing) business model? At least they seem to get the message lately, with all the online music stores... at last.

Re:I don't understand...

[El]

Worse yet, what could does it do to make something illegal in just one country, when there are hundreds of other countries out that that quite frankly don't give a darn about US intellectual property laws? All they can succeed in doing is driving innovation overseas.

Personally, I don't think it's completely about economics -- it's about control. Record company executives are used to having anybody who wants to succeed kiss their ass (and lord knows what other favors). Once anybody can distribute music cheaply and easily over the 'net, then nobody can pick and choose who will be successful -- only the consumers can decide. What happens to the star-maker machinery when everybody must compete on an equal footing, and word-of-mouth is the most effective advertising? Gee, maybe we'll start getting artists that actually sound good, rather than ones that just look good in videos!

Re:I don't understand...

[stubear]

Anybody CAN distribute their music over the internet already, they just can't get money from the RIAA to do so. Nothing stops a musician from posting their music on the web and establishing a fee-based system of their liking from which they make a living. All the RIAA is saying is you can't take the music we helped create (through funding and distribution deals). What is so fucking difficult to uderstand about this?

Re:I don't understand...

[El]

How the hell do distribution deals create music? Do you think all those musicians wait until they get a record company contract before they start writing songs, or do you think it's possible that most of the music that goes on their debut album was written BEFORE they had a contract? Yes, the potential for future monetary rewards may act as incentive to some artists. But really record companies are built on monopolization of the distribution channels. And by the way, weren't people writing music long before there was any such thing as copyright, or even any such thing as money? Changing the business model doesn't mean music will stop being created. It just means it might be harder to make a living at it. But then, every good musician I know isn't making their living from it anyway!

Well, it's merely a request so far.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing stopping them from making a request if they've got the money to pay for the lawyers, but it doesn't mean much. Even if they agreed to hear it, which is doubtful, they would agree with the previous decisions.
Besides which, it is really quite irrelevant what the US Law says about P2P because P2P is only marginally concerned with the US. If the US Congress passed a law saying all people who possessed P2P software will be rounded up and executed tomorrow and the Supreme Court backed it up and the President went on Fox News and announced it to the drones and their neighbors all agreed to turn in the dirty evil file trader enemies of the corporate State of America, it still wouldn't stop P2P. Even them you would still find files on Kazaa tomorrow. Consider that. The US is not the center of the world and when it comes to the Internet it is no longer even a major player.

Re:Well, it's merely a request so far.

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter if the US is the center of the internet world. What matters is if it can export these copyright laws via "FREE TRADE" agreements. Many of the US's free trade agreements include clauses that require the other memebers of that agreement to enforce US copyright law on exported goods.

"IIPA works with U.S. and foreign governments in regional and bilateral discussions which lead to the formation of free trade agreements that include protection of intellectual property, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and FTAs with Jordan, Singapore, Chile and Central America. IIPA also is engaged on intellectual property rights issues in ongoing and future FTA negotiations with Australia, Bahrain, Morocco, Dominican Republic, Panama, the Andean nations, the Southern African Customs Union, and Thailand."

http://www.iipa.com/copyrighttrade_issues.html

Be careful what you wish for...

[IgD]

This could really backfire on the music and movie industries. The supreme court might take the betamax decision to a new level. I'm all for this.

The INDUCE Act

[PigeonGB]

The INDUCE Act would reverse that decision. Check out http://www.eff.org for more info.

It might get heard.

[RealAlaskan]

The lower courts have disagreed, the **AA shysters say, so just maybe the Supremes will take it. Unfortunately, the anti-**AA decisions have come out of the Ninth Circuit, the most overturned court of them all. If the Supremes do take this one, it might only be to slap down those wacky guys in California, and that would be bad.

More seriously, I'm not sure what they might do with this, but their recent Mickey Mouse decision doesn't make it look very encouraging.

Re:It might get heard.

[dvdeug]

More seriously, I'm not sure what they might do with this, but their recent Mickey Mouse decision doesn't make it look very encouraging.

I think the Mickey Mouse decision was encouraging. In retrospect, most of the Supreme Court wasn't willing to second guess Congress there. But two members were, which means we probably have two members on our side to start with. In this case, unlike Eldred, they don't have Congress on their side, and we have solid precedent on our side. I think that may make a huge difference.

Re:It might get heard.

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a grip. So the Ninth Circuit is the most-overturned; that distinction has to go to SOMEONE. They aren't overturned MUCH more often than the other Circuits, and even if they were, the Supreme Court doesn't exactly have a reputation for taking lower-court decisions personally.

Re:It might get heard.

[dgatwood]

The 9th circuit is also the circuit that most frequently gets reviewed by the Supreme Court, largely because they see the most cutting-edge, controversial cases. In terms of overturned cases, though, only about 51% get overturned, about the same as almost every other circuit. Thus, you might make the argument that it is the most overturned court because their rulings are "wacky", but you would be wrong.

In fact, as a percentage of total cases reviewed, the 5th circuit (Texas/Louisiana/Mississippi) is the most overturned circuit, not the 9th, coming in at about 60% of heard cases overturned.

Re:It might get heard.

[Anonymous Coward]

you're a fucking idiot.

Re:It might get heard.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that the **AA lawyers believe that there is a serious chance to get the Supremes to overturn this decision.

However, filing this appeal at this point is required to create and maintain the political momentum to pass the next generation Induce act.

Miles

Re:It might get heard.

[Mr2001]

IIRC, the Ninth Circuit is most frequently reviewed and overturned by the Supreme Court because they hear the most cases. It's not because of their judgment or the nature of the cases they hear.

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[JaxGator75]

If you repeat it enough times, it just might become true!

Then again, you could just be wrong and saying otherwise MIGHT prove nothing...

Just maybe...

wake up RIAA

[suezz]

why does the MPAA - RIAA wake up and get in reality. should we outlaw all cars because some wife runs over her husband on purpose. what world are they from anyway? I guess to them their all important copyrights are more valuable than lives. what a bunch of screwed up people - they need to take a break from counting all their money. lets outlaw forks and knives because someone stabbed someone to death with a fork and knife - then we have to eat with our fingers or chopsticks but then what if someone pokes somebodies eye out with a chopstick. then we are reduced to fingers. but then if you strangle someone - okay that's all I have a headache.

Re:wake up RIAA

[phallstrom]

"...lets outlaw forks and knives because someone stabbed someone to death with a fork and knife..."

You mean like on an airplane? :-) I still find it ironic that I have to use a plastic spork on a plane but they let me on with my *steel* glasses without thinking twice.

perceived security... wee!

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be a dip shit. You aren't even relating apples and oranges. You're relating apples and fucking trees. Neither have anything to do with one another.

If I were to copy something from one piece of paper to another that would not be stealing it's called copy right infringement (if the information were copyrighted in the first place wich lots of info that is traded via P2P isn't). I didn't take anything other than information. Same goes for sharing because I never deprive anyone of anything.

If I cared enough to log in I'd mod you into oblivion. I'm sure other people will anyway.

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yeah, you stole the money, but see, when somebody downloads a song of any P2P distribution channel, they're making a copy. Stealing involves taking something so that the victim is not able to use it at all. If I grab a copy of some song, I'm leaving a copy up on that person's computer so they can still enjoy listening to it.

Swapping music isn't really stealing. Get your terms straight.

As Ani DiFranco said

[marktaw.com]

"Any tool is a weapon if you hold it right."

Starving musicians everywhere should file a class action suit against the RIAA for being used as the RIAA's defense in these cases, when we all know that the starving musicians are starving because of the RIAA's monopolistic nature & underhanded treatment of their "talent."

Re:As Ani DiFranco said

[brainspank]

"Any tool is a weapon if you hold it right."

That's what the poor kittens have been saying for years.

Re:As Ani DiFranco said

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not starving because of RIAA, they're starving because they either suck or enter into bad contracts.

RIAA sucks too.

Re:As Ani DiFranco said

[Anonymous Coward]

There is enough precedent that you don't ban tools.

Software is also a form of expression, so you don't want to overturn the constitution lightly.

Now some tools have licences, and regulations attached to them, and the public will wake up and get angry, if they are told they now have to pay to exercise their (qualified) constitutional rights.

Based on the above, and Ani DiFranco, affirming the decision seems likely - as it is a thinly disguised plea - Can you ban this for us, so that others don't have to draft pass highly dubious, highhanded and unpopular regulation framework.

You could ban automobiles, mobile phone, and tight dresses, because they cause accidents, but you would be really stupid to buy into this one.

Here comes the grammar nazis

[Anonymous Coward]

well, actually I like this comment a lot [shh: and would be willing to steal it for my rants elsewhere], but your use of the word "got" is incorrect

in most situations, it would be best omitted entirely

I'm not geek enough to give you the regex command to fix the problem, nor am I grammar nazi enough to find other mistakes

here's a suggestion for meeting the RIAA's prez

[Anonymous Coward]

load up Goatse (aka hello.jpg) into a digital camera that has a lcd preview screen.

then walk up to the RIAA president and say "look at this butt pirate". (This series of photos feature Ron Jeremy being goatsed this way. No goatse displayed on that page.)

Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

There is an existing economic system, built in a time where it was not possible to duplicate goods w/o cost. And a lot of people have a lot invested in that system ("Fuck the RIAA" you say? Those companies employ a lot of people... Folks just trying to feed their kids and live life, just like most people).

Now, it is very easy to duplicate many of these kinds of goods. This reduces the incentive of the companies to produce... their revenue per unit of work decreases, which hurts the company.

Of course, you can copy music (I won't call it 'theft' because I don't want to call down the semantics people). I can also rob people on the street, commit fraud, etc. Morality aside, all of these are breaking the 'rules' of society.

Think what you will of copyright as a concept, but to berate folks who are playing within the 'rules' (whether you agree with the rules or not is immaterial) as 'stupid', 'greedy' or '[insert expletive here]' is grossly unfair.

Now, if you want to change the rules, fine. If enough people agree, they'll change. But stop breaking the rules for and then casting yourself as a persecuted party. It's intellectually lazy and a cop out.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[PigeonGB]

Actually the RIAA was the one who claimed it was ok to make copies of CDs to give away to your friends. To do so on a scale that Napster was able to make possible made them change their position. The RIAA was the one who changed the rules here.

In any case, no one wants to rip off musicians or the people who are employed by the RIAA. The Internet provides a chance for innovation and new ways to market products, and the RIAA is very slowly getting with the times.

I could copy music, and I can do so legally. Companies exist, such as audiolunchbox.com, that allow me to not only download songs but buy them. If the RIAA actually decided to make use of what its customers would already be willing to use, and didn't gouge them with high prices and lawsuits, perhaps they wouldn't be complaining about "theft".

You can't rob people on the street or commit fraud legally, so your analogy doesn't stand. Your statement makes it sound like copying is immoral by itself, which it is not.

To leave your post as it was is intellectually lazy.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, if you want to change the rules, fine. If enough people agree, they'll change. But stop breaking the rules for and then casting yourself as a persecuted party. It's intellectually lazy and a cop out.

I think Rosa Parks would disagree with you.

Perhaps comparing the civil rights movement with copyright is a bit of a stretch, but I think the example still stands.

I do not feel I am under any obligation to follow 'rules' that I consider wrong. Of course, I consider murder, fraud, and robbery wrong. Most of things on my "that is wrong" index are in agreement with societies. However, I do not think "breaking the rules" when the rules are wrong is intellectually lazy, or a cop out.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[LordK2002]

If enough people agree, they'll change.

Wrong.

If enough people with money and influence agree, they'll change.

There is a huge difference.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

You can't rob people on the street or commit fraud legally

Nope, nor can you copy w/o permission. If a stranger on the street gives permission, it ain't robbery. So, you are correct: When the copyright holder gives permission, you can make copies. This is within the 'rules'.

To leave your post as it was is intellectually lazy

Oh, come on. I'm trying to make a point here, not have a pissing contest, or flamewar.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[what the dumple is]

That's the point. We don't want them to produce anything.

I'm out of a high paying cush-y tech job and I want everybody to feel my pain. Muhahahaha! What? Some record exec can't feed his family? Guess what! Neither can I! See you at the food bank.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't rob people on the street or commit fraud legally

Friend, you must not have heard of Wall Street.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

Yeah, I knew the civil rights issue would come up. And yeah, it's a hell of a stretch... I'd wager that treating people like subhumans and copying the latest Backstreet Boys are not _quite_ analogous.

Also, it could be argued that the basic laws of the country (remember the 'all men are created equal' bit) were being violated by denying black folks civil rights.

It's called an implied social contract. You choose to live in a society, if you won't live by the rules, you need to leave or suffer the consequences of your actions. LOTS of people only follow the rules they want, yet expect full protection from the courts, military, fire/police, etc. Seems a pretty hypocritical approach to me, hence the 'cop out' comment.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

Fair enough... large enough groups can acquire enough influence, due to sheer mass.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

However, I do not think "breaking the rules" when the rules are wrong is intellectually lazy, or a cop out.

It depends on how you do it. If you want to protest, then shout it to the world. Tell them that you share files because it is the right thing to do. Expect to get backlash from the authorities, because it's their job to enforce the rules until the rules are changed. Don't try to run or hide or avoid the rap. You want to be visible for how unfairly you are treated.

If you can do that, then I applaud you. Most of the people I know who "share files" are just looking for free music, and are just common criminals. They 'get it' about as much as the guys who try to warez Linux.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[PigeonGB]

I know you were trying to make a point. But the way you left it made it sound like copying was equal to mugging someone or committing fraud.

Of course, you can copy music (I won't call it 'theft' because I don't want to call down the semantics people). I can also rob people on the street, commit fraud, etc. Morality aside, all of these are breaking the 'rules' of society.

When the copyright holder gives permission, you can make copies. This is within the 'rules'.

Two different statements. One is wrong because it is a blanket statement that doesn't apply in all cases, and the other one is correct because it applies in all cases where a person gives you permission to copy.

That's my point when I said you were being intellectually lazy, to quote you when you refer to those who break the "rules" and then try to say they are the victims. I agree with you in that if it is illegal, it shouldn't be done. I haven't really downloaded music files by the RIAA ever since Napster was taken down. I legally do get music files from friends' bands or bands that understand that the Internet is an amazing new tool to advertise their music to fans.

I still think that the RIAA is crappy for not only bringing lawsuits to its own customers but also trying to make otherwise legitimate tools illegal simply because they can be used illegally.

While I see your point, that copyright exists and changing the law can be done without violating existing copyright, you made it while also painting copying as by default immoral, the likes of fraud and mugging people on the street. I was simply correcting you, and I apologize for doing so in a way that seemed flameworthy.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

I pay taxes, and follow the rules "most of the time," so I expect full protection.. most of the time.

The thing is, many people's lives are being ruined as a result of these copyright cases. Children's college funds are going to settling w/ the RIAA. And other people suddenly become debt slaves to a major company, until they can pay them off. So, yes, people are being visibly hurt by these actions. Not to the extent of the civil rights movement, but people are being hurt.

You could argue that the current "definition" of copyright flies in the face of its original intent.

I am aware of the implied social contract. However, "social contract" does not equal "the law." (speed limits, for example)

There is also the MASSIVE social benifit that p2p filesharing can accomplish.

Or do you think the largest easiest accessable library in the history of mankind is a bad thing? :)

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not anymore, at least not financially. I suggest you look at ownership rates in the USA. This was true even 25 years ago, but not today.

Sorry.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[IWorkForMorons]

Think what you will of copyright as a concept, but to berate folks who are playing within the 'rules' (whether you agree with the rules or not is immaterial) as 'stupid', 'greedy' or '[insert expletive here]' is grossly unfair.

Now, if you want to change the rules, fine. If enough people agree, they'll change. But stop breaking the rules for and then casting yourself as a persecuted party. It's intellectually lazy and a cop out.

And isn't that the whole problem right there? The publishers are trying to change the rules in their favour, while leaving their customers with few alternatives. There are a set of rules that allows the publisher to get paid (CD levies, store levies, etc), to cover "losses" from people copying things. In return, people were given the right to make back ups of their purchases. This was the "Fair Use" clause. While it does allow for some people to make illegal backups, for the most part people stayed within the law. Now that the publishers have found a new enemy to blame all their woes on (P2P), they are systematically removing fair use rights, while still holding on to their money paid from the levies. What will be left is a system where people will be paying 3 or 4 times for the same item, and if it is lost or broken then they have to pay 3 or 4 times again for that item. Their rights to back up what they bought have been taken away. Whether you like this or not doesn't matter. In time, the whole system will crumble under it's own weight. People will spend less money on those items, because the value/price ratio will be so far out of whack. The whole exercise of trying to "save themselves" will ultimately be the publishers downfall. While this idea doesn't make me sad, what does make me sad is that customer rights will practically be non-existant by that time.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Cramer]

• Actually the RIAA was the one who claimed it was ok to make copies of CDs to give away to your friends. To do so on a scale that Napster was able to make possible made them change their position. The RIAA was the one who changed the rules here.

Actually, they didn't. They said they couldn't police such small scale sharing and thus wasn't going to even try. Read the actual copyright notice on your CDs; most will explicitly prohibit even loaning the physical disc to anyone else.

Napster was not sharing to one's friends. It was sharing with anyone and everyone who asked without restriction or limit. There is a line, and Napster was out arround Pluto beyond it.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

Actually, I could give a damn about 'morality' (I tried to indicate that in the original post), I was going strictly on legal grounds.

I don't argue morality, it's inherently subjective, yet people act like it's objective. Can't be argued. So I don't.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

So, the fact that someone broke the law (again, objecting to the law doesn't release you from being subject to it) and is punished is them being persecuted? Bullshit.

No, the social contract says that you agree to follow the laws, or get out. Hey, if you want to break the laws, that fine, but realize that you are likely to be punished for doing so.

P2P is cool, I think the knuckleheads trying to ban it are missing the point... Bittorrent for example is a tremendously useful tool. No, the tools should not be held responsible for the user (drunk drivers kill people, I shouldn't lose my car). This wasn't my argument. I was stating that the 'we're being persecuted for breaking the rules' argument is crap.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[dougmc]

Actually the RIAA was the one who claimed it was ok to make copies of CDs to give away to your friends.

It was. It was called fair use.

Now, things like the DMCA have changed the rules for digital media. I think it's still legal to take a cassette tape and copy somebody else's CD , tape or record, but I'm not sure if it's legal to make a copy digitally, like make an mp3 of somebody else's CD (or even tape or record) anymore. I suspect it still is, though I'm sure the RIAA wouldn't agree.

The usual reason for the special treatment for digital media is that `digital copies are just like the original' ... and I guess in some cases that's true, but in many cases it's not. An mp3 of a CD is not the same as the CD itself, though the mp3 can be copied (if done properly) through many generations with no further loss of quality, and that's what they claim to be afraid of.

Of course, the RIAA IS getting paid. If you copy a CD onto an Audio CD, the RIAA gets a cut. (It's called the `DAT tax'. Google is your friend if you've never heard of it.) I guess they're just not getting paid enough ...

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the actual copyright notice on your CDs; most will explicitly prohibit even loaning the physical disc to anyone else.

I doubt that. But I don't have an original CD to check at this moment.

But, lets assume it is true. Then it is wrong. The right of first sale allows you to loan the physical disc to anyone you wish. If their is such a prohibition printed on a CD, then it calls into doubt the legality of any other claims on the CD as well. If they are lying about one point, they could just as easily be lying about all the others too.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Yebyen]

Of course, you can copy music (I won't call it 'theft' because I don't want to call down the semantics people). I can also rob people on the street, commit fraud, etc. Morality aside, all of these are breaking the 'rules' of society.

The 'rules' of society are the rules that a majority of society follows. If a majority of society is breaking a rule, then it's not a rule of society anymore. If a majority of some subset of society is breaking a rule, and if a majority of society accepts this subset's right to exist, then there is an inequity in the system. It is possible for laws and socially acceptable rules to differ, just like it is possible for laws and morals to differ.

I still agree with your overall conclusion. If the rules are wrong, the rules need to be changed. When some people play by the rules, and some others don't, that is also inequity in the system.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, you can copy music (I won't call it 'theft' because I don't want to call down the semantics people). I can also rob people on the street, commit fraud, etc. Morality aside, all of these are breaking the 'rules' of society.

Yes, but those rules didn't just magically appear. They were written to serve some purpose. The purpose was to promote growth of the public domain. The laws have been so drastically perverted as to take away that purpose. The original benefit to the public is now gone.

It might be the letter of the law that copying a 20+ year-old work is illegal, but it's not the 'rules' the public agreed to. It's not even the rules that our corrupt representatives agreed to; some of these copyright changes were sneaked in on the back of completely unrelated bills by people not authorised by the public to act on their behalf.

Now, if you want to change the rules, fine. If enough people agree, they'll change. But stop breaking the rules for and then casting yourself as a persecuted party.

The point you are missing is that the rules were fine as they were, corrupt individuals changed them behind our backs, and now we are stuck saying "Hey! We didn't want this! We don't agree with this!" It may not be persecution, but it's certainly not just.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

Not really. I agree that they can't keep you from loaning out the disc. But that's because it's an existing law, just like copyright. The company can state laws, and they can state their wishes (with respect to loaning the CD, etc) alongside those laws, but only the laws have any power.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the social contract says that you agree to follow the laws, or get out.

I think the social contract says that you agree to play well with others, or get out. The laws are an attempt to codify what 'play well with others' means, so that we are all on the same page, but that is just an attempt to put the social contract in writing.

In copyright, the social contract is that someone (or many people) put hard work into creating something, so they should be compensated for it. We do this by allowing them to control their work despite its intangible nature allowing easy copying, and let it play on the free market like any tangible goods.

Sorry, but I think to say that the social contract is to obey the law is a misstatement. One of the things that can make an unjust law is when it conflicts with the understood 'social contract'.

Other than that, yeah.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

Hmm... good point. Perhaps my original term of 'rules' would be a better fit, and it works well with 'play well with others'. Many societal 'rules' are not codified into law, but remain as norms and mores.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

At this point, a relatively small segment (a few million people, mostly young) are breaking the law, duplicating works 'because they can'. I don't think this will ever get to the point where it's such a huge number of people that society changes it's point of view. I thought _maybe_ software would drive that, but OSS is offering such good alternatives, that I doubt it.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Leges humanae nascuntur, vivunt, moriuntur
Human laws are born, live, and die (found on http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme)

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." -Robert A. Heinlein "Life-Line"

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Xtifr]

Read the actual copyright notice on your CDs; most will explicitly prohibit even loaning the physical disc to anyone else.

Nope. Not only does that make no sense under the applicible laws, but I just spot-checked several, and none of them say that. Most just say, "unauthorized duplication is prohibited," while a few go on to mention that public performance, broadcast and rental or hire are also forbidden. None of them say that loans are forbidden.

(Actually, most of my CDs are legally redistributable concert recordings from bands that allow such things (mainly, in my case, Hot Tuna, the Radiators, Gov't Mule, They Might Be Giants, the Butthole Surfers and the Flaming Lips) as found at places like the Internet Archive, but I checked my more mainstream CDs, and none had the statement you claim.)

When the VCR first came on the market, most uses were infringing. Prerecorded tapes typically cost around $100, and there weren't any rental outlets. When the MPAA failed to get the technology banned, they did the smart thing, and adapted to it, and now it's a huge source of revenue for them, and most uses of the VCR are not infringing (although there's surely plenty of copyright infringement still occurring). What lesson can we learn from this? Well, if you're the RIAA, apparently none!

Re:Look, it's simple...

[dedalus2000]

Do you think a clear channel station will report anything that will make people aware of the changes in FCC regulations that let them buy up more broadcast rights or that Fox would do so? Do you think ABC would report anything other than what Disney wants people to hear?

Do you think NBC is unbiased on the subject of Copyright law even though it's owned by GE\RCA or how about CBS that's owned by Viacom\Paramount or CNN owned by Time Warner? I think anything that undermines the prevailing situation of corporate media hegemony is although illegal infect Moral.

Any discussion of American freedom must first address the problem of the litigious abuses of American corporate media.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

Good point. That said, when was the last time you voluntarily broadcast information that made you look bad?

Re:Look, it's simple...

[fatcatman]

"Fuck the RIAA" you say? Those companies employ a lot of people...

So did the buggy manufacturers. What's your point? We shouldn't help obsolete companies live just because they employ a lot of people.

Morality aside, all of these are breaking the 'rules' of society.

Whose rules? They certainly aren't mine. From the looks of it, there are an awful lot of people who agree with me. That doesn't necessarily make it "right", but it certainly lends support to my position.

Copyright is a bullshit system built on the artificial scarcity of infinitely reproducable items. It has been so perverted beyond it's intentions by big industry that I can not, and will not, respect it. There are millions like me, and we will win, because neither you nor the **AA nor any government or other entity in the world can stop us.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

Very insightful. So, are we emulating the movie 'hackers' again?

Re:Look, it's simple...

[max born]

Those companies employ a lot of people... Folks just trying to feed their kids ...

They employ a lot of hangers-on. Business executives and lawyers who can't play one note of music and yet make millions by manipulating and controlling an old system of non electronic physical distribution.

Historically, this is nothing new. Whether it's ludites breaking machines or dock workers opposing automation, it's always about jobs. But the fact is, we must go on. Asking the court to make P2P software illegal is, I think you'll agree, pretty ridiculous. And pathetically futile.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[dedalus2000]

It took more than 50 years for the legislation that preserved the independence of broadcast media to be significantly undermined. Before that it didn't matter if you wanted to broadcast something that would make you look bad or not because someone would.

Copyright by the way had a limit of 14 years with a possible additional 14 year extension and was only created to further innovation by allowing artists and authors to profit for a time from their work before it entered into the public domain, which is where any released work went prior to these laws. It had a limited scope in order to foster creativity and the advancement of science.

If the original laws stood unaltered we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. the volumes of information that should be rolling into the public domain and the value that information holds for the advancement of American culture and for the advancement both culturally and technologically of the entire world is immeasurable. That information is ours and it's been stolen for no other reason than to protect Mickey Mouse from imitators.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[iminplaya]

We can't talk about respect for "rules" until we apply them to everybody equally. We have very few freedoms today that weren't brought(?) to us by the rule breakers.

...Those companies employ a lot of people... Folks just trying to feed their kids and live life, just like most people...

So, I guess that makes all that payola and price fixing ok then. If you move enough money, the rules don't apply? You can commit criminal acts just because you employ lots of people? Evidently, society approves of this very thing. It's business as usual for them and countless other companies with the same practices. They re-elect the same corrupt politicians over and over.

"Si tu fumas, yo puedo fumar tambien." --or something like that

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

Yeah, I agree with that last point. I would also suggest that declaring an entire industry evil and contemptable because Joe ScriptKiddie downloaded Kazaa and can steal easily is pretty rediculous.

Business models fail and are replaced. But this one industry is being attacked in a unique way, and isn't being given time to adjust (and when it tries, (say, with something like Itunes) someone writes something to circumvent THAT (like, breaking the DRM on Itunes). How the hell do we expect this industry to react? People will always act in their best interests.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[realdpk]

"So, the fact that someone broke the law (again, objecting to the law doesn't release you from being subject to it) and is punished is them being persecuted? Bullshit."

Persecution can take many forms. It can involve creating laws which create arbitrarily large punishments for small crimes.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[tchdab1]

It's not that simple.

1. they keep paying legislators to change the copyright rules in their favor, extending copyright from (approx., from memory) 17 + 17 years, to lifetime + 90 years. It's not an existing economic system, it's a system they are evolving for their advantage. We can barely envision the original rules at this point.

2. New technology that could not even be envisioned when the rules were created now allows makers to claim the right to charge you whenever you think about using their product (OK, I'm exagerating a bit, but not much). They want to enforce not only rules against sharing with others and against what has been heretofore considered fair use, but against sharing with yourself. I am not exagerating - they are claiming that despite the ability to use peer networks to share your goods with yourself, those networks should be illegal. They are crafting technologies that prevent use across different device types or different serial number devices.

They are playing unfair and then claiming they are being robbed.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

So, I guess that makes all that payola and price fixing ok then.

Nope, I was addressing the very cavalier attitude most folks around here have. They might be less harsh if they considered that there are _people_, not just a corporation involved.

If you smoke, I can spoke too? What?

Re:Look, it's simple...

[iminplaya]

...changing the law can be done without violating existing copyright...

Heh...tell that to Rosa Parks, or Galileo, or Martin Luther King. Some laws won't be changed until they can be made unenforcable. It took all that bootlegging to make prohibiton unenforcable and thus repealed. Many minority rights wouldn't exist if it weren't for the violators. Only the law breakers will get copyright stricken off the books. This is not an issue in gen pop, and the politicians being constantly re elected are only making matters worse.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

They did however, make macrovision mandatory in every VHS and DVD player/recorder sold in the US.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

Pretty much everything you've said is true.

Now, Does any of that entitle you to free music?

Re:Look, it's simple...

[iminplaya]

Well, since our "pillars of society" are so cavalier, I'm not sure how we can expect people here to be any different.

If you smoke, I can spoke too? What?

Take another stab at the translation, and then try to understand the analogy.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

So the grand conclusion is if they can do bad, so can I ? Weak.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[iminplaya]

You choose to live in a society...

That's like saying "I chose to be born on this planet" This "implied social contract" is a load of bull. We live in a world of "might makes right". It's that simple. The guy with the gold controls the guy with the gun, and you're going to follow their rules. An "implied social contract" does not involve coercion. An "implied social contract" means voluntarily doing the right thing beacuse it's right, not because someone tells you to.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[iminplaya]

If you won't apply the rules to everybody, you have no right to apply it anybody. If society says that they do can do bad and not punish them, then the same applies to me.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit though. I'm out of a high paying tech job (couple years ago), I have tons of debt (even if not technically on paper thanks to family). Back to school on a fraction of my previous income.

Now, I'll go spend tons of money on music, movies, etc if someone gives me a nice cozy high paying job again. I probably still spend a similar fraction of my income on entertainment, just real dollar-wise is drastically lower than it used to be.

I feel no guilt about file-sharing. BTW, I heard this from a friend, over in Japan, an anime release costs $7, over here it costs $30, so 4 times more. Could someone be milking this for huge profit? That's what I think (assuming those numbers are factual).

I'll start feeling guilty and ashamed when I'm a member of the multi-millionaire club and see that by not purchasing all my entertainment, that my actions may evict a fellow club-member out of the exclusive club. But while I'm sitting on the outside in the cold, fuck em. I'm not made out of money.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

Lots of societies on this planet to choose from... also, you could go live in the woods, or off yourself... lots of options. Denying responsibility for choices, whilst a national pastime, is not a tenable position.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

"You choose to live in a society,"

I do? Is there some way I can live outside of society? No? Didn't think so. People have tried, and when the goverment finds them, they kick them off the land that "the gov't owns" and make them pay taxes regardless.

There's no choice here. You're forced.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an existing economic system, built in a time where it was not possible to duplicate goods w/o cost. And a lot of people have a lot invested in that system ("Fuck the RIAA" you say? Those companies employ a lot of people... Folks just trying to feed their kids and live life, just like most people)....

So because a few people have invested a lot of money in a system that's fast becoming redundant, we have to think of their children???

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

You don't have to do anything. I'm just reminding the typical slashdot "fuck 'em if they have more money than me" types that there is a human component to all this.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[nsayer]

It's called the `DAT tax'

It's more properly called the Audio Home Recording Act. It is the giant upon whose shoulders the DMCA is perched. At the time it was passed, it did not get nearly the outrage and attention it should have (that does not imply that it didn't get tons of both - it did, but passed anyway). It was the mechanism by which the Rio got hassled (the Rio escaped by the skin of its parallel cable - the fact that it was a computer peripheral was all that spared it). The AHRA, I believe, is every bit as horrible as INDUCE threatens to be today.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[tchdab1]

It entitles us to free technology. How we use it is prosecutable or not.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[shark72]

"It was. It was called fair use."

Interesting, I haven't heard that. Do you have a citation?

"I think it's still legal to take a cassette tape and copy somebody else's CD , tape or record, but I'm not sure if it's legal to make a copy digitally, like make an mp3 of somebody else's CD (or even tape or record) anymore. I suspect it still is, though I'm sure the RIAA wouldn't agree."

Also interesting. Do you have anything to back that up? If you would like to see what US law says about "fair use" (as opposed to the common Slashdot misunderstandings), Here's the link. Ivan Hoffman also has an excellent article about Napster's failed attempt to defend their actions as fair use. pdinfo.com addresses the specific issue of music and fair use here ; they write "We have attempted to do find specific details and examples of Fair Use of music. The rumors that it is OK to use so many notes or so many bars are just not true. There is little doubt that, other than private in-home listening and playing, Fair Use of music is extremely limited."

So, if you've found a law that makes it okay to copy my friend's CDs onto cassette tapes, please post the links. In either case, there's an important difference between "under the radar" copyright violation (making copies of your friends CDs in small quantities) for which nobody will get on your case, vs. activities which are truly "fair use."

"Of course, the RIAA IS getting paid. If you copy a CD onto an Audio CD, the RIAA gets a cut. (It's called the `DAT tax'. Google is your friend if you've never heard of it.) I guess they're just not getting paid enough ..."

That's counter to the popular understanding of how it works. It's explained here (Google is indeed great for finding instances of that retarded "the RIAA gets a cut" meme, but for stuff like this, just going to the actual law book will save a lot of wasted time). The vast majority of the money goes to artists, composers and musicians -- who, I should add, generally aren't paid enough. A small percentage goes to record companies. None goes directly to the RIAA.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, if you want to change the rules, fine. If enough people agree, they'll change.

Um, tell me, please, HOW many million people file-share? Wouldn't that be 'enough people'??

Re:Look, it's simple...

[syberanarchy]

Your argument just hung itself. Quite ironic that you're discussing "social contracts." The "social contract" of copyright suggests that these megacorps will be able to make money on the condition that the time of their monopoly is both limited and reasonable. While the copyright terms are still technically limited, in the "infinity minus one" sense, they are not reasonable. And while reasonable is certainly one of those subjective words that keep lawyers in business, I doubt there's much room in calling a timeframe that will prevent any new work from passing into the domain in a person's lifetime as "reasonable." And by the way, I don't know about your country, but in America, the "live by the rules of the system" clause is only valid so long as the system hasn't become rotten. When it has, we have a duty to break it down and rebuild. The copyright laws have become rotten. Time to redesign them.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

I dunno, a few million in the US, maybe. Lets say 10 million. And the US population is about 280M, so you've got aways before ya hit critical mass, AC.

Remember, most people still regard computers as somewhat suspect, the slashdot crowd is NOT representative of the country.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[angle_slam]

Actually the RIAA was the one who claimed it was ok to make copies of CDs to give away to your friends.

That's news to me. When did they say that? I was under the impression that, like speeding, it was still technically illegal, but too difficult to consistently enforce, so they didn't bother.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[angle_slam]

It was never fair use to make a copy of a CD to give away to friends. Pre CD burners and internet, it was too time consuming and difficult for it to occur on any type of scale, so the laws weren't enforced. Now that it is trivially easy to share a single CD with a million people, the RIAA has become concerned.

Another point, the DAT tax covers only DATs and Music CD-Rs. It doesn't cover data CD-Rs.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[DarkEdgeX]

I still think that the RIAA is crappy for not only bringing lawsuits to its own customers but also trying to make otherwise legitimate tools illegal simply because they can be used illegally.

Case in point: I can kill someone with a hammer-- should hammers be outlawed because of their ability to be used to commit murder?

And the lawsuits against "criminals" who download copyrighted music just highlights how copyright law is long overdue for an overhaul (in the consumers favor). The extensions to their duration and the changes made via the DMCA have done nothing to advance technology or help the arts.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[JET 666]

"Case in point: I can kill someone with a hammer-- should hammers be outlawed because of their ability to be used to commit murder?"

please dont give them any more ammo.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[bedessen]

Thank You. Mod parent up. I'm so very tired of seeing "fair use" equated with "right to copy entire albums/CDs in entirety for noncommercial purposes." Fair use means you can, for example, sample a 30 second exerpt of a song for the purposes of critique. It does not mean you can copy the whole album because your friend said it was good and you weren't planning on buying it anyway.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[dougmc]

Interesting, I haven't heard that. Do you have a citation?

Well, I thought I did, but I don't seem to be able to find it. Perhaps I mistook `non actionable' for `fair use'. Certainly, I've never heard of anybody getting in trouble for recording a tape from a CD, even if the CD belonged to a friend.

Certainly, kids have been sitting next to their tape recorders waiting to record a particular song for as long as there have been tape recorders, and this has generally been considered legal. Of course, I can't find any citations of that before -- but it tended to predate the Internet too.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Pig Hogger]

There is an existing economic system, built in a time where it was not possible to duplicate goods w/o cost. And a lot of people have a lot invested in that system ("Fuck the RIAA" you say? Those companies employ a lot of people... Folks just trying to feed their kids and live life, just like most people).

So do buggy whip manufacturers employees. When your industry becomes useless thanks to obsolecense, should the industry keep surviving by outlawing alternatives?

Re:Look, it's simple...

[libcoder]

The problem arises from the RIAA not knowing what it is that they sell. Do they sell the CD? If so I should be able to loan it out whenever I choose to whomever I choose. Or do they sell the license? In this case only I may listen to my CD, however the CD were to break, or become obsolete, I should recieve a free replacement with whatever the current medium is.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

Sure, go build a better buggy whip and I won't bitch. But since most folks are just downloading 'buggy-whip-copier 1.0', it's a different issue.

Here's why I call BS on all of the 'sharing' (with respect to copyrighted music) folks: The great justification was "I hate having to buy the whole album when I only like 2 songs".

First, you're not entitled to every song being a hit. Music has always been 75% filler... the fact that kids are just now realizing this doesn't change the fact. But people said "if I could buy the songs I want, for, say... a buck each, that would be OK".

I've bought albums, gone 'wow, most of that was crap', and just didn't buy that artist again. No outrage, no "They OWE ME". Just a (subjective) lesson learned.

Second, when music became downloadable for a buck a song, the same damned people whined about the high cost, and set about circumenting the DRM. What the fuck are the music folks supposed to do then? Just give up because some kid feels entitled?

Look, if you're gonna steal (yeah, I know... 'infringe'), then just do it. Professional theives say 'I'm a thief', and don't lay down a philosophical BS line to justify it.

For the 5% that actually have a non greed-based objection to copyright, I can respect that. but 95% of people just want free shit, and that's pretty damned weak.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Pig Hogger]

Whatever. I should have not bothered to read you, though, because where I live, it is LEGAL TO COPY MUSIC FOR MY OWN USE; 90% of my music library is blatantly copied from the public library and downloaded from the net and I'm not afraid of saying so.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Raffaello]

Are you just too young to remember the idiotic refrain "America: Love it or Leave it!" repeated by jingoistic supporters of the ill conceived (and ill fated) US involvement in Vietnam? Because you've managed to reinvent it, albeit in a considerably less catchy phraseology.

There are not "lots of societies on this planet to choose from." One needs the wherewithal to relocate to some hypothetical other society, and that society's approval of one's immigration.

So, no the argument that there exists some sort of implied social contract is just an attempt to make the lack of any real choice look like consent. Most of us obey the law because we were born into the society in which we live, subject to mostly preexisting laws. We have neither the means not the legal right to relocate to some hypothetical other society.

Arguing that individuals have some responsibility because we live in a representative republic would ring more true if we didn't also live in a country where Presidential elections can be stolen by recourse to a corrupt Supreme Court - two of the justices, Thomas and Scalia, who voted for Bush had substantial interests in the outcome of the case, and so, under federal law, should have recused themselves.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

Ok. So it's legal where you live, why should you be afraid? Since I was clearly discussing a place where it is NOT...

Should I start naming STUFF THAT IS LEGAL WHERE I LIVE too?

Re:Look, it's simple...

[tsm_sf]

("Fuck the RIAA" you say? Those companies employ a lot of people... Folks just trying to feed their kids and live life, just like most people).

Ahh yes, the Death Star Contractor conundrum.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

Fine. Theft is ok because the supreme court made a bad call in a tough situation. gotcha.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Infe]

Business models fail and are replaced. But this one industry is being attacked in a unique way, and isn't being given time to adjust (and when it tries, (say, with something like Itunes) someone writes something to circumvent THAT (like, breaking the DRM on Itunes). How the hell do we expect this industry to react? People will always act in their best interests.

I have to take issue with you. We didn't have DRM on CDs, so why should we accept it on digital downloads? Frankly, it's much easier to do whatever I want with the pirate version than some itunes or windows media crap. Why should I buy the crap? They're going to sell me what I want: unencumbered music that I can copy if I damn well please. Or they're not going to sell me anything at all.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[arminw]

Copyright as it presently exists was invented at a time when it was fairly difficult to copy and transmit information. Today information is nothing more than a collection of bits that can be easily duplicated and sent at light speed to any number of places around the globe.

Just as the rules and methods for the horse and buggy era cannot be applied to modern transportation systems, so the copyright rules adopted at the time of the horse and buggy no longer work for regulating the information flow.

The reason for copyright in the first place was not so the traders in creative works should get filthy rich, but in order to for the public to be enriched by the creative efforts of true artists.

One reform for copyright could be to restrict it to those who actually do the creative work by not making copyright a transferable or hireable commodity that can be bought, sold and inherited, like is done with tangible goods. Only real live persons, with blood running in their veins should be allowed to excercise the privilege of copyright. When the artist dies, all works by that artist revert to the public. Also, copyright should be renewed from time to time to show that the artist still cares about his/her work.

If all or most of the money for a work went to the artist rather than to the merchants that now get the lion's share, it may be likely that most people would pay enough to allow the best artists to be well off and even the mediocre ones not starve.

The cost of production and distribution of music has dropped dramatically in recent years, no longer justifying the outrageous prices the RIAA monopolies extort. In this regard at least, Hollywood is not nearly as greedy. Making good films is very much more expensive than audio recording, yet a full length feature film on DVD is a real bargain compared to what the music industry charges for a CD that lasts maybe an hour, if that. Even with a fast Internet connction it is still a hassle to download a movie compared to just going to your friendly video store and paying a reasonable fee for a nicely packaged, professionally labled and recorded DVD. I purchased the first two extended "Lord of the Rings" 4 DVD sets ( 8DVDs in all) for less than $28.00 each ($7.00/DVD) and they are excellent. I think that Hollywood is on track to not have to worry unduly about download copying since they sell their product at quite reasonable prices. Taking a family of 4 to the movieshow certainly costs as much or more than the DVD - if you can convince your kids to wait until the DVD comes out.:-)!

I hold against them though the copy protection that prevents me from loading the movie on the hard disk of my lap top and then be able to leave the DVD at home.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[arminw]

There is one right that can never be taken away from the cutomer not by the rich, the powerful, the courts -- nobody. It is the power not to buy anything not considered of enough value for the price charged.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[ultranova]

Another point, the DAT tax covers only DATs and Music CD-Rs. It doesn't cover data CD-Rs.

Really ? And what is the difference between music and data CD-R's ? Does the US government use precognition to determine whether a particular CD-R will be used to store music or data ? And how efficient is this precognition - does it, for example, count CD's filled with mp3- or midifiles as music CD's ?

Re:Look, it's simple...

[ColaMan]

Music CDR's are "special" CD's that are only for use in audio cd recorders (a standalone unit, as opposed to the burner in your PC).

Audio CD recorders will normally refuse to record onto data CDR's, obligating you to buy the more expensive Audio-CDR so you can record all your filthy pirated works, you filthy pirate,you :-)

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Buran]

Better tell that to the people who make the commercials for said recorders that show people doing exactly that. If anyone gets slammed for inducing piracy, it's gotta be them!

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Ost99]

"It was. It was called fair use."

Interesting, I haven't heard that. Do you have a citation?

It is part of copyright law in most european countries (but not UK). It's not called fair use, but serves the same purpose (but is less limited).

Copyrighlaws were supposed to limit publishers, not users.

- Ost

Re:Look, it's simple...

[TeraCo]

When you start sharing content with anyone who asks for it, you ARE a publisher.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only theft when the original object is removed.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[warrax_666]

would also suggest that declaring an entire industry evil and contemptable because Joe ScriptKiddie downloaded Kazaa and can steal easily is pretty rediculous.

Oh please. It just might be because of the price fixing, the monopoly they've created, or any number of other shady business practises.

I guess you really showed your true colours when you started calling in 'stealing'. It's not stealing (regardless of how much you call it that or want it to be).

But this one industry is being attacked in a unique way, and isn't being given time to adjust

Cry me a fucking river. Corporations exist for the sole purpose of making money and do not deserve any sympathy whatsoever. While it's slightly beside the point, do you think all the IT people whose jobs are being outsourced are "given time to adjust"? What about all the manual labour at the time of the industrial revolution? Nope. (and so on and so forth)

Oh, and regarding breaking the DRM on iTunes: Maybe people don't want their music DRM'ed? Maybe people want to do whatever they damn well like with the music they've bought?

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

When you are seeing that much of these entertainment-related jobs are now getting exported to third world countries (IE packaging, manufacturing, etc) I guess one could argue these guys 'stole' a job away from me too, because legally here in the US you can't pay anyone less than 5.15 an hour...

In other counries, the Motion Picture companies can pay as little as 4 bucks a day to workers there... Ethically wrong, for us, because it kills a good American job and ethicly wrong for them, because the money given them is enough for mere subsistance, and little more... They will never afford the products they make and therefore will never contribute to increased consumer spending. The money, it is assumed will come solely from American and European Consumers, and the assumption is that they have jobs.

What is illegal and immoral for an American company to do here in the US, is perfectly ok to do elsewhere, and somehow persons who shamelessly engage in such practices are not considered criminals.

Now I probably wouldn't have gotton the job, but I 'potentially' lost one because it was not offered in this country.

When the RIAA wants people to think them the victim, it just falls flat... Sorry, if you kill the worker base in the US, people in the US have fewer jobs, less money, and consequently will turn to the same tactics prevelant in other third world countries whose populace cannot affort such products... piracy.

We can ague about potentials all day long... the point of the matter is that most pirates would not buy the product anyways. Someone did get privilage without payment, but how can one blame them when they learn from the best?

Truly the best way to reduce piracy is to make a product affordable enough that it isn't worth the time to pirate it, and pay workers enough that they can afford the products you sell reguardless of what country those workers live in... Read Henry Ford's justification for his 5 dollar a day wage (in 1920 dollars which was twice the going rate at the time).

The consumer currency shortfall has begun... And they're the ones to blame for it... Let'em whine, but don't dare believe that they're the victim for a minute...

Re:Look, it's simple...

[RichardX]

I hope not. I left my inline skates at home, and I'm not elite enough to pull of a totally righteous hack on some big metal like a Gibson. Dude.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[terryzz]

"Case in point: I can kill someone with a hammer-- should hammers be outlawed because of their ability to be used to commit murder?"

But if too many people use the hammer to kill others, then every hammer should be registered to use, and store where hammers are sold should have the responsiblility help carryit out.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[beowulfcluster]

When the artist dies, all works by that artist revert to the public.

I think it would be fair to let the family of the artist benefit for a while if the artist produces a great work and then croaks shortly after it's released. Some sort of time limit (from when the work is published, not from when he dies) that's 'fair' to both the family and the public would be ok.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

So under your definition the serfs of the old world should have just shut up and played by the rules. The printing press shouldn't have been used since it destroyed the "economy" of the church that basically controlled liturature at the time and reduced their incentive to produce books.
Times change and so should business, governments and people. Your final statement says it all. It would seem to me that people want the rules to change and there are enough people that agree with them so they are changing. Just because they aren't changing the way you want doesn't change that fact.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[plague3106]

It does not mean you can copy the whole album because your friend said it was good and you weren't planning on buying it anyway.

Ok...so let me ask you, why bother with someone like that in the first place? If they weren't going to buy it anyway, you've lost $0 from them copying it.

Add to that the costof going after people like that, you are now in fact losing money. In the end, the people that aren't going to buy it aren't going to buy it, they'd just go without.

The problem is that the RIAA refuses to understand economic laws. Things are valuable only because they are scarce. We've eliminated scarcity for music and other data, so the value drops to 0.

If there's ever a time you could copy a car like you can a cd, yes that would put alot of people out of work, but the flip side is scarcity would likely be eliminated. At that point we'd have to find another reason to motivate people to do things, and there's nothing wrong with such a future.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[plague3106]

You choose to live in a society, if you won't live by the rules, you need to leave or suffer the consequences of your actions.

Actually you usually don't get to choose that. Where exactly can you go that there isn't a society already established? Not to mention various laws against suicide (which could be considered a way of 'leaving' society).

Re:Look, it's simple...

[plague3106]

Lots of societies on this planet to choose from... also, you could go live in the woods, or off yourself... lots of options.

Hmm, no likely you'll be arrested for hunting on a public park or private property, or if you choose to live by yourself you still have to pay property tax or lose your land...so no, i don't think those options fly.

The other societies to choose from...almost all of them are not really a choice because they are worse. Please don't try to say that we have the best then, because sometimes the best of the worst is still bad..

Re:Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

Wait... the other societies aren't choices because you don't LIKE them? what kinda odd logic is that?

Re:Look, it's simple...

[shark72]

"Ok...so let me ask you, why bother with someone like that in the first place? If they weren't going to buy it anyway, you've lost $0 from them copying it."

Because it comes a tautology. With each new CD that you pirate rather than purchase, "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" becomes easier and easier to say. It transforms from "I wouldn't have bought it anyway because I {couldn't afford it | don't particularly like the music | etc.}" to "I wouldn't have bought it anyway because it's readily available for free." Humans have a tremendous capacity for self-deception, and rationalizations like this make piracy go down smooth, easy, and guilt-free.

"The problem is that the RIAA refuses to understand economic laws. Things are valuable only because they are scarce. We've eliminated scarcity for music and other data, so the value drops to 0."

Then it would seem that the software industries (including all those guys who make money on shareware) don't understand economic laws as well as you do, either. Here's self-deception at work again: Slashdotters can all slap each other on the back and tell each other that these large companies (who have people with degrees in economics on the payroll, and whose very existence relies on understanding the economy) don't understand economics; while on the other hand, Apple has sold nearly two million songs.

"If it's not scarce, the value becomes zero" is a simple statement easily understandable by your typical Slashdotter, but nonetheless wrong. Economics are more complex than that, and the realities of the market can't be expressed in simple bromides.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[smoker2]

System Bogomips : 4771

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Ost99]

When you start sharing content with anyone who asks for it, you ARE a publisher.
Yes, I agree. But downloading something from an unauthorised publisher would still be legal though (for the time being, and not in the US as I understand it).

I want a functional waste-like p2p network, with only a limited number of people who I know connected (any sharing a network based on pre-existing social connections would be legal here).

- Ost

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Ost99]

When you start sharing content with anyone who asks for it, you ARE a publisher.

The context was "make copies of CDs to give away to your friends", that's not publishing.

- Ost

Re:Look, it's simple...

[plague3106]

Wait... the other societies aren't choices because you don't LIKE them? what kinda odd logic is that?

Not odd logic at all i would think. 'Hey, i can't wait to move to china where i have no rights and an oppressive goverment!'

Honestly, do you see anyone saying that? I didn't on a whim say 'i dislike societies x, y and z,' I have good reason not to like them (and thus eliminate them as a choice).

Re:Look, it's simple...

[public image]

Not so simple... Recording a television show without permission from the copyright holder is an offence under current US statutes. This act of copying, however, is governed by a statutory licence, meaning that the permission is automatically granted. You pay for this privelege in the purchase price of blank media such as blank cassettes and CDs. The companies who control the content get a cut from every sale of blank media in the US, none of which actually goes into residuals for the artist. I am not sure if this is the case in Australia - can anyone answer this for me? As for loans, once you actually have the physical medium, you have the right of first sale which means that you can do as you like with the actual object. Copyright does, as the name suggests, only governs rights over copying.

Everyone knows..

[eBayDoug]

I'm only stealing what I would have never paid for anyway.

Re:Everyone knows..

[happyfrogcow]

I'm only stealing what I would have never paid for anyway.

besides being a kleptomaniac(sp?), and wanting attention, what other reasons are there for stealing? you steal because you don't want to pay money for it. that's almost the definition of stealing.

But anyway, stealing something in this case is making the owner think that their goods have value.

So stop stealing, make the RIAA know that their goods suck, and end the RIAA's control.

I love this quote...

[Eric Damron]

"These companies have expressly designed their businesses to avoid all legal liability..."

In other words, they're staying within the law... Oh how dare they...

Re:I love this quote...

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct method is to buy laws that suit you and rake up prices when you are found guilty of price fixing.

Re:I love this quote...

[noisymime]

I think that this one statement says nearly everything about the US legal system today. When the person doing the suing says "yes they've done everything they can to stay legal" but then chasses them through every available court, somethings is screwed.

On the last point, you drop the water

[aristus]

If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not.

Copyright is not based on what the "public decides", it is based on the law. There is some leeway in "fair-use", but nowhere near the same as in, say, local standards of "morality" deciding what is "obscene".

That said, the greedy fucks don't have a leg here, any more than they would have against Xerox. The *act* is still illegal, but the software is not and cannot, and even if it were, enforcement is impossible. Just another pointless criminalization to please monied interes.... shit. Maybe they do have a chance.

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you walked up to me and took a COPY of my wallet containing $200 and spent it on drugs and hookers... I really wouldn't give a shit. Idiot.

"Going Equipped"

[Colin Smith]

Carrying crowbars, knives, screwdrivers is an offense.

http://www.police-law.co.uk/law/policelaw.nsf/0/ 2f a0cfe7d9867e6480256baa005c13bf?OpenDocument

It all depends on intent and use.

Re:"Going Equipped"

[Tmack]

Carrying crowbars, knives, screwdrivers is an offense.

Yes, but does that mean everyone that carries one is a criminal that is out to rob someone? Should they therefore be made illeage to own/make/sell? RIAA would say yes, no matter what the true intent is...

Tm

This is...

[hoborocks]

...the final battle. Cue the (pirated) battle tunes! Start playing (pirated) Braveheart!

RIAA/MPAA should just create their own P2P

[Bonewalker]

Look, we can get all the music we want for free, as citizens, on the radio, and all the movies we want, on cable tv. Why are they free for us? Because advertisers pay someone big money.

So, why don't they, the MPAA/RIAA, just create their own version of Kazaa, charge for advertising rates, and offer all their movies and music for free to the file sharers? Sounds like a win/win to me...even the artist gets at least what they are getting now from radio and television royalties.

Re:RIAA/MPAA should just create their own P2P

[Anonymous Coward]

Where the flying hell do you get free cable?

Re:RIAA/MPAA should just create their own P2P

[bobjohnson]

Hmm, I'm surprised no one has presented this before. (At least in my reading of slashdot, correct me if I'm wrong) That's pretty much the answer that would make the most sense, however, not the kind of profit they're looking for though. I mean c'mon, c'mon!

EASY FORMULA!

[Spy der Mann]

Start selling the CD's from $3 to $10 at most.
People'll buy them for hundreds.

Then, and ONLY then, they can start persecuting P2P file sharers.

I told it before. The recording industries are NO LONGER NEEDED. They're history, and belong back in the days when making expensive vinyl records was the only way to distribute music.
We've come to a time where new small distributors are wanting to emerge.
Give up. Pass the flag.

Re:EASY FORMULA!

[The Queen]

Amen! I am much more likely to buy a band's CD directly from them at a show, for $10, than I am to go to a mega-music conglomerate and plunk down $18-24, knowing the artist is getting less than 1cent out of it. So what if I have to wait until they come around on tour? They have a website, too. :-)

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[TheGavster]

I can pay in MP3s for drugs and hookers? Sweeeet ...

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[hacknslashdot]

This is a terrible analogy, a better analogy is this:

I walk up to you in the street, and make an exact replica of your shoes, then go to my friends house and let him make a copy of my copy of your shoes. I haven't stolen anything from you, but have I done something that the shoe company should be worried about? .. and infact, in this case, should the shoe company sue "Wholesale cobbler goods" where I bought the tools to make my copy of your shoes?

Not as clear cut as the riaa would like you to think huh?

They're trying to subvert the law ...

[c.ecker]

... because its too hard for them to catch individuals breaking it. They're trying to get the Courts to legislate from the Bench (which is another argument entirely) and shut down all use of P2P filesharing so they can line their own pockets ...

The courts are ruling correctly.

What's the real reason that everyone flocks to KaZaA and Morpheus, despite the Virus, Worm and other dangers there? Because, MUSIC CDs ARE TOO DAMNED EXPENSIVE!

Rather than subvert Copyright Law to their will, these folks ought to look at lowering their level of greed, so that people might be inclined to purchase a CD rather than steal one. Once you've stolen one, what's another 50 or so?

The Movie industry caught on. I think its amazing that a movie DVD costs only twice what a Music CD does. A Music CD involves just a fraction of a fraction of the production costs -- a fraction of a fraction of the investment that a typical movie does.

When Music CDs start selling for $2, the piracy issue will only be a nuisance. I know plenty of people selling downloaded music CDs for $5 each and making a small fortune. How many are they gonna be selling if they can only get 50 cents?

If you're competing in a marketplace, and you don't respond well to competition, the courts can't come to your rescue -- that's not their job.

Let's just hope the Legislators in DC don't get the idea to help ...

Re:They're trying to subvert the law ...

[Anonymous Coward]

....The Movie industry caught on. I think its amazing that a movie DVD costs only twice what a Music CD does. A Music CD involves just a fraction of a fraction of the production costs -- a fraction of a fraction of the investment that a typical movie does.....

One problem here. Movies start out in theaters long before they are released on DVD. That equates, in most cases, to tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue before there is any chance of buying the DVD. That is where they make up the cost of making the movie itself. Unless the movie in question happens to Gigli. Then nothing short of a miracle can help.

Re:They're trying to subvert the law ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"When Music CDs start selling for $2, the piracy issue will only be a nuisance."

I have to disagree with you here. The attraction of piracy isn't saving $17 one in a while. The real goodness of it is that you can get HUNDREDS of albums in short time by swapping storage devices with your friends.

In a few years when you can get a 1TB usb storage device that can wireless communicate with other similar devices, you could get 1TB of mp3s for free in a few seconds/minutes!!!

Would you still pay $2 an album?

Re:They're trying to subvert the law ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Movie industry caught on. I think its amazing that a movie DVD costs only twice what a Music CD does. A Music CD involves just a fraction of a fraction of the production costs -- a fraction of a fraction of the investment that a typical movie does.

A movie DVD costs twice as much as a music CD? Where do you shop? The average new music CD goes for about $17 in the States at a Best Buy. The average new movie DVD goes for about $20.

In my experience, for older releases, music CDs and movie DVDs are priced about the same.

Re:They're trying to subvert the law ...

[angle_slam]

What's the real reason that everyone flocks to KaZaA and Morpheus, despite the Virus, Worm and other dangers there? Because, MUSIC CDs ARE TOO DAMNED EXPENSIVE!

Sort of. The real reason is that PEOPLE ARE CHEAP.

Re:They're trying to subvert the law ...

[TiggsPanther]

Sort of. The real reason is that PEOPLE ARE CHEAP.

You have a point, and a very good one. But it still doesn't stop the various Entertainment Industries missing the point entirely on how to deal with it.

You can't stop people being cheap. Simple fact. People will pay what they think is reasonable. Their opinion, not that of the distribution companies. In the past this wasn't too much of a problem as not only did the content have some perceived value, but so did the medium.

People are cheap. And now the perceived value of the physical media is down - I can buy a pack of blanks for cheaper than the cost of one pre-recorded item, and the equipment required to burn them comes as standard with many computers.
Plus the perceived value of the content itself has decreased as it's now just seen as data, and storage and bandwidth availabilityis at levels that it simply wasn't at before.

I don't disagree that people are cheap. I'm probably a prime example even with legitimate purchases - mainly buying things on special offer or pre-order as I simply won't pay premium price if I can avoid it. And the queues as the post-Christmas sales are obscenely long, as many others obviously agree that "Under a tenner" is much better to pay for that "Twenty quid or more".

But all the **AAs, and their international equivalents, simply bump the prices up higher than what people are willing to pay, and then wonder why they lose sales. (Whether to piracy or simple doing-without).

Basically if people are cheap, your prices better be too. Otherwise you simply won't get as many sales.

File swapping software illegal?

[antivoid]

It's ridiculous:
If they made file-swapping software illegal, that would mean that:
- Windows Explorer is illegal, since you can swap files with it
- ANY ftp client is illegal
- Firefox/Internet explorer is illegal, because it technically has the capability to swap .html files

I dont get it how people can demand things as "fuzzy" as this. Where do you draw the line?

Re:File swapping software illegal?

[torokun]

First, these cases are not about anything being illegal in a criminal sense, just about whether someone who writes p2p software or runs p2p networks can be liable to the companies that own the copyright to files being traded.

The lines are drawn in the law and in the courts' decisions interpreting the law. You don't see any of the fine distinctions and considerations unless you actually study the law and the cases.

Under these cases, there's little chance that all those technologies would make their creators liable, but they could be in specific instances...

Re:File swapping software illegal?

[Lemmeoutada Collecti]

Just to add to the list, here are a few more illegal file swapping tools:

Microsoft(tm) Windows(tm) - The TCP/IP and Drive sharing stacks (which Bill has told us are so tightly integrated they cannot be removed) allow file swapping
Floppy Discs/CD's/USB Keys - These can be used for file swapping (sneakenet style)
All File Systems that allow copying
Binary - After all, 90% of the data being swapped worlwide using binary is copyrighted
Speech/Voices - I could use mine to illegally perform a copyrighted work

Note, Linux/BSD/et al would not be in and of themselves illegal, just remove the ability to copy files onto/off of the machine and they can remail within the rules. Albeit uselessly for the average person.

I say make all replicable molecular structures illegal, as they are the root of all file copying.

Aww snap

[Anonymous Coward]

Grandparent got served!

Legislation failed

[anachattak]

The RIAA/MPAA was trying to push through legislation (including the INDUCE Act sponsored by Senators Hatch and Frist among others), but those bills never made it out of committee thanks in part to the tireless efforts of the consumer electronics lobby. When the legislative route failed (all the Senators are going home now), they resort to the courts again. Can anyone imagine how much money they've "invested" in lobbying and suing over this issue? Does that give you any idea how pivotal this moment is in the evolution of intellectual property rights?

Yes

[dtfinch]

The Supreme court will most certainly find that any technology allowing the free communication of raw data facilitates piracy and is therefore illegal. This includes web browsers, email, phone lines, the post office, and the like. And so we should arrest or sue the providers of each. Nevermind that the constitution intended for the reach of copyrights and patents to be extremely limited. Not.

The media lobby isn't about fighting piracy. Many P2P providers have offered proposals on how to legitimize P2P, as has happened with past technologies such as audio recording, radio, television, and vcr's. Each time publishers sued and shouted claims of "piracy" and Congress has had to step in to force a solution that doesn't involve the destruction of the new, superior technology.

The media lobby fights to protect their control. Your music doesn't doesn't reach store shelves if they don't get a 97% cut. Yes, recording artists average about 3% in the end. Some even lose money after the hidden fees. All they want to do is get their music out, and gigs pay most of their income. Technologies like P2P offer a way to circumvent the control of the media companies over distribution.

Most P2P traffic is piracy because the media companies have refused to cooperate in working out reasonable licensing plans, as has happened with EVERY new distribution technology that they couldn't control. As was done with radio, Congress will likely need to step in and make it happen.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually - you are totaly right!
They even tried to ban digital radio over the net although they were paying fees and their quality was worse the real radios.
Why?
Because they didn't have control of what gets aired on net radio sites.
This would mean that independant artists could win big without paying them...

Ban my ears!

[jbrelie]

I'm sure I've used my ears to illegally listen to copyrighted material at least once. Perhaps they should be seeking to ban ears and suing my parents for.. umm.. "making" them?

In the long run....

[Anonymous Coward]

...it may be worse to have them lose this appeal. If there is no prospect of suing a large company, they will be left to attack the people trading their copyrighted content.

With no corporations to line their pockets, they may end up less likely to settle for a few grand and hold out for larger settlements. Can you wait for the parents who didn't realize Little Susie was sharing 30,000 songs and the RIAA won't quit until they settle for around $100,000?

CORYRIGHT OR BUST

[coyotedata]

Well just close all libraries and second hand bookshops and second hand records shops etc.... Amazing how libraries are one of the publishers biggest customers no matter what the quality of the book!!!

I had mod points..

[jonhuang]

..but I decided to reply anyway.

As I've heard a starving artist say, "You can give whatever reason you want for downloading mp3s instead of buying CDs, and I'm okay with that. Just don't tell me that you're doing it to help me make a living.

Re:I had mod points..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually starving? As in, about to die due to chronic lack of nutrition?

No one is an "artist" if they're in that bad a situation.

Re:I had mod points..

[Anonymous Coward]

I know most will disagree, but who cares.

Sounds to me like the "starving artist" needs to rethink their failing business model then. I have played for many years in a band, and _never_ once have I been "starving"... and note, I never cared to charge for any of our work.

I guess I am saying, perhaps music NEEDS a total revamp... like our political system.

Re:I had mod points..

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody downloads music from "starving" musicians though. It's almost always from the big name, multi-millionaires.

Re:I had mod points..

[marktaw.com]

Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software.

I'm talking about major label recording contracts.

- Courtney Love

Whacky

[smclean]

I think the problem the courts will have to face is the fact that not only do companies create P2P software, individual developers create P2P software for free. They do not profit on it. This makes the *AA's case significantly shakier, because they can't prattle on about how the 'business model' attempts to skirt copyright law; there will be no business model. There will be no profit, IE no sinister motive.

Will I be sued because I release a program that makes distributing copyrighted media possible for free? What programs *don't* have the potential to facilitate this in some manner, anyway?

I think this slippery slope is the kind of things courts know can not stand up, and I'm hoping they will have the wisdom not to hang the law on this one.

The MPAA and RIAA just want the courts to believe that they just need to stop a few *evil* companies from doing business, and the copyright holders' troubles will be over. I'm hoping that the courts can't be so stupid as to believe them.

Loss or Profit, Why fight it?

[bigtangringo]

Why is the RIAA fighting P2P? Suing "pirates" for thousands is much more profitable, they may not have purchased your CD anyway which would only be a measly $25.

Perhaps they don't see that they are not taking losses in that they are not actually losing money, it's an opportunity cost.

I can only imagine they actually believe they are taking a loss. Just keep suing people, it makes better money.

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[Anonymous Coward]

The shoe company would say "Oh shit, we're fucked! Let's sell the company quick before people catch on to this 'free-shoe' thing..."

RIAA wasn't quick enough.

Legitimate applications for peer-to-peer networks

[anachattak]

I've actually been working on a project to make a legitimate use of peer-to-peer technology on behalf of aspiring artists. It's an idea still in development, but I've put together a website for the effort (called Distributed Development) at http://www.distributed-development.com. I just "launched" it last week and am looking for aspiring artists across the country and around the globe to collaborate on projects and make reputations for themselves. It uses peer-to-peer technology to distribute bandwidth costs among the user network, so large independently developed files can be shared without costing an individual server excessive bandwidth.

Another application I've seen is an article I received the other day, about the BBC using BitTorrent to distribute programming to viewers (http://www.hyperreal.org/~mpesce/fbm.html).

Not most overturned

[extra88]

Dude, do you even read what you link to? Your 2nd link is to a page that state the Ninth Circuit is NOT the most overturned court.

Also, as others have pointed out, being the most overturned is not necessarily a bad thing.

Declare Microsoft Illgal !

[Nom du Keyboard]

No I'm not trolling. It is the Microsoft software that has allowed me to:

Store
Retrieve
Burn to CD
and Listen to MP3 files. As well as:
Execute all the P2P programs available
which are likely Written using MS development tools.

There are probably people out there that have only bought computers with MS software on them for the sole purpose of connecting to the Internet to download free music.

None of this would be possible without Microsoft's enabling software. After all, I locate and download my illegal P2P software using Microsoft Internet Explorer, and run it all under Microsoft Windows.

My first point is that these attacks against P2P software companies seem exceptionally selective. If this was a true attack against the enablers of this technology, then Microsoft is the biggest infringer. And they get a complete pass on this.

On the more serious note my second point is, there are certainly a lot of other people who want to determine what you are allowed to write and run on your own d@mn PC (or Mac).

All this violates my overall sense of fairness and individual rights!

Re:Declare Microsoft Illgal !

[Starluck]

I echo your thoughts and for that reason find Ballmers comments about iPod user so repulisive. It's issues like this that make me believe that the majority of the world is technically illiterate. IMHO it would be impossible for the MPAA/RIAA to come out with a ruling against P2P without significantly affecting many a tech company I.E. microshaft, as you pointed out the breeding groun or root/starting point for all these "evil" purposes. application is running on the OS. And why not attack M$ for making all this possible? Well I guess becasue you couldnt bend them over without bending over the rest of the world and ultimately bringing the global economy to a screething halt.

We've got some time

[maximino]

But we really need to use it wisely. I don't think the Supreme Court is likely to take this particular case this term; the reasoning of the 9th Circuit is solid, and it's certainly in-line with what the SC itself has found copyright law to allow.

But this is no time to become complacent. Congress has the power to write/rewrite the copyright laws at its discretion, and the Supreme Court has largely decided that it can't (or won't) interfere with that power. Expect the fight to shift to the legislative arena, with all the lobbying ability at the **AA's disposal. The INDUCE act and PIRATE act are just the harbingers of what they might try.

The lesson is that we've got to take P2P mainstream! It's got to be built into important applications that are used on a daily basis, so that lobbyists line up on the other side when the fight comes. It's good that it's already being used to distribute Linux distros, but we need enough uses that it is no longer possible to talk about banning it. There's probably only about a 2-year window before the legislation starts coming, so people who are software developers need to get cracking.

Re:We've got some time

[nataliegreen]

Well, maybe not that much time.

The Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004 was recently introduced in the Senate (09.29) and what I find so interesting about it is one of Congress' "findings" - (4) Many computer users simply believe that they will not be caught or prosecuted for their conduct. The interesting section - "SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON NEED TO TAKE STEPS TO PREVENT ILLEGAL ACTIVITY ON PEER-TO-PEER SERVICES." outlines Congress' sense about the illegal activity. The kicker is that the Supreme Court has held that as long as the central service is not hosting anything then the true p2p is not copyright infringement thus the whole need for RIAA to attack the general public and end-users.

For the text of the pending amendment to the Copyright Act, see the Lib of Cong website. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.0 4077:

Just because a tool may potentially infringe copyright, does not make it an instrumentality of copyright infringement.

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[slavetrade55]

I walk up to you in the street, and make an exact replica of your shoes, then go to my friends house and let him make a copy of my copy of your shoes. I haven't stolen anything from you, but have I done something that the shoe company should be worried about? .. and infact, in this case, should the shoe company sue "Wholesale cobbler goods" where I bought the tools to make my copy of your shoes?

That's a likewise terrible analogy. It would be more like if you walked into a shoe store, saw shoes you liked (or maybe not, you just like having lots of shoes) but didn't want to pay for, and made a copy of them. Then you go to a football game and let 20 000 people instantly make copies of those shoes. Do you think maybe the shoe store owner would have a problem with that?

On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean that your shoe-copying tools should be illegal, it just means that the shoe store owner has a right to be pissed off with how you're using them.

Re:Story -- them first

[Nom du Keyboard]

This story needs to disapear again just like the RIAA and MPAA

Okay, but them first!

Al Gore never claimed to invent the internet.

[TiggertheMad]

This is an example of the Republican party spreading dis-information and lies in an effort to discredit their opponents.

The statement made by Al Gore was that he helped with funding to support the Internet. The Republican lie machine quickly shortened this up to 'Al Gore claims to have invented the internet' and spread the quote all over the media. Informed parties saw exactly what was happening, but the average joe only sees the issue being muddied up by all the distortions.

I realize you are trying to make a joke, but I find it hard to make light of a situation where people are knowingly distorting the truth to gain power.

Re:Al Gore never claimed to invent the internet.

[Buelldozer]

Interesting claim.
According to the transcript from the CNN Late Edition interview with Wolf Blitzer this is what he ACTUALLY said:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.

It can CERTAINLY be read to mean exactly what is has commonly come to mean.

Full transcript of interview available here:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999 /03/09/ president.2000/transcript.gore/

Re:Al Gore never claimed to invent the internet.

[Anonymous Coward]

>This is an example of the Republican party
>spreading dis-information and lies in an effort
>to discredit their opponents.

Just like the Democrats do as well. I hate this tweedle-dee tweedle-dum politics. When are ppl in the US going to quit playing the two-party shuffle where it's really just one party (the money party) with two heads putting out smoke and mirrors to confuse the sheep.

Re:Al Gore never claimed to invent the internet.

[finkployd]

I'll give you that, however (and while we are already off topic) any goodwill that should be tossed Gore's way for helping fund the internet was voided in my book when we became the strongest and most vocal supporter of the government's Clipper Chip scam. All that good work in getting funding was almost put to waste when he decided that US citizens and companies should only have access to broken, fed created encryption and that all private research and development on encryption should be made illegal.

His "betrayal" of the US citizens and attempt (basically) to drive all tech companies out of the US was a major reason I voted against him.

Finkployd

Re:Al Gore never claimed to invent the internet.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. Gore was simply doing what every politician with a pet program (that everyone likes) does. He points out that he was fundamental to its creation and ongoing success. Which he was. He supported the research that led to the Internet for a very long time during his stay in the United States Senate. Research isn't free after all.

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[Starluck]

If i walk up to you with a louisville slugger and take a home run swing for your head, and you die as a result, should louisville slugger inc, be held responsible?

Dear Supreme Court...

[kkovach]

It's possible that guns could potentially be used to kill other people. This makes them all bad. Please ban them.

Actually, now that we've thought more about it, this is also true of knives, rocks, sticks, spoons, old smelly socks, and rubber mallets. Please ban them too!

Thanks.

- RIAA & MPAA

If they made fileswapping software illegal

[mark-t]

Then public webservers would also be illegal. If they made an exemption for webservers, then people who wanted to illegally trade or share materials would simply use a webserver on their system to share. It wouldn't diminish the amount of trading at all because you can bet your ass that someone will devise a way to make configuring these otherwise complex pieces of software so completely trivial and automatic that it would be as easy to use as something like Kazaa or whatever the P2P program on the month might otherwise be.

Painting the RIAA/MAPP into a corner!!

[Starluck]

OK, these are not my words but they have had me thinking now for a few weeks on the reprocusions of more laws aimed at attacking p2p and the people that use them. What I am going to cut in paste below is a post by my fellow poster on another tech site about the ramifications and consequences that further laws/bills might have. I really respect the community here at slashdot and would love to hear what everyone else thinks about this vision of the future, could this be the consequence of the RIAA/MPAA's action, I certainly think so! Heres the post please share with me your thoughts:

" Ok first of all the internet is global. Hate to point out the obvious, but this seems something the US congress fails to grasp. And fine, you can make p2p illegal in the US. Or even the ability to copy CD's, record TV shows, etc. Because honestly the MPAA & RIAA are really just interested in the distribution centers, and the profits made by these distributors. The internet is a VERY real threat to these types of buisnesses. So p2p is illegal, and our fair use rights are revoked. Fine great. The RIAA / MPAA have just criminalized their own consumers. So other than a potential boycott of thier products, you have a global market place, and open source software. Some P2P programs are already offering encryption. I don't know if the RIAA / MPAA realize what they are about to cause. Currently P2P encryption is either broken, or very weak. But that's because there isn't much demand for it. Most of the WAREZ DOODZ still use FTP servers and are generally fairly lax about thier security. Every so often a bust is made which keeps piracy from becoming too wide spread. Currently I think the model works, pirated content isn't too hard to find, if you want it, but there is quality issues, and the programs are not as robust as the commercial services (iTunes). But at the same time piracy is kept in check with current laws, and is prevented from becoming too rampant (in the US). Fastforward to 2007. Companies (some in kerplackistan, Russia, Caribbean, whatever) - as well as a few Open Source projects have launched the next generation in P2P applications. These encrypted networks are vast, scores of contributors join, and produce content of thier own. Files are ranked according to completion & quality. The RIAA & MPAA are helpless, as just to get s subpoena, it costs millions of dollars to rent the computer cluster just to decyrpt the data for one of these P2P users, and there are millions of users. Once a particular checksum is cracked, the encrytion scheme changes, or cypher strength is increased, automagically patched in the background. My suggestion to the RIAA / MPAA: You don't know how good you have it right now. Necessity is the mother of invention. Give the public, your consumers, a good reason to develope a parallel p2p encrypted network & it will happen faster then you can say Napster." (twitchster)

Re:Painting the RIAA/MAPP into a corner!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I read in another message that the USA has dropped from #3 to #10 in the world of broadband. The connection I'm trying to make, is that from reports I have read (not personal experience), the current crop of anonymous encrypted P2P apps are extremely slow, and need excessive bandwidth for less total throughput with a lot of waste. If the USA keeps dropping in the bandwidth rankings, maybe this encrypted P2P is feasable in the higher-tech parts of the world where the speeds are high enough to handle the extra layers and still be useful, but the USA will continue to slip, and maybe it will equate to trying to download a DVD over a dialup modem connection? Meaning that the problem will fix itself, because the majority of Americans will not have access to the necessary technology to enjoy the next generation P2P network.

Re:Painting the RIAA/MAPP into a corner!!

[Starluck]

That being said if we look globaly at the problem; once an encrypted P2P network exist offshore, then it being accessable to the rest of the world would cause as much threat to the RIAA?MPAA regardless weather or not the majority of US citizens are able to use said service effeciantly.

are you kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

well, considering that most lost sales are from the US, i don't see how you can say that it's not a major player. if the US doesn't account for the majority of internet business transactions, it definitely is the country with largest number in terms of revenue. clearly, internet life would go on without the US, but your claim that the US is irrelevant is completely non-sensical.

Ever hear of ^W

[Anonymous Coward]

it deletes words, you know

File this under...

[Anonymous Coward]

"When we can't make profits legitimately, legislate and/or cheat any way we can to our profits."

This (apparently) is one of the time honored tactics of Business, and has been around since the time of John D. Rockfeller & Standard Oil (See http://www.micheloud.com/FXM/SO/rock.htm for highlights).

Bad Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright infringement's already illegal; go after people infringing on your distribution rights to your heart's desire.

Oh, but there are too many people and it's too hard? Well, maybe the copyright law needs to change to the benefit of the public? If the public at large is ignoring the law, then maybe it's not such a good law?

But, but, my profits!!! Well, maybe you should actually create some new works that the public enjoys and finds valuable rather than recycling the same old materials over and over again?

The dinosaurs went extinct, you know?

In case someone hasn't heard it before.

[Anonymous Coward]

In case anyone hasn't heard it before: Pirate This Song by God Ate My Homework at Berkley should do nicely.

old, old FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

This is so old on slashdot, lets concentrate on the actual story; Do people think RIAA & friends will win this one or not? Should R&f win this one or not. Why do you think legislation didn't favor r&f in the first place?

"this is old but i will say it again. When weezer was recording their last album, they posted every track on their website, I downloaded every one./ Only to buy the album a month or so later when it came out. I luckily got the new hot snakes album the day it came out because they were in my town, if they weren't I would have ordered it from california, and downloaded it from whatever to liusten until the cd came (it costs only ten bucks anyway, so tower and napster can suck my ass)" end of bitchy quote

What are they going to do.....

[Vash_066]

"In a joint petition to the Supreme Court, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) said that letting the lower court rulings stand would badly undermine the value of copyrighted work." What is the RIAA going todo if they do win this case and their sales are still lagging? They can try and ban P2P and blame it all they want, but this is just a small drop in the bucket of problems that they have with CD sales. Anyone want to guess what the next scape goat is going to be?

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[Starluck]

I think the arguement for stealing is sound. If by stealing you imply taking something without paying for it. Imagine yourself walking into a music store 10 years from now still selling cd's and you had an ipod like device that would upload the cds with a simple pass of your ipod.v.2015, you then procede to upload every album in the store without physically taking the CD's . You have deprived the storefront of their proceeds by not purchasing the music you wanted. What would you call the above mentioned action?

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be more like if you walked into a shoe store, saw shoes you liked (or maybe not, you just like having lots of shoes) but didn't want to pay for, and made a copy of them. Then you go to a football game and let 20 000 people instantly make copies of those shoes. Do you think maybe the shoe store owner would have a problem with that?

If the shoe-store owner had any sense of business acumen, he would change his business model and now charge you up front for getting access to make the copy of the shoes in the first place. He might set such a high price to access it that you'd have to get together with 100 other people to afford it, but once he got paid for letting you access it, you and the 100 other people could do with it what you want.

What the Ass's of America can't stomach is that the world has changed and they need to change their business model to keep up. Copying costs nothing, so stop trying to make money by charging for copying and start charging for production/creation instead. They can no longer expect to work once and get paid over and over. Just like the rest of us peons, the are going to have to work once and get paid once. If they are good, they'll get paid a whole lot of money for their work. If they suck, like they usually do today, they probably won't make a dime. That's the nature of a truly free market.

Judged by a Higher Court

[MonkeyGone2Heaven]

The RIAA and MPAA can whine all they want about illegal copying. The companies they represent have been ripping off the public for decades and the last I checked karma was a form of justice dished out by a court higher than the Supremes.

you missed some...

[Anonymous Coward]

cameras and video cameras, vcrs and dvd players
-people could make and watch kiddie porn on those

automobiles, planes, trains, bikes and boats
-someone could carry illegal items on these or use these as aweapon to kill others (drunk driving, hit and run, 9/11)

When we were kids we used to get some of the old men in the neighbor hood to get us beer, there was this one guy who was a vet, and he always claimed he could kill a man with anything. So one night we were like "hey dude, how do you kill a man with a fork?" and he was like "i'll take it, and stab him in the eye!", well that became his answer for every object we picked, including cigarettes, elbows, straws, doritoes, his penis and using noithing at all. that dude should be in jail...

Oh, come now

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not wrong. But you're making the point they want you to make. P2P software is not necessarily for use for trading copyrighted material.

But like 95+% of it is used for illegal trading. Let's not get silly here and stick our heads in the sand. Do a search on any P2P network and see for yourself.

However, as you stated, that is not the fault of the technology. It is the file-traders doing it. The technology should not be outlawed because of how people use it.

Yet, this presents a paradox of opinion--if Slashdot is arguing that P2P is valid and that it is not the technology to blame, yet bitches when the RIAA goes after the individual file-traders...how can Slashdot justify having it both ways? Either it's not P2P's fault and is the fault of individual file-traders (therefore the RIAA is okay in going after them, which is what everyone was saying they should do back in 2000 during the Napster lawsuit, by the way), or going after file-traders is wrong and therefore you're invalidating the previous argument and saying that illegal file-sharing is something that shouldn't be prosecuted.

This issue is going to come to a head at some point in the future--looks like the RIAA/MPAA are pushing forward.

Re:Oh, come now

[orasio]

No paradox here.

I believe that even _if_ file trading _were_ illegal, it would be responsibility of the one who did it. So, if it were illegal, P2P networks would not be to blame. If it were not, the RIAA would be to blame, because of hassling people, and agains, P2P network would not.

Aside from that argument, it is the one about file trading, and ethics, and morals, and fair use, and unfair laws dictated by the strongest parts of the issue, in a fascist (by that I mean "corporation-ruled", not "italian-dictator-ruled") country.

confounded technology

[nanojath]

Hear Hear! And furthermore, sir, I have GRAVE ISSUES with this so called "postal service," with which, I have it on good authority, nefarious tune-peddlers are exchanging many the Victrola phono-graph via some sort of criminal hotbed called eBay without returning a whit of recompense to the artists in question!

RIAA MPAA

[coyotedata]

(AP)Just In:::::: RIAA and MPAA have formed a joint venture and have just purchased the WEB for 18.50 Trillion Dollars.

Maybe ban FTP, NFS, and CIFS while we're at it?

[workerbeedrone]

Those can be used for stealing too.

so what is the difference...

[Anonymous Coward]

...between "p2p" software, and the sort of software that, for example, Boing uses to allow people in various parts of the world to collaborate on designing an aircraft without posting bits of paper to each other? Both of them involve sharing files. Is it possible to design a law that will do what the music industry wants without sending industry, almost literally, back to the drawing board?

Re:so what is the difference...

[DragonTHC]

I wouldn't want to fly in an aircraft made by a company called "BOING"

sounds unsafe!

and sadly sounds safe at the same time!

Dear Supreme Court,

[raehl]

Included with this package is a hammer and a few nails. We will be waiting in our coffin.

Regards,
**AA

First post!

[Anonymous Coward]

Woo-hoo! First post. Eat it, fuckers.

Law is not C++

[hacksoncode]

As much as all us geeks here on /. would like it (not), the law is not something that is or should be executed with computer precision.

The courts (and juries) are perfectly capable of distinguishing between WWW/FTP/Windows/VCRs and Kazaa, in spite of the fact that they serve logically equivilent purposes.

The difference is intent, and the difference is how the software is used, both as perceived by a reasonable person.

The web isn't, by and large, almost entirely composed of attempts to infringe copyrights. Neither is Windows, nor is FTP.

90% of existing P2P is. And I bet you'd have a really hard time convincing a jury that it wasn't designed with that in mind (first of all, all of Slashdot would be subpoena'd as evidence to the contrary).

And, frankly, neither were VCRs. The vastly overwhelming usage of VCRs was and is not to infringe copyright, but to make (at least reasonably) fair use of copyrighted materials. You really don't see (and never have seen) people using VCRs to make 1000s of copies of the 6 O'Clock News and give it to 1000s of people they don't know.

Don't get complacent.

Re:Law is not C++

[elegie]

With P2P services, those who produce the software are not able to effectively control the content upon the services. The original Napster service was in a position to exert control because all communications relied on its central location. A P2P service could have a license agreement prohibiting illegal uses, but there would be no way for the makers of the software to enforce that agreement except by tracking down individual users. Should they be required to do that? The P2P manufacturer could add copy protection technologies (which might become outdated quickly) but there would be the same problem with people defeating them. In any case, copy protection would likely not be compatible with FOSS P2P software. If there was a P2P feature with absolutely no significant non-infringing purpose, then liability just might be considered. However, it should be noted that the fact P2P is decentralized has legitimate reasons: privacy (consider leaked documents about wrongdoing), efficiency (sharing the load), and reliability (no central control that can fail or be attacked.)

Consider the Freenet service which is said to be difficult to use but extremely resistant to being censored. It is said the service cannot enforce copyright and protect free speech at the same time. The emphasis of the project is to protect free speech although the service is likely used for illegal activities by some (not all) as well. The issue of illegal P2P usage i.e. illegal porn is mentioned, but it is said that people should not be denied certain freedoms because a few individuals might misuse those freedoms. Incidentally, some of the uses of Freenet (and its likely goal) are much more serious than enjoying the latest music. It is said that the Freenet software is used in China to evade official censorship, for instance.

It is interesting that there was a case with the Madster (formerly called Aimster) service. That service appeared to be centralized, but encryption was used for the communications. This meant that the communications could not be monitored for wrongdoing. However, individuals using the service might well have wanted privacy when communicating. In the end, the service came under fire. There was no evidence of significant non-infringing use. Of course, with the communications encrypted, there was no way for the service to accurately determine how much use was or was not infringing.

Re:Law is not C++

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns are legal, yet their intent/use is mostly to harm/kill animals (including humans). Intent is not all that matters, by a long shot. Money is where the action is (:

Windows is P2P

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows itself is a P2P operating system.

Right click on a folder and share it.

If you don't have a Firewall, then you can allow your friends to access this share by going to \\yourcomputername\yourshare name. This is the most simplistic P2P file sharing.

If P2P is ruled illegal, then Microsoft Windows will also be illegal.

BTW - Most P2P applications like Napster are not P2P (peer 2 peer) They are Client Server with many clients. Bittorrent being one of the few exceptions.

So if the courts rule P2P illegal, they don't have a single company such as Microsoft or Bittorrent to shut down the service. They have to persue each individual running Windows or ABC or whatever. Put a little SSL (Stunnel/SSH) over this protocol, run it over normal ports (80/443/...) and they would have huge task to find these P2P clients.

YOU HAVE TO STEAL A LITTLE TO STAY IN BUSINESS

[coyotedata]

Rule 1.

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[hacknslashdot]

go to a football game and let 20 000 people instantly make copies of those shoes.
quite right, this makes the analogy much better.

I was more trying to point out that the RIAA/MPAA are sueing the tool makers who really don't have much to do with the copying process at all. To add another point, the way I interperated the article, is that the reason that they think they have a leagal standing is that 90% of the activity on P2P netwrks is illegal, therefore P2P networks should be illegal. I don't know if that statistic is based on any "real" information or not .. I imagine that's one of the arguments that'll happen in court

Anyway, to follow the anaylogy, if 90% of the time, cobbling tools were used to copy shoes illegaly, should cobbling tools be illegal?
My opinion is that they shouldn't, but then again, I'm not on the supreme court.

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[slavetrade55]

Good post. I for one don't copy much music any more from p2p sites. I've been free marketing it up at www.allofmp3.com

$0.01 per mb, with multiple formats and an expansive catalog. Now that's how to sell music, even if it is in Russia.

But we all already know that...

[3seas]

... cars trains and plans can be used in bad ways too.... perhaps we should outlaw all such things...Oh and guns... and ... etc...

Hey... didn't someone say "nothing to fear but life itself"? ... and shouldn't we just take care of that problem and inherently take care of the rest?

Regardless of what any court says, we all know P2P is like the highway, traveled by many including moonshiners...

What should be becomming more obvious is the failure of the record and movie industy to figure out how to make good use of new technology, rather than trying to stall out innovation...

Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

The music industy reaped massive profits the last few years via the internet and is weeping that they are losing money. They get 87% of the money spent on downloading songs from sites like iTunes and they don't have to do a damn thing except cash the check. iTunes reapsa a whopiing 4% profit from each sale. They need to wake up and smell the coffee. They make more money selling song downloads than by selling CDs. They should encourage the internet music sales by upping the % the internet music retailers keep and shut their cakeholes

Real simple how an *AA win is bad

[aristus]

If p2p apps are illegal, then using them is illegal, too.... which means every consumer ISP will then block/filter known p2p traffic (& perhaps even all incoming connections) for fear of civil or criminal charges. Poof. No more p2p, no more home servers... the Internet (in the US) will be come a one-way medium.

Re:Real simple how an *AA win is bad

[jazman]

...no more easy/cheap distribution for up and coming artists who don't want to be shafted by the *AA...

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[Anonymous Coward]

copying.

Greedy, Greedy, Greedy

[allwaysmusic]

I think that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) are entitled to take this to the supreme court if they want to. Personally though, think that they are just greedy and want to keep the reigns tight around what they own and such. Honestly, I am not expecting the Supreme Court to rule differently than the lower courts. The lower courts had a good point about how other products like Xerox are not band from selling copy machines just because they can be used and are used illegally when it comes to copyright laws.

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[Anton Anatopopov]

It depends if there is a warning label on said baseball bat.

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[Starluck]

no label of any kind on the bat accept for that of louisville slugger.

False

[Anonymous Coward]

"Those companies employ a lot of people"

Actually, they don't. They are mainly holding companies that are responsible for transferring money from one pocket to the other.

In fact, that's the problem with the RIAA members; they produce nothing; rather, they shift money around so that radio stations will play music.

That's it. That's all they do. The actual pressing of CD's, the recording studios, the bands, the people who print advertising... none of them work for the RIAA members.

If the RIAA members folded tomorrow, music would still exist. But about 500 people would be without a job; and 1/4's of them would be receptionists and secretaries who screen the calls from artists looking for their "misplaced" royalties, another 1/4 would be accountants who are good at hiding money, and almost 1/2 would be lawyers who excel at screwing both the public and artists. About 1% would be record company execs who seem to be the only people making a lot of money at this game.

Odd how you defend it like that.

These

a possible legal precendent ...

[geraint-nz]

America's favourite, guns - it is legal to make them, it is legal to own them, it is legal to use them. It is not legal to kill a person regardless of whether you use guns or anything else. In either case the device is not the problem rather it is how it is used. P2p software has many valuable uses. Piracy of software(music, video, etc) is already illegal as theft it and doesn't matter how you do it, whether by swapping disks or p2p or any other way.

He's right, and here's some more info...

[Anonymous Coward]

The petition, which you can find via the article on Lawmeme, says there's some conflice with the Aimster ruling in the 7th Circuit.

Now, I don't know if they're blowing this out of proportion (they distort everything else, I'm not a lawyer to say if this is just a ploy to get the SCOTUS* to grant cert & overturn this), but if true, it would seem to compel them to hear the case (one of the principle duties of the SCOTUS is to harmonize the interpretation of federal laws, like copyright law). But it's true--they don't have to grant cert for much of *anything* unless it has "original jurisdiction" and goes to them first (read your constitution for what they have original jurisdiction over--not much save treaties & some misc. stuff).

Anyhow, since you're probably now wondering what it was in conflict with, read Lawmeme & click on the link to the Aimster decision. The judge there was *not* impressed with the 'cryptographic blindness' to infringement they had created, but he also gave a laundry list of things they *could have* (but didn't) argue to prevail... Things I'd hope these services have paid attention to.

Disclaimer: IANAL, this should not be taken as legal advice, but the people at Lawmeme are lawyers from Yale (though they probably also have disclaimers about what they say not being legal advice).

* It's only well-known in legal circles, but SCOTUS stands for Supreme Court of the United States.

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[Secrity]

I wonder if shoe makers have copyrights on their designs...

For some reason your anology reminded me of going into a high end electronics store, having a trained sales person demo all of their equipment and help you pick out the stereo you want, and then ordering it from a discount electronics outfit in NYC.

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[Anton Anatopopov]

well then it's an open and shut case. The attacker is clearly not responsible for his misuse of aforementioned bat, due to improper labelling.

Have we learned nothing from that McDonald's hot coffee case?

If that's true

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's true, then Slashdot can't bitch when the RIAA goes after the individual downloaders committing the act instead of the technology. You know, what everyone said they should do back in 2000 during the Napster fiasco?

Re:If that's true

[hattig]

Indeed. Especially the ones who are sharing lots of music. It isn't very different than selling pirated music on a market stall, except you aren't making a profit.

Whilst I think that punishments for mere copyright infringement of stuff that most people wouldn't have bought anyway are a bit too strong, they can always get people for the uploading. Otherwise you'd get a letter from the RIAA and decide to spend the money on getting the music for real that you'd downloaded as it would be less than the fine.

Can't RIAA buy a better legislator?

[museumpeace]

Thats funny but in fact the people who like the patriot act just don't think like /.ers. The Washington Post put together a fair and detailed account of the developments leading up to the call for a supreme court case [for freely registered readers]. Toward the end of the report they cover Orrin Hatch's idiotic Induce Act as congress's lame industry-sponsored fix for the whole copywrong mess. But this the same who put up a bill to protect gun manufacturers and sellers from liability for what guns do. The glaring difference between the two pieces of legislature is the way one finds only the users at fault and the other blames the manufacturer of of the equipment and not its users. Where is the logic? This if totally f__ked up. Though these are supposedly the legistlative work of one mind, it is clear as desert daylight that they are simply work done at the behest of two different industries that Mr. Hatch either likes or takes money from. Lets hope the courts can do better at finding justice than Mr. Hatch. They have so far. Well, there you have it One person on whom to concentrate your hatred.

Makes sense.

[recursiv]

Lunix is just a tool for intarnet hackers and terrorists.

in the end the solution will be

[museumpeace]

for the big companies to simultaneously make the electronics that do the copying and own the copyrights to the movies, songs and games that get copied. Sony figured this out years ago.

So...

[BobTheAtheist]

It's been asked before, and I'll ask it again... Why if copyright law is so stupid etc do we have/need the GPL? Why not just use the BSD licence? Or are we just hypocrites?

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[Sarbandia]

Please don't repeat that ridiculous old trope. The coffee McDonalds was serving was hot enough to give her 3rd degree burns.

When you carry coffee in your lap, you expect to get hurt if it spills and you willfully take that risk. You don't willfully take the risk that you'll be hospitalized.

Gun Advocates Beware

[geomon]

This legal reasoning (as opposed to "real" reasoning) can be used against law-abiding gun manufacturers as well.

Any device can be used for both "good" and "bad" purposes.

Outlaw rocks.

How will I buy CD's without P2P?

[gillbates]

Between work and the rest of my life, I spend a lot of time not browsing in record stores. That's right - I don't have the time to go to the store and sit in a listening room for hours on end...

Even though I spend hours at work listening to music, it's all on CD - I don't want to risk getting sued by the RIAA. And I'm getting pretty tired of my collection - but I'm not going to risk getting fired and (possibly) sued because I wanted to listen to something different...

Now granted, if I had P2P, I could scope out new bands, and order the CD through Amazon during my lunch hour. But I don't have P2P. And I haven't bought a CD in about 12 to 18 months.

I wonder when the RIAA is going to wake up and figure out that P2P is the most effective way to market music to time-starved professionals. We have the money for CD's, but lead hectic lives; time spent in a record store is time that could have been spent coding. We can't stand the stuff on the pop-40 stations, but we are willing to buy good music - if only we could find it...

And the interesting part is that I'm spending much more on books than on CD's these days - I can read before I buy without being thought a criminal.

Speaking of avoiding legal liability...

[goldfndr]

They, themselves, designed the DMCA so that they themselves could avoid legal liability.

Thus they only need to state that they represent the "copyright-owning" party, and not that an actual copyright violation is taking place under penalty of perjury.

And the NRA and guns

[xixax]

In which case the RIAA and MPAA should also get into the face of the NRA et al. and demand that all guns are fitted with GRM (Gun Recreation Management) so that legitimate sports-persons can bear them in peace, but the authorities can disable them in the event of unlawful acts.

I'd love to see the MPAA go toe-to-toe with the NRA, if only to see what Charleton Heston says.

"If P2P is outlawed, only outlaws will have P2P."

Xix. (with tongue in cheek)

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[Anonymous Coward]

But... But if he took a copy of your money - think of the runaway MASS INFLATION!!!1!1!

Pretty soon you'd need a wheelbarrow of copied wallets containing $200 just to get one drug and ONE hooker!

And not a very good hooker at that!

Inflation - the hidden enemy of all copying schemes.

Re:Look, it's simple... DEVIANCE VS LEGALITY

[DisKurzion]

More file swappers in the US than voted for either Bush or Gore in 2000

(I've said this before and I'll say it again, even though IANAL)

Law ultimately comes down to "legality vs deviance." File sharing is extremely popular, reguardless of its legality. There are over 60 million file-sharers in the US alone. That means it's not really deviant, so doing it has no moral repercussions.

For example, my father haranged me for years (6 to be exact), about downloading music illegally. "You're breaking the law!! You're going to get sued!!." Last month he began downloading oldies off the net ("stuff you'll never find in the stores"). He does NOT believe he has done a single thing wrong. Something (in the course of the 3 months I was away) has convinced him that there is nothing wrong with grabbing some songs off the net. And my father is by far, the most pro-corporation, hard-core, right-wing Republican I know (except maybe my mother, who believes that every third party falls under the category "communism"(and yes, my own mother has called me a communist for supporting badnarik)).

The courts WILL take deviance into account when making decisions (too lazy to find extra sources for a late grandchild post). If violating the law isn't deviant, the court will lean towards striking it down (oral sex, anybody?).

And when it comes down to it... How do you show that a law is a bad law? Writing letters to your congressman? More often than not it yields a response which effectively says "It's nice you want to participate... but I stand by my opinion and yadayadayada" (I've done it for DMCA, Patriot, FCC, to 3 different PA representatives). The only way to make politicans listen is to vote against them. (and don't be fooled... your senators and representatives are FAR more important than the prez).

No, in orer to show your disapproval of the law, the most effective way is to break it. This is doubly true if you can think of a way to do it while gaining massive media coverage that mocks the law (like the RIAA suing granny).

Precedent

[MacWiz]

How will the Supreme Court rule?

Hmmm.... let's see. The RIAA's case goes basically like this: "Those thieving pirates are stealing our stuff." This is the same offensive legal tactic that was used to stop piano rolls, player pianos, radio, tape recorders, cassettes and VCRs, just to name the most obvious "pirate" technologies that threatened to destroy the entire entertainment industry.

They've never won before with that argument. But hey, maybe the Supremes will do acid the week that the RIAA case comes up and forget every prior decision handed down over the last 100 years in cases involving technology and copyright.

Re:Look, it's simple... DEVIANCE VS LEGALITY

[el-spectre]

Question: Where does the 60 Million number come from? I don't have any competing stats... it just seems that 1 in 4 people in the country (especially considering how many kids, elderly, and people w/o computers) is awfully high.

Impact on the world ?

[Tazor]

If RIAA and MPAA get this law against P2P approved in the USA, what good will it do? American laws means nothing outside the US. Do they really think that the americans are the only ones copying their stuff? I just hope that the danish version of MPAA and RIAA (APG-AntiPiratGruppen; Anti Piracy Group) doesn't think that this is a great idea and try to convince danish politicians that we should a law like this. PS: I agree with most people here: It is stupid to ban something just because it CAN be used to break a law.

The invalid character input..

[poohsuntzu]

It's getting old people. Seriously, we aren't on C64's anymore (willingly, at least), and it's nothing but a karma whore.

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[Pofy]

>I think the arguement for stealing is sound. If
>by stealing you imply taking something without
>paying for it.

You are not taking it, you are copying it!!!

Besides, with your argumentation, me buying a CD second hand from someone is stealing. Me giving away an old CD is stealing. Me borrowing a CD is stealing. Me taking a chair someone else doesn't want any more is stealing. Me sitting on someone elses chair is stealing. Me asking for directions to the closest store is stealing. Just about anything would be stealing.

>You have deprived the storefront of their
>proceeds by not purchasing the music you wanted.
>What would you call the above mentioned action?

I would call it copyright infringement. Which is not legal by the way. Why not call things by their proper words????

Remember that depriving someone of income is not illegal or stealing either. In that case me buying a new music CD instead of the book I always wanted (because someone talked me into chaning my mind and not getting the book because it is not good) would suddenly be stealing from the book publisher/store since I suddenly deprived them of an income. Or perghaps it is the CD maker that stole since their action deprived the book seller of an income suddenly.

Why not stick to the laws as they are and what they call/define things. Use proper language and definition and there is no reason for confusion, missonception and so on. What is the point anyway to wanting to call it "stealing" instead of copyright infringement, both are illegal activites anyway. Or perhaps we should start calling murder for theft as well, after all you "stole" or "took" the life of someone else?

I'll one-up that Hydra analogy...

[Kjella]

1. Create anonymous network (Freenet could be used as a starting block to get a decent network up).
2. Develop the software over said anonymous network. Releases are digitally signed, but the signee is anonymous.
3. Combine with a bit of hybrid network like warez is now (private dev circles, public p2p) to continue development.
4. Drive RIAA/MPAA nuts
5. Profit???

Kjella

No.

[Anonymous Coward]

DVD's do "respect" Macrovision. But VHS macrovision is part of how the tape is recorded; it has nothing to do with the VHS player itself.

You're wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

"The vast majority of the money goes to artists, composers and musicians"

No. no it does not. Of that $16 CD, less than $1 actually goes to the artist/musicians. An equal amount goes to the composer.

Of the remainder, the retailer takes a few bucks, leaving the RIAA with close to 60% of the money.

Go look it up.

What are you talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

"and set about circumenting the DRM."

There is no DRM on CD's. Never has been. The medium is incapable of hosting DRM.

screw em

[_-fenixasin-_]

I say to hell with the mpaa and the music industry, Its not their buisness what happens on the net, and its not their buisness what I do on the net, its not their jurisdiction. Its not ever a place, its cyberspace.... its damned 0's and 1's wtf

An unauthorized opinion

[phats garage]

IANALBIPOO/.

The definition of "unauthorized sharing" must look like publishing without permission. Copyright on an intellectual work lets the copyright owner decide who publishes or distributes the work. Sharing of disk directories amounts to publishing their contents. All P2P file sharing systems depend on publishing files to be effective.

There are a few directions that I feel the law could go here.

• The law could determine that restricting unauthorized publishing of digital media is contrary to the public good. In my opinion, at least US law doesn't seem to be going that way, any takedown notices are still effective against traditional net publishing (websites, etc), so I'd bet that at least in the US, policing the unauthorized publishing of digital media will still get protection.
• P2P getting the smackdown. I think its a pretty close call here, plenty of legislative support for this. I say thats a bad call because efficient cheap publication has the potential to make everyone a content distributer, and cheap digital production tools makes everyone a content maker, and this really is starting to show results on the internet nowadays, regardless of talent levels ;-)
• Anonymous P2P getting the smackdown. This one is the wildcard, and I've always seen this as the end game and an ultimate danger to an unrestricted internet. Networks like Freenet, Mute (does that thing even work?) and others really throw a wrench into internet accountability. I've always viewed the current P2P arguments as the obvious preliminary battles leading up to a referendum on universal open internet connectivity, with big media desiring a consumer only version of the internet and restricting programming tools to licensed, regulated practitioners of software development.

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[Anonymous Coward]

The attacker is clearly not responsible for his misuse of aforementioned bat, due to improper labelling.

Have we learned nothing from that McDonald's hot coffee case?

It depends.
Have Louisville slugger bats been used to bash in the heads of 700 other people in the last decade or so?

Seems like supreme court declines

[Krisbee]

See http://www.macworld.com/news/2004/10/12/supreme/in dex.php/?lsrc=mcrss-1004