Slashdot Mirror
Questions for a P2P Downloading Panel Discussion?
George P. Burdell asks: "On April 5, Georgia Tech's Honor Advisory Council will host a panel discussion between opposing sides of the P2P downloading issue. Among other panel members, a representative from the RIAA has agreed to attend the event. The discussion is intended to raise the level of awareness of students who may think they know all they need to know about the issue. What are some of the pressing questions the tech community has for panel members on both sides of the issue?"
How's it feel to be a tool for 'the man'?
How's it feel to work for a conglomerate that sues dead people and old ladies that don't own computers?
How's it feel to work for a conglomerate that ignores fans of its artists when they beg a record company to release a shelved album so they can buy it instead of having to steal it via P2P?
I could go on and on.
Religion is for people afraid of going to hell.
Sounds like one tool talking to another, if you have bought into the ludicrous claim that it is possible to STEAL just by engaging in possible copyright infringement. They've won you over if you are already using RIAA-speak.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
"opposing sides of the P2P downloading issue"
The MPAA/RIAA and everyone else.
"a representative from the RIAA has agreed to attend the event"
So he can see what's "hip" in colleges and file a lawsuit to follow.
"I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection." -- Sigmund Freud
For the RIAA:
It would seem that all information-based, intellectual property (IP) business models depend on either:
A. Being able to control the distribution medium;
B. Introducing risks or rewards that make payment preferable to nonpayment.
Option A seems to be doomed once the intellectual property is digitally transferrable in its entirity in a manageable size across the internet.
If intellectual property owners can divide the IP into a transferrable part and a non-transferrable part (like any Application Service Provider does), they can still succeed.
Option B includes the use of enforcement, which has a huge public relations downside. But, it can also dictate another pricing model. If there is a quality/reliability difference between acquiring a dataset (IP product) from a random location vs. getting it from a known good source, the consumer will prefer the better cost/benefit.
Isn't it safer to just acknowledge option B is the more sustainable option and pursue lower prices in a higher quality format?
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
As a Tech Alum, I must say it is nice to see my school taking on these issues.
However, I have a question for the panel, and the submission form seems to 404 on me.
While I was attending Tech, (only last year), Tech took a stance that it was an ISP, and thus not responsible for filtering the internet. How will a policy on P2P usage effect this stance?
This
What are the moral and ethical considerations for using and developing peer to peer software? Is it any different from any other software?
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
My only statement would be.... "The cat is out of the bag, the industry has changed whether the industry in control wants to admit it or if they rather scream, whine, and sue grandmothers over it, well thats their decision. The very definition of progress is change itself. This is a change the consumers are quite happy with and the industry because they find they can't be as profitible as before. Which they could be, if they pulled their heads from their money leaking asses. Hell, I myself could think of a couple ways of still making money off the consumers."
If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
You do realize that whatever price point you settle on, people are going to continue to pirate unless it's free?
"from the bricks to the booth...I predict the future like Cleo the psychic..."
What's your position on P2P as a content-neutral technology? Traditional protocols such as HTTP and FTP can also be used to commit copyright infringement.
Do you think that there is a qualitative difference between the two types of technology, and if so, what is that difference?
Do you think that the difference is in marketing, and if so, why do you brand all P2P as bad?
Do you think that the difference is in how easy things like Kazaa make it to commit copyright infringement, and would you declare war on HTTP if Apache was easier to set up?
Why must you constantly attack the messenger when it's the messages that are the problem?
In this case, P2P channels are the messenger, and whatever content is being sent over those channels are the messages.
Let me give a brief analogy to the current situation: I propose that Bell and all the worlds Telcos MUST be shut down IMMEDIATELY because they allow conspiracy's to commit crime. If criminals couldn't talk over a phone, there would be no crime.
Now, as a further thought process, lets pretend all P2P channels have successfully been stopped, and all telephone communications have successfully been stopped.
Are you really going to sit there and suggest that the problems of piracy and crime will disappear?
Now for another followup question:
Why do you believe that we should pay you exorbitant amounts of money when you are just going to keep most of it, and do absolutely nothing for me in return other than treat me like a potential criminal?
No Comment.
"Barely Legal" or "MET-Art"?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And then devise a business model around this axion, the panel is a wasting our time.
It seems to me the issue isn't downloading. It's uploading! The people getting sued are the ones sharing the art, not the ones leeching it.
Ask the panel to clarify their personal feelings on where the misdeed, if there is one, is committed. Is it the giver or the taker? If it's the giver, what about accidentally open shared folders? Can you have a crime without intent?
Ask the members of the panel (the ones who download music, anyway) whether they prefer to get a whole album, or just the one or two "hit singles" that're worth listening to.
I think part of the problem, the reason people feel "justified" in copying music, is that the albums suck. There's one decent song on an album, and I won't buy a $12 CD for one song. But the albums don't actually suck! If I listened to it myself, having never heard the band on the radio, I might conclude that 4 or 5 songs were enjoyable, and thus the album had been worth the money.
The music industry discourages this, however. They pick one song from an album, and pay radio stations to play it until my ears fall off. By cultivating one-hit wonders, they force the buying public to feel that the rest of the album wasn't as good, or else it would've gotten radio play, right?
By giving artists more time to work on a truly interesting record, and playing the entire thing on the radio, they'd alleviate some of the overfocused "single" problem which makes consumers feel ripped off. A satisfied audience will gladly spend money on a product they feel is worth it.
In the online distribution channels, try this: If a song goes for $1, then make any additional songs from the same album $0.10 or so. Pretty soon, the listener has a fuller picture of the artist's work, and is more likely to buy things like concert tickets. Because really, who enjoys a concert where the band spends an hour playing music nobody except the diehard fans knows, then plays their one hit song? Feeling loyal to a band sells tickets.
The volcano is making great progress. Human ego just refuses to see it that way and instead goes "OMG my house that I built near a volcano just burned up!"
There is no logic to that. Pointing out the fact that one illegal situation is not another illegal situation is not a justification for one of the illegal situations. If someone objects when you call a rape a murder, do you say that they are trying to justify the rape? Same thing.
"but out-right THEFT of content via P2P (such as that cited by the OP) is just that: THEFT" "It's not copyright infringement, its CONTENT THEFT"
Theft requires a taking. If you copy something, and leave the original still sitting there, the taking requirement is not met.
Unless p2p systems DELETE the originals when/after they are copied, they just can't be theft. Come back if you ever find a p2p system that involves theft.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Where to start...even though I shouldn't I know...
The messages in question here have been around for one hell of a lot longer than the messenger in question. Also, there are at this point in time numerous differing messenger options for said messages. You are obviously on crack.
Back to earth my friend, I wasn't discussing legal structures at all. Care to try again? I also wasn't arguing any position, I'm asking for other parties to first explain their position, and then defend it.
Again, what does the 'thing' have to do with the 'system'. Fuck damned man. You HAVE to work for the RIAA or something don't you? Just because I choose to like a particular artist, and want to support that artist, I'm obliged to like all systems involved? To get specific here, just what the FUCK does the RIAA have to do with the music that a given artist creates?
See, I know you must work for the RIAA because you a) Assume me to be immediately guilty of theft and then b) use contrived circular logic to show that I was actually stealing from you.
Now, if you'd like to try again while keeping the content issue separate from the communication issue then go ahead, but until then I have to say kindly fuck off.
No Comment.
"If you think that you haven't taken anything then a file consisting of nothing but one's should satisfy you then?"
The poor state of the copied file is not at question here. The persisting presence of the original is what negates theft.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Can I legally download music that I already own? For example I own the song in one of record,tape,CD, and if so, may I legally download a version of this song from a P2P network or some other source.
I have never been able to get a real good answer from anyone regarding this. I own hundreds of tapes and a decent number of vinyl recordings. Haven't I already obtained my fair use rights by purchasing the album in one of those formats? Why should I, as a consumer, be forced to pay again for something I already own, if all I want is to be able to listen to it on my computer. And if not, could the industry somehow be persuaded to allow me to "trade in" my older copy with credit towards a CD of the same album? I feel it's kind of rediculous to pay full price for the same album in vinyl,tape, and CD(and whatever the next medium is), especially when I have boxes of cassettes/records/CDs.
To me, the idea of copywritten works becoming public property after a limited period of time means that the authors and pushishers of useful work could benefit enough to compensate them for the time they spent creating the works.
The public would also benefit, as useful works would become public property, allowing others to build on them. This is the basis of scientific advancement, as a discovery often leads to more discoveries, but only if the initial work can be used as a foundation for later efforts. Instead of being forced to replicate previous work, science can focus their efforts more productively on bridging the gap between what has been produced and what hasn't.
In order to allow authors and inventors to receive benefit from their labors and also "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" by allowing derivative efforts, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to secure "for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
Society benefits when originators of new work receive just compensation; this is incentive for others to similarly create useful works. It also benefits when those creating new works can draw from a wider body of knowledge, as would be created by allowing more works to enter the public domain.
Does the side siding against sharing works through P2P feel that the length of copyright terms is optimal? In other words, does the current copyright term, which extends 70 years beyond the author's own ability to benefit from their own works, represent the best balance between compensating creators for their efforts and the public's right to use works as the basis for future progress?
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
You have now stooped to directly accusing me of theft. (Not to mention name calling)
I honestly know, because it is a fact, that P2P can, and is, used for things other than piracy. I've never pirated ANYTHING using P2P, and yet I do occasionally use P2P, fuck you very much.
I do pay artists for their work, quite regularly actually. I purchase artistic works in many different formats from many different channels. I do use P2P on occasion. I have never used it illegally.
I am thus quite insulted.
You spout a lot of hearsay, but no facts and sources. Based on that I am to accept that all of a sudden I am a criminal? Wow.
Kindly take a long walk off a short pier, you'd be doing all of society a big favor.
No Comment.
Seriously, i would be afraid if the RIAA was to show up.
THey are liable to take license plate numbers and track you down.
They arent known for playing fair, so why would they start today?
---- Booth was a patriot ----